CAR_Public/161026.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 26, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 214




                            Headlines

AAC HOLDINGS: Certification of Class Sought in "Kasper" Suit
ABENDROTH & RUSSELL: 8th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Jackson" Suit
ALL COAST: "Adams" Labor Lawsuit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana
AMERICAN CAMPUS: Faces "Fellows" Suit in E.D. of Missouri
ALTERNATIVE EARTHCARE: Faces "Ibarra" Suit in E.D. of New York

ANSWER FINANCIAL: Parker Seeks Class Certification of 2 Classes
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Court Partially Dismisses "Moses" Complaint
ARIEL QUIROS: Asks Judge to Unfreeze Assets to Pay Legal Fees
ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Strogoff Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit
ARTISAN PRESERVATION: Faces "Martinez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Laws

BANK OF NEW YORK: Status Conference Held in "Henderson"
BEACH ON DUVAL: "Monticello" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA
BLISTEX: Faces Class Action Over Odor-Eaters Insoles
BOIRON INC: Conrad Appeals N.D. Ill. Decision to Seventh Circuit
BOZEMAN, MT: Breaks Impact Fee Spending Rules, Audit Says

CALEF & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Meyerson" Suit in D.N.J.
CALIBER HOME: Court Dismisses "Carbone" Debt Collection Suit
CAPITAL ADVANCE: Faces "Hughson" Suit in District of Oregon
CAPITAL ADVANCE: Class Certification Sought in "Redman" Suit
CAVALRY STAFFING: Copper Seeks to Certify Class of Service Agents

CHRYSLER CAPITAL: Garcia Usury Claims Dismissed with Prejudice
CJ AMERICA: $1.5MM Settlement in "Petersen" Has Final Approval
CJ AMERICA: Must Pay $338,270 for Petersen Counsel Fees and Costs
CLERMONT YORK: "Gerard" Suit Can Proceed as Class
COLD SPRING: "Avila" Suit Alleges Violation of Calif. Wage Laws

COMCAST CORP: FCC Imposes $2.3MM Penalty Over Customer Charges
COMENITY BANK: O'Boyle Seeks Certification of Class Under Damasco
COOK COUNTY, IL: Poor Inmates File Class Action Over High Bail
CVS PHARMACY: Guarnieri Dismissed as Plaintiff
DELL INC: Grant & Eisenhofer's Fees in Appraisal Suit Approved

DENOVUS CORPORATION: Faces "Milton" Suit in E.D. of Kentucky
DENTAL EXPRESSIONS: Faces "Morante" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
DESIGNED RECEIVABLE: Goodson Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
DITECH FINANCIAL: Faces "Greisman" Suit in Eastern Dist. of NY
DOLCO FOOD: Faces "Hamdan" Suit in Eastern District of New York

EAST CHICAGO, IN: Class Certification in "Gutierrez" Suit Granted
ELTMAN LAW: Faces "Tabor" Suit in District of New Jersey
ERIE ISLANDS RESORT: Class Certification of Gordon Suit Affirmed
FABFITFUN INC: "Byerson" Suit Alleges Violation of Gift Card Laws
FAMILY LIFE CARE: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Hughes"

FCA US: "Andollo" Suit Transferred from C.D. Cal. to E.D. Mich.
FLINT, MI: ACLU to File New Class Action Over Water Crisis
FORD MOTOR: Settles Explorer Owners' Class Action Over Fumes
FREEPORT-MCMORAN OIL: Garcia Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
GODADDY.COM: Bennett's Class Cert. Bid Denied as Premature

GOGO INC: Salameno Seeks Review of E.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Circuit
GOOGLE INC: Fillekes Wins Certification of ADEA Class
HERTZ CORPORATION: Faces "Schwartz" Suit in C.D. of California
HIRERIGHT INC: Settlement in "Watkins" Suit Granted Final Okay
HOSPITAL SISTERS: Faces "Holcomb" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation

HP INC: Sued in California Over Printers' Software Update
ILLINOIS: To Expand Children's Access to Mental Health Services
ILLINOIS, USA: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Kolton" Class Suit
JAMES HARDIE: NZ Court Allows Cladding Class Action to Proceed
JESSE CASARES: JT's Frames Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid

JP MORGAN: "Hall" RESPA Lawsuit Transferred to S.D. Florida
KAYABA INDUSTRY: Accused of Fixing Auto Shock Absorber Prices
KEEFE CORP: Keenan Cofield Must Pay $13.94 Initial Filing Fee
KENTUCKY TEACHERS' RETIREMENT: Court Dismisses "Wieck" Claims
LEAPFROG ENTEPRISES: Judge Extends Case Management Conference

LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN: Court Dismisses "Harris" Class Complaint
LONG ISLAND BONE: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order in "Pray" Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Bolin" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Coburn" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Coleman" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Florez" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Gonzalez" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Chestnut" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Masters" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Norris" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743

LUXURY SHUTTLE: Faces "Johnson" Suit Under California Labor Code
MACQUARIE: Seeks to Defeat U.S. Hedge Fund Class Action
MACY'S: Shoplifting Class Action Pending in New York
MAPLEBEAR INC: No Sanctions Imposed in "Cobarruviaz" Suit
MARION COUNTY, IN: Driver Appeals S.D. Ind. Ruling to 7th Circuit

MDL 1738: 2nd Cir. Dismisses Vitamin C Antitrust Suit
MDL 2036: Arbitration Bid in Overdraft Litigation Denied
MDL 2665: Court Narrows Claims in "Slack-Fill" Lawsuits
MEMPHIS: Street-Sweeping Policy Unconstitutional, 6th Cir. Says
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Walker" Suit Included in MDL 2492

NBTY INC: Judge Wants First Amended Complaint Filed in "Tovar"
NFL: Ex-Eagles Linebacker Files Suit Over Injury
OCEAN SPRAY: "Colvin" Suit Alleges FLSA, Pa. Wage Law Violations
OHIO: 6th Cir. Reverses Trial Court Ruling in Medicaid Suit
ORTHOTOUCH: Appeal Aims to Delay Highveld Investor Class Action

PDR NETWORK: Carlton Seeks 7th Circuit Review of S.D. W.Va. Ruling
PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Faces "Cahill" Suit in S.D. of California
POWER HOME: Settles TCPA Class Action for $5.2 Million
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Covino" Suit in E.D. of New York
PVH CORP: Court Preliminarily Approves "Scott-George" Settlement

RACKSPACE HOSTING: Faces "Luger" Suit Over Sale to Apollo
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Coghlan" Lawsuit Alleges False Advertising
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Waudby" Suit Over Faulty Galaxy Note7
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Settles Truckers' Wage Suit for $28 Million
SEDGWICK: Gender Discrimination Case May Head to Arbitration

SIMONTON BUILDING: Faces "Kiefer" Suit in District of Minnesota
SOCIAL SECURITY: Class Certification Bid in "Robertson" Denied
SOUTH AFRICA: Unpaid Parole Board Members Launch Legal Action
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Hearing Set in Earthquake Class Action
SPROUTS FARMERS: "Castellano" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2731

SPROUTS FARMERS: "Hernandez" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2731
SPROUTS FARMERS: "Porras" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2731
STEVE SHURHIN: Faces "Johnson" Suit Under FLSA, Col. Wage Laws
SUNEDISON INC: "Horowitz" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742
TEMPUR SEALY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Todd" Class Suit

TJX COMPANY: Court Approves $4,750,000 Settlement in "Roberts"
TRANS UNION: Bid to Decertify Class in "Ramirez" Suit Denied
TRUMP HOTELS: Casino Bankruptcies Hit Workers' Retirement Savings
UNITED STATES: Judge Orders IRS to Clean Up Tea Party Backlog
US PACK: "Faty" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, Md. Labor Laws

VCA ANIMAL: Graham Appeals From C.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
VICTOR'S CAFE: Faces "Espinal" Suit in Southern District of NY
VISA INC: Bid to Stay Remand Order Pending Appeal Denied
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Obtains Final Approval of 2.0L TDI Settlement
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Agrees to Pay $175MM to Lawyers in Emissions Case

WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Bid in "Martin" Suit Denied
WYNDHAM VACATION: "Romero-Perez" Suit Moved to M.D. of Florida

* Class Action Suits to Benefit Homebuyers in India
* Epstein Becker Provides Update on Recent Employment Rulings
* Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall Law May Pressure Banks More


                            *********


AAC HOLDINGS: Certification of Class Sought in "Kasper" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiffs Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and Dr. James
P. Gills move the Court for an order certifying the matter titled
DR. JOSEPH F. KASPER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. AAC HOLDINGS, INC., JERROD N. MENZ, MICHAEL
T. CARTWRIGHT, ANDREW W. MCWILLIAMS, and KIRK R. MANZ, Case No.
3:15-cv-00923 (M.D. Tenn.), as a class action pursuant to Rules
23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Lead Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives and to approve their selection of Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as Class Counsel, and
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, as Liaison Counsel for
the Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Mt8afee1

The Lead Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37214
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                  tmiles@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLP
          912 Cole Street, # 251
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (504) 455-1400
          Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
          E-mail: ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com

               - and -

          Lewis Kahn, Esq.
          Alexander L. Burns, Esq.
          Scott St. John, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington Street
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: (504) 455-1400
          Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
          E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
                  alexander.burns@ksfcounsel.com
                  scott.stjohn@ksfcounsel.com

               - and -

          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          Donald R. Hall, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com
                  dhall@kaplanfox.com
                  jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Britt K. Latham, Esq.
          Joseph B. Crace, Jr., Esq.
          BASS, BERRY & SIMS, PLC
          150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 742-7762
          E-mail: blatham@bassberry.com
                  jcrace@bassberry.com

               - and -

          John L. Latham, Esq.
          Jessica P. Corley, Esq.
          Lisa R. Bugni, Esq.
          David Gouzoules, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          1201 W. Peachtree St.
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          E-mail: john.latham@alston.com
                  jessica.corley@alston.com
                  lisa.bugni@alston.com
                  david.gouzoules@alston.com


ABENDROTH & RUSSELL: 8th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Jackson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Patrick L. Jackson filed an appeal from an order dated
September 12, 2016, and judgment dated September 13, 2016, in the
lawsuit titled Patrick Jackson v. Abendroth & Russell, PC, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00113-RGE, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa - Des Moines.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Jackson v. Abendroth &
Russell, PC, Case No. 16-3914, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appendix is due on November 22, 2016;

   -- Brief of Appellant Patrick L. Jackson is due on Nov. 22,
      2016;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the Court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant;

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant Patrick L. Jackson, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          J. D. Haas, Esq.
          J.D. HAAS and ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          9801 Dupont Avenue, S., Suite 430
          Bloomington, MN 55431
          Telephone: (952) 345-1025
          E-mail: jdhaas@jdhaas.com

               - and -

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

Defendant-Appellee Abendroth & Russell, PC, is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Boehlert, Esq.
          Jason Wallace Miller, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW FIRM
          729 Insurance Exchange Building
          505 Fifth Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50309-2313
          Telephone: (515) 283-2147
          Facsimile: (515) 283-1002
          E-mail: jboehlert@pattersonfirm.com
                  mmiller@pattersonfirm.com


ALL COAST: "Adams" Labor Lawsuit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ADAMS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ALL COAST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-
cv-01426 (August 2, 2016) was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

The suit seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

An order was entered in the court docket on Oct. 11, 2016,
cancelling an initial pretrial conference set for
October 28, 2016.  The Conference will be reset if appropriate
once proof of service is filed.

ALL COAST, LLC owns and operates liftboats for the offshore oil
and gas market in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     Curt Hesse, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     Lyric Center
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 222-6775
     Fax: (713) 222-6739


AMERICAN CAMPUS: Faces "Fellows" Suit in E.D. of Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Campus
Communities Services, Inc. The case is styled Brian Fellows, on
his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. American Campus Communities Services, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01611-PLC (E.D. Mo., Oct. 14, 2016).
The case is assigned to Hon. Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Cohen.

American Campus is a university housing development company with
its headquarters in Bee Cave, Texas, near Austin. ACC is the
nation's largest developer and manager of private student housing
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Lowe, Esq.
          CAREY AND DANIS
          8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 678 3400
          Facsimile: (314) 678 3401
          E-mail: jlowe@careydanis.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Deborah J. Campbell, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP - ST. LOUIS
          One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3000
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 241 1800
          Facsimile: (314) 259 5959
          E-mail: deborah.campbell@dentons.com


ALTERNATIVE EARTHCARE: Faces "Ibarra" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alternative
Earthcare Tree & Lawn Service, Inc. The case is captioned Javier
Almazan Ibarra, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Alternative Earthcare Tree & Lawn
Service, Inc., doing business as Alternative Earthcare Tree & Lawn
Care Service, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05759 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 14, 2016).

Alternative Earthcare has been in business since 1996. The company
serves residential and commercial clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANSWER FINANCIAL: Parker Seeks Class Certification of 2 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JESSE PARKER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ANSWER FINANCIAL,
Inc., a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
05785-GHK-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for class
certification of two classes defined as:

Autodialed No Consent Class:

     "all persons in the United States who from April 21, 2012 to
     the present: (1) received calls from or on behalf of
     Defendant Answer; (2) on the person's cellular telephone
     number; (3) for whom Defendant claims it obtained prior
     express consent in the same manner as Defendant claim it
     obtained prior express consent to call the Plaintiff";

Do Not Call Registry Class:

     "all persons in the United States who (1) received calls
     from or on behalf of Defendant Answer more than one time on
     his/her cellphone; (2) within any 12-month period from April
     21, 2012 to the present, (3) where the cellphone number had
     been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at
     least 30 days; (4) for the purpose of soliciting products or
     services; and (5) for whom Defendant claims it obtained
     prior express consent in the same manner as Defendant claims
     it obtained prior express consent to call the Plaintiff".

The Plaintiff also moves the Court to appoint Parker as Class
representative, appoint Steven Woodrow and Patrick Peluso of
Woodrow & Peluso, LLC as class counsel, and award such additional
and further relief as this Court deems necessary and appropriate.

According to the complaint, Answer Financial and its agents not
only harassed each member of the putative Class but also
repeatedly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection (TCPA),
thereby entitling the recipients of the unauthorized calls to
statutory damages and injunctive relief.

Answer Financial and its agents made all of the calls in the same
manner and without the prior express oral or written consent of
Plaintiff or the other members of the Class. Likewise, the
injuries suffered by Plaintiff and the members of the putative
classes, as a result of Defendant's conduct, are nearly identical.
That is, each member of the alleged Classes was subjected to the
aggravation and nuisance that necessarily accompanies the receipt
of unsolicited cell phone calls, thus entitling them to a nearly
identical calculation of actual and statutory damages under the
TCPA.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RJQXI6Qa

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter J Gimino, III, Esq.
          THE GIMINO LAW OFFICE, APC
          18101 Von Karman Avenue Suite 300
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 225 4446
          Facsimile: (949) 225 4447
          E-mail: pgimino@giminolaw.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, Colorado 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213 0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927 0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Court Partially Dismisses "Moses" Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Dora L. Irizarry of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied in part
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint in the case captioned, SUSAN MOSES, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE HOSPITALITY
REIT INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-3131 (DLI)(SMG) (E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant breached its "contract with
Plaintiff and the Class by mispricing shares sold through the
Defendant's Dividend Reinvestment Program (DRIP). The DRIPs were
created through S-3 public filings (Forms S-3). The Forms S-3
determined the pricing of the shares and stated that shares of A7
and A8 would be priced by one of two methods: "(a) the most recent
price at which an unrelated person has purchased our units
represents the fair market value of our units or, if the price is
not indicative of fair value then; (b) in its good faith judgment,
our board determines that there are other factors relevant to such
fair market value." Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not price
the shares according to these methods, but instead kept the share
price under the DRIP at a constant $11.00 per share.

On March 9, 2015, the Court issued the Decision granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (FAC).
In the Decision, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims,
but allowed Plaintiff to amend only her breach of contract claim.
On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed the SAC on behalf of herself and
all then-existing and former shareholders of Apple Hospitality's
REITs Seven (A7) and Eight (A8) who purchased shares or "units" of
A7 and A8 under DRIP between July 17, 2007, and February 12, 2014.
While the FAC asserted claims against multiple defendants, the SAC
includes a breach of contract claim against only Apple Hospitality
REIT Inc.

In the motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff lacks Article III
standing to bring the claim on behalf of A7 investors because she
never purchased A7 shares. Plaintiff asserts that she has Article
III standing, and that Defendant's argument instead goes to the
question of whether she has class standing, which should be
addressed at the class certification stage.

Plaintiff contends that the Court should defer its decision as to
whether Plaintiff has class standing, i.e., standing to represent
both A7 and A8 shareholders, until the class certification stage
of the litigation.

In her Memorandum and Order dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/hZ3s8d from Leagle.com, Judge Irizarry denied
Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing concluding that
Plaintiff's Article III standing is not extinguished or
jeopardized simply because her claim contains allegations
regarding A7 shares she did not purchase. Plaintiff's claim that
Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing because Defendant did not comply with the Forms S-3 should
be dismissed because Plaintiff alleges this claim in her brief,
but not in the SAC.

Susan Moses is represented by Christopher J. Gray, Esq. --
christopher.j.gray@hud.gov -- LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER J. GRAY,
P.C. -- James J. Eccleston, Esq. -- JEccleston@ecclestonlaw.com
-- ECCLESTON LAW OFFICES, P.C. -- Jeffrey M. Salas, Esq. --
jsalas@salaswang.com -- SALAS WANG LLC -- Christine Elizabeth
Goodrich, Esq. -- cgoodrich@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al. are represented by Elizabeth
F. Edwards, Esq. -- eedwards@mcguirewoods.com -- Jeffrey D.
McMahan, Jr., Esq. -- jmcmahan@glvlawfirm.com -- Michelle M.
Christian, Esq. -- mchristian@seyfarth.com -- Marshall Beil, Esq.
-- mbeil@mcguirewoods.com -- and Richard L. Jarashow, Esq. --
rjarashow@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRE WOODS LLP


ARIEL QUIROS: Asks Judge to Unfreeze Assets to Pay Legal Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Keays, writing for VTDigger, reports that federal regulators
suing Ariel Quiros say he is "quickly squandering" funds from
investors he allegedly defrauded by asking a judge to allow him to
unfreeze assets to pay "outlandishly high" legal fees in the civil
fraud case brought against him.

"Quiros is requesting more than $1.5 million to pay his attorneys'
fees and costs from April through August 2016," Christopher
Martin, Esq., a lawyer representing the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, wrote in a motion filed in federal court in
Miami.

"At that rate, Quiros will be seeking $3.6 million annually for
attorneys' fees and costs, plus an additional $180,000 for living
expenses," Mr. Martin wrote.  "Not only is this burn rate
excessive, it also greatly exceeds the amount Quiros received for
mortgaging the Setai Condominium."

The SEC filed its lawsuit in April against Mr. Quiros, a Miami
businessman, and William Stenger of Newport, alleging the two
developers headed the largest fraud case in the state's history
through a "Ponzi-like" investment scheme.

The regulators accuse the two men of misusing more than $200
million in investor money raised through the EB-5 visa program to
fund development projects in northern Vermont, including hotels
and a proposed biomedical center in Newport they termed "nearly a
complete fraud."

Attorneys for Mr. Quiros have filed three motions since the cases
against him began in April seeking attorneys' fees totaling more
than $1.5 million, including the latest one earlier this month
asking for more than $560,000 in legal bills racked up between
July 1 and Aug. 31.

His attorneys have asked the judge to allow him to use proceeds
from a mortgage on his Setai condominium in New York City to help
cover his legal expenses.

Mr. Martin countered in his filing that Mr. Quiros purchased the
condo using $3.86 million in investor funds, and those investors
would receive no benefits if a mortgage on the property went to
pay "exorbitant" legal bills for Mr. Quiros.

"(T)he amount Quiros is seeking is greatly excessive and he is
quickly squandering investor funds," Mr. Martin wrote, adding,
"Notably, the total amount Quiros has requested for just five
months of his attorneys' work significantly exceeds the $1.194
million the Receiver has received from Quiros for mortgaging" the
Setia luxury condo.

In May, federal Judge Darrin Gayles approved $15,000 in monthly
expenses for Mr. Quiros, paid by the Jay Peak receivership.
Michael Goldberg, the federal court-appointed receiver, is now
overseeing the properties at the center of the alleged fraud case.

Also, the judge allowed Mr. Quiros to sell or mortgage the Setai
condo to cover "reasonable" legal fees and living expenses.

Mr. Martin disputes whether Mr. Quiros is paying "reasonable"
rates for representation.

"Rather, he is attempting to bill investors -- and any money
Quiros receives from frozen assets for attorneys' fees will come
straight out of assets that could be used for the benefit of
defrauded investors -- for a Cadillac defense team," Mr. Martin
wrote, "that is billing fees equivalent to representing a
multi-millionaire with untainted funds who could pay for such
services.

According to the filings from attorneys for Mr. Quiros, the firm
serving as his lead counsel has billing rates for its partners
ranging from $600 an hour to $805 an hour, averaging $708 an hour.
Also, the firm's billing rates for its associates have ranged from
$340 an hour to $600 an hour.

Those rates, the filings state, are comparable to "competitor"
firms, both nationally and in the Miami area.

The filings also stated that Mr. Goldberg, the court-appointed
receiver, had been awarded comparable attorney fees of $638 an
hour in the past, another point Martin said is not relevant in the
pending matter.

In this case, Martin wrote "Goldberg is significantly discounting
his rate and the rates of other partners at his firm to no more
than $395 an hour to conserve scarce resources for investors."

Mr. Martin added, "Goldberg has further testified that partners
working for him are billing at rates of $260 an hour to $395 an
hour, again in an effort to take as little as possible from the
Receivership estate and leave more for investors."

The SEC lawyer also says attorneys' fees should not be awarded to
Mr. Quiros for legal work done on other cases pending against him,
including a class-action federal action brought by investors and a
lawsuit filed by the Vermont attorney general's office.

If the judge does agree to grant any motions for Mr. Quiros for
attorneys' fees, Mr. Martin wrote, he should do so at
significantly lower rates, and for work done solely on the federal
case.

"(T)he Court should limit the rates Quiros' lawyers can charge to
a maximum of $395 an hour, and a maximum of $260 an hour for
associates, as the Receiver and other partners and associates
working for him, are billing in this action," Martin wrote.

Mr. Quiros is the owner of Q Resorts, a holding company that
includes Jay Peak.  Mr. Stenger is the former president and CEO at
Jay Peak.

Mr. Stenger settled his case with the SEC in September, agreeing
to cooperate with investigators.  He still faces the possibility
of a monetary penalty, depending on his level of cooperation and
ability to pay.


ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Strogoff Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Noelle M. Strogoff, Christian Stout and Julia Stout
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the consolidated litigation
styled In re: Arrowhead Research Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:14-cv-07890-CBM-AS, in the U.S. District
Court for Central California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as In re Arrowhead Research Corp.
v. Noelle M. Strogoff, et al., Case No. 16-56499, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 21,
2016, District Judge Consuelo Marshall dismissed with prejudice
the litigation and entered judgment in favor of the Defendants.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Mediation Questionnaire is due on October 19, 2016;

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 9, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on February 7, 2017;

   -- Appellants' opening brief is due on March 20, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Christopher R. Anzalone,
      Arrowhead Research Corporation, Bruce D. Given, David L.
      Lewis, Charles P. McKenney and Kenneth A. Myszkowski is due
      on April 19, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellants NOELLE M. STROGOFF, Lead Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
and on behalf of Strogoff Family Trust U/D/T, CHRISTIAN STOUT and
JULIA STOUT are represented by:

          Patrick M. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Louis Carey Ludwig, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
                  lcludwig@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 779-3218
          E-mail: Seidman@bernlieb.com

Defendants-Appellees ARROWHEAD RESEARCH CORPORATION, CHRISTOPHER
R. ANZALONE, BRUCE D. GIVEN, KENNETH A. MYSZKOWSKI, CHARLES P.
MCKENNEY and DAVID L. LEWIS are represented by:

          Dean Joel Kitchens, Esq.
          Alexander Kosta Mircheff, Esq.
          Audrey Karen Tan, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7416
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: dkitchens@gibsondunn.com
                  amircheff@gibsondunn.com
                  atan@gibsondunn.com


ARTISAN PRESERVATION: Faces "Martinez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
SILVINO FELIX MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class, v. ARTISAN PRESERVATION LLC, CHRIS
YACONO, and IGNACIO [LNU], Case No. 1:16-cv-07943 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 11, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime and
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor
Law.  It further alleges that, pursuant to the New York State
Human Rights Law, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from
Defendants for discrimination based on gender: (1) compensatory
damages and (2) attorney's fees and costs.

Defendants operate a business offering scaffolding erection and
dismantling services to clients in Manhattan, and elsewhere in New
York City, under the trade name "Artisan Preservation".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


BANK OF NEW YORK: Status Conference Held in "Henderson"
-------------------------------------------------------
A status conference was set for Oct. 13 in the case, ASHBY
HENDERSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-10599-PBS (D. Mass.).

Chief District Judge Patti B. Saris presides over the case.

The status conference for the related action, Hershenson v. BNY
Mellon, N.A., No. 16-cv-11480-PBS (D. Mass. filed July 15, 2016),
was also scheduled for Oct. 13.

After a review of the supplemental briefings and after hearing,
the Court ordered that the:

     (a) objections of Howard Law Firm, Minami Tamaki, and Bailey
         & Glasser to the magistrate judge's order on the firms'
         termination are denied;

     (b) Plaintiff Henderson's Motion for Consolidation of
         Related Motions, Appointment of Lead Plaintiff, and
         Appointment of Interim Lead Class Counsel is denied as
         to the request to appoint interim lead class counsel;
         and,

     (c) motion of Bailey & Glasser and the Howard Law Firm to be
         appointed as interim co-lead counsel Court is denied on
         the ground that Plaintiff has not consented to serve as
         a class representative unless Mr. McTigue, her lawyer,
         is appointed to serve at least as a co-lead counsel.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 30, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/1x8lDL from Leagle.com.

Thomas J. Hershenson, Plaintiff, represented by John J. Roddy --
jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser LLP.

Thomas J. Hershenson, Plaintiff, represented by Derek G. Howard --
derek@dhowlaw.com -- Derek G. Howard Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice,
Elizabeth A. Ryan -- eryan@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser
LLP & Gregory Y. Porter -- gporter@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey &
Glasser LLP, pro hac vice.

BNY Mellon, N.A., et al., Defendants, represented by K. Issac
deVyver -- kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Mary J. Hackett -- mhackett@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP, pro hac vice & Nellie E. Hestin -- nhestin@mcguirewoods.com
-- McGuireWoods LLP.


BEACH ON DUVAL: "Monticello" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK MONTICELLO, v. BEACH ON DUVAL LLC, a Florida limited
liability corporation, and BLAKE FELDMAN, individually, Case No.
4:16-cv-10082-JLK (S.D. Fla., October 11, 2016), seeks on behalf
of all those similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fee and costs from
Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Beach On Duval LLC is as a Florida limited liability and is
approximately two years old, as recorded in documents filed with
Florida Department of State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     BRIAN J. MILITZOK, Esq.
     MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
     Wells Fargo Building
     4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402
     Hollywood, FL 33021
     Phone: (954) 780-8228
     Fax: (954) 719-4016
     E-mail: bjm@militzoklaw.com


BLISTEX: Faces Class Action Over Odor-Eaters Insoles
----------------------------------------------------
Richard Binder, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
something is rotten in the advertising of Odor-Eaters, or so says
a new lawsuit.  Jose Izquierdo of Bronx, New York, is suing
Blistex, the company that makes Odor-Eaters products, over the
claims made on the label of Odor-Eaters insoles.  The label says
the insoles are "odor-destroying," and Mr. Izquierdo took Odor-
Eaters at their word.  What he discovered, according to the suit,
was that the insoles weren't nearly as powerful.

C.K. Lee, Mr. Izquierdo's lawyer, went to the classic dictionary
definition of "destroy" to argue that his client had been
deceived.  According to the Daily News of New York, the suit
claims that the ad does not disclose "the fact that the (insoles)
could not eliminate odor or kill the bacteria and fungi that cause
odor, and that they incompletely reduce future odor and have
little effect on existing odor."

Mr. Izquierdo wants all consumers of Odor-Eaters products to join
him in the proposed class action to make the company change its
allegedly misleading claims about odor destruction and recover
monetary damages.  Mr. Izquierdo paid $12.99 for his insoles.  A
spokesman for Blistex did not comment at press time.


BOIRON INC: Conrad Appeals N.D. Ill. Decision to Seventh Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Chad Conrad filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Chad Conrad v. Boiron, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-
cv-07903, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Chad Conrad
sued Boiron because of alleged dissatisfaction in Boiron's
product, Oscillo.  Boiron manufactures homeopathic remedy called
Oscillococcinum, sold under the name Oscillo.  According to the
lawsuit, Boiron claimed the remedy would relieve flu-like
symptoms.

The appellate case is captioned as Chad Conrad v. Boiron, Inc., et
al., Case No. 16-3656, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by October 27, 2016;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before November 22, 2016,
      for Chad Conrad.

Plaintiff-Appellant CHAD CONRAD, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 N. State Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

Defendants-Appellees BOIRON, INC., and BOIRON USA, INC., are
represented by:

          Gregory D. Beaman, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          1152 15th Street N.W.
          Columbia Center
          Washington, DC 20005-1706
          Telephone: (202) 339-8441
          E-mail: gbeaman@orrick.com


BOZEMAN, MT: Breaks Impact Fee Spending Rules, Audit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Eric Dietrich, writing for Bozeman Daily Chronicle, reports that
the Southwest Montana Building Industry Association, long a critic
of Bozeman's impact fee program, says a third-party audit it
commissioned this year shows the city is breaking state rules
governing how impact fee money is used.

City leaders, however, vehemently dispute that claim, saying the
builders are "quibbling" over allowed practices that give Bozeman
necessary flexibility as it tries to keep up with infrastructure
demands in the face of rapid growth.

"We are fully and completely in compliance with state law," said
City Commissioner Chris Mehl.

"Even with those fees," he said, "we are struggling, struggling to
make things work."

"Impact fees are governed by state law," said David Graham, a
building association board member.  "It's part of our job at
SWMBIA to make sure the municipality is doing what they're
supposed to."

"We'd like to see them do it the right way," he said.

Impact fees -- which the city charges for roads, water, sewer and
fire services, are levied on new development to account for
growth-related infrastructure costs like building additional fire
stations and expanding streets and water treatment plants.  At the
city's current rates, they total just more than $10,000 for a
2,400-square-foot house on a quarter-acre lot.

Bringing in about $5 million a year, the fees are a major revenue
source for the city, raising infrastructure dollars that would
otherwise have to come from sources like higher property taxes.

They're also a controversial one.

Back in the early 2000s, SWMBIA and its then-attorney Art Wittich
brought a class-action lawsuit against the city over the fees,
arguing they were unconstitutional and that the city was over-
charging developers and builders.

A 2005 settlement let the city continue charging the fees, but
required it to return $5 million to payees and temporarily reduce
its charges.

Under current law, each type of impact fee assessed by the city
must be based on a detailed study estimating the cost of growth-
related infrastructure and laying out how that cost will be
divided between new development.  Each of Bozeman's four impact
fee categories -- roads, water, sewer and fire -- must also see
its revenues stored in designated accounts separate from the
city's general fund.

Additionally, state statute specifies that fee money can't be used
to catch up on pre-existing "deficiencies," build facilities to a
uniquely high level of service, or cover operational costs.

Those latter provisions are at the heart of the builders' audit,
which boils down to four primary claims:

1. That the city shouldn't have used $925,000 in impact fees to
build its third fire station on Bozeman's west side.

Because the city's fire insurance rating was downgraded for lack
of a third station in 2000, builders argue that opening the new
station in 2009 actually corrected a deficiency, making it an
ineligible use of impact fee funding.

City officials respond that a third fire station wouldn't have
been necessary without west side growth, making it a textbook use
of impact fees.

2. That the city has spent too much water and sewer impact fee
money on upgrading drinking water and sewage treatment plants --
together the subject of more than $90 million of work in recent
years.

Water and sewer impact fees are calculated based both on plant
upgrade costs and pipe costs like larger sewer mains, so builders
say the city should keep its plant spending proportional to its
pipe spending.

The city responds that it needs flexibility to focus on different
water and sewer projects at different times.  Builders, city
leaders say, also seem to have only looked at a five-year period
while longer-run spending is more balanced.

3. That the city shouldn't have used $763,000 in street impact
fees to build the roundabout at 11th Avenue and College Street.

Because that was the city's first roundabout, builders say, it
should have been considered an impact-fee-ineligible service level
upgrade instead of an eligible capacity expansion project.

City officials respond by saying its commission has spent a
considerable amount of time debating what portion of intersection
projects like roundabouts should be impact fee eligible, given
that intersection upgrades both improve service and allow for
higher traffic volumes.  It's now using an 80-20 cost split, with
20 percent of intersection project funding coming from other
funding sources like the city's new arterial street assessment.

4. That the city shouldn't have used $187,000 in water impact fee
funds to pay for its Integrated Water Resource Plan.

State statute limits impact fee spending to "improvements, land
and equipment," which builders say makes planning efforts
ineligible for impact fee spending.

City officials point to a portion of their own impact fee code, on
the books since 1996, which specifically defines "improvement" to
encompass among other things "planning, land acquisition, (and)
engineering design."

In a more practical sense, the city also says, investing in
planning allows the city to stave off major infrastructure costs
down the road -- for example, by figuring out how to promote water
conservation so it can avoid massively expensive projects like a
new reservoir at Mystic Lake.

In all, SWMBIA takes issue with roughly $7 million in city impact
fee spending, calling it a "misappropriation."

"(T)his independent study illuminates troubling questions that
must be answered," SWMBIA Executive Officer Linda Revenaugh wrote
in a letter to City Manager Chris Kukulski Sept. 29.

City officials brush aside that accusation, saying they're
confident in their accounting and that Bozeman's ongoing building
boom wouldn't be possible without impact-fees to fuel city
infrastructure spending.

"Every dollar has been spent just fine," Mr. Kukulski said.  "It's
just this quibbling over pipes and water plants."

"The irony here is that all of these fees benefit their members,"
Mr. Mehl said.  "We can't say, 'Sure, build another hundred
houses,' if the sewer plant is above its discharge limits."


CALEF & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Meyerson" Suit in D.N.J.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Law Firm of Ryan
E. Calef & Associates, LLC. The case is captioned JEFFREY
MEYERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. THE LAW FIRM OF RYAN E. CALEF & ASSOCIATES, LLC;
CACH, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
07417-CCC-MF (D.N.J., Oct. 17, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Claire C. Cecchi.

Calef and Associates is a multi-office Creditor's Rights firm with
a Mid Atlantic footprint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen H. Chulsky, Esq.
          375 Passaic Avenue
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          E-mail: g.chulsky@att.net

              - and -

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227 5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244 0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


CALIBER HOME: Court Dismisses "Carbone" Debt Collection Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joanna of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York granted Defendant's motion to dismiss
the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
in the case captioned, JANINE CARBONE, on behalf of plaintiff and
a class, Plaintiff, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 14-CV-5628 (PGS) (E.D.N.Y.).

Caliber acquires and services mortgage loans that are delinquent
or in default. Plaintiff Janine Carbone (Plaintiff), a New York
resident, has a residential mortgage loan that is serviced by
Caliber (the Loan). Her husband, Michael Carbone, signed the
promissory note for the Loan, and both Plaintiff and her husband
executed a mortgage on their real property as security. When
Caliber began servicing the Loan in 2014, payments were
delinquent. In December 2014, Caliber notified Plaintiff of a
potential foreclosure on the Mortgage. The Pre-Foreclosure Notice
also stated that Plaintiff could "cure this default by making a
payment."

Plaintiff filed the putative class action against Caliber for
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. She asserts two claims
under the FDCPA: (1) Caliber failed to send a Notice of Debt as
required by Section 1692g; and (2) the June 2015 Letter "misstated
the disclosures required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g and is
misleading in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e and 1692e(10).

Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint. As for the Section 1692g
claim, Defendant principally argues that Plaintiff is not a
"consumer" within the meaning of the FDCPA and thus is not
entitled to a Notice of Debt. As for the Section 1692e claim,
Defendant asserts that the claim also hinges on Plaintiff being a
"consumer" and must be dismissed.

In his Memorandum and Order dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/8zs7Eh from Leagle.com, Judge Seybert concluded that
Plaintiff is not a "consumer" within the meaning of the FDCPA and
under Section 1692g(a), only consumers are required to receive a
Notice of Debt so even if the letter received by the Plaintiff in
2015 was a Notice of Debt that altered the statutory requirements
to obtain verification, these obligations are irrelevant because
Plaintiff is not a consumer.

The Plaintiff was given 30 days to file an Amended Complaint.

Janine Carbone is represented by:

      Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
      KLEINMAN, LLC
      626 RXR Plaza
      Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
      Tel:(516)522-2621

            -- and --

      Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
      EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
      20 South Clark Street
      Suite 1500
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel:(312)739-4200

Caliber Home Loans, Inc. is represented by:

      David T. Biderman, Esq.
      Frederick Rivera, Esq.
      Manny Joseph Caixeiro, Esq.
      PERKINS COIE LLP
      505 Howard St
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Tel: (415) 344-7003


CAPITAL ADVANCE: Faces "Hughson" Suit in District of Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Advance
Solutions LLC. The case is titled Christopher Hughson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Capital Advance Solutions LLC, a New Jersey
Corporation; Pilothouse Solutions LLC, a New York Corporation;
Geoffrey Horn, individually; and Charles Betta, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Oct. 17, 2016). The case is
assigned to Hon. Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You.

Capital Advance provides small to mid-sized businesses with
another working capital funding option known as a credit card
receipt advance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Joseph Voorhees, Esq.
          FORUM LAW GROUP
          811 SW Naito Parkway, Suite 420
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 445 2100
          Facsimile: (503) 445 2120
          E-mail: stephen@forumlawgroup.com


CAPITAL ADVANCE: Class Certification Sought in "Redman" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SCOTT D.H. REDMAN, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL
ADVANCE SOLUTIONS, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04380 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order certifying a class of:

     "all persons within the United States to whom one or more
     telephone calls were made, since April 18, 2012, by, on
     behalf, or for the benefit of Capital Advance Solutions, LLC
     (Defendant), which calls were made using an automatic
     telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded
     voice, and for which (a) the called telephone numbers appear
     in Defendant's records of such calls and/or the records of
     Defendant's third party telephone carriers or the third
     party telephone carriers of Defendant's call centers or (b)
     for which the called persons' own records prove that they
     received such calls".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint himself as class
representative and appoint Markoff Leinberger LLC as class
counsel.

The lawsuit says the Defendant has made millions of illegal calls
to putative class members. Though the exact number is within the
exclusive possession of Defendant, the Defendant admits to making
at least 5,000,000 illegal calls.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=k5nfAlcH

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul F. Markoff, Esq.
          Karl G. Leinberger, Esq.
          MARKOFF LEINBERGER LLC
          134 N LaSalle St Ste 1050
          Chicago IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 726 4162
          Facsimile: (312) 674 7272
          E-mail: paul@markleinlaw.com


CAVALRY STAFFING: Copper Seeks to Certify Class of Service Agents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled DEREK COPPER and LESLIE
MINTO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated
v. CAVALRY STAFFING, LLC, and ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., and TRACY
LEE HESTER, in his individual and professional capacities, Case
No. 1:14-cv-03676-FB-RLM (E.D.N.Y.), move the Court for
preliminary approval of the parties' settlement, certification of
settlement class, appointment of the Plaintiffs' counsel as class
counsel, and approval of proposed notice of settlement and class
action settlement procedure.

For settlement purposes only, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify the settlement class, which is defined as:

   a. under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), all Service Agents
      and Supervisors employed by Cavalry Staffing at an
      Enterprise Rent-A-Car location in New York between June 11,
      2008 and October 18, 2016; and

   b. under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), all Service Agents and
      Supervisors employed by Cavalry Staffing at an Enterprise
      Rent-A-Car location in New York between June 11, 2011 and
      October 18, 2016.

The Plaintiffs further ask the court to appoint Borrelli &
Associates, P.L.L.C., as Class Counsel, appoint Simpluris Inc. as
the Claims Administrator for the settlement, and approve the
Parties' proposed schedule for the filing of a motion for final
approval, for class members to opt out or file objections to the
proposed settlement, and scheduling a fairness hearing.

Defendants Cavalry Staffing, LLC and Enterprise Holdings, Inc., do
not oppose the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pQWEzs5t

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 679-5005
          E-mail: jrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


CHRYSLER CAPITAL: Garcia Usury Claims Dismissed with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted with prejudice
Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in the case captioned,
FRANKLIN CABRERA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHRYSLER CAPITAL LLC and B&Z
AUTO ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., d/b/a EASTCHESTER CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE,
Defendants, Case No. 15 Civ. 5949 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.).

On March 18, 2014, Franklin Cabrera Garcia (Plaintiff) purchased a
2011 Dodge Durango (Durango) from B&Z Auto Enterprises, L.L.C.
d/b/a Eastchester Chrysler Jeep Dodge (B&Z Auto) and Santander
Consumer USA, Inc. d/b/a Chrysler Capital (Santander or
Defendant),a car dealership located in New York. The purchase
price for the Durango was approximately $26,000. Plaintiff paid
$7,500 as a down payment. B&Z Auto made an offer allowing
Plaintiff to finance the balance over a 75-month period if he
agreed to pay a credit charge equivalent to interest calculated at
a 23.67% annual rate. Plaintiff made four monthly payments of
$628.49 out of the 75 required under the Contract. On September 5,
2014, the Durango caught fire and was destroyed beyond repair.  At
that point, Plaintiff stopped making any payments owed under the
Contract.

Plaintiff brings the action individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, against B&Z Auto Enterprises, L.L.C.,
asserting that Santander extended Plaintiff a loan in violation of
New York usury laws, deceptive acts or practices, and unjust
enrichment. Additionally, Plaintiff brings several related state
law claims against both B&Z Auto and Santander. Plaintiff alleges
that Santander indirectly extended a loan to Plaintiff, and that
therefore the 26.37%[sic] credit charge was in violation of New
York usury laws.

On December 11, 2015, Santander filed the motion to dismiss the
Complaint arguing that Santander cannot be held liable for usury,
because the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (MVRISA)
authorizes dealers to charge whatever credit charge rate the
parties agree to in the retail installment sale contract (RISC),
and to subsequently assign the RISC to third-party financing
agencies like Santander.

Plaintiff asserts that because the RISC in the case was
immediately assigned to Santander upon execution, and because
Santander participated in the transaction by, inter alia, setting
the credit charge buy rate and maximum mark-up rate, Santander, as
opposed to B&Z Auto, was the true party in interest to the credit
sale. Plaintiff argues that the MVRISA does not shield Santander
from liability under New York usury laws.

In his Opinion and Order dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/eWyrSo from Leagle.com, Judge Ramos found that in
spite of Santander and B&Z Auto's alleged conduct, Plaintiff
entered into a legitimate credit transaction pursuant to the
MVRISA. Consequently the 26.32%[sic] credit charge that Plaintiff
agreed to is not subject to New York usury laws. The Court
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all of
Plaintiff's class-action claims which are founded upon his
allegations of usury.

Franklyn Cabrera Garcia, et al. are represented by Christopher
Barton Dalbey, Esq. Robin Greenwald, Esq. Christopher Barton
Dalbey, Esq. -- CDALBEY@WEITZLUX.COM  -- and Robin Greenwald, Esq.
-- RGREEBWALD@WEITZLUX.COM -- WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. -- Karla Ann
Gilbride, Esq. -- kgilbride@publicjustice.net.  -- PUBLIC JUSTICE
P.C.

Chrysler Capital LLC is represented by Robert John Brener, Esq.
-- robert.brener@leclairryan.com -- LECLAIRRYAN

B&Z Auto Enterprises, L.L.C. is represented by Steven H. Blatt,
Esq. -- sblatt@dealerlaw.com -- BELLAVIA GENTILE & ASSOCIATES, LLP






CJ AMERICA: $1.5MM Settlement in "Petersen" Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENNIS PETERSEN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CJ AMERICA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:14-cv-02570-DMS-JLB (S.D. Cal.), District Judge Dana M.
Sabraw granted final approval of the parties' Class Action
Settlement.

For purposes of the Settlement, the Class shall consist of all
persons in the United States and United States Territories who
purchased at retail one or more of the Subject Products during the
Class Period.

Based on the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant will pay
$1,500,000.00 to create the Settlement Fund for the benefit of the
eligible Class Members. Likewise, the Defendant will implement the
following changes in connection with the Subject Products:

     the Defendant shall not order and/or print labels or
     package the Subject Products bearing the phrase "NO MSG
     ADDED," and will otherwise not market and/or advertise
     Subject Products shipped to distributors and/or retail
     customers after the effective date as "NO MSG ADDED".

Moreover, the Court issued a separate Order with respect to
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and the Incentive Award to the
representative Plaintiff, entitled Final Order Approving
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Incentive Award.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 30, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/245Pgr from Leagle.com.

Dennis Peterson, Plaintiff, represented by Marc L. Godino --
mgodino@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Dennis Peterson, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com -- Finkelstein Thompson, LLP.

CJ America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carlos M. Lazatin --
clazatin@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers & Daniel James Faria --
dfaria@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


CJ AMERICA: Must Pay $338,270 for Petersen Counsel Fees and Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENNIS PETERSEN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CJ AMERICA, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 14-CV-2570 DMS JLB (S.D. Cal.), District Judge Dana M.
Sabraw ordered the Defendants to pay the Class Counsel,
Finkelstein Thompson LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, through
the Settlement Fund, a total of $338,270.36 for attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Class Counsels are also entitled to a fee award in the amount
of $375,000.00.

Moreover, the Court also finds that the Plaintiff's request for
reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $3,836.61 is reasonable
and should be awarded as mandatory and discretionary costs
pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 1033.5.

Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiff's request for an
Incentive Award of $5,000 is appropriate.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 30, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/IVhWbZ from Leagle.com.

Dennis Peterson, Plaintiff, represented by Marc L. Godino --
mgodino@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Dennis Peterson, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com -- Finkelstein Thompson, LLP.

CJ America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carlos M. Lazatin --
clazatin@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers & Daniel James Faria --
dfaria@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


CLERMONT YORK: "Gerard" Suit Can Proceed as Class
-------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
in the case styled, PAULA GERARD, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v. CLERMONT YORK ASSOCIATES LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Case No.
3:15-cv-01431-WHA (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of current, former, and
future tenants whose formerly rent-stabilized apartments were
deregulated even though the building owner was receiving J-51 tax
abatement benefits.

The motion for class certification was filed 17 days after the
stipulated deadline and the Appellate Division ruled that the
impact of a very brief delay was minimal, which the defendant,
likewise, cannot claim that time was of the essence, given its
history of both seeking and granting extensions.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 6, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/7o1bzv from Leagle.com.

Horing Welikson & Rosen, P.C., Williston Park (Niles C. Welikson
of counsel), for appellant -- nwelikson@hwrpc.com

Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, New York (Matthew D.
Brinckerhoff of counsel), for respondents --
mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com

Before: Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman,
Kapnick, JJ.


COLD SPRING: "Avila" Suit Alleges Violation of Calif. Wage Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH AVILA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. COLD SPRING GRANITE CORPORATION, a Minnesota
Corporation, Case No. 2:16-at-01267 (E.D. Cal., October 11, 2016),
seeks to recoup alleged unpaid overtime, missed and/or non-
compliant meal and rest periods in violation of the California
Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order,
and the Business and Professions Code.

COLD SPRING GRANITE CORPORATION is a quarrier and fabricator of
granite and other natural stone and a bronze manufacturing
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard A. Hoyer, Esq.
     Ryan L. Hicks, Esq.
     HOYER & HICKS
     4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 766-3539
     Fax: (415) 276-1738
     E-mail: rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com
             rhicks@hoyerlaw.com

          - and -

     Walter Haines, Esq.
     UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
     5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
     Huntington Beach, CA 92649
     Phone: (562) 256-1047
     Fax: (562) 256-1006
     E-mail: walter@whaines.com


COMCAST CORP: FCC Imposes $2.3MM Penalty Over Customer Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that Comcast Corp. has been hit
with a $2.3 million civil penalty by the Federal Communications
Commission, closing an investigation into whether the company
wrongfully charged customers for services and equipment they
didn't want.

The cable giant on Oct. 11 entered into a consent decree with the
FCC in which it will pay the largest civil fine ever assessed to a
cable operator and implement a five-year compliance plan including
practices to obtain affirmative consent from customers, the
commission said.

"It is basic that a cable bill should include charges only for
services and equipment ordered by the customer -- nothing more and
nothing less," said Travis LeBlanc, chief of the FCC's enforcement
bureau, in a statement.


COMENITY BANK: O'Boyle Seeks Certification of Class Under Damasco
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara O'Boyle moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned BARBARA O'BOYLE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
COMENITY BANK, Case No. 2:16-cv-01401-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification 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=HxZneDpN

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


COOK COUNTY, IL: Poor Inmates File Class Action Over High Bail
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a newly filed lawsuit says
thousands of poor, largely African-American inmates are being held
improperly at the Cook County jail because they cannot afford to
post cash bail.

The lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court on Oct. 14 by
attorneys for two inmates, Zachary Robinson and Michael Lewis,
seeks class-action status on behalf of others in jail custody.

It names several Cook County judges and Sheriff Tom Dart as
defendants.

The plaintiffs say the practice under Illinois law of setting bail
amounts in excess of what inmates can pay violates their
constitutional rights.

Dart spokeswoman Cara Smith says the sheriff "has worked
tirelessly to change" a bail system she calls "unconscionable."
Smith says naming Dart in the lawsuit was "puzzling and defies
logic."

The lawsuit was first reported by Injustice Watch, a not-for-
profit journalism organization.


CVS PHARMACY: Guarnieri Dismissed as Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the parties'
stipulation voluntarily dismissing Plaintiff Robert Guarnieri in
the case styled, Christopher Corcoran, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03504-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

As conditions of the stipulation:

     (1) Mr. Guarnieri reserves the right to proceed in the
         matter as an absent class member;

     (2) CVS Pharmacy, Inc. reserves the right to argue that Mr.
         Guarnieri does not qualify as a member of any class that
         may be certified in this matter; and,

     (3) Mr. Guarnieri shall not bring any new action against CVS
         Pharmacy, Inc. or its affiliates concerning the subject
         matter of the above-captioned matter.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 30, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/9dofe3 from Leagle.com.

CVS Health, Defendant, represented by August P. Gugelmann --
august@smllp.law -- Swanson & McNamara LLP, David Michael Horniak
-- dhorniak@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, LLP, Edward W. Swanson
-- ed@smllp.law -- Swanson & McNamara LLP, Enu A. Mainigi --
emainigi@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Frank
Lane Heard, III -- lheard@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP,
Grant A. Geyerman -- ggeyerman@wc.com -- Williams Connolly, LLP,
pro hac vice & Luba Shur -- lshur@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly
LLP, pro hac vice.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley Wall Hardin
-- ahardin@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, August P.
Gugelmann -- august@smllp.law -- Swanson & McNamara LLP, Colleen
Marie McNamara -- cmcnamara@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP,
Edward W. Swanson -- ed@smllp.law -- Swanson & McNamara LLP, Enu
A. Mainigi -- emainigi@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, pro
hac vice, Frank Lane Heard, III -- lheard@wc.com -- Williams and
Connolly LLP, Grant A. Geyerman -- ggeyerman@wc.com -- Williams
Connolly, LLP, Luba Shur -- lshur@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly
LLP & Sarah Lochner O'Connor -- soconnor@wc.com -- Wiliams &
Connolly LLP.


DELL INC: Grant & Eisenhofer's Fees in Appraisal Suit Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: APPRAISAL OF DELL INC., Consol. C.A.
No. 9322-VCL (Del. Ch.), the Court of Chancery of Delaware granted
the law firm Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.'s (G&E) application for fees
and expenses.

In 2013, Dell Inc. completed a going-private merger in which each
publicly held share of Dell common stock was converted into the
right to receive $13.75 per share in cash, subject to the owner's
right to seek appraisal. Holders of 38,765,130 shares demanded
appraisal. Holders of 36,704,337 of those shares filed a total of
13 different appraisal petitions.

G&E represented the claimants in 10 of 13 different petitions for
appraisal of publicly held shares of Dell common stock.  G&E's
clients included a group of entities affiliated with T. Rowe Price
& Associates, Inc., which together sought appraisal for the
largest single block of shares.  G&E represented its clients
pursuant to a written contingency fee agreement.

After the court granted G&E's motion to consolidate the 13
appraisal proceedings and to be appointed lead counsel, G&E
litigated the case through trial.  In a post-trial decision, the
court held that the fair value of Dell common stock at the
effective time of the merger was $3.87 per share more than the
merger price.  In a separate post-trial decision, the court held
that T. Rowe lacked standing to seek appraisal.

Morgan Stanley Defined Contribution Trust, a G&E client whose
shares remain part of the appraisal class, moved to have G&E's
expenses reimbursed from the aggregate appraisal award.  Morgan
Stanley also sought an award of attorneys' fees for G&E equal to
the percentage of the aggregate appraisal award that G&E would
receive under the terms of its contingency fee agreement.  The
court treated G&E as the movant because it was the real party in
interest.

Two groups of appraisal claimants opposed the motion, arguing that
G&E must have incurred significant expenses defending T. Rowe's
entitlement to seek appraisal, and they believed those amounts
should be excluded from any award.  They also argued T. Rowe was a
member of the appraisal class until after trial, so T. Rowe should
bear a portion of the expenses incurred litigating the valuation
issues.  They further contended that G&E's fees should be reduced
because, after T. Rowe was dismissed from the case, G&E secured a
settlement for T. Rowe and earned a fee for its efforts.  Finally,
they asserted that any award is premature because a final order
has not yet been entered.

The Court of Chancery of Delaware granted G&E's fee application,
finding that the amounts are reasonable and will be allocated pro-
rata among the appraisal class.

The Court found that G&E's efforts benefitted the appraisal class
to the tune of $25,225,145.08, plus any additional interest
accruing at the legal rate of interest since September 30, 2016.

The Court thus held that G&E is entitled to be reimbursed for up
to $4,007,462.08 in expenses.  The Court also held that a further
reduction, by shifting a portion of the expenses to T. Rowe, is
not warranted because the amount of G&E's expenses is reasonable
and proportionate to the outcome achieved for the appraisal class.

The Court also concluded that the appraisal class will be entitled
to costs because the petitioners were the prevailing parties.
"Petitioners obtained an award of fair value that was higher than
the merger consideration. This case was not brought in bad faith.
Nor is there any indication that petitioners racked up excessive
costs.  Therefore, any costs to which the petitioners are entitled
as the prevailing parties will be paid by Dell," said the Court.

Lastly, the Court held that, after the deduction of G&E's net
expenses, up to a maximum of $4,007,462.08, G&E is entitled to an
award of attorneys' fees equal to 19.06% of the remaining amount
that otherwise would go to the appraisal class.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 17, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at https://is.gd/lsgtx2 from Leagle.com.

Stuart Grant -- sgrant@gelaw.com -- Michael J. Barry --
mbarry@gelaw.com -- Christine Mackintosh -- cmackintosh@gelaw.com
-- GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Lead Counsel for
the Appraisal Class and Counsel for Petitioner Morgan Stanley
Defined Contribution Trust.

Samuel T. Hirzel, II -- shirzel@proctorheyman.com -- Melissa N.
Donimirski -- mdonimirski@proctorheyman.com -- PROCTOR HEYMAN
ENERIO LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Lawrence M. Rolnick --
lrolnick@lowenstein.com -- Steven M. Hecht --
shecht@lowenstein.com -- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP, New York, New
York; Counsel for Petitioners Magnetar Capital Master Fund Ltd.,
Magnetar Global Event Driven Master Fund Ltd., Spectrum
Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., and Blackwell Partners LLC.

Samuel T. Hirzel, II, PROCTOR HEYMAN ENERIO LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware; Counsel for Petitioners Global Continuum Fund, Ltd. and
Wakefield Partners LP.

Gregory P. Williams -- williams@rlf.com -- John D. Hendershot --
hendershot@rlf.com -- Susan M. Hannigan -- hannigan@rlf.com --
Andrew J. Peach -- peach@rlf.com -- RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER,
P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; John L. Latham --
john.latham@alston.com -- Susan E. Hurd -- susan.hurd@alston.com
-- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Gidon M. Caine --
gidon.caine@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, East Palo Alto,
California; Charles W. Cox -- charles.cox@alston.com -- ALSTON &
BIRD LLP, Los Angeles, California; Counsel for Respondent Dell
Inc.


DENOVUS CORPORATION: Faces "Milton" Suit in E.D. of Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Denovus Corporation,
Ltd. The case is titled Jamie Milton, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Denovus Corporation,
Ltd., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00389-DCR (E.D. Ky., Oct.
14, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Danny C. Reeves.

Denovus is engaged in business management consultancy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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

               - and -

          Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
          HORMOZDI LAW FIRM, LLC
          1770 Indian Trail Law Lilburn Road, Suite 175
          Norcross, GA 30093
          Telephone: (678) 395 7795
          Facsimile: (866) 929 2434
          E-mail: shireen@hormozdilaw.com


DENTAL EXPRESSIONS: Faces "Morante" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joan K. Morante, On behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, and Liliana Matos, On behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Dental Expressions P.C. and Gary Bram, In
his individual and professional capacity, Case No. 1:16-cv-05766
(E.D.N.Y., October 16, 2016), arises from alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dental Expressions P.C., with a location in Bayside, New York, is
a dental business offering a range of dental services.  Dr. Gary
Bram owns the Company.


DESIGNED RECEIVABLE: Goodson Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Seana Goodson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Seana Goodson v. Designed Receivable Solutions,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03308-JVS-JPR, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 27, 2016, the
Hon. James V. Selna entered an order granting Designed
Receivable's motion for summary judgment.  The Court declined to
adjudicate Goodson's class certification motion.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=58nj9hEb

The appellate case is captioned as Seana Goodson v. Designed
Receivable Solutions, Inc., Case No. 16-56507, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 14, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on February 13, 2017;

   -- Appellant Seana Goodson's opening brief is due on March 27,
      2017;

   -- Appellee Designed Receivable Solutions, Inc.'s answering
      brief is due on April 26, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant SEANA GOODSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@AttorneysForConsumers.com

Defendant-Appellee DESIGNED RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS, INC., is
represented by:

          Amanda Nicole Griffith, Esq.
          ELLIS LAW GROUP, LLP
          740 University Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 283-8820
          Facsimile: (916) 283-8821
          E-mail: agriffith@ellislawgrp.com

               - and -

          Andrew M. Steinheimer, Esq.
          ELLIS LAW GROUP LLP
          740 University Ave., Suite 100
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 283-8820
          Facsimile: (916) 283-8821
          E-mail: ASteinheimer@Ellislawgrp.com


DITECH FINANCIAL: Faces "Greisman" Suit in Eastern Dist. of NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ditech Financial
LLC. The case is entitled Samuel Greisman, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Ditech Financial LLC, formerly known as: Greentree & Associates,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05754 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 14,
2016).

Ditech Financial, a mortgage company, lends and services
residential mortgages. It offers a range of purchase loan options.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOLCO FOOD: Faces "Hamdan" Suit in Eastern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dolco Food Corp. The
case is captioned Omar A. Hamdan, individually and in behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dolco Food
Corp., doing business as Key Food Supermarket, jointly and
severally; Doleh 919 Food Corp., doing business as Key Food
Supermarket, jointly and severally; Grand Meat Corp., doing
business as Key Food Supermarket, jointly and severally; Kingdom
Castle Food Corp., doing business as Key Food Supermarket, jointly
and severally; and Yunes Dolehm, jointly and severally; the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05739 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2016).

Dolco Food Corporation is a grocery store located in Ozone Park,
New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


EAST CHICAGO, IN: Class Certification in "Gutierrez" Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MARY GUTIERREZ and SHAWN POLK, on behalf of
themselves and a class of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF EAST CHICAGO, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00111-JVB-PRC (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Joseph S.
Van Bokkelen entered an order certifying a class of:

     "all current and future tenants of properties owned and
     managed by the East Chicago Housing Authority (ECHA)".

The Court also appoints Jan P. Mensz, Kenneth J. Falk, and Gavin
M. Rose, all of the ACLU of Indiana, as class counsel. For the
reasons set out in the Magistrate Judge's Paul R. Cherry Report
and Recommendation, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction.

The Plaintiffs claim that ECHA and the City of East Chicago have a
policy and practice of conducting warrantless non-consensual
criminal searches without exigent circumstances that violate the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Court issues a preliminary injunction prohibiting ECHA from
conducting warrantless, non-consensual searches of tenant
apartments when there are no exigent circumstances and requiring
ECHA to obtain consent from the tenant or, if consent is not given
or cannot be obtained, to obtain a warrant for all administrative
searches that are not based on exigent circumstances, including
but not limited to routine HUD inspections, housekeeping
inspections, housing quality inspections, exterminations, bedbug
inspections, suspected lease violations, and inspections for
tenants on probation due to housekeeping violations. This
injunction does not apply to tenant-requested maintenance visits
and does not prohibit police from accompanying an administrative
search or maintenance for security purposes only.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fv4mFHiB


ELTMAN LAW: Faces "Tabor" Suit in District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eltman Law, P.C. The
case is styled WENDY TABOR, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ELTMAN LAW, P.C.,
MERRIMAN INVESTMENTS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, he Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-07391-JMV-MF (D.N.J., Oct. 17, 2016). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez.

Eltman is a debt collection law firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227 5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244 0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


ERIE ISLANDS RESORT: Class Certification of Gordon Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Rhonda Jensen of the Ohio Court of Appeals
affirmed the judgment of the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas
certifying under Civ. R. 23 the case captioned, Carl R. Gordon, et
al., Appellees, v. Erie Islands Resort & Marina, et al.
Appellants. Karen Walderzak, Appellee, v. Erie Islands Resort &
Marina, et al., Appellants, Case No. OT-15-035 (Ohio App.).

Plaintiffs-appellees are Carl and Geri Gordon and Karen Walderzak.
The Gordons and Ms. Walderzak separately purchased ownership
interests in a resort, known as Erie Islands Resort & Marina,
located in Port Clinton, Ohio, in Ottawa County. Defendants-
appellants are Erie Islands Resort & Marina, Erie Islands Resort &
Marina, Inc., and Erie Islands Holding Company. In the case
appellees allege, generally, that appellants breached the terms of
the purchase agreements, committed fraud, violated their fiduciary
duty to appellees and violated two consumer protection statutes.

On April 9, 2010, the Gordons filed a 19-count complaint. On
November 21, 2011, Walderzak filed a nine-count complaint,
alleging similar, but not identical, facts and legal theories
against the same defendants.

Gordons' Counts 1 through 9 and Walderzak's first claim allege
that appellants violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
(CSPA), R.C. Chapter 1345. Gordons' Counts 10-15, and Walderzak's
Counts 2-4 and 6-7, allege fraud and fraudulent misrepresentations
by appellants. Gordons' Counts 16 and 17, and Walderzak's Counts 5
and 9, allege breach of contract. Gordons' Count 18 alleges
violation of the Ohio Retail Installment Sales Act (RISA), R.C.
Chapter 1317. Finally, Gordons' Count 19 alleges a claim for
breach of appellants' fiduciary duty.

The Gordons sought class certification under Civ. R. 23 and sought
to serve as class representatives. They ultimately argued that six
classes should be certified.

On January 4, 2013, the trial court conducted a hearing on the
Gordons' request for class certification. On November 21, 2013, in
a two-paragraph decision, the court certified the case.

On appeal, appellants argue that the trial court abused its
discretion in making the following six findings: (1) that an
identifiable class exists and that the proposed class is
unambiguous; (2) that appellees are members of that class; (3)
that there are sufficient questions of law and fact that are
common to the class and there is commonality between appellees and
the class; (4) that appellees' claims are typical of the claims of
the class; (5) that appellees fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the proposed class; and (6) that appellees met the
requirements of Civ.R. 23(B).

In her Decision and Judgment dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/jP8SvP from Leagle.com, Judge Jensen concluded that
the trial court elaborated sufficiently as to its rationale for
reaching its decision certifying the case under Civ. R. 23 as a
class action, addressing each Civ. R. 23 prerequisite and
addressing appellants' objections.

The action is remanded for a trial on the merits.

Carl R. Gordon, et al. are represented by:

      D. Jeffery Rengel, Esq.
      Thomas R. Lucas, Esq.
      RENGEL LAW OFFICE
      421 Jackson Street
      Sandusky, OH 44870
      Tel:(419)627-0400

Erie Islands Resort & Marina, et al. are represented by:

      John A. Coppeler, Esq.
      Bryan M. Ridder, Esq.
      FLYNN, PY & KRUSE
      115 West Perry Street
      Port Clinton, OH 43452
      Tel:(419)734-3174


FABFITFUN INC: "Byerson" Suit Alleges Violation of Gift Card Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIA BYERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FABFITFUN, INC., a Delaware corporation, MERRITHEW
INTERNATIONAL INC., a Canadian corporation, PHYSIQUE 57
INTERNATIONAL INC., a New York corporation, REEDS JEWELERS, INC.,
a North Carolina corporation d/b/a THE JEWELER'S WIFE, and ZUMBA
FITNESS, LLC, a Florida corporation, Case No. 2016-CH-13306 (Ill.
Circ., Cook Country, October 11, 2016), alleges that the Defendant
sold and issued gift cards with expiration dates that are
deceptive and illegal under the gift card laws of Illinois and
many other states.

FabFitFun, Inc. creates subscription boxes in partnership with
retail businesses and merchants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Klint L. Bruno, Esq.
     Michael L. Silverman, Esq.
     THE BRUNO FIRM
     900 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 4E
     Chicago, IL 60607
     Phone: 773.969.6160
     E-mail: kbruno@brunolawus.com
             msilverman@brunolawus.com


FAMILY LIFE CARE: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Hughes"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Family Life Care Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Darlene Hughes v. Family Life Care
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00007-MW-GRJ, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Darlene
Hughes sued the Defendant to recover overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Darlene Hughes v. Family Life
Care Inc., Case No. 16-16501, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

According to the briefing schedule, the Appellate Court is
awaiting the Appellant's CIP, which is due on or before Oct. 31,
2016, as to Appellant Family Life Care Inc.

Plaintiff-Appellee DARLENE HUGHES, on her own behalf and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

      Michael Owen Massey, Esq.
      MASSEY & DUFFY PLLC
      855 E University Ave
      Gainesville, FL 32601
      Telephone: (352) 575-0529
      Facsimile: (352) 414-5488
      E-mail: masseylaw@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellant FAMILY LIFE CARE INC., A Florida Corporation,
is represented by:

          Robert Aguilar, Esq.
          SMITH AGUILAR & SIERON, PA
          1045 N Orange Ave., Suite 3
          Green Cove Springs, FL 32043-2529
          Telephone: (904) 264-6000


FCA US: "Andollo" Suit Transferred from C.D. Cal. to E.D. Mich.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Justine Andollo, Joby Hackett,
Jeffrey Guy, Casey E Perkins, David Goldsmith, Michael Vincent
Nathan, Jr., Pascual Pietri, Kean McDonald, Lindsey Wells, Todd
Matchlev, Scott Michael Youngstrom, Jr., Melvin Scott, Eliam
Marrero Bernal, Clare Colrick, Jacob Gunnells, Todd Fisher, John
Metzger, Mary Metzger, Cameron Phelps, Robert F Hyatt, IV, Karen
Stedman, Danielle Hackett, and Cameron Webster, on behalf of
themselves and persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FCA
US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case
No. 5:16-cv-01341, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit). The Michigan
Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-13681-DML-
DRG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. District Judge
David M. Lawson.

FCA US LLC, also known as Fiat Chrysler or simply Chrysler, is the
American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., an Italian
controlled automobile manufacturer registered in the Netherlands
with headquarters in London, U.K. for tax purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN
          SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623 0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amanda J. Hettinger, Esq.
          Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq.
          Sharon B. Rosenberg, Esq.
          Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552 6415
          Facsimile: (314) 552 7000
          E-mail: kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com


FLINT, MI: ACLU to File New Class Action Over Water Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Carmody, writing for Michigan Radio, reports that the
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan will announce plans for
a new class action lawsuit related to the Flint water crisis.

The ACLU's new lawsuit will focus on the education rights of Flint
area school-age children and what is needed to ensure their right
to free and quality education.

Mistakes in treating water taken from the Flint River resulted in
corrosive water damaging pipes which leeched lead into the city's
drinking water.  Lead can cause neurological damage, especially in
children under the age of six years old.  Children may suffer from
developmental and behavioral issues.

The ACLU has previous sued on violations of the federal Safe Water
Drinking Act, focusing on the state's responsibility to provide
safe water going forward.

There are currently several other class action lawsuits and
numerous individual lawsuits related to the Flint water crisis
making their way through the courts.


FORD MOTOR: Settles Explorer Owners' Class Action Over Fumes
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that Ford Motor Co. agreed to a
nationwide class action settlement with up to 1 million Ford
Explorer owners who claimed exhaust fumes leaked into their
passenger compartments.

The proposed settlement, filed Oct. 11 in Fort Lauderdale federal
court, provides repairs for owners of 2011 to 2015 Explorers.

"A fix was more important than a monetary payment," said John
Uustal of Kelley/Uustal, who represented the plaintiffs.


FREEPORT-MCMORAN OIL: Garcia Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David A. Garcia filed an appeal from a court ruling in
his lawsuit titled David Garcia v. Freeport-McMoran Oil and Gas
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-04320-R-AJW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Garcia
sought certification of a putative class of all hourly and
otherwise non-exempt employees of Defendants, who, at any time
within four years from the date of filing of the lawsuit, worked
on oil platforms off of the California coast for periods of 24
hours or more.

In September, District Judge Manuel Real entered an order granting
defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), without leave to amend, and
terminated the case.

The appellate case is captioned as David Garcia v. Freeport-
McMoran Oil and Gas LLC, et al., Case No. 16-56521, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 14, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on February 13, 2017;

   -- Appellant David A. Garcia's opening brief is due on
      March 27, 2017;

   -- Appellees Does and Freeport-McMoran Oil and Gas LLC's
      answering brief is due on April 27, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID A. GARCIA, an individual, for himself
and those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Aris Edmund Karakalos, Esq.
          Anthony Strauss, Esq.
          STRAUSS LAW GROUP, APC
          121 N. Fir Street, Suite F
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (805) 641-9992
          Facsimile: (805) 641-9993
          E-mail: ars@strausslawgroup.com
                  aek@strausslawgroup.com

Defendant-Appellee FREEPORT-MCMORAN OIL AND GAS LLC, a Delaware
limited liability corporation, is represented by:

          Baldwin J. Lee, Esq.
          Alexander Nestor, Esq.
          ALLEN MATKINS
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 837-1515
          Facsimile: (415) 837-1516
          E-mail: blee@allenmatkins.com
                  anestor@allenmatkins.com


GODADDY.COM: Bennett's Class Cert. Bid Denied as Premature
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JASON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GODADDY.COM, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00291-N (S.D. Ala.), the Hon.
Judge Katherine P. Nelson entered an order on Oct. 13, 2016,
denying Plaintiff's motion to stay consideration for class
certification.

Further, because the Motion to stay is denied, the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification is, likewise, denied as premature.
However, the plaintiff is authorized to renew such motion at an
appropriate time.

In accordance with the Court's previous opinion on the issue in
Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., 299 F.R.D. 676, 678 (S.D. Ala.
2014), the Judge, does not find Plaintiff's argument persuasive.
First, the case on which Plaintiff relies has now been overruled.
See Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 786 (7th Cir.
2015)(holding offer of full compensation does not moot
litigation). Second, the Court has previously opined, in a similar
situation, that Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is
nothing more than "a mere placeholder, an empty vessel into which
plaintiff might pour substance and content (assuming the evidence
gathered in discovery supports it) many months from now after
appropriate class discovery has taken place." Church, 299 F.R.D at
677. The granting of such a "placeholder" motion would only burden
the Court resulting in "administrative costs", and "inefficiency
and waste", when the currently filed Rule 23 Motion "may prove
unnecessary because plaintiff may think better of pursuing such a
motion based on the results of discovery." Id. Lastly, the
Eleventh Circuit and the Supreme Court have both recently held
that that an unaccepted offer of judgment does not moot a class
action. See Stein v. Buccaneers Ltd. P'ship, 772 F.3d 698, 702
(11th Cir. 2014); Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 670
(2016), as revised (Feb. 9, 2016). As a result, there is no need
to proceed in this action in the manner that Plaintiff has
requested.

The Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 20, 2016, asserting that
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant used an automatic
telephone dialing system to call Plaintiff on more than five
occasions, which were telemarketing or solicitation calls, made
without Plaintiff's express written consent or for emergency
purposes.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qi2laPOM


GOGO INC: Salameno Seeks Review of E.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John Jensen, Charles Salameno and Maria-Angela Sanzone
filed an appeal from court rulings in their lawsuit styled
Salameno v. Gogo Inc., Case No. 16-cv-487, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).  The
rulings include the District Court's memorandum & order, dated
September 13, 2016, amended memorandum & order, dated July 25,
2016, and memorandum, order & judgment, dated July 7, 2016.

The appellate case is captioned as Salameno v. Gogo Inc., Case No.
16-3489, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Jack B.
Weinstein has granted the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration.  Judge Weinstein held that Gogo's terms of use bind
the Plaintiffs, and sophisticated business travelers who
repeatedly purchased and used Gogo's product can be assumed to
have been aware of the arbitration clause where they repeatedly
ordered the service.

The Defendants provide Internet access on airplanes.  The
Plaintiffs are dissatisfied customers, who repeatedly used Gogo's
product over a period of months or years.  The Plaintiffs
commenced the action, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, alleging violations of consumer protection
statutes and making claims for breach of contract, fraud,
promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Charles Salameno, Maria-Angela Sanzone and
John Jensen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Clifford Tucker, Esq.
          BRYAN D. FISHER LLC
          6715 Perkins Road
          Baton Rouge, LA 70808
          Telephone: (718) 803-1234
          Facsimile: (225) 612-6813
          E-mail: Clifford@fisherinjurylawyers.com

Defendants-Appellees Gogo Inc. and Gogo LLC are represented by:

          Anthony J. Laura, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          1 Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639-8267
          Facsimile: (973) 639-8920
          E-mail: alaura@ebglaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Fillekes Wins Certification of ADEA Class
-----------------------------------------------------
The Hon. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order in
the lawsuit entitled ROBERT HEATH, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
GOOGLE INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-01824-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
granting Plaintiff Cheryl Fillekes' motion for conditional
certification under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (ADEA), and denying Plaintiff Robert Heath's partial joinder.

The class Fillekes' proposes for her collective action consists
of:

     "all individuals who interviewed in-person for any Software
     Engineer (SWE), Site Reliability Engineer (SRE), or Systems
     Engineer (SYSEng) position with Google in the United States
     during the time period from August 13, 2010 through the
     present; were age 40 or older at the time of the interview;
     and were refused employment by Google".

Heath seeks to join in Fillekes' motion "in all parts except the
proposed scope of the class and the identification of the
collective action counsel".

Heath objects to Fillekes' class definition because it would
exclude him. Instead, he proposes the following class definition:

     "[a]ll applicants for any Software Engineer (SWE), Site
     Reliability Engineer (SRE), or Systems Engineer (SysEng)
     positions with Google in the United States during the time
     since Google began its pattern or practice of discriminating
     against applicants over the age of 40 (which Plaintiff is
     informed and believes was no later than August 13, 2010
     through the present, and possibly earlier); who were 40
     years of age or older at the time of their application; and
     who were rejected for the position".

Recognizing that the Court was not inclined to conditionally
certify Heath's proposed class, he asked the Court to either
narrow the scope itself or allow him to file a renewed motion for
conditional certification.

The Court declined, however, to narrow the scope of the proposed
class on its own motion. To do so would improperly prevent Google
from identifying infirmities in such an alternative definition and
deprive the Court of sufficient evidence and argument on which to
base such a determination, the judge said.

Further, the Court denies Heath's request to file a second motion
for conditional certification. Not only is trial set for June
2017, thus preventing sufficient time to brief, hear, and decide
such a motion, but also this request comes on the heels of Heath's
tardy first motion. Prejudice to Google would thus be substantial,
according to the judge, and there is no good explanation why Heath
reached so far in his initial class definition if he recognized
that it was ambiguous and overbroad as his attorney acknowledged
at the hearing.

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


HERTZ CORPORATION: Faces "Schwartz" Suit in C.D. of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hertz
Corporation. The case is captioned Edward Schwartz, ORG Holdings,
and ORG Portfolio Management LLC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Hertz
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-07713 (C.D. Cal.,
Oct. 17, 2016).

Hertz Corporation, a subsidiary of Hertz Global Holdings Inc., is
an American car rental company with international locations in 150
countries worldwide. Hertz is the largest U.S. car rental company
by sales.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI
          STAHLE AND TORRIJOS LLP
          6701 Center Drive West 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844 9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861 0168
          E-mail: alfredo@asstlawyers.com


HIRERIGHT INC: Settlement in "Watkins" Suit Granted Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BLANCA WATKINS, SPENCER HOYT, individually, on behalf
of other similarly situated individuals, and on behalf of the
general public, Plaintiffs, v. HIRERIGHT, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 13-cv-1432-BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal.), District Judge Cynthia Bashant
granted the parties' motion for final approval of class action
settlement.

The case involves the Plaintiffs alleging that the Defendant, a
consumer reporting agency, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
by failing to provide consumers with full-file disclosures despite
written requests to do so

The proposed Settlement Agreement applies to class members
composed of all individuals for whom the Defendant's records
indicate that the individual made a request for information from
the consumer's file from May 23, 2008 through the date of
preliminary approval.

In the case, the Defendant has established a common fund of
$460,000, exclusive of attorneys' fees and costs of
administration. The fund will be distributed pro rata to all Class
Members. Although individual payouts are capped at $200.00, given
the high number of claimants, the settlement amount per individual
claim will be $25.02.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 30, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/mYQHSa from Leagle.com.

Spencer Hoyt, Plaintiff, represented by Anna P. Prakash --
aprakash@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster PLLP.

Hireright, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer L. Mora --
jmora@littler.com -- Littler & Mendelson PC, Rod M. Fliegel --
rfliegel@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Amanda N. Fu, Littler
Mendelson P.C. & William J. Simmons -- wsimmons@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice.


HOSPITAL SISTERS: Faces "Holcomb" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Holcomb and Mary Grovogel, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
on behalf of the Hospital Sisters Health System Plans, v. Hospital
Sisters Health System; Hospital Sisters Health System Retirement
Committee; John and Jane Does 1-20, Members of the Hospital
Sisters Health System Retirement Committee; and John and Jane Does
21-40, Case No. 3:16-cv-03282-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill., October 11,
2016), concerns whether HSHS properly maintains its pension plans
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Defendant Hospital Sisters Health System, by and through its
subsidiaries and/or affiliates, operates a hospital corporation
that provides healthcare and healthcare-related services in
Illinois and Wisconsin.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
     ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC
     8816 Manchester Road, No. 109
     St. Louis, MO 63144
     Phone: (314) 258-0212
     E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com

        - and -

     Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
     Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
     Alison S. Gaffney, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101-3052
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
             lgerber@kellerrohrback.com
             agaffney@kellerrohrback.com

        - and -

     Ron Kilgard, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
     Phoenix, AZ 85012
     Phone: (602) 248-0088
     Fax: (602) 248-2822
     E-mail: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com

        - and -

     Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
     Michelle Yau, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
     1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
     Suite 500, West Tower
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 408-4600
     Fax: (202) 408-4699
     E-mail: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
             myau@cohenmilstein.com


HP INC: Sued in California Over Printers' Software Update
---------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that lawyers at Girard Gibbs sued
HP Inc. in the Northern District of California on Oct. 7 alleging
that a software update the company installed in customers'
internet-connected printers in September disabled machines loaded
with ink cartridges made by competing companies.

The suit claims that on Sept. 13 thousands of HP printers
displayed an error message saying that the non-HP ink cartridges
appear to be "damaged or missing" and needed to be replaced.


ILLINOIS: To Expand Children's Access to Mental Health Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that the Illinois Medicaid program is preparing
to comply with a settlement agreement that will expand children's
access to mental and behavioral health services.  The expansion
will take place through the Medicaid Early and Periodic Screening,
Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit.  Medicaid-eligible
children under age 21 diagnosed with behavioral health disorders
will be able to receive a continuum of behavioral health home- and
community-based services (HCBS) and inpatient care through EPSDT.
The state's plans will be finalized by December 2017.

The service expansion is the result of a settlement agreement in
the class action filed against the state.


ILLINOIS, USA: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Kolton" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Anthony D. Kolton and S. David Goldberg filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Anthony Kolton, et
al. v. Michael Frerichs, Case No. 1:16-cv-03792, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 7,
2016, District Judge Charles P. Korocas granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  The case arises from the Illinois Uniform
Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, 765 ILCS Section 1025/1, et
seq., (the Act), which pertains to personal property held by a
third party (the holder).  Holders include, but are not limited
to, banks, corporations, or public utilities.

Defendant Michael W. Frerichs is the Treasurer of the state of
Illinois.

The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Kolton, et al. v.
Michael Frerichs, Case No. 16-3658, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by October 27, 2016;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before November 22, 2016,
      for S. David Goldberg and Anthony D. Kolton.

Plaintiffs-Appellants ANTHONY D. KOLTON and S. DAVID GOLDBERG,
individually and on behalf of classes of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Thomas Arthur Doyle, Esq.
          THOMAS A. DOYLE, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: tad@wexlerwallace.com

Defendant-Appellee MICHAEL W. FRERICHS, Treasurer of the State of
Illinois, is represented by:

          Nadine J. Wichern, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          100 W. Randolph Street
          State of Illinois Center
          Chicago, IL 60601-0000
          Telephone: (312) 814-5659
          E-mail: nwichern@atg.state.il.us


JAMES HARDIE: NZ Court Allows Cladding Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that the New Zealand High
Court has given permission for a leaky building class action to
proceed against cladding maker James Hardie.

The action claims James Hardie was negligent in its design,
manufacture and supply of the Harditex and Titanboard cladding
systems.

The first Harditex claim was brought by Tracey Cridge and Mark
Unwin, who claim their Wellington home suffered widespread
internal water damage -- estimated to cost more than $300,000 to
fix.

Another Wellington couple, Katrina Fowler and Scott Woodhead, have
also claimed over their 2000 duplex.

James Hardie denies the claims and has said it stands by the
integrity and quality of its building products.

It would vigorously defend any allegations made against its
products, it said when the class action was revealed last year.
Lawyer Dan Parker said 19 commercial owners had signed up for the
Titanboard claim, and more than 60 for the Harditex claim.  Last
year Mr Parker said more than 500 people had contacted them about
potential claims.

James Hardie was founded in Melbourne in 1888 by Scottish
immigrant James Hardie. It is now listed on the Australian and New
York stock exchanges and has its headquarters in Dublin.
In the 2016 financial year it generated net sales of $US1.73
billion.


JESSE CASARES: JT's Frames Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JT'S FRAMES, INC., an Illinois corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. JESSE CASARES, JOE CASARES,
PATRICIA BEZABALETA a/k/a PATRICIA ZABELETA, DAVID A. OZUNA, JOHN
MEDINA and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02504
(N.D, Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify its first
amended "Damasco" motion for class certification and requests for
status conference.

The Plaintiff proposes the following class definition:

     "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
     messages of material advertising the commercial availability
     or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on
     behalf of Defendants, and (3) which Defendants did not have
     prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not
     display a proper opt-out notice".

The Plaintiff further asks to appoint Plaintiff as the class
representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class
counsel.

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. 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).

As this motion to certify a class 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.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KZxvy4oZ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JP MORGAN: "Hall" RESPA Lawsuit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Hall, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated
individuals, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:16-cv-
14435-RLR (September 15, 2016) was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The case
alleges that Chase filed a foreclosure action against Plaintiff
despite the submission of a completed loss mitigation application,
which is in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. is a servicer on home loan and mortgage
properties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
     Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
     1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone: 813-224-0431
     Fax: 813-229-8712
     E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
             bhill@wfclaw.com
             twells@wfclaw.com
             jriley@wfclaw.com


KAYABA INDUSTRY: Accused of Fixing Auto Shock Absorber Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
V.I.P., INC. and PERFORMANCE INTERNET PARTS, LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KAYABA INDUSTRY
CO. LTD., d/b/a KYB CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-13616-
VAR-RSW (E.D. Mich., October 11, 2016), alleges that the
Defendants and their co-conspirators violated the antitrust laws
by entering into a continuing conspiracy to rig bids and fix,
raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices of Automotive Shock
Absorbers sold in the United States and elsewhere at supra-
competitive levels.

Defendant Kayaba Industry Co. Ltd., d/b/a KYB Corporation, is a
Japanese corporation with its principal place of business in
Tokyo. It is a manufacturer of Automotive Shock Absorbers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
     CERA LLP
     595 Market Street
     Suite 2300
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Phone: (415) 977-223
     E-mail: scera@cerallp.com

        - and -

     M. John Dominguez, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 204
     Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
     Phone: (561) 833-6575
     E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
     Scott Gilchrist, Esq.
     COHEN & MALAD, LLP
     One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Phone: (317) 636-6481
     E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
             sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com


KEEFE CORP: Keenan Cofield Must Pay $13.94 Initial Filing Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rodney W. Sippel denied the Plaintiff's motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered that, within 30
days from the date of the order dated September 30, 2016, the
Plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $13.94 in the case
styled, KEENAN K. COFIELD, Plaintiff, v. KEEFE CORP., et al.,
Defendants, No. 4:16CV1390 RWS (E.D. Miss.).

The case involves claims against the Defendants' over-pricing of
prison commissary items. The Court held that the action as legally
frivolous as commissary prices implicate no constitutional right.

Moreover, a review on the Plaintiff's account indicates an average
monthly balance of $69.68. Accordingly, a prisoner bringing a
civil action in forma pauperis is required to pay the full amount
of the filing fee. However, the Plaintiff has insufficient funds
to pay the entire filing fee. Thus, the Court will assess an
initial partial filing fee of $13.94, which is 20% of Plaintiff's
average monthly balance pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(b).

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 30, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/VZUZTq from Leagle.com.

Keenan K. Cofield, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


KENTUCKY TEACHERS' RETIREMENT: Court Dismisses "Wieck" Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Charles R. Simpson, III of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted with
prejudice Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned,
RANDOLPH WIECK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
KENTUCKY TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:15-CV-692-CRS (W.D. Ky.).

The pro se plaintiffs, current and retired teachers Randolph
Wieck, Betsey Bell, and Jane Norman, filed the putative class
action on behalf of similarly situated members of the Kentucky
Teachers' Retirement System (KTRS). The complaint asserts many
causes of action, including violations of the Contract Clause,
Takings Clause, and Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of
the United States Constitution, the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), the Securities Act, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,
various state statutes, and common law breach of fiduciary duty.
The foundation of Plaintiffs' claims rest in alleged mismanagement
of KTRS, resulting in an underfunding of the system.  The
defendants include the Board of Trustees of KTRS (the Board), the
Attorney General (AG), the Auditor of Public Accounts (Auditor),
the Kentucky Educational Association, and multiple investment
companies.

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), 12(b)(4), 12(b)(5),
12(b)(6), and the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Defendants
asserting this basis for dismissal are the AG and Auditor, the
Board, KKR and Rockwood, Rockwood, Blackstone, and Highbridge.
Additionally, two motions to dismiss by the AG and Auditor and the
Board simultaneously assert lack of standing, further warranting
dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

In his Memorandum Opinion dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/38bUMJ from Leagle.com, Judge Simpson, III dismissed
all state law claims against the AG, Auditor, and the Board
without prejudice based upon the doctrine of sovereign immunity;
dismissed all other claims against those Defendants without
prejudice for improper venue; dismissed all claims against
Highbridge without prejudice for insufficient service of process;
and dismissed all claims against KKR, Rockwood, and Blackstone
with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.

Board of Trustees of the Kentucky Teachers' Retirement System
(KTRS), et al. are represented by Robert W. Kellerman, Esq. --
robert.kellerman@skofirm.com -- STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC

KKR & Company, et al. are represented by Cassandra J. Wiemken,
Esq. -- cwiemken@stites.com -- and Michael T. Leigh, Esq. --
mleigh@stites.com -- STITES & HARBISON, PLLC

Highbridge- JP Morgan is represented by:

      Rebecca F. Schupbach, Esq.
      NAPIER GAULT SCHUPACH & STEVENS PLC
      730 W Main St #400
      Louisville, KY 40202
      Tel: (502)855-3800


LEAPFROG ENTEPRISES: Judge Extends Case Management Conference
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES, INC., Master File No.
3:15-cv-00347-EMC (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Edward M. Chen
extended the October 18, 2016 Initial Case Management Conference
until 30 days after the Court issues an order resolving the
Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss the complaint.

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation:

     (a) the Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss the
         complaint is due on November 4, 2016;

     (b) the Lead Plaintiff's opposition to the Defendants'
         motion to dismiss the Complaint is due on December 19,
         2016;

     (c) the Defendants' reply in support of their motion to
         dismiss is due January 19, 2017; and,

     (d) the hearing on the Defendants' motion to dismiss is set
         for February 2, 2017.

The parties have conferred and agreed that conducting the Initial
Case Management Conference before resolution of the Defendants'
anticipated motion to dismiss the Complaint would unnecessarily
burden the Court and the parties.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 30, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/7E8dzl from Leagle.com.

Abere Newett, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay --
rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Mary L Tumlin, Plaintiff, represented by Ramzi Abadou --
rabadou@gmail.com -- Kahn Swick Foti LLP.

Richard Farias, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP.

KBC Asset Management NV, Plaintiff, represented by James Michael
Hughes -- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice,
Brian O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Matthew Seth Melamed -- mmelamed@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Willow E. Radcliffe --
willowr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by
Jordan Eth -- jeth@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Mark R.S.
Foster -- mfoster@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.


LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN: Court Dismisses "Harris" Class Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Joseph M. Hood denied the Plaintiff's Motion
to Amend Complaint, and likewise, denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the putative class action complaint in the case
styled, CHARMEAIRRIA HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN
COUNTY GOVERNMENT, et al., Defendants, Action No. 5:15-cv-367-JMH
(E.D. Ky.).

The putative class action involves the Plaintiff's claims that she
was injured when the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government
(LFUCG) jail retained funds held for her by the jail while she was
detained to cover the cost of her confinement under KRS 441.265,
which does not require entry of a court order before assessing
such charges. Thus, the Plaintiff avers in Count I of her
Complaint that the collection of the fees in the absence of a
court order is a deprivation of property without due process of
law and violates the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth
Amendment and the Fourth Amendment's provision against
unreasonable searches and seizures, all in violation of 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983.

The Court held that the correct reading of KRS 441.265 is that the
fees may be imposed as soon as the prisoner is booked into the
jail and may be periodically deducted from the prisoner's account
as provided by local regulation. Citing the case of Sickles v.
Campbell Cty. (E.D. Ky. 2006), the Court further concluded that
since the statute is valid, the inmate owes fees that begin to
accrue immediately upon his or her being booked into the jail.

Moreover, since the Plaintiff has not adequately pleaded her
substantive claim in Count I, the Court has no basis upon which to
issue declaratory relief, and therefore, the Plaintiff's claim
seeking a declaratory judgment is dismissed.

Finally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over her remaining state law claims in Counts II through IX. The
Court dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 30, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/OuCYx0 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff-Appellant CHARMEAIRRIA HARRIS, Individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Camille Bathurst, Esq.
          Gregory A. Belzley, Esq.
          BELZLEY BATHURST ATTORNEYS
          P.O. Box 278
          Prospect, KY 40059
          Telephone: (502) 292-2452
          E-mail: camillebathurst@aol.com
                  gbelzley@aol.com

               - and -

          Matthew W. Boyd, Esq.
          BOYD LAW OFFICE
          155 East Main Street, Suite 220
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 252-0222
          E-mail: mattboydlaw@aol.com

Defendants-Appellees LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT and
RODNEY BALLARD, Individually, are represented by:

          Keith Moorman, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD
          250 W. Main Street, Suite 2800
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 231-0000
          Facsimile: (859) 231-0011
          E-mail: kmoorman@fbtlaw.com


LONG ISLAND BONE: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order in "Pray" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Long Island Bone & Joint, LLP, and Michael Fracchia,
M.D., filed an appeal from a District Court order dated Sept. 14,
2016, in the lawsuit entitled Pray v. Long Island Bone & Joint,
LLP, Case No. 14-cv-5386, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Central Islip).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Pray v. Long Island Bone &
Joint, LLP, Case No. 16-3485, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee Dorothea B. Pray, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly-situated, is represented by:

          Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com

Defendants-Appellants Long Island Bone & Joint, LLP, and Michael
Fracchia, M.D., in his individual and professional capacities

          Jessica M. Seyer, Esq.
          GABRIELE & MARANO, LLP
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard
          Merrick, NY 11566
          Telephone: (516) 542-1000
          E-mail: jseyer@gabrielemarano.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Bolin" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Billy Bolin, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00590, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern District of
Virginia - (Alexandria). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-05019-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

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

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Reeves, Jr.
          REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC
          P.O. Drawer 1388
          Biloxi, MS 39533
          Telephone: (228) 374 5151
          Facsimile: (228) 374 6630
          E-mail: jrr@rmlawcall.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Donna Marie Meehan, Esq.
          COSMICH, SIMMONS
          & BROWN, PLLC - JACKSON
          P. O. Box 22626
          One Eastover Center
          100 Vision Drive, Suite 200 (39211)
          Jackson, MS 39225-2626
          Telephone: (601) 519 0324
          Facsimile: (601) 863 0078
          E-mail: donna@cs-law.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Coburn" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Patricia Coburn, Jim Moylen, and
Diana Sirois, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No.
3:16-cv-01931, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-05018-AJT-TRJ
to the proceeding.

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

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          William L Stern, Esq.
          MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268 7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268 7522
          E-mail: wstern@mofo.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Coleman" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Clara Coleman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-09095, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern District of
Virginia - (Alexandria). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-05022-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

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

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark J. Uyeno, Esq.
          Alexander Robertson, IV, Esq.
          ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP
          32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (818) 851 3850
          Facsimile: (818) 851 3851
          E-mail: muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com
                  arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          David B. Sudzus, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 569 1000
          Facsimile: (312) 569 3498
          E-mail: david.sudzus@dbr.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Camille Christen, Esq.
          DONOHUE BROWN MATHEWSON & SMYTH
          140 S. Dearborn, Suite 800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 422 4908
          E-mail: christen@dbmslaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Florez" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Erin Florez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01418, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern District of
Virginia - (Alexandria). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-05020-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

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

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D Hoaglund, Esq.
          MCCALLUM HOAGLUND COOK & IRBY LLP
          905 Montgomery Highway, Suite 201
          Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
          Telephone: (205) 824 7767
          Facsimile: (205) 824 7768
          E-mail: ehoaglund@mhcilaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Gonzalez" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jason Gonzalez, Katie Gonzalez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01552,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-05025-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

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

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark J. Uyeno, Esq.
          Alexander Robertson, IV, Esq.
          ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP
          32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (818) 851 3850
          Facsimile: (818) 851 3851
          E-mail: muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com
                  arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com

               - and -

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Chestnut" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled James Chestnut, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-03116, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern District of
Virginia - (Alexandria). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-05024-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

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

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Robertson, IV, Esq.
          ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP
          32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (818) 851 3850
          Facsimile: (818) 851 3851
          E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Masters" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Doreen Masters, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01529, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern District of
Virginia - (Alexandria). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-05021-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

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

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark J. Uyeno, Esq.
          Alexander Robertson, IV, Esq.
          ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP
          32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (818) 851 3850
          Facsimile: (818) 851 3851
          E-mail: muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com
                  arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Patrick M Wallace
          Daniel K. Bryson
          Whitfield Bryson and Mason LLP
          900 West Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
           (900) 600-5000
          Fax: (900) 600-5035
          E-mail: pat@wbmllp.com
                  dan@wbmllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kimberly W Geisler
          SCOTT DUKES & GEISLER PC
          211 22nd Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 251 2300
          Facsimile: (205) 251 6773
          E-mail: kgeisler@scottdukeslaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Norris" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Richard Norris v. Lumber Liquidators Inc.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00144, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria).
The Virginia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-05023-
AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring
Durability Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-
md-02743-AJT-TRJ.

The cases in the litigation concern the sale and marketing of
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by Lumber Liquidators.
Despite being marketed as sufficiently durable for residential
use, the Plaintiffs allege that their laminate flooring scratches
too easily and fails to meet the advertised industry standard.

Plaintiff Richard Norris, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Mark J. Uyeno, Esq.
          Alexander Robertson, IV, Esq.
          ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP
          32121 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 200
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (818) 851-3850
          Facsimile: (818) 851-3851
          E-mail: muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com
                  arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com

               - and -

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

Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Donna Marie Meehan, Esq.
          COSMICH, SIMMONS & BROWN, PLLC
          P. O. Box 22626
          One Eastover Center
          100 Vision Drive, Suite 200 (39211)
          Jackson, MS 39225-2626
          Telephone: (601) 519-0324
          Facsimile: (601) 863-0078
          E-mail: donna@cs-law.com


LUXURY SHUTTLE: Faces "Johnson" Suit Under California Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAQUISHA JOHNSON, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. LUXURY SHUTTLE GROUP LLC, a California
limited liability company; ADP TOTALSOURCE, INC., a Florida
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC-636 903
(Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, October 11, 2016), alleges
failure of Defendants to provide off-duty meal periods and duty-
free rest breaks, failure to reimburse all business-related
expenses, failure to keep accurate records, and penalties under
the California Labor Code.

LUXURY SHUTTLE GROUP LLC -- http://luxuryshuttlegroup.com-- is a
transportation company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry W. Lee, Esq.
     Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
     DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
     515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213)488-6555
     Fax: (213) 488-6554

        - and -

     Kenechi R. Agu, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KENECHI R. AGU
     3655 Torrance Blvd., Suite 300
     Torrance, CA 90503
     Phone: (310)431-9875
     Fax: (855) 372-5792


MACQUARIE: Seeks to Defeat U.S. Hedge Fund Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Financial Review reports that Australian banks
being sued by American hedge funds for allegedly manipulating
financial market interest rates will try to knock out the US court
case by advocating a legal precedent set by the Palestine
Liberation Organisation.

Legendary American commodity speculator Richard Dennis, and a
hedge fund firm depicted in the The Big Short movie for earning
billions betting against toxic home loans, are plaintiffs pushing
a US class action against the big four banks, Macquarie and global
banks.

Lawyers close to some of the defendant banks said they would argue
the New York court doesn't have legal jurisdiction over the banks
and the local bank bill swap rate (BBSW), the wholesale interbank
lending rate that helps set a benchmark for trillions of dollars
of securities traded in financial markets.

Some of the 19 accused financial institutions will cite a US Court
of Appeals ruling that Americans injured by terrorist attacks in
Israel were not legally able to sue the PLO in the US.

The ruling confirmed that in order for a US court to take on a
case with offshore elements, the plaintiff must establish that any
injuries suffered were a direct result of the defendant
intentionally targeting the US.

Even though Americans were injured in the terrorist attacks, they
failed to establish that US citizens were the express targets of
the PLO, beyond being random and unfortunate victims.

In the context of the BBSW case, banks will argue that their
securities trading from Sydney and Melbourne was not aimed at the
US and any BBSW-connected derivative trades by hedge funds in the
US was tangential at best, a source close to the banks said.

'Illicit' profits

US-based investment funds Sonterra Capital Master Fund and
FrontPoint Financial Services, and Florida-based derivatives
trader Mr Dennis, allege banks "generated hundreds of millions of
dollars in illicit profits by artificially fixing BBSW-based
derivatives prices at levels that benefited their trading books",
according to the claim filed in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York on August 16.

The US investors allege the prices of various derivatives --
including swaps, forward rate agreements, Australian dollar
futures contracts, Australian dollar foreign exchange swaps and
forwards, and 90-day bank accepted bill futures contracts -- were
affected because they were linked to BBSW.

The statement of claim argues New York has jurisdiction because
the banks have offices in Manhattan and transact BBSW-based
derivatives through the US and with US counter parties.  It says
more than $US100 trillion ($131 trillion) in Australian dollar
foreign exchange and interest rate derivatives were traded over
the counter in the US since 2003 and as much as $US15 trillion a
year.

The plaintiffs' New York law firm, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart,
has acted as counsel in several US civil rate-rigging cases
involving other major interest rate benchmarks set in other
countries, including the London-set Libor, Yen Libor, Sterling
Libor, Swiss Franc Libor and the Singapore overnight rate.

In the same New York court district last year, the lawyers
achieved a $US58 million settlement for US investors against HSBC,
Citigroup and brokerage firm RP Martin Holdings in an anti-trust
suit accusing large financial institutions of fixing yen-
denominated Libor rates.

Barclays last November agreed to pay $US94 million to settle US
anti-trust litigation by investors who accused 11 banks of
conspiring to manipulate the benchmark European Interbank Offered
Rate (Euribor) and related derivatives, in a case Lowey Dannenberg
Cohen & Hart acted in.

ASIC

The US investors' claim relies almost exclusively on court
evidence such as trader emails, phone calls and electronic chats
submitted by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission
in its local legal claim on alleged BBSW manipulation.

ASIC is suing ANZ, National Australia Bank and Westpac in three
separate cases for unconscionable conduct and market manipulation.

Sources close to the American plaintiffs were pleasantly surprised
at how detailed ASIC's allegations are in public court filings.

"The Australian regulator did their homework," a US source said.

The US lawsuit also notes ASIC's settlements over BBSW
transgressions with UBS, Royal Bank of Scotland and BNP Paribas in
2013 and 2014.

The US plaintiffs allege the banks colluded to violate several US
anti-trust laws and also engaged in market manipulation that
breached the US Commodities Exchange Act.

These legal issues are only likely to be fought later if the court
determines New York has jurisdiction.

Unlike the US claim, ASIC is not pursuing the banks on collusion
or anti-competitive violations.  Though US anti-trust laws differ
to local competition rules, some banks believe ASIC's decision not
to pursue them on collusion aids their argument against anti-trust
claims in the US.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Rod Sims
revealed to Parliament on Oct. 14 that he was at a "very advanced"
stage in an investigation into possible bank cartel behavior.  He
did not say what banking issues the inquiry related to, nor
whether it was BBSW connected.

ANZ chief executive Shayne Elliott told a parliamentary hearing
this month that five suspended traders who were reinstated by the
bank after an internal investigation into BBSW trades "have done
nothing wrong".

The banks will enter a motion to dismiss the US case, chiefly on
jurisdictional grounds, in the next few months.

Complicated litigation

Columbia Law School professor John Coffee said: "This is going to
be a long, complicated litigation in which the defendants will be
attacking whether the class action can be certified."

If the class action proceeds, he said it would be very complicated
for the investors to prove and quantify any losses suffered.

The plaintiffs argue that given the bilateral, zero-sum game of
derivatives trades, every time BBSW moved in the favor of banks,
there was a corresponding loss to US traders.

The claims contain records of conversations involving ANZ,
Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank and Westpac traders,
cited by ASIC.

FrontPoint says it engaged in more than $US100 million in US-based
transactions with Macquarie.

The other global institutions named as defendants are JPMorgan,
Citigroup, BNP Paribas, Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS, Deutsche
Bank, HSBC, Lloyds, Royal Bank of Canada, Morgan Stanley, Credit
Suisse and brokers ICAP and Tullett Prebon.

The defendants were members of the BBSW setting panel administered
by the Australian Financial Markets Association.

Lower ranked New York courts have a record of taking on cross-
border cases. However, as the Appeals Court decision in the PLO
case shows, higher courts often take a narrower view of their
jurisdictional reach.

Unlike in Australia, US plaintiffs are not liable for the legal
expenses of defendants if they lose the case.

Don Coker, a banking standards consultant and self-described
expert witness, said the case was "not black and white".

"To prove damages you have to show what happened compared to what
should have happened," he said. "It's difficult to do that and not
a slam dunk."


MACY'S: Shoplifting Class Action Pending in New York
----------------------------------------------------
Joel Jacobsen, writing for Albuquerque Journal, reports that a
class-action lawsuit pending in New York alleges that Cinthia
Reyes Orellana decided to buy a couple of shirts at Macy's
flagship store.  You'd think Macy's would be happy about that,
right?

She headed for a register on the next floor down.  A security
guard intercepted her at the bottom of the escalator, took her
purse and escorted her to a cell in the store's basement.  After
three hours, she was supposedly told she would be released into
the custody of the New York Police Department only if she forked
over $100 and signed papers admitting her guilt.  She was charged
with shoplifting, but the charges were quickly dropped.

That's all according to her lawsuit, which was joined by another
woman telling a similar story.  Samya Moftah brought some clothes
back to Macy's for exchange.

When a security guard confronted her, she was unworried since she
had the original receipts in the bag.  But that was before the
guard took her downstairs, confiscated her purse and phone, patted
her down and put her in the holding cell.

According to the lawsuit, Macy's employees first demanded $100
and, when she refused, raised the price of freedom to $500.

When she continued to refuse, they charged the higher amount to
her Macy's credit card, anyway.  After five hours, police arrived
and arrested her for shoplifting, but charges against her were
quickly dropped, too.

Allegations in a lawsuit should always be viewed with skepticism.

Maybe it happened that way, maybe it didn't.  Anyone can allege
anything.

But Reyes Orellana and Moftah presented sufficient evidence to
convince a New York judge to issue an injunction barring Macy's
from demanding and collecting money from customers detained under
suspicion of shoplifting.  For its part, Macy's says it had
already voluntarily discontinued the practice of what it
euphemistically called "in-store civil recovery."

In the ongoing litigation, Macy's can point to a New York statute
that gives retailers a privilege to detain suspected shoplifters
"in a reasonable manner" while investigating the suspected theft.
That's called the shopkeeper's privilege.  It means that, in
certain circumstances, a merchant can lawfully commit an act that,
if committed by anyone else but a cop, would constitute the crime
of false imprisonment.

New Mexico has a similar statute on its books.  Our law says that,
when a merchant "has probable cause for believing that a person
has willfully taken possession of any merchandise with the
intention of converting it without paying for it," the merchant
can lawfully "take the person into custody and detain him in a
reasonable manner for a reasonable time." That's a long string of
legal terms.  Each technical term or phrase is another potential
booby trap for merchants, providing one more potential ground for
litigation.

In the most recent New Mexico case construing the statute, Holguin
v. Sally Beauty Supply, a customer took a can of mousse from a
store shelf and put it into her reusable canvas bag.  A store
manager detained her.  Eventually, police were called.  The woman
emphatically denied she was shoplifting.  Instead, she said, she
was merely using her tote as a shopping basket.  She sued the
store for false imprisonment (which is a tort, as well as a
crime).

The store's defense, naturally enough, was that it had probable
cause to believe she was shoplifting, giving it the privilege to
detain her for a reasonable time.

But what is "probable cause"? The phrase comes from the Fourth
Amendment of the federal Constitution.  In the criminal law, it
describes the standard of proof necessary to support an arrest,
the issuance of a warrant or the filing of formal charges.

A grand jury indictment is based on probable cause.  But the
phrase's meaning is imprecise.  All that can be said with complete
confidence is that it means more than suspicion, but less than
proof, which is a little like saying room temperature is more than
freezing, but less than boiling.

In the shopping tote case, our Court of Appeals ruled that a
merchant has probable cause to detain a suspected shoplifter when
the facts would "warrant a merchant of reasonable caution to
believe that the person is willfully concealing merchandise." Like
many legal definitions, this merely substitutes a longer vague
formulation for a shorter one.  The key word "believe" has many
shades of meaning, from the emphatic "I firmly believe" to the
trailing-off of "Well, I believe so . . .", which imply almost
opposite degrees of conviction.

Another part of the formulation, "willfully concealing," might at
first seem clearer, but the Court of Appeals took care of that. It
held that more is required than deliberately hiding the object
from view, such as by putting it into a canvas bag.  Rather, the
act must "reflect that (its) purpose . . . is adverse to the store
owner's right to be paid for the merchandise."  Translated: the
purpose must be to steal.  But how is the merchant to divine the
customer's purpose? The Court of Appeals didn't explain.  Rather,
it held that questions of belief and purpose are for a jury to
decide, making your guess as good as theirs.

As a practical matter, an intent to steal can pretty reliably be
inferred if a person slips merchandise into an opaque container,
and then walks past the register and out the door.  But a merchant
who detains a suspected shoplifter before that physical point is
taking the chance of being sued. Bottom of the escalator? That's
just asking for it.

As a postscript, it should always be kept in mind that if a store
encourages its employees to confront shoplifters, the store can be
held responsible if the thief turns around and attacks the
employee.  There are many good reasons for leaving security to
professionals, preferably independent contractors.


MAPLEBEAR INC: No Sanctions Imposed in "Cobarruviaz" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOMINIC COBARRUVIAZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MAPLEBEAR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00697-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
District Judge Edward M. Chen denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
sanctions despite the Defendant's violation of Rule 3-13 of the
District's Civil Local Rules.

Rule 3-13 of the District's Civil Local Rules requires parties to
promptly file with the Court in the action pending before the
Court and serve all opposing parties in the action pending before
the Court with a Notice of Pendency of Other Action or Proceeding.
In the case, the Defendant failed to notify the Court and the
opposing counsel about its involvement in the other similar class
action styled, Sumerlin v. Maplebear, Inc. dba Instacart, Case No.
BC603030.

The Court held that the existence of multiple overlapping class
actions raises the risk of reverse auctions where the defendants
pick the most vulnerable or compliant plaintiff with which to
settle and bind all other suits.

The Court further held that it has the inherent authority to
sanction the Defendant in the form of attorneys' fee if the
Defendant's violation is in bad faith or in willful disobedience
of the Court's rules or orders. However, the Court does not reach
the question of bad faith or willful disobedience because the
Plaintiffs failed to show in the hearing that the requested
attorneys' fees and costs were proximately caused by the
Defendant's violation.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 30, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/JMLr5E from Leagle.com.

Dominic Cobarruviaz, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Stephen Arns
-- rsa@arnslaw.com -- The Arns Law Firm.

Dominic Cobarruviaz, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Jahan C.
Sagafi -- jahan@post.harvard.edu -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, Jonathan
Ellsworth Davis -- jed@arnslaw.com -- The Arns Law Firm, Julie C.
Erickson -- jce@arnslaw.com -- The Arns Law Firm, Kevin M. Osborne
-- kmo@arnslaw.com -- The Arns Law Firm & Michael Scimone, Outten
and Golden LLP.

Maplebear, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin Berkowitz --
bberkowitz@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP, Nikki Khanh Vo --
nvo@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest, LLP, Rachael Elizabeth Meny --
rmeny@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP & Ryan K.M. Wong --
rwong@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP.


MARION COUNTY, IN: Driver Appeals S.D. Ind. Ruling to 7th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Michael Driver, Terry Clayton, Michael Boyd, Nicholas
Swords and Roy Shofner filed an appeal from a court ruling in
their lawsuit styled Michael Driver, et al. v. Marion County
Sheriff's Department, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 20,
2016, the Hon. Richard L. Young granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Plaintiffs
brought their claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, asserting that
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.  A copy of Judge Young's order is available at no
charge at https://goo.gl/evvS1X from Leagle.com.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Driver, et al. v.
Marion County Sheriff's Department, et al., Case No. 16-8024, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Michael Driver, Terry Clayton, Michael
Boyd, Nicholas Swords and Roy Shofner are represented by:

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

Defendants-Respondents MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and
CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY are
represented by:

          Anthony W. Overholt, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD LLC
          201 N. Illinois Street
          P.O. Box 44961
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-4236
          Telephone: (317) 237-3936
          Facsimile: (317) 237-3900
          E-mail: aoverholt@fbtlaw.com


MDL 1738: 2nd Cir. Dismisses Vitamin C Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Peter W. Hall of the Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit, reversed the district court's order denying Defendants'
motion to dismiss in the case captioned, IN RE: VITAMIN C
ANTITRUST LITIGATION. ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS, INC., THE RANIS
COMPANY, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HEBEI WELCOME
PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD., NORTH CHINA PHARMACEUTICAL GROUP
CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 13-4791-CV (2nd
Cir.).

In 2005, various vitamin C purchasers in the United States,
including Plaintiffs Animal Science Products, Inc. and The Ranis
Company, filed numerous suits against Defendants, Chinese vitamin
C manufacturer Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. and its holding
company, North China Pharmaceutical Group Corporation. These cases
were transferred to the Eastern District of New York by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that in December 2001
Defendants and their co-conspirators established an illegal cartel
with the "purpose and effect of fixing prices, controlling the
support of vitamin C to be exported to the United States and
worldwide, and committing unlawful practices designed to inflate
the prices of vitamin C sold to plaintiffs and other purchasers in
the United States and elsewhere."

Rather than deny the Plaintiffs' allegations, Defendants instead
moved to dismiss on the basis that they acted pursuant to Chinese
regulations regarding vitamin C export pricing and were, in
essence, required by the Chinese Government, specifically the
Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (the
Ministry), to coordinate prices and create a supply shortage.
Defendants argued that the district court should dismiss the
complaint pursuant to the act of state doctrine, the doctrine of
foreign sovereign compulsion, and/or principles of international
comity.

District Judge David D. Trager denied the motion to dismiss in
order to allow for further discovery with respect to whether
Defendants' assertion that the actions constituting the basis of
the antitrust violations were compelled by the Chinese Government.
In the district court's view, the factual record was "simply too
ambiguous to foreclose further inquiry into the voluntariness of
defendants' actions."

District Judge Brian M. Cogan, who was reassigned to the case
after Judge Trager passed away in January 2011.

The case ultimately went to trial. In March 2013, a jury found
Defendants liable for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
The district court awarded Plaintiffs approximately $147 million
in damages and issued a permanent injunction barring Defendants
from further violating the Sherman Act.

The appeal followed.  Defendants argue that the district court
erred by not dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint on international
comity grounds.

In his Decision dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/mrDGhF from Leagle.com, Judge Hall held that the
district court abused its discretion by not abstaining, on
international comity grounds, from asserting jurisdiction because
the court erred by concluding that Chinese law did not require
Defendants to violate U.S. antitrust law and further erred by not
extending adequate deference to the Chinese Government's proffer
of the interpretation of its own laws.

Additional information on the case is available at:

                 http://www.vitamincantitrust.com/

Animal Science Products, Inc., et al. are represented by William
A. Isaacson, Esq. -- wisaacson@bsfllp.com -- BOIES, SCHILLER &
FLEXNER, LLP -- James T. Southwick, Esq. --
jsouthwick@susmangodfrey.com -- and Shawn L. Raymond,  Esq. --
sraymond@susmangodfrey.com -- KATHERINE KUNZ, SUSMAN GODFREY LLP -
- Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. -- mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- Brian A.
Ratner, Esq. -- bratner@hausfeld.com -- Melinda Coolidge, Esq. --
mcoolidge@hausfeld.com -- and Brent W. Landau,  Esq. --
blandau@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD LLP

Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al. are represented by
Jonathan M. Jacobson, Esq. -- jjacobson@wsgr.com -- Daniel P.
Weick, Esq. -- dweick@wsgr.com -- Justin A. Cohen, Esq. --
jcohen@wsgr.com -- Scott A. Sher, Esq. -- ssher@wsgr.com -- and
Bradley T. Tennis, Esq. -- btennis@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI
GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C.


MDL 2036: Arbitration Bid in Overdraft Litigation Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT LITIGATION
MDL No. 2036. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: FIRST TRANCHE ACTIONS
Dolores Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. S.D. Fla. Case No.
1:09-cv-23685-JLK D. Or. Case No. 3:09-cv-01239-ST Martinez v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. S.D. Fla. Case No. 1:09-cv-23834 D.N.M.
Case No. 6:09-cv-01072-GBW-ACT Zankich v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
S.D. Fla. Case No. 1:09-cv-23186-JLK W.D. Wash. Case No. C-08-
1476-RSM, Case No. 09-MD-02036-JLK (S.D. Fla.), Judge James
Lawrence King denied defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion to
Dismiss All Claims of Unnamed Class Members in Favor of
Arbitration.

On November 6, 2009, the Court directed Wells Fargo to file, by no
later than December 8, 2009, all "merits and non-merits motions
directed to" the complaints, including motions to compel
arbitration.  In response, Wells Fargo did not invoke arbitration
as to the plaintiffs, nor did it do anything to notify the parties
and Court that it intended to move for arbitration as to the class
if and when the class was certified.  Instead, Wells Fargo joined
several other banks to file an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, which
not only sought adjudication of the claims on their merits, but
also specifically noted that these banks were not among those
seeking arbitration.  The Court mostly denied the banks' motion to
dismiss on March 11, 2010.

Even though it gave clear direction in its November 6, 2009 Order
that any arbitration demands were to be made by December 8, 2009,
the Court afforded Wells Fargo a second formal opportunity to
demand arbitration after ruling on dismissal.  In response, Wells
Fargo specifically informed the Court that it would not pursue
arbitration.  On June 4, 2010, Wells Fargo filed its answer and
affirmative defenses.

On April 29, 2011, Wells Fargo changed course and filed a motion
to compel arbitration as to the named plaintiffs.  This was the
first time Wells Fargo invoked arbitration as to any plaintiff in
these cases, which was: (a) after both deadlines set by the Court
for Wells Fargo to file any arbitration motions; and (b) after the
parties and the Court had expended enormous amounts of time and
resources on litigation and discovery and preparing the case for
trial.

Nevertheless, Wells Fargo argued its motion was timely because,
previously, an arbitration motion would have been futile. This
Court (and subsequently the Eleventh Circuit) rejected this
argument and found that Wells Fargo, because of its own strategic
litigation decisions and conduct, waived any right it may have had
to compel arbitration as to the plaintiffs.

In March 2013, Wells Fargo filed an opposition to the plaintiffs'
class certification motion along with what the Bank characterized
as a "conditional motion" to compel arbitration as to the unnamed
class members.  On April 5, 2013, the Court denied Wells Fargo's
conditional motion to compel arbitration.  Adjudication of the
plaintiffs' class certification motion was stayed pending Wells
Fargo's appeal regarding its conditional motion.

On February 10, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit vacated on limited
grounds the Court's ruling on Wells Fargo's conditional motion,
without resolving whether Wells Fargo waived its arbitration
rights as to the unnamed class members.

On remand, the Court granted the plaintiffs' pending class
certification motion.  Wells Fargo then moved to compel
arbitration on June 10, 2015.

Judge King found that Wells Fargo acted inconsistently with its
arbitration rights in multiple respects.  The judge pointed out
that Wells Fargo extensively and deliberately invoked the
litigation machinery prior to making any arbitration demand in
these cases, requiring the parties and the Court to expend
enormous amounts of time and resources.  The judge also noted that
Wells Fargo likewise acted inconsistently with its arbitration
rights by twice declining to demand arbitration by clear deadlines
set by the Court.

Moreover, Judge King found that significant prejudice would result
if Wells Fargo were permitted to change course and invoke
arbitration at this late stage.

As an additional basis for denying Wells Fargo's current motion,
Judge King also held that Wells Fargo's motion is untimely,
considering that Wells Fargo's invocation of its arbitration
rights unquestionably came well after the 2009 and 2010 deadlines
set by the Court for filing any arbitration motions.  The judge
also found that Wells Fargo's motion is also untimely under the
terms of its own permissive arbitration clause.

A full-text copy of Judge King's October 17, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/SwXLyk from Leagle.com.

Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, In Re, represented by David
Buckner -- david@bucknermiles.com -- Buckner+Miles, Peter Prieto
-- pprieto@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Robert Cecil
Gilbert & Stephen Frederick Rosenthal -- srosenthal@podhurst.com
-- Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al.

All Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given --
dmg@phillaw.com -- Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin, LLP.

Celia Spears-Haymond, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Barry R.
Himmelstein, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Jae Kook Kim,
McCune Wright LLP, Jordan Elias -- je@girardgibbs.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein -- msobol@lchb.com -- Mikaela Bernstein, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Richard D. McCune, Jr. --
rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright LLP, Robert Cecil Gilbert --
gilbert@kolawyers.com -- Jeffrey F. Keller --
jfkeller@kellergrover.com -- Keller Grover LLP & Kenneth J.
Grunfeld -- kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com -- Golomb & Honik, PC.

April Speers, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S. Rogow,
Bruce S. Rogow PA, Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Golomb & Honik, PC &
Robert Cecil Gilbert.

Alex Zankich, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Robert Cecil
Gilbert, Ari Y. Brown, Hagens Berman SobolShpiro LLP, Genessa A.
Stout, Hagens Berman SobolShapiro LLP, John Matthew Geyman,
Phillips Law Group PLLC, John Wentworth Phillips, Phillips Law
Group PLLC & Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Golomb & Honik, PC.

William Rucker, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Ari Y. Brown,
Hagens Berman SobolShpiro LLP, John Matthew Geyman, John Wentworth
Phillips, Phillips Law Group PLLC, Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Golomb &
Honik, PC & Robert Cecil Gilbert.

Dolores Gutierrez, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Robert Cecil
Gilbert,Joshua L. Ross, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter,
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Golomb & Honik, PC & Steve D. Larson, Stoll
Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter.

Marc Martinez, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Ari Y. Brown,
Hagens Berman SobolShpiro LLP, Genessa A. Stout, Hagens Berman
SobolShapiro LLP, Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Golomb & Honik, PC, Michael
R. Comeau, Comeau, Maldegen, Templeman & Indall, LLP & Robert
Cecil Gilbert.

David M. Johnson, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Robert Cecil
Gilbert,Karin Bornstein Swope, Keller Rohrback, Kenneth J.
Grunfeld, Golomb & Honik, PC & Mark Adam Griffin, Keller Rohrback.

Leanne Steen, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S. Rogow,
Bruce S. Rogow PA, John Gravante, III, Podhurst Orseck, P.A.,
Matthew Weinshall, Podhurst Orseck, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck,
P.A., Stephen Frederick Rosenthal, Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et
al, Aaron Samuel Podhurst, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Allan Kanner,
Kanner & Whiteley LLC, pro hac vice,Conlee S. Whiteley, Kanner &
Whiteley LLC, pro hac vice, David Buckner, Buckner+Miles & Robert
Cecil Gilbert.

Michael Dasher, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Robert Cecil
Gilbert &Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, The Kopelowitz & Ostrow Firm PA.

Jeremy Childs, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Edward Adam Webb,
Webb Law Group LLC, pro hac vice & Robert Cecil Gilbert.

Natalie Childs, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Edward Adam Webb,
Webb Law Group LLC, pro hac vice & Robert Cecil Gilbert.

Stephanie Avery, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Inez de Ondarza
Simmons,Richard Croutharmel, Richard Croutharmel, Attorney at Law
& Robert Cecil Gilbert.

Heather Stillion, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James G. Bordas, III,
Bordas & Bordas.

Christopher Stillion, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James G.
Bordas, III, Bordas & Bordas & Robert Cecil Gilbert.

Bryan J Mello, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ira
Alperstein, Alperstin and Diener, PA & Robert Cecil Gilbert.

Denise E Mello, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ira
Alperstein, Alperstin and Diener, PA & Robert Cecil Gilbert.

McCuneWright LLP, Petitioner, represented by Debra Jill Albin-
Riley, Arent Fox, LLP, Stephen James Binhak, The Law Office of
Stephen James Binhak, PLLC & Stephen G. Larson, Arent, Fox, LLP.

George Burke, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey F.
Keller, Keller Grover LLP.

Robert Lowe, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Lori Aldana, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Shane Parins, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Kara Parins, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Ashley Simonsen,
Covington & Burling LLP, Michael P. Beder, Covington & Burling,
LLP,Barbara J. Dawson, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Brian J. Meenaghan,
Lane Powell PC, Cortlin H. Lannin, Covington & Burling LLP, David
M. Jolley, Covington & Burling LLP, Elizabeth S. Pehrson,
Covington & Burling LLP, Emily Johnson Henn, Covington & Burling,
pro hac vice, Eric C. Bosset, Covington & Burling, LLP, Jamie Zysk
Isani, Hunton & Williams LLP, Laurence J. Hutt, Arnold & Porter
LLP, Robert Matthew Kort, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Ronald E. Beard,
Lane Powell PC, Rudy Albert Englund, Lane Powell PC, Sonya Diane
Winner, Covington & Burling LLP, pro hac vice, Tara N. Gillespie,
Lane Powell PC & Tracy L. Ashmore, Holme Roberts & Owen LLP.

KeyBank National Association, Defendant, represented by Susan
Eileen Trench, Arnstein & Lehr, LLP, Alan Gary Kipnis, Arnstein &
Lehr, Brian J. Meenaghan, John Martin Cooney, Arnstein & Lehr,
Mary Schug Young, Lane Powell PC, Ronald E. Beard, Lane Powell PC
& Rudy Albert Englund, Lane Powell PC.

Comerica Bank, Defendant, represented by Eliot Walker, Kane
Russell Coleman & Logan, PC, Kenneth C. Johnston, Kane Russell
Coleman & Logan PC, David M. Jolley, Covington & Burling LLP &
Julie K. Biermacher, Kane Russell Coleman & Logan PC.

Capital One, N.A., Defendant, represented by David G. Radlauer,
Jones Walker Waechter Poitevent Carrere & Denegre LLP, James F.
McCabe, Morrison & Forester, LLP, James R. McGuire, Morrison &
Foerster, Pauline F. Hardin, Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent,
Carrere & Denegre, LLP,Thomas A. Casey, Jr., Jones Walker Waechter
Poitevent Carrere & Denegre LLP, David M. Jolley, Covington &
Burling LLP & Rita F. Lin, Morrison & Foerster.

Wachovia Bank, N.A., Consol Defendant, represented by Tracy Thomas
Cottingham, III, Hunton & Williams, Cortlin H. Lannin, Covington &
Burling LLP, David M. Jolley, Covington & Burling LLP, Elizabeth
S. Pehrson, Covington & Burling LLP, Emily Johnson Henn, Covington
& Burling, Jamie Zysk Isani, Hunton & Williams LLP, Laurence J.
Hutt, Arnold & Porter LLP &Sonya Diane Winner, Covington & Burling
LLP.

Bank of America Bank, N.A., Consol Defendant, represented by Aaron
Schur, Arnold & Porter LLP, Christopher Scott Tarbell, Arnold &
Porter LLP, pro hac vice, James Randolph Liebler, Liebler Gonzalez
& Portuondo PA, Laurence J. Hutt, Arnold & Porter LLP, pro hac
vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sonya Diane Winner,
Covington & Burling LLP.

Wachovia Corporation, Consol Defendant, represented by Ann Marie
Mortimer, Hunton & Williams, James R. McGuire, Morrison &
Foerster,Tracy Thomas Cottingham, III, Hunton & Williams.

Bank of America Corporation, Consol Defendant, represented by
Aaron Schur, Arnold & Porter LLP, Christopher Scott Tarbell,
Arnold & Porter LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence J. Hutt, Arnold &
Porter LLP, pro hac vice & Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP.

Bank of America, California, Consol Defendant, represented by
Aaron Schur, Arnold & Porter LLP, Christopher Scott Tarbell,
Arnold & Porter LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence J. Hutt, Arnold &
Porter LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP.

Bank of America, N.A., Consol Defendant, represented by Laurence
J. Hutt, Arnold & Porter LLP, Christopher Scott Tarbell, Arnold &
Porter LLP, James Blackburn, Arnold & Porter, LLP, pro hac vice,
Jill Crawley Griset, McGuire Woods LLP & Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP.

Wells Fargo & Company, Consol Defendant, represented by Barbara J.
Dawson, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Cortlin H. Lannin, Covington &
Burling LLP,David M. Jolley, Covington & Burling LLP, Robert
Matthew Kort, Snell & Wilmer LLP & Sonya Diane Winner, Covington &
Burling LLP.

Huntington National Bank, Consol Defendant, represented by Alan S.
Kaplinsky, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, Laurence J. Hutt,
Arnold & Porter LLP & Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Ballard Spahr Andrews
& Ingersoll.

TD Bank N.A., Consol Defendant, represented by Joshua D. Dunlap,
Pierce Atwood, LLP & Lucus A. Ritchie, Pierce Atwood, LLP, pro hac
vice.

Wells Fargo Bank & Company, Consol Defendant, represented by David
M. Jolley, Covington & Burling LLP, Marvin I. Bartel, Bartel and
Evans & Sonya Diane Winner, Covington & Burling LLP.

Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, Consol Defendant,
represented by Heather Mitchell, Venable LLP, James A. Dunbar,
Venable LLP, pro hac vice, John T. Prisbe, Venable LLP, pro hac
vice & Matthew R. Alsip, Venable LLP, pro hac vice.

Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Consol Defendant, represented by
James R. McGuire, Morrison & Foerster.

RBC Bank (USA), Consol Defendant, represented by Mark J. Levin,
Ballard Spahr Andrews, LLP, Stacy Jaye Rodriguez, Akerman
Senterfitt, Carrie Ann Wozniak, Akerman Senterfitt, Christopher
Stephen Carver, Akerman Senterfitt & Virginia B. Townes, Akerman
Senterfitt.

Synovus Bank, Consol Defendant, represented by C. Neal Pope, Pope,
McGlamry, Kilpartick, Morrison & Norwood, P.C., David C. Rayfield,
Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, P.C., George W.
Walker, III, The Finley Firm, P.C., Wade H. Tomlinson, III, Pope,
McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, P.C., Brian D. Boone,
Alston & Bird, LLP, Christopher Allen Riley, Alston and Bird LLP,
David M. Jolley, Covington & Burling LLP,Stephen M. Colangelo,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Steven M. Collins, Alston & Bird, LLP &
William L. Tucker, Page, Scrantom, Sprouse, Tucker & Ford, P.C..

Synovus Financial Corp., Consol Defendant, represented by C. Neal
Pope, Pope, McGlamry, Kilpartick, Morrison & Norwood, P.C., David
C. Rayfield, Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, P.C.,
George W. Walker, III, The Finley Firm, P.C., Wade H. Tomlinson,
III, Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, P.C.,
Christopher Allen Riley, Alston and Bird LLP, David M. Jolley,
Covington & Burling LLP, Stephen M. Colangelo, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Steven M. Collins, Alston & Bird, LLP & William L. Tucker,
Page, Scrantom, Sprouse, Tucker & Ford, P.C..

RBC Bank, Consol Defendant, represented by Christopher Stephen
Carver, Akerman Senterfitt & Virginia B. Townes, Akerman
Senterfitt.

United Bank, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Edward D.
McDevitt, Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, LLP & Floyd E. Boone,
Jr., Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, LLP.

United Bankshares, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Edward
D. McDevitt, Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, LLP & Floyd E.
Boone, Jr., Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, LLP.

Bank of America, Consol Defendant, represented by Laurence J.
Hutt, Arnold & Porter LLP.

Susquehanna Bank, Consol Defendant, represented by James A.
Dunbar, Venable LLP, pro hac vice, John T. Prisbe, Venable LLP,
pro hac vice &Matthew R. Alsip, Venable LLP.

Jeff Horwitz, Intervenor, Pro Se.


MDL 2665: Court Narrows Claims in "Slack-Fill" Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: McCORMICK & COMPANY, INC., PEPPER
PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. This Document
Relates To: Watkins Incorporated v. McCormick & Company, Inc. No.
1:15-cv-2188 (ESH), MDL Docket No. 2665, Misc. No. 15-1825 (ESH)
(D.C.), Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle granted in part and denied, in
part, the McCormick & Company, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Watkins
Incorporated's amended complaint.

Plaintiff Watkins, which produces black pepper, alleges that its
largest competitor, defendant McCormick, deceptively "slack-
filled" its black pepper containers, thereby confusing consumers
and proximately causing a loss in Watkins' pepper sales.  Watkins
asserted five causes of action: violation of the Lanham Act (Count
One), violations of three state statutes punishing unfair trade
practices (Counts Two, Three, and Four); and the common law tort
of unfair competition (Count Five).  Watkins sought both monetary
and injunctive relief.

After several consumer class actions against McCormick followed
-- each alleging deception by the same "slack-filled" pepper
containers -- the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
consolidated all of the "slack-fill" lawsuits against McCormick
and transferred them to the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.

The consumer class actions and Watson's lawsuit all relied upon
the allegation that consumers were deceived by McCormick's pepper
packaging and believed they were buying more pepper than they
ended up receiving.  Watkins claimed that the fraudulently induced
choices of these duped consumers inflated McCormick's sales to the
detriment of Watkins' sales.

McCormick filed its motion to dismiss on March 30, 2016, arguing
that: (1) Watkins enjoys neither constitutional standing under
Article III nor statutory standing under the Lanham Act; (2)
Watkins fails to state a claim under either the Lanham Act, the
state statutes, or common law; and (3) Minnesota choice-of-law
rules preclude Watkins' claims under the California and Florida
statutes; and (4) unfair competition is not an independently
existing tort under Minnesota law.

Judge Huvelle held that Watkins enjoys Article III standing.
Given that the Court must assume at this stage that Watkins'
allegations of consumer confusion are true, the judge found that
Watkins' inference that some of the deceived customers would have
purchased Watkins' pepper products instead of McCormick's (had
they been aware of the slack-fill) is an adequate allegation of
injury.  In the judge's view, Watkins has plainly alleged injuries
that are fairly traceable to McCormick's conduct.

Judge Huvelle also held that Watkins has statutory standing to
pursue claims under the Lanham Act.  The judge noted that Watkins'
pepper was available on store shelves beside McCormick's pepper
and therefore, there is no reason to infer that all confused
consumers would have -- if enlightened -- chosen a different
pepper alternative instead of Watkins'.  Judge Huvelle thus found
that Watkins has alleged a logical causal connection between its
lost sales and McCormick's slack-filling, and that consumer
confusion proximately caused Watson to lose sales.

McCormick alternatively argued that Watkins has not adequately
stated a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act.
McCormick argued that size of its pepper tins is not commercial
speech.  However, Judge Huvelle held that Watkins has properly
alleged falsity under the Lanham Act, stating that it is difficult
to understand how the size of a package or container could
possibly not be considered a form of "advertising or promotion."

Because the judge found that Watkins has adequately stated a claim
under the Lanham Act, Judge Huvelle also rejected McCormick's
argument that the state law claims should fail for the same
reasons as the Lanham Act.  McCormick also made other arguments
about why Watkins has failed to state claims under the state
statutes, but the judge found that none of those other arguments
has merit.  Finally, Judge Huvelle declined to dismiss any of the
state statutory claims on the basis of choice-of-law analysis at
this stage, because the Court does not have a complete factual
record or adequate briefing.

As to McCormick's motion to dismiss Watkins' common law claim of
unfair competition, Watkins failed to contest the motion and was
deemed to have conceded to McCormick's arguments.

A full-text copy of Judge Huvelle's October 17, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at https://is.gd/XmyLS9 from Leagle.com.

RHONDA DUPLER, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew N. Friedman --
afriedman@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC,
Elizabeth A. Fegan -- beth@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO, LLP & Jeffrey I. Carton -- jcarton@denleacarton.com --
DENLEA & CARTON LLP.

HOLLY MARSH, Plaintiff, represented by Michael T. Fraser --
mfraser@saxongilmore.com -- FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C. & Elizabeth A.
Fegan, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP.

RYAN SCOTT BUNTING, BRANDON GRADY, TYLER UNDERWOOD, SABA GANJINEH,
BERNARD ORTIZ, HUBERT L. GERSTNECKER, CATHERINE GRINDEL,
Plaintiffs, represented by Elizabeth A. Fegan, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO, LLP.

DEBBIE ESPARZA, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Cialkowski --
david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com -- ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP & Elizabeth
A. Fegan, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP.

WATKINS INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey P. Jarpe
-- geoffrey.jarpe@maslon.com -- MASLON LLP.

BRENDA THEIS, Plaintiff, represented by David C. Nelson, NELSON &
NELSON, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C. & Elizabeth A. Fegan, HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP.

JULIA VLADIMIRSKY, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth A. Fegan,
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP & Jennifer Fountain Connolly --
jennifer@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

TINA THORNTON, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel C. Girard --
dcg@girardgibbs.com -- GIRARD GIBBS LLP, pro hac vice & Elizabeth
A. Fegan, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP.

KATRINA LINKER, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth A. Fegan,
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP & Ryan A. Keane --
ryan@keanelawllc.com -- KEANE LAW LLC.

CARMEN PELLITTERI, PATRICIA FUSCO COYNE, Plaintiffs, represented
by Stuart A. Davidson -- sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER
RUDMAN & DOWD LLP & Elizabeth A. Fegan, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO, LLP.

SEUNG-HO JUNG, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah Kravitz,
KAMBERLAW LLP & Elizabeth A. Fegan, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO,
LLP.

ANGELA BARNES, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth A. Fegan,
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP & Matthew H. Armstrong, Armstrong
Law Firm LLC.

SCOTT ALLAN BITTLE, Plaintiff, represented by Scott Adam Kamber,
KAMBERLAW, LLC & Elizabeth A. Fegan, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO,
LLP.

CYNTHIA FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Glenn
McLellan, FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP & Elizabeth A. Fegan, HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP.

PAULA COLE JONES, SANDRA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, represented by
Scott Adam Kamber, KAMBERLAW, LLC & Elizabeth A. Fegan, HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP.

MCCORMICK & COMPANY, INC., Defendant, represented by David H.
Bamberger, DLA PIPER LLP (US) & Edward S. Scheideman, DLA PIPER
LLP (US).

WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant, represented by Andrew G.
Klevorn, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP.

PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Defendant, represented by David H.
Bamberger, DLA PIPER LLP (US).


MEMPHIS: Street-Sweeping Policy Unconstitutional, 6th Cir. Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LAKENDUS COLE; LEON EDMOND, individually and
as representatives of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. CITY OF MEMPHIS, Defendant-Appellant, Nos. 15-5725,
15-5999 (6th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth
Circuit affirmed the ruling of the district court which found the
City of Memphis' street-sweeping policy unconstitutional.

Lakendus Cole, a Memphis police officer, was arrested in the early
morning hours of August 26, 2012, shortly after leaving a night
club on Beale Street in downtown Memphis, Tennessee.  After his
arrest, he brought claims individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, alleging that the City's routine practice of
sweeping Beale Street at 3 a.m. on weekend nights violated his
constitutional right to intra state travel.

Cole and the class won at trial.  The jury found that the City
implemented its street-sweeping policy without consideration of
whether conditions throughout the Beale Street area posed an
existing, imminent, or immediate threat to public safety.  Based
on the jury's findings, the district court found the policy
unconstitutional under strict scrutiny, entered an injunction, and
ordered other equitable relief on behalf of the class.  The City
appealed.

The City first argued that the district court erred in finding
that the Beale Street Sweep infringed the fundamental right to
intrastate travel and in subjecting the policy to strict scrutiny.
In the City's view, the policy does not implicate the right to
intrastate travel, and even if it does, the infringement is slight
and, therefore, it should be reviewed for a rational basis.

The Sixth Circuit found that the primary purpose of the Beale
Street Sweep was to impede travel, and it resulted in the broad
denial of access to a popular, two-block area of a public roadway
and sidewalk.  The appellate court held that this is much more
than an incidental or negligible inconvenience; it clearly
implicates the right to travel and should be subject to heightened
scrutiny.

Further, the Sixth Circuit found that the Sweep was not tied to
public safety concerns but rather to a specific, arbitrary time on
certain nights.  The appellate court noted that the City pointed
to no evidence in the record showing that the decision to sweep
Beale Street at or around 3 a.m. was in any way related to
conditions or potential conditions on the ground, and the
testimony of Arley Knight, a deputy chief with the MPD, precludes
a presumption that the timing and execution of the sweeps was
related to public safety.  The appellate court thus concluded
that, without the requisite connection to public safety, the
policy fails under intermediate scrutiny.

The City also argued on appeal that ascertainability is an
implicit requirement for class certification, even classes
certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).  It argued further
that the inclusion of the word "unlawfully" in the class
definition means that the probable membership of the class cannot
be ascertained without case-by-case determinations.

The Sixth Circuit pointed out that the plaintiffs sought a single
remedy: an injunction prohibiting the City from reenacting the
Beale Street Sweep.  As the district court observed, the appellate
court also held that this injunction provides the sole remedy
necessary to protect the affected class.  The appellate court
explained that precise identity of each class member need not be
ascertained, particularly given that notice is not required as it
would be in a (b)(3) class.

The City's final claim of error wass that there was insufficient
evidence that the Beale Street Sweep was the "moving force" behind
Cole's arrest.  The City, however, acknowledged that it failed to
preserve this issue by failing to renew its Rule 50(a) motion for
judgment as a matter of law as required by Rule 50(b).
Accordingly, this issue was forfeited.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's October 17, 2016 opinion
is available at https://is.gd/4xVP7B from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: J. Michael Fletcher, CITY OF MEMPHIS, Memphis, Tennessee,
for Appellant.

Robert L. J. Spence, Jr., THE SPENCE LAW FIRM, Memphis, Tennessee,
for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: J. Michael Fletcher, Zayid A. Saleem, Barbaralette G.
Davis, CITY OF MEMPHIS, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Robert L. J. Spence, Jr., Bryan M. Meredith, E. Lee Whitwell, THE
SPENCE LAW FIRM, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellees.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Walker" Suit Included in MDL 2492
-------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled WALKER v. THE MID-AMERICA INTERCOLLEGIATE
ATHLETICS ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02595, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:16-cv-09727 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: National Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete
Concussion Injury Litigation, MDL No. 2492.

The actions in the litigation seek medical monitoring for putative
classes of former student-athletes at NCAA-member schools, who
allege they suffered concussions.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term
effects of concussion injuries.

Plaintiff Richard Walker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert T. Dassow, Esq.
          HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS LLC
          201 W 103rd Street Suite 500
          Indianapolis, IN 46290
          Telephone: (317) 818-3100
          Facsimile: (317) 818-3111
          E-mail: rdassow@hovdelaw.com


NBTY INC: Judge Wants First Amended Complaint Filed in "Tovar"
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David R. Herndon directed the Plaintiffs in the
case styled, GHERSON TOVAR and LARRY WIEGAND, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NBTY,
INC., and UNITED STATES NUTRITION INC., Defendants, No. 16-cv-
1037-DRH (S.D. Ill.), to file a first amended complaint properly
alleging citizenship, so as to invoke minimal diversity of
citizenship under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

The filing of the amended complaint was due on October 13, 2016.
The Court noted that failure to file the amended complaint will
result in the dismissal of the case for lack of federal subject
matter jurisdiction.

Based on the case, the Court noted that a natural person must be
alleged to be a citizen, not a resident, of a state, in order to
invoke a federal diversity jurisdiction. Thus, Plaintiffs were
ordered to amend their complaint to allege the citizenship of
Tovar, Wiegand, or a member of the proposed class not the
residence of the proposed class members.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 6, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/NqhO75 from Leagle.com.

Gherson Tovar, Plaintiff, represented by Nick Suciu, III --
nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com -- Barbat Mansour & Suciu PLLC.

Gherson Tovar, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Stuart L.
Cochran, Cochran Law PLLC & Matthew H. Armstrong, Armstrong Law
Firm LLC.


NFL: Ex-Eagles Linebacker Files Suit Over Injury
------------------------------------------------
Rob Tornoe, writing for Philly.com, reports that former Eagles
linebacker DeMeco Ryans isn't on an NFL team this season, but he
still seems to know how to pressure his opponents.

According lawsuit documents seen by Philly.com, Mr. Ryans is suing
both the Houston Texans and the NFL over the grass field at NRG
Stadium that the linebacker says caused him to suffer a torn
Achilles tendon during a game on Nov. 2, 2014.  Mr. Ryans claims
that injury "prematurely ended his noteworthy NFL career," and
that if the linebacker hadn't been hurt, he would have "in
reasonable probability, remained in the league for another five
years."

Filed on Oct. 14, the lawsuit also names the Harris County
Convention Sports Corp. and stadium management company SMG as
defendants.  NBC Sports was first to report on the lawsuit.

Neither Mr. Ryans nor the Texans could be immediately reached for
comment.

The injury Mr. Ryans suffered as an Eagle in 2014 wasn't the first
time he hurt himself playing on that field.  According to the
Inquirer's Jeff McLane, Mr. Ryans ruptured his left Achilles four
years earlier in the same way (non-contact) and at the same spot
(near the 10-yard line in the north end) at NRG Stadium.
Mr. Ryans played with Houston from 2006 to 2011 and with the
Eagles from 2012 to 2015.

After missing the remainder of the 2014 season, Mr. Ryans returned
to play 14 games for the Eagles in 2015 before being released back
in February, despite the fact he still had a year left on his
contract.  He was not re-signed by another team.

In 2014, Texans former No. 1 draft choice Jadeveon Clowney
suffered a knee injury on the field, after landing in what safety
D.J. Swearinger said was a "hole" in the turf at NRG Stadium.

At the time, the stadium grew natural grass outside the stadium in
trays, which were then brought in and pieced together to create
the playing surface.  That system was eliminated in 2015, in favor
of the field-turf surface now in place.

Mr. Ryans' lawsuit alleges that it took Mr. Clowney's injury for
the team to finally address the problem.

"Then, and only then, was it time for Defendants to fix the
problem," the lawsuit states.

This isn't the first time there has been a lawsuit over the field.
In 2012, former Texans punter Brett Hartmann sued SMG and the
Harris County Convention and Sports Corporation after suffering a
career-ending ACL injury.  The case was settled out of court.

Former Patriots wide receiver Wes Welker also tore his ACL during
a game at NRG Stadium during the 2010 season, leading head coach
Bill Belichick to blast the playing conditions on Boston radio.

"The turf down there is terrible," Mr. Belichick told WEEI.  "It's
terrible.  It's just inconsistent.  It's all the little trays of
grass and some of them are soft and some of them are firm and they
don't all fit well together, those seams. . . . Some of it feels
like a sponge; some of it feels real firm and hard like the Miami
surface.  One step, you're on one; the other step, you're on
another.  I really think it's one of the worst fields I've seen."


OCEAN SPRAY: "Colvin" Suit Alleges FLSA, Pa. Wage Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN COLVIN, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
4899 Liberty Lane Apt 2B Allentown PA 18106 v. OCEAN SPRAY 151
Boulder Dr. Breinigsville PA 18031 and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No.
5:16-cv-05324-EGS (E.D. Pa., October 11, 2016), alleges violations
by Defendants of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act, and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law
for non-payment to Plaintiffs of proper overtime compensation.

OCEAN SPRAY -- http://www.oceanspray.com/-- offers branded
cranberry and grapefruit juice from a grower-owned cooperative.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 Kings Hwy N. Suite 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone: (856) 685-7420
     Fax: (856) 685-7417


OHIO: 6th Cir. Reverses Trial Court Ruling in Medicaid Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Raymond M. Kethledge of the Court of Appeals, Sixth
Circuit reversed the district courts' grant of summary judgment to
the plaintiffs in the case captioned, KATHRYN A. PRICE, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MEDICAID DIRECTOR, Office of Medical
Assistance, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 15-4066 (6th
Cir.)

In 2006, the State of Ohio applied for and received a Medicaid
waiver to provide assisted-living services to low-income seniors.
In 2008, Betty Hilleger -- then suffering from dementia, heart
problems, and arthritis -- moved into The Lodge Care Center, an
assisted-living facility in Cincinnati. In April 2012, Geraldine
Saunders checked into a hospital and then a rehabilitation
facility after suffering a fall. Her stress fractures and
worsening dementia prevented her from returning home.

The plaintiffs, a class of Ohio Medicaid beneficiaries, sued
Ohio's Medicaid administrators on the claim that federal law
requires Ohio to cover certain assisted-living services
retrospectively. The plaintiffs alleged that Ohio's omissions of
Medicaid coverage for the first 18 days of Saunders's assisted-
living costs, and for the first three months of Hilleger's
assisted-living costs, were in violation of federal law. The
plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated. They specifically alleged that, per 42 U.S.C. Section
1396a(a)(34), Ohio must retroactively cover the assisted-living
services for a waiver-program beneficiary for up to three months
before the beneficiary applies for coverage under the program.

In November 2014, the plaintiffs amended their complaint and added
two more claims under Section 1983: that the defendants failed to
comply with the notice requirements of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396a(a)(3);
and that the defendants failed to provide Medicaid assistance with
reasonable promptness, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section
1396a(a)(8).

In September 2015, the district court certified the plaintiffs'
proposed class of Medicaid beneficiaries and granted summary
judgment to the plaintiffs. The court held that federal law
required Ohio to "assess whether, at any time up to three months
prior to an application for assisted living waiver benefits, the
applicant met the financial eligibility benefits; whether the
applicant had a need for intermediate or skilled level of care;
and whether the applicant received supportive services consistent
with the plan of care.

On appeal, the defendants argue that (1) the plaintiffs lack
standing to sue and that the district court thus should have
dismissed their complaint; (2) the Eleventh Amendment bars the
plaintiffs' remaining claim for relief; and (3) the district court
misconstrued 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(34), which they contend
does not require Ohio to pay benefits for assisted-living services
rendered before a beneficiary obtains approval of his service
plan.

In his Opinion dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/jhYveL from Leagle.com, Judge Kethledge held that
the district court erred when it concluded that the plaintiffs
have standing to sue on their other claims because the plaintiffs
have standing to pursue only their February 2013 claim that the
defendants failed to comply with federal law by refusing to award
retroactive assisted-living benefits under 42 U.S.C. Section
1396a(a)(34; that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the
plaintiff; and the United States has long recognized, Sec.
1396n(c)(1) permits Medicaid funding only for assisted-living
services that are authorized by a preceding service plan.

Kathryn A. Price, et al. are represented by Eric M. Carlson, Esq.
-- ecarlson@justiceinaging.org -- JUSTICE IN AGING

Medicaid Director is represented by:

      Jeffrey P. Jarosch, Esq.
      Cheryl R. Hawkinson, Esq.
      Amy R. Goldstein, Esq.
      OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL
      30 East Broad Street
      17th Floor Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel: (614)466-8980


ORTHOTOUCH: Appeal Aims to Delay Highveld Investor Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that the
application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
(SCA) by the business rescue practitioner of the failed Highveld
Syndication (HS) companies, Hans Klopper, is not in the interest
of historic HS investors.  The application, as well as a similar
application by Orthotouch itself, is only aimed to delay and
frustrate investors who are bringing a class action against
property tycoon Nic Georgiou.

Mr. Klopper is also less than truthful in his answers to several
Moneyweb questions regarding his application to the SCA, as they
do not mirror the arguments he set out under oath in his affidavit
in support of the application.

These are the views of attorney Jacques Theron, head of the legal
team acting for the management committee of the Highveld
Syndication Action Group (HSAG), the group that wants to have the
scheme of arrangement approved in 2014 set aside and to institute
the class action to recover their investments from Orthotouch and
Mr. Georgiou.

The HSAG is in the process of challenging the legality of the
controversial scheme of arrangement and instituting a class action
suit against Georgiou and Orthotouch.  They will also be defending
the applications of Orthotouch and Mr. Klopper.

Mr. Klopper said that there seems to be "a misconception" that his
role as the business rescue practitioner is to protect only the
interests of investors in the various companies and more
particularly those who support the so-called class action.  "I am
of the view that this perception is incorrect as a business rescue
practitioner's duty is to balance the interests of all relevant
stakeholders, which include the company itself, employees,
organized labor, creditors and shareholders."

Mr. Klopper added that "whilst we have been told that there are
many investors who support the class action and who identify
themselves with the Highveld Syndication Action Group, there are
also thousands of investors who do not support the class action
and whose interests I need to acknowledge as equally important. I
therefore repeat that as my duty remains to balance all of these
groups of interests it need not be specifically spelled out in an
affidavit.  I was in (any) event advised at the time that the
issue of the protection of investors' information was already
contained in Mr. Kleovoulou's affidavit."

Mr. Klopper refers to an affidavit of Panagiotis Kleovoulou, a
director of Orthotouch, which forms part of Orhtotouch's SCA
application for leave to appeal.

Mr. Theron was also unhappy with Mr. Klopper's answer to a
previous Moneyweb question as to why he brought the application.
Mr. Klopper said to Moneyweb he launched the application to, in
essence, protect the private information of investors.

Mr. Theron said this is "absolute nonsense".  "Protection of
private information was never an issue, and still is not an issue
-- even in his current (16-page) affidavit to the SCA."

In reaction, Mr. Klopper said he did not deal with this issue in
his affidavit, as Kleovoulou referred to this in his affidavit.
"There was therefore no need for me to also deal in my affidavit
with my obvious duty to balance the interest of affected persons
as opposed to only act in the interest of one group".

Mr. Theron also said that Mr.  Klopper only offers technical or
procedural reasons as to why the order should not have been
granted.  "Nowhere does he deal with the merits of the granting of
the order.  He does not even try to give one reason why this order
is not in the interest of the investors, or even not in his own
interest.  Klopper is clearly out to delay matters and to
frustrate the investors who are bringing the class action."


PDR NETWORK: Carlton Seeks 7th Circuit Review of S.D. W.Va. Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., filed an appeal
from a court ruling in its lawsuit styled Carlton & Harris
Chiropractic v. PDR Network, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-14887, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia at Huntington.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Carlton seeks
to stop the Defendants' alleged practice of sending unsolicited
facsimiles. Chief District Judge Robert C. Chambers granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Carlton & Harris Chiropractic
v. PDR Network, LLC, Case No. 16-2185, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC, INC., a West
Virginia Corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, is represented by:

          William Stuart Calwell, Jr., Esq.
          David Harley Carriger, Esq.
          D. Christopher Hedges, Esq.
          CALWELL PRACTICE, LC
          500 Randolph Street
          Charleston, WV 25302-0000
          Telephone: (304) 343-4323
          Telephone: (304) 304-4323
          Facsimile: (304) 344-3684
          E-mail: scalwell@calwelllaw.com
                  dcarriger@calwelllaw.com
                  chedges@calwelllaw.com

               - and -

          Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
          Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq.
          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: GHara@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com
                  bwanca@andersonwanca.com

Defendants-Appellees PDR NETWORK, LLC, PDR DISTRIBUTION, LLC, and
PDR EQUITY, LLC, are represented by:

          Jeffrey N. Rosenthal, Esq.
          BLANK ROME, LLP
          1 Logan Square
          130 North 18th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 569-5553
          E-mail: Rosenthal-J@BlankRome.com

               - and -

          Anahit Tagvoryan, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLC
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 239-3400
          E-mail: atagvoryan@blankrome.com

               - and -

          Alexander L. Turner, Esq.
          Marc Ellis Williams, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
          949 3rd Avenue
          Huntington, WV 25701
          Telephone: (304) 526-3500
          E-mail: alex.turner@nelsonmullins.com
                  marc.williams@nelsonmullins.com


PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Faces "Cahill" Suit in S.D. of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Performant Recovery,
Inc. The case is styled Tiffany Ann Cahill, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Performant Recovery, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02587-
DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal., Oct. 17, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Dana M. Sabraw.

Performant Recovery is an aggressive collection agency located in
Livermore, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


POWER HOME: Settles TCPA Class Action for $5.2 Million
------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that Power Home Remodeling Group
LLC will pay $5.2 million to settle a class action for making
numerous unsolicited phone calls to more than 1 million people.
U.S. District Judge Mark Kearney of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania approved the deal Oct. 12.  The judge's decision
notes that the company already changed its business practices
regarding calls to cellphones.

"We approve the negotiated settlement as fair, reasonable and
adequate after finding immediate changes in the sales-lead
company's business practices on cellphone sales calls and an
opportunity to file a claim to recover damages," Judge Kearney
wrote in his opinion.

Teofilo Vasco filed the lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act after the company allegedly called him 21 times.


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Covino" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc. The case is captioned Robert Covino, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
05779 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 17, 2016).

Professional Claims is a debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


PVH CORP: Court Preliminarily Approves "Scott-George" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley granted preliminary approval of the
proposed class action settlement in the case, JODI SCOTT-GEORGE,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PVH CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2:13-cv-00441-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.).

The Court conditionally certifies a Settlement Class as:

     All current and former non-exempt employees who were
     employed in California by PVH Corp. or PVH Retail Stores LLC
     during January 29, 2009 through the date of preliminary
     approval of the settlement.

The Court preliminarily approves Plaintiffs Jodi Scott-George and
Melissa Wiggs to serve as the Class Representatives while Aequitas
Legal Group, A Professional Law Corporation shall serve as Class
Counsel.

The hearing to consider final approval of the Settlement is set
for February 23, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 6, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/V01C9h from Leagle.com.

Jodi Scott-George, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald H. Bae --
rbae@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- Aequitas Legal Group.

Jodi Scott-George, Plaintiff, represented by Olivia D. Scharrer --
oscharrer@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- Aequitas Legal Group.

PVH Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robin J. Samuel --
robin.samuel@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Samantha
Michele Kantor -- skantor@alumni.law.upenn.edu -- Hogan Lovells
LLP & Tao Leung -- tao.leung@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US
LLP.


RACKSPACE HOSTING: Faces "Luger" Suit Over Sale to Apollo
---------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN LUGER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. RACKSPACE HOSTING, INC., GRAHAM WESTON, WILLIAM
TAYLOR RHODES, LEWIS J. MOORMAN, FRED REICHHELD, OSSA FISHER, LILA
TRETIKOV, KEVIN COSTELLO, JOHN HARPER, APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT,
LLC, INCEPTION PARENT, INC., and INCEPTION MERGER SUB, INC., Case
No. 12819 (Del. Ch., October 11, 2016), is a stockholder lawsuit
arising from a transaction pursuant to which Rackspace will be
acquired by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC.

RACKSPACE HOSTING, INC. -- http://www.rackspace.com/en-ph-- is a
managed cloud computing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Phone: (302) 295-5310

          - and -

     Joseph M. Profy, Esq.
     David M. Promisloff, Esq.
     Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq.
     PROFY PROMISLOFF & CIARLANTO, P.C.
     100 N. 22nd Street, Unit 105
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 259-5156


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Coghlan" Lawsuit Alleges False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY COGHLAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Case No.
1:16-cv-09658 (N.D. Ill., October 11, 2016), alleges that
Defendant falsely and misleadingly concealed the fact that its
televisions use significantly more energy than the Energy Guide
labelling and advertising, thereby increasing purchasers'
electricity costs.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., which is a Korean company
headquartered in Suwon, South Korea. Defendant has been and still
is engaged in the business of distributing, marketing, and selling
televisions throughout the United States and this District.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
     Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
     One Dearborn Street, Suite 2122
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 984-0000
     Fax: (312) 212-4401
     E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
             malmstrom@whafh.com

         - and -

     Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 545-4600
     Fax: (212) 545-4653
     E-mail: burt@whafh.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Waudby" Suit Over Faulty Galaxy Note7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN WAUDBY, ROBERT SPUNTAK and MOHAMAD IBRAHIM individually, and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-07334-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., Oct. 16,
2016), is a proposed class action lawsuit brought by the
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of persons and
entities, who purchased or financed a Samsung Galaxy Note7
smartphone.

According to the complaint, Samsung recalled the defective Note7
devices and notified consumers that they should immediately
discontinue using the smartphones and exchange them for
replacements.  However, the Plaintiffs allege, Samsung did not
have replacement smartphones available, and instead, the Company
informed consumers that they would have to wait several days, and
even weeks in many cases, before receiving a replacement
smartphone.  As a result of this failure, consumers continued to
incur monthly device and plan charges from their cellular carriers
for phones they could not safely use, the Plaintiffs contend.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., is a New York corporation with
its principal place of business in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey.
Samsung is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd., which is a Korean company headquartered in Suwon, South
Korea.  The Defendant distributes, markets, and sells smart phones
and other products throughout United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          MCCUNEWRIGHT, LLP
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0580
          E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com
                  mds@mccunewright.com
                  jbk@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
          MCCUNEWRIGHT, LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  dcw@mccunewright.com
                  ejk@mccunewright.com


SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Settles Truckers' Wage Suit for $28 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clarissa Hawes, writing for Trucks, reports that Schneider
National Carriers Inc. will pay $28 million to settle a long-
standing dispute over wages for meal and rest breaks for drivers
in California.

The settlement ends a class-action lawsuit filed in 2008 by
drivers who said they were not paid for breaks or for waiting at
docks for their cargo to be loaded or unloaded.

Judge Jeffrey White of the U.S. District Court in Oakland issued
his final approval of the class-action settlement on Oct. 13 after
granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement in May.

The lawsuit affects about 7,700 current or former Schneider
drivers in California.

In a 2014 ruling, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
that California could enforce its own meal and rest break
requirements for the trucking industry.  The trucking industry has
fought to reverse that decision.

In his first major speech since becoming president of the American
Trucking Associations this month, Chris Spear said the trade group
would continue to push back against jurisdictions that are
imposing extra meal and rest break requirements on interstate
drivers already limited by federal hours-of-service regulations

The trucking industry is supporting legislation working its way
through Congress that would block states from enforcing their own
rules on interstate truck drivers who are employees.

In California, the legislation would still allow the state to
enforce meal and rest break requirements on a driver who, for
example, travels only between Bakersfield and Oakland hauling
goods manufactured within the state.  That is a purely intrastate
movement.  But drivers headed out of state or are shuttling goods
from ports most likely would be not fall under the California
rules.

The class-action lawsuit, Bickley v. Schneider National Carriers
Inc., said the carrier, which is headquartered Green Bay, Wis.,
engaged in other improper pay practices.

The lawsuit claimed that Schneider failed to pay California
drivers minimum wage, a violation of the California Labor Code,
and failed to pay employees wages for vacation time, personal days
off and other paid leave owed when they left the company. Drivers
also alleged in the suit that the company failed to keep accurate
pay records of wages that drivers earned while working in
California.

The settlement came just a day after Schneider announced plans to
pursue an initial public offering next year.

Schneider is the nation's seventh-largest trucking company and is
the largest privately held trucking company in the U.S. by
revenue.  It garnered revenue of $3.4 billion in 2015. The company
has more than 10,000 trucks and 33,800 trailers.

Al Schneider founded the firm in 1935, and it has been family-
owned ever since.  In a statement, executives said they are
seeking the IPO "to facilitate continuity of controlling ownership
of Schneider by the future generations of the Schneider family,
while continuing forward with its long-standing independent and
professional corporate governance structure."


SEDGWICK: Gender Discrimination Case May Head to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that a female Sedgwick partner
who sued the firm earlier this year for gender discrimination will
likely have to make her case to an arbitrator.  U.S. District
Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California said
Oct. 13 that he's inclined to agree with the firm's lawyers at
Seyfarth Shaw that partnership agreements signed by nonequity
partner Traci Ribeiro require the dispute to be routed to
arbitration.

Ms. Ribeiro's lawyer, J. Bryan Wood of The Wood Law Office in
Chicago, had argued the firm's arbitration provision with partners
doesn't apply to statutory employment discrimination and
retaliation claims like those in her lawsuit.


SIMONTON BUILDING: Faces "Kiefer" Suit in District of Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simonton Building
Products, LLC. The case is titled Lisa Kiefer, an individual; Adam
Arvig, an individual; Lynette Andersen, an individual; Sheri
Squillace, an individual; Justin Smith, an individual; Joan Corby,
an individual; Koch Family Trust, on their own behalves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Simonton Building Products, LLC, formerly known as Simonton
Building Products, Inc., an Ohio limited liability company;
Simonton Windows, Inc., a West Virginia for-profit corporation;
Simonton Industries, Inc., a for-profit corporation; and Simonton
Windows & Doors, Inc., a for-profit corporation, the Defendants,
Case No. 0:16-cv-03540-RHK-SER (D. Minn., Oct. 17, 2016). The case
is assigned to Hon. Judge Richard H. Kyle.

Simonton Building manufactures replacement and new construction
windows.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex M Nelson, Esq.
          Michael J Lowder, Esq.
          BENSON, KERRANE,
          STORZ & NELSON, PC
          7760 France Avenue South, Suite 1350
          Bloomington, MN 55435
          Telephone: (952) 466 7574
          E-mail: anelson@bensonpc.com
                  mlowder@bensonpc.com


SOCIAL SECURITY: Class Certification Bid in "Robertson" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KEVIN ROBERTSON, JENNY ROSE, and KATHY
COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, in her official
Capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02113 (S.D.W.Va.),
the Hon. Chief Judge Robert C. Chambers entered an order denying
as moot Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, pursuant to
the Court's simultaneously filed order granting dismissal in the
case in favor of the Defendant.

The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of the Order to counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ylz4uQkL


SOUTH AFRICA: Unpaid Parole Board Members Launch Legal Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paddy Harper, writing for City Press, reports that parole board
members, who are owed millions of rands in unpaid allowances, have
taken the department of justice and correctional services to court
after battling for five years -- without success -- to get their
money.

At issue is an allowance amounting to 37% of their salary, which -
- in terms of a Public Service Sector Bargaining Council
resolution, adopted in 2007 -- is to be paid to board members
employed by the department.

At least four separate applications by parole board members in
Gauteng, Mpumalanga, the Eastern Cape and the Western Cape are
being lobbied to join the Labour Court action.

A member of the Johannesburg management area parole board, who
asked not to be named for fear of being victimized, said: "There
are a lot of such cases throughout the country.  The largest group
of more than 40 officials is in Johannesburg.

"One official has already been paid more than R1 million, while a
chairperson is owed more than R2 million in unpaid benefits."

He said officials in the Gauteng region did not want to go to
court, but were forced to do so after their pleas fell on deaf
ears.  "These matters were raised as far back as 2005, when we
were first appointed.  In 2011, then minister of correctional
services Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula appointed a task team to resolve
these matters.

"We were never invited to any of the team's meetings, despite the
fact that it was supposed to be a joint task team.

"Several letters were written to the minister and the national
commission, but we received no response . . . They did not even
have the decency to acknowledge receipt of these letters."

Another parole board member said the group wrote to the portfolio
committee on justice and correctional services, as well as the
standing committee on public accounts, requesting their
intervention.  But, he alleges, the correctional services
department bullied them into remaining silent.

The parole boards are still functional, but some members have told
City Press the situation has hit "crisis point" and that it is a
matter of time before they stop doing their work.

"The precedents have been set; people have been paid out after
winning in previous cases.  Yet, the department continues to waste
money in defending the [new] cases on a matter already decided on,
with similar merits.

"On July 3 last year, we met with Minister of Justice and
Correctional Services Michael Masutha and were promised that all
human resources matters were being attended to.  He gave us a
timeframe of two months, ending in September last year.  This was
not honored, so class actions were intensified."

Meanwhile, Western Cape parole board chairperson Zalisile
Mkhontwana and 14 others were scheduled to appear before the
Labour Court in Cape Town on Oct. 19 for their application to get
the court to order the department to pay the allowance.

However, Mr. Mkhontwana's attorney Riyaaz Parker said he
understood that the state attorney in the Western Cape would apply
to court to have the cases consolidated with a Johannesburg Labour
Court application -- brought by the Johannesburg board members and
led by former board member Solomon Lekgetho.

Mr. Parker cautioned that, should their application be successful,
this would come at a "significant" cost to the department and
Treasury as some payments being claimed dated back five years or
more.

Correctional services spokesperson Manelisi Wolela confirmed that
there were several court disputes.

"The correctional services department can confirm that a number of
parole boards around the country have taken the department to
court on various matters.  Owing to the ongoing court cases, the
department cannot comment further," he said.

Vincent Jones, chairperson of the Johannesburg management area
parole board, confirmed that they were drafting papers for a class
action on behalf of members.


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Hearing Set in Earthquake Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
GCA Lawyers on Oct. 17 disclosed that Southern Response Class
Action (SRCA) was set to be back in court on Oct. 19 seeking an
order that their class action may proceed.  The group of 40
accuses Southern Response (which is owned by the Government) of
consistently delaying earthquake house repairs, and of under-
estimating claims.

On December 16, 2015 the group applied for a 'representative
order' but earlier this year Judge Mander rejected that
application, suggesting more evidence of a commonality of interest
was needed.  The group's new claim highlights the allegation that
the insurer's strategy is to minimize its liability by using the
following tactics:

   -- misrepresenting the nature of Southern Response's
obligations and the claimants' rights;

   -- understating the extent of the work required, and the cost
of undertaking that work;

   -- offering cash settlements significantly below the actual
assessed cost of undertaking the work in question;

  -- assuming control of the rebuilding and repair work, so it
could minimize the cost to it of the required work;

  -- unreasonably delaying in responding to and meeting the claims
of the claimants;

  -- adopting various other stances designed to reduce its
liabilities;

  -- inducing "settlements" of the claims for significantly
reduced amounts; and

  -- undertaking sub-standard repair work.

SRCA lawyer Grant Cameron says the group has strong expectations
the court will grant their application and a class action will
proceed in 2017.

"To date policyholders have not been able to get court assistance
as, individually, they don't have the money to engage experts or
lawyers, or to engage in lengthy litigation.  Therefore, the court
has not been an option. However, with the support of a litigation
funder we think policyholders may for the first time, get access
to justice and effective remedies."


SPROUTS FARMERS: "Castellano" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2731
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Nancy Castellano, an individual,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated employees
of Defendants, the Plaintiff, v. Sprouts Farmers Market
Incorporated; SFM LLC; and Unknown Parties Named as Does 1-5,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01184, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-03513-
DLR to the proceeding.

The Castellano case is being consolidated with MDL 2731 in re:
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., Employee Data Security Breach
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 6, 2016.
These actions -- three of which are putative nationwide class
actions -- share factual issues concerning an incident in which
the 2015 W-2 forms of Sprouts employees were released,
unencrypted, to an unknown party as the result of a phishing scam.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other
issues; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary. In its October 6, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel
found that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of
Arizona will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Sarah S. Vance, United States
District Judge. The lead case is 2:16-md-02731-DLR.

Sprouts Farmers is an American health food supermarket offering
fresh, natural and organic foods at low prices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicole R Roysdon, Esq.
          GRAHAM HOLLIS APC
          3555 5th Ave., Ste. 200
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692 0800
          Facsimile: (619) 692 0822

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul Gregory Karlsgodt, Esq.
          Tanya Lee Forsheit, Esq.
          Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
          Daniel Marc Goldberg, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - DENVER, CO
          1801 California St., Ste. 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861 0600
          Facsimile: (303) 861 7805
          E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com
                  tforsheit@bakerlaw.com


SPROUTS FARMERS: "Hernandez" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2731
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Julio Hernandez, Cynthia Byrne,
and Danielle Butler, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly-situated employees of Defendants, the Plaintiff, v.
Sprouts Farmers Market Incorporated and SFM LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00958, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, , to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-03512-DLR to the proceeding.

The Hernandez case is being consolidated with MDL 2731 in re:
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., Employee Data Security Breach
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 6, 2016.
These actions -- three of which are putative nationwide class
actions -- share factual issues concerning an incident in which
the 2015 W-2 forms of Sprouts employees were released,
unencrypted, to an unknown party as the result of a phishing scam.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other
issues; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary. In its October 6, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel
found that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of
Arizona will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Sarah S. Vance, United States
District Judge. The lead case is 2:16-md-02731-DLR.

Sprouts Farmers is an American health food supermarket offering
fresh, natural and organic foods at low prices.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc Phelps, Esq.
          PHELPS LAW GROUP
          23 Corporate Plaza Dr., Ste. 150
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 629 2533
          Facsimile: (949) 629 2501

               - and -

          Roger R Carter, Esq.
          CARTER LAW FIRM
          23 Corporate Plaza Dr., Ste. 150
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 629 2565
          Facsimile: (949) 629 2501

              - and -

          Samantha Alane Smith, Esq.
          Scott B Cooper, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM PC
          4000 Barranca Pkwy., Ste. 250
          Irvine, CA 92604
          Telephone: (949) 724 9200
          Facsimile (949) 724 9255

The Defendants are represented by:

          Casie Dell Collignon, Esq.
          Tanya Lee Forsheit, Esq.
          Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - DENVER, CO
          1801 California St., Ste. 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 764 4037
          Facsimile: (303) 861 7805
          E-mail: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com
                  tforsheit@bakerlaw.com


SPROUTS FARMERS: "Porras" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2731
-------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Porras, et al. v.
Sprouts Farmers Market Incorporated, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-
01005, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona (Phoenix Division) and is assigned to the
Honorable Douglas L. Rayes.  The Arizona District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-03540-DLR to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., Employee Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 2:16-md-02731-DLR.

The actions in the litigation share factual issues concerning an
incident in which the 2015 W-2 forms of Sprouts employees were
released, unencrypted, to an unknown party as the result of a
phishing scam.

Plaintiffs Beverly Porras and Leticia Stocks, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM PC
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: khaque@aegislawfirm.com
                  swong@aegislawfirm.com

Defendants Sprouts Farmers Market Incorporated and SFM LLC,
Erroneously Sued as FM, LLC, are represented by:

          Daniel Marc Goldberg, Esq.
          Tanya Lee Forsheit, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
          E-mail: dgoldberg@bakerlaw.com
                  tforsheit@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 979-8458
          Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
          E-mail: tchow@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Casie Dell Collignon, Esq.
          Paul Gregory Karlsgodt, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California St., Suite 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 764-4037
          Facsimile: (303) 861-7805
          E-mail: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com
                  pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com


STEVE SHURHIN: Faces "Johnson" Suit Under FLSA, Col. Wage Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
FAMATTA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons, v. STEVE SHURHIN, an individual; and ATLAS HOME HEALTH,
INC., a Colorado corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-02535 (D. Col.,
October 11, 2016), alleges that Defendants violated the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the
Colorado Minimum Wage Act, as implemented by the Colorado Minimum
Wage Order by failing to pay premium pay for all overtime hours
worked.

Defendants provide in-home nursing and care services to clients
throughout the Denver metropolitan area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
     242 Linden Street
     Fort Collins, CO 80524
     Phone: (970) 214-0562
     Fax: (303) 539-9812
     E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com


SUNEDISON INC: "Horowitz" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742
-------------------------------------------------------
DINA HOROWITZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. SUNEDISON, INC., AHMAD CHATILA, and BRIAN WUEBBELS,
Case No. 1:16-cv-07917-PKC (November30, 2015) 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 as related to Multi-District Litigation 1:16-md-02742-PKC

The case alleges that Defendants misled investors by creating the
picture that the Company had the financial wherewithal to sustain
continued growth.  Further it states: "However, as the Company
continued its acquisition binge, it was revealed that the entire
scheme was nothing more than a house of cards."  The case claims
violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.

SUNEDISON, INC. is a diversified developer of wind and solar
energy projects, having developed over 1,300 solar and wind
projects in 20 countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
     CAREY DANIS & LOWE
     8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
     Saint Louis, MO 63105
     Phone: 314-725-7700
     Fax: 314-721-0905
     E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

        - and -

     Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
     James S. Notis, Esq.
     Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
     GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
     Tower 56
     126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10024
     Phone: 212-905-0509
     Fax: 212-905-0508


TEMPUR SEALY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Todd" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Alvin Todd, et al. v. Tempur-Sealy International, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:13-cv-04984-JST, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed against Tempur Sealy International and one of its
domestic subsidiaries, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class
of "consumers" as defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1761(d) who
purchased, not for resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in
the state of California.  The complaint alleges that the Company
engaged in unfair business practices, false advertising, and
misrepresentations or omissions related to the sale of certain
products.

District Judge Jon S. Tigar denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  Judge Tigar concluded that the proposed
class is ascertainable and that a class action would not be a
superior mechanism for resolving this dispute.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Alvin Todd, et al. v. Tempur-
Sealy International, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-80155, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners ALVIN TODD, BRIAN STONE, ROBBIE SIMMONS,
THOMAS COMISKEY, TONI KIBBEE, TINA WHITE, JOHNNY MARTINEZ, KEITH
HAWKINS, PATRICIA KAUFMAN, ALAN KAUFMAN, SARA STONE, JERRY
KUCHARSKI, JULIE DAVIDOFF, ERICKA ANDERSON, KURT ANDERSON, MELODY
TODD, DIANE KUCHARSKI and TRACEY PALMER, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Sean Clinton Woods, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          E-mail: cwoods@audetlaw.com

Defendants-Respondents TEMPUR-SEALY INTERNATIONAL, INC., FDBA
Tempur-Pedic International, Inc., and TEMPUR-PEDIC NORTH AMERICA,
LLC, are represented by:

          Samuel G. Brooks, Esq.
          Mark Eisenhut, Esq.
          Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
          CALL & JENSEN, APC
          610 Newport Center Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 717-3000
          E-mail: sbrooks@calljensen.com
                  meisenhut@calljensen.com
                  morr@calljensen.com


TJX COMPANY: Court Approves $4,750,000 Settlement in "Roberts"
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts granted final approval to
the class and collective action settlement in the case captioned,
CELINA ROBERTS, ANTHONY SCIOTTO, ERIC BURNS, KERI DICKEY, ANGELA
RAMIREZ, DIANA SANTILLAN, CAMILLE GHANEM, ARNOLD WILLIAMS,
OLUWATOSIN BABALOLA, TOMMY ZAHTILA, TODD JUSTICE, GIANFRANCO
PIROLO, MICHAEL O'GRADY, AND JASON FOSTER, individually, and on
behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE TJX
COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; MARSHALLS OF MA, INC., a
Massachusetts Corporation; MARMAXX OPERATING CORP., a Delaware
Corporation, d/b/a MARSHALLS HOMEGOODS, d/b/a MARSHALLS, d/b/a
T.J. MAXX HOMEGOODS; HOMEGOODS, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-13142-ADB (D. Mass.).

In the putative class and collective action, the named Plaintiffs
allege that their employers, The TJX Companies, Inc.; Marshalls of
MA, Inc.; Marmaxx Operating Corp.; and HomeGoods, Inc. (together,
Defendants) misclassified them as exempt from the overtime
requirements of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act "FLSA) and
the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and then failed to pay them
overtime as required by the FLSA and the NYLL.

Plaintiffs, who worked as Assistant Store Managers (ASMs) at
Marshalls, HomeGoods, and T.J. Maxx stores in various states
(excluding California), allege that the Defendants misclassified
them as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and the
NYLL (1) during the period when Plaintiffs participated in a
formal "ASM Training Program" sponsored by their employer (the ASM
Training Claims); and (2) during their subsequent employment as
ASMs (the ASM Misclassification Claims). The case stems from three
separate putative class and collective actions filed between
December 2013 and May 2014 which were consolidated on August 8,
2014 when Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. After
consolidation, theBurns and Ghanem actions were dismissed, and the
parties began to discuss settlement of the ASM Training Claims.

On or about October 28, 2014, the parties entered into a
Confidential Mediation Agreement to facilitate negotiations. On
November 10, 2014, the parties engaged in an all-day mediation
session under the direction of Hunter R. Hughes, Esq., who is an
experienced class and collective action mediator. Mr. Hughes also
has experience mediating wage and hour cases. The Settlement
provides that the Defendants shall pay a "Maximum Gross Settlement
Amount" of $4,750,000 into a qualified settlement fund to resolve
the ASM Training Claims. The Maximum Gross Settlement Amount
includes four components, to be paid in the following order: (1)
attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs to be awarded to Class
Counsel, in an amount up to one-third of the Maximum Gross
Settlement Amount (here, $1,583,333.33); (2) the expenses of
administering the settlement (which is being handled by an agreed-
upon third party claims administrator); (3) "service payments" to
each of the eleven named ASM Training Plaintiffs, in an amount not
to exceed $3,250 per named Plaintiff; and (4) settlement payments
to individual class members who file Claim Forms.

On May 6, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Final Approval of a Class and Collective Action Settlement which
pertains only to the ASM Training Claims. Plaintiffs Anthony
Sciotto, Angela Ramirez, Arnold Williams, Camille Ghanem,
Oluwatosin Babaloa, Eric Burns, Tommy Zahtila, Gianfranco Pirolo,
Michael O'Grady, Jason Foster, and Todd Justice (together, the ASM
Training Plaintiffs) move for an order granting final approval of
the parties' proposed Stipulation and Settlement Agreement
(Settlement) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). In addition,
Plaintiffs' counsel (Class Counsel) have applied for an award of
attorneys' fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h), in the amount
of $1,583,333.33.

In the Memorandum and Order dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/6zrr8i from Leagle.com, Judge Burroughs found the
Settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate and that the Class
Counsel's requested fee of 33 and 1/3% of the fund total,
reflecting a lodestar multiplier of nearly 2, to be reasonable in
light of the counsel's efforts and the significant risk they
assumed in taking the case on a wholly contingent basis, to be
reasonable.

Eric Burns is represented by:

      Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
      HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PPLC
      192 Lexington Ave, Suite 802
      New York, NY 100166
      Tel: (212)545-1199

Eric Burns, et al. are represented by David A. Roth, Esq. --
harry1953ny@yahoo.com -- and Mathew A. Parker, Esq. --
mparker@fisherphillips.com -- HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PPLC --
Sara Wyn Kane, Esq. -- skane@vkvlawyers.com -- VALLI KANE &
VAGNINI LLP

            -- and --

      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive
      Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Tel:(914)934-9200

            -- and --

      Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
      Sam J. Smith, Esq.
      BURR & SMITH, LLP
      111 2nd Avenue N.E.
      Suite 1100
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701
      Tel:(813)253-2010

Celina Roberts, et al. are represented by James Aldo Vagnini, Esq.
-- jvagnini@vkvlawyers.com -- Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq. --
rvalli@vkvlawyers.com -- and Sara Wyn Kane, Esq. --
skane@vkvlawyers.com -- VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP -- Emily E.
Smith-Lee, Esq. -- esmith-lee@mwe.com -- SMITH-LEE LLC

      Adam G. Price, Esq.
      Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq.
      William M. Parrish, Esq.
      DINOVO PRICE ELLWANGER & HARDY, LLP
      7000 North MoPac Expressway
      Suite 350
      Austin, TX 78731
      Tel:(512)539-2626

            -- and --

      Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
      Sam J. Smith, Esq.
      BURR & SMITH, LLP
      111 2nd Avenue N.E.
      Suite 1100
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701
      Tel:(813)253-2010

Tommy Zahtila is represented by Hillary A. Schwab, Esq. --
Hillary@fairworklaw.com -- FAIR WORK, P.C. -- Sara Wyn Kane, Esq.
-- skane@vkvlawyers.com -- VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP

            -- and --

      Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
      Sam J. Smith, Esq.
      BURR & SMITH, LLP
      111 2nd Avenue N.E.
      Suite 1100
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701
      Tel:(813)253-2010

The TJX Companies Inc., et al. are represented by Andrew Voss,
Esq. -- avoss@littler.com -- Justin R. Marino, Esq. --
jmarino@littler.com -- and Lisa A. Schreter, Esq. --
lschreter@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, PC -- Gregory C.
Keating, Esq. -- gkeating@choate.com -- CHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP


TRANS UNION: Bid to Decertify Class in "Ramirez" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the motion filed by the
defendant to decertify the class in the case captioned SERGIO L.
RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
12-cv-00632-JSC (N.D. Cal.).

The lawsuit arose out of Defendant Trans Union, LLC's
identification of Plaintiff Sergio Ramirez as potentially being a
person on the United States government's list of terrorists, drug
traffickers, and others with whom Americans are prohibited from
doing business.  The Court previously certified a class action
alleging three causes of action under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, and three under its state counterpart, the California
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

Following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo,
Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016), Trans Union argued for
decertification on two related grounds: (1) that Ramirez did not
suffer a concrete injury and thus does not have standing;
therefore the action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction; and (2) that each class member must have suffered a
"concrete injury" and that such inquiry is an individual question
that renders certification improper for a variety of reasons.

Judge Corley found that Ramirez suffered a concrete injury and
therefore has standing to pursue all of his claims.  Further, the
judge held that under binding Ninth Circuit precedent his standing
is adequate for purposes of the class, and, in any event, in light
of the specific circumstances alleged, the absent class members
also suffered a concrete injury.

A full-text copy of Judge Corley's October 17, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/IRkdLD from Leagle.com.

Sergio L. Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Ogilvie --
andy@aoblawyers.com -- Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer, Carol McLean
Brewer -- carol@aoblawyers.com -- Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer LLP,
David A. Searles -- dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis &
Mailman, James A. Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com --
Francis and Mailman, P.C., John Soumilas --
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and Mailman, P.C. &
Gregory Joseph Gorski -- ggorski@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis
and Mailman PC.

Trans Union, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bruce Steven Luckman
-- bluckman@shermansilverstein.com -- Sherman Silverstein Kohl
Rose and Podolsky, Julia B. Strickland, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
LLP, Stephen Julian Newman, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Brian
C. Frontino, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP & Jason S. Yoo, Stroock
& Stroock & Lavan LLP.


TRUMP HOTELS: Casino Bankruptcies Hit Workers' Retirement Savings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Caldwell, writing for Mother Jones, reports that when
pressed about the multiple bankruptcies at his Atlantic City
casinos, Donald Trump routinely says the episodes highlight his
business acumen.  He made out well, he claims, at the expense only
of his greedy Wall Street financiers.  "These lenders aren't
babies," he said during a Republican primary debate last fall.
"These are total killers. These are not the nice, sweet little
people that you think, okay?"

Yet among those who suffered as a result of Trump's bankruptcies
were his own casino employees, who collectively lost millions of
dollars in retirement savings when the company's value plummeted.

Trump's company encouraged its employees to invest their
retirement savings in company stock, according to a class-action
lawsuit filed by employees against Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts
following its 2004 bankruptcy.  Then, when the stock price was
near its nadir as bankruptcy loomed, the company forced the
employees to sell their stock at a huge loss.  More than 400
employees lost a total of more than $2 million from their
retirement accounts, the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed when a judge found no illegal
actions on the part of Trump's company.  But the conflict shows
how Trump's exploitation of bankruptcy laws for his personal gain
did end up hurting his employees.

"I didn't realize he was as stupid as he is," says a former casino
worker at Trump Plaza who asked not to be named. "Honestly.  I
thought, way back when, the guy was way brighter than we were.  He
was running the company and we were working for him.  We thought
he was brilliant.  When we invested in it, we thought, how could
this stock go so low?"

Trump has never had to declare personal bankruptcy, but the
company he set up to operate his Atlantic City casinos went
through numerous corporate restructurings to reduce its debt load.
As the New York Times recounted last year, Trump used his company
as a means of transferring his personal debt load onto
shareholders, issuing rounds of junk bonds to build up cash that
would erase his own debts.  "Even as his companies did poorly, Mr.
Trump did well," the Times wrote.  "He put up little of his own
money, shifted personal debts to the casinos and collected
millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and other payments. The
burden of his failures fell on investors and others who had bet on
his business acumen."

Starting in 1996, workers at Trump's casinos were allowed to
invest their 401(k) savings directly into Trump stock. (It was the
only individual stock offered; the other options were mutual
funds.)  But that same year, THCR sold $1.1 billion in junk bonds
to offset some of Trump's personal debt and buy two more ill-fated
casino properties in Atlantic City.  As the company floundered in
the years leading up to its second bankruptcy in 2004, the stock
price plummeted. According to the class-action complaint, "Between
1996 and August, 2004, employees were encouraged to invest in THCR
shares as the price fell from $30/share to $2/share."

By the end of 1997, employees had used more than $2 million in
retirement funds to purchase 218,394 shares.  The number of shares
in employees' retirement accounts rose steadily even as the price
dropped. By late 2003, the pool of employee retirement accounts
held 1.1 million shares of Trump stock.

But Trump's casinos were in near-fatal trouble.  On August 10,
2004, the New York Stock Exchange removed the company from its
listings as THCR announced a plan to restructure the company's
debt and enter bankruptcy.  Shares had been valued at $1.85 the
previous day, but tanked to $0.36 in over-the-counter trades after
the de-listing.

The committee that managed the Trump employee retirement accounts
-- with which Trump had no personal involvement--made the decision
at that time to prevent workers from buying additional shares in
the company because it had become an overly risky investment.
"This prevented Plan participants from using an 'averaging down'
strategy of buying additional shares at the current much lower
price, to recoup some of their losses," the class-action complaint
alleged.  Employees could still sell shares, but with the $0.10-
per-share transaction fee the company charged whenever an employee
liquidated stock from his or her retirement account, there was
little incentive to do so.

The company's initial bankruptcy plan fell through a month later,
but in late October 2004 a new restructuring plan was approved.
With the company soon slated to enter bankruptcy, the retirement
fund committee voted on October 25 that any remaining shares of
THCR held in the retirement accounts would be sold in bulk by
Merrill Lynch on November 15 and sent a letter to workers at the
casinos on October 28 informing them of the plan.

As the class-action lawsuit noted, that announcement didn't help
the share price.  "Announcing a planned sale of a huge block of
stock in a letter to thousands of employees meant that market
participants would learn of the forced sale, and adjust their
trading strategies to take advantage of the anticipated increase
in supply of THCR shares," the complaint stated.  "This would have
the unfortunate effect of depressing the stock immediately before
the sale of Plan stock."  Employees rushed to dump their stock
before the forced sale, with 117,966 shares from the retirement
plan unloaded in the two weeks between the announcement and the
date of the forced sale.

More than 400 employees still held Trump stock when the forced
sale arrived.  The stock had been trading at $0.80 on the day of
the announcement but had dropped by more than a quarter, to an
average of $0.57, when the employees were forced to sell their
924,698 shares the next month.  For an employee who'd put $1,000
into her retirement account in 1997 when shares averaged $9.65
apiece, those savings had now withered to just $59.

Less than a week after the forced sale, the company filed for
bankruptcy.  The markets seemed to approve of the restructuring
plan.  Three weeks after the forced sale, the share price was up
to $2.04.  None of the employees were able to profit from that
gain.

Five longtime Trump employees -- four from the Trump Plaza and one
from Trump Marina -- filed the lawsuit against the company the
next year.  They each held between 8,300 and 21,110 shares at the
time the forced sale was announced.  The lawsuit alleged that the
committee in charge of the retirement plan had breached its
fiduciary duty by mandating the complete liquidation of employee-
held stock when its value was at a low, resulting in more than
$2.3 million in losses for employees.

In the end, a federal judge in New Jersey dismissed the class-
action lawsuit.  "At its core," the judge wrote, "Plaintiffs'
assertion that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties amounts
to nothing more than a claim based on perfect hindsight." The
Trump executives on the retirement fund committee couldn't
necessarily know that the restructuring would boost share prices,
the judge found, given the "tenuous" position of the company at
the time.  Still, the ruling didn't dispute the extent of the
losses suffered by employees.

Trump himself fared well through the bankruptcy. He kept a $2
million annual salary after the company emerged from bankruptcy
and took in more than $44 million in compensation over the course
of the 14 years he served as chairman of THCR.

"I don't think it's a failure," he said of the bankruptcy in 2004.
"It's a success."


UNITED STATES: Judge Orders IRS to Clean Up Tea Party Backlog
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Dinan, writing for The Washington Times, reports that a
federal judge has ordered the IRS to finally clean up the tea
party targeting mess, giving the tax agency less than a month to
decide on a handful of applications that are still pending more
than three years after officials first admitted they were
targeting the conservative groups and subjecting them to intrusive
scrutiny.

The IRS also must file a brief detailing the steps it has taken to
prevent further targeting and to make sure the tea party groups
don't face any more fallout from the stigma of having been singled
out in the first place, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said
in an order issued late on Oct. 14.

Judge Walton ordered final decisions on two applications that have
been pending for years and said four other groups that had
withdrawn their applications amid the unconstitutional targeting
can resubmit and the IRS must decide on those, too, by Nov. 11.
The Albuquerque Tea Party, which filed its application in December
2009, has been waiting nearly seven years.  Unite in Action, a
Michigan-based group, applied in 2010.

Judge Walton called that "an exorbitant period of time" and said
the IRS should have been able to act once it admitted it was
targeting the groups.

"These determinations should have been made by now," he said at a
hearing.

Joseph Sergi, the Justice Department lawyer handling the case for
the IRS, initially seemed to object, saying the IRS needed to let
its own process play out.  "We can't rush, or not rush, the
process," he said.

But as it became clear that the judge was fed up with the delay,
Mr. Sergi changed his tone and said the wait had grown too long.
"I agree, your honor," he told Judge Walton.

The order doesn't mean the groups have to be approved.  The IRS
can go through its regular process to decide whether the
organizations meet the criteria for nonprofits -- and in
particular whether they limit their political activities in
accordance with the rules.

But the judge's order is yet another black eye on the tax agency,
which for years has resisted calls to halt the targeting.

The IRS admitted in 2013 that it singled out conservative and tea
party groups for special scrutiny.  The agency created "be on
lookout," or BOLO lists that flagged the groups and shunted them
into a more intrusive screening process.

Groups were forced to answer probing -- and the agency now admits
inappropriate -- questions about members and their associations.
IRS officials insist the targeting ended in 2013 after they
suspended use of the BOLO lists and agreed not to ask
inappropriate questions.  But they have refused to concede that
they violated the groups' constitutional rights and have said some
probing questions are necessary.

A federal appeals court this summer ruled that as long as some
groups are still blocked from tax-exempt status, the IRS is still
targeting.  Groups that went through the process have also sued,
arguing that they are more likely to face audits or other adverse
consequences because they were targeted in the beginning.

Judge Walton said that in addition to processing the outstanding
applications, the IRS must prove that it has ceased any ill
behavior toward the tea party groups.  He said they must certify
that in a filing next month -- along with proof.

Three groups that applied years ago are still awaiting approval.
Two of them are in cases pending before Judge Walton, while
another, the Texas Patriots Tea Party, is part of a class-action
lawsuit in federal court in Ohio.

Earlier this month, the IRS sent the Texas Patriots Tea Party yet
another round of probing questions -- the fourth since the group
applied for nonprofit status in 2012.

In documents filed in court, IRS agent Jerry Fierro demanded that
the group explain its involvement with "educational workshops,
speaking events, voter registration drives, fund raisers and straw
polls."

The IRS, which has held up the application for 41 months, gave the
tea party group 30 days to respond or have its application
rejected as incomplete.


US PACK: "Faty" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, Md. Labor Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIAM AMAN FATY, 1380 Monroe Street, N.W. Apartment 607
Washington, DC 20010, Individually and On Behalf of Other
Similarly Situated Employees, v. US PACK LOGISTICS, LLC 405
Lexington Avenue Suite 4901, New York, NY 10174 Serve: The
Corporation Trust Incorporated, 351 W. Camden Street Baltimore, MD
21201, And PETER GLAZMAN 66 Takolusa Drive Holmdel, NJ 07733 And
MARK S. GLAZMAN 462 W. 58th Street, Apt. 2A New York, NY 10019
Case No. 1:16-cv-03411-ELH (D. Md.), October 11, 2016), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act; unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Maryland Wage and
Hour Law, Maryland Code Annotated, Labor and Employment; and
unpaid wages, treble damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

US Pack Logistics, LLC is a national organization operating in the
mail courier service industry with its principal office located in
New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George E. Swegman, Esq.
     Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone No: (410) 244-7005
     Fax No: (410) 244-8454
     E-mail: gswegman@nicholllaw.com
             bdavis@nicholllaw.com


VCA ANIMAL: Graham Appeals From C.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Tony M. Graham and Elizabeth P. Brockwell filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Tony Graham, et
al. v. VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-08614-
CAS-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to assert claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other
individuals, who purchased similar goods and services from the
Company's animal hospitals and alleges, among other allegations,
that the Company improperly charged such individuals for
"biohazard waste management" in connection with the services
performed.

District Judge Christina A. Snyder granted the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment, and denied as moot Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

The appellate case is captioned as Tony Graham, et al. v. VCA
Animal Hospitals, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-56510, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 14, 2016;

   -- Transcript due on February 13, 2017;

   -- Opening brief of Appellants Elizabeth P. Brockwell and Tony
      M. Graham is due on March 27, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc. and
      VCA, Inc., is due on April 26, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellants TONY M. GRAHAM, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and ELIZABETH P. BROCKWELL, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          James M. Terrell, Esq.
          MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: jterrell@mmlaw.net

               - and -

          Gary A. Waldron, Esq.
          WALDRON & BRAGG LLP
          23 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660-7901
          Telephone: (949) 760-0204
          E-mail: gwaldron@weintraub.com

Defendants-Appellees VCA ANIMAL HOSPITALS, INC., and VCA, INC.,
are represented by:

          John A. Karaczynski, Esq.
          Hyongsoon Kim, Esq.
          Garrett Scott Llewellyn, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6022
          Telephone: (310) 229-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
          E-mail: jkaraczynski@akingump.com
                  kimh@akingump.com
                  gllewellyn@akingump.com


VICTOR'S CAFE: Faces "Espinal" Suit in Southern District of NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Victor's Cafe 52nd
Street, Inc. The case is styled Dionny Espinal, on behalf of
himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Victor's Cafe 52nd Street, Inc.; Sonia
Zaldivar, individually; and Christian Betere, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08057 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2016).

Victor's Cafe offers Cuban cooking and live Cuban music.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


VISA INC: Bid to Stay Remand Order Pending Appeal Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BROADWAY GRILL, INC., Plaintiff, v. VISA
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-04040-PJH (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the motion filed by the
defendants Visa Inc., Visa International Service Association, and
Visa U.S.A. Inc. to stay the court's order remanding the case
pending appeal.

On September 27, 2016, the court granted plaintiff Broadway Grill
Inc.'s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and remanded
the case to state court on that basis.  In particular, the court
found that the original putative class definition -- "[a]ll
California individuals, businesses, and other entities who
accepted Visa-Branded Cases in California" -- was "ambiguous" as
to whether it was limited to California citizens or reached any
merchant based in California.  The court thus permitted Broadway
Grill to amend its complaint "after removal to clarify issues
pertaining to federal jurisdiction under CAFA."  Because the
amended complaint made clear that the putative class was limited
to California citizens, the court found that there was no minimal
diversity among the parties, and the case must be remanded for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Later that same day, Visa filed a petition to appeal the remand
order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1453(c)(1), and a motion to
stay the court's remand order pending resolution of its appeal.

Judge Hamilton found that Visa has not shown either of the two
most critical factors -- a likelihood of success on the merits and
irreparable harm -- necessary to justify a stay pending appeal.
At least as it is currently pled, Judge Hamilton held that the
court lacks jurisdiction over the case, and that Broadway Grill
should be able pursue its claims in state court without any
further delay.

The case was remanded back to the Superior Court of California,
San Mateo County.

A full-text copy of Judge Hamilton's October 17, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/2eV9FI from Leagle.com.

Broadway Grill, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne Marie Murphy
-- amurphy@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Nancy
L. Fineman -- nfineman@cpmlegal.com --  Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
LLP, Gwendolyn R. Giblin -- ggiblin@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre
& McCarthy LLP, Joseph W. Cotchett -- jcotchett@cpmlegal.com --
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP & Mark Cotton Molumphy --
mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

Visa Inc., Visa International Association, VISA U.S.A. Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Robert John Vizas --
bob.vizas@aporter.com -- Arnold and Porter LLP & Sharon D. Mayo
-- sharon.mayo@aporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Obtains Final Approval of 2.0L TDI Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and certain affiliates announced
Oct. 25 that Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California has granted final
approval to the settlement agreement between Volkswagen and
private plaintiffs represented by a Court-appointed Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee (PSC) to resolve civil claims regarding
eligible Volkswagen and Audi 2.0L TDI vehicles in the United
States.

Concurrently, Judge Breyer also approved a Consent Decree between
Volkswagen and the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of California
by and through the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the
California Attorney General; and a Consent Order between
Volkswagen and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. All three
agreements were previously announced.

A copy of the ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE 2.0-LITER TDI
CONSUMER AND RESELLER DEALERSHIP CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
dated Oct. 25 is available at:

  http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zaJ288tV

"Final approval of the 2.0L TDI settlement is an important
milestone in our journey to making things right in the United
States, and we appreciate the efforts of all parties involved in
this process. Volkswagen is committed to ensuring that the program
is now carried out as seamlessly as possible for our affected
customers and has devoted significant resources and personnel to
making their experience a positive one," said Hinrich J. Woebcken,
President and CEO of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

Volkswagen remains focused on resolving other outstanding issues
in the United States and continues to work towards an agreed
resolution for customers with affected 3.0L TDI V6 diesel engines.

The implementation of the 2.0L TDI settlement program will begin
immediately. Customers with eligible vehicles may submit claims
using a paper claim form (available at

                 http://www.VWCourtSettlement.com/

or by calling +1-844-98-CLAIM) or via an online portal at
www.VWCourtSettlement.com. Once a customer's claim is approved, a
customer can schedule appointments with dedicated settlement
specialists who have been assigned to dealership locations.

Under the terms of the 2.0L TDI settlement agreements, affected
owners and lessees will be able to choose whether to accept a
buyback or lease termination, or receive an approved emissions
modification for their vehicle (if and when it becomes available).
Volkswagen will also make cash payments to affected current and
certain former owners and lessees.

Volkswagen has also agreed to pay $2.7 billion over three years
into an environmental trust, managed by a trustee appointed by the
Court, to remediate excess nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from
2.0L TDI vehicles in the United States and invest $2.0 billion
over 10 years in zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) infrastructure,
access and awareness initiatives.

The following 2.0L TDI engine vehicles are included in the 2.0L
TDI settlement program:

VW Beetle     VW Golf        VW Jetta       VW Passat      Audi A3
2013-2015      2010-2015     2009-2015      2012-2015       2010-
2013; 2015

By their terms, these agreements are not intended to apply to or
affect Volkswagen's obligations under the laws or regulations of
any jurisdiction outside the United States. Regulations governing
nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions limits for vehicles in the United
States are much stricter than those in other parts of the world
and the engine variants also differ significantly. This makes the
development of technical solutions in the United States more
challenging than in Europe and other parts of the world, where
implementation of an approved program to modify TDI vehicles to
comply fully with UN/ECE and European emissions standards has
already begun by agreement with the relevant authorities.

                           *     *     *

The case is captioned, In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing,
Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation, Case No: MDL
No. 2672 CRB (JSC)(N.D. Cal.).

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on July 1, 2016, under
the deal, Volkswagen would be required to pay about $14.7 billion:

   $10,033,000,000 to compensate owners of Volkswagen vehicles;

    $2,000,000,000 in the form of investments over a 10-year
                   period to support increased use of technology
                   for Zero Emission Vehicles ("ZEV") in
                   California and the United States; and

    $2,700,000,000 to fund Eligible Mitigation Actions that will
                   reduce emissions of NOx where Volkswagen's
                   vehicles were, are, or will be operated.

On June 28, 2016, the United States and California entered into a
Partial Consent Decree with Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., and Volkswagen Group of America
Chattanooga Operations, LLC -- Settling Defendants -- to address
the 2.0 Liter Subject Vehicles on the road and the associated
environmental consequences resulting from the past and future
excess emissions from the 2.0 Liter Subject Vehicles.  A copy of
the Partial Consent Decree is available at:

   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yocKilAU

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on July 6, Alan Katz and
John Lippert, writing for Bloomberg News, said Volkswagen AG's
price tag to settle the U.S. lawsuits over its rigging of diesel
emissions tests jumped to more than $15 billion -- $5 billion more
than previously reported -- on the eve of a settlement to be filed
on June 28 in a San Francisco court.

Under the deal, VW will set aside up to $10.03 billion to cover
costs including buying back vehicles at pre-scandal values and
compensating drivers as much as $10,000 per car for their
troubles, two people familiar with the negotiations said.  Those
figures could rise if VW misses certain deadlines.

In addition, Volkswagen will pay $2.7 billion in fines that will
go to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California
Air Resources Board and invest $2 billion in clean-emissions
technology, one of the people said.  The carmaker is also expected
to announce a settlement with states, including New York, for
about $400 million, another person said.

The Settlement requires Volkswagen to pay reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs.  Class Counsel has agreed to seek no more than
$324 million, plus no more than $8.5 million in actual and
reasonable out-of-pocket costs, for expenses incurred through
October 18, 2016.

The Court appointed Kinsella Media LLC as Notice Administrator.

Rust Consulting, Inc. is the claims administrator.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Agrees to Pay $175MM to Lawyers in Emissions Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
citimonline reports that Volkswagen AG, in another step to move
past its costly diesel emissions cheating scandal, has agreed to
pay $175 million to U.S. lawyers suing the German automaker on
behalf of the owners of 475,000 polluting vehicles, two people
briefed on the agreement said on Oct. 14.

In August, the lawyers in the class action litigation sought up to
$332.5 million in fees and costs for their work in a $10 billion
settlement that gives U.S. owners of 2.0 liter polluting cars the
ability to sell back their vehicles to Volkswagen (VW).
The latest deal with the lawyers means VW now has agreed to spend
up to $16.7 billion to compensate U.S. owners and address claims
from states, federal regulators and dealers arising from the
"Dieselgate" scandal.

The amount to be paid out to lawyers was first reported by Reuters
on Oct. 14.

The resolution of legal fees clears another hurdle as the world's
No. 2 automaker looks to resolve all of the outstanding aspects of
a scandal that disrupted its global business, hurt its reputation
and led to the ouster of its chief executive officer last year.

VW in September 2015 admitted using sophisticated secret software
in its cars to cheat exhaust emissions tests, with millions of
vehicles worldwide affected.  The cheating allowed VW's U.S.
vehicles sold since 2009 to emit up to 40 times legally allowable
pollution levels.

The $175 million includes attorneys' fees and other costs,
according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Lawyers for the owners of polluting vehicles and a spokeswoman for
Volkswagen declined to comment.

Lead plaintiff lawyer Elizabeth Cabraser, who is part of a
committee of 22 lawyers overseeing the owner suits, said in August
the amount sought in attorneys fees was far less than the
"judicially established benchmark" for class actions of
approximately 25 percent of the settlement amount.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer on Oct. 18 was set to hold a
hearing in San Francisco on whether to grant final approval of the
vehicle owners' settlement announced in June, which would be the
largest-ever automotive buy-back offer in the United States.
Breyer must also decide whether to approve the legal fee
agreement.

VW has agreed to spend up to $10.033 billion to buy back the
vehicles and compensate owners.  It may also offer vehicle fixes
if regulators approve.  Under a timetable announced this summer,
regulators could approve a fix for some 2015 VW diesel vehicles as
early as next month.

In addition, VW has agreed to pay up to $1.21 billion to
compensate U.S. VW brand dealers, pay more than $600 million to 44
U.S. states, spend $2 billion on zero-emission vehicle promotion
and infrastructure, and another $2.7 billion to offset diesel
pollution.

It still faces billions of dollars in potential fines from the
U.S. Justice Department in its criminal probe into VW's cheating
scandal, and must resolve the fate of larger vehicles that were
not part of the initial $10 billion settlement.

VW and U.S. regulators are in continuing discussions over whether
the automaker should agree to buy back 85,000 larger 3.0-liter
Porsche, Audi and VW vehicles that also exceeded U.S. emission
standards, and whether it should offer additional compensation to
those owners.

VW may have to pay additional owner attorneys' fees as part of a
separate potential 3.0-liter settlement, the sources said.


WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Bid in "Martin" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Nicholas M Martin, the Plaintiff, v. Wells
Fargo Bank, NA, Case No. 1:16-cv-09483 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. John
J. Tharp Jr., entered an order denying without prejudice
Plaintiff's motion for class certification, according to the
docket entry made by the Clerk on October 5, 2016.

No appearance on the motion is required. The motion acknowledges
that it is being filed at this time only to prevent the Plaintiff
from being "picked off" by an attractive settlement offer. The
Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S.
Ct. 663 (2016), obviates the need for such prophylactic motions.
See also Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 786-87 (7th
Cir. 2015). The pending motion for class certification is
therefore dismissed without prejudice to its refiling when the
Plaintiff is prepared to substantively brief the motion or in
accordance with a future scheduling order entered by the Court.

A copy of the docket entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oh3HeLIM


WYNDHAM VACATION: "Romero-Perez" Suit Moved to M.D. of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ismael-Ernesto Romero-Perez on
behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc.,
Case No. 2016-CA-8037, was removed from the Orange County Circuit
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida (Orlando). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:16-cv-01795-GAP-TBS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
Hon. Judge Gregory A. Presnell.

Wyndham Vacation develops, markets and sells vacation ownership
interests.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amanda Simpson, Esq.
          Stephanie Leigh Adler-Paindiris, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, PC
          390 N Orange Ave., Suite 1285
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 425 7010
          Facsimile: (407) 425 2747
          E-mail: amanda.simpson@jacksonlewis.com
                  adlers@jacksonlewis.com


* Class Action Suits to Benefit Homebuyers in India
---------------------------------------------------
Vandana Ramnani, writing for Hindustan Times, reports that the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCRDC) Bench
interpreting Section 12 (1) ( c) of the Consumer Protection Act
conforms to certain provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act 2016.

Experts are of the opinion that the order could not have come at a
better time.  With consumer activism going up immensely, this
order was necessary to deal with the sheer quantum of cases.
It is also important to note that the penalty provision is
available only under RERA and not vested with the consumer courts.
"RERA specifies that if the buyer is expected to pay a penalty of
18% in case he defaults, the builder too will be liable to pay the
same amount and not a meagre Rs 5 per sq ft or a Rs 10 per sq ft.

"The principle and ratio set out in the RERA Act qua the builder
and the allottees can now be cited before consumer courts whenever
they are applicable for the judgment to confirm to RERA," says SK
Pal, a Supreme Court lawyer.

The court order also clarifies that cases related to properties
worth below Rs 20 lakh can be heard in district courts.

NCRDC can be approached for cases of properties in the range of Rs
20 lakh to a crore; and the state commission for cases dealing
with properties valued at more than a crore.

"The court has emphasized on the book value of the apartment as
specified in the registered document rather than the value of the
amount claimed by the buyer.  The court has clarified that even if
the claim is a meagre Rs 5 lakh but the cost of the apartment at
the time of purchase was Rs 1 crore, homebuyers can directly
approach the NCRDC rather than going through the lower courts.  It
is not the amount of the claim but the value of the apartment
which is important," says Pal, adding the judgment has opened the
doors to consumer law to a large number of people.

According to Amit Chauhan of Logical Buyer, a real estate blog for
homebuyers, such class action suits will benefit homebuyers and
will prove to be a deterrent for builders who delay projects. But
the only challenge here is that there may be a possibility of
sabotage from the developer as a proxy group can join in and
derail the case altogether.

This is unfounded, says Pal as it is up to the court in its wisdom
to decide who is a collusive perpetrator.
Impact on developers

Legal experts say that the burden on the developer will now
increase as he will now have to compensate all homebuyers (even
3,000) as against 50 earlier who went ahead and filed cases.
"If all 5,000 buyers were to give their assent to the public
notice, all would automatically be made a party to the case and
the developer will have to compensate all of them instead of the
50 who would have filed a case earlier," says Mr. Sethi.

Investors to benefit too

The automatic application of compensation on all buyers will now
apply to investors as well, who might actually exploit the
situation, says Sahil Sethi, senior associate at law firm
Saikrishna and Associates.  The investor will benefit as he will
automatically be made party to the case and can claim compensation
which he could not earlier.  "Earlier, if he filed a case in the
high court, the maximum the high court did was to ensure that the
agreement or the contract he signed with the builder was executed
as per law.  There were few chances of him getting a penalty.  Now
like all homebuyers, investors too will be eligible for penalty,"
says Mr. Sethi.

Will it apply to old cases?

The order will apply to all old and new cases filed under Section
12 (1) (c) of the Act, according to Mr. Sethi.  This will make
life tough for defaulting real estate developers.


* Epstein Becker Provides Update on Recent Employment Rulings
-------------------------------------------------------------
John M. O'Connor, Esq. -- joconnor@ebglaw.com -- and George
Carroll Whipple, III, Esq. -- gwhipple@ebglaw.com -- of Epstein
Becker Green, in an article for Lexology, provided a weekly
rundown of the latest news in the field.  The law firm look sat
the latest trends, important court decisions, and new developments
that could impact your work.

Recent developments include . . .

(1) Third Circuit Finds That Break Pay Does Not Offset Unpaid
Overtime

Our top story: Compensation for breaks does not offset unpaid
overtime, says the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Three manufacturing workers sued their employer for requiring
unpaid work outside of their regular shifts.  The employer argued
that the workers were paid for breaks during their shifts, which
offsets any overtime pay that they might be entitled to for time
spent changing into and out of their work attire.  In a case of
first impression, the Third Circuit reversed a lower court's
decision and found that the company could not use compensation
that was included in an employee's regular rate as a credit
against unpaid overtime. John O'Connor, from Epstein Becker Green,
has more.

"The Third Circuit looked at the language of the statute, saw that
the statute provided three narrow exceptions when an offset would
be permitted, and because neither of the three expressly permitted
offsets applied to this situation, the court concluded the offset
could not be taken. . . . I think the implication of this decision
is that the courts are going to narrowly interpret the FLSA, and
they're not going to permit employers to take offsets that the
statute doesn't expressly provide for.  I think the courts are
looking to protect the employees and make sure they're paid for
all time worked."

(2) Two Lawsuits Allege Misclassification of Franchisees

Joint employment remains a key focus for private plaintiffs and
government agencies, and franchise arrangements are drawing
special scrutiny.  In September, the Third Circuit upheld the
certification of a class action in one such case. The action
claims that 300 Jani-King franchisees in the Philadelphia area are
actually employees who can bring wage claims against the company.
And the Department of Labor (DOL) joined in, filing its own suit,
claiming that Jani-King assigns cleaning contracts, sets rates,
and collects payments for Oklahoma franchisees--making them
economically dependent on the company.  The DOL suit argues that
the cleaning personnel should be classified as employees and that
Jani-King should be required to keep records of their wages and
hours in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

(3) Minimum Salary for Exempt California Computer Professionals
Increases

The compensation threshold for California's computer professional
exemption will rise.  Starting January 1, California employers
must pay computer professionals $42.39 an hour or a salary of
$88,318 per year to utilize the computer professional exemption.
This reflects an increase of 1.3% above current rates.  Employees
must also continue to satisfy the duties test required for the
exemption.  The new federal white-collar salary thresholds that go
into effect on December 1 of this year will not impact the
computer professional exemption.

(4) Employer Must Abide by Non-Compete Payment

An employer cannot waive its own non-compete agreement to avoid
payment, unless the agreement specifically grants it the right to
do so.  An employee of a financial services firm in Illinois
signed an agreement that required a six-month post-employment non-
competition period in exchange for $1 million from his employer.
When the worker resigned, the employer sent a notice waiving the
agreement and telling the employee that it would not pay him the
$1 million. After waiting out the six months, the employee filed
suit against his former employer.  The Illinois Court of Appeals
found that there was no provision in the agreement that allowed
the employer to change the terms without consent from the worker,
and because the employee upheld his end of the contract, the
employer must pay him what is due.


* Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall Law May Pressure Banks More
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Wibberley, writing for Forbes, reports that in September,
regulators fined Wells Fargo $185 million for creating
approximately two million bank and credit-card accounts without
customers' consent.  Soon after, eight former employees filed
class-action lawsuits claiming workers faced termination if they
refused to meet sales goals by creating those fraudulent accounts.
The story rocked the financial world and the consumers who rely on
banks to make ethical choices when handling their hard-earned
money.

Even more frightening: Wells Fargo may not be the only bank
conducting unethical sales practices to make a buck.

"I would be amazed if this practice was just limited to Wells
Fargo," said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.) during a hearing on
bank regulation before the House Financial Services Committee.

Big banks are under increasing pressure to generate earnings,
pushing them to look for new avenues to make money in any way
possible.  What's causing this pressure? First, interest rates
remain very low, so banks aren't making the money they used to.
The Fed has talked about raising them for over a year now but has
taken little action so far.

Secondly, technology has disrupted the financial landscape
dramatically over the last several years.  The pressure of new and
emerging payment systems has big banks scrambling to catch up.
Consumers want ways to move money faster and technology is making
it possible to do so.  It's also making it possible to conduct a
broad range of business activities without involving banks at all.
For example, consumers can now direct deposit paychecks onto pre-
paid debit cards from companies like American Express and bypass
the bank altogether.  And the bad PR created by the Wells Fargo
case and other banking scandals are making such options
increasingly appealing to consumers.

Banks are also under pressure from the Federal Reserve, which has
committed to keeping a closer eye on banks following the Wells
Fargo scandal, though Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen said the Fed
only oversees Wells Fargo's holding company and therefore wasn't
directly responsible for regulating that aspect of Wells Fargo's
business.

America's largest banking institutions are even larger now than
they were before the 2008 financial crisis.  Several lawmakers say
the Wells Fargo scandal is a sign that big banks are too big to
manage and changes must be made.  But few agree on a solution.
Some Democrats favor reinstating the Glass-Steagall law that
separated investment banking from traditional lending, and that
presents an interesting idea.

Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933.  But over time,
banks complained that the law imposed too many limits on what
businesses they could enter.  Some also said the law put them at a
competitive disadvantage with European banks that didn't have such
limitations.  In 1999, Congress caved to pressure and passed the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, overturning Glass-Steagall.  The action
allowed the rise of several very large banks in the United States
with business lines that include both commercial lending and
securities business.

Some blame the repeal of Glass-Steagall for sparking the
recession.

Given that fact, should a modern version of the law be an idea
worth considering? Or would that hurt banks even more? Glass-
Steagall is a complicated issue.  In Mr. Wibberley's opinion, the
federal government and taxpayers should not be backing an
institution that engages in risky investments.  Banks should have
the option to be FDIC insured or be allowed to perform investment
banking activities.  If they are FDIC insured, then they should be
subject to the rules of Glass-Steagall.

However, when interest rates eventually rise, this issue will be
resolved, because net interest margin percentages will be higher,
thereby allowing banks to be more profitable.  Until then,
however, the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall would make it more
difficult for banks to make money, especially in this low-
interest-rate environment.  That would put more pressure on the
likes of Wells Fargo, and possibly push more banks to resort to
unethical business practices.


                            *********

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  * * *