CAR_Public/161027.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 27, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 215




                            Headlines

3M CO: "Grande" Files Suit Over Exposure to Contaminated Water
AARON'S INC: Consumers Class Certification Sought in "Byrd" Suit
ADOREME INC: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Service Renewal
AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: "Flanigon" Suit Dismissed
AETNA INC: Meidl Seeks Certification of Health Plan Members Class

ALBERT MUELLER: Can't Pay Wages Using Debit Card, Court Rules
ALDRIDGE IT: "Hugdahl" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
ALLIANCE ONE: Hirthe Seeks Certification of Class Under Damasco
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces "Bertram" Suit Over Vibration in Vehicles
ANSWER FINANCIAL: Court Rejects Stipulation in "Parker" Suit

ANTHONY KRAUJALIS: Certification of Class Sought in "Hirthe" Suit
APPLE INC: Employees' Wage Class Action Begins in California
ART.COM INC: Customers Class Certification Sought in "Knapp" Suit
AVECTUS HEALTHCARE: Raymond Files Appeal From S.D. Ohio Ruling
B&B CONTRACTING: Wright Seeks to Certify Class of Tile Installers

BED BATH: "Strycharz" Suit Claims Violation of New York Labor Law
BELLA CABINETS: Faces "Bishop" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Plaintiffs to File Consolidated Amended Suit
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Merkovich Seeks Class Cert. Under Damasco
CAREER POINT COLLEGE: Faces Students' Lawsuit over Closure

CENTENE CO: Faces "Chapa" Lawsuit Seeking OT Wages Under FLSA
CENTRAL FREIGHT: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Henry" Suit
CIGNA CORP: "Negron" Suit Alleges Violation of ERISA, RICO Act
COMPREHENSIVE CENTER: "Chu" Files Breach of Contract Suit
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Class Certification Sought in "Tipton" Suit

CSX TRANSPORTATION: Tipton Moves for Certification of Class
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Tipton Seeks Certification of Class in Tenn.
DIAMOND PARKING: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Israel" Class Suit
DOLE PACKAGED: "Amaya" Claims False Marketing of High-sugar Foods
DREAMWORKS: Settles Animation Workers' Class Action for $50MM

EAGLE MATERIALS: Class Certification Proceedings Ongoing
EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery in Homebuilders' Suit Ongoing
EL PASO: "Alvaranga" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law
ESG USA: "Fuller" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, Labor Laws
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Faces Class Actions in Florida and Delaware

FANNIE MAE: Shareholders Sue FHFA Over $195BB "Net Worth Sweep"
FCA US: E-shift System Defective, "Brooks" Class Suit Alleges
FCA US: Faces "Mack" Suit in N.Y. Over Defective E-shift System
FIDELITY NATIONAL: "Maitchoukow" Suit Invokes FLSA, Cal. Wage Law
FIRST SOLAR: Motion to Intervene and Unseal Court Records Denied

FORD MOTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Power Steering Class Action
GC SERVICES: Certification of Class Sought in "O'Boyle" Suit
GROSSE POINT PARK, MI: Residents File Sewage Backup Class Action
HAMCOR INC: "Coppernoll" Suit Alleges FLSA, Labor Law Violation
INFOBLOX INC: "Lin" Sues Officers Over Planned Merger

ISABELLA GERIATRIC: NY Court Certifies Class in Perez-Cortes Suit
JACK IN THE BOX: Faces "Patel" Suit Under FLSA, Cal. Wage Code
JACOB TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Brown" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
JANI-KING OF OKLAHOMA: DOL Sues Over Franchisees Misclassification
JENNINGS, MO: Oct. 28 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seeks Review of Decision in "Goldemberg" Suit
L BRANDS: Zander Sues Over Defective Bath & Body Fragrance
LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT: Issa's Bid to Certify Class Denied
LOGAN COUNTY, IL: Brown Seeks to Certify 2 Classes & 2 Subclasses
LOUISIANA: Lewis Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class

LYFT INC: Nokchan Appeals N.D. Cal. Decision to Ninth Circuit
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Arpaio Charged with Contempt of Court
MARION COUNTY, IN: Wrongful Detention Suit Ruling Appealed
MICHIGAN: Minors' Parents Sue MDE Over Lead in Drinking Water
MICROSOFT CORP: Gender Discrimination Class Action Can Proceed

MONSANTO CO: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Roundup False Ad
MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Corcoran" Suit Over EpiPen Prices
NEW YORK: Class Suit Alleges Long Term Care Program Abuses
NU SKIN: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Reached Deal to Settle Bushansky Litigation

ROLLS ROYCE: NSW Supreme Court Issues Class Closure Ruling
RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Gamil Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Tosses Levins' Bid to Certify Class
SER SECURITY: "Irish" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
SGE MANAGEMENT: 5th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in "Torres"

SPECTRA ENERGY: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Merger With Enbridge
SPEIGHTS & WORRICH: Implodes from Hail Storm Damage Claims
STARBUCKS CORP: N.D. Ill. Court Dismisses "Galanis" Class Suit
STARBUCKS CORP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Ice in Cold Drinks
STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Thalman Seeks Certification of Classes

STRONGHAVEN INC: "Jennings" Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
TAYLOR, MI: Refuses to Settle Water Billing Class Action
TAYLOR SAFETY: Hernandez Seeks to Certify Class of Consultants
TENET HEALTHCARE: "Pennington" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breach
THANK YOU: Catzin Seeks Review of S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Circuit

TIRRENIO INC: "Anguisaca" Suit Claims FLSA, NY Labor Law Breaches
TYSON FOODS: "Chung" Suit Asserts Broiler Chicken Price-Fixing
TYSON FOODS: Faces "Huser" Securities Class Suit in Calif.
TYSON FOODS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Bank" Suit in N.Y. Over Robocalls

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ruling May Bolster Independent Contractor Case
UNILIFE CORPORATION: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due
UNITED STATES: Outside Unltd. Appeals in "Gonzalez-Aviles" Suit
UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Mikolajczyk Seeks Certification of Class
VANCOUVER, BC: Property Owners Sue Over Heritage Designation Bylaw

VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: "Lenart" Lawsuit Transferred to Ohio
VIXEN'S LLC: Faces "Breighner" Suit Under FLSA, W.Va. Wage Laws
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Canadian Diesel Owners Await Compensation
VOLKSWAGEN CANADA: Faces Government Probe Over Defeat Devices
WAWA INC: Faces "Ciuffardi" Suit Pursuant to FLSA, N.J. Wage Laws

WELCH FOODS: Court Narrows Claims in Atik-Lau Mislabeling Suit
WELLS FARGO: Faces Second Class Action Over Stock Drop
WEST PUBLISHING: Tsao Sues Over Auto Renewal of Westlaw Services
WEX INC: Swinter Group Seeks Certification of Class Under TCPA
WOLF PETROLEUM: "Moss" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA

WWW.URBAN INC: Lee Seeks to Certify Class of Home Consultants
YAHOO INC: "Finnegan" File Suit Over 2014 Security Breach
YAHOO! INC: Hacking Plaintiffs Want to Pursue Claims in Calif.

* Colorado Developers Seek Reform of Construction Defects Law
* German Government Denies Delaying Class Action Reform
* NCDRC Says Consumers with Common Grievance Can File Class Action
* Supreme Court May Review Enforceability of Class Action Waivers


                            *********


3M CO: "Grande" Files Suit Over Exposure to Contaminated Water
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Grande, Keith Clerkin, Dina Clerkin, Paul Lutz, Darlene
Lutz, James Seacrease, Valarie Seacrease, Patrick D. Enwright,
Barbara Ann Garcia, Jeffrey Smith, Gloria Smith, and Kathleen M.
Clapp, Plaintiffs v. The 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Co.), Angus Fire (a/k/a Angus International) Ansul
(a/k/a Ansul Chemical Company a/k/a The Ansul Company a/k/a Ansul
Fire Protection) Buckeye Fire Protection Company, Chemguard, and
National Foam, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05380-PBT (E.D. Pa.,
October 13, 2016), seeks for themselves, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, medical monitoring and property damage
as a result of their alleged exposure to water contaminated with
toxic chemicals resulting from Defendants' harmful and defective
products, aqueous firefighting foams and other materials
containing perfluorochemicals including perfluorooctanesulfonic
acid and related fluorochemicals that can degrade to
perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOS, which were released onto the
ground, into the environment and infiltrated the groundwater and
Plaintiffs' drinking/potable water.

The 3M Company promoted and sold the AFFF for the purposes of
preventing, suppressing and extinguishing fires involving aviation
fuel and other flammable liquids.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph L. Feliciani, Esq.
     Heather A. Thomas, Esq.
     CREEDON & FELICIANI, P.C.
     29 E. Marshall Street
     Norristown, PA 19401
     Phone: (610) 239-9630
     Fax: 610-239-1599
     E-mail: jfeliciani@cflawpc.com


AARON'S INC: Consumers Class Certification Sought in "Byrd" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CRYSTAL BYRD and BRIAN BYRD,
Individually, and on Behalf of all Similarly Situated Persons v.
AARON'S, INC., et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-00101-CB-SPB (W.D. Pa.),
move the Court to certify the proposed class defined as:

     All persons who leased and/or purchased one or more
     computers from Aaron's, Inc. and/or Aspen Way Enterprises,
     Inc., and their household members, on whose computers
     Designerware's Detective Mode was installed and activated
     without such person's consent on or after January 1, 2007.

The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, as the parties have identified at least 895
computers (of which 167 are leased/purchased from AspenWay)
associated with intercepted electronic communications that are
owned or leased by specific class members, the Plaintiffs argue.

The Byrds also ask that they be appointed as representatives for
the class, and that Frederick S. Longer, Esq., of Levin, Fishbein,
Sedran & Berman; John H. Robinson, Esq., of Jamieson & Robinson,
LLC; R. Daniel Fleck, Esq., of The Spencer Law Firm; Christopher
V. Tisi, Esq., and Maury A. Herman, Esq., of Herman Gerel LLP, be
appointed as "Class Counsel."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Vh90a3l0

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          Frederick S. Longer, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Telecopier: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
                  flonger@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          John H. Robinson, Esq.
          JAMIESON & ROBINSON, LLC
          214 S. Grant Street
          Casper, WY 82601
          Telephone: (307) 235-3575
          Telecopier: (307) 577-9435
          E-mail: robinsn@vcn.com

               - and -

          G. Bryan Ulmer, III, Esq.
          Mel C. Orchard, III, Esq.
          R. Daniel Fleck, Esq.
          THE SPENCE LAWFIRM
          PO Box 548
          15 South Jackson Street
          Jackson, WY 83001
          Telephone: (307) 733-7290
          Telecopier: (307) 733-5248

               - and -

          Christopher V. Tisi, Esq.
          HERMAN GEREL LLP
          2000 L Street, NW Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 783-6400
          Telecopier: (202) 416-6392

               - and -

          Michelle A. Parfitt, Esq.
          James F. Green, Esq.
          HERMAN GEREL LLP
          4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
          Alexandria, VA 2311
          Telephone: (703) 931-5500
          Telecopier: (703) 820-0630
          E-mail: mparf@aol.com

               - and -

          Maury A. Herman, Esq.
          Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
          HERMAN GEREL LLP
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          Telecopier: (504) 561-6024
          E-mail: mherman@hhklawfirm.com
                  ldavis@hhklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Andrea S. Hirsch, Esq.
          HERMAN GEREL LLP
          230 Peachtree Street, Ste. 2260
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 880-9500
          Telecopier: (404) 880-9605
          E-mail: ahirsch@hermangerel.com


ADOREME INC: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Service Renewal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a consumer
is suing a New York business, alleging unfair competition and
violation of state law.

Kathy Lira filed a class action complaint, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Oct. 7 in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against Adoreme, Inc.
and Does 1-10, alleging they made automatic continuous service
offers to consumers without presenting the terms.

According to the complaint, Ms. Lira suffered financial damages
from having her credit/ debit card automatically charged.
Ms. Lira alleges the defendants failed to inform the plaintiffs
regarding the automatic renewal of services.

Ms. Lira seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, court
costs and all other relief the court grants.  She is represented
by attorneys Scott. J. Ferrell and Victoria C. Knowles of Pacific
Trial Attorneys APC in Newport Beach, California.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 8:16-cv-1858


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: "Flanigon" Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2016,
that on October 3, 2016, a complaint captioned Flanigon v.
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. 12794, was filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Action"). The
Delaware Action was brought by Timothy Flanigon, who purports to
be a stockholder of Aegerion, on his own behalf, and also seeks
certification as a class action on behalf of all of the Aegerion
stockholders. The Delaware Action alleges, among other things,
that the Aegerion board of directors breached its fiduciary duties
in connection with the proposed transaction by agreeing to an
inadequate exchange ratio and engaging in a flawed sales process.
The Delaware Action further alleges that QLT and MergerCo aided
and abetted the alleged breaches. In addition, the Delaware Action
alleges that the September 28, 2016 Amendment No. 2 to the Form S-
4 Registration Statement filed in connection with the proposed
transaction is materially misleading.

The Flanigon complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
proposed transaction, to rescind it or award rescissory damages
should it be consummated and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.

Also on October 3, 2016, plaintiff in the Delaware Action filed
motions seeking expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction.
On October 21, 2016, the Delaware Action was dismissed without
prejudice.


AETNA INC: Meidl Seeks Certification of Health Plan Members Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned CHRISTOPHER MEIDL, on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
AETNA, INC., AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and MCMC, LLC, Case No.
3:15-cv-01319-JCH (D. Conn.), moves for class certification of a
class of people enrolled in health plans administered by Aetna,
Inc., and Aetna Life Insurance Company, who were wrongfully denied
coverage for transcranial magnetic stimulation, a treatment for
serious depression.

Mr. Meidlm also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
representative, and to appoint Zuckerman Spaeder LLP and Psych-
Appeal, Inc., as Co-Lead Class Counsel for the TMS Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3WpGSw6H

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew N. Goldfarb, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 778-1800
          Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
          E-mail: agoldfarb@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
          Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          399 Park Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-9600
          Facsimile: (212) 704-4256
          E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
                  jcowart@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Meiram Bendat, Esq.
          PSYCH-APPEAL, INC.
          8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 598-3690
          Facsimile: (888) 975-1957
          E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth K. Acee, Esq.
          Daniel P. Elliott, Esq.
          LECLAIRRYAN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          545 Long Wharf Drive, 9th Floor
          New Haven, CT 06511
          Telephone: (203) 672-1638
          Facsimile: (203) 672-3228
          E-mail: elizabeth.acee@leclairryan.com
                  daniel.elliott@leclairryan.com


ALBERT MUELLER: Can't Pay Wages Using Debit Card, Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Borchers, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
paying Pennsylvania employees with debit cards is not a valid way
to pay wages, a state appeals court ruled in a class action
against McDonald's franchisees.

Ruling out of Harrisburg on October 21, an appellate panel with
the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed advancement of the
case in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas.

The Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law is clear, Judge
Anne Lazarus wrote for the panel: Employees must be paid either by
check or lawful U.S. money, and debit cards do not count as lawful
U.S. money.

Lead plaintiff Alisha Siciliano sued Albert and Carol Mueller dba
McDonald's on Aug. 23, 2013, for having paid them with JP Morgan
Chase payroll cards since November 2010. They sought compensatory
and punitive damages.

The class was certified in May 2015 and two weeks later the trial
court denied the Muellers' motion for summary judgment. The
Muellers filed an interlocutory appeal, and the unanimous three-
judge panel affirmed the trial court ruling.

"The WPCL [Wage Payment and Collection Law] states that wages
'shall be paid in lawful money of the United States or check.' The
language is clear. A debit card is not 'lawful money' and it is
not a 'check' as contemplated by the drafters of the WPCL. We
agree with the learned trial judge, the Honorable Thomas Burke,
Jr., that the Legislature obviously did not contemplate the
concept of a payroll debit card when it adopted the language of
section 260.3 in 1961," Lazarus wrote.

The Muellers' argument that the debit cards are functionally the
same as checks or lawful money fails because the cards may subject
employees to fees, the judge found.

The American Payroll Association said in an amicus brief that
employers can pay employees through direct deposit, but Lazarus
said employers may do this only at the written request of
employees.

"The use of a voluntary payroll debit card may be an appropriate
method of wage payment. However, until our General Assembly
provides otherwise, the plain language of the WPCL makes clear
that the mandatory use of payroll debit cards at issue here, which
may subject the user to fees, is not."

Class counsel David Senoff with Anapol Weiss said: "We were
pleased with the ruling. The fact that it was unanimous not only
underscored the merits of our argument, but underscored what I
thought was an excellent opinion of the trial court. It leaves
little doubt in my mind about the illegality of receiving your
wages by debit card without any option."

The Muellers are represented by Matthew Hank -- mhank@littler.com
-- with Littler Mendelson, who said, "The Muellers are aware of
the ruling and they are evaluating their options."


ALDRIDGE IT: "Hugdahl" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
KEN HUGDAHL, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ALDRIDGE IT SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-3073 (S.D.
Tex., October 17, 2016), seeks to recoup unpaid wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

ALDRIDGE IT SERVICES, LLC, is primarily engaged in the business of
providing IT outsourcing throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
     ROSS LAW GROUP
     4809 Pine St.
     Bellaire, TX 77401
     Phone: 800-634-8042
     Phone: 512-474-7677
     Fax: 512-4745306
     E-mail: tpadgett@rosslawgroup.com

        - and -

     Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
     Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
     1104 San Antonio St.
     Austin, Texas 78701


ALLIANCE ONE: Hirthe Seeks Certification of Class Under Damasco
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Hirthe moves the Court to certify the classes described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled MELISSA HIRTHE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALLIANCE ONE
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01385-NJ (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, Ms. Hirthe 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, Ms.
Hirthe asserts.  She argues that she 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, Ms. Hirthe points out.

Ms. Hirthe 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=cww6eAs4

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


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces "Bertram" Suit Over Vibration in Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMY BERTRAM, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
SERVE: The Corporation Company, 120 South Central Avenue, Clayton,
Missouri 63105, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01120-DGK (D. Mo.,
October 19, 2016), alleges individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, that Honda is unable to provide
solution to vibration issues in its vehicles, including the 2015
Honda CR-V, particularly those sold in Missouri.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. is in the business of designing,
manufacturing, marketing, distributing, selling, and/or warranting
vehicles which it mass-produces.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas K. Mendel, Esq.
     20 E. Franklin Street
     Liberty, MO 64048
     Phone: 816-781-4111
     Fax: 816-817-6162
     E-mail: Bryce@BellLawKC.com
             MS@BellLawKC.com
             Tom@Mendellawfirmllc.com

          - and -

     A. Scott Waddell, Esq.
     WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
     2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Phone: 816-914-5365
     E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com


ANSWER FINANCIAL: Court Rejects Stipulation in "Parker" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George H. King rejects a stipulation regarding the
Plaintiff's placeholder motion for class certification filed in
the lawsuit styled JESSE PARKER individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ANSWER FINANCIAL, Inc., a California
corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-05785-GHK-JC (C.D. Cal.).

The so-called "placeholder" Motion is denied without prejudice,
according to Judge King's order.  The Court will set a deadline
for class certification motion at the scheduling conference.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jxotfo71


ANTHONY KRAUJALIS: Certification of Class Sought in "Hirthe" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Hirthe moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned MELISSA HIRTHE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
ANYTHONY C. KRAUJALIS LAW OFFICES, Case No. 2:16-cv-01386-WED
(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, Ms. Hirthe contends, 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, Ms.
Hirthe contends.  She argues that she 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, Ms. Hirthe contends.

Ms. Hirthe 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=ywM5r1xH

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


APPLE INC: Employees' Wage Class Action Begins in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Purcher, writing for Patently Apple, reports that in 2013
Patently Apple posted a report titled "Apple Store Employee Files
Class Action Lawsuit over Lost Wages."  The report covered a
full-time non-exempt Apple Store Specialist who worked at both
Spokane and San Francisco stores over a two year period has filed
a Class Action lawsuit against Apple on behalf of himself and all
non-exempt employees who are employed by Apple as non-exempt
Specialists, Lead Specialists and Expert Specialists and non-
exempt Managers, Senior Managers, Developmental Managers and
Business Managers.  Specialists and Managers are collectively
referred to as Hourly Employees.  The nuts and bolts of the
complaint revolved around the fact that employees that are paid
hourly wages should be compensated for the time lost waiting in
lines for mandatory Apple security checks every day.  Considering
this is a requirement by Apple, employees should be compensated.
Apple was sued in a similar case in July by two former Apple Store
employees from New York and Los Angeles.  Our report covers the
full basic complaint filed with the court in San Francisco."  The
case was set to finally begin on Oct. 18 in San Diego's Superior
Court.


ART.COM INC: Customers Class Certification Sought in "Knapp" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JAMES KNAPP, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ART.COM, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:16-cv-00768-WHO (N.D. Cal.), move the Court for an order
certifying for class treatment all his claims against Art.com,
with the class defined as:

     All persons, who on or after February 16, 2012, purchased
     any product from Art.com through the e-commerce websites
     www.art.com, www.posters.com, and/or www.allposters.com
     pursuant to a site-wide all products sale by entering a
     coupon code, and whose product was shipped to an address in
     the United States.

Excluded from the Class are the following individuals and/or
entities: Art.com and its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates,
officers and directors, current or former employees, and any
entity in which Art.com has a controlling interest; all
individuals who make a timely election to be excluded from this
proceeding using the correct protocol for opting out; all judges
assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their
immediate family members.

Mr. Knapp further moves the Court for an order designating him as
Class representative and appointing Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP and the Wand Law Firm as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 1, 2017, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM
          400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 590-4503
          Facsimile: (310) 590-4596
          E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Jason H. Kim, Esq.
          Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  jkim@schneiderwallace.com
                  kbates@schneiderwallace.com


AVECTUS HEALTHCARE: Raymond Files Appeal From S.D. Ohio Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Keith Raymond and Timothy Strunk filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Keith Raymond, et al. v.
Avectus Healthcare Solutions, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00559, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at
Cincinnati.

The appellate case is captioned as Keith Raymond, et al. v.
Avectus Healthcare Solutions, et al., Case No. 16-4172, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In an Opinion and Order dated Sept. 30, 2016, a copy of which is
available at https://is.gd/QBHRBP from Leagle.com, District Judge
Michael R. Barrett granted the separate motions filed by
defendants Mercy Health and Avectus Healthcare seeking dismissal
of the suit.

On February 10, 2015, Plaintiff Keith Raymond was injured after
slipping and falling on a wet floor.  Raymond was treated at Mercy
Health Anderson Hospital.

On June 12, 2013, Plaintiff Timothy Strunk was injured in an
automobile accident.  Strunk was treated at Mercy Health Clermont
Hospital.

Defendant Mercy Health is the owner and/or parent company of Mercy
Health Anderson Hospital and Mercy Health Clermont Hospital.
During their admission to the hospitals, Plaintiffs informed Mercy
that they had health insurance coverage through health insurance
corporations.

Defendant Avectus Healthcare Solutions, LLC provides debt
collection and third party recovery services on behalf of Mercy.
After Plaintiffs received their medical treatment, Avectus sent a
letter to Plaintiffs' legal counsel requesting that legal counsel
sign a letter of protection against any settlement or judgment.
Defendants have failed and/or refused to submit the claims or
medical expenses to Plaintiff's health insurance corporations.
Plaintiffs claim that this attempt to collect tort proceeds from
Plaintiffs is prohibited by Ohio Revised Code Sec. 1751.60 (A).

Plaintiffs bring the following claims: (1) breach of contract, (2)
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, (3) violation of the
Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, (4) violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, (5) fraud, (6) conversion, (7) unjust
enrichment, and (8) punitive damages.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendants explain
that their attempt to recover outstanding medical expenses from
potentially responsible third-parties does not violate Ohio
Revised Code Sec. 1751.60.

Plaintiffs-Appellants KEITH RAYMOND and TIMOTHY STRUNK,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Gary F. Franke, Esq.
          GARY F. FRANKE COMPANY
          120 E. Fourth Street, Suite 1040
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 564-9222

Defendant-Appellee AVECTUS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, aka Medpay
Assuance, LLC, is represented by:

          Chad R. Ziepfel, Esq.
          TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 381-2838
          Facsimile: (513) 381-0205
          E-mail: cziepfel@taftlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee MERCY HEALTH is represented by:

          Kris M. Dawley, Esq.
          ICE MILLER LLP
          250 West Street, Suite 700
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 462-2700
          E-mail: kris.dawley@icemiller.com


B&B CONTRACTING: Wright Seeks to Certify Class of Tile Installers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled OTIS JAMES WRIGHT, VIRGIL
ALAN MOODY and all others similarly situated v. B&B CONTRACTING,
INC., a Florida Corporation, and WALTER BEATON, individually, Case
No. 0:16-cv-62020-WPD (S.D. Fla.), move the Court to conditionally
certify and authorize them to mail and e-mail notice of the
lawsuit and consent to become a party plaintiff form, in both
English and Spanish, to:

     All employees who worked as tile installers and floor
     levelers, who worked overtime hours and whom were not paid
     the correct overtime wages during any given work week of
     their employment.

The Case is a collective action to enforce the overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiffs worked as non-
exempt laborers, who leveled flooring and installed tile for the
Defendants.  The Defendants are a tile installation contractor.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to direct the Defendants to
produce to the Plaintiffs' counsel a list containing the full
names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail
addresses of putative class members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n0U822kH

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Isaac Mamane, Esq.
          MAMANE LAW LLC
          1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
          Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
          Telephone (305) 773 - 6661
          E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


BED BATH: "Strycharz" Suit Claims Violation of New York Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl A. Strycharz and Danielle Brown, Plaintiffs, v. BED BATH
AND BEYOND, INC., Defendant, Index No. 608039/2016 (N.Y. Sup.,
County of Nassau, October 18, 2016), seeks to recover (1) overtime
wages, (2) damages for alleged failure to provide proper wage
statements (3) liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys'
fees under the New York Labor Law and NYCRR.

Defendant, Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. is a national chain of domestic
merchandise retail stores.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: (718) 353-8588


BELLA CABINETS: Faces "Bishop" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
KAITLYN BISHOP, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BELLA CABINETS LLC D/B/A MASTERGRANITE a
Florida Limited Liability Company, and ANTONINO BIANCO,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00661-RH-CAS (N.D.
Fla., October 19, 2016), alleges failure by Defendants to pay
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant BELLA CABINETS, LLC, was, and continues to be an
institution primarily engaged in the production of cabinetry and
granite products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul M. Botros, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. Pine Island Rd., Ste. 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: 954-318-0268
     Fax: 954-333-3517
     E-mail: PBotros@forthepeople.com


BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Plaintiffs to File Consolidated Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brixmor Property Group Inc. and Brixmor Operating Partnership LP
said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 24, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2016, that pursuant to a stipulation,
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit are required to file a
consolidated amended complaint within 60 days after the Court
appoints a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On February 8, 2016, the Company issued a press release and filed
a Form 8-K reporting the completion of a review by the Audit
Committee of the Company's Board of Directors that began after the
Company received information in late December 2015 through its
established compliance processes. The Audit Committee review led
the Board of Directors to conclude that specific Company
accounting and financial reporting personnel, in certain
instances, were smoothing income items, both up and down, between
reporting periods in an effort to achieve consistent quarterly
same property net operating income growth.

As a result of the Audit Committee review and the conclusions
reached by the Board of Directors, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, its President and Chief Financial Officer, its Treasurer
and Chief Accounting Officer, and an accounting employee all
resigned. Following these resignations the Company appointed a new
Interim Chief Executive Officer and President, Interim Chief
Financial Officer and Interim Chief Accounting Officer. A new
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer were appointed
effective May 20, 2016.

Prior to the Company's February 8, 2016 announcement, the Company
voluntarily reported to the SEC the matters. The SEC has commenced
an investigation with respect to these matters, and the Company is
cooperating fully. In addition, the Company was contacted by the
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New
York which advised that it is investigating these matters as well
and the Company is cooperating fully.

On March 31, 2016, the Company and the former officers were named
as defendants in a putative securities class action complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "Court"). The complaint, captioned
Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60
Benefit Funds v. Brixmor Property Group Inc., et al. (Case No. 16-
CV-02400 (AT)), asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on the facts described
in the Company's February 8, 2016 press release and Form 8-K.

Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, plaintiffs will
file a consolidated amended complaint within sixty days after the
Court appoints a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Company
believes it has valid defenses in this action and intends to
vigorously defend itself.


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Merkovich Seeks Class Cert. Under Damasco
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Merkovich moves the Court to certify the class described
in the complaint of the lawsuit captioned JEFFREY MERKOVICH,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, Case No. 2:16-cv-01381-WED (E.D.
Wisc.), and further moves 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, Mr. Merkovich 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, Mr.
Merkovich states.  He asserts that he 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.

Mr. Merkovich 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=5Aj9EVgi

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


CAREER POINT COLLEGE: Faces Students' Lawsuit over Closure
----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Kocian, writing for Courthouse News service, reported that 59
students have sued Texas-based Career Point College, claiming the
profit-seeking school induced them to take out high-interest
student loans then shut down this month under federal
investigation, leaving them drowning in debt.

Christopher Kinna and 53 others sued the college, its corporate
affiliates and associates, its CEO Lawrence D. Earle, and vice
president Carol B. Kendall, on Oct. 20 in Bexar County Court.

Five other students filed a similar complaint on Oct. 18 in the
same court.

Career Point's main campus and headquarters is in San Antonio,
with other campuses in Austin and Tulsa, Okla.  It claimed on its
website "to provide career-specific diplomas and degree programs
relating to in-demand fields in business, medical, nursing,
cosmetology and information technology."

In the Oct. 18 lawsuit, five women say Career Point instructed
them and other students to apply for federal student loans
"ranging from $19,000 to over $30,000," and for federal Pell
Grants.

"Unfortunately, Career Point did not inform the students that
Career Point alone would retain control over the grant funds and
that it would solely decide if and when to distribute these
monies, if any, to plaintiffs. Certain plaintiffs never received a
penny of their Pell Grant and Career Point's use of these funds
remains unknown," lead plaintiff Erica Eckols says in that
complaint.

Eckols adds: "Acting alone or in concert with third-party lenders,
Career Point induced plaintiffs to obtain additional loans with
interest ranging from 18 to 24 percent."

Only one of these five plaintiffs was provided with information on
the cost of tuition -- $19,440 -- but the college called that
"merely an estimate," these plaintiffs say.

San Antonio media have reported that the lawsuits are class
actions, though that is not explicitly stated in the complaints.

Career Point sent a mass email on Oct. 16, telling students the
school was closing immediately.  In that email, which is cited in
the complaint, defendant CEO and President Earle said that "three
long-term employees had collaborated to violate the rules related
to student aid funds."

Earle wrote that "no money was stolen," and that Career Point
"self-reported the violation and agreed to repay all
inappropriately received funds," but the U.S. Department of
Education refused to accept its "plan."

"Instead, the Department of Education severely restricted
government funds going to the college, making it impossible for
the college to continue operations."

Eckols et al. call Earle "the president and sole owner of Career
Point." They say Earle gave them no information on what the "three
long-term employees" did, and omitted important details, for
instance, the "misappropriation of federal funds."

"Apparently, employees of Career Point, acting in the course and
scope of their employment, improperly obtained over $4,600,000 in
federal loan funds," the complaint states, citing reports from two
San Antonio news stations.

These reports "stat(ed) that Career Point 'failed to pay credit
balances and required returns of unearned Title IV program funds
totaling more than $4.6 million,'" according to the complaint.  It
continues: "According to Mr. Earle, Career Point previously
exhausted its other financial resources and was forced to close
immediately. Mr. Earle did not disclose that the Department of
Education required Career Point to obtain a $10,000,000 letter of
credit to continue its operations."

Eckols says that Earle "further stated in the notification that
Career Point would assist its students in transferring to other
schools. However, the phone lines for Career Point are
disconnected and plaintiffs have no mechanism to obtain any
information or documents concerning their education."

Most of the website has been disabled as well, leaving it "a shell
of its former self," Eckols says. "At every turn, plaintiffs were
promised by representatives of Career Point that documents and
information would be provided. At every turn, that did not occur."

Eckols claims that Career Point "took affirmative steps to conceal
information from plaintiffs and the other 1,000-plus students
regarding their financial aid and the manner in which it was
used."

To cap it off, Eckols says, when she learned of the financial
fiasco, "Career Point embarked on a campaign to defame and
discredit (her), telling students that they should not communicate
with her because of her negativity." She says the dean told her
she could drop out "if she did not like the way the school was
managing its affairs."

Eckols claims that "Career Point intentionally concealed the
investigation by the Department of Education" to keep the money
rolling in until the last minute.

In the days before the fatal Oct. 16 email, Eckols says, "Career
Point continued to enroll students and induce them to incur
significant debt, including certain plaintiffs herein. Upon
information and belief, on or about October 10, 2016, Career Point
enrolled a new class of approximately 16 students. The defendants'
actions are deceptive, fraudulent, and were clearly designed to
keep the money flowing. Without new students and hundreds of
thousands of dollars in new financial aid funds, Career Point was
insolvent and could not operate."

The Oct. 20 complaint from 54 students makes similar allegations.
For instance: "Defendants have maintained silence concerning the
closure, except for information posted on its website directing
students to make email requests for information, none of which
have been honored."

In this complaint, some students say that unauthorized, fraudulent
loans were taken out in their names, and they have been told that
despite the fraud, they will have to pay off the loans.  The
students say their debts range from $5,000 to $30,000 apiece.

As the complaints state, Career Point's telephone number has been
disconnected. It did not respond to an email request for comment.

The students seek compensatory and punitive damages for breach of
contract, fraud, deceptive trade, misrepresentation, usury and
conversion.  They also want an injunction preventing Career Point
from destroying or transferring assets.

Defendants in the 54 students' complaint include Dickinson of San
Antonio Inc., Dickinson of Austin Inc., Dickinson of Spencer Lane
Inc. dba Career Point College, Academic Financial Solutions LLC,
San Antonio Multi-Media Inc., Earle and Kendall.

The five women sued Earle, Kendall, Dickinson of San Antonio Inc.,
Academic Financial Solutions LLC, River City High School Inc.,
Dickinson of Austin Inc., and Dickinson of Spencer Lane Inc. The
five plaintiffs are represented by Randall Pulman --
rpulman@pulmanlaw.com -- with Pulman, Cappuccio, Pullen, Benson &
Jones; the 54 by Aric Garza, both of San Antonio.


CENTENE CO: Faces "Chapa" Lawsuit Seeking OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
CAMELIA CHAPA, On Behalf Of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. CENTENE COMPANY OF TEXAS, L.P. d/b/a
CENTENE - SUPERIOR HEALTH, Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-00608
(S.D. Tex., October 19, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
and/or underpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

CENTENE COMPANY OF TEXAS, L.P. is an affiliate of Centene
Corporation, a Fortune 500 multi-national healthcare enterprise
that provides a portfolio of services to government-sponsored
healthcare programs, focusing on under-insured and uninsured
individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael K. Burke, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA, BURKE & KHIRALLAH, LLP
     3900 N. 10th St., Suite 850
     McAllen, TX 78501
     Phone: (956) 682-5999
     Fax: (888) 317-8802
     E-mail: mburke@mmguerra.com

        - and -

     Ryan C. Solis, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF RYAN C. SOLIS, PLLC
     3900 N. 10th St., Suite
     McAllen, TX 78501
     Phone: (956) 686-9600
     Fax: (956) 686-7033
     E-mail: ryan@rsolislaw.com


CENTRAL FREIGHT: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Henry" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Central Freight Lines, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Rickey Henry v. Central
Freight Lines, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00280-JAM-EFB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 13,
2016, District Judge John A. Mendez approved the Plaintiff's
motion to remand the Case to the Superior Court for the County of
Sacramento.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Rickey Henry v. Central Freight
Lines, Inc., Case No. 16-80157, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Respondent RICKEY HENRY, an individual, on behalf of
himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          E-mail: aj@bamlawlj.com
                  norm@bamlawlj.com

               - and -

          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL & MARKHAM
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          E-mail: kyle@bamlawca.com

Defendant-Petitioner CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC., is represented
by:

          Jonathan Liu, Esq.
          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          E-mail: jonathan.liu@ogletreedeakins.com
                  spencer.skeen@odnss.com


CIGNA CORP: "Negron" Suit Alleges Violation of ERISA, RICO Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY A. NEGRON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. CIGNA CORPORATION and CIGNA
HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
01702 (D. Conn., October 13, 2016), alleges violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and (b) violations
of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by
Defendants and/or their agents because they required network
pharmacies to charge insured patients unauthorized and excessive
amounts for prescription drugs.

Defendant Cigna Corporation, through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, including Defendant Cigna Health and Life Insurance
Company, is a fully integrated health insurance company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert A. Izard, Esq.
     Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
     Christopher M. Barrett, Esq.
     IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
     29 South Main Street, Suite 305
     West Hartford, CT 06107
     Phone: (860) 493-6292
     Fax: (860) 493-6290
     E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
             craabe@ikrlaw.com
             cbarrett@ikrlaw.com

        - and -

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


COMPREHENSIVE CENTER: "Chu" Files Breach of Contract Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Amy Chu, Bi-Tao Ng, Channy Bakst, Charo Nespral, Devorah Weiss,
Diana Normatov, Edward Zarow, Eunyoung Chang, Wendy Hui, Jason
Gatpandan, John Cucuzza, Kareema Craig, Lauren Wong, Peter H. Lee,
Lisa Plaskett, Margaret Chu, Mary Jo Corso, Min-Tang Yeh, Qi Guo,
Queenie Huang, Shiang Tien, Sophia Dong, Shira Spira, Suleyka
Hernandez, Tova Frenkel, Wendie Benderly, Ysotte Ortega, Yuet
Ngor-Margaret Lam, Adina Edelstein, Valia M. Patterson, Jesse
McMurry, Qiu Jian, Susana Linker, Rachelle Lubin, Sharon Guo,
Hailin Tchou, Jaely Ricciardi, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Comprehensive Center, LLC.
d/b/a Comprehensive Kids Developmental School a/k/a Comprehensive
Evaluation Services, Comprehensive Staffing Solutions LLC., New
York's Comprehensive Home Care Services, LLC, Grand Street
Medicine & Rehabilitation, P.C. and Nathan Sklar, jointly and
severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08007 (S.D.N.Y., October
13, 2016), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for
alleged late payment of wages. Plaintiffs also bring a cause of
action for breach of contract.

The Comprehensive Center, LLC. d/b/a Comprehensive Kids
Developmental School a/k/a Comprehensive Evaluation Services,
Comprehensive Staffing Solutions LLC., New York's Comprehensive
Home Care Services, LLC, Grand Street Medicine & Rehabilitation,
P.C. were set up to provide health-care services to children and
adults with developmental problems, such as autism.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq.
     PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
     3510 Broadway, Suite 201
     Astoria, NY 11106
     Phone: (718) 777-0400
     Fax: (718) 777-0599


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Class Certification Sought in "Tipton" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned CHARLES TIPTON; KELLI
JOHNSON and AARON JOHNSON; DOREENE CHRISTIE and JAMES CHRISTIE;
BILLY TIPTON, all individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.; UNION TANK CAR
COMPANY, Case No. 3:15-cv-00311-TAV-CCS (E.D. Tenn.), move for
class certification pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3) and,
alternatively, Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary A. Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & WHITLOCK, P.C.
          21 Battery Park Ave., Suite 206
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 622-0044
          Facsimile: (828) 398-0435
          E-mail: gadavis@enviroattorney.com
                  jwhitlock@enviroattorney.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey E. Friedman, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO, ZULANAS & BOWLING, PC
          3800 CorporateWoods Drive
          Birmingham, AL 35242
          Telephone: (205) 278-7000
          Facsimile: (205) 278-7001
          E-mail: jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com
                  mconn@friedman-lawyers.com

               - and -

          Mark Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LAW CENTER
          601 Washington Street
          Paducah, KY 42001
          Telephone: (270) 442-1422
          E-mail: mark.bryant@bryantpsc.com

               - and -

          D. Blayne Honeycutt, Esq.
          FAYARD & HONEYCUTT, APC
          519 Florida Avenue, SW
          Denham Springs, LA 70726
          Telephone: (225) 664-4193
          Facsimile: (225) 664-6925
          E-mail: dbhoneycutt@fayardlaw.com

               - and -

          David Karnas, Esq.
          BELLOVIN & KARNAS, PC
          4810 E. Broadway Boulevard
          Tucson, AZ 85711
          Telephone: (520) 571-9700
          E-mail: karnas@bellovinkarnas.com

               - and -

          Steven Weinberger, Esq.
          LAYFIELD & BARRETT, APC
          7135 E Camelback Rd., Suite 230
          Scottsdale, AZ 85251
          Telephone: (480) 440-0426
          E-mail: s.weinberger@layfieldbarrett.com

               - and -

          Beecher A. Bartlett, Jr., Esq.
          KRAMER RAYSON LLP
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 2500
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 525-5134
          Facsimile: (865) 522-5723
          E-mail: bbartlett@kramer-rayson.com


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Tipton Moves for Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CHARLES TIPTON; KELLI JOHNSON
and AARON JOHNSON; DOREENE CHRISTIE and JAMES CHRISTIE; BILLY
TIPTON, all individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.; UNION TANK CAR
COMPANY, Case No. 3:15-cv-00497-TAV-CCS (E.D. Tenn.), move for
class certification pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3) and,
alternatively, Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AvDiy5A5

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary A. Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & WHITLOCK, P.C.
          21 Battery Park Ave., Suite 206
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 622-0044
          Facsimile: (828) 398-0435
          E-mail: gadavis@enviroattorney.com
                  jwhitlock@enviroattorney.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey E. Friedman, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO, ZULANAS & BOWLING, PC
          3800 CorporateWoods Drive
          Birmingham, AL 35242
          Telephone: (205) 278-7000
          Facsimile: (205) 278-7001
          E-mail: jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com
                  mconn@friedman-lawyers.com

               - and -

          Mark Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LAW CENTER
          601 Washington Street
          Paducah, KY 42001
          Telephone: (270) 442-1422
          E-mail: mark.bryant@bryantpsc.com

               - and -

          D. Blayne Honeycutt, Esq.
          FAYARD & HONEYCUTT, APC
          519 Florida Avenue, SW
          Denham Springs, LA 70726
          Telephone: (225) 664-4193
          Facsimile: (225) 664-6925
          E-mail: dbhoneycutt@fayardlaw.com

               - and -

          David Karnas, Esq.
          BELLOVIN & KARNAS, PC
          4810 E. Broadway Boulevard
          Tucson, AZ 85711
          Telephone: (520) 571-9700
          E-mail: karnas@bellovinkarnas.com

               - and -

          Steven Weinberger, Esq.
          LAYFIELD & BARRETT, APC
          7135 E Camelback Rd., Suite 230
          Scottsdale, AZ 85251
          Telephone: (480) 440-0426
          E-mail: s.weinberger@layfieldbarrett.com

               - and -

          Beecher A. Bartlett, Jr., Esq.
          KRAMER RAYSON LLP
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 2500
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 525-5134
          Facsimile: (865) 522-5723
          E-mail: bbartlett@kramer-rayson.com


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Tipton Seeks Certification of Class in Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled CHARLES TIPTON; KELLI
JOHNSON and AARON JOHNSON; DOREENE CHRISTIE and JAMES CHRISTIE;
BILLY TIPTON, all individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.; UNION TANK CAR
COMPANY, Case No. 3:15-cv-00337-TAV-CCS (E.D. Tenn.), move for
class certification pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3) and,
alternatively, Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iTM8dU8J

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary A. Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & WHITLOCK, P.C.
          21 Battery Park Ave., Suite 206
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 622-0044
          Facsimile: (828) 398-0435
          E-mail: gadavis@enviroattorney.com
                  jwhitlock@enviroattorney.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey E. Friedman, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO, ZULANAS & BOWLING, PC
          3800 CorporateWoods Drive
          Birmingham, AL 35242
          Telephone: (205) 278-7000
          Facsimile: (205) 278-7001
          E-mail: jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com
                  mconn@friedman-lawyers.com

               - and -

          Mark Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LAW CENTER
          601 Washington Street
          Paducah, KY 42001
          Telephone: (270) 442-1422
          E-mail: mark.bryant@bryantpsc.com

               - and -

          D. Blayne Honeycutt, Esq.
          FAYARD & HONEYCUTT, APC
          519 Florida Avenue, SW
          Denham Springs, LA 70726
          Telephone: (225) 664-4193
          Facsimile: (225) 664-6925
          E-mail: dbhoneycutt@fayardlaw.com

               - and -

          David Karnas, Esq.
          BELLOVIN & KARNAS, PC
          4810 E. Broadway Boulevard
          Tucson, AZ 85711
          Telephone: (520) 571-9700
          E-mail: karnas@bellovinkarnas.com

               - and -

          Steven Weinberger, Esq.
          LAYFIELD & BARRETT, APC
          7135 E Camelback Rd., Suite 230
          Scottsdale, AZ 85251
          Telephone: (480) 440-0426
          E-mail: s.weinberger@layfieldbarrett.com

               - and -

          Beecher A. Bartlett, Jr., Esq.
          KRAMER RAYSON LLP
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 2500
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 525-5134
          Facsimile: (865) 522-5723
          E-mail: bbartlett@kramer-rayson.com


DIAMOND PARKING: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Israel" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Hank Israel filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Hank Israel v. Diamond Parking Services Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00687-JCC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

The appellate case is captioned as Hank Israel v. Diamond Parking
Services Inc., et al., Case No. 16-35840, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour on Oct. 11 granted
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Israel's claims with without
prejudice.

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

   -- Appellant Hank Israel's opening brief is due on January 25,
      2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Diamond Parking Services Inc.
      and Diamond Parking Services LLC is due on February 24,
      2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant HANK ISRAEL, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Robert Spencer, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
                  rspencer@kellergrover.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Rogers, Esq.
          BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER, PLLC
          19929 Ballinger Way NE
          Shoreline, WA 98155
          Telephone: (206) 621-6566
          Facsimile: (206) 621-9686
          E-mail: drogers@badgleymullins.com

Defendants-Appellees DIAMOND PARKING SERVICES INC, a Washington
corporation, DBA Diamond Airport Parking, and DIAMOND PARKING
SERVICES LLC, a Washington limited liability company, DBA Diamond
Airport Parking, are represented by:

          Rudy A. Englund, Esq.
          D. Michael Reilly, Esq.
          Jennifer Sheffield, Esq.
          LANE POWELL PC
          1420 Fifth Avenue
          P.O. Box 91302
          Seattle, WA 98111-9402
          Telephone: (206) 223-7042
          E-mail: englundr@lanepowell.com
                  reillym@lanepowell.com
                  sheffieldj@lanepowell.com


DOLE PACKAGED: "Amaya" Claims False Marketing of High-sugar Foods
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SALVADOR AMAYA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DOLE PACKAGED FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-07734 (C.D. Cal., October 18, 2016), seeks to enjoin
Dole from using alleged deceptive health and wellness claims to
market high-sugar foods.

DOLE PACKAGED FOODS, LLC -- https://dolesunshine.com/ -- is in the
business of growing, sourcing, distributing and marketing fruit
and "healthy" snacks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melanie Persinger, Esq.
     Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
     Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
     Hillcrest Professional Building
     3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 692-3840
     Fax: (619) 362-9555
     E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
             trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
             melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


DREAMWORKS: Settles Animation Workers' Class Action for $50MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Johnson, writing for Variety, reports that a settlement has
been reached between a group of animation workers and DreamWorks
Animation in a class action lawsuit alleging that DreamWorks and
other companies violated antitrust laws by conspiring to set
animation wages via nonpoaching agreements.

According to documents filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose on
Oct. 17, the settlement provides for a cash payment of $50 million
to a settlement fund.  The named plaintiffs, Robert Nitsch, David
Wentworth, and Georgia Cano, already had reached settlement
agreements with Sony ImageWorks and Blue Sky Studios.

Other defendants in the case are the Walt Disney Co., Lucasfilm,
Pixar and ImageMovers.  Tjose cases are still pending.

Under the terms of the proposed DreamWorks settlement, the class
includes certain animation and visual effects workers who worked
at DreamWorks from 2004 to 2010; Pixar from 2004 to 2010;
Lucasfilm from 2004 to 2010; The Walt Disney Co. from 2004 to
2010; Sony Pictures Animation and Sony Pictures Imageworks from
2004 to 2010; Blue Sky from 2005 to 2010; and ImageMovers from
2007 to 2010.

The plaintiffs' attorneys may ask for up to 30 percent of
settlement funds for attorneys fees.  If the court approves, each
of the named plaintiffs would receive up to $10,000 each. Exact
payments for each employee will be based on a formula, posted on
the class action website.

The settlement still must be approved by U.S. District Judge Lucy
Koh.  A hearing is scheduled for Jan. 19.

The lawsuit was filed by Mr. Nitsch, a former DreamWorks Animation
senior character effects artist; Wentworth, a former ImageMovers
Digital production engineer; and Cano, a digital artist who held
jobs at Rhythm & Hues, Walt Disney Feature Animation and
ImageMovers Digital.

In its settlement, Sony agreed to pay $13 million to the
settlement fund, and Blue Sky agreed to contribute $5.95 million.

The workers contend that the roots of the anti-poaching agreements
go back to the mid-1980s, when George Lucas and Ed Catmull, the
president of Steve Jobs' newly formed company Pixar, agreed to not
raid each other's employees.

Other companies then joined the conspiracy, the suit contended,
with agreements on such things as cold calling and notifying each
other when making an offer to an employee of another company.

Lucasfilm and Pixar were already targets of a Justice Department
antitrust lawsuit in 2010, along with Apple, Google, Adobe
Systems, Intel Corp. and Intuit, in which the government contended
that their "no solicitation" agreements prevented highly skilled
employees from commanding better wages and job opportunities. The
companies settled the litigation by agreeing to end such practices
for a period of five years.

In a settlement of a class action civil suit that Judge Koh
approved in May 2014, Lucasfilm and Pixar agreed to pay $9
million, and Intuit agreed to pay $11 million.  But during the
litigation, emails were disclosed that appeared to link other
companies to the "no poaching" agreements.  The animation workers
filed their own class action lawsuit in December 2014.


EAGLE MATERIALS: Class Certification Proceedings Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the Domestic
Wallboard Antitrust Litigation, the motions filed by direct
purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs seeking
class certification are ongoing.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States District Courts, including the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North
Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the
Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC ("American
Gypsum"), alleging that the defendant wallboard manufacturers
conspired to fix the price for drywall sold in the United States
in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some cases related
provisions of state law. The complaints allege that the defendant
wallboard manufacturers conspired to increase prices through the
announcement and implementation of coordinated price increases,
output restrictions, and other restraints of trade, including the
elimination of individual "job quote" pricing. In addition to
American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits include
CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation and United States Gypsum
(together "USG"), New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America
("Lafarge"), Temple Inland Inc. ("TIN") and PABCO Building
Products LLC.

On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") transferred and consolidated all related cases to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct
purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant. The
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits bring claims
on behalf of purported classes of direct or indirect purchasers of
wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for unspecified
monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases
injunctive relief. On July 29, 2013, the Company and American
Gypsum answered the complaints, denying all allegations that they
conspired to increase the price of drywall and asserting
affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs' claims.

In 2014, USG and TIN entered into agreements with counsel
representing the direct and indirect purchaser classes pursuant to
which they agreed to settle all claims against them.  On August
20, 2015, the court entered orders finally approving USG and TIN's
settlements with the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs.
Initial discovery in this litigation is complete.  Following
completion of the initial discovery, the Company and remaining co-
defendants moved for summary judgement.

On February 18, 2016, the court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgement.  On June 16, 2016, Lafarge entered into an
agreement with counsel for the direct purchaser class under which
it agreed to settle all claims against it.  The court entered an
order preliminarily approving this settlement on July 18, 2016.

On July 28, 2016, Lafarge entered into an agreement with counsel
representing the indirect purchaser class under which it agreed to
settle all claims against it.  Indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed
a motion for preliminary approval of this settlement in September
2016.

On July 14, 2016, the Company's motion for permission to appeal
the summary judgement decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit was denied.  Direct purchaser plaintiffs and
indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their motions for class
certification on August 3, 2016 and October 12, 2016,
respectively.  Class certification proceedings are ongoing.

"We are unable to estimate the amount of any reasonably possible
loss or range of reasonably possible losses. We deny the
allegations in these lawsuits and will vigorously defend ourselves
against these claims," the Company said.


EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery in Homebuilders' Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a group of
homebuilders filed on March 17, 2015, a complaint against
defendants, including American Gypsum, based upon the same conduct
alleged in the consolidated class action complaints.  On March 24,
2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML")
transferred this action to the multidistrict litigation already
pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Following the
transfer, the homebuilder plaintiffs filed two amended complaints,
on December 14, 2015 and March 25, 2016.  Discovery in this
lawsuit is ongoing.


EL PASO: "Alvaranga" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nalvin Alvaranga, and Amelia Fernandez Cardona, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. EL PASO
TAQUERIA GRILL CORP., ROBERTO HERNANDEZ AND DORIAN SIGN HERNANDEZ,
In their individual capacities, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
05788-LDW-ARL (E.D.N.Y., October 18, 2016), alleges that
Defendants willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law by failing to pay its employees overtime
compensation.

EL PASO TAQUERIA GRILL CORP. sells and serves food and beverages.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Delvis Melendez, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DELVIS MELENDEZ
     90 Bradley Street
     Brentwood, NY 11717
     Phone: 631-434-1443
     Fax: 631-434-1443


ESG USA: "Fuller" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, Labor Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC FULLER, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated Plaintiff, V. ESG USA INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:16-cv-03051 (S.D. Tex., October 13, 2016), alleges illegal pay
practices by Defendants in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the California Labor
Code.

Defendant is an oilfield services company that provides seismic
monitoring services to energy exploration companies. It provides
the tools necessary to conduct monitoring activities during
drilling and fracturing operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Don J. Foty, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
     4409 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Fax: (713) 523-1116
     E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com

        - and -

     Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
     THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
     920 Rockefeller Building
     614 W. Superior Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: 216-696-5000
     Fax: 216-696-7005
     E-mail: anthony@lazzarolaw.com


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Faces Class Actions in Florida and Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp (the "Company"), Teachers Insurance and
Annuity Association of America ("TIAA"), TCT Holdings, Inc. ("TCT
Holdings") and Dolphin Sub Corporation ("Merger Sub") entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated August 7, 2016 (the "merger
agreement"). Under the merger agreement, Merger Sub, a wholly
owned subsidiary of TIAA, will merge with and into the Company
(the "merger"), so that the Company is the surviving corporation
in the merger and a wholly owned subsidiary of TIAA. In connection
with the merger, the Company filed a definitive proxy statement
(the "Proxy Statement") with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") on September 30, 2016.

EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2016, that two
putative stockholder class actions, captioned Bushansky v.
EverBank Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 3:16-CV-01224-MMH-JBT,
and Parshall v. EverBank Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 3:16-
CV-01235-TJC-PDB (collectively, the "Florida actions"), were filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Jacksonville Division in connection with the merger.

In addition, after the Company filed its Proxy Statement, on
October 12, 2016, an alleged stockholder of the Company filed a
third putative stockholder class action, captioned Nahas v.
EverBank Financial Corp, et al., Civil Action Case No. 12824-VCS
(the "Delaware action" and, together with the Florida actions, the
"merger stockholder actions"), in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against the Company and members of the Company's
board of directors (the "individual defendants"). The Delaware
action alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose all
material information necessary to allow the Company's stockholders
to cast a fully informed vote on the proposed merger. Among other
things, the Delaware action alleges that the Proxy Statement
failed to include material information concerning: (i) the
negotiation of potential employment retention arrangements between
TIAA and Company management; (ii) certain details concerning the
non-disclosure agreements ("NDAs") the Company entered into with
various parties; and (iii) certain items in management's financial
projections provided to the Company's financial advisor. The
Delaware action seeks, among other things, an order preliminarily
and permanently enjoining the proposed merger, a finding that the
individual defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary
duties, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company continues to believe that the claims asserted in the
merger stockholder actions are without merit and intends to defend
against the merger stockholder actions vigorously. However, to
alleviate the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation and any potential delay of the proposed merger, and
without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company is
making supplemental disclosures.


FANNIE MAE: Shareholders Sue FHFA Over $195BB "Net Worth Sweep"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that shareholders have sued the Department of the Treasury and the
Federal Housing Finance Agency, claiming their $195 billion "net
worth sweep" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2012 illegally sent
all their dividends to the U.S. Treasury rather than shareholders.

The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and The
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), are
government-sponsored private companies that own or guarantee
trillions of dollars in U.S. home loans. They buy home loans from
banks, freeing up the banks to issue more home loans.

After the financial crisis began in late 2007, as the value of
securitized home loans collapsed, Congress in July 2008 passed the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, under which Fannie and
Freddie received a $188 billion government bailout.

The Act also created the Federal Housing Finance Agency and
authorized it to appoint itself conservator of the companies,
which it did in September 2008.

Lead plaintiff J. Patrick Collins a Freddie Mac stockholder, filed
the lawsuit on Oct. 20 in Federal Court.

"As conservator, HERA charges FHFA to rehabilitate Fannie and
Freddie by taking action to put the companies in a sound and
solvent condition while preserving and conserving their assets,"
the complaint states.

The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 also gave the
Treasury Department temporary authority to buy stock in Fannie and
Freddie under preferred stock purchase agreements.

"Under these PSPAs, Treasury received an entirely new class of
securities in the companies, known as senior preferred stock
('government stock'), which came with very favorable terms for
Treasury," the complaint states.

"At the outset, Treasury received $1 billion of government stock
(via one million shares) in each company and warrants to acquire
79.9 percent of the common stock of the companies at a nominal
price in return for its commitment to acquire government stock in
the future."

By 2012, Collins says, the companies were generating massive
profits: "In fact, in the first two quarters of 2012, the
companies posted sizable profits totaling more than $11 billion."
But despite the Treasury Department's agreement to return control
of the companies to their boards once they became solvent, Collins
says, in 2012 it strengthened its grip on the companies

"Despite the companies' relative financial health, the Department
of the Treasury implemented a deliberate strategy to seize the
companies and operate them for the exclusive benefit of the
federal government," the complaint states.

On Aug. 17, 2012 the Treasury Department and the Federal Housing
Finance Agency executed a "Net Worth Sweep" under which Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac became obligated to pay a quarterly dividend to
Treasury equal to their entire net worth, according to the
complaint.

"The Net Worth Sweep has resulted in a massive and unprecedented
financial windfall for the federal government at the expense of
the companies' private shareholders," the 83-page lawsuit states.

"From the fourth quarter of 2012, the first fiscal quarter subject
to the Net Worth Sweep, through the second quarter of 2016, the
most recently reported fiscal quarter, Fannie and Freddie
generated $195 billion in comprehensive income. But rather than
using those profits to prudently build capital reserves and
prepare to exit conservatorship, Fannie and Freddie instead have
been forced to pay $195 billion in 'dividends' to the federal
government under the Net Worth Sweep."

The Treasury Department has recouped more than $250 billion under
the Net Worth Sweep, $63 billion more than it invested in Freddie
and Fannie, Collins says.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency has said it will keep Fannie
and Freddie in a conservatorship until Congress passes housing
finance legislation.

"Holding the companies hostage in a perpetual conservatorship
while awaiting potential legislative action was never an option
for FHFA contemplated under HERA," the complaint states.

The lengthy lawsuit cites discovery in a case pending in the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims. U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge
Margaret Sweeney this month ordered the federal government to turn
over documents to plaintiff Fairholme Funds.

Fairholme seeks FHFA documents on whether Fannie and Freddie were
anticipated to ever be solvent when the agency implemented the Net
Worth Sweep, how long the conservatorship was expected to last,
and the reasons for the government's decision to claim a dividend
equal to the companies' entire net worth.

Collins seeks declaratory judgment that the Net Worth Sweep
violates the Administrative Procedure Act's prohibition against
federal agencies taking action that exceeds their statutory
authority; that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
violates the Constitution's separation of powers clause because it
installed a single director over the FHFA who can be removed by
the president only for cause; and he wants the Net Worth Sweep
vacated and set aside, "including its provision sweeping all of
the companies' net worth to Treasury every quarter."

He is represented by Chad Flores -- cflores@beckredden.com -- with
Beck Redden in Houston.

A FHFA spokeswoman declined comment.


FCA US: E-shift System Defective, "Brooks" Class Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR BROOKS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case
No. 2:16-cv-13677-DML-DRG (W.D. Mo., October 17, 2016), alleges
that the Company's E-shift System poses an unreasonable safety
hazard to drivers, passengers, and bystanders.

FCA installed gearshifts in its 2014-15 Jeep Grand Cherokees,
2012-14 Dodge Chargers, and 2012-14 Chrysler 300 sedans (the
"Defective Vehicles") that depart from the traditional "PRND"
gearshift in favor of the Monostable electronic gearshift (the "E-
shift System"), Mr. Brooks states. In contrast to a conventional
gearshift, he contends, the E-shift System never truly shifts or
locks into a gear position, but instead remains in a centered or
neutral position.  As such, he notes, the E-shift System does not
provide the tactical or visual feedback that drivers are
accustomed to receiving from conventional gearshifts.  Hence, he
contends, the E-shift System poses an unreasonable safety hazard,
and is defective and dangerous from the time of sale, when the
vehicle is used as intended and anticipated.

Auburn Hills, Michigan-based FCA US LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company, and is wholly owned by holding company Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles N.V., a Dutch corporation headquartered in
London, United Kingdom.  FCA, also known as Fiat Chrysler or
simply Chrysler, designs, engineers, manufactures and sells
vehicles under the Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, Ram and FIAT brands, as
well as the SRT performance vehicle designation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Schultz, III, Esq.
          SCHULTZ & ASSOCIATES LLP
          640 Cepi Drive, Suite A
          Chesterfield, MO 63005
          Telephone: (636) 537-4645
          Facsimile: (636) 537-2599
          E-mail: rschultz@sl-lawyers.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Adam E. Edwards, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 533-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Tyler J. Story, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  aek@wexlerwallace.com
                  tjs@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 North Franklin St., 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


FCA US: Faces "Mack" Suit in N.Y. Over Defective E-shift System
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANELLA MACK and MICHAEL CRUZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-13678-DML-DRG (E.D.N.Y.,
October 17, 2016), alleges that because of the Company's
installation of the defective E-shift System in certain vehicles,
those Defective Vehicles are unsafe upon purchase and pose an
unreasonable risk of harm to drivers, passengers, and bystanders.

FCA installed gearshifts in its 2014-15 Jeep Grand Cherokees,
2012-14 Dodge Chargers, and 2012-14 Chrysler 300 sedans (the
"Defective Vehicles") that depart from the traditional "PRND"
gearshift in favor of the Monostable electronic gearshift (the "E-
shift System"), says the complaint. In contrast to a conventional
gearshift, the E-shift System never truly shifts or locks into a
gear position, but instead remains in a centered or neutral
position.  As such, the E-shift System does not provide the
tactical or visual feedback that drivers are accustomed to
receiving from conventional gearshifts.  Hence, the E-shift System
poses an unreasonable safety hazard, and is defective and
dangerous from the time of sale, when the vehicle is used as
intended and anticipated.

Auburn Hills, Michigan-based FCA US LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company, and is wholly owned by holding company Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles N.V., a Dutch corporation headquartered in
London, United Kingdom.  FCA, also known as Fiat Chrysler or
simply Chrysler, designs, engineers, manufactures and sells
vehicles under the Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, Ram and FIAT brands, as
well as the SRT performance vehicle designation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Tyler J. Story, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  aek@wexlerwallace.com
                  tjs@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com


FIDELITY NATIONAL: "Maitchoukow" Suit Invokes FLSA, Cal. Wage Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS MAITCHOUKOW, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION
SERVICES, INC., a Georgia corporation, and FIS MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, DOES 1
through 25, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-07632 (C.D. Cal., October
13, 2016), seeks to recoup overtime, meal and rest period
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California
Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders of the Industrial Welfare
Commission.

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. is a financial
services technology company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
     Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq.
     GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
     15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
     Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
     Phone: (213) 542-2100
     Fax: (213) 542-2101

        - and -

     Marshall A. Caskey, Esq.
     Daniel M. Holzman, Esq.
     CASKEY & HOLZMAN
     24025 Park Sorrento, Ste. 400
     Calabasas, CA 91302
     Phone: (818) 657-1070
     Fax: (818) 297-1775


FIRST SOLAR: Motion to Intervene and Unseal Court Records Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David G. Campbell of the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona denied the motion of a group of
plaintiffs in a derivative action against First Solar Inc., to
intervene and unseal court records in the securities class action
case captioned, Mark Smilovits, et al., Plaintiffs, v. First Solar
Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-12-00555-PHX-DGC (D.
Ariz.).

The Securities Class Action alleges that First Solar and various
officers and directors committed securities fraud between 2008 and
2012 by failing to disclose the existence of an "LPM defect" and a
"hot climate defect" in solar panels produced by the company. The
class plaintiffs allege that the failure to disclose these defects
resulted in their purchasing First Solar stock at inflated prices
and suffering financial losses when the defects eventually were
disclosed.

On April 12, 2012, Clifford Tindall, Britt Nederhood, Eng Kwang
Tan, and Eric Feigin filed a Derivative Action on behalf of First
Solar against 14 of its directors and officers (Derivative
Defendants). The Derivative Action alleged that the defendants
breached fiduciary duties owed to First Solar and violated various
laws by failing to disclose the LPM and hot climate defects,
resulting in "hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to First
Solar's reputation, goodwill, and standing in the business
community." Later in 2012, Derivative Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, again asserting that demand would be futile.

The Court stayed the Derivative Action pending resolution of the
Securities Class Action. The stay lasted more than three years,
but was lifted by the Court in February 2016.  Once the stay was
lifted, Derivative Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, insider trading,
and unjust enrichment.

Derivative Defendants responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing
that Derivative Plaintiffs had not shown demand futility as
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1.  The Court
agreed, and on June 30, 2106, dismissed the insider trading and
unjust enrichment claims without leave to amend. The Court
dismissed the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim with leave to amend
and denied Derivative Plaintiffs' request to unseal evidence in
the Securities Class Action, finding that "discovery should not be
permitted to supplement allegations of demand futility --
allegations that should reflect facts known to Plaintiffs when
they elected not to make a demand on First Solar's board."

Derivative Plaintiffs seek to intervene in the Securities Class
Action and obtain access to the sealed information, hoping to find
support for their demand futility claim. Derivative Plaintiffs
argue that the Court should allow permissive intervention because
the requirements of Rule 24(b) are met. They further argue that
the Court should unseal the documents because the Derivative
Defendants have not overcome the strong presumption favoring
public access to court records. They further argue that the Court
should unseal the documents because the Derivative Defendants have
not overcome the strong presumption favoring public access to
court records and that the Court should exercise its discretion to
refuse intervention because granting the motion would contravene
the important policy against derivative plaintiff access to
discovery before satisfaction of Rule 23.1.

In his Order dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/lJ2No5 from Leagle.com, Judge Campbell held that the
Derivative Plaintiffs' motion to unseal documents is an attempt to
maneuver around the well-accepted rule that "discovery may not be
used to supplement demand futility allegations" and the Court will
exercise its discretion to deny Plaintiffs discovery because
allowing them access to sealed records obtained after significant
discovery in the Securities Class Action would be tantamount to
permitting Plaintiffs to conduct discovery in aid of their demand
futility argument.

Mark Smilovits is represented by Garrett Webster Wotkyns, Esq. --
gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP -- Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- and Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. --
pvdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP; and Richard W. Gonnello,
Esq. -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI LLP

Smilovits is also represented by:

      Jennifer Lynn Kroll, Esq.
      Susan Joan Martin, Esq.
      MARTIN & BONNETT PLLC
      1850 N. Central Avenue
      Suite 2010
      Phoenix, AZ 85004
      Tel: (800)952-4750

Johnny Hyldmar is represented by Richard W. Gonnello, Esq. --
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI LLP

Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, et al. are represented by Daniel S.
Drosman, Esq. -- dand@rgrdlaw.com -- Danielle S. Myers, Esq. --
danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Jason A. Forge, Esq. -- jforge@rgrdlaw.com --
Luke Brooks, Esq. -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- Mark Solomon, Esq. --
marks@rgrdlaw.com -- Michael J. Dowd, Esq. -- miked@rgrdlaw.com --
Christopher Dennis Stewart, Esq. -- cstewart@rgrdlaw.com -- Cody
R. LeJeune, Esq. -- clejeune@rgrdlaw.com -- Darren J. Robbins,
Esq. -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq. --
dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com -- Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq. --
jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com -- Lonnie A. Browne, Esq. --
lbrowne@rgrdlaw.com -- and Tor Gronborg, Esq. -- torg@rgrdlaw.com
-- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

Mineworkers' Pension Scheme et al. are also represented by:

      Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
      Kevin Richard Hanger, Esq.
      BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
      1850 N. Central Avenue
      Suite 2010
      Phoenix, AZ 85004
      Tel: (800)952-4750

First Solar Incorporated, et al. are represented by Anna Erickson
White, Esq. -- awhite@mofo.com -- Jordan Eth, Esq. --jeth@mofo.com
-- James P. Bennett, Esq. -- jbennett@mofo.com -- Judson E.
Lobdell, Esq. -- jlobdell@mofo.com -- Mark Ryan Scott Foster, Esq.
-- mfoster@mofo.com -- Paul Flum, Esq. -- paulflum@mofo.com -- and
Philip T. Besirof, Esq. -- pbesirof@mofo.com -- MORRISON &
FOERSTER LLP -- Joseph Nathaniel Roth, Esq. -- jroth@omlaw.com --
and Maureen Beyers, Esq. -- mbeyers@omlaw.com -- OSBORN MALEDON PA


FORD MOTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Power Steering Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
power steering lawsuit is hanging on while Ford argues the lawsuit
doesn't merit class-action certification.

The Ford power steering lawsuit was filed in 2014 after owners
complained about problems in the 2012-2014 Ford Focus and
2010-2014 Ford Fusion.  Owners say that without warning, the cars
lose power steering and switch to manual steering, a dangerous
condition that can occur while driving.

Owners complain it can cost $2,000 for repairs that Ford should
pay for due to the alleged defects.  The plaintiffs also claim the
problem has a bad habit of occurring shortly after the warranties
expire, leaving owners to cover repair costs.

The plaintiffs claim electrical problems cause the loss of power
steering, specifically electromechanical relays in the steering
system, relays that Ford says are not defective.

According to the lawsuit, Ford knew about the Fusion and Focus
power steering problems but refused to recall the cars, then after
the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiffs say Ford did recall at least
some of the cars.  However, the plaintiffs allege it took a push
from the lawsuit to convince the automaker to order a recall.

In April 2015, Ford recalled the 2013-15 Ford Fusion to repair
steering gear bolts that could break due to corrosion, and in May
2015, Ford recalled its 2011-2012 Ford Fusion cars after finding
an electrical connection in the steering gear could leave a driver
with nothing but manual steering.

The plaintiffs argue Ford changed from a hydraulic system to the
electromechanical system in an attempt to increase fuel economy by
taking pressure off the engine, but instead the changes created
the power steering problems.

In addition to denying the electromechanical relays are defective,
Ford says the claims should be dismissed because the alleged
defects, if they exist, occurred during manufacturing at different
times and with different models.  Due to this, the plaintiffs
cannot claim a "common defect" is associated with the Focus and
Fusion cars.

In asking the judge to deny class certification, the automaker
says some of the plaintiffs shouldn't even be included because
those people bought used cars or purchased them for business
purposes, so by law those folks have no legal right be part of a
class-action lawsuit.

This isn't the first time Ford has argued the power steering
class-action lawsuit shouldn't proceed.  In 2015, U.S. District
Judge Lucy H. Koh dismissed the suit after saying it was "unduly
burdensome," but she gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend the
complaint.  They did just that, and Ford promptly filed another
motion to dismiss the power steering lawsuit, but the judge denied
Ford's motion.

The Ford power steering lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District for
the Northern District of California -- William Philips et al v.
Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiffs are represented by Baron & Budd PC, Grant &
Eisenhofer PA, and Spilman Thomas & Battle PLLC.


GC SERVICES: Certification of Class Sought in "O'Boyle" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara O'Boyle moves the Court to certify the classes described
in the complaint of the lawsuit styled BARBARA O'BOYLE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GC
SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 2:16-cv-01384-LA (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, Ms. O'Boyle contends, 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, Ms.
O'Boyle says.  She argues that she 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, Ms. O'Boyle asserts.

Ms. O'Boyle 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=gzoPY4Cq

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


GROSSE POINT PARK, MI: Residents File Sewage Backup Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barb Hall, writing for Grosse Pointe Patch, reports that about 200
residents gathered outdoors to hear potential legal solutions for
damage recovery following record flooding in September.  Attorney
Philip Bazzo told the crowd they have options for class action
litigation against the city.  With the authorization of several
attendees, he has now filed a class action lawsuit in Wayne County
Circuit Court.

Mr. Bazzo's meeting was originally scheduled to take place in the
Trombly auditorium but the meeting was abruptly cancelled 24 hours
before.  He moved it outdoors to the playground, according to
Grosse Pointe News.

On the morning of Sept. 29, torrential rains caused about 250
homeowners from several blocks south of Jefferson to experience
backup of sewage into their basements.  Residents reported backups
from a few inches to several feet after the city was forced to
turn off the storm pumps.  City officials said they were forced to
do so when rising waters threatened transformers in the pumping
station.  They turned off the pumps to avoid damaging the
equipment, the News reports.

Many residents said they were frustrated with the lack of response
by city officials and attended the meeting to get answers to their
questions as to the city's liability and if they could recoup any
of their losses.  For two hours, Mr. Bazzo attempted to answer
residents' questions, but mainly focused on the benefit of filing
a class action lawsuit against the city.

Mr. Bazzo was scheduled to hold a series of meetings with
residents at 6, 7 and 8:00 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 18, at St. Ambrose
Catholic Church, 15020 Hampton, Grosse Pointe Park.  The law firm
of Liddle & Dubin also was scheduled to hold a meeting with
residents at 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, Oct. 19, at St. Ambrose.  The
city has not scheduled a meeting with residents prior to the next
city council meeting at 7 p.m. Monday, Oct. 24, in council
chambers in city hall. Mayor Robert Denner directed residents to
social media sites, including the city's Facebook page, City of
Grosse Pointe Park, and a page set up by residents impacted by the
flood, "GPP 2016 Flood."  Additional information is available on
the city's website, grossepointe park.org.


HAMCOR INC: "Coppernoll" Suit Alleges FLSA, Labor Law Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
WYATT COPPERNOLL, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. HAMCOR INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-05936-DMR
(N.D. Cal., October 13, 2016), seeks to recover full compensation
for all denied timely and compliant meal and rest periods, unpaid
wages, including unpaid overtime and straight time wages, waiting
time penalties, and premium pay for Defendant's alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, applicable California Labor Code
provisions, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders,
and the Unfair Business Practices Act, California Business and
Professions Code.

Hamcor Inc. does business in California and has owned/operated at
least five automobile dealerships with service centers.

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 L. Haines, Esq.
     UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C.
     5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
     Huntington Beach, CA 92649
     Phone: (562) 256-1047
     Fax: (562) 256-1006
     E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com


INFOBLOX INC: "Lin" Sues Officers Over Planned Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
FRANK LIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JESPER ANDERSEN, RICHARD E. BELLUZZO,
LAURA C. CONIGLIARO, PHILIP FASANO, FRED M. GERSON, DANIEL J.
PHELPS, and EDZARD OVERBEEK, Defendants, Case No. 12834 (Del. Ch.,
October 19, 2016), is a stockholder suit over a Merger Agreement,
pursuant to which Infoblox stockholders will receive $26.50 per
share of common stock in cash per Infoblox share.

Infoblox, Inc. delivers actionable network intelligence to
enterprise, government and service provider customers throughout
the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
     Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
     Phone: 610-667-6200
     Fax: 610-667-9029

        - and -

     Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
     James R. Banko, Esq.
     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: jbanko@faruqilaw.com
     Email: dfarrell@faruqilaw.com
     Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


ISABELLA GERIATRIC: NY Court Certifies Class in Perez-Cortes Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, YUDELKA E. PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ISABELLA GERIATRIC CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-7453
(RA) (S.D.N.Y.), District Judge Ronnie Abrams of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York adopted
almost in its entirety the Report of Magistrate Judge Ronald L.
Ellis conditionally certifying Plaintiffs' FLSA claims as
collective action.

Plaintiffs Yudelka E. Perez and Maritza A. Cortes bring the
putative collective and class action against Defendant Isabella
Geriatric Center, Inc. (Isabella), the nursing home where they
worked as Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs). Plaintiffs seek
unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New
York Labor Law (NYLL).

On July 1, 2014, the Honorable Ronald L. Ellis, United States
Magistrate Judge, conditionally certified Plaintiffs' FLSA claim
as a collective action. On October 15, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for
certification of their NYLL claim as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). On the same day,
Isabella moved to decertify the FLSA collective action.

Judge Ellis recommended that the Court grant Plaintiffs' motion to
certify the NYLL class under Rule 23(b)(3) and deny Isabella's
motion to decertify the FLSA collective action under Section
216(b).

Isabella objects that the class certification requirements in Rule
23 were not met and that denial to decertification is
inappropriate in the context of Plaintiffs' Rule 23 motion.

In his Opinion and Order dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/XWOQQ2 from Leagle.com, Judge Abrams certified a
class of "all individuals employed by Isabella as a CNA at its
main campus located on Audubon Avenue in northern Manhattan at any
time during the period starting on October 22, 2007 six years
prior to the filing of the Complaint until the present."

The Court appoints David Harrison and Julie Salwen of Harrison,
Harrison & Associates, Ltd. are appointed as class counsel and
Plaintiffs Perez and Cortes are appointed as class
representatives.  The proposed Notice of the NYLL class action is
approved.

Isabella's motion to decertify the FLSA collective action is
denied.

Yudelka E. Perez, et al. are represented by David Harrison, Esq.
-- dharrison@mayerbrown.com -- Harold William LeMar, Esq. --
lemar.harold@dol.gov -- and Julie Salwen, Esq. --
Julie.Salwen@optoline.com -- HARRISON & ASSOCIATES LTD

Isabella Geriatric Center, Inc. is represented by Ernest R.
Stolzer, Esq. -- estolzer@bsk.com -- Jennifer Barrie Scheu, Esq.
-- jscheu@bsk.com -- and Katherine Susanne McClung, Esq. --
kmcclung@bsk.com -- BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC -- Kevin Joseph
O'Connor, Sr., Esq. -- koconnor@foleymansfield.com -- and Denis
Serkin, Esq. -- dserkin@pecklaw.com -- PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P.C.


JACK IN THE BOX: Faces "Patel" Suit Under FLSA, Cal. Wage Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
KARTIK PATEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. JACK IN THE BOX INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-02561-H-JLB (S.D. Cal., October 13, 2016), seeks
compensation, damages, penalties, and interest to the full extent
permitted by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor
Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders for all denied
meal and rest periods, and unpaid wages.

JACK IN THE BOX INC. operates restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
     Schneider Wallace Cottrell, Esq.
     KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105

        - and -

     John F. Edgar
     Matthew T. Swift, Esq.
     EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
     1032 Pennsylvania Avenue
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Phone: (816) 531-0033
     Fax: (816) 531-3322


JACOB TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Brown" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIE BROWN and EMMETT WALLACE, as individuals and residents of
Nevada; on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, vs. JACOB TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a Nevada
Limited Liability Company, D/B/A EXECUTIVE LAS VEGAS,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02436 (D. Nev., October 19, 2016),
seeks to recover alleged unpaid compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant contracts with McCarran International Airport to shuttle
travelers between the airport and the airport's economy lot.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Don Springmeyer, Esq.
     Bradley Schrager, Esq.
     WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
     3556 E. Russell Road, Second Floor
     Las Vegas, NV 89120

        - and -

     David H. Grounds, Esq.
     Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
     JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
     444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
     Saint Paul, MN 55101

        - and -

     Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
     Jesse Young, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, Suite 1700
     Southfield, MI 48076


JANI-KING OF OKLAHOMA: DOL Sues Over Franchisees Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Thompson, Esq. -- mdthompson@ebglaw.com -- of Epstein
Becker & Green, P.C., in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that claims that employees have been misclassified as
independent contractors remain a focus for private plaintiffs and
government agencies. Contracts that exert control over the
business of another company may be a particularly fertile source
of misclassification claims by plaintiffs seeking unpaid wages.

Two recent suits arising from franchise agreements with Jani-King,
described by the Third Circuit as "the world's largest commercial
cleaning franchisor," demonstrate the potential liability that can
arise under these circumstances.

Wage Hour Division Sues Based on Misclassification of Franchisees

Recently, the Department of Labor filed suit claiming that
franchisees of Jani-King of Oklahoma Inc. are actually employees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The DOL alleges that the franchisees typically have no employees
of their own, but rather are individual who are required to pay
Jani-King a franchise fee, royalties, and other payments to
receive cleaning assignments.

The suit contends that Jani-King, among other things, sets
customer cleaning rates; negotiates with customers over the
cleaning contracts under which franchisees work; reassigns
cleaning contracts from one franchise to another; handles "all
aspects of how and whether cleaners are paid for the work they
perform;" and collects payments from customers.

Notably, the only claim in the DOL's Complaint is for an
injunction requiring Jani-King to begin keeping records of the
wages and hours its alleged employees.  The fact that the DOL has
chosen to pursue injunctive relief in the absence of any other
remedy suggests a strong interest in the principles at issue in
the case.

Third Circuit Affirms Class Certification Based on Franchise
Agreement & Manuals

The DOL suit was preceded by a September 21, 2016, decision by the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  That decision upheld a district
court's order certifying a Rule 23 class action of approximately
300 Philadelphia-area franchisees who claim to be Jani-King
employees.

In determining whether an employee has been misclassified as an
independent contractor under Pennsylvania law, the Third Circuit
stated that "the paramount factor is the right to control the
manner in which the work is accomplished."

The District Court's opinion had pointed to specific provisions in
the Jani-King franchise agreement, policy manual and training
manual through which Jani-King (among other things) mandated how
often a franchisee communicated with customers and dictated how
franchisees addressed customer complaints, maintained their
records and solicited business.

The District Court stated that "[t]hose documents also
demonstrated that Jani-King controlled the franchisees' work
assignments, has the right to inspect the franchisees work, and
has the ability to change the policies and procedures as it sees
fit."

Because the Jani-King franchise agreement, policies manual, and
training manual were common to the class, they supported the
conclusion that common issues would predominate in
misclassification cases by franchisees.  Therefore, the Third
Circuit affirmed the District Court's class certification order.
The plaintiffs will therefore be able to pursue class claims
against Jani-King under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

The sometimes-rigid nature of franchise relationships can not only
be evidence of the level of control characteristic of an
employment relationship, but can also provide a basis for arguing
that claims should joined in a Rule 23 class action.  Companies,
therefore, should consider whether the controls imposed by
franchise agreements (or any other contracts) are justified by
their potential to create unwanted employment relationships.


JENNINGS, MO: Oct. 28 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The St. Louis American reports that if you have ever been charged
for a warrant by the City of Jennings, you may have some money
coming to you, but the deadline to fill out and postmark your
claim is Friday, October 28.

Between 2009-2014, the City of Jennings illegally charged people
fees for issuing warrants that totaled $531,500.  Jennings
declared that having and collecting the warrant fee was illegal
and entered into the settlement agreement on July 21.  There are
approximately 6,800 people who are eligible members of this class
action settlement.

The class action, Lampkin v City of Jennings, was filed on behalf
of victims by ArchCity Defenders, Saint Louis University School of
Law and the local Campbell law firm in December 2014.

For more information on the settlement, visit
https://goo.gl/Al7UIr

To fill out a claim form, visit https://goo.gl/rGc5jP or go to
ArchCity Defender's office in the second floor of Christ Church
Cathedral, 1210 Locust St. in downtown St. Louis.  For more
information, call 1-866-918-0079.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seeks Review of Decision in "Goldemberg" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling MICHAEL Goldemberg, et al. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 13-cv-3073, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (White
Plains).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 20,
2016, the Hon. Nelson S. Roman granted, as modified, the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of
class counsel.  The Court certified classes of consumers that
purchased Aveeno Active Naturals products in New York, California
and Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as MICHAEL Goldemberg, et al. v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 16-3528, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Respondents Michael Goldemberg, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated, Annie Le, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, and Howard Petlack, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

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

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

          Harold Paul Weinberger, Esq.
          KRAMER, LEVIN, NAFTALIS & FRANKEL, LLP
          1177 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 715-9132
          Facsimile: (212) 715-8000
          E-mail: hweinberger@kramerlevin.com


L BRANDS: Zander Sues Over Defective Bath & Body Fragrance
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda St. Germain, writing for Courthouse News service, reported
that a Florida woman filed a federal class action against the
owner of the Bath & Body Works brand, claiming the vehicle
fragrance product it markets under the "Scentportables" name is
defective.

In a complaint filed in October 21, in the federal court in
Jacksonville, Kira Zander claims L Brands Inc. failed to warn
customers that Scentportable refills may "leak or melt, thus
releasing the harsh chemicals contained therein and damaging
consumers' personal property."

Zander says she purchased several Scentportables from her local
Bath & Body Works in June 2016, and attached one, as per its
design, to a dashboard air conditioning vent in her car.  She says
less than a month later, the Scentportable melted and leaked onto
the console, causing such significant damage that she now has to
replace it.  Zander says she would not have bought the
Scentportable if she had known of the risk the product posed to
her car and other property.

"While defendant warns the Fragrance Refills contain liquids which
can irritate an individual's eyes, and that the fragrance oil
should not be swallowed, nowhere on either the Scentportable
Holder or the Fragrance Refill with which it is to be used does it
state that the liquids can leak out of the product -- even when it
is being used as directed," the complaint says.

Zander goes on to cite posted complaints of others across the
country about L Brands' car fragrance product.

According to the complaint, several of these consumers also said
their Scentportable melted and leaked while being used per the
company's instructions, damaging their vehicle consoles, car seats
and steering wheels.

One worried consumer asked, " If it can destroy car paint, plastic
and the vinyl on your dashboard what will it do to a human's skin,
especially a child's?" the complaint says.

Zander seeks damages for unfair business practices, negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty
of merchantability and breach of express warranty.  She is
represented by Norwood Wilner of Jacksonville, and Janine Pollack
-- pollack@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP of New York.

Representatives from L Brands did not immediately respond to an
emailed request for comment.


LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT: Issa's Bid to Certify Class Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Edward G. Smith entered an order in the lawsuit styled
KHADIDJA ISSA, Q.M.H., a minor, individually, by and through his
parent, Faisa Ahmed Abdalla, ALEMBE DUNIA, ANYEMU DUNIA, V.N.L., a
minor, individually, by and through her parent, Mar Ki, SUI HNEM
SUNG, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
LANCASTER, Case No. 5:16-cv-03881-EGS (E.D. Pa.), denying, without
prejudice to refiling after the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit has concluded its review of the matter, the
Plaintiffs' emergency motion for provisional class certification
and entry of a preliminary injunction protecting similarly
situated students.

Judge Smith opined that the Court has determined that it lacks
jurisdiction to modify the preliminary injunction issued on August
26, 2016, while an appeal of that order is pending before the
Third Circuit.

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


LOGAN COUNTY, IL: Brown Seeks to Certify 2 Classes & 2 Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned SANDRA BROWN, LATRASHA
JOHNSON, JERRI LINDSEY, and LAVI CONNER, on behalf of themselves
and a class of others similarly situated v. ANGELA LOCKE, et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01447-Mr. (C.D. Ill.), ask the Court to certify a
damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, as well as an injunctive class pursuant to Rule
23(b)(2).  The Class I ("Damages Class") consists of:

     All individuals who were subjected to the October 31, 2013
     cadet training exercise at Logan Correctional Center.

The four named Plaintiffs seek to represent Class I.  The members
of Class I include inmates who are presently in-custody as well as
former Logan Correctional Center inmates, who were released at
some time after October 31, 2013.  Because the claims of the in-
custody class members will be analyzed through the lens of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, it is appropriate to divide Class I
into two separate subclasses:

     Subclass A, consisting of: All individuals who were
     subjected to the October 31, 2013 cadet training exercise at
     Logan Correctional Center, and who remain in the custody of
     the Illinois Department of Corrections since that time.

     Subclass B, consisting of: All individuals who were
     subjected to the October 31, 2013 cadet training exercise at
     Logan Correctional Center, and who were subsequently
     released from the custody of the Illinois Department of
     Corrections.

The Plaintiffs also propose certification of this class under Rule
23(b)(2):

     Class II ("Injunctive Relief Class"): All women who are
     currently incarcerated at Logan Correctional Center, and all
     women who will be incarcerated at Logan Correctional Center
     in the future, who are at risk of being subjected to a group
     strip search during a cadet training exercise.

Plaintiff Sandra Brown seeks to represent Class II.  The
Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint their counsel, Loevy &
Loevy, as counsel for Classes I and II.

In this Motion, the four named Plaintiffs seek to represent
approximately 200 other prisoners who, like them, who underwent a
degrading, traumatic, and painful mass public strip search at
Logan Correctional Center on October 31, 2013.  Angela Locke is
the Warden of the Logan Correctional Center, which is a
correctional center operated by the Illinois Department of
Corrections.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DjeXLIz6

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur Loevy, Esq.
          Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
          Jon Loevy, Esq.
          Tara Thompson, Esq.
          Ruth Brown, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          312 N. May St., Suite 100
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 243-5900
          E-mail: arthur@loevy.com
                  mike@loevy.com
                  jon@loevy.com
                  tara@loevy.com
                  ruth@loevy.com


LOUISIANA: Lewis Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class
-------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH LEWIS, JR.,
KENTRELL PARKER, FARRELL SAMPIER, REGINALD GEORGE, JOHN TONUBBEE,
OTTO BARRERA, CLYDE CARTER, CEDRIC EVANS, EDWARD GIOVANNI, RICKY
D. DAVIS, LIONEL TOLBERT, and RUFUS WHITE, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. BURL CAIN, Warden of the
Louisiana State Penitentiary, in his official capacity; STEPHANIE
LAMARTINIERE, Assistant Warden for Health Services, in her
official capacity; JAMES M. LEBLANC, Secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Public Safety and Corrections, in his official
capacity; and THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
CORRECTIONS, Case No. 3:15-cv-00318-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.), move for
an order certifying the Plaintiffs to represent a class of:

     all prisoners, who are now or will in the future be confined
     at Louisiana State Penitentiary ('LSP') and a subclass of
     inmates with disabilities who are now or will in the future
     be confined at LSP.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=x17o2fFo

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mercedes Montagnes, Esq.
          THE PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE
          636 Baronne Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 529-5955
          Facsimile: (504) 558-0378
          E-mail: mmontagnes@thejusticecenter.org

               - and -

          Daniel A. Small, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Dubner, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: dsmall@cohenmilstein.com
                  jdubner@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Justin P. Harrison, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF LOUISIANA
          P.O. Box 56157
          New Orleans, LA 70156
          Telephone: (504) 522-0628
          Facsimile: (888) 534-2996
          E-mail: jharrison@laaclu.org

               - and -

          Miranda Tait, Esq.
          ADVOCACY CENTER
          600 Jefferson Street, Suite 812
          Lafayette, LA 70501
          Telephone: (337) 237-7380
          Facsimile: (337) 237-0486
          E-mail: mtait@advocacyla.org


LYFT INC: Nokchan Appeals N.D. Cal. Decision to Ninth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael Nokchan filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Michael Nokchan v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-03008-JCS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 21,
2016, Judge Joseph C. Spero granted the motion filed by Lyft,
Inc., to dismiss the Case.  Michael Nokchan brought the putative
class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and California
state law against Lyft, alleging that he was employed by Lyft as
an hourly, non-exempt employee working in the state of California.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Nokchan v. Lyft, Inc.,
Case No. 16-16876, 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 December 13, 2016;

   -- Appellant Michael Nokchan's opening brief is due on
      January 23, 2017;

   -- Appellee Lyft, Inc.'s answering brief is due on Feb. 23,
      2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL NOKCHAN, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee LYFT, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3000
          E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Barrett Lee Schreiner, Esq.
          Ruth Zadikany, Esq.
          John Peter Zaimes, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-9539
          E-mail: bschreiner@mayerbrown.com
                  rzadikany@mayerbrown.com
                  jzaimes@mayerbrown.com


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Arpaio Charged with Contempt of Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Fernanda Santos, writing for The New York Times, reports that
federal prosecutors on Oct. 17 charged Sheriff Joe Arpaio of
Maricopa County with criminal contempt of court, saying he
willfully defied a judge's orders to stop targeting Latinos ---
including citizens and legal immigrants -- in traffic stops and
other law enforcement efforts, behavior the judge said showed a
pattern of discriminatory policing.

If convicted, Sheriff Arpaio, 84, who has made a name for himself
as an unapologetic pursuer of illegal immigrants, could face up to
six months in jail.  The authorities were still weighing a charge
of obstruction of justice, which could carry more severe
punishment.

Sheriff Arpaio is seeking re-election in November to his seventh
term.  The most recent poll, taken before prosecutors signaled
that charges would be filed, put Sheriff Arpaio behind his
Democratic challenger, Paul Penzone, a former Phoenix police
sergeant.

Sheriff Arpaio has not backed down.  At an event on Oct. 15, he
told reporters: "I am going to fight this.  I'm not going to
resign like some of my critics want me to do.  And I am going to
be re-elected, and I will continue serving this county."

Sheriff Arpaio's lawyer, Mel McDonald, said that the sheriff would
plead not guilty by a court filing and that he hoped to prevail
before a jury.

The court set a tentative trial date of Dec. 6.

Here are milestones in the long-running case.

DECEMBER 2007 A Mexican citizen legally in the United States sued
Sheriff Arpaio and his Maricopa County Sheriff's Office deputies,
claiming to have been unlawfully detained for nine hours after a
traffic stop because of his ethnicity.  Others joined the lawsuit,
and the allegations were expanded to include several other
examples of treatment that plaintiffs said unfairly singled out
Latinos.

Judge G. Murray Snow of United States District Court in Phoenix
eventually gave the lawsuit class-action status, allowing any
Latino stopped by Sheriff Arpaio's deputies since Jan. 1, 2007, to
be represented in the case.

DECEMBER 2011 Judge Snow issued a ruling prohibiting the Maricopa
County Sheriff's Office from stopping and detaining Latinos based
only on the suspicion that they were in the country illegally, and
barring deputies from using only such suspicions to report a
vehicle's Latino occupants to the federal immigration authorities.

JUNE 2012 The Supreme Court upheld one aspect of Arizona's
immigration law, which required officers to inquire about the
immigration status of the people they stop for other reasons. But
it overturned provisions that would have allowed officers to
arrest people whose only offense was violating federal immigration
laws.

JULY 2012 A series of discriminatory-policing accusations against
Sheriff Arpaio and his deputies were argued during a seven-day
trial.  An expert witness who analyzed racial and ethnic
information culled from traffic stops made by the Sheriff's Office
concluded that the length of such stops increased by 21 percent to
25 percent if at least one of the people stopped was Latino.

NOVEMBER 2012 Sheriff Arpaio faced a tough re-election fight.
Latinos organized, using the trial to increase voter registration
and drum up opposition to him at the polls.  In the end, Sheriff
Arpaio, who was running for his sixth term, won, though by his
narrowest margin ever, six percentage points.

Judge Snow issued another corrective order, telling the sheriff to
carry out sweeping changes at his office to prevent discriminatory
policing.  Among the changes were cameras to record traffic stops,
updated training to explicitly define the limits of deputies'
authority and an independent monitor to oversee compliance.

MAY 2016 Judge Snow found Sheriff Arpaio and three of his top
deputies in civil contempt of court.

In a 162-page decision, Judge Snow wrote that for 17 months,
Sheriff Arpaio and three of his top deputies had purposely ignored
his orders, in part because he wanted to maintain his hard-line
stance against illegal immigration to attract votes among his base
of staunch conservative supporters.

The Sheriff's Office wrongfully detained and turned over for
deportation at least 157 immigrants during those 17 months, the
judge found.  All will be compensated by Maricopa County.  The
case has already cost county taxpayers more than $50 million, The
Associated Press has reported.

AUGUST 2016 Judge Snow referred Sheriff Arpaio and the top
deputies for criminal prosecution, saying, "The court has
exhausted all of its other methods to obtain compliance."

OCTOBER 2016 The criminal case is being handled by another federal
judge, Susan R. Bolton, who was selected by lottery.  During a
status hearing on Oct. 4, John D. Keller, a lawyer for the Justice
Department, announced that he would file the criminal charges.

Sheriff Arpaio issued a defiant response.  He said the
announcement, coming a day before early voting was to start in
Arizona, was "no coincidence" and blamed "the corrupt Obama
Justice Department" for trying to influence the election.

Meanwhile, a new group called Bazta Arpaio has vowed to mobilize
tens of thousands of voters against Sheriff Arpaio on Election.


MARION COUNTY, IN: Wrongful Detention Suit Ruling Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Stafford, writing for The Indiana Lawyer, reports that a
judge's ruling denying class-action certification for a group of
people held in the Marion County Jail, sometimes for days after
posting bond, has been challenged at the 7th Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The 7th Circuit on Oct. 14 docketed an interlocutory appeal of an
order issued Sept. 30 by Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  Judge Young
denied certification of a class of people held for up to 72 hours
longer than legally authorized after making bail.

Judge Young did, however, grant class certification for people who
were "re-arrested" by the Marion County Sheriff's Department after
they were released on their own recognizance, found not guilty or
acquitted, or who should have been released to community
corrections for electronic monitoring.

Plaintiffs in the suit claim Marion County Sheriff John Layton has
a policy or practice of holding inmates for up to 72 hours after
they are ordered released.  The suit filed in December 2014 and
amended two months later claims potentially thousands of people
were held longer than jailers were legally allowed.  Plaintiffs
allege in some cases people were held up to five days after their
release orders were approved.

The Sheriff's Department has blamed computer systems that were
inadequate to ensure the timely release of prisoners as a key
problem that resulted in the detentions.

Judge Young wrote in his order that common issues don't
predominate among those detained after they were ordered released
on bond, and therefore certification of that class would be
inappropriate.  First, those held less than 48 hours would be
subject to different burdens of proof, because Young said caselaw
presumes that length of detention to be reasonable.

"Second, a number of variables such as staffing levels during the
time the inmate was to be processed; the number of holds on the
inmate; the extent of the inmate's criminal history; the number of
aliases used by the inmate; and whether there are any unusual
circumstances present at the time the inmate is to be processed
such as internet outages; can complicate the timing of a
detainee's release," he wrote in denying class certification to
that group.

The classes that plaintiffs sought include those who were
wrongfully detained in the jail from Dec. 19, 2012, forward.  The
case is Michael Driver, Terry Clayton, Michael Boyd and Nicholas
Swords, et al., v. Marion County Sheriff, 1:14-CV-2076.


MICHIGAN: Minors' Parents Sue MDE Over Lead in Drinking Water
-------------------------------------------------------------
D.R., as a minor through parent and next friend Dawn Richardson,
A.K., as a minor through parent and next friend, Angy Keelin,
C.D.M., as a minor through parent and next friend Crystal
McCadden, C.M., as a minor through parent and next friend
Crystal McCadden, J.T., as a minor through parent and next friend
Nakiya Wakes, N.S, as a minor through parent and next friend
Nakiya Wakes, J.W., as a minor through parent and next friend
Kathy Wright, C.D., as a minor through parent and next friend
Twanda Davis, D.K. as a minor through parent and next friend
Rachel Kirksey, M.K. as a minor through parent and next friend
Rachel Kirksey, O.N., as a minor through parent and next friend
Manita Davis, D.T. as a minor through parent and next friend
Manita Davis, D.D. as a minor through parent and next friend
Willie Daniels, C.W. as a minor through parent and next friend
Chandrika Walker, J.B. as a minor through parent and next friend
Jeree Brown, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs, v. Michigan Department of Education,
Genesee Intermediate School District, Flint Community Schools,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-13694-AJT-APP (E.D. Mich., October
18, 2016), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, brought
pursuant to federal and state law, to vindicate the rights of
approximately 30,000 school-age children residing in Flint who
currently have, or who have been allegedly placed at risk of
developing, a disability due to elevated levels of lead in the
drinking water over an extended time period of at least eighteen
months.

Michigan Department of Education is a state agency of Michigan, in
the United States. MDE oversees public school districts in the
state.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kary L. Moss, Esq.
     Kristin L. Totten, Esq.
     Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq.
     Michael J. Steinberg, Esq.
     ACLU FUND OF MICHIGAN
     2966 Woodward Ave.
     Detroit, MI 48201
     Phone: (313) 578-6800
     E-mail: kmoss@aclumich.org
             ktotten@aclumich.org
             dkorobkin@aclumich.org
             msteinberg@aclumich.org

        - and -

     Gregory G. Little, Esq.
     Lindsay M. Heck, Esq.
     Walter Ciacci, Esq.
     Dominique Forrest, Esq.
     Laura Grai, Esq.
     1155 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10036-2787
     Phone: (212) 819-8200
     E-mail: gregory.little@whitecase.com
             lindsay.heck@whitecase.com
             walter.ciacci@whitecase.com
             dominique.forrest@whitecase.com
             laura.grai@whitecase.com

        - and -

     David G. Sciarra, Esq.
     Jessica Levin, Esq.
     EDUCATION LAW CENTER
     60 Park Place, Suite 300
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Phone: (973) 624-1815
     E-mail: dsciarra@edlawcenter.org


MICROSOFT CORP: Gender Discrimination Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Day, writing for Seattle Times, reports that a federal judge
has denied Microsoft's request to dismiss key claims of a class-
action gender-discrimination suit against the company, allowing
the case to proceed.

U.S. District Judge James Robart of Seattle said in an order on
Oct. 14 that three women suing Microsoft were specific enough in
their claims and presented a plausible case that Microsoft's pay
and promotion practices had the effect of treating male and female
engineers differently.

"At a minimum, the parties have set forth multiple plausible
causes of the alleged disparate impact on female technical
employees at Microsoft," Judge Robart said.

The ruling sets the stage for what is likely to be months of
wrangling over the procedural aspects of the lawsuit, including
what documents Microsoft and the plaintiffs must turn over to the
other side, and the roster of outside experts both can ask to
weigh in.

The Oct. 14 ruling hinged on the plaintiffs description of an
important pillar of their case: Microsoft's controversial former
performance review system.

The method, dubbed stack ranking, evaluated employees and ranked
them from best to worst on a scale of one to five.  It also set a
cap on the portion of employees who could receive each ranking.

Managers would get together twice a year to sort out their
employees into the curve, a process that was then reviewed by
other, more senior leaders.

That system, plaintiffs say, included subjective criteria,
operated "in an environment overwhelmingly dominated by men," and
had the result of awarding fewer raises and promotions to women in
engineering roles than their male counterparts.  The review system
that replaced stack ranking in late 2013, called Connect, is
functionally "stack ranking by a different name," the plaintiffs
say.

Microsoft says the review system was not arbitrary, and has denied
the women's allegations of discrimination.

Asked for comment on the Oct. 14 order, a Microsoft spokeswoman in
an emailed statement said the company was committed to a diverse
workforce, and "to a workplace where all employees have the chance
to succeed."

The order contained one win for the Redmond company by
establishing a narrower set of would-be class members in the suit.

Judge Robart agreed with Microsoft's proposal to limit the
potential class bringing claims under Washington discrimination
law to Sept. 16, 2012, three years before former Microsoft
employee Katie Moussouris filed the suit in federal court.

Lawyers for Moussouris had pushed for the putative class to
stretch back to May 2011, a date that corresponds to Moussouris'
2014 filing of discrimination claims with state and federal
regulators.

The next step in the case, document disclosure, is scheduled to
continue through December.

Judge Robart in September sharply criticized Microsoft for
disregarding his orders earlier in that process, saying a law firm
Microsoft had hired "doesn't speak English" and ordering
Microsoft's senior legal officers to sign off on all future
filings in the case.

In August, the plaintiffs' lawyers told the court that U.S. Labor
Department investigators had found preliminary evidence of
gender-based discrimination at the company, though it's unclear
what the behavior was or which Microsoft units the findings
targeted.  The company said at the time that it disagreed with the
assessment.


MONSANTO CO: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Roundup False Ad
------------------------------------------------------
ELISABETH MARTIN, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-02168 (C.D. Cal., October 13, 2016),
seeks to enjoin Monsanto from continuing to falsely advertise the
number of gallons its herbicide Roundup Concentrates can make.

Monsanto is one of the world's largest agricultural companies, and
has long been manufacturing and selling herbicides to control
weeds.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
     Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
     Melanie Persinger, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
     Hillcrest Professional Building
     3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 692-3840
     Fax: (619) 362-9555
     E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
             trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
             melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

        - and -

     Sidney W. Jackson, III, Esq.
     JACKSON & FOSTER, LLC
     75 St. Michael Street
     Mobile, AL 36602
     Phone: (251) 433-6699
     Fax: (251) 433-6127


MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Corcoran" Suit Over EpiPen Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY CORCORAN, and TODD BEAULIEU, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MYLAN
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and MYLAN SPECIALTY L.P., Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-05983-JSC (N.D. Cal., October 17, 2016), seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, and recovery of payments and
overpayments made from at least the year 2007 through the present,
as a result of Defendants' alleged unlawful scheme involving
unfair, exorbitant, and unconscionable price increases for
EpiPen(R) products.

Defendants are subsidiaries and/or divisions of Mylan N.V., a
global generic and specialty pharmaceutical company.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
     Jacob Richards, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 463-3900,
     Fax: (510) 463-3901
     E-mail: jrichards@kellerrohrback.com
             jlewis@kellerrohrback.com

        - and -

     Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1129 State Street, Suite 8
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Phone: (805) 456-1496
     Fax: (805) 456-1497
     E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

        - and -

     Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
     Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
     Michael Meredith, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
             gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
             mmeredith@kellerrohrback.com


NEW YORK: Class Suit Alleges Long Term Care Program Abuses
----------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that condemning the privatization of Medicaid services, three
elderly New Yorkers brought a federal class action in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan,
that says the state has willfully ignored abuses in the long-term
care program.

Madeline Bucceri, 93, Patricia Trujillo, 71, and Lourdes Lo, 74,
say New York knows that the private, not-for-profit companies with
which it has contracted are "systematically failing to provide
medically necessary services."  Each claims to have asked for
increased home care, only to have their requests either ignored or
denied after a lengthy delay.

In addition to New York Health Department Commissioner Howard
Zucker, the complaint takes aim at Healthfirst, the private
nonprofit manages two MLTCs, short for managed long-term care
plans, for the state.  The complaint says the "hands-off manner in
which New York is privatizing Medicaid services" is reducing the
services that Medicaid recipients need to stay in their homes, and
putting their health at risk.

The class says New York knows that the Healthfirst plans are
"systematically failing to provide medically necessary services."

Neither the Health Department nor Healthfirst would comment on
pending litigation.

There are currently 16,000 New Yorkers receiving services under
the program.  Hoping to represent them in this class action are
the Legal Aid Society and attorney Jeffrey Kessler --
jkessler@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn.

The 51-page complaint counts more than 100 administrative hearings
in which the health department heard testimony regarding the
denial of requests for additional home care hours.

In 80 percent of those cases the decision was reversed or the
Healthfirst administrator "caved and changed or withdrew their
original decisions, effectively acknowledging that their original
decisions were wrong," according to the complaint.

Bucceri, Trujillo and Lo say "this persistent level of error was a
dead giveaway that the Healthfirst MLTC plans were improperly
limiting recipients' home care services."

The Health Department did nothing in response, however, meaning
that it either "is failing to oversee and monitor the Healthfirst
MLTC plans or it is turning a blind eye to the abuses it sees."

"This heartless and calculating pattern of behavior leaves
vulnerable Medicaid recipients at risk of serious injury or
institutionalization," the complaint continues.

Lead plaintiff Bucceri says she used to own and operate a salon in
Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, before moving to her current apartment on
Staten Island. She lives alone, with no family or friends to
assist with daily living activities.

Suffering from worsening pain in her hip and leg, Bucceri this
summer requested an increase to the 31 hours per week of home care
services she receives from her Healthfirst plan, Senior Health
Partners.

The defendants didn't increase the services, however, and Bucceri
ended up falling while walking to the bathroom.

Once hospitalized, a nurse requested that the plan increase
Bucceri's services to 10 hours per day or 70 hours per week.
Bucceri was approved for an additional two hours per week,
boosting her services to 33 hours per week.

After coming home from the hospital, Bucceri fell again reaching
for her walker. Her attorneys requested an expedited hearing for
an increase in hours because "increased and uncontrolled pain and
urinary frequency."

Senior Health Partners denied the request on Sept. 8.

The complaint says Bucceri sometimes has to put on her pajamas in
the afternoon at 1 or 2 because she cannot dress herself once her
personal care assistant leaves.

"Without additional home care hours to assist her with basic
activities of daily living such as toileting, walking, bathing and
dressing, Ms. Bucceri will likely continue to fall, incur
unnecessary pain and bodily injuries and suffer emotional harm,"
the complaint states.

The complaint, which is similar to one filed earlier this year in
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
complains that the Department of Health "unconstitutionally
delegated legislative and its rule-making authority over New
York's Medicaid Plan to the Healthfirst Enterprise, an amalgam of
private parties with a financial interest in reducing how much is
spent on home care services for New York's Medicaid recipients who
depend on those services so heavily."

It goes onto to say that the health department is looking the
other way while the private company "guts the home care services
upon which New York's vulnerable Medicaid recipients depend."

The class says Healthfirst must begin accepting, recording and
timely processing all requests for increases in home care hours,
plus notify recipients in writing of what actions it took.

The Department of Health must acknowledge its due-process role
under the Medicaid Act, the complaint says.

In response to the lawsuit, the Health Department would say only
that "the Medicaid Program provides home care services to those
with complex needs to avoid institutionalization and remain in
home."

Healthfirst said it has not yet been served with the lawsuit. "Our
primary concern at all times is the health and wellbeing of all
our members," the company added in a statement.


NU SKIN: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Long, writing for Natural Products Insider, reports that a
federal judge in Salt Lake City gave final approval to a
settlement in a putative class-action lawsuit filed two years ago
against Nu Skin Enterprises Inc. and its senior executives.

The US$47 million settlement resolves allegations that the company
and its executives failed to disclose an unlawful pyramid scheme
in China.  Judge Jill N. Parrish also awarded attorney's fees in
the amount of $13.6 million plus interest -- reflecting 29 percent
of the settlement fund -- and the payment of litigation expenses
of approximately $449,000 plus interest.

The judge found the settlement was "fair, reasonable and adequate"
and in the settlement class's best interests.  She dismissed the
amended complaint with prejudice.

Neither Provo, Utah-based Nu Skin nor class counsel in the case,
Labaton Sucharow LLP, immediately responded Oct. 17 to a request
for comment.  The Salt Lake Tribune first reported on final
approval of the settlement.

Separately, Judge Parrish on Oct. 12 gave final approval to a
settlement in a derivative lawsuit that was filed on behalf of Nu
Skin.  As INSIDER previously reported, Nu Skin agreed to adopt
certain corporate governance measures and pay approximately $1.28
million in plaintiffs' attorney fees and expenses to resolve
allegations that Nu Skin's officers and directors allowed the
company to operate as an unlawful pyramid scheme in China.

"We believe the settlement agreement is in the best interests of
the company's stakeholders as it avoids potentially lengthy,
costly, distracting and time-consuming litigation," a Nu Skin
spokesperson said this summer in an emailed statement.  "The
settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing by Nu Skin or its
directors or officers.  Nu Skin remains committed to protecting
consumers and driving long-term value for shareholders and will
continue to take the necessary steps to achieve this important
objective."

The class-action lawsuit, filed on Jan. 21, 2014 in Utah federal
court against Nu Skin and its senior executives, alleged the
company failed to disclose to investors that its Chinese
subsidiary was violating multi-level marketing (MLM) regulations
and laws.  That was the same month two Chinese government agencies
revealed they were investigating Nu Skin following a Chinese
newspaper report that questioned the direct seller's business
practices.

Nu Skin did not admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement in
the class-action lawsuit.  In February, Nu Skin said it didn't
expect the $47 million settlement to result in a net charge to its
income statement because the company anticipated its insurers
would cover the payment.

Parrish, the judge who oversaw the class-action lawsuit, held a
final settlement hearing on Oct. 5.  Only one person objected to
the settlement, according to her Oct. 12 order granting final
approval of the agreement.  Michael Nauman of Naperville, Illinois
reported spending about $1,804 on May 10, 2012 purchasing Nu Skin
"call options"; In a letter to the clerk of court, the investor
indicated he suffered a total loss after the options expired the
following month and were "worthless."

"If the defendants are found to have made false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning how Nu Skin was operating its
business in Mainland China, I feel the plaintiffs/investors should
be made whole," Mr. Nauman wrote.

In her order approving the settlement, Parrish said she
"considered" and "overruled" the sole objection.

Parrish also awarded the lead plaintiff, State-Boston Retirement
System, $9,800 as a reimbursement for its prosecution of the case
on behalf of the settlement class.

In September in a separate development, Nu Skin revealed reaching
an agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
regarding a previously disclosed investigation. The probe
concerned a charitable contribution in China in 2013.

The SEC found Nu Skin's "books and records and internal controls"
related to the contribution were inadequate, and the company
agreed to pay $765,688 to the SEC, according to a Sept. 20
regulatory filing. However, Nu Skin did not admit or deny the
SEC's findings as part of the settlement.

In the same filing, Nu Skin offered its investors some good news.
Citing in part "the success of recent product introductions and
favorable currency trends," the company said it anticipated
"delivering third-quarter revenue at the high end of, or slightly
above, its previous guidance of $560 to $580 million."

Nu Skin (NYSE: NUS) is an MLM of personal care and nutritional
products in 54 markets around the world.  The company is scheduled
to release its third-quarter results on Nov. 3.


PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Reached Deal to Settle Bushansky Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avenue Financial Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2016,
that on October 18, Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. (the
"Company") entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff
that had filed a purported class action complaint in the Chancery
Court for the State of Tennessee, 20th Judicial District at
Nashville, styled Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated versus Avenue Financial Holdings, Inc.
("Avenue"), Ronald L. Samuels, Kent Cleaver, David G. Anderson,
Agenia Clark, James F. Deutsch, Marty Dickens, Patrick G. Emery,
Nancy Falls, Joseph C. Galante, David Ingram. Stephen Moore, Ken
Robold, Karen Saul and Pinnacle Financial Partners (Case No. 16-
489-IV), in connection with the Company's now completed merger
with Avenue.

On May 18, 2016, the Bushansky litigation was transferred to the
Davidson County, Tennessee Business Court Pilot Project (the
"Business Court").

The parties to the Bushansky litigation have agreed on a
Stipulation of Settlement, a Proposed Order on Notice and
Scheduling, a Proposed Notice to class members, and a Proposed
Final Order and those documents have been submitted to the
Business Court for its approval. In connection with the
settlement, the parties have agreed on an amount of attorneys'
fees and expenses, $300,000, that the plaintiff's counsel will
request from the Business Court and to which the defendants will
not object. The proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among
other things, preliminary approval by the Business Court, as well
as final approval of the proposed settlement after notice is given
to Avenue's shareholders. The Company believes the claims asserted
in the Bushansky action are without merit but has entered into the
settlement to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation. There can be no assurance that the Business Court will
approve the settlement in all respects and if the Business Court
does not approve the proposed settlement, the proposed settlement
as contemplated by the Stipulation of Settlement and memorandum of
understanding the parties entered into in June 2016 could become
void.


ROLLS ROYCE: NSW Supreme Court Issues Class Closure Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Keely Graham, Esq. -- kgraham@mcwnsw.com.au -- of McInnes Wilson
Lawyers, in an article for Lexology, reports that in Lam v Rolls
Royce Plc (no 5) [2016] NSWC 1332 the NSW Supreme Court made class
closure rules that every defendant, and their insurers, dream of.

The Rolls Royce class action was brought on behalf of those
persons who were on board a flight when the Rolls Royce engine
failed and who suffered psychological injury as a result of the
experience consequent upon the engine failing.

In an earlier judgment (Lam No. 3) Justice Beech-Jones closed the
class determining that passengers with overseas contact details
who did not register with the plaintiff's solicitors would be
removed from the class and that passengers with Australian contact
details who did not register with the plaintiff's solicitors were
to remain in the class but they could not participate in any
settlement or resolution without the leave of the Court.  To
facilitate the orders, notices were sent to Australian-addressed
group members noting that if they did not register their claim by
the relevant deadline they would be bound by the settlement of the
class action but would not, without obtaining the Court's leave,
be entitled to claim a share of any settlement moneys and would
lose the right to sue the defendant separately for any injury or
for compensation.

In this decision (Lam No. 5) Rolls Royce had sought Orders
dismissing the claims of the remaining 84 unregistered group
members and also seeking an Order confirming that it operates as a
final determination of their rights to claim damages or relief
against Rolls Royce.  Justice Beech-Jones noted that the group
members who had chosen not to register or to actively opt out had
been given sufficient opportunity to do either and concluded that
either such group members did not wish to pursue a claim or did
not have material to put forward to support a claim.

This judgment enables settlement of the class action to occur with
a defined number of claimants but, even more significantly, any
remaining potential class members (from Australia) who had not
actively opted out of the class action, can no longer make a
claim.  This means that defendants (and their insurers) have a cap
on other potential claims, when considering an amount at which to
settle the existing class action.

This is likely to encourage:

1. Earlier resolution (see my comments on the GIO/AMP class action
below); and

2. Greater certainty.

It puts pressure on potential class participants to actually form
a position and put up their hand rather than "freeloading" while
others take the risk and they "wait and see".

Furthermore, in the GIO/AMP shareholder class action (King v AG
Australia Holdings Ltd (formerly GIO Australia Holdings Limited))
a significant concern for Respondents was that if settlement
occurred with identified class members, how many other investors
and with what potential value of claims, would subsequently seek
to make a claim against the defendants? In GIO/AMP, there were
approximately 67,000 shareholders who owned and retained shares
during the period of the hostile takeover bid.  Of these,
approximately 22,000 engaged the class action lawyers.  Class
members did not wish to settle the class action for a fixed sum,
without knowing amongst how many class members it needed to be
shared.  For Respondents, a significant problem with potential
early resolution was whether, if settlement with the identified
class took place, a number of subsequent claims would be brought,
meaning that costs and potential settlement sums would have to be
incurred all over again (which is exactly what was sought to be
avoided by or capped by participating in a settlement).  The great
unknown of this potential sum made settlement difficult.
Ultimately, settlement of GIO/AMP class action was aided by the
comfort provided by limitation periods.

It will be a delight if the precedent set in Lam v Rolls Royce PLC
(No. 5) is followed and more settlements occur well prior to
expiry of limitation periods and potential claimants in class
actions are forced to make an early decision on whether they
intend to join a class by specifically and actively reserving
their rights or waiving rights of recovery completely.


RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Gamil Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roei Gamil, on consent of Defendant, Rubin & Rothman, LLC, moves
the Court for an order certifying the case styled ROEI GAMIL, an
individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. RUBIN & ROTHMAN, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company; and
JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, Case No. 2:15-cv-00981-
ARL (E.D.N.Y.), to proceed as a class action and granting final
approval of the Parties' class settlement agreement.

Specifically, the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: (1)
granting final approval of the Settlement on the terms and
conditions set forth in the Parties' Settlement Agreement and the
Court's Order Granting Preliminary Approval; (2) finally
certifying a class, for settlement purposes only; (3) releasing
the Defendant from all claims and dismissing with prejudice all
claims of Class Members, who did not timely exclude themselves
from the Settlement; (4) approving payments to the Plaintiff,
Class Members, and Class Counsel; and (5) retaining continuing
jurisdiction over the settlement proceedings, to ensure the
effectuation thereof in accordance with the Agreement and Final
Approval Order.

On February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the class action
lawsuit, which alleged that Rubin & Rothman violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by mailing consumers initial collection
letters that failed to inform consumers, inter alia, they must
dispute their debts in writing to be considered valid.

On June 14, 2016, the Court entered an Order granting Preliminary
Approval to the Parties' Class Settlement Agreement.  The Court's
Order preliminarily certified the Settlement Class of those
individuals, who meet this definition:

     All consumers with addresses in the State of New York to
     whom Rubin & Rothman mailed an initial written
     communication, which failed to state that the consumer must
     dispute the debt in writing in order to obtain verification,
     during the period beginning February 25, 2014, and ending
     March 18, 2015.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07083-4870
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
          E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Tosses Levins' Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Charles P. Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois entered a memorandum opinion and
order in the lawsuits styled (i) HENRY ESPEJO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA,
INC., an Illinois corporation, Case No. 11 C 8987, and (ii) FAYE
LEVINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an Illinois corporation,
Case No. 1:12-cv-09431:

   -- denying Santander's motion for summary judgment in Espejo
      Case;

   -- granting in part Santander's motion for summary judgment in
      Levins Case; and

   -- denying Faye Levins' motion for class certification.

The matter is set for status hearing on November 1, 2016, at 9:30
a.m.

The consolidated class actions raise claims against Defendant
Santander Consumer U.S.A., Inc., by two Plaintiffs (Henry Espejo
and Faye Levins) for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Faye Levins has sought certification of this class and subclass:

     TCPA Class: All individuals called by Santander or on its
     behalf, using the Aspect dialer system between December 19,
     2007 and the present, on a cellular telephone number to
     which the individual was the subscriber, and which was not
     (a) listed in any application for credit or financing
     submitted to Santander or any of its originating creditors,
     (b) otherwise volunteered by the individual directly to
     Santander orally or in writing prior to the time of
     Santander's first call to that number, as reflected in
     Santander's records, or (c) verified prior to being called
     for the first time by Santander, as reflected in Santander's
     records.

     Number Trapping Subclass: All members of the TCPA Class
     called by Santander or on its behalf, on a cellular
     telephone number that Santander captured through calls made
     to its IVR system (as indicated by its identification in
     Santander's records with the notation 'IVR' followed by an
     Arabic numeral (e.g., IVR1, IVR2, etc.)).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bw5lmb9H


SER SECURITY: "Irish" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN IRISH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SER SECURITY SERVICES, INCORPORATION, and PSERDA
DICKERSON, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03891-LMM
(N.D. Ga., October 18, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants provide professional security of unarmed and armed
security officers for apartment complexes, condominiums, and
commercial businesses in retail establishments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adian R. Miller, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
     Post Office Box 57007
     Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
     Phone: (404) 965-8811
     Fax: (404) 965-8812
     E-mail: ARMiller@forthepeople.com


SGE MANAGEMENT: 5th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in "Torres"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, affirmed en banc the district
court's order granting class certification in the case captioned,
JUAN RAMON TORRES; EUGENE ROBISON, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. S.G.E.
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.; STREAM GAS & ELECTRIC, L.T.D.; STREAM S.P.E.
G.P., L.L.C; STREAM S.P.E., L.T.D.; IGNITE HOLDINGS, L.T.D; ET AL,
Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 14-20128  (5th Cir.).

The Plaintiffs-Appellees Juan Ramon Torres and Eugene Robison
brought a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961-68, alleging
that Stream Energy, through its multi-level marketing program,
Ignite, as well as a number of other defendants, operated a
fraudulent pyramid scheme. The Plaintiffs allege that the fraud
has caused them financial losses. They sought to certify a class
consisting of those IAs who have lost money as a result of
participating in Ignite's program.

The Defendants asserted primarily that the predominance
requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) is not met
because individual issues of reliance will necessarily lead to an
individualized causation inquiry under RICO. They also disagreed
with the Plaintiffs' arguments that reliance is not a required
element under RICO.

The district court rejected class certification on the Plaintiffs'
theory that depends on specific misrepresentations, concluding
that whether the Plaintiffs relied on the array of alleged
misrepresentations would require an individualized inquiry.  But
that court found that class certification was appropriate as to
the Plaintiffs' other theories that depend on common proof of a
pyramid scheme.

On appeal, the Defendants do not dispute the district court's Rule
23(a) determination and contend only that it erred in finding Rule
23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement was met.

The Fifth Circuit panel consists of Judges Jacques L. Weiner, Jr.,
Gregg J. Costa, Carl E. Stewart, James L. Dennis, Jerry E. Smith,
Edward C. Prado, Jennifer Walker Elrod, Leslie H. Southwick, James
E. Graves, Jr. and Stephen A. Higginson.

In the Order dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/8R8FfT from Leagle.com, the Fifth Circuit held that
the district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted
class certification and that the Defendants failed to demonstrate
that individualized issues will affect even a single class member
at trial.

Juan Ramon Torres, et al. are represented by Harry Max Reasoner,
Esq. -- hreasoner@velaw.com -- and John Patrick Elwood, Esq. --
jelwood@velaw.com -- VINSON&ELKINS -- Robert Brooks Gilbreath,
Esq. -- rgilbreath@hptylaw.com -- HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON &
YOUNG -- Thomas C. Goldstein, Esq. --
tgoldstein@goldsteinrussell.com -- GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL PC

SGE Management, LLC, et al. are represented by Mary Ellen E.
Signorille, Esq. -- msignorille@aarp.org -- ACEBC -- James C. Ho,
Esq. --jho@gibsondunn.com -- and Prerak Shah, Esq. --
pshah@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN -- Craig G. Goodman, Esq. --
mark.goodman@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS LLP -- Brent Taylor
Caldwell, Esq. -- bcaldwell@pfalawfirm.com -- PREBED FAUCETT
ABBOTT -- James Patrick Sullivan, Esq. -- jsullivan@kslaw.com --
KING & SPALDING


SPECTRA ENERGY: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Merger With Enbridge
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN L. WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SPECTRA ENERGY CORP., AUSTIN A. ADAMS,
JOSEPH ALVARADO, PAMELA L. CARTER, CLARENCE P. CAZALOT, JR., F.
ANTHONY COMPER, GREGORY L. EBEL, PETER B. HAMILTON, MIRANDA C.
HUBBS, MICHAEL MCSHANE, MICHAEL G. MORRIS, and MICHAEL E.J.
PHELPS, Case No. 4:16-cv-03069 (S.D. Tex., October 17, 2016),
arises from the proposed merger of Spectra with the Canadian
company Enbridge Inc.

The case is a stockholder class action brought by the Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and the other public stockholders of Spectra
against the Company and its Board of Directors for their alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with the proposed merger with Enbridge, pursuant to the Sept. 6,
2016 Agreement and Plan of Merger through Enbridge's newly formed
wholly owned Delaware company, Sand Merger Sub, Inc.  Under the
Merger Agreement's terms, Merger Sub will merge with and into
Spectra, with the Spectra surviving the merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Enbridge.

Spectra is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Houston, Texas.  The Company transmits, stores,
distributes, gathers, and processes natural gas.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington Street
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: (504) 455-1400
          Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
          E-mail: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com


SPEIGHTS & WORRICH: Implodes from Hail Storm Damage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
SE Texas Record reports that more than 10,000 hail-damage lawsuits
are expected to be filed in Texas this year.  Or should we say,
more than 10,000 were expected to be filed?

The number's likely to drop now that Speights & Worrich has
announced its decision to "significantly downsize."

Speights & Worrich specializes in hail-storm damage claims, but
was hit this year with a class action suit accusing it of barratry
and fraud, along with associated public adjusters and roofers.
That suit, which the firm says "wrongfully damaged" its
"professional reputation," is allegedly the reason for the
downsizing.

"This litigation was filed to support transparency and
accountability in the insurance claim process, and establish a
legal precedent that will prevent conspirators and con artists
from gaming that system," said Mark Ticer, the attorney
representing the class.

Another class action was also filed in Tarrant County, accusing
many of the same defendants of creating shell companies in order
to "steal from residents of North Texas through an elaborate web
of fraudulent and illegal conduct."

According to this second suit, "The Defendants have developed a
door-to-door sales scheme to induce North Texas area homeowners to
allow Defendants to file claims with their homeowners' insurance
carriers for alleged roof and other damage resulting from hail and
wind events.

"The Defendants then act on behalf of the homeowners in
negotiating resolution of the insurance claim.  Thereafter, the
Defendants collect the insurance claim payments.  Sometimes the
homeowners receive new roofs.  Other times they do not."

"These homeowner victims were promised additional money through
lawsuits.  Now, they don't even have enough money to replace their
roofs," said Steve Badger, the attorney representing the second
class.  "Sadly, most of these victims are minority, elderly, and
low-income."

If Speights & Worrich is guilty of engaging in scams like this,
then the damage done to its "professional reputation" can hardly
be considered "wrongful."  The damage, in fact, would be self-
inflicted.


STARBUCKS CORP: N.D. Ill. Court Dismisses "Galanis" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Thomas M. Durkin granted Starbucks's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit titled STEVEN GALANIS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
Case No. 1:16-cv-04705 (N.D. Ill.).

In his memorandum opinion and order, Judge Durkin dismissed the
case in its entirety without prejudice.  The Plaintiff's motion
for class certification is also denied.

"Should Galanis believe he can cure the deficiencies the Court has
described, he may file a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint by November 14, 2016.  The motion should attach a
proposed amended complaint, and be supported by a brief of no more
than five pages explaining why the proposed amendments would cure
the deficiencies cited by the Court," Judge Durkin stated.

"Should Galanis file such a motion, Starbucks should not respond
unless the Court so orders.  If Galanis fails to file a motion for
leave to amend by November 14, 2016, the dismissal will be with
prejudice," Judge Durkin added.

In his complaint, Mr. Galanis alleges that Starbucks deceives its
customers by misrepresenting the volume of its cold drinks because
much of the volume is taken up by ice.  He alleges that this
conduct constitutes: a breach of an express warranty; a breach of
an implied warranty of merchantability; negligent
misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; fraud; a violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; and,
a violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.

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


STARBUCKS CORP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Ice in Cold Drinks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago federal judge has dumped a lawsuit against Starbucks over
the amount of ice in its iced drinks, saying the reasoning
undergirding the class action lawsuit against the purveyor of hot
and cold coffee drinks and other beverages was too far over the
top.

On October 14, U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin granted the
request by Starbucks to dismiss the class action litigation
introduced first by plaintiff Stacy Pincus, and now led by
plaintiff Steve Galanis.

"If the consumer chooses an 'iced' drink, the reasonable consumer
knows that the container (whatever its volume) will be filled with
both solid ice and a fluid beverage," Judge Durkin wrote.  "The
fact that the volume of the container the drink is served in is
measured using 'fluid ounces' would not cause the reasonable
consumer to be surprised by the presence of ice in the drink's
contents.

"Indeed, a reasonable consumer who purchases an 'iced' drink,
expects there to be ice in the drink, and would be upset if there
wasn't," the judge said.

Ms. Pincus had filed the lawsuit in April, alleging the Seattle-
based drink seller had violated its warranty to its customers and
committed fraud by "underfilling" its cold drinks by overfilling
its cups with the ice needed to make the drinks cold.

The lawsuit specifically targeted Starbucks' practice of selling
its drinks by the fluid ounce.  The complaint noted Starbucks
sells four primary sizes of drinks.  While the sizes are given
special proprietary names, including Tall, Grande, Venti and
Trenta, those labels correspond to real volume measurements,
ranging from 12-30 fluid ounces.

The plaintiffs in this case, however, argued the Starbucks'
measurements deceived customers ordering cold drinks, as the
volume of the drink, as measured by the cup, now included ice.
The plaintiffs noted Starbucks uses cups inscribed with "3 black
lines" and premeasured ice scoopers "to ensure that employees fill
these cups with less fluid ounces than are advertised on
Starbucks' menu."

Essentially, the plaintiffs argued customers ordering a
Venti-sized drink should receive 24 ounces of the specific
beverage, apart from the ice.  Under Starbucks' current practice,
however, they alleged such customers are only getting 14 ounces of
beverage, while believing they are paying for 24 ounces.

The case was filed by attorney Steven A. Hart and the firm of Hart
McLaughlin & Eldridge, of Chicago.

Over the summer months, Starbucks challenged the reasoning
underlying the lawsuit, and asked a federal judicial panel to
consolidate the Chicago lawsuit with other, similar lawsuits
pending against it in other jurisdictions, including in
California.

Plaintiffs' attorneys substituted Mr. Galanis as the lead named
plaintiff on the case in August.

However, no matter who may assume that role, Judge Durkin said he
believed the case should end, as the plaintiffs' claims cannot
hold up against an examination of how a "reasonable" customer
would react to the Starbucks menu.

And Durkin sided with Starbucks, saying he agreed with Starbucks'
assertion that "no reasonable consumer ordering an iced tea
expects to receive a cup of tea with a side of ice."

"Because Starbucks uses the phrase 'fluid ounces' in the section
of the menus that describes container sizes, a reasonable consumer
would understand that phrase to refer to volume, as opposed to a
drink's contents," Judge Durkin said.  "The reasonable consumer
would also draw this conclusion from the mere fact that 'fluid
ounces' is a measurement of a drink's volume, not a description of
a drink's contents.

"The common sense nature of this analysis is exemplified by
imagining a consumer who tried to order simply '24 fluid ounces.'
That request would obviously be met with the question, 'Of what?'"

Durkin ordered the case dismissed without prejudice.  But he gave
the plaintiffs until Nov. 14 to ask his permission to file an
amended complaint, or the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Starbucks was represented in the action by attorneys with the firm
of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, with offices in Chicago, San
Francisco and Los Angeles.


STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Thalman Seeks Certification of Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Thalman and Gail Pirkle move the Court to certify the
classes described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled VINCENT
THALMAN, and GAIL PIRKLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. STONELEIGH RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC, and BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP PORTFOLIO NO 15, LLC, Case No.
2:16-cv-01400-PP (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both
stay the motion for class certification and to grant the
Plaintiffs (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4J4uO4T4

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


STRONGHAVEN INC: "Jennings" Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY D. JENNINGS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STRONGHAVEN, INC., ADVANCED
DESIGN & PACKAGING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03859-SCJ
(N.D. Ga., October 17, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Stronghaven, Inc. -- http://www.stronghaven.com/-- is a display
and graphic fonts packaging supplier.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason R. Doss, Esq.
     Samuel T. Brannan, Esq.
     THE DOSS FIRM, LLC
     36 Trammell Street, Suite 101
     Marietta, GA 30064
     Phone: (770) 578-1314
     Fax: (770) 578-1302
     Email: jasondoss@dossfirm.com


TAYLOR, MI: Refuses to Settle Water Billing Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Dave Herndon, writing for News-Herald, reports that the City of
Taylor is claiming extortion and refused to settle a class-action
lawsuit recently filed by the Royal Oak-based law firm Kickham
Hanley PLLC.

The suit contends that the city has been overtaxing residents to
build an unneeded balance in the water and sewer fund.

In a rebuttal to the city, filed with the court recently, the law
firm denied the extortion claim, and said the city was wrong in
the rebuttal filed to the initial suit.

The suit was originally filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court in
April.

"The city starts by accusing Plaintiff's counsel of engaging in
criminal behavior -- i.e., extortion -- and then proceeds to
baldly assert that, if the class is certified, class members would
'receive no benefit whatsoever' because 'the only one with
anything to gain from this lawsuit is Plaintiff's counsel,'" the
court document reads in part.

The lawsuit contends that Taylor's rates are higher than necessary
to finance the actual costs of providing water and sewage disposal
services; that the City has unlawfully included in its rates an
additional charge that is used not to cover actual expenses on
providing water and sewer services, but rather to fund the City's
general governmental obligations; and that the City includes in
its rates an amount to cover the costs the City incurs for the
public fire protection services provided by the water supply
system.

The same firm has filed similar lawsuits against other
communities, including Dearborn, Ferndale, Royal Oak, Birmingham,
Bloomfield Township and Westland, and has sought related
information in two other communities Canton and Livonia.

"It appears that their overall strategy is to target
municipalities that have properly planned and possess fund
balances to adequately service their residents," Mayor Rick
Sollars said in response to the lawsuit.  "We will not allow this
lawsuit to distract from our greater vision of providing excellent
services to the residents of the City of Taylor."

The lawsuit contends "illegal taxes" on specific charges
incorporated into the City's water and sewer rates.

Among the reasons the firm filed in the more than 140 page lawsuit
is that using taxes in the water and sewer fund effectively
circumvents the state Headlee amendment which limits a
municipality's taxing power.  The firm successfully argued that
point in a suit filed in 2007 against the City of Detroit.

Mr. Sollars said Taylor has a very comprehensive capital
improvement plan in place that improves services to residents
throughout the community. Every five years, Taylor updates a
Capital Improvement Plan. The City's most recent plan in November
2015 identified over $12M of necessary improvements required to
the system. Taylor prepares for such improvements each year to
avoid large assessments to residents.

Because the funds are to be used strictly for water and sewer
related expenses, Mr. Sollars contends the water rates have been
done legally.

Additionally, Mr. Sollars said the city hasn't changed it's
policies on water rates in more than 25 years.

The city, through its attorney's -- Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC
-- called the lawsuit "frivolous" and will seek to get it
dismissed.

In its rebuttal to the suit the city said customers are charged
only their proportional share of the costs of the operation,
maintenance and equipment replacement expenses, and that the rates
have always been adjusted in transparent fashion by City Council,
in public meetings and out in the open.  Also the current water
rates are lower than they could have been, according to
Mr. Sollars.  He said the city chose not to raise rates at the
full market value at this year, instead passing savings on to the
residents.

Mr. Sollars also said that the excess funds in the water and sewer
fund are needed for emergency work.  Such as an emergency repair
of a collapsing sewer line on Ziegler Street, at a cost of nearly
$100,000, that was approved in September.

"The City has continuously acted responsibly and in the best
interests of the water and sewer customers," Howard & Howard
stated in the City's position of the court brief.

The frivolity of the suit, according to Mr. Sollars, is that if
the city were to lose, about 10 percent of the tax payers money
would not be returned to them, but instead go to the firm that
filed the case.

"Unfortunately, there are opportunistic attorneys seeking to
hijack our fund balance," he said.  "Make no mistake: A large
percentage of any settlement in this case would benefit the law
firm, not the taxpayers.  We use our water and sewer fund in a
proactive fashion for the benefit of our residents, and to guard
against catastrophic occurrences."

Additionally, without the fund balance, even small repairs would
have to go out to a vote of the people to raise money to do the
repairs.  That would put delays of weeks or months on making the
repairs, and possibly cause further damage in the affected areas.

The suit also claimed that short-term loans provided from the
water and sewer fund to cover general fund expenses were improper.

". . . There is nothing illegal or improper about the loans," the
attorneys wrote in the brief.  "The loans were approved by City
Council and the loans benefited the water customers . . . (they)
were repaid with interest."


TAYLOR SAFETY: Hernandez Seeks to Certify Class of Consultants
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JOSE HERNANDEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TAYLOR SAFETY
CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00198 (S.D. Tex.), asks that the
Court conditionally certify a class consisting of:

     All current and former safety consultants and/or safety
     technicians who worked for Taylor Safety Consulting, LLC at
     any time from _______________, 2013 to the present who were
     classified as independent contractors and paid a day-rate
     with no overtime compensation.

     The date represents three years back from the date that the
     Notice and Consent Forms are first sent to the Putative
     Class Members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IDoDbt45

Mr. Hernandez alleges that the Defendant misclassified its workers
as independent contractors in order to avoid paying them overtime
wages required under federal law.  He contends that the Defendant
maintained a uniform pay practice of paying these safety
"consultants" a non-negotiable day-rate and a per diem without any
overtime compensation, which practice flagrantly violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


TENET HEALTHCARE: "Pennington" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS PENNINGTON, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION,
TREVOR FETTER, DANIEL J. CANCELMI, and BIGGS C. PORTER,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-07510 (C.D. Cal., October 7, 2016),
alleges violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act in
relation to its financial reporting.

Defendant Tenet primarily operates acute care hospitals and
related healthcare facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 785-2610
     Fax: (213) 226-4684
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


THANK YOU: Catzin Seeks Review of S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Lucia Lopez Catzin, Silvia Villano Clemente and Yadira
Aguilar-Cano filed an appeal from the District Court's memorandum
decision & order, dated October 3, 2016, in their lawsuit styled
Lopez Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., Case No. 15-cv-7109,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(New York City).

The appellate case is captioned as Lopez Catzin v. Thank You &
Good Luck Corp., Case No. 16-3509, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Lucia Lopez Catzin, individually on behalf
of others similarly situated, Silvia Villano Clemente and Yadira
Aguilar-Cano are represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
          225 Broadway
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 571-0700
          E-mail: michael@fishertaubenfeld.com

Defendants-Respondents Thank You & Good Luck Corp. and Zeng Lan
Wang are represented by:

          William M. Brown, Esq.
          HANG AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Avenue
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          E-mail: wbrown@hanglaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew A. Kimler, Esq.
          VISHNICK MCGOVERN MILIZIO LLP
          3000 Marcus Avenue
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Telephone: (516) 437-4385
          E-mail: akimler@vmmlegal.com

Defendants-Respondents Off-Broadway Laundromat Inc., 2167 3rd Ave
Laundromat LLC, Igor Birzh, Exclusive Management Solution Group,
Inc., and Dimitri Berezovsky are represented by:

          Mark Richard Kook, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK R. KOOK
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 766-4100
          Facsimile: (212) 763-6810
          E-mail: mkook@kooklaw.com


Defendants-Respondents Off-Broadway Laundromat Inc., 2167 3rd Ave
Laundromat LLC and 115th Street and First Ave Laundromat Inc. are
represented by:

          Oleg A. Mestechkin, Esq.
          MESTECHKIN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          3 World Financial Center
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 256-1113
          E-mail: om@lawmlg.com


TIRRENIO INC: "Anguisaca" Suit Claims FLSA, NY Labor Law Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO ANGUISACA, on behalf of himself, Plaintiffs, and Class
Members, Plaintiff, v. TIRRENIO, INC., d/b/a SCARAMELLA'S
RISTORANTE, NILDE SCARAMELLA, and VINCENZO SCARAMELLA, Defendants,
Case No. 7:16-cv-08169-VB (S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2016), claims
that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is
entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2)
liquidated damages and (3) attorneys' fees and costs.  Plaintiff
further alleges that, pursuant to the New York Labor Law, he and
others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants:
(1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid spread of hours premium, (3)
liquidated damages and statutory penalties and (4) attorneys' fees
and costs.

Together, Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant doing
business under the trade name "Scaramella's Ristorante."

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


TYSON FOODS: "Chung" Suit Asserts Broiler Chicken Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
JONAH CHUNG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. TYSON FOODS, INC., DONNIE SMITH, and
DENNIS LEATHERBY, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08108 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 17, 2016), alleges that Defendants violated U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act by making false and misleading
statements or failed to disclose that: (i) Tyson systematically
colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the
broiler-chicken market; (ii) the foregoing conduct constituted a
violation of federal antitrust laws; (iii) consequently, Tyson's
Chicken segment revenues during the class period were the result
of illegal conduct; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Tyson's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

TYSON FOODS, INC., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

     Michael Goldberg, Esq.
     Brian Schall, Esq.
     GOLDBERG LAW PC
     1999 Avenue of the Stars
     Los Angeles, CA 90067, Suite 1100
     Phone: 1-800-977-7401
     Fax: 1-800-536-0065
     Email: michael@goldberglawpc.com
            brian@goldberglawpc.com


TYSON FOODS: Faces "Huser" Securities Class Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM HUSER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TYSON FOODS, INC., DONNIE SMITH, and
DENNIS LEATHERBY, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-07709 (C.D. Cal.,
October 17, 2016), is a federal securities class action on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Tyson Foods
between November 23, 2015 and October 7, 2016, both dates
inclusive.

Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a food company worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 785-2610
     Fax: (213) 226-4684
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


TYSON FOODS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 17
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Tyson Foods, Inc. securities from November 23, 2015
through October 7, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").

To join the Tyson Foods class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-964.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that Tyson Foods had conspired to fix chicken prices.  The lawsuit
alleges that, as a result, defendants' statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.  On September 2, 2016,
certain media outlets reported the filing of an antitrust lawsuit
against Tyson Foods asserting that it conspired to manipulate the
price of broiler-chickens.  On October 7, 2016, Pivotal Research
reduced its price target and rating for Tyson Foods due to the
allegations of the previously reported antitrust lawsuit. The
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages when these details
entered the market.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 16, 2016.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to the
firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-964.htmlor to
discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Bank" Suit in N.Y. Over Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------------
TODD C. BANK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-
05845 (E.D.N.Y., October 19, 2016), seeks statutory damages,
injunctive relief, legal fees, and costs under New York General
Business Law on behalf of those who received telephone calls,
commonly known as "robocalls."

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. -- http://www.uber.com-- provides a
smartphone application that connects drivers with people who need
a ride.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd C. Bank, Esq.
     TODD C. BANK, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
     119-40 Union Turnpike
     Fourth Floor
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Phone: (718) 520-7125


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ruling May Bolster Independent Contractor Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin Huston, writing for MarketWatch, reports that a recent
New York ruling that called Uber drivers employees could add to a
case against Uber's independent contractor designation.

In the ruling, reported by the New York Times, two former Uber
drivers were classified as employees in cases involving
unemployment insurance claims.  While the ruling does not have
direct legal precedent for class-action suits against Uber,
lawyers see it adding to the claims of misclassification, which
could bring added costs to Uber and have an impact on related
companies.

Uber currently classifies its drivers as independent contractors,
not employees, which means it does not pay them a salary or
benefits.  Two pending class-action lawsuits filed by drivers
against Uber contest that the drivers are employees.  But a
proposed $100 million settlement with Uber was rejected by a judge
and an appeals ruling may reduce the number of eligible drivers in
the lawsuit, according to the WSJ.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lawyer representing the drivers in the
suit, said the recent New York ruling is one of several similar
rulings and bolsters her case, but does not set exact legal
precedent.

"While it's not a direct legal precedent for our case, it is part
of a growing momentum for agencies to crack down on
misclassification," Ms. Liss-Riordan wrote in an email to
MarketWatch.

She added that misclassification cases such as these are often
decided on an incremental basis, which builds up case law around
the issue.

Still, James Cakmak, an analyst with Monness, Crespi and Hardt,
said he expects news of the rulings could encourage similar suits
at other companies.

"We believe headlines of this news could result in an impetus of
cases from employees with an increasing proportion of rulings in
favor of employee classification given the precedence established
in a state like New York," Mr. Cakmak wrote.

This would most likely affect other ride-hailing companies such as
Lyft Inc., which has been rumored to be looking for a buyer.
Because of the potential for added costs if drivers were
classified as employees, Mr. Cakmak said this places "more
pressure" on Lyft to find a larger company to merge with and also
to accept a lower purchase price.

"We end up with the same sentiment for Lyft as we do for Twitter
and that's for the board to be more reasonable on valuation," he
wrote.

If the ruling broadens, he added that companies such as GrubHub
which is creating a food delivery network, and Amazon Inc. which
has a fleet of drivers classified as independent contractors, may
also be challenged.


UNILIFE CORPORATION: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due
-------------------------------------------------------
Unilife Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that the United District Court
for the Southern District of New York has set a deadline of
October 24, 2016 for Plaintiffs to file an amended class action
complaint.

On May 26 and 27, 2016, two putative class actions were filed in
the United District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that in violation of Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Company and four individual
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose: (1) that the Company's former CEO and former Chairman
of the Board of Directors had violated the Company's policies and
procedures and had engaged in violations of law and regulations;
(2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over
accounting and financial reporting; (3) that, as a result, the
Company would be unable to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2016 by the prescribed filing
deadline; and (4) that, as a result, the Company's financial
statements, as well as its statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.  The putative class actions were
brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between February 3, 2014 and May 23, 2016.

On August 24, 2016, the Court consolidated the two actions,
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and set a deadline of
October 24, 2016 for Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.  The
Company intends to vigorously contest this lawsuit.


UNITED STATES: Outside Unltd. Appeals in "Gonzalez-Aviles" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Outside Unlimited, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Pablo Gonzalez-Aviles, et al. v.
Thomas Perez, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03463-JFM, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.

The appellate case is captioned as Pablo Gonzalez-Aviles v.
Outside Unlimited, Inc., Case No. 16-2203, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Thomas E. Perez is sued in his official capacity as United States
Secretary of Labor.

Plaintiffs, two individuals who entered the United States on H-2B
guest worker visas in 2013 to work for Outside Unlimited, Inc.,
have brought the District Court action against Thomas Perez, in
his official capacity as United States Secretary of Labor, Portia
Wu, in her official capacity as Assistant Secretary, Employment
and Training Administration, United States Department of Labor,
and the so called Employer Defendants, consisting of businesses
that employed United States and foreign workers pursuant to
approved H-2B paper certifications in Maryland during 2013.
Defendants have filed motions to dismiss. The motions will be
granted.

The case arises from a decision of the Department of Labor's Board
of Alien Labor Certification Appeals ("the BALCA"), holding that
the Department of Labor lacks the authority to issue supplemental
prevailing wage determinations in cases where the Department
already approved labor certification applications. Plaintiffs
claim that (l) the Department should not have allowed the Employer
Defendants to pursue challenges to SPWD determinations to BALCA,
(2) BALCA's decision was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law
in violation of the APA, (3) the Department's actions in
unreasonably delaying issuance of a decision with respect to a
Declaratory Order proposed by the Department violated the
Administrative Procedure Act, ("APA"), and (4) a declaration that
the SPWD wages are lawfully required and due and payable.  They
have joined the Employer Defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 on
the ground that they cannot obtain complete release in the absence
of the Employer Defendants and that the Defendant Employer's
interest may, as a practical matter be impaired by the relief
plaintiffs seek against DOL.

In a June 17, 2016 Memorandum, a copy of which is available at
https://is.gd/tuQezB from Leagle.com, District Judge J. Frederick
Motz said Plaintiffs' claims fail because plaintiffs have failed
to identify a final agency action. The BALCA decision does not
represent a "final decision" of the Department of Labor. Indeed,
the Department has contemplated issuing a "Declaratory Order"
reversing the decision.1

Plainitffs' claims against the Employer Defendants likewise fail,
Judge Motz said. They have no standing to sue anybody other than
Outside Unlimited, Inc., their employer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 does
not create a cause of action against a party and allows joinder of
persons only against whom a plaintiff has a viable claim.
Plaintiffs do not allege that any of the defendants have acted
unlawfully. They have only sought to enjoin the Employer
Defendants only on the ground that absent their joinder, they
could not obtain full relief.

Judge Motz entered an order granting defendants' motion to
dismiss.

The Defendants-Appellants are OUTSIDE UNLIMITED, INC.; AKEHURST
LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC.; BARTENFELDER LANDSCAPE SERVICE, INC.;
A.R. STAR SERVICES, INC.; CEDAR RIDGE LANDSCAPE, INC.; COLUMBIA
GROUNDS MANAGEMENT CORP.; BOB JACKSON LANDSCAPES, INC.;
CONTINENTAL LANDSCAPING, INC.; CREATIVE LANDSCAPES BY GREGORY,
INC.; CUSTOM GROUND MAINTENANCE, INC.; DENISON LANDSCAPING, INC.;
C.S. LAWN AND LANDSCAPE, INC.; EDS PLANT WORLD, INC.; EXCELL LAWN
CARE INC.; EASTON ICE COMPANY, INC.; FACILITY SERVICES CO.; FRANK
JOSEPH AND SONS, INC.; EXEC-U-LAWN LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT, INC.;
GREEN ANGELS LANDSCAPING LLC; HARTSOE PROPERTY SERVICES, LLC;
GOSHEN ENTERPRISES, INC.; KINGSDENE NURSERIES, INC.; LARSONS TREE
SERVICE AND LANDSCAPING, LTD.; IVY HILL NURSERY CO., INC.; LEES
LAWN SERVICE; MARYLAND NATIVES NURSERY, INC.; LAYTONSVILLE TURF
FARM, LLC; M.J.M. LAWN AND LANDSCAPING, INC.; NATURAL ART
LANDSCAPING, INC.; MEAD TREE AND TURF CARE, INC.; OAK HILL LAWN
CARE AND LANDSCAPING, INC.; P. STADLER AND SONS CO.; PGC LANDSCAPE
LLC; PINEHURST LANDSCAPE CO., INC.; PAUL SCHWARTZ LANDSCAPING,
LLC; QUALITY ONE, INC.; SOUTH FORTY, INC.; POOLE LANDSCAPING,
INC.; TDH LANDSCAPING, LLC; TERRACE TURF LAWN SERVICES, INC.;
STRATES FINE FOODS, INC.; W.H. BOYER, INC.; WOODFIELD LANDSCAPING
INC.; GROUNDS MANAGEMENT AND LANDSCAPING INC.; THE MEMBERS CLUB AT
FOUR STREAMS, INC.; KCS LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT, INC.; ALPHA
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS, INC.; MANOR VIEW FARMS, INC.; PORTER
LANDSCAPING, INC.; LAWNS UNLIMITED, LLC; WENTWORTH NURSERY, INC.;
WILLIAM T. KING, INC.; LANDCARE USA LLC; A OF R SERVICES, INC.;
FAIRPLAY GAMES, INC.; GIBSON LANDSCAPES INC.; CLIPPERS INC.; HV
LLC; HYDRO-TECH IRRIGATION CO.; KANE LANDSCAPES, INC.; LANDSCAPE
DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.; SURROUNDS INC.; WHATEVER ENTERPRISES, LLC;
CHALLENGER SPORTS CORP.; CLIPPERS INC.- NOVA; INNERS AMUSEMENT
CO.; KELLY-MILLER BROS. CIRCUS, LTD.; and SPOSATO LANDSCAPE CO.,
INC.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Pablo Gonzalez-Aviles and Heleodoro Pena-Gonzalez have filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the District Court case.  That
appellate case is entitled Pablo Gonzalez-Aviles v. Thomas Perez,
Case No. 16-2007, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.

The Appellate Court stated that initial forms are due within 14
days.

Plaintiffs-Appellees PABLO GONZALEZ-AVILES and HELEODORO PENA-
GONZALEZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Meredith B. Stewart, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          1055 Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 486-8982
          Facsimile: (504) 486-8947
          E-mail: meredith.stewart@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Edward John Tuddenham, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD TUDDENHAM
          228 West 137th Street
          New York, NY 10030
          Telephone: (212) 234-5953
          E-mail: etudden@io.com

Defendants THOMAS E. PEREZ, in his official capacity as United
States Secretary of Labor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and
PORTIA WU, in her official capacity as Assistant Secretary,
Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor,
are represented by:

          Vinita Andrapalliyal, Esq.
          U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P. O. Box 868
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 598-8085
          Facsimile: (202) 305-7000
          E-mail: vinita.b.andrapalliyal@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Sarah Stevens Wilson
          U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P. O. Box 868
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 532-4700
          E-mail: sarah.s.wilson@usdoj.gov

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Robert Wayne Pierce, Esq.
          PIERCE LAW FIRM, LLC
          133 Defense Highway
          Annapolis, MD 21401
          Telephone: (410) 573-9955
          E-mail: pearce@rwpearce.com

Defendant TOLL BROTHERS, LLC-VA,

          George Eugene Brown, Esq.
          KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA
          Commerce Place
          1 South Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202-0000
          Telephone: (410) 752-6030
          Facsimile: (410) 361-8205
          E-mail: gbrown@kg-law.com

Defendant DEGGELLER ATTRACTIONS, INC., is represented by:

          Terrance Wayne Anderson, Jr., Esq.
          GRAY ROBINSON, PA
          333 South East 2nd Avenue
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 416-6880
          Facsimile: (305) 416-6887
          E-mail: terrance.anderson@gray-robinson.com

Defendant VALLEYCREST COMPANIES is represented by:

          Noam Barak Fischman, Esq.
          POLSINELLI, PC
          1401 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-8360
          E-mail: nfischman@polsinelli.com


UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Mikolajczyk Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Mikolajczyk moves the Court to certify the class
described in the complaint of the lawsuit entitled CHRISTINE
MIKOLAJCZYK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. UNIVERSAL FIDELITY, LP, Case No. 2:16-cv-01382-WED
(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, Ms. Mikolajczyk 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, Ms.
Mikolajczyk states.  She asserts that she 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, Ms. Mikolajczyk contends.

Ms. Mikolajczyk 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=mY6Voad9

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


VANCOUVER, BC: Property Owners Sue Over Heritage Designation Bylaw
------------------------------------------------------------------
Business Vancouver reports that property owners whose homes fall
under Vancouver's Heritage Designation Bylaw are suing the city in
a class action, claiming it hurt their property values after its
adoption in September 2015.

Lead plaintiff Mary Ann Cummings filed a notice of civil claim
under the Class Proceedings Act on September 28.  An appendix to
the bylaw listed her home on West 17th along with more than 300
other properties "to be protected by heritage designation," the
claim states.

She claims her property and others listed in the appendix were
included despite "no assessment of the heritage value or heritage
character" of the homes having been done to determine whether they
should be listed or not.

"Due to the heritage designation the properties listed in [the
appendix] have lost and continue to lose value," the claim states.

Moreover, the lawsuit says the bylaws and an amendment "were
adopted illegally and in excess of Vancouver City Council's
authority under the Vancouver Charter . . . to designate protected
heritage property."

The class seeks damages and compensation under the Expropriation
Act for "loss of property value and/or property rights in an
amount yet to be determined."

The allegations have not been tested or proven in court, and the
City of Vancouver had not filed a response by press time.


VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: "Lenart" Lawsuit Transferred to Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned CHERYL LENART, On Behalf of Herself and All
Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff v. VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02505-SO (June 7, 2016), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois Northern to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.

The complaint alleges that Visionworks violates the Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Federal Trade
Commission regulation by making its free offer continuously and
repeatedly, month-after-month for the vast majority of the year.

VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA, INC. is one of the largest retailers of
eyeglasses in the country, with at least 33 retail stores in
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Maureen Salas, Esq.
     WERMAN SALAS P.C.
     77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     Fax: (312) 419-1025
     E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             msalas@flsalaw.com

        - and -

     Drew Legando, Esq.
     Jack Landskroner, Esq.
     Tom Merriman, Esq.
     LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
     1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: (216) 522-9000
     Fax: (216) 522-9007
     E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com
             jack@lgmlegal.com
             tom@lgmlegal.com

        - and -

     Mark Schlachet, Esq.
     3515 Severn Road
     Cleveland, OH 44118
     Phone: (216) 522-7559
     Fax: (216) 514-6406
     E-mail: mschlachet@gmail.com


VIXEN'S LLC: Faces "Breighner" Suit Under FLSA, W.Va. Wage Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA BREIGHNER and BRITTANNI WOLFE, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VIXEN'S LLC, TABOO
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB LLC, HENRY E. WORCESTER III, HENRY E. WORCESTER
IV, and CASEY McGEE, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00144-GMG
(N.D.W. Va., October 19, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the West Virginia Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours
Act.  The suit also seeks a declaration under the Declaratory
Judgment Act, that the mandatory arbitration provision and waiver
of class and collective actions in the "Entertainment License
Agreement" between Plaintiffs and Defendants are unconscionable
and unenforceable.

VIXEN'S LLC operated a "gentleman's club" known as "Vixen's
Gentlemen's Club."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark Goldner, Esq.
     Maria W. Hughes, Esq.
     HUGHES & GOLDNER, PLLC
     10 Hale Street, Fifth Floor
     Charleston, WV 25301
     Phone: (304) 400-4816
     Fax: (304) 205-7729
     E-mail: mark@wvemploymentrights.com
             maria@wvemploymentrights.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Canadian Diesel Owners Await Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
Laura DaSilva, writing for CBC News, reports that exasperated
Canadian Volkswagen owners anxious for a Canadian settlement will
be stuck in the limbo they're enduring over their emissions-
spewing diesel vehicles for at least a few more weeks.

Volkswagen Canada and parties involved in class-action lawsuits in
Ontario and Quebec were scheduled to give updates in court on
Oct. 18 on a proposed deal to compensate the roughly 100,000 VW
owners affected by the emissions-cheating debacle, but the updates
were put off.

A lawyer from Siskinds Law Firm involved in the Ontario suit told
CBC News on Oct. 18 that they hope to have something concrete
regarding the affected 2.0L TDI vehicles by the next scheduled
court date on Dec. 19.

In an email on Oct. 18, a spokesperson from Volkswagen Canada
said, "The parties continue to engage in productive discussions
and will keep the courts updated."

"Here we are, the big court date and nothing is solved," said VW
Passat owner from Mono, Ont., Anca Periet.  "Are the lawyers
dragging the issue for their own benefit? I'm furious beyond
belief."

Canadian owners of diesel VWs have been faced with uncertainty
since it was learned in 2015 the engines emit nitrogen oxide at a
level many times more than permitted under pollution standards.
They'll take a financial hit if they sell the cars, but have yet
to hear how Volkswagen will compensate them.

On Oct. 17, after asking car owners on the site to tell their
stories, CBC News received dozens of emails and phone calls from
group members across the country who were anticipating some sort
of announcement.

'Enough is enough'

"I am held hostage by Volkswagen," Sarnia, Ont., Passat owner
Dennis Hobday said. "Nobody wants my car. I hate them for putting
me in that position."

At the end of July, VW announced diesel owners in the U.S. can
choose between a buyback or a repair, in addition to cash
compensation ranging from $5,100 to $10,000 per owner.  People who
owned an affected VW model as of September 2015, when the EPA
first exposed the scandal, or have since bought one, will be
eligible.  The gavel was expected to come down on the $14.7-
billion US deal on Oct. 18.

Rumours have been circulating that the Canadian settlement will be
very similar to the U.S. one. Almost all of the owners CBC News
spoke to said they would be happy with that.  They're just tired
of waiting.

"My hope is that we get a settlement that would mirror the U.S.,
but tweaked to Canadian car values," Mr. Hobday said.  "I would be
ecstatically happy with that.  Then we could move on with our
lives.  Enough is enough."

Jetta TDI Highline owner Tyler Spurrel from Whitby, Ont., just
wants answers.  "I'm very frustrated with how they're handling
things right now," he said.  "They could just let us know what's
going on, it's the least they could do."

'It's devastating me financially'

Bonnie Ayotte purchased a VW Beetle in Abbotsford, B.C., for
$38,000 in 2013, thinking it was a clean vehicle that she could
pass on to her son when he graduated.  The single mother on
disability is concerned about reports the amount she gets for her
car may be adjusted to account for mileage.  In that case, she
fears she could lose as much $20,000 on the vehicle.

"It's devastating me financially. I should not be punished for
these miles," she said.  "I have no control over the time taken
and, unlike others, cannot afford to get another vehicle to park
mine while we wait."

Many diesel VW owners did stop driving their vehicles, thinking
the size of their settlement might be contingent on mileage.

That's what Ottawa's Charlene Roy did.  She owns a VW Jetta, but
takes transit to work. Until she knows what she'll be getting
back, the single mother of four is keeping her car parked.

"I saved my butt off up to be able to buy the vehicle.  It's not
something I want to go into debt over," she said.  "Buy my car
back and let me go somewhere else."

Young drivers like Nikko Layson are also sick of living with the
uncertainty.  The 24-year-old budgeted to buy his 2012 Golf in the
midst of trying to find a place to rent in B.C.'s white-hot
housing market. He had to purchase a second vehicle to prevent
adding mileage to his Golf.

"My financial situation has been thrown into question," he said.
"I'm sitting here dug deeper in debt on a car I can't even drive,
and making payments that I will never see back."

Losing faith in the brand

Retired University of Waterloo engineering professor Ed Jernigan
feels personally betrayed by VW.

"I had made a considerable effort to be environmentally
responsible in my purchase decision," he said.  "It's absurd.  VW
will have to step up, take full responsibility, and make full
restitution if they ever want to restore their reputation for
making quality vehicles."

Brian McFadden is happy with his VW Touareg and would even
consider purchasing another vehicle from the automaker, but he
calls the lack of communication "pathetic."  The Simcoe County,
Ontario, resident said the longer it takes to reach a settlement,
the more customers they'll lose.

"Bottom line is we were all lied to by Volkswagen," said James
Hoy, a VW Golf owner from Barrie, Ont.  "We have been patiently
waiting for a fair and fast resolution."

Hoy and more than 4,500 Canadian VW owners have banded together in
a Facebook group called Canadian VW TDI Owners.

A Volkwagen Canada spokesperson told CBC News that a court order
requires all parties to keep the details related to settlement
discussions in Canada confidential.


VOLKSWAGEN CANADA: Faces Government Probe Over Defeat Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jil McIntosh, writing for AutoNews, reports that Volkswagen Canada
is being investigated under the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act for importing vehicles with software intended to defeat
emissions testing.

In a statement emailed to Automotive News Canada, Environment and
Climate Change Canada said that it is "actively investigating"
certain Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche diesel vehicles equipped
with prohibited defeat devices, said ECCC spokesperson, Melanie
Quesnel.

If the investigation uncovers sufficient evidence of violations,
the agency "may recommend to the Public Prosecution Service of
Canada that charges be laid," she said.

As in all of ECCC's violation cases, the PPSC is responsible for
determining whether to prosecute, and if so whether to proceed by
summary conviction proceedings or by indictment.  Under the Act,
the maximum fine for a large corporation for conviction under
indictment is $6 million for each offence, and the possibility of
forfeiting any profits earned as a result of the offence.

No charges laid yet

Volkswagen's corporate officials may also be subject to
prosecution if they "direct, authorize, assent to, acquiesce or
participate" in any violation of the Environmental Protection Act
or its regulations.

The investigation is currently limited to the ECCC's office.  In a
statement emailed to AN Canada on October 12, the PPSC stated that
it "can confirm that no charges have been laid against Volkswagen
at this time," and that it "cannot comment further unless or until
a charge is laid."

A Volkswagen Canada spokesperson said that, "We are cooperating
with Environment and Climate Change Canada's investigation.  It
would be inappropriate for us to comment further while the
investigation is ongoing."

Under a US$14.7-billion agreement in the United States, Volkswagen
will repair or buy back every one of its affected diesel-engine
cars that carry the "defeat devices" that allow the cars to pass
emissions tests but which, in real-world driving, pollute up to
three times the legal limit.

In Canada, still waiting

Canadian VW owners and dealers are still waiting on news of a
compensation package from the embattled automaker.

Any environmental penalties levied by the federal government would
be in addition to a consumer class action currently under way in
Canada.  In the United States, Volkswagen is working with the
Environmental Protection Agency to develop federally-approved
repairs for owners who choose to have their vehicles fixed.

On its consumer website, Volkswagen Canada says that upon approval
of the U.S. repairs, Canadian customers will also be offered
repairs "in full co-operation with Environment Canada."

The Canadian class-act suit is ongoing, and Superior Courts in
Ontario and Quebec have each scheduled October 18, 2016 for the
next update on the status of discussion.  The date coincides with
American proceedings, when the U.S. District Court is expected to
hand down final approval of the compensation settlement.  The
American company also faces US$1.2 billion in claims from dealers,
who had to stop selling affected vehicles.


WAWA INC: Faces "Ciuffardi" Suit Pursuant to FLSA, N.J. Wage Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNY CIUFFARDI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WAWA INC. d/b/a/ WAWA, Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-07574-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., October 19, 2016), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid wages and all available relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and
the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

Wawa Inc. is a chain of convenience stores/gas stations located
along the East Coast of the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell Schley, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC
     197 Route 18, Suite 3000
     East Brunswick, NJ 08816
     Phone: (732) 325-0318
     E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com

        - and -

     Louis Pechman, Esq.
     Laura Rodriguez, Esq.
     PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
     488 Madison Avenue - 11th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 583-9500
     E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
             rodriguez@pechmanlaw.com


WELCH FOODS: Court Narrows Claims in Atik-Lau Mislabeling Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, ALIZA ATIK and WINNIE LAU, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELCH
FOODS, INC. and THE PROMOTION IN MOTION COMPANIES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-5405 (MKB) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y.), District
Judge Margo K. Brodie of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York adopted the Report and Recommendation
(R&R) of Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon granting in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for breach of
implied warranty, unjust enrichment, injunctive relief and
Plaintiffs' remaining claims to the degree that they fall outside
the relevant statutes of limitation.

Plaintiffs Aliza Atik and Winnie Lau commenced a putative class
action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
against Defendants Welch Foods, Inc. (Welch) and The Promotion in
Motion Companies, Inc. (PIM). Plaintiffs allege claims of:

     (1) breach of express warranty,

     (2) breach of implied warranty,

     (3) unjust enrichment,

     (4) deceptive acts or practices in violation of the New York
General Business Law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 349,

     (5) false advertising in violation of the New York General
Business Law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 350,

     (6) unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of
the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code
Section 1750 et seq.,

     (7) unlawful business acts and practices in violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17200 et seq.,

     (8) fraudulent business acts and practices in violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200 et seq., and

     (9) misleading and deceptive advertising in violation of the
California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17500 et seq.

Plaintiffs allege that, beginning in 2009 and continuing to the
present, "Defendants have engaged in a deceptive marketing
campaign to convince consumers that the Products contain
significant amounts of the actual fruits shown in the marketing
and on the labeling of the Products, were nutritious and healthful
to consume, and were more healthful than similar products."
Plaintiffs state as examples of these misrepresentations that
Defendants labeled the Products to state that they are "Made With
REAL Fruit" and depicted pictures of the fruit advertised as the
flavor of the Product; labeled the Products as containing "100%
Vitamin C" and "25% Vitamins A & E," as "FAT FREE," and as
containing no gluten or preservatives; included on the packaging
of the Products that "the Welch's name has been built on the
highest quality fruit proudly grown on family farms" and that "in
this tradition of wholesome goodness come Welch's Fruit Snacks,
made with real fruit and fruit juices,"; and stated on Welch's
website that the Products are "wholesome" and of a "quality that
can only be Welch's".

Plaintiffs seek money damages, restitution and injunctive relief.

Defendants move to dismiss or stay the action pursuant to the
primary jurisdiction doctrine.  Defendants also move to dismiss
the Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of standing and for
failure to state a claim.

By report and recommendation dated August 5, 2016 (the R&R),
Magistrate Judge Scanlon recommended that the Court grant
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for breach of
implied warranty, unjust enrichment, injunctive relief and
Plaintiffs' remaining claims to the degree that they fall outside
the relevant statutes of limitation, and that the Court otherwise
deny Defendants' motion to dismiss.

On August 19, 2006, Plaintiffs and Defendants objected to the R&R.
Plaintiffs object to Judge Scanlon's recommendation that the Court
find that they lack standing to seek injunctive relief. Defendants
object to Judge Scanlon's recommendation that the Court deny their
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for lack of Article III
standing, Plaintiffs' consumer claims and Plaintiffs' breach of
express warranty claims. Defendants argue that:

     (1) Plaintiffs do not have Article III standing to assert
claims against Defendants as to the Non-Purchased Products because
"Plaintiffs have not suffered injury in a 'personal and individual
way';

     (2) Plaintiffs' claims for violations of the New York General
Business Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California False
Advertising Law fail as a matter of law because Defendant's
representations regarding the Products would not mislead a
reasonable consumer; and

     (3) Plaintiffs have not stated a breach of express warranty
claim because they have not identified any "affirmative
representations or that Defendants' products did not conform to
any alleged affirmative representations."

In her Memorandum and Order dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/CGRBey from Leagle.com, Judge Brodie adopted Judge
Scanlon's determination that:

     (1) in view of Plaintiffs' allegation "that there is not a
significant amount of the fruit depicted on the packaging in the
Products and that they are unhealthy relative to real, whole
fruit, it would be premature to hold that no reasonable consumer
would be misled by Defendants' representations;

     (2) Plaintiffs have established Article III standing for Non-
Purchased products because they have sufficiently stated a
cognizable injury by Defendants;

     (3) Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief
because Plaintiffs have failed to allege a risk of future injury;
and

     (4) As to breach of warranty claims, the Court adopted Judge
Scalion' reasoning from her analysis of Plaintiffs' state law
consumer protection claims to conclude that Defendants'
representations "regarding the Products' wholesome nature is
sufficient to constitute an express warranty."

Winnie Lau, et al. are represented by Amanda Howell, Esq. -- and
Stephen Gardner, Esq. -- sgardner@mckennalong.com -- STANLEY LAW
GROUP

Lau, et al. are also represented by:

      Kim Richman, Esq.
      THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP
      81 Prospect Street
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel:(718)705-4579

Welch Foods, Inc., et al. are represented by Daniel S. Silverman,
Esq. -- dssilverman@Venable.com -- Elise Margaret Gabriel, Esq. --
emgabriel@Venable.com -- Kimberly C. Cloyd, Esq. --
kccloyd@Venable.com -- and Matthew Gurvitz, Esq. --
mgurvitz@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP


WELLS FARGO: Faces Second Class Action Over Stock Drop
------------------------------------------------------
John Manganaro, writing for Plans Sponsor, reports that a new
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota suggests Wells Fargo's highly publicized sales
violations in its personal banking business have also caused the
company to breach its fiduciary duty to retirement plan
participants.

Specifically, plaintiffs accuse the bank's internal management of
improperly retaining common stock of Wells Fargo & Company as an
investment option in the company's 401(k) plan "when a reasonable
fiduciary using the care, skill, prudence, and diligence . . .
that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with
such matters would have done otherwise."

The allegations in the suit follow the classic pattern of
so-called "stock drop" litigation, and they follow a similar
complaint recently filed against Wells Fargo in the same
jurisdiction, with some important differences.

By way of background, negative media reports and Congressional
inquiries have plagued Wells Fargo's personal banking wing for
roughly a month now.  According to published news reports and the
admissions of now-ousted CEO and Chairman John Stumpf, the
company's aggressive sales requirements for low-level banking
professionals directly inspired the opening of millions of
unauthorized customer accounts.  This resulted in a major backlash
against the company that has cut roughly 12% to 15% of Wells Fargo
stock's market value compared with this time last year. The
company faces separate civil penalties approaching $200 million.

This second piece of proposed class-action litigation argues that
defendants, who allegedly had access to non-public information
relating to Wells Fargo's operations, permitted the plan to
continue to offer Wells Fargo Stock as an investment option to
participants even after they knew or should have known that Wells
Fargo Stock was artificially inflated during the class period --
defined by plaintiffs as January 1, 2011 to September 8, 2016.

"Due to the artificial inflation of the company stock price --
which would be corrected upon the revelation of negative
information -- Wells Fargo Stock was an imprudent retirement
investment for the plan given its purpose of helping plan
participants save for retirement," the plaintiffs claim.  "As
fiduciaries of the plan, defendants were empowered to remove Wells
Fargo Stock from the plan's investment options, or to take other
measures to help participants, but failed to do so or to take any
other action to protect the interests of the plan or its
participants."

As a result, according to the plaintiffs, Wells Fargo managers
breached their obligations under ERISA and are liable for damages
to a large class of participants.


WEST PUBLISHING: Tsao Sues Over Auto Renewal of Westlaw Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA TSAO, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WEST PUBLISHING CORPORATION, a Minnesota Corporation;
and THOMSON REUTERS HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case
No. 8:16-cv-01898 (C.D. Cal., October 17, 2016), is brought on
behalf of all persons and business entities in the state of
California, who purchased or otherwise subscribed to the
Defendants' Westlaw or Thomson West services that included
automatic renewal or continuous service provisions from the four
years preceding the filing of the Complaint until the present.

Ms. Tsao asserts that the Defendants included an automatic renewal
provision in the Westlaw Contract, which was not set forth in an
obvious, distinguishable, clear or conspicuous manner that
required automatic renewal without notice for consecutive full 12
month terms at increased pricing.  She alleges that to date, she
continues to be charged for the Defendants' Westlaw services,
without authorization, despite never communicating an intention to
renew said services and, later, specifically communicating a
request to cease them immediately to no avail.

West Publishing Corporation is a Minnesota Corporation, qualified
to do business in the state of California.  Thomson Reuters
Holdings, Inc. is, a Delaware Corporation, qualified to do
business in the state of California.  The Defendants do
significant business throughout the California, including
providing Westlaw and Thomson West services to clients throughout
Orange County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. D'Abusco, Esq.
          Leslie J. Glyer, Esq.
          ARES LAW GROUP, LLP
          23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 629-2519
          E-mail: Matt@areslawgroup.com
                  Leslie@areslawgroup.com


WEX INC: Swinter Group Seeks Certification of Class Under TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swinter Group, Inc., asks the Court to certify its class claims in
the lawsuit entitled SWINTER GROUP, INC. v. WEX, INC. d/b/a WEX
FLEET ONE, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-01464-JAR (E.D. Mo.).

The Case is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by
the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 and the regulations
promulgated thereunder.

Swinter Group also moves to stay briefing and ruling on the Motion
until completion of discovery and upon further order of the Court.
Swinter Group asks that its Motion be held in abeyance in order to
avoid granting WEX a strategic advantage, allowing WEX to make an
offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a common, but now discredited strategy by defendants to
"pick off" named plaintiffs when no motion for class certification
has been granted.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Tn91MgZW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald J. Eisenberg, Esq.
          Robert Schultz, Esq.
          SCHULTZ & ASSOCIATES LLP
          640 Cepi Drive, Suite A
          Chesterfield, MO 63005-1221
          Telephone: (636) 537-4645
          Facsimile: (636) 537-2599
          E-mail: reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com
                  rschultz@sl-lawyers.com


WOLF PETROLEUM: "Moss" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MOSS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WOLF PETROLEUM SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:16-cv-01435 (W.D. La., October 13, 2016), alleges that Wolf is
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by forcing its employees to
work a substantial amount of overtime without properly paying all
compensation due, thus depriving them of rightful compensation for
their work that Wolf is legally obligated to pay.

Wolf Petroleum Services, LLC is a gas service company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Barrett Beasley, Esq.
     SALIM-BEASLEY, LLC
     1901 Texas Street
     Natchitoches, LA 71457
     Phone: (318) 352-5999
     Fax: (318) 352-5998
     E-mail: bbeasley@salim-beasley.com

        - and -

     Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
     BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 425-7100
     Fax: (713) 425-7101
     E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com


WWW.URBAN INC: Lee Seeks to Certify Class of Home Consultants
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled NYOK LEE a/k/a STEVE LEE,
WEI-MIN WANG a/k/a RAYMOND WANG, TIM BROWN, CARLOS SAAVEDRA, SUNIL
LALANI, SHEA PHILLIPS, and All Others Similarly Situated v.
WWW.URBAN, INC., d/b/a URBAN LIVING, GEORGE SALASKI, and VINOD
KEWALRAMANI, Case No. 4:16-cv-01841 (S.D. Tex.), move the Court
for an order to send notice to potential class members in the case
as a class action on behalf of this class of similarly situated
persons:

     All of Defendants' current and former employees employed as
     Home Consultants, and who were paid pursuant to a commission
     and/or salary rate who were not paid minimum wage and
     overtime in compliance with the Federal Labor Standards Act,
     including the mandate that such employees received payment
     for all hours worked beyond 40 hours each week, before the
     filing of this Complaint up to the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PRDyN4WJ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles M.R. Vethan, Esq.
          THE VETHAN LAW FIRM, PC
          3501 Allen Parkway
          Houston, TX 77019
          Telephone: (713) 526-2222
          Facsimile: (713) 526-2230
          E-mail: cvethan@texasbizlaw.com


YAHOO INC: "Finnegan" File Suit Over 2014 Security Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
JIM FINNEGAN, LUCRESSE CAYEMITTE, CHRISTOPHER HAVRON, KATELYN
SMITH, THOMAS HOWES and DERRON APPLETON, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
YAHOO, INC., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-09809 (N.D. Ill., October 18, 2016), accuses the Defendant of
failing to adequately protect the private and confidential
personal information of its internet users in the United States
during a 2014 security breach.

YAHOO is an Internet Company that provides web-based services to
millions of users on a monthly basis.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert J. Shelist, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT J. SHELIST, P.C.
     500 N. Michigan Avenue--Suite 600
     Chicago, IL 60611
     Phone: 312- 226-0675
     Fax: 312-226-1053
     E-mail: rjsattorny@aol.com

        - and -

     Athan T. Tsimpedes, Esq.
     TSIMPEDES LAW FIRM
     1200 New Hampshire Avenue, Suite 725
     Washington, D.C. 20036
     Phone: 202-464-9910
     Fax: 202-747-2947
     E-mail: athan@tsimpedeslaw.com


YAHOO! INC: Hacking Plaintiffs Want to Pursue Claims in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Yahoo! Inc.
is facing litigation fallout in federal and state courts after a
high-profile hacking attack that exposed information of over 500
million accounts.

Howard M. Privette -- hprivette@ggtriallaw.com -- a partner at
Greenberg Gross LLP in Costa Mesa, Calif., told Bloomberg BNA that
"it appears that the state plaintiffs want to try to pursue claims
under California law on behalf of California residents, rather
than have their claims mixed together with residents of other
states in a single huge federal lawsuit."

The plaintiffs and their counsel more than likely picked
California because of the state's "strong consumer protection
statutes," Mr. Privette said.  California has among the strictest
laws governing data security and privacy issues, he said.

"Class action defense counsel often consider federal court to be a
more hospitable forum, and I would not be surprised to see Yahoo
try to have these cases removed to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act," he said.

Whether to file a consumer class complaint in federal or state
court can be a major decision that impacts the overall outcome of
the case and the amount of a potential settlement.  Plaintiffs and
defendants may pick and choose different litigation paths based on
the specific facts of the case.

There are six active lawsuits in California state courts filed
since the breach became public Sept. 22 (15 PVLR 1881, 9/26/16),
according to Bloomberg Law data as of Oct. 13.  The plaintiffs in
the state cases have raised California constitutional, breach of
contract, invasion of privacy and consumer protection claims,
Bloomberg Law data show.

Additionally, there is a federal consolidated putative class
action in the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and
other federal cases arising out of the data breach claims (15 PVLR
1950, 10/3/16).

It is unknown whether Yahoo will file a motion to compel the state
court actions to federal court and the company declined to comment
on the pending litigation Oct. 13.

Federal or State?

Mr. Privette said one of the primary issues plaintiffs in data
breach cases face is the requirement that they must have suffered
an "injury in fact" traceable to the defendant's conduct in order
to sue in federal court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution
(15 PVLR 1799, 9/12/16).

"Although this is still a developing area of the law, a number of
federal courts have dismissed data breach cases right at the
outset because they found this requirement lacking," Mr. Privette
said.

"California courts do not have the same strict Article III
limitation on their jurisdiction, and plaintiffs may try to use
the absence of that limitation to avoid some of the threshold
standing arguments they might face in federal court," he said.


* Colorado Developers Seek Reform of Construction Defects Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Ferrier, writing for The Coloradoan, reports that a planned
subdivision in northeast Fort Collins may be getting bigger.

Hartford Homes, which has approval to build 568 homes as part of
the East Ridge development, has proposed adding 306 multifamily
units on the southeast corner of Timberline Road and Vine Drive in
northeast Fort Collins.

Preliminary plans submitted to the city's planning department show
three separate tracts with four-, five- and sixplexes on about 34
acres along Vine and Timberline.

Hartford Homes president Landon Hoover said the project wouldn't
start for probably two years and would be built out over five
years.

Mr. Hoover said he has not determined whether the project would
include condominiums as well as apartments and townhomes, or what
sales prices would be.

"We want those to be at the more affordable price point, but we
just don't know yet," he said.

Mr. Hoover said he won't build condominiums unless the state's
construction defects law is changed.

The law -- which allows as few as two condo owners to bring a
class-action lawsuit against a builder -- was passed to protect
consumers from unscrupulous builders and shoddy construction
during the nation's prerecession building boom.

The ease with which homeowners can sue and the threat of
litigation has made it prohibitively expensive for developers to
insure, build and sell condominiums, say critics who have tried
repeatedly and failed to see the law changed.

That means many builders like Hoover shy away from condos,
oftentimes the least-expensive product to build and the most-
affordable entry into homeownership.

If the law doesn't change before Hoover is ready to break ground,
"we certainly can go the apartment route," he said.

Phase 1 of the East Ridge development is just getting underway
with infrastructure work.  Mr. Hoover said he hoped model homes
would begin going up by the end of the year on what will be the
first of 218 homes in the project.

East Ridge was approved in January on land that was annexed into
Fort Collins in 2002.  Homes are expected to be built in nine
phases with prices in the $300,000s to $400,000s.

Though finding and buying enough water to serve a project has been
difficult, Mr. Hoover said he has acquired the water for the first
few phases of East Ridge, but has not yet secured water for the
multifamily units recently proposed.

"Water remains very challenging and expensive," he said.
Day.


* German Government Denies Delaying Class Action Reform
-------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Welle reports that the German government has denied
allegations raised by the public television station ARD and the
"Sueddeutsche Zeitung" (SZ) newspaper that it is purposely
delaying legislation to permit the equivalent of class-action
suits in Germany.

Such suits are not currently admitted under German law, but in
late September 2015, in the immediate wake of the Volkswagen
emissions scandal, the Justice Ministry said that it was examining
"with particular interest" the possibility of changing that.
Citing internal ministry memos, ARD and the SZ reported that the
parameters for draft legislation were readied in late November
2015, but that the initiative has been put on ice.  Justice and
Consumer Protection Ministry spokesperson Piotr Malachowski
rejected that contention and said draft legislation was in the
pipeline.

"The draft legislation isn't finished yet," said Mr. Malachowski
at the government's Oct. 17 press conference in Berlin.  "We're
still intensively investigating the possibilities of class-action
lawsuits.  We intend to stick to the plan of putting forward
legislation this year.  I can't say why it's taken so long."

But that's precisely one of the questions that consumer advocacy
groups and the political opposition would like answered -- sooner
rather than later.

A ticking clock?

In late June 2016, Volkswagen paid out the record sum of $15.3
billion (13.9 billion euros) to settle the various public and
private legal actions, including class-action lawsuits, in the US
and Canada after it was proven that the car-maker had manipulated
emissions data for some of its diesel models.

In Germany, VW has offered car owners free adjustments to their
vehicles, but no financial compensation.  For Renate Kuenast,
Green Party deputy and former German consumer protection minister
from 2001 to 2005, that's an unacceptable situation.

"This government doesn't really represent the interests of
consumers vis-a-vis VW," Kuenast told DW. "It's a continuing story
of government failure. No one is standing up and saying: Consumers
here should have the same rights as consumers in the US."

At a conference hosted by the Federation of German Consumer
Organizations on September 28, 2015, just 10 days after the
emissions scandal broke, Deputy Justice and Consumer Protection
Minister Gerd Billen expressed enthusiastic support for
introducing a suitable legal instrument in Germany.  But despite
the ministry's assurance that legislation is on the way, the
Federation's director of consumer policies Jutta Gurkmann doubts
that anything will happen before Germany's national election next
September.

"Everyone agreed last year that we needed something, and the
deputy minister announced that the ministry would work on it,"
Mr. Gurkmann told DW.  "We're still waiting.  We hoped that
something would come in the second quarter of 2016.  You always
calculate how much time legislation needs in order to be passed in
this legislative period.  If it only goes to the cabinet at the
end of this year, it would be quite a feat to get it through by
next summer."

Playing for time?

Both the Greens and the Left Party accuse the government of
deliberately stalling reforms in the interests of VW and the
entire German automotive industry.

"I think it will be delayed into the next legislative period
because this situation is about preventing people who have
grievances from getting compensation," Karin Binder, the consumer
affairs spokesperson of the Left Party, told DW.

Mr. Kuenast says that it would be possible to pass class-action
suit legislation, if the government were to present a draft law.

"We are capable of passing a law right now with no problems,"
Mr. Kuenast said. "We deal with much more complicated legislation
in much shorter periods of time. We have all the time in the
world."

Both Messrs. Kuenast and Binder argue the possibility of launching
class-action lawsuits is essential to protecting consumers'
rights. Consumer advocacy groups agree and say all sides in
conflicts like the emissions scandal would benefit if plaintiffs
were allowed to bring legal cases collectively.

"There are lots of advantages from my perspective," Jutta Gurkmann
said.  "The courts' workload would be reduced, and it's easier for
a business to go up against a large group instead of confronting
every single individual in a trial.  But maybe part of the story
is that it's well known that individual consumers rarely take
their cases to the courts."

Critics say the coalition favors carmakers over consumers

Applying the brakes?

The SZ report also alleges that the Transport Ministry, which is
headed by a member of the conservative CSU, intervened with the
Social Democrat-led Justice Ministry to delay and water down
possible class-action-suit legislation.

On Oct. 17, Transport Ministry spokesperson Vera Moosmayer
vigorously denied any activity on behalf of Volkswagen or the auto
industry as a whole.

"By no means would we block measures aimed at protecting
consumers," Ms. Moosmayer said.

But Mr. Kuenast thinks that differing perspectives among the
members of Germany's governing grand coalition could indeed be
holding up legislative reform.

"The Transport Ministry is doing everything in its power to
protect VW from the customers," Mr. Kuenast said.  "And I wish
German Justice Minister Heiko Maas would stand up for them."


* NCDRC Says Consumers with Common Grievance Can File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moneylife reports that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (NCDRC) has upheld that consumers having a common
interest or grievance and seeking same relief can file class
action suit against the other party.  This judgment also paves way
for lakhs of investors to seek relief from companies that are not
repaying money invested in corporate fixed deposits (FDs).

"In one of the written submissions, it is contended that since a
complaint in a representative capacity can be filed only on behalf
of all the consumer having the same interest, such a complaint
will not be maintainable where one or more individual complaints,
expressing such a grievance are already pending.  We however, are
unable to accept the contention.  No such restriction finds place
in Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act or in Order I
Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  Accepting such a
contention would defeat the very purpose of allowing such a suit
or complaint since every consumer would be compelled to file an
individual complaint leading to multiplicity of proceedings.  Such
an interpretation would not serve the cause either of the consumer
or of the service provider," ruled a three member Bench at the
NCDRC.

In the order, the Bench of Justice DK Jain, Justice VK Jain and Dr
BC Gupta, stated, "Section 12(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection
Act when read with Order I Rule 8 of the Code of the Civil
Procedure will apply if (i) the consumers are numerous (ii) They
have the same interest (iii) the necessary permission of the
Consumer Forum is obtained and (iv) notice in terms of Sub-rule
(2) of Rule 8 of Order I is given.  It however, is not necessary
that the cause of action available to all the consumers should
also be the same.  What is required is sameness of the interest
and not the same cause of action."

The national consumer forum was hearing a case filed by
Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar-based Ambrish Kumar Shukla and 21 others
against Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.  The NCDRC Bench also
referred two orders passed by the Forum relating to the
interpretation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under:

(1) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or
agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed
to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by:

(a) the consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or
agreed to be sold or delivered or such service provided or agreed
to be provided;

(b) any recognized consumer association whether the consumer to
whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered
or service provided or agreed to be provided is a member of such
association or not;

(c) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers
having the same interest, with the permission of the District
Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so
interested; or

(d) the Central or the State Government, as the case may be,
either in its individual capacity or as a representative of
interests of the consumers in general.

Section 13(6) of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under:

(6) Where the complainant is a consumer referred to in sub-clause
(iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 2, the provisions
of rule 8 of Order I of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall apply subject to the
modification that every reference therein to a suit or decree
shall be construed as a reference to a complaint or the order of
the District Forum thereon.

Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under:
(b) "complainant" means -
(i) a consumer; or
(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for the
time being in force; or
(iii) the Central Government or any State Government; or
(iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers
having the same interest;
(v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or
representative;] who or which makes a complaint;

Order I of Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure which finds
reference in Section 13(6) of the Consumer Protection Act, reads
as under:
8. One person may sue or defend on behalf of all in same
interest.-
(1) Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in
one suit,?
(a) one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the
court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or
for the benefit of, all persons so interested;
(b) the court may direct that one or more of such persons may sue
or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the
benefit of, all persons so interested.

(2) The court shall, in every case where a permission or direction
is given  under sub-rule (1), at the plaintiff's expense, give
notice of the institution of  the suit to all persons so
interested, either by personal service, or, where, by reason of
the number of persons or any other cause, such service is not
reasonably practicable, by public advertisement, as the court in
each case  may direct.

(3) Any person on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, a suit is
instituted, or defended, under sub-rule (1), may apply to the
court to be made a party to such suit.

(4) No part of the claim in any such suit shall be abandoned under
sub-rule (1), and no such suit shall be withdrawn under sub-rule
(3) of rule 1 of Order XXIII, and no agreement, compromise or
satisfaction shall be recorded in any such suit under rule 3 of
that Order, unless the court has given, at the  plaintiff's
expenses notice to all persons so interested in the manner
specified in sub-rule (2).

(5) Where any person suing or defending in any such suit does not
proceed with due diligence in the suit or defence, the court may
substitute in his place any other person having the same interest
in the suit.

(6) A decree passed in a suit under this rule shall be binding on
all persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, the suit is
instituted, or defended, as the case may be.

While maintaining that the decision in one complaint filed in a
representative capacity will bind all the consumers on whose
behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is filed, as provided in
Order I Rule 8 (6) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the NCDRC Bench
clarified that second complaint with same grievance and relief
will be dismissed.

It says, ". . . once a complaint, in a representative capacity is
filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, and
the requisite permission for filing such a complaint is given by
the Consumer Forum, a second complaint, in a representative
capacity under Section  12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act
would not be maintainable by or on behalf of consumers having the
same interest and seeking the same relief and if filed, is liable
to be dismissed with liberty to seek impleadment  in the complaint
already instituted in a representative capacity with the requisite
permission of the Consumer Forum."

"Since a complaint in a representative capacity can be filed only
on behalf of all the consumers having the same interest i.e. a
common grievance and seeking the same relief against the same
person, an individual complaint expressing such a grievance will
not be maintainable and the only recourse available to a consumer
having the same grievance is to seek impleadment in the complaint
filed in the representative capacity," the Bench added.

At the same time, individual complaints filed before the grant of
requisite permission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer
Protection Act cannot be compelled to withdraw and the consumer
can go ahead with his/her complaint.  "Since it cannot be said
that the complaint in the representative capacity was filed on
their behalf or for their benefit as well, the order passed in
such a complaint will not be binding on them.  If however, such
persons want to withdraw their pending complaints and join the
complaint instituted in the representative capacity, there is no
bar on their adopting such a course of action.  The decision, of
course, would rest with them whether to continue with the
individual complaint already instituted by them or to withdraw the
said complaint and become party to the complaint filed in a
representative capacity," the NCDRC Bench said.

While emphasizing upon the binding effect of a decision rendered
in a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection
Act, on all the consumers, on whose behalf or for whose benefit
such a complaint is filed, even if they chose not to join as a
party to the complaint, the Bench said it is necessary to exercise
due care and caution while considering such a complaint even at
the initial stage and to grant the requisite permission, only
where the complaint fulfils all the requisite conditions in terms
of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act read with Order
I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure; as interpreted in this
reference.

"It would also be necessary for the Bench to either give
individual notices or an adequate public notice of the institution
of the complaint to all the persons on whose behalf or for whose
benefit the complaint is instituted.  Such a notice should
disclose inter-alia (i) the subject matter of the complaint
including the particulars of the project if the complaint relates
to a housing project / scheme, (ii) the class of persons on whose
behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is filed, (iii) the
common grievance sought to get redressed through the class action,
(iv) the alleged deficiency in the services and (v) the reliefs
claimed in the complaint.  It will also be necessary to hear the
opposite party, before taking a final view on the grant or
otherwise of the permission required in terms of Section 12(1)(c)
of the Consumer Protection Act," the National Consumer Forum
concluded.


* Supreme Court May Review Enforceability of Class Action Waivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evan J. Spelfogel, Esq. -- espelfogel@ebglaw.com -- of Epstein
Becker & Green, P.C., in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that one of the most controversial issues in employment
law these days involves the position of the National Labor
Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board") that an employer violates the
National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") when it requires employees
to pursue any dispute they have with their employer on an
individual, rather than on a class or collective action, basis
with other employees.  It is a position that has been adopted by
two circuit courts and rejected by three -- a conflict that
suggests that the issue is ripe for U.S. Supreme Court review.

The NLRB has contended that when an employer requires employees to
sign an agreement precluding them from bringing or joining a
concerted legal claim regarding wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment, the employer deprives them of rights
guaranteed under Section 7 of the NLRA to engage in concerted
activities for employees' mutual aid or protection.  That right,
the proponents argue, includes the right to join together in class
and collective litigation to pursue workplace grievances in court
or in arbitration.

In making that argument, the NLRB appears to be neglecting the
second part of Section 7 (added to the NLRA by the 1947 Taft-
Hartley Amendments), which guarantees to employees an equal right
to refrain from engaging in concerted activities for their mutual
aid and protection.  It would seem to follow that, if they have
the right to refrain from engaging in concerted activities,
employees could waive their right to participate in class and
collective actions.

While the NLRB's argument appears flawed, the Seventh and Ninth
Circuits have agreed with the NLRB that where such agreements are
a condition of employment, they deprived employees of their rights
to engage in "concerted activities" for their mutual aid and
benefit guaranteed to them under Section 7 of the NLRA.  These
decisions conflict with earlier decisions of the Fifth, Eighth,
and, most recently, Second Circuits rejecting the Board's
position.

At least one dissenting judge, Sandra Ikuta of the Ninth Circuit,
stated that the majority decision was "breathtaking in its scope
and in its error."  She noted that the majority decision was
directly contrary to Supreme Court Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA")
precedent and that the individual arbitration mandate should have
been enforced according to its terms under the FAA.  The Ninth
Circuit, it should be noted, previously held that an arbitration
agreement with a class and collective action waiver did not
violate the NLRA when the employee could opt out of the individual
arbitration agreement but chose not to do so.

In those jurisdictions covered by the Seventh and Ninth Circuits,
class and collective action waivers are likely unenforceable to
the extent they are a condition of employment.  In jurisdictions
covered by the Second, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, class and
collective action waivers would appear to be enforceable.  Other
circuits have yet to rule on the issue, leaving district courts
within those circuits to weigh conflicting arguments on both
sides.

The Supreme Court may well step in to resolve the conflict between
the circuits on this important issue. Petitions for certiorari
have been filed recently in four different cases.  The issue
before the Supreme Court in all four of these cases is whether the
NLRA prohibits an employer from requiring employees to agree to
waive their rights to arbitrate class and collective disputes or
whether the FAA, which favors arbitration, controls; in short,
whether class and collective waivers in arbitration agreements are
enforceable.  As there is clearly a conflict among the circuits,
it would appear that there is a significant chance that the
Supreme Court will grant certiorari and resolve this conflict.

As a practical matter, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia's
death earlier this year, his still-unfilled seat, and the upcoming
presidential election may play significant roles in resolving this
issue if the Supreme Court grants certiorari.  As many will
recall, it was Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinions in
AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and American Express v. Italian
Colors.  In those cases, the Supreme Court upheld class action
waivers, albeit in the commercial setting, not in an employment,
setting.  With Justice Scalia's seat unfilled and only eight
current justices, a four-to-four split at the Supreme Court would
leave all of the circuit decisions standing, including both the
Seventh and Ninth Circuit decisions in favor of the NLRB's
position, as well as the Second, Fifth, and Eighth Circuit
decisions rejecting the NLRB's position.  Depending upon which
party wins the upcoming presidential elections, the makeup of the
Supreme Court justices (and of the five-member NLRB) may play a
significant role in the outcome of this issue.


                            *********

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  * * *