CAR_Public/161102.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 2, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 219




                            Headlines

2020 COMMS: Bid to Certify Class Denied, Transfer Venue Okayed
50 EGGS: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Brock" Suit
ACCURIDE CORPORATION: Sued in Ind. Over Sale to Crestview
AKAL SECURITY: Officers Class Conditionally Certified in "Gelber"
ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in "Perez" Suit

AMADOR COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
ARMOR CORRECTIONAL: Faces "Swanson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ASSET RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in "Suxstorf" Suit
AUSTRALIA: Blyth Residents Mull Class Action Over Energy Woes
AXIOM GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Reynolds" Suit Says

BALMORAL HOTEL: Tenant Files Class Class Action Against Sahotas
BASS FISHING: David Shay et al. Seek Certification of 2 Classes
BRIGHTON TOWNSHIP, MI: Sewer Class Action Raised at Meeting
BUTH NA-BODHAIGE: Flaum Seeks Certification of Cardholders Class
CABELA'S WHOLESALE: Settles Suit Over Customer Phone Recordings

CHC CONSULTING: "Toler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CHEEBURGER CHEEBURGER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CHICAGO, IL: Taxi Companies Lose Bid to Halt Uber Ordinance
CITIGROUP INC: Lewis-Gursky, et al. Seek Issuance of Notice
CONAGRA FOODS: Backus Seeks Certification of Consumer Class

COOK MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over IVC Filters in Canada
CRIUS ENERGY: Court Conditionally Certified Class in "Staunches"
D.A. DAVIDSON: Court Preliminarily Approved Class Settlement
DAMGAARD LANDSCAPE: Corona Seeks Approval of Settlement
DOS COMALES-DOWNTOWN: Class Certification Sought in "Lugo" Suit

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Class Cert. Bid in "Andrades" Denied as Moot
FLINT, MI: Defendants' Lawyers Want Water Crisis Case Trial Moved
FLOWERS FOODS: Impact of Truck Drivers' Case on Business Unknown
GOULD & GOODRICH: Jury Issues $2.6MM Verdict in Holster Case
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Wants Suit Over Admissions Policy Dismissed

I.C. SYSTEM: Class Certification Sought in "Wise" Suit
INFOSYS TECH: Koehler, et al. Seek Certification of Three Classes
INOME INC: Illegally Uses Class Members' Identity, Suit Claims
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Class Certification Bid in "Zuniga" Denied
JEWELLERY CHANNEL: Plaintiffs Seek Sanctions in Class Action

KFC: Faces False Advertising Suit Over Half Full Chicken Bucket
L.A. ENTERTAINMENT: Class Action Notice Taken Under Advisement
LOUISIANA: Black Lives Matter Protesters Sue State Police
MARCOAH GROUP: Class Cert. Bid Withdrawn Due to Amended Motion
MDL 2624: 2 of 3 Classes Certified in Lenovo Adware Litigation

MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Class Certification Sought in "Bower" Suit
MODERN PARKING: Faces "Arrito" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MOHAWK INC: Health One Seeks Certification of Class
MONT-SACRE-COEUR COLLEGE: Sexual Abuse Class Action Expanded
MUTERRA MANAGEMENT: Rafael Seeks Certification of FLSA Class

MUTUAL OF OMAHA: "Johansen" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
MYLAN: Epipen Price Hike Affects Allergy Sufferers, Suit Pending
MYLAN NV: Three Federal Agencies Mum on EpiPen Settlement
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Bozeman" Suit Included in MDL 2492
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Clayton" Suit Included in MDL 2492

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Collins" Suit Included in MDL 2492
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Dudley" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2492
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Gallon" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2492
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Gray" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2492
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Harley" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2492

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Harrison" Suit Included in MDL 2492
NCB MANAGEMENT: Court Continued Class Cert. Bid in "Williams"
NELLSON NUTRACEUTICAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims
NUTLEY FARM: Faces "Yi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ONECLICKCASH: Faces $1.27BB Judgment Over Payday Lending Scheme

ONSITE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Bid Dismissed in Able Home Suit
OTIS ELEVATOR: Gorss Motel Seeks Certification of Class
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Class Certification Sought in "Pogorzelski"
PERFORMANCE LACROSSE: Settles Class Action Over Helmets
PLANESPHERE INC: Class Certification in "Ries" Partly Granted

R.X.N.B. INC: Class Certification Bid Continued to Nov. 29
RALEIGH GENERAL: Health Port Moves "Hamilton" Suit to S.D.W. Va.
REGISTER TAPES: Court Wants Supplemental Memorandum by Nov. 11
REVERA: Nursing Class Action No Merit, VP of Operations Says
SANDRA BROWN: "Simon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

STARBUCKS CORP: "Brahamsha" Suit Moved From N.J. to Washington
SWEPI LP: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Signing Bonuses
TEXAS: Bid for Class Certification in "Green" Suit Denied
UBER TECH: Congdon, et al. Seek to Certify Non-Opt-Out Class
UBER TECH: Black Drivers' Minimum Wage Suit Can Proceed

UBS FINANCIAL: Class Certification Denied in Securities Case
VALENCIA COLLEGE: 11th Cir. Revives Suit Over Ultrasound Probe
WELLS FARGO: Wins Dismissal of Eggers, Williams & Miller Suits
ZIONS FIRST: Reyes Seeks Class Cert. and Approval of Settlement

* Judge Seeks Investigation Into Unredacted CFPB Case Court Order


                            *********


2020 COMMS: Bid to Certify Class Denied, Transfer Venue Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge John W. Darrah entered an order in the lawsuit
styled James Richmond v. 20/20 Communications, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No 1:16-cv-06051 (N.D. Ill.), granting Defendant's
motion for transfer of venue.  The clerk shall transfer the case
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.

The Court also denied Plaintiff's motion to certify class and
facilitate notice; and Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the
pleadings without prejudice to re-file in Texas.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=frIHOD0v


50 EGGS: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Brock" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KEITH BROCK, on his own behalf and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 50 EGGS, INC., a
Florida for-profit corporation, SWINE GABLES, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, and JOHN KUNKEL, an individual, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20294-JAL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
moves the Court for an order certifying collective action and
authorizing notice to all class members pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff defined the class as:

   "all persons who worked for Defendants as servers at their
   restaurant Swine during the 3 years preceding this lawsuit and
   who, as a result of Defendants' policy of not paying servers
   for all hours worked and requiring servers to share their tips
   with employees who do not customarily and regularly receive
   tips, earned less than the applicable minimum regular and
   overtime wage for one or more weeks during the Relevant Time
   Period".

The complaint seeks damages for Plaintiff and others similarly
situated for violations of the FLSA. Specifically, the Plaintiff
alleges he and Class Members were forced to work "off-the-clock"
without compensation and were forced to participate in a mandatory
and illegal tip-sharing scheme in which servers shared their tips
with non-tipped employees.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uMYnEsc9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          Law Office of Lowell J. Kuvin
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358 6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358 6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com
          legal@kuvinlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jessica T. Travers, Esq.
          Littler Mendelson, P.C.
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400 7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603 2552
          E-mail: jtravers@littler.com


ACCURIDE CORPORATION: Sued in Ind. Over Sale to Crestview
---------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Accuride Corporation, Richard F. Dauch, John W.
Risner, Robert E. Davis, Lewis Kling, Robert J. Adams, Keith E.
Busse, and James R. Rulseh, Case No. 3:16-cv-00210-RLY-MPB (S.D.
Ind., October 20, 2016), is brought on behalf of all  public
stockholders of Accuride Corporation, to enjoin a proposed
transaction announced on September 2, 2016, pursuant to which
Accuride will be acquired by funds managed by Crestview Partners
L.L.C. through a flawed process depriving Accuride's public
stockholders of the ability to participate in the Company's long-
term prospects.

Accuride Corporation is a supplier of components to the North
American and European commercial vehicle industries.

Crestview Partners L.L.C. is a New York based private equity firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William N. Riley, Esq.
      James A. Piatt, Esq.
      RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC
      301 Massachusetts Avenue
      Indianapolis, IN  46204
      Telephone: (317) 633-5270
      Facsimile: (317) 426-3348
      E-mail: wriley@rwp-law.com
              jpiatt@rwp-law.com

         - and -

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

AKAL SECURITY: Officers Class Conditionally Certified in "Gelber"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ELLIOT GELBER, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. AKAL SECURITY, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-23170-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Federico Moreno
entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs petition for conditional certification
      of:

     "a collective comprising Miami-based air security officers",

      The 17 declarations of Miami-based Air Security Officer
      employees assert circumstances sufficient to establish that
      (1) there are other employees of Defendant who desire to
       opt into this litigation and (2) the employees are
      similarly situated to Plaintiff;

   2. denying Plaintiff's petition for nation-wide conditional
      class certification as complaint fails to establish a
      reasonable basis to believe that there are others who
      desire to opt into these employees, outside of the state of
      Florida; and

   3. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion to adopt and clarify the
      Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in light of
      this Order.

The Parties shall provide the Court with a joint agreed notice to
be sent to the Miami-based Air Security Officer employees no later
than Thursday, November 17, 2016. Notice shall be sent to a1l
Miami-based Air Security Officer employees who were employed
within two years prior to the date of the filing of each
Plaintiff's consent to join the suit.

A copy of the Order Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=b0wDVeyZ


ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in "Perez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JUAN PEREZ, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED
DAIRY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-07741-R-FFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Manuel L. Real denied Plaintiff's motion to
certify class in its entirety.

The Court says, "While this Court recognizes the potential impact
of Defendant's uniform policies, it is clear that they do not
answer 'the main concern in the predominance inquiry: the balance
between individual and common issues[.]' Many individual questions
would have to be answered by each class member".

The Plaintiff raises a total of six causes of action against
Defendant. The primary claims for the purpose of class
certification are: claim one for failure to provide meal and rest
breaks and claim two for failure to pay wages. The remaining four
claims are derivative of the first two.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CM6XMM8c


AMADOR COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a group of individuals has filed a class-action
lawsuit against a county government in California for allegedly
failing to pay overtime wages.

Clint Stewart filed a complaint on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated individuals Oct. 10 in U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California against County of Amador,
alleging that the employer failed its duty to pay employees for
all hours worked at a correct rate.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Clint
Stewart and other similarly situated individuals were required by
the defendant to work hours beyond statutory thresholds for
overtime compensation.  However, the defendant supposedly has a
policy of cashing out plaintiffs' unused compensatory time off
(CTO) at less than the rate required and as a result, the
plaintiffs purportedly have suffered lost overtime wages and
undervalued cash outs of CTO.

The plaintiffs hold the County of Amador responsible because the
defendant allegedly failed to pay monetary compensation to those
who declined health insurance coverage and failed in its
obligation to properly compute and use the correct rate of pay in
calculating overtime compensation owed.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
the defendant, to recover unpaid overtime wages, damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, injunctive relief, conditional
certification and further relief as the court deems just.  They
are represented by David E. Mastagni -- davidm@mastagni.com --
Isaac S. Stevens and Ace T. Tate of Mastagni Holstedt in
Sacramento.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case
number 2:16-cv-02410


ARMOR CORRECTIONAL: Faces "Swanson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Swanson, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., Case No.
4:16-cv-10085-KMM (S.D. Fla., October 20, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc. operates a medical clinic
located at 4960 SW 72nd Ave # 400, Miami, FL 33155.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in "Suxstorf" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TOM SUXSTORF, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ASSET
RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, and BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP PORTFOLIO NO
15, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01442-LA (E.D. Wisc.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class;

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs as its representatives; and

   3. appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for
      such other and further relief as the Court may deem
      appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court stay this class certification
motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed,
and the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules'
automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a
brief and supporting documents in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

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

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


AUSTRALIA: Blyth Residents Mull Class Action Over Energy Woes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verity Edwards, writing for The Australian, reports that the
social life of the tiny South Australian town of Blyth has centred
on its treasured pub for 140 years, but its doors could be shut as
a result of the destructive September 28 storm and statewide
blackout.

When Blyth Hotel was badly damaged by the tornado that ripped
through the region three weeks ago, it was close to the last straw
for owners Naomi and Jarrod Egan, who already blamed the
government for years of losses they have suffered from blackouts
each summer.  Mrs. Egan is angry the state's Labor government
allowed the Northern Power station to close in May, leaving too
much reliance on wind energy and baseload supplies from the
Victorian interconnector.

"I blame the Treasurer, Tom Koutsantonis, who allowed the sell-off
of the (Leigh Creek) coalmine and the Port Augusta power station,
that caused thousands of family job losses and has greatly
affected the economy," she said.

"South Australia had enough power to supply the state but because
the government has sold off its infrastructure, and not maintained
what we've got, the power continues to go off."

The Egans said they would consider joining a class action over the
state's energy woes.

Mrs. Egan said their hotel lost power regularly in summer and they
had to throw out thousands of dollars worth of food each time.

The severe storm, which caused wind turbines to trip and overload
the electricity network, leading to a statewide blackout, ripped
off part of the historic pub's roof, damaged its balcony and blew
away three brick chimneys.

While most of the state's power was restored within hours, the pub
is still without electricity and the Egans have not been able to
reopen because of the damage.

They are now sweating on whether insurance will cover repairs.

"This is a small town, (the pub's) been here 140 years, it's the
heart of the community," Mrs. Egan said.  "We're the takeaway
shop, the meeting place, we have church here, mums groups come
here.  If you take it away, what's left?

"The senior engineer has said the balcony is not safe.  I can't
open if it's not safe because if it collapses it could kill
someone and you can't take that risk."

The Egans have spent more than $1 million renovating the hotel
they bought in run-down condition four years ago, and turned into
a community hub.

They now fear that was in vain.  Blyth/Kybunga Cricket Club
president Justin Zweck and his teammates met at the pub every
Thursday night during the season for team selections and in
football season at least once a week.  Many of Blythe's 300
residents headed there every summer Friday night to catch up on
the week's events

"Without a pub your town's dead around here, it's a place where
people go to have a quiet night or a beer with mates," Mr. Zweck
said.

"We use the pub as our main selection area; we have our meetings
there.  We had to postpone our AGM. They're major sponsors of
everyone around here."


AXIOM GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Reynolds" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Reynolds, individually and for all others similarly situated
v. Axiom Global, Inc., a/k/a Axiom Law, Case No. 1:16-cv-09871
(N.D. Ill., October 20, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40
hours per week.

Axiom Global, Inc. is a provider of tech-enabled legal services
with its principal place of business located in New York, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550


BALMORAL HOTEL: Tenant Files Class Class Action Against Sahotas
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Colebourn, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that another
class-action suit has been filed in B.C. Supreme Court against the
Sahota family, who own the Balmoral Hotel in Vancouver's Downtown
Eastside.

In a notice of civil claim filed in the court, Balmoral tenant
Harold Jay Slaunwhite alleges tenants have significant health and
safety concerns due to the manner in which the single-room-
occupancy hotel is run and maintained by the multimillionaire
family.

The Sahotas own a string of low-income hotels in the DTES, and has
a real estate empire worth more than $130 million around Metro
Vancouver.  A number of their hotels are considered among the most
decrepit and poorly maintained in Vancouver.

Besides the Balmoral, which is on Hastings Street, the family owns
and operates the Regent Hotel, the Astoria and the Cobalt Hotel.

Tenants of the Regent filed a class-action suit in August against
the Sahotas, demanding repairs and financial compensation for
unsanitary and unsafe conditions, and sporadic heat and hot water.
They allege the elevator didn't work properly, the hotel had
numerous fire-code violations and was infested with rats.

And the court document alleged residents of the Regent live in
fear when they report problems or witness illegal activity. "These
activities cause the residents of the Regent to be fearful,
intimidated and subdued from making criminal reports or
complaints," the lawsuit claimed.

Tenants in that hotel have been demanding the city do something to
improve the third-world conditions under the rarely used Standards
of Maintenance Bylaw.

In the Balmoral and the Regent class-action suits, the City of
Vancouver is named as a defendant for failure in getting the
landlord to provide the necessities, and fix the buildings as is
allowed under the Standards of Maintenance Bylaw.

Balmoral tenant David Laing on Oct. 23 said they're hoping the
suit gets the owners moving on needed repairs.  Among the biggest
concerns at the Balmoral is that the basement's wooden beams are
rotten and the building is structurally compromised.  During the
summer the city stepped in and closed the Balmoral's pub after the
floor of the bar developed a three-foot curve and came off its
moorings due to the rotting beams.

"The floor under the street-level bar has been structurally
unsound for more than four years," the suit claims.  "Numerous
beams are rotten due to water ingress."

"The City of Vancouver has not fined or adequately fined the
Sahotas for their infractions of and offences against the
Standards of Maintenance Bylaw," the suit alleges.  The suit also
alleges the hotel is rife with "illicit" activity.

"The Sahotas and their employees expressly or implicitly allow,
condone, benefit from and/or participate in illicit activities in
and from the Balmoral . . ." the suit alleges.  "These activities
cause the residents of the Balmoral to be fearful, intimidated and
subdued from making criminal reports or complaints regarding
building maintenance to the appropriate authorities . . ."

One of the other concerns tenants have is the constantly
malfunctioning elevator.  "The broken elevator is a big part of
the lawsuit," said Mr. Laing.  "We want the owners to hire
professional people to properly run and maintain the hotel."


BASS FISHING: David Shay et al. Seek Certification of 2 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuits styled DAVID SHAY, et al., the Plaintiff, v. BASS
FISHING & RENTALS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01472-JRG
(E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   a. certifying a class pursuant to Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
      Standards Act (OMFWSA):

      "all hourly employees employed by Bass in Ohio during the
      period August 31, 2013 to present who received hourly pay
      and a nondiscretionary job bonus."

   b. certifying a class pursuant to Pennsylvania Wage And
      Collection Act (PMWA):

      "all hourly employees employed by Bass in Pennsylvania
      during the period August 31, 2012 to present who received
      hourly pay and a non-discretionary job bonus"; and

   c. granting such other relief as the Court deems appropriate
      under the circumstances.

This lawsuit concerns Bass's hourly oilfield workers who were paid
"job bonuses" that were not included in the employees' "regular
rates" for overtime calculation purposes. Failure to include these
non-discretionary bonuses in these employees' "regular rate" for
overtime calculation purposes is a clear violation of the FLSA,
PMWA, and OMFWSA, the complaint contends.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qDCQPt0L

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND,
          BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751 0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751 0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


BRIGHTON TOWNSHIP, MI: Sewer Class Action Raised at Meeting
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Eberbach, writing for Livingston Daily, reports that a
class-action suit, hours of feverish public comments at countless
board meetings and high-running emotions have all come out of
disagreements between residents in Brighton Township about an
underused sanitary sewer system.

Township officials worked to figure out how to pay down sewer bond
debt, while a group of self-professed township "watchdogs" hurled
accusations and demanded refunds.

Now three of the most vocal public comment-makers -- Democrats Jim
Sarna, Bob Potocki and Mike Palmer -- are running for township
offices -- and questions come up: Will the rabble-rousers have a
shot at moving from the seats in the audience to those behind
boardroom table? Or is their disruption counterproductive?

"People don't want to pay for the sewer if they are not on it,"
Patrick Michel, a current township trustee who is the Republican
candidate for township supervisor, said.

"It's not a township asset," Mr. Michel said.  "Only say 10
percent of the residents, and these are rough numbers, are on the
sewer, and let's say 1 percent of sewer users, and that is being
on the generous side, are actually being vocal about it."

Mr. Michel's opponent, Democratic candidate for township
supervisor Jim Sarna, one of the original users of the sewer
system, disagrees.

Mr. Sarna took issue with the board's approval last year of
residential development Sandila Estates "without requiring it to
be on the township sewer system, which is only operating at
(around 40 percent) capacity and is in dire need of revenue to pay
the sewer bonds," he said.

In his opinion, the township board "keeps forcing the original
users with that burden instead of being active to bring in new
users," he said.

Democratic candidate for township clerk Bob Potocki -- his wife is
one of the plaintiffs in a class-action suit against the township
over the sanitary sewer system, which was recently dismissed from
federal court and then refiled in state court -- is in agreement
with Mr. Sarna's point.

"Our slate of candidates will disrupt this crony-style of
government," Mr. Potocki said, also objecting to charging users
for unused sewer system capacity and rate increases over the
years.

"We were ready the night they filed the lawsuit to come up with
some relief, and we had to table it," Mr. Michel said, referring
to a plan to use general fund money to buy up unused sewer
capacity and stop certain charges to original users.

Mr. Michel also pointed out that it was residents who came to the
township asking for a sanitary sewer district more than 15 years
ago.

"A special-assessment district is not a government or municipality
taxing the people.  It's the people coming to the government and
saying, 'Can you back this, with the full faith and credit of the
township?'" Mr. Michel said.  "It come about through petition."

Republican candidate for township trustee Steve Combs shared his
take on the issue: "This is a system that serves a relatively
small portion of the population.

"Some on the system would like it to be treated as an entire
community asset, so the entire township's population -- even those
not served by the system -- would have to bear the cost. While I
believe we should be doing whatever we can to ensure the cost is
minimized for the users, it is also important to ensure that the
people who are receiving the benefit are the ones shouldering the
cost," Mr. Combs said.

Longtime incumbent Township Clerk Ann Bollin had this to say about
how she and other current township board members have handled the
issue:

"If re-elected, I will continue to balance the interests of all
residents and property owners to meet our financial obligations
including the outstanding debt obligation of the sanitary sewer
system.  The decision to pursue sewers in a portion of the
township was made close to 20 years ago.  However, subsequent
boards have had to deal with the downturn in the economy and lack
of new users," Ms. Bollin said.

"The township board has been working diligently for many years to
maintain a strong financial footing in order to meet the sewer
debt obligations.  Efforts include adoption of a fiscal analysis,
general fund loans, and a modest growth plan," Ms. Bollin said.

Civil discourse?

A few of the candidates would like to have town hall meetings
where residents could vote on things like pay for officials and
ordinances.

However, meetings often get heated, and there is a question as to
whether that level of civil discourse could be maintained.

"I would love to see town hall meetings brought back to the
public," Democratic candidate for township trustee Anna Chatten
said.

"In 1995, the township took away the citizens' right to
participate and vote in town hall meetings. Currently they give
you three minutes to voice your concerns, but your concerns are
never addressed," Ms. Chatten said.

As a current member of the township board, Mr. Michel had this to
say: "I would love to see a more civil tone that would facilitate
the possibility of bringing back the town hall-style of meeting. A
certain group of people have created a certain tenor at the
meetings that is confrontational at best."

"Right now, we don't respond from the board table, just because we
could say something that might not be correct or might be a little
off.  That's why we give it 48 hours for the manager to respond
(to public comments)," Mr. Michel said.


BUTH NA-BODHAIGE: Flaum Seeks Certification of Cardholders Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SHANE FLAUM, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BUTH NA-BODHAIGE,
INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a THE BODY SHOP, the Defendant,
Case No. 15-cv-62695-WJZ (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an Order certifying the case to proceed as a class
action.

The class is defined as:

   "(i) all persons in the United States (ii) who, when making
   payment pursuant to a purchase made at a The Body Shop store
   (iii) made such payment using a credit or debit card (iv) and
   were provided with a point of sale receipt (v) which displayed
   more than the last five digits of the credit or debit card
   account number (vi) within the two years prior to the filing
   of the complaint."

The case alleges that the Defendant repeatedly committed the same
violation of the same anti-identity theft provision of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. Specifically, the Defendant
allowed its computerized credit card processing equipment to print
credit and debit card transaction receipts revealing more than
five digits of cardholders' debit and credit card numbers.

Buth-Na-Bodhaige is a large-sized perfume and cologne store in
Wake Forest, North Carolina.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4mVBhhT7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589 0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337 0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


CABELA'S WHOLESALE: Settles Suit Over Customer Phone Recordings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Goff, writing for Northern California Record, reports that a
proposed $3,850,000 class-action settlement has been reached in
Saunders et al. v. Cabela's Wholesale Inc. by the San Francisco
County Superior Court.

The lawsuit claims that Cabela's Wholesale Inc. recorded telephone
calls of people calling its toll-free customer-service lines
without telling callers that the calls may be recorded, which is
allegedly in violation of California law.

While the defendant denied the claims, it settled the dispute to
avoid the uncertainty and costs of further litigation and trial. A
statement issued by law firm Keller Grover defined a class member
in this settlement as a person who placed a call while physically
located in California to one of Cabela's toll-free telephone
numbers and spoke with a representative of Cabela's between
Dec.12, 2012, and Feb.18, 2014.  Class members also had to be a
California resident at the time the call was made, or used a
California area code.

"To receive a settlement payment, eligible class members must
submit a timely claim," the statement said about applicable
consumers' legal rights.  "It is expected that eligible class
members who submit a timely and valid claim form will receive
approximately $100 per qualified call but not more than $5,000 per
call.  The amount of each individual settlement payment will
depend on the total number of claims filed."

Those who received notification, and may be eligible to be a part
of the settlement, have until Dec.19 to submit the appropriate
forms.  The settlement also explained that unless people take
steps to exclude themselves from the settlement, they are bound by
all of the court's orders if the court approves it, whether or not
a claim was submitted.

"This means you will not be able to make any claim that is covered
by the settlement against Cabela's or other released parties in
the future," the statement said.

A final hearing will be held on Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2017, at 1:30
p.m. in San Francisco Superior Court, where the court will decide
whether the settlement is fair and reasonable.

"The court will also determine attorneys' fees and costs and
plaintiffs' service awards. The motion for attorneys' fees and
costs and plaintiffs' service awards will be posted on the
settlement website after it is filed," the statement said.  "You
may attend the hearing, but you do not have to."

The official court document explained that attorneys who were part
of the suit could also submit their request for fees.

"Settlement class counsel shall have the right to make a motion
for attorney's fees of no more than $1,283,333 (one-third of the
gross settlement amount) to be paid from the gross settlement
amount," the official court document said.  "Defendant will take
no position with regard to any motion by settlement class counsel
for an award of attorney's fees of that amount."

The court stressed that additional charges by the court should not
exceed $175,000.


CHC CONSULTING: "Toler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Toler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CHC Consulting, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-01130-DGK (W.D.
Miss., October 20, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and related penalties and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

CHC Consulting, LLC performed services pursuant to contracts with
Google Fiber and/or AT&T to design the installation of
telecommunications infrastructure and to provide related services,
included but not limited to remediating, to Google Fiber and/or
AT&T.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Kistler, Esq.
      Michael F. Brady, Esq.
      BRADY & ASSOCIATES
      10901 Lowell Ave., Ste. 280
      Overland Park, KS  66210
      Telephone: (913) 696-0925
      Facsimile: (913) 696-0468
      E-mail: mkistler@mbradylaw.com
              brady@mbradylaw.com


CHEEBURGER CHEEBURGER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lino A. Quinteros Villalta, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Cheeburger Cheeburger and George
Philippakos, Case No. 1:16-cv-05862 (E.D.N.Y., October 20, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a fast food establishment located
at 108-50 Queens Blvd, Forest Hills, NY, 11375.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq.
      PARDALIS& NOHAVICKA, LLP
      35-10 Broadway, Suite 201
      Astoria, NY 11106
      Telephone: (718) 777-0400
      Facsimile: (718) 777-0599
      E-mail: ari@pnlawyers.com


CHICAGO, IL: Taxi Companies Lose Bid to Halt Uber Ordinance
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Council, writing for Law.com, reports that just as dogs
aren't like cats, Uber isn't the same as a taxi cab service.  And
there's no reason that all of them should be regulated the same
way according to a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit which blessed the Chicago ordinance which
allows smartphone-based ride sharing services to operate in the
city.

Since 2014, Uber and other transportation network providers [TNPs]
have been governed by a permissive Chicago ordinance that allows
for less regulation than that of taxi cab services.  The TNP
ordinance allows the ride share companies to set their own fares,
while city rules regulating cabs doesn't.

A group of taxi cab companies challenged the ordinance in a
Northern District of Illinois federal court on seven grounds --
including the allegation that the more permissive TNP ordinance
regulating amounted to the city taking the plaintiffs' property
for public use as well as violating of equal protection laws.  The
trial court eventually dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims
except two -- the allegations that city denying equal protection
to the taxi cab companies by governing them differently than Uber.
Both the plaintiffs and the city appealed the ruling to the
Seventh Circuit.

And in its Oct. 7 decision in Illinois Transportation Trade
Association v. City of Chicago, Seventh Circuit Judge Richard
Posner concluded that all seven of the plaintiffs' claims were
"weak."

"The first is that allowing the TNPs into the taxi and livery
markets has taken away the plaintiffs' property for a public use
without compensating them," Judge Posner wrote.

"'Property' does not include a right to be free from competition,"
he wrote.  "A license to operate a coffee shop doesn't authorize
the licensee to enjoin a tea shop from opening."

Judge Posner also reversed the trial court's equal protection
ruling that favored the plaintiffs.

"Here's an analogy: Most cities and towns require dogs but not
cats to be licensed.  There are differences between the animals,"
wrote Posner noting that dogs are bigger and stronger and
sometimes bite people, whereas cats are generally innocuous.

The problem with the trial court's equal protection ruling is the
judge assumed the taxi companies and Uber had the same business
model.

"Just as some people prefer cats to dogs, some people prefer Uber
to Yellow Cab, Flash Cab, Checker Cab, et al.  They prefer one
business model to another. The city wants to encourage this
competition rather than stifle it as urged by the plaintiffs, who
are taxi owners," Posner wrote.

And because they services operate differently -- you can't hail an
Uber driver by waiving at them on the street, just as consumers
can't screen taxi cab drivers through a smart phone app -- the
businesses deserve their own regulatory schemes, Posner concluded
in the decision.

"There are enough differences between taxi service and TNP service
to justify different regulatory schemes, and the existence of such
justification dissolves the plaintiffs' equal protection claim,"
Judge Posner wrote.  "Different products or services do not as a
matter of constitutional law, and indeed of common sense, always
require identical regulatory rules."


CITIGROUP INC: Lewis-Gursky, et al. Seek Issuance of Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CAROLINE ALANA LEWIS-GURSKY, and RUBEN
CHEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CITIGROUP, INC., and JUDGE TECHNICAL
SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-02887-SCB-MAP
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to:

   (1) require Citi to produce, within 21 business days of the
       Order, a computer-readable data file containing the names,
       last known mailing addresses, last known telephone
       numbers, last known e-mail addresses, and work locations
       for all Hourly Technology Workers (HTWs), and the last
       four digits of the Social Security numbers for any HTWs
       whose notices are returned undeliverable; and

   (2) authorize the issuance of the Proposed Notice to all HTWs
       as defined above by U.S. Mail and e-mail and a reminder
       notice during the opt-in period.

The Plaintiffs seek the Court's authorization to disseminate the
Proposed Notice to:

   "all workers who were supplied to Citi through staffing
   agencies (including but not limited to Judge), who were
   classified under the "Hourly" time template in Fieldglass, and
   either (1) categorized under the "TS200" and "TS300"
   "commodity codes" in Fieldglass (as "technology
   resources"whose employment with Citi was managed through
   Citi's TSO) or (2) were employed as AML Analysts, at any time
   between three years prior to the date of the Court's decision
   on this motion and March 1, 2016".

The case seeks to hold Citi liable as HTWs' joint employer for
their unpaid overtime claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the Complaint, Citi requires HTWs to work over 40
hours per week, but only pays their agencies for 40 hours' worth
of work. The agencies in turn limit HTWs' pay to 40 hours per
week.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UUVG52HF

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam T. Klein, Esq.
          Molly A. Brooks, Esq.
          Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
          Olivia J. Quinto, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245 1000

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550

               - and -

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          Sam J. Smith, Esq.
          Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
          BURR & SMITH, LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873-4836
          111 2nd Ave. NE, Ste. 1100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (813) 253 2010


CONAGRA FOODS: Backus Seeks Certification of Consumer Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TROY BACKUS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00454-WHA (N.D. Cal.), Mr. Backus
will move the Court on December 15, 2016, at 8:00 a.m. to order
that:

   1. Plaintiff's claims be maintained as a class action;

   2. Plaintiff be named Class Representative; and

   3. Plaintiff's counsel, the Weston Firm, be appointed Class
Counsel.

The Plaintiff defined a class under California's Unfair
Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code, False Advertising Law, and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act:

   "all persons who purchased in the United States, on or after
   January 1, 2008, for household or personal use, Fleischmann's
   sticks containing artificial trans-fat and the phrase
   "maintaining your healthy lifestyle".

As an alternative to this national class, the Plaintiff moves to
certify the following class:

   "all persons who purchased in California, on or after January
   1, 2008, for household or personal use, Fleischmann's sticks
   containing artificial trans-fat and the phrase "maintaining
   your healthy lifestyle".

Fleischmann's sticks are made primarily with a soybean and
partially hydrogenated oil (PHO) blend, water, emulsifiers,
preservatives, coloring, and flavors. Hamilton Decl., Exs. 4-6.
PHO is the only source of artificial trans-fat in the American
diet, and has been declared by the FDA to be a food adulterant
unsafe for use in food in any amount. See Final Determination
Regarding Partially Hydrogenated Oils, 80 Fed. Reg. 34650 (June
15, 2015). Trans-fat damages the heart in several distinct ways.
First, it causes cholesterol dysregulation, specifically by
raising "bad" LDL cholesterol levels and lowering "good" HDL
cholesterol levels in the blood.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=09JPeUdQ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
          Andrew C. Hamilton, Esq.
          David Elliot, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 798 2006
          Facsimile: (313) 293 7071
          E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com
                  david@westonfirm.com
                  andrew@westonfirm.com


COOK MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over IVC Filters in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Steinberg, writing for Consumer Advocacy News, reports that
the controversy surrounding IVC filters in the U.S. has been
mounting for some time, and now neighbors to the north have joined
in the fight to hold IVC filter manufacturers responsible.
Thousands of existing American lawsuits against manufacturers like
Cook Medical, C.R. Bard, and Cordis Corporation are now joined by
a class action lawsuit filed in Canada.

The first Canadian patient to file a lawsuit was Arie Kuiper, who
had a Cook IVC filter implanted.  Unfortunately for Mr. Kuiper,
doctors have tried twice to remove his IVC filter without success.
He is scheduled for a third removal procedure, but is preparing
himself for living the rest of his life with the defective filter
inside his body.  Mr. Kuiper now suffers from dizzy spells, which
doctors believe are caused by his IVC filter being clogged, which
is inhibiting blood flow.

Another Canadian plaintiff, Wendy Kopeck from Alberta, lives in
constant fear her defective IVC filter will cause further
complications. Kopeck also had a Cook IVC filter implanted, and
one of the legs or struts of the device pierced her internal
jugular vein.  The rest of the device migrated to her intestines,
a location wherein doctors determined is too risky to remove.

If it's any consolation, Mr. Kuiper and Ms. Kopeck aren't alone.
Half a dozen other plaintiffs joined their class action lawsuit
and thousands more are pending in the U.S.  The first IVC filter
lawsuits to go to trial will occur in the U.S. beginning in early
2017.  The outcome of the first trials might convince Cook to
throw in the towel and settle the remaining lawsuits in the U.S.
and abroad.

Other manufacturers trying to gauge how a jury will respond will
closely watch the trials against Cook.  Other manufacturers might
also decide to settle their lawsuits before going to trial if Cook
doesn't pull out a win.


CRIUS ENERGY: Court Conditionally Certified Class in "Staunches"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JESSICA STAUNCHES, the Plaintiff, v.
CRIUS ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-
1941-T-23AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday
entered an order conditionally certifying a class of:

   "all hourly paid customer care employees who were employed by
   Crius at its Pinellas Park location from October 17, 2013 to
   the present."

The Court says, "The notice must contain the sentence "to date,
six persons have joined this lawsuit to recover their unpaid
overtime compensation". No later than October 31, 2016, Crius
Energy Management, LLC must disclose "a list containing the names,
the last known addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses
of putative class members".  No later than November 7, 2016,
Staunches must send the notice and consent form by first-class
mail and email to every person on the list. No later than November
7, 2016, Crius must post the notice in each break room at Crius's
Pinellas Park location. Crius must maintain display of the notice
until January 7, 2017. The deadline for a person to opt-in is
January 7, 2017".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Kl2hCAHP


D.A. DAVIDSON: Court Preliminarily Approved Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Michael Monaco v. D.A. Davidson Companies,
Case No. 5:16-cv-00332-SJO-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. S. James
Otero entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement.

The settlement class is defined as:

   "all current and former employees of D.A. Davidson and all
   applicants for employment for whom D.A. Davidson requested a
   consumer report during the class period from February 24, 2013
   through July 29, 2016".

According to the order, the terms of the Settlement are:

(1) Settlement Consideration

   a. Payments to Class Members

   With respect to the Settlement Class, of which the exact
   number of members is estimated to be 1,470, settlement
   payments will be automatically made. Following the Claim
   Administrator's deductions from the Maximum Settlement Amount
   of any and all Court-approved fees or costs or expenses, D.A.
   Davidson will pay a pro-rata share of Net Settlement Amount
   based on the number of participating Class Members up to a
   maximum amount of $100 per Class Member.

   b. Claims Administrator's Fees and Expenses

   D.A. Davidson will hire and pay all fees and expenses of the
   Claims Administrator, which is Gilardi & Co., LLC, or any
   other administrator agreed upon by the parties.

   c. Plaintiff's Service Award

   D.A. Davidson will not oppose Plaintiff's request for a
   service enhancement award ("Service Award") not to exceed
   $5,000.00. If Plaintiff receives a service reward from the
   Settlement Amount, he shall execute a general release of all
   claims which shall survive the termination of the Agreement.

   d. Class Counsel's Fees and Expenses

D.A. Davidson will pay the lesser of $48,285.00 -- representing 33
and 1/3 percent of the $145,000.00 Maximum Settlement Amount
-- or the total amount approved by the Court for Class Counsel's
attorneys' fees, Rule 54 costs, and all other expenses incurred in
connection with the action. Should the Court approve a lesser
amount of attorneys' fees or expenses, the difference shall become
part of the Net Settlement Amount.

   e. Common Fund

   "Within 14 days after final approval of the Settlement
   ("Settlement Effective Date"), D.A. Davidson shall deposit
   into a common fund $145,000.00 ("Maximum Settlement Amount")
   to cover: (1) pro-rata payments to the Settlement Class
   Members; (2) attorney's fees; (3) the proposed $5,000.00
   Plaintiff's Service Award;(4) litigation costs;
   (5) administration costs; (6) penalties; (7) interest; and (8)
   any other general, special and/or compensatory damages and/or
   penalties that have been or could have been brought by the
   class members. That and all Class Counsel's fees, costs, and
   settlement administration costs. Any funds in the account,
   which are not otherwise paid shall be distributed to the
   United Way of Montana, or should the Court reject this
   organization, to an alternative nominee to be named by the
   Party who nominated the proposed non-profit charitable
   organization.

(2) Claims Submittal and Review Process

All Class Members are automatically entitled to recovery by virtue
of their status as current or former employees of D.A. Davidson or
applicants for employment for whom D.A.
Davidson requested a consumer report during the Class Period.
Within 14 calendar days of the Court's Preliminary Approval of the
Settlement, D.A. Davidson will, to the extent it is able, provide
tot he Claims Administrator, the Class Members' names, last known
addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers. After
the Settlement Effective Date, the Claims Administrator will
deduct from the Maximum Settlement Amount any and all Court-
approved fees or costs or expenses, including, but not limited to,
attorney's fees and expenses, claims administration expenses, and
the Service Enhancement Award ("Net Settlement Amount"). The
Claims Administrator will mail to each Class Member a pro-rata
share of the Net Settlement Amount based on the number of
participating Class Members, up to a maximum amount of $100.00 per
Class Member ("Individual Settlement Amount").

(3) Release of Claims

Upon final approval of the Settlement by the Court, the Settlement
Class and each Class Member who has not submitted a written
request to opt out of the Settlement, fully releases and
discharges D.A. Davidson and the released parties from: any and
all claims, debts, penalties, liabilities, demands, obligations,
guarantees, costs, expenses, attorney's fees, damages, actions or
causes of action of whatever kind or nature, whether known or
unknown, that were alleged or that reasonably arise out of the
facts alleged in the Lawsuit during the Class Period, including
claims related to alleged or potential violations of the FCRA, the
CCRAA, and the ICRAA, and to the extent based on the foregoing
statutes, California's Business and Professions Code.

(4) Class Counsel's Fees and Expenses; Plaintiff's Incentive Award

D.A. Davidson agrees to pay Class Counsel attorneys' fees in an
amount approved by the Court not to exceed 33 and 1/3 percent of
the Maximum Settlement Amount ($48,285.00), plus their reasonable
expenses incurred in connection with the action, to be paid from
and not in addition to the Maximum Settlement Amount. Should the
Court approve a lesser amount of attorneys' fees or expenses, the
difference shall become part of the Net Settlement Amount.

The Court's grant of preliminary approval is conditioned on the
parties providing additional explanation regarding Class Counsel's
lodestar calculations and Plaintiff's incentive award.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qhadC9Cb


DAMGAARD LANDSCAPE: Corona Seeks Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned OSCAR CORONA, VICTOR CORONA, AND MIGUEL
CORONA, on behalf of themselves, and all other similarly situated
plaintiffs known and unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. DAMGAARD
LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT A/K/A OTTO DAMGAARD SONS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00819 (E.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs move
the Court for an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the parties' joint stipulation of
      settlement and agreement to settle class action claims;

   2. approving class certification for settlement purposes;

   3. approving the form and manner of class notice; and

   4. scheduling a fairness hearing for final approval of
      settlement.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
          FARMWORKER & LANDSCAPER
          ADVOCACY PROJECT
          33 N. LaSalle St. Suite 900
          Chicago, IL, 60602
          Telephone: (312) 784 3541

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kenneth A. Jenero, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          131 South Dearborn St., 30th Floor
          Chicago, IL, 60603
          Telephone: (312) 715 5790


DOS COMALES-DOWNTOWN: Class Certification Sought in "Lugo" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JESSICA LUGO, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DOS COMALES-
DOWNTOWN, LLC. D.B.A "DOS COMALES" AND HONGGUO JIN AND XIAOLI ZHU,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00316 (S.D. Tex.), Lugo asks the
Court for conditional certification and issuance of a Court-
approved notice in English and Spanish to:

   "current and former employees of Defendants who did not
   receive proper minimum wage or overtime pay".

Lugo further asks the Court to:

   1) require Defendants to post the Notice at their restaurant
      in areas plainly visible to employees;

   2) require Defendants to provide the last known names and
      addresses, email addresses and mobile phone numbers for all
      current and former workers within the potential class;

   3) produce this information within 14 days of granting this
      motion in a usable electronic format to reduce any delays
      in sending out the notice; and

   4) authorize Plaintiffs to notify the potential Class Members
      via text message and mail the notice along with a self-
      addressed stamped return envelope to Tran Law Firm, LLP, to
      potential opt-in class members.

The Plaintiff alleges that she and others were not paid the
correct premium for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The
Plaintiff and other Servers each performed the same or similar
work in Defendants' restaurant operations. Rather than
compensating their employees at a $5.76 per hour for all hours
worked in excess of 40, Defendants paid only $3.20. Where the
employer takes a tip credit, overtime is calculated on the full
minimum wage, not the lower cash wage payment.

The Plaintiff filed this action on July 26, 2016, to correct the
Defendants' unlawful employment practices and to seek damages and
other relief not only for themselves but on behalf of other
similarly situated current and former employees.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Pg0m8J8U

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM L.L.P.
          Federal I.D. 20361
          2537 S. Gessner Rd., Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223 8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623 6399

               - and -

          Gay E. Gilson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GAY E. GILSON
          5525 S. Staples, Suite B3
          Corpus Christi, TX 78411
          Telephone: (361) 887 0552
          E-mail: gegilson@gilsonlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Frederick J. McCutchon, Esq.
          WOOD, BOYKIN & WOLTER, P.C.
          615 N. Upper Broadway, Suite 1100
          Corpus Christi, TX 78477
          Facsimile: (361) 888 8353


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Class Cert. Bid in "Andrades" Denied as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Milton I. Shadur entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
Luciano Andrades, the Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09413 (N.D. Ill.), denying
Plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot because an
amended complaint has been filed.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 17,
2016, a status hearing is set for November 16, 2016 at 9:15 a.m.
The Defendant's counsel will participate by telephone.

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


FLINT, MI: Defendants' Lawyers Want Water Crisis Case Trial Moved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Livengood and Jim Lynch, writing for Detroit News, report
that attorneys for current and former state Department of
Environmental Quality employees are asking a federal judge to move
a personal injury lawsuit over Flint's water contamination crisis
to a different state, arguing the potential jury pool in Michigan
has been tainted by "overwhelming and adverse publicity."

The deluge of media reports, expert opinions, investigations and
prosecutor statements that have come out of Flint's water crisis
in the past year has "made it nearly impossible" for state
officials to get a fair jury trial, according to defense
attorneys.

"Media coverage of Flint's switch to the Flint River as its
drinking water source and subsequent developments has provoked and
inflamed community opinion and unfairly depicted the MDEQ
defendants as indifferent or bumbling bureaucrats, criminals and
even racists," the lawyers wrote in a change-of-venue motion filed
on Oct. 21 in U.S. District Court.

The motion seeks to have a class-action lawsuit filed by Flint
residents against former Flint officials, Gov. Rick Snyder and
multiple state employees moved to another state or at the least to
Marquette, where an expert hired by the defense attorneys says the
potential jury pool is less prejudiced than those in Michigan's
Lower Peninsula.

In a 68-page filing requesting the change, defense attorneys cited
recent public opinion polling conducted by their paid expert that
found more than 80 percent of the jury pool in the U.S. District's
Court's Eastern District already favor the citizen plaintiffs
suing state and Flint employees.

That pretrial prejudice rivals "some of the most notorious cases
in American history, including what was seen in the Oklahoma City
Bombing trials," according to Bryan Edelman, a California-based
expert in jury biased.

"This proverbial bell cannot be unrung," the defense lawyers
wrote. ". . . In fact, the sheer amount of adverse publicity and
documented juror prejudice here exceeds that found in numerous
other federal cases where venue was transferred to protect a
defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial and impartial
jury."

Mr. Edelman, of Trial Innovations consulting services, conducted
the survey used by defense attorneys in their brief seeking a
change of venue.  His analysis of the potential jury pool found
that 83 percent are aware of the civil lawsuits and believe public
officials acted recklessly and 74 percent familiar with the
lawsuits said Flint residents deserve monetary damages.

The motion was filed on Oct. 21 by attorneys representing former
DEQ Director Dan Wyant, former communications director Brad
Wurfel, former municipal water chief Liane Shekter Smith and
current DEQ employees Stephen Busch, Michael Prysby and Adam
Rosenthal.

Snyder's attorney, Eugene Driker, did not sign on to the filing.
But the attorneys for the DEQ employees argued Snyder could not
possibly get a fair trial as a co-defendant in the lawsuit, noting
the governor was publicly booed at a speech in Flint, his family
has received threats and more than 620,000 people have signed an
online petition calling for his arrest.

"It is beyond debate that a mob mentality has formed," the
attorneys wrote.

Messrs. Wyant and Wurfel resigned in December after a task force
was critical of the department's handling of widespread complaints
from Flint residents about the city's foul-smelling water for more
than a year before high levels of toxic lead were discovered.

Shekter Smith was fired in February and Busch, Prysby and
Rosenthal are suspended with pay while facing criminal charges for
allegedly covering up Flint's lead problem.  Shekter Smith also
faces criminal charges leveled by Attorney General Bill Schuette
and his special Flint prosecutor, Todd Flood, a Royal Oak
attorney.

In arguing the Flint water crisis has been politicized, the
defense attorneys took particular aim at potential 2018 candidates
for governor, including U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee of Flint Township,
Ingham County Prosecutor Gretchen Whitmer, Lt. Gov. Brian Calley
and Mr. Schuette, whom they called the "prospective gubernatorial
frontrunner" and "Republican favorite."

In laying out their case for venue change, defense attorneys lay
blame for tainting the jury pool at the feet of others as well:

The media: "Since July 2015, few days have gone by without this
court's jury pool hearing that residents of Flint and their
children were 'poisoned' with 'lead' and 'bacteria' tainted water
due to the DEQ defendants' alleged 'incompetence,' 'arrogance,'
'callous disregard,' 'criminal misconduct' and even 'racism.'"

"... Politicians and profiteers have lined up in Flint to express
a wide range of emotions, cast blame on government officials and
call for investigations, resignations and justice."

"Prominent religious leaders have inappropriately compared this
matter to 'gas chambers for Jews.'"

A lead attorney for the civil plaintiffs, Michael Pitt, "gave a
highly inflammatory (radio) interview . . . where he described
defendants as 'criminals' and 'racists,'. . . and then accused
them of conducting an 'experiment' with 'poisonous' water on the
'Africa-American population in Flint.'"

Eight current and former state employees -- all within DEQ and
Michigan's Department of Health and Human Services -- have faced
criminal charges stemming from the Flint water crisis.  The city's
lead contamination problems began in April 2014, when Flint
severed ties with long-time provider the Detroit Water and
Sewerage Department.

The city, while under the control of an emergency financial
manager appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder, began drawing its water
from the Flint River in an attempt to save money.  Flint planned
to eventually tie into a new regional system -- the Karegnondi
Water Authority.

A failure to properly treat the river water before pumping it
through the city's lines resulted in lead contamination.  The lack
of corrosion controls in the water is believed to have caused high
levels of lead to appear in the blood work of Flint children,
damaged city infrastructure and, possibly, to have caused a spike
in cases of Legionnaires' disease.


FLOWERS FOODS: Impact of Truck Drivers' Case on Business Unknown
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Allison, writing for Atlanta Business Chronicle, reports
that Flowers Foods Inc. is warning investors that the company
still doesn't know what the impact will be of numerous lawsuits
filed against the bakery giant by delivery truck drivers who claim
they were improperly classified as independent contractors.

In an unusual move, Thomasville, Ga.-based Flowers reported Oct.
21 that it's become aware of an analyst report of BMO Capital
Markets published on Oct. 20 which stated that the company had
"reiterated its confidence in resolving outstanding legal issues
without a material impact on its earnings and operations" at the
recent National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS)
Conference.

Not so fast, Flowers reported Oct. 21.  "This statement does not
reflect the company's position on its outstanding lawsuits,"
Flowers reported in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  "As previously disclosed, the company and/or its
respective subsidiaries are vigorously defending these lawsuits.
Given the stage of the complaints and the claims and issues
presented, the company cannot reasonably estimate at this time the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from the
unresolved lawsuits."

In September 2012, a complaint was filed in federal court in North
Carolina against the company by several men who are or were
distributors of Flowers' Jamestown subsidiary who contend they
were misclassified as independent contractors.  The lawsuit seeks
class-action to represent all independent distributors of Flowers'
Jamestown subsidiary who are classified as independent
contractors.  In February 2016, Flowers reported it was aware of
17 other complaints alleging misclassification claims that have
been filed.

In August, Flowers reported the U.S. Department of Labor had
notified the company it has been scheduled for a compliance review
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.


GOULD & GOODRICH: Jury Issues $2.6MM Verdict in Holster Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that a Philadelphia jury has hit
a firearms accessories manufacturer with a $2.6 million verdict
for an allegedly defective holster that caused a state trooper's
gun to fire into his leg while he was exiting his vehicle.
The jury awarded Pennsylvania State Police officer Jesse Oleksza
the money on Oct. 18 after finding that a holster designed and
manufactured by Gould & Goodrich Inc. was defective.  Philadelphia
Common Pleas Judge Daniel J. Anders oversaw the case.


HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Wants Suit Over Admissions Policy Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Harvard University's legal team, relying on the U.S. Supreme
Court's ruling in June for affirmative action, is urging a federal
judge to dismiss two of six charges in a suit that accuses the
university of discriminating against Asian-American student
applicants.

The high court's 4-3 ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas
"makes clear" that two counts against Harvard are "without legal
merit," according to Seth Waxman -- seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com --
the Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr partner who represents
the university.

The lawsuit, filed by Students for Fair Admissions in
Massachusetts federal district court, and a similar case brought
against the University of North Carolina, had been inactive while
the parties awaited the outcome of the University of Texas case.
The Harvard lawsuit, filed in 2014, is now continuing with
extensive discovery recently approved by the judge.

Mr. Waxman's motion in Students for Fair Admissions v. President
and Fellows of Harvard College may be the first effort to rely on
the high court's three-month-old ruling in the Texas case.

The Supreme Court's decision "reaffirmed that universities have a
compelling interest in admitting a student body that is diverse
along many dimensions, and that universities may consider all
aspects of the applicants' background and experience, including
their race or ethnicity, in doing so," Mr. Waxman wrote in court
papers.

But the challengers' legal team -- attorneys at Consovoy McCarthy
Park -- countered that Harvard's motion for judgment on those
counts is "premature" and "self-serving."

One of the claims in the Students for Fair Admissions suit calls
for overruling Supreme Court decisions that held that "diversity"
is a compelling government interest in using race as a factor in
admissions.  The complaint alleges that "those decisions were
wrongly decided at the time they were issued and they remain wrong
today. 'Diversity' is not an interest that could ever justify the
use of racial preferences under the Fourteenth Amendment and Title
VI."

That count, Mr. Waxman argued, seeks to repudiate nearly 40 years
of consistent Supreme Court precedent.  The court's ruling in
Fisher "left no doubt that diversity remains a compelling
interest, and that universities may consider race (among other
factors) in a narrowly tailored way to accomplish that interest,"
Mr. Waxman wrote.

In the second count challenged, the plaintiffs claim the
university violates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because
-- contrary to Harvard's statements in a case from 1978 -- the
university is not using race "merely to fill the last few places
in the entering freshman class."

The challengers contend Harvard told the Supreme Court in an
amicus brief in Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke that it
was using race as a factor in admissions only when it had "a few
places left to fill" in the freshman class.

Students for Fair Admissions contends "for Asian Americans, race
or ethnicity is a factor in admissions decision far beyond those
competing for the last few places."

Mr. Waxman argued in his motion that the Supreme Court has never
held that a university may use race only to fill the last slots in
an entering class.

The Bakke decision, Mr. Waxman wrote, rejected an admissions
system that reserved a set number of seats in each class for
individuals from preferred ethnic groups.  The Supreme Court "has
repeatedly endorsed individualized, whole-person review of all
applicants that takes race, ethnicity, and many other attributes
into account throughout the admissions process," Mr. Waxman said.

Patrick Strawbridge -- Patrick@consovoymccarthy.com -- of Consovoy
McCarthy Park countered in a reply to the court that Harvard's
motions should be tabled by the judge because it "will require the
court to resolve a fundamental dispute between the parties as to
the kinds of race-based admissions programs allowed under Supreme
Court precedent."


I.C. SYSTEM: Class Certification Sought in "Wise" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROCHELLE WISE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. I.C. SYSTEM,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-09752 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "(1) all persons with addresses in the State of Illinois (2)
   from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer
   debt (3) to whom Defendants sent an email which (4) failed to
   identify Defendant as a debt collector (5) from one year prior
   to the filing of this Complaint up to the filing of this
   Complaint".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint herself as class
representative, appoint her lawyers as counsel for the class, and
allow herself to file a memorandum in support of the motion after
taking class discovery.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by failing to identify itself as a debt
collector in its communication with Plaintiff.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AB8V6R3P

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INFOSYS TECH: Koehler, et al. Seek Certification of Three Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BRENDA KOEHLER, KELLY PARKER, LAYLA
BOLTEN, and GREGORY HANDLOSER, the Plaintiffs, v. INFOSYS
TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED INC., and INFOSYS PUBLIC SERVICES, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-00885-PP-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court to certify three classes:

Hiring Class:

   "all individuals who are not of South Asian race or Indian
   national origin who sought a position with Infosys in the
   United States and were not hired from August 1, 2009 through
   the date of class certification";

Promotion Class:

   "all individuals who are not of South Asian race or Indian
   national origin who were employed by Infosys in the United
   States between August 1, 2009 and the date of class
   certification for a period of at least 18 months and were not
   promoted";

Termination Class:

   "all individuals who are not of South Asian race or Indian
   national origin who were employed by Infosys in the United
   States between August 1, 2009 and the date of class
   certification and were terminated".

The Plaintiffs further move the Court to appoint their Counsel as
Class Counsel on behalf of the certified classes. The Plaintiffs
also request that the Court schedule a conference to address
matters of class notice at the Court's earliest convenience.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has engaged, and
continues to engage, in a systematic pattern and practice of
discrimination against non-South Asians and non-Indians in hiring,
promotions, and terminations across the United States. As a result
of this discrimination, and as reflected in statistical evidence,
the Defendant has achieved rates of hiring, promotion, and
termination disfavoring non-South Asians and non-Indians to such
an extreme degree that the likelihood of them occurring by chance
is less than 1 in 1 billion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Kotchen, Esq.
          Daniel L. Low, Esq.
          Michael J. von Klemperer, Esq.
          KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
          1745 Kalorama Road NW, Suite 101
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 471 1995
          Facsimile: (202) 280 1128
          E-mail: dkotchen@kotchen.com
                  dlow@kotchen.com
                  mvk@kotchen.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Brown, Esq.
          DVG LAW PARTNER LLC
          P.O. Box 645
          Neenah, WI 54957
          Telephone: 920-238 6781
          Facsimile: 920-273-6177
          E-mail: mbrown@dvglawpartner.com

               - and -

          Vonda K. Vandaveer, Esq.
          V.K. VANDAVEER, P.L.L.C.
          P.O. Box 27317
          Washington, DC 20038-7317
          Telephone: (202) 340 1215
          Facsimile: (202) 521 0599


INOME INC: Illegally Uses Class Members' Identity, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael R. Siegel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Inome Inc. d/b/a Intelius, Inc., on behalf of itself
and all other entities similarly situated, Case No. 2016CH13781
(Ill. Ch. Ct., October 20, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for use of, or holding out of the identity of the Class
in connection with the sale, advertising or promotion of its'
products and services without having obtained previous written
consent.

Inome Inc. is in the business of providing an online directory
containing large amounts of personal information of individuals in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry D. Drury, Esq.
      Phil Schlichting, Esq.
      LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
      100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 346-7950
      E-mail: ldd@larrydrury.com


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Class Certification Bid in "Zuniga" Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DOMINGO ZUNIGA, an individual; on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC; and FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND
CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC., d/b/a FBCS INC. and FBCS, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00526-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
Amos L. Mazzant entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for
class certification without prejudice subject to re-filing at a
later date.

Jefferson Capital is a debt collector.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0wIYEXFh


JEWELLERY CHANNEL: Plaintiffs Seek Sanctions in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Law.com, reports that in a proposed
class action lawsuit targeting The Jewellery Channel, plaintiffs
are seeking sanctions, arguing that a defense lawyer told a
defense witness during a deposition to not answer questions about
his criminal history.

In the litigation, Kabbash v. The Jewellery Channel, filed in
Austin federal court, plaintiffs allege that the channel engaged
in false advertising.

With the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking a court order
allowing customers to return items purchased, stopping the channel
from the alleged improper activities and disgorgement of revenues
allegedly unjustly earned.

In their motion for sanctions, plaintiffs said defense lawyers
instructed a designated company witness not to answer questions
about any criminal history.

"Questions regarding criminal history are relevant as they pertain
to the credibility of any testifying witness, regardless of
whether it is in the context of a trial or a deposition," the
plaintiffs motion states.

At the deposition, held Aug. 24, when plaintiffs counsel Gregory
Coleman of The Coleman Law Firm in Knoxville, Tennessee, asked
about if the witness had any criminal history, defense counsel
Michael Zachary -- michaelzachary@andrewskurthkenyon.com -- of
Andrews Kurth Kenyon of Palo Alto, California, jumped in.

"I'll just object to the question.  There's no basis in a civil
case like this to be asking questions like that," Mr. Zachary
said.  ". . . And regardless of the answer, I'll instruct the
witness not to answer."

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks of the Western District of Texas,
who presides in the litigation, has scheduled a hearing about the
sanctions motion for Oct. 24.

The Jewellery Channel has filed its response and objections to the
motion under seal.


KFC: Faces False Advertising Suit Over Half Full Chicken Bucket
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Koehn, writing for Smart Company, reports that chicken lovers
the world over have been enthralled by the story of a New York
woman who is suing KFC for $US20 million ($26.3 million) after she
ordered a meal deal with a bucket of chicken that wasn't "full to
the brim" as advertised.  But business owners should know the
difference between puffery and misleading claims, say experts.

Anna Wurtzburger, 64, told the New York Post that the $US20 "Fill
Up Deal" she ordered included a half-full bucket of chicken,
instead of the overflowing bounty that was advertised.

When she called the KFC head office to complain, she was
reportedly told that the pieces of fried chicken popped out of the
box in the ad so that the public could more easily see the food on
offer.

"If you want the public to look at your chicken, put it in a
dish," she fumed.  "It's a lot of BS . . . . I expect to get what
you're telling me," she told The Post.

Ms. Wurtzburger is now asking for $US20 million in damages for the
false advertising, and for the advertising for the chicken bucket
in question to be changed to reflect the actual nature of the
product.  KFC reportedly sent Ms. Wurtzberger two vouchers as
compensation after she complained, and has told media outlets the
lawsuit is baseless.

The case has captured the imagination of the hungry public -- and
while customers seem to agree that $US20 million is an excessive
request, many agree they have also been disappointed by the size
variations in KFC products.

"Care to make this KFC a, 'class action lawsuit'? KFC used a
bigger bucket specifically to dupe its viewers . . . and should be
sued," one comment writer said on entertainment website TMZ.

"Colonel Sanders himself would be very disappointed and wish to
sue."

Puffery versus misleading statements

Ms. Wurtzberger believes that the $US20 price tag, combined with
an advertisement that shows pieces of fried chicken popping out of
an overfull bucket, do not line up with the actual product.

LegalVision Principal Ursula Hogben told SmartCompany that in
Australia, businesses need to remember the difference between
misleading conduct and puffery -- and act accordingly.

While the Australian Consumer Law prevents companies from being
deceptive or misleading in the promotion of products, exaggeration
is allowed in some cases, particularly for exaggerated claims that
are difficult to prove, like "Best food ever".

In the KFC case, it would come down to whether the product varied
significantly from the actual detail of the product, as well as
the impression left by the ad.

"For instance -- if she got the right number of pieces of chicken
[as advertised]," says Ms. Hogben.

"There are various cases for this, but generally it's if the facts
are incorrect, then those things could be seen as misleading."

KFC lovers were quick to point out that while the "Fill Up"
package ad has a full bucket of chicken, the fine print in
restaurants does say a customer gets eight pieces as part of the
pack -- and that is what Ms. Wurtzberger received.

"It is legal to do puffery," says Ms. Hogben.  "If they said 12
pieces and didn't get them, then that could be seen as misleading,
but on the whole this could be seen as exaggeration."

For damages to be secured by a customer in a case like this, it's
likely Ms. Wurtzberger would have to prove the harm done to her by
the small amount of chicken -- and this is unlikely to be easy,
says Ms. Hogben.

That said, businesses should be aware of the specifics around how
many units it says are in a pack, and know that there is more than
one avenue a customer can go down to complain.

"There's also the code of ethics for advertising standards in
Australia," says Ms. Hogben.

"And along with the ads, if it's genuinely misleading, this is
something for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
as well."


L.A. ENTERTAINMENT: Class Action Notice Taken Under Advisement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TAMERA GOERS and ASHLEY CRISTINE
MULLIGAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. L.A. ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC. and
AMER SALAMEH, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00412-UA-CM (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Carol Mirando entered an order taking
Plaintiff's motion for court approval of amended class action
notice under advisement.

The Court says the Plaintiffs shall have up to and including
October 20, 2016, to supplement their motion and proposed notice
with the consent to become a Party Plaintiff form. The Plaintiffs
shall file a notice of compliance and attach to it the consent to
become a party Plaintiff form.

Upon review of the amended proposed Notice, it appears that
Plaintiffs have complied with the directives in the Court's
Order; however, the Notice references the "Consent to Become a
Party Plaintiff" form, which should be attached to the Notice but
it is not. Because the Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff form
has not been provided for the Court's review, the Court will allow
Plaintiffs an opportunity to supplement their motion with this
attachment.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ggjOXdP3


LOUISIANA: Black Lives Matter Protesters Sue State Police
---------------------------------------------------------
Abbi White, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that four days
after Alton Sterling's death during an altercation with two
policemen on July 5, Black Lives Matter protesters blocked the
road in front of the Louisiana State Police headquarters on
Airline Highway and were confronted by members of law enforcement.

A lawsuit alleging unlawful management of the protest by police is
being brought against the City of Baton Rouge, Mayor Kip Holden,
East Baton Rouge Parish, the Baton Rouge police chief and others.

DeRay McKesson was one of roughly 100 protesters initially charged
with obstructing a highway.  He is also one of the three Black
Lives Matter protesters bringing a federal class action against
Louisiana State Police on allegations of excessive force and
violation of the First Amendment rights of protesters.

On the night of the protest, police arrived on the scene in gas
masks, armored vehicles and riot gear, toting assault weapons. The
armored approach has been supported by Louisiana Gov. John Bel
Edwards, but railed against by multiple others.

Malcolm Suber, a prominent Louisiana activist, strongly disagreed
with Edwards' justification of police behavior on the night of the
protest, calling it provocative.

Mr. Surber has also weighed in on the peacefulness of that night's
protests, claiming that the protests in question were peaceful,
and that the tactics of law enforcement were meant to intimidate.

"It was an overreaction on the part of police to use (impeding
traffic) as an excuse.  All around the country, people have been
allowed to occupy overpasses, streets, and expressways and did not
result in the police-state tactics that were used in Baton Rouge,"
Mr. Suber told the Louisiana Record.  "This was a denial of our
democratic rights."

Mr. Suber purports that the strongest evidence against the named
defendants is the police response to protesters after instructing
them to leave the scene.

"People were retreating when asked to retreat and the Baton Rouge
police jumped fences and attacked people on their private
property," Mr. Suber said.

Many have also been frustrated by the slow-turning gears of
government and lack of desired results, in Mr. McKesson's case and
that of Sterling, as well as others like them.

In the wake of this and other legal measures being taken against
Baton Rouge and Louisiana law enforcement, many people are calling
for a swift resolution of the investigation of Sterling's death by
the U.S. Attorney's Office and a fast-track to justice for Mr.
McKesson's case against Baton Rouge.

According to Mr. McKesson, this would include expungement of the
criminal records of roughly 200 protesters whose arrests are
allegedly illegal.

"This is standard practice for the government," Mr. Surber said.
They are hoping that people will not remain vigilant forever."

Both Mr. McKesson's and the state's attorneys have declined to
comment, saying that they cannot disclose or comment on any of the
terms of the potential settlement.  However, while no details of a
tentative or potential settlement have yet been reported,
settlement talks are still underway.


MARCOAH GROUP: Class Cert. Bid Withdrawn Due to Amended Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer entered an order in the lawsuit
titled Byer Clinic of Chiropractic, Ltd., the Plaintiff, v.
Marcoah Group USA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-05318 (N.D. Ill.),
withdrawing the Plaintiff's earlier motion for class certification
as the Plaintiff has filed an amended class certification motion.

A copy of the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 27, 2016,
is available at no charge at:

     http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QJ4oJMNe


MDL 2624: 2 of 3 Classes Certified in Lenovo Adware Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Lenovo Adware Litigation, Case No. 15-md-02624-
RMW (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs filed 29 consumer class action
lawsuits against Lenovo (United States), Inc. and Superfish, Inc.
asserting claims under federal, California, and New York law.
Plaintiffs allege that Superfish's VisualDiscovery software, which
Lenovo installed on the laptops they purchased, created
performance, privacy, and security issues.  Lenovo moves to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing and failure to
state a claim.  Plaintiffs move to certify three classes of
purchasers:

     -- a nationwide class of direct purchasers,
     -- a nationwide class of indirect purchasers, and
     -- a California class of consumers who purchased laptops from
third-party retailers.

On Oct. 27, the Hon. Ronald M. Whyte entered an order:

   1. certifying following classes:

      Indirect Purchaser Class (represented by Jessica Bennett,
      Rhonda Estrella and John Whittle):

        "all persons who purchased one or more Lenovo computer
         models, on which VisualDiscovery was installed, in the
         United States from someone other than Lenovo; and

      California Class (represented by Jessica Bennett and Rhonda
      Estrella):

        "all persons who purchased one or more Lenovo computer
         models, on which VisualDiscovery was installed, in
         California";

   2. appointing Pritzker Levine LLP, Girard Gibbs LLP, and
      Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP as class counsel;

   3. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify direct purchaser
      class; and

   4. granting Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend, where
      Plaintiffs must file any amended complaint with 30 days
      of this order.

The Court further granted in part and denied in part Lenovo's
motion to dismiss as follows:

   a. motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing
      is denied;

   b. motion to dismiss Count I, plaintiffs' Computer Fraud and
      Abuse Act claim, is denied;

   c. motion to dismiss Count II, plaintiffs' Electronic
      Communications Privacy Act claim, is granted;

   d. motion to dismiss Count IV, plaintiffs' California Unfair
      Competition Law claim, is denied;

   e. motion to dismiss Count V, plaintiffs' California Consumer
      Legal Remedies Act claim, is denied;

   f. motion to dismiss Count VI, plaintiffs' California Computer
      Crime Law claim, is denied;

   g. motion to dismiss Count VII, plaintiffs' California
      Computer Spyware Act Legal Remedies Act claim, is granted;

   h. motion to dismiss, Count VIII, plaintiffs' California
      Invasion of Privacy Act claim, is denied;

   i. motion to dismiss Count IX, plaintiffs' California
      negligence claim, is granted;

   j. motion to dismiss Count X, plaintiffs' California trespass
      to chattels claim, is denied;

   k. motion to dismiss Count XI, plaintiffs' New York Deceptive
      Acts & Practices Statute claim, is granted;

   l. motion to dismiss Count XII, plaintiffs' New York
      negligence claim, is granted;

   m. motion to dismiss Count XIII, plaintiffs' New York trespass
      to chattels claim, is denied; and

   n. motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief
      is granted.

Copies of the Orders are available at no charge at

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-00807-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=887RFKOM

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-00819-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aslJawsB

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-00964-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YJiv0Xyq

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-01044-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pOj5IXt8

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-01069-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B51Vcuno

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-01113-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NKdMY7al

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-01122-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AjHkuIU6

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-01125-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6LAPHuut

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-01166-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0NSBB58Z

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-01177-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fxfp6Fx0

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-01206-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PanveBEz

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-01270-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3ZyVayOV

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-01342-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OqIzxww9

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-01478-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EbM6O4hm

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-01496-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TrLJUk02

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-01665-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZpYbFUev

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-01712-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0bBDSvj4

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-02345-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XegjSBsT

   for Case No. 5:15-md-02624-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Af4IBco0

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-02783-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EOBFuKjc

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-02784-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=l6zUWLZc

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-02785-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oBpBo7F7

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-02786-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kNuNX6fh

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-02787-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=C41sRJdR

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-02792-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1pXMDkeC

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-02788-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WDYo5UNf

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-02789-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Np6WI0H5

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-02790-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=T4T3XQCO

   for Case No. 5:15-cv-02791-RMW (N.D. Cal.):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=X9iKSTTc

Lenovo is a Chinese multinational technology company with
headquarters in Beijing, China, and Morrisville, North Carolina,
United States.


MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Class Certification Sought in "Bower" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RHONDA BOWER, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCANTILE
ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01441-DEJ
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying a class, appointing Plaintiff as its representative,
and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

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

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


MODERN PARKING: Faces "Arrito" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lupe Y. Arrito, an individual; for themselves, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Modern Parking, Inc., and Does 1
through 52, inclusive, Case No. BC638154 (Cal. Super. Ct., October
20, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Modern Parking, Inc. owns and operates numerous full service
parking lots and facilities throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Crosner, Esq.
      Zachary Crosner, Esq.
      CROSNER LEGAL P.C.
      433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 400
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 496-5818
      Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
      E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
              zach@crosnerlegal.com


MOHAWK INC: Health One Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled HEALTH ONE MEDICAL CENTER, EASTPOINTE
P.L.L.C., a Michigan Professional Limited Liability Company,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. MOHAWK, INC. d/b/a MOHAWK
MEDICAL, Case No. 5:16-cv-13815-JEL-SDD (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiff moves for entry of an order certifying a class of:

     "each person that was sent one or more telephone facsimile
     messages promoting the commercial availability or quality of
     property, goods, or services from "Mohawk" but not stating
     on its first page that the recipient may make a request to
     the sender not to send any future ads and that failure to
     comply with such a request within 30 days is unlawful".

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0sacL9Wo

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658 5555


MONT-SACRE-COEUR COLLEGE: Sexual Abuse Class Action Expanded
------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a class-action lawsuit alleging sexual abuse
at a former Catholic boarding school in Granby has been expanded
to include the names of 11 religious brothers.

The lawsuit was initially launched earlier in October by an
anonymous 56-year-old man, who says he was sexually abused more
than 300 times at Mont-Sacre-Coeur College between 1973 and 1975.

His lawsuit named one priest, Brother Claude Lebeau, a member of
the Les Freres Sacre Du Sacre-Coeur congregation, which ran the
school at the time.

The claims in the lawsuit have not been tested in court.  Lebeau
is believed to be living in the Montreal area.

Since the lawsuit was launched, several more people have come
forward saying they were abused at the school between 1940 and
1980, the plaintiff's lawyer said.

"Many people told us they weren't covered by the class-action
lawsuit because they were abused by brothers other than Claude
Lebeau," said Robert Kugler, one of three lawyers involved in the
lawsuit.

"To allow victims to understand that they are covered by the
lawsuit, whether they were abused by Brother Lebeau or another
brother, we thought it best to modify the lawsuit."

Mr. Kugler said around 30 people have so far come forward to say
they were victims of abuse at the school.  The lawsuit now
includes claims of abuse by both teachers and dormitory
supervisors.

When the lawsuit was initially filed, a lawyer for Les Freres
Sacre Du Sacre-Coeur said the congregation will not oppose the
class-action request and plans to co-operate during the
proceedings.  The congregation has not responded to the latest
developments.

Mont-Sacre-Coeur College was an all-boys high school until 1990.
The brothers have not been involved in running the school since
2008.


MUTERRA MANAGEMENT: Rafael Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MIGUEL RAFAEL on his own behalf and other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NUTERRA MANAGEMENT, LLC, and
LEGOMATIC CONSTRUCTION, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-02265
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

     "current and former hourly-paid laborers who work(ed) at
     Defendant's Polk County location construction site,
     Florida between September 2015 and March 2016; who worked
     hours for which they were not compensated, in some cases
     working more than 40 hours per week, without lawful and
     proper and complete overtime compensation".

The Plaintiffs further asks the Court to enter an order:

     a. directing Defendants to produce, in an electronic readable
format, to the undersigned counsel within 14 days of the Order
granting this motion a list containing the full names, last known
addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative
class members who worked for Defendants in Defendants' Polk County
construction site, Florida locations between September 2015 and
March 2016;

     b. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to send initial notice to
all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the
Defendants counsel by first-class e-mail; and

     c. directing Defendants to post at its Polk County, Florida
locations a copy of the initial notice.

The case is a collective action seeking to enforce the overtime
and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants through approximately
March 2016. The named Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all others similarly-situated alleging that he and the
other hourly-paid laborers at Defendants Polk County facility were
deprived of proper overtime wages and unpaid wages by virtue of
Defendants requiring Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him
to work overtime but who were not paid for all of the hours worked
to the full extent provide by law.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EKs6bZX2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. John Gadd, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF W. JOHN GADD PA
          Bank of America Building
          2727 Ulmerton Road-Suite 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (727) 524 6300
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


MUTUAL OF OMAHA: "Johansen" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled KEN JOHANSEN, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA
INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERI QUOTE INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00486 (D. Neb.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   (1) ruling on his motion for class certification of:

       "all persons within the United States whose phone numbers
       were registered on the Do Not Call Registry, and who,
       within the four years before the filing of the initial
       Complaint, through the date of class certification,
       received more than one telemarketing call within any
       twelve-month period from, or on behalf of, Defendants";

   (2) allowing for discovery to take place;

   (3) granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended motion upon
       the conclusion of discovery relating to certification
       issues;

   (4) granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification after
       full briefing;

   (5) appointing Plaintiff Ken Johansen as class representative,
       and his attorneys as class counsel; and

   (6) providing all other and further relief that the Court
       deems equitable and just.

According to the complaint, since at least August 2016, the
Defendants Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company (Mutual of Omaha) and
Ameri Quote Insurance and Financial Resources, Inc. (Ameri Quote)
-- an insurance company and its third-party telemarketer
-- have caused repeated, unsolicited telemarketing calls to be
made to Plaintiff's home phone, despite the fact that it has been
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry for years.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WY5fHcxB

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729 5288
          Facsimile: (312) 729 5289
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com


MYLAN: Epipen Price Hike Affects Allergy Sufferers, Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Ristow, writing for Yampa Valley Health, reports that all
it took was a brownie with a walnut on top for Dan McNasby to
learn about his 2-year-old son's nut allergy about 11 years ago.

"His mouth started itching and swelling up," said Mr. McNasby, who
now has three children, age 13, 9 and 8, who all have tested
positive for peanut and tree nut allergies.

As a precaution, Mr. McNasby keeps three or more Epipen
epinephrine injector packs on hand or with his children.

With the skyrocketing costs of the injectors during the past few
years, Mr. McNasby is one of many who rely on the Epipen but have
been forced to reconsider whether they can afford to purchase the
injectors, which are used to treat emergency allergic reactions to
nuts, bees and other allergens.

Mr. McNasby said a two-pack, both of which might be used in a
single extended emergency, now costs him about $414 through
Wal-Mart after insurance.

The retail price for a two-pen set has increased more than five-
fold since 2007, when the Mylan corporation purchased the drug.  A
two-pack of EpiPens then retailed for about $100, and Mylan has
hiked the price 17 times since, with the same pack now retailing
for $608.

The company came under fire earlier this year for the price
increases, with critics accusing Mylan of corporate greed.  A
price-gouging lawsuit between one Ohio consumer is ongoing and may
expand into a class-action suit.

"It's shocking that a company would put profit over lives,"
Mr. McNasby said.  "It's just amazing that the government will
allow a company to have a monopoly on this product."

Mr. McNasby said he's tried to ask his children's doctor for a
prescription for a vial of epinephrine that he could inject
himself -- something that would cost much less -- but the doctor
refused.

While Mr. McNasby's request might seem reasonable, Dr. Chris
Speer, of Steamboat Medical Group, said it goes against the
standard of care to allow patients to measure their own
epinephrine during an emergency.

"If something goes wrong, I would be held liable 100 percent," Dr.
Speer said.  "In a high-pressure situation, it's not as easy as it
sounds."

Dr. Speer said the other physicians at Steamboat Medical Group
agree they also wouldn't prescribe epinephrine alone, though he
added he sympathizes with patients affected by the increased
prices for EpiPen.

"I don't have any control of how different drugs are priced. I
find it super-frustrating," Dr. Speer said.  "You wouldn't think
it would cost nearly that much if they weren't gouging people."

Dr. Kristen Fahrner said the increased price of EpiPens is a
serious problem for her many patients with allergies, including
those undergoing allergy shot treatments.

"The cost is extraordinarily high and prohibitive," said
Dr. Fahrner, an otolaryngologist with a fellowship certification
in allergy.

Dr. Fahrner said the drug is much cheaper in Canada, but laws
prohibit the drugs from being exported to the United States,
something that could be changed legislatively.

Dr. Fahrner said she's heard that the release of a generic version
of the EpiPen from Mylan or a new product from another company may
be on the horizon, which could result in a less-expensive
alternative.

"Hopefully, there's a fix soon," she said.


MYLAN NV: Three Federal Agencies Mum on EpiPen Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seal, writing for Law.com, reports that just before the close
of business on Oct. 4, Mylan N.V. announced it would pay $465
million to the U.S. Justice Department and other agencies to
resolve regulatory questions about the company's alleged
misclassification of the EpiPen device for purposes of Medicaid
rebates.

Three federal agencies have remained mum about the settlement --
announced on the eve of a federal holiday and during the media
blitz over Donald Trump's lewd remarks about women -- because it
has not been finalized.  Mylan, and not the government, broke the
news about its deal.

The settlement isn't likely to quell the congressional and
regulatory pressure that's weighed on Mylan for the past two
months, according to reactions from two U.S. senators who are
steering the dialogue and from attorneys who are closely following
the pharmaceutical company's woes.  Mylan first drew criticism in
August following a price surge in the cost of its life-saving
epinephrine auto-injector.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Mylan's settlement leaves
unanswered questions about the deal itself -- including its
fairness and how much the states will receive.  "This settlement
shows a big problem with just one company and one product,"
Sen. Grassley said.  "Are there others, and is [Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)] doing enough to look out for
the taxpayers?"

Sen. Grassley called on the Justice Department to make details
about the agreement "as transparent as possible."  He expressed
specific interest in further scrutiny of Mylan's corporate
integrity agreement, details of which have not been publicly
disclosed.

As a generic drug, Mylan was only required to pay a 13 percent
rebate of its average manufacturer price under the Medicaid rebate
program, as opposed to the 23.1 percent paid for brand drugs.
Andrew Slavitt, acting administrator at CMS, wrote in a letter to
Grassley Oct. 5 that the EpiPen has been listed as a generic drug
since the fourth quarter of 1997, and CMS "has expressly told
Mylan that the product is incorrectly classified." Mylan acquired
the product in 2007.

A spokeswoman for Mylan declined to comment. The company's
announcement said it did not admit to any wrongdoing.

A CMS spokesman said a portion of the settlement would be
recovered by states but declined to comment further, other than to
acknowledge Mylan's announcement.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, who in September urged the
Justice Department to investigate Mylan, said on Oct. 11 that the
company's misclassification must represent "the tip of the
iceberg" for this type of infraction.  "The process needs to be
changed to stop this from happening again," she said in a
statement.

Donald Romano -- dromano@foley.com -- a Foley & Lardner lawyer in
Washington who has worked at CMS and HHS, said there often is "a
fair amount of lag time" between the beginning of an investigation
and a settlement, a time period that includes significant back-
and-forth between the company and the government.

Companies are given the opportunity to present to the government
their explanation for an alleged misclassification, Romano said.
Investigations often move in "fits and starts," including
interviews of company employees, and the process often takes
several months or more.

Mylan said in its statement announcing the settlement that it
expects to enter into a "corporate integrity agreement" with the
HHS Office of Inspector General.

Kenneth Haber, a Medicare fraud attorney and former senior
attorney with the inspector general, said Mylan appeared to be
"buying itself out of a hole" before the cost of its alleged
infractions went up. Punishment for a misclassification depends,
in part, on whether the company knew of the error, he said.

In the "complex regulatory paradigm" governing pharmaceuticals,
it's difficult for the government to prove intent, Mr. Haber said,
giving both the inspector general and the company under
investigation motivation to reach a deal.

Mylan's punishment could have stretched into the billions of
dollars depending on whether its actions were intentional, he
said.  The intense public scrutiny the company has faced likely
either resurrected the investigation or "put a fire under it," Mr.
Haber said.

Peter Barton Hutt -- phutt@cov.com -- of Covington & Burling,
former chief counsel for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
said the issues Mylan faces are "segmented," and resolving the
Medicaid matter won't end the company's troubles.

Mylan's settlement has recent precedent.  In April, pharmaceutical
companies Wyeth and Pfizer Inc. agreed to pay $785 million to
resolve allegations that Wyeth gave the government different
discounts than it gave to private purchasers, in violation of the
Medicaid program.

In that deal, Wyeth was required to pay roughly $413 million to
the federal government and roughly $371 million to state Medicaid
programs.  The settlement was filed in Massachusetts federal
district court "after years of hard-fought litigation" there, the
Justice Department said.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Bozeman" Suit Included in MDL 2492
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled BOZEMAN v. SOUTHEASTERN
CONFERENCE, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02641, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:16-cv-09992 to the proceeding.

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

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

Plaintiff James Bozeman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Clayton" Suit Included in MDL 2492
--------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned CLAYTON v. SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-02635, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09988 to the
proceeding.

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

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

Plaintiff MARCUS CLAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Collins" Suit Included in MDL 2492
--------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned COLLINS v. AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE, et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02640, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09991
to the proceeding.

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

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

Plaintiff CONREDGE COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Dudley" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2492
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled DUDLEY v. ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02639, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09990 to
the proceeding.

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

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

Plaintiff DERRICK DUDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Gallon" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2492
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled GALLON v. ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02334, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09973 to
the proceeding.

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

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

Plaintiff RODNEY GALLON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          William E. Winingham, Esq.
          WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM
          2859 North Meridian Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46208
          Telephone: (317) 920-6400
          Facsimile: (317) 920-6405
          E-mail: winingham@wkw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Gray" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2492
---------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled GRAY v. UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME DU LAC, et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02638, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09989
to the proceeding.

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

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

Plaintiff Gary Gray, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Harley" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2492
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled HARLEY v. AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE, et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02630, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09984
to the proceeding.

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

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

Plaintiff DAVID HARLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Harrison" Suit Included in MDL 2492
---------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Harrison v. Ohio Valley Conference, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02337, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09977 to
the proceeding.

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

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

Plaintiff James Harrison, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          William E. Winingham, Esq.
          WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM
          2859 North Meridian Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46208
          Telephone: (317) 920-6400
          Facsimile: (317) 920-6405
          E-mail: winingham@wkw.com

Defendant Ohio Valley Conference is represented by:

          Margaret L. Behm, Esq.
          DODSON PARKER BEHM & CAPPARELLA, PC
          1310 6th Avenue North
          Nashville, TN 37208
          Telephone: (615) 254-2291
          Facsimile: (615) 726-2241
          E-mail: behm@dodsonparker.com


NCB MANAGEMENT: Court Continued Class Cert. Bid in "Williams"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Milton I. Shadur entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
Pamela Williams, the Plaintiff, v. NCB Management Services
Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09322 (N.D. Ill.),
continuing Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 17,
2016, the Court held that before the Defendant tenders any Rule 68
offer or potential dispositive motion, it must give notice and be
brought on by motion before the Court.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MOGGu4HX


NELLSON NUTRACEUTICAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Lopez, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. Nellson Nutraceutical, LLC, Real Time
Staffing Services, LLC, and Does 1-1000, Case No. BC638175 (Cal.
Super. Ct., October 20, 2016), seeks to recover underpaid overtime
and minimum wages pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Nellson Nutraceutical, LLC is a formulator and manufacturer of
branded and private-label nutritional bar and functional powder
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis F. Moss, Esq.
      15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone (310) 773-0323
      E-mail: dennis@dennismosslaw.com

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
      18520 Ventura Blvd.
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


NUTLEY FARM: Faces "Yi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kun Ok Yi, for himself and for all others similarly situated v.
Nutley Farm Corp., Gap Young Bang a/k/a Peter Bang, Jenny Bang,
Daniel Pak, and John Does 1-10 and ABC Companies 1-10, Case No.
2:16-cv-07652 (D.N.J., October 20, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of operating a retail
farm store with food and groceries to the general public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael S. Kimm, Esq.
      Adam Garcia, Esq.
      KIMM LAW FIRM
      333 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 106
      Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
      Telephone: (201) 569-2880
      E-mail: msk@kimmlaw.com
              adam.garcia@kimmlaw.com


ONECLICKCASH: Faces $1.27BB Judgment Over Payday Lending Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has scored a record $1.27
billion judgment against race car driver Scott Tucker and several
of his companies as part of an alleged deceptive payday lending
scheme.

The FTC sued Tucker and several of his companies in 2012 alleging
an "interrelated network of companies" that included four payday
lenders ran up finance fees against borrowers of quick loans.  In
a Sept. 30 order granting summary judgment for the FTC, Nevada
Chief Judge Gloria Navarro found Mr. Tucker and his companies
liable for $1.27 billion in consumer losses, the largest judgment
the FTC has ever obtained in a case that was litigated.

"This significant court judgment demonstrates the FTC's
determination to crack down on deceptive payday lenders and the
people who run them," FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said in a
statement.  "No consumer should be victimized by an unlawful
scheme like this one, and it is especially detestable when those
who can least afford to be charged undisclosed and inflated fees
are the ones being targeted."

On Sept. 31, the FTC sought a court order to enforce the judgment
by turning over previously frozen assets.

Kathleen Sullivan -- kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com --
chairwoman of the national appellate practice at Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, who represented Mr. Tucker and his companies,
did not respond to a request for comment.

The FTC's case was filed against nearly 20 individual and
corporate defendants, including Mr. Tucker, his brother, Blaine
Tucker, and their companies, many of which were based in Nevada,
as well as four payday lenders that operated under various names,
including OneClickCash and 500FastCash.  The complaint also named
Timothy Muir and his Kansas law firm, The Muir Law Firm, alleged
to have paid for the website registration costs in exchange for
"hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation and payments
from the common enterprise," but the FTC agreed to dismiss them
from the case in 2014.

The case alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act,
the Truth in Lending Act and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
The FTC previously reached agreements with other defendants in the
case totaling about $24.6 million, which were excluded in the
$1.27 billion judgment, as were $27 million against Tucker's wife,
Kim Tucker, and the couple's $8 million mansion in Aspen,
Colorado.

Patrick Reilly, a Las Vegas partner at Holland & Hart who
represents Mr. Tucker's wife, did not respond to a request for
comment.

The FTC still has a pending settlement remaining against the
estate of Blaine Tucker, who has since died.
On Feb. 9, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New
York brought criminal charges against Messrs. Tucker and Muir and
are seeking $2 billion in restitution, which includes multiple
bank accounts, Ferraris, Porches and a Learjet.  Both have pleaded
not guilty.

Mr. Tucker is represented in the criminal case by a team of New
York lawyers: James Roth of Stampur & Roth, Lee Ginsburg of
Freeman, Nooter & Ginsberg and solo practitioner Beverly Van Ness.
Marc Agnifilo of prominent New York criminal defense firm Brafman
& Associates, represents Mr. Muir.

Trial is set for April 17.


ONSITE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Bid Dismissed in Able Home Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned Able Home Health, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. Onsite
Healthcare, Inc., S.C., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-08219 (N.D.
Ill.), dismissing Plaintiff's motion for class certification
without prejudice, according to the docket entry made by the Clerk
on October 27, 2016.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h04cdnZo


OTIS ELEVATOR: Gorss Motel Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GORSS MOTELS, INC. a Connecticut
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. OTIS ELEVATOR
COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01781-VAB (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff
moves the Court for an order:

   a. taking motion for class certification under submission and
      deferring further activity on it until after the discovery
      cutoff date to be set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23
      scheduling order, or alternatively; or alternatively

   b. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=92fsqP3F

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


PATENAUDE & FELIX: Class Certification Sought in "Pogorzelski"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MOLLY M. POGORZELSKI, on behalf of herself
and the class, the Plaintiff, v. PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C., a
California Professional Corporation; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-25,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01330-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class defined as:

   "all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to whom
   Patenaude mailed a written communication materially similar to
   the form, attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint, in an
   attempt to collect a debt that was not returned as undelivered
   by the United States Postal Service, and which (i) falsely
   implies a licensed attorney had conducted a meaningful
   investigation prior to mailing the communication and/or (ii)
   failed to advise that Patenaude was acting solely as a debt
   collector and not in any legal capacity in sending letters on
   or after October 4, 2015 and on or before October 25, 2016".

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their respective officers,
members, partners, managers, directors and employees, their
respective immediate families, legal counsel for all parties to
this action, and all members of their immediate families.

The case involves a collection letter dated May 10, 2016 (the
5/10/2016 Letter or Letter) which Defendant Patenaude & Felix,
A.P.C. (Patenaude) sent to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an
alleged debt owed to TD Bank, USA, N.A., as successor in interest
to Target National Bank (the Target Obligation). The Plaintiff
received the 5/10/2016 Letter in the ordinary course. The
5/10/2016 Letter failed to make clear to Plaintiff that Patenaude
had not been retained by TD Bank USA, N.A. to file a lawsuit
against her in the event she did not pay the Target Obligation in
response to the 5/10/2016 Letter.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=31e1kVTe

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379


PERFORMANCE LACROSSE: Settles Class Action Over Helmets
-------------------------------------------------------
Frank Juliano, writing for CTPost, reports that a manufacturer of
lacrosse helmets whose equipment did not meet safety standards
will provide vouchers of between $10 and $35 to eligible buyers
under a lawsuit settlement approved by a federal judge in
Bridgeport.

Performance Lacrosse Group will provide the vouchers to certified
members of the class action suit, as well as $350,000 in legal
fees, the Connecticut Law Tribune reports.

The suit was brought on behalf of Connecticut residents who
purchased the company's Cascade R lacrosse helmets.  The complaint
said Performance Lacrosse Group falsely claimed its product met
the requirements of the National Operating Committee on Standards
for Athletic Equipment, which sets standards for impact resistance
and quality control, the law tribune reports.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William Garfinkel approved the settlement,
fee award and payments.


PLANESPHERE INC: Class Certification in "Ries" Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge John W. Darrah entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned Kaitlyn Ries, v. Planesphere Inc., et al, Case No. 1:16-
cv-03667 (N.D. Ill.), granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiff's motion for certification of collective action,
disclosure of potential opt-in Plaintiffs' contact information,
and Court-approved notice.

A status hearing in the case set for November 15, 2016, is re-set
to January 11, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dvuL7b8W


R.X.N.B. INC: Class Certification Bid Continued to Nov. 29
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled Physicians Healthsource, Inc., the Plaintiff, v.
R.X.N.B., Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07474
(N.D. Ill.), continuing Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 27,
2016, a status hearing is held on October 27, 2016 with only
defense counsel appearing. The Plaintiff's attorney fails
to appear. Another status hearing is continued to November 29,
2016 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to appear in
person.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pOj5IXt8


RALEIGH GENERAL: Health Port Moves "Hamilton" Suit to S.D.W. Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Health Port Technologies, LLC v. Raleigh
General Hospital, LLC, et al., Case No. 15-C-593-B, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Raleigh County to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Beckley).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-10035 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as "480 Consumer Credit."

Aside from Health Port, the other Defendants are Raleigh General
Hospital, LLC, MEDI-COPY SERVICES, INC., and John Doe Billing
Companies 1 through 10.

Plaintiff Donna Hamilton, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Amanda J. Taylor, Esq.
          Stephen P. New, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN P. NEW
          P. O. Box 5516
          Beckley, WV 25801
          Telephone: (304) 250-6017
          Facsimile: (304) 250-6012
          E-mail: mandy@newlawoffice.com
                  steve@newlawoffice.com

               - and -

          D. Adrian Hoosier, II, Esq.
          Erica Lord, Esq.
          LORD HOOSIER
          225 Hale Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-8030
          Facsimile: (304) 553-7227
          E-mail: adrian@lordhoosier.com

               - and -

          J. Christopher White, Esq.
          Steven S. Wolfe, Esq.
          WOLFE WHITE & ASSOCIATES
          P. O. Box 536
          Logan, WV 25601
          Telephone: (304) 752-7715
          Facsimile: (304) 752-7710
          E-mail: jcwhite@wolfelawwv.com
                  swolfe@wolfelawwv.com

Defendant Health Port Technologies, LLC, is represented by:

          Devon J. Stewart, Esq.
          Russell D. Jessee, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON
          P. O. Box 1588
          Charleston, WV 25326-1588
          Telephone: (304) 353-8000
          Facsimile: (304) 353-8180
          E-mail: devon.stewart@steptoe-johnson.com
                  Russell.Jessee@steptoe-johnson.com


REGISTER TAPES: Court Wants Supplemental Memorandum by Nov. 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Fernando M. Olguin entered an order in the lawsuit styled
Allen Hamburger v. Register Tapes Unlimited, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:11-cv-05770-FMO-JC (C.D. Cal.), directing Plaintiff to file
a supplemental memorandum regarding the PAGA claim at issue, an
amended settlement agreement, and updated notice forms no later
than November 11, 2016.

Upon filing of the supplemental memorandum, and related documents,
the renewed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement will be taken under submission.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JPBPETY9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas W. Sarris
          KAUFMAN BORGEEST & RYAN LLP
          23975 Park Sorrento, Suite 370
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 961 8011
          Facsimile: (818) 880 0993
          E-mail: www.kbrlaw.com
                  nsarris@kbrlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph D. Tuchmayer
          LAW OFFICES OF
          JOSEPH D TUCHMAYER
          2307 Laurelmont Place,
          Los Angeles, CA 90046-1515


REVERA: Nursing Class Action No Merit, VP of Operations Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Gamble, Brantford Expositor, reports that for three-and-a-
half years, Ed Dik has been advocating loudly for his parents in a
local long-term care home.

Now he feels like his voice has been given amplification.

Mr. Dik spoke at a news conference a Queen's Park that seeks to
launch a class-action lawsuit against the Revera nursing home
chain.

"I see this as a way of escalating the knowledge of what's going
on in there," Mr. Dik said.

Toronto lawyer Amani Oakley, of Oakley and Oakley Professional
Corporation in Markham, announced the suit on Oct. 20, using a
lead plaintiff case from Toronto and citing some of the statistics
raised by The Expositor in her statement of claim.

Lori Dekervor says her father, Arthur Ross Jones, 68, died in
hospital of sepsis and suspected pneumonia after almost a year at
a Toronto Revera home.  He had a huge, oozing bedsore that was
found when he arrived at the hospital.

Her lawyer decided to go with a class-action suit because most
victims of nursing home problems don't live long enough for a
civil action to be completed.

"In my office, I've heard far too many disturbing stories from
Revera nursing home residents and their families," said
Ms. Oakley.

The suit hasn't been certified by the courts at this point, but
Oakley's statement of claim includes 82 examples of alleged
mistreatment or injury.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

John Beaney, the vice-president of Ontario operations for Revera,
said the company doesn't believe the lawsuit has merit and the
firm will fight it in the courts.

Because the matter will now be before the courts, Mr. Beaney said
he couldn't comment further but did note long-term care providers
are caring for people who are often near the end of their lives
and face complex and rapidly evolving conditions.

"This can be a difficult and emotional journey for both the
individual and their loves ones, and we empathize with that,"
Mr. Beaney said.

Revera now has more than 10,000 long-term care beds in Canada.

The chain has been the subject of dozens of media reports,
especially in Ontario, and despite media coverage, ministry
inspections and concerns raised, many of the same issues seem to
be repeated year after year.

It's been one of the biggest irritants of Dik's life, he says.

His parents, Henry and Angela Dik, went into Telfer Place early in
2013, and he has fought for their care on a daily basis since
then.

"The majority of front-line staff are just wonderful people who
are doing their best," he says, noting that his complaints have to
do with staffing numbers, a lack of resources and the inability of
the government to ensure a consistent standard or care.

"There's never enough people on the front lines.  There's been
short-staffing issues for the three-and-a-half years we've been at
Telfer Place and when you're chronically short-staffed, that's not
a situation -- it's your business model."

Mr. Dik's father went into the home due to an increase in falls
that worried the family.

At the Queen's Park news conference that announced the lawsuit,
Mr. Dik told about how, within two weeks of entering the home, his
father fell and broke his shoulder.

He also complained of missed baths, long waits for call bells to
be answered and problems with his mother's ostomy care.

"Nobody is happy about going to long-term care but, what we in the
public have is a reasonable expectation our family is going to be
safe there and then we try to make them happy."

Ms. Amani, a lawyer with years of experience in listening to and
trying cases that involved nursing home injuries or death,
gathered media reports from dozens of news agencies.

Statistics she found in The Expositor included a report that, in
2014, the two Revera nursing homes in Brant County -- Brierwood
Gardens and Telfer Place -- accounted for fewer than 15 percent of
the county's long-term care beds but attracted the most attention
from the Ministry of Health inspectors.

In 2014, the two homes had 55 percent of area inspection days, 65
per cent of local compliance orders, and 74 per cent of local
written notices about problems.

The Expositor's recent review of ministry reports in 2015 found
that Brierwood Gardens had substantially reduced the number of
problems found by the ministry.

Telfer Place was cited for a lot of problems in 2013, with nine
ministry orders to fix things but it brought those numbers down
slightly in 2014 and again in 2015.

Mr. Dik says even the improvements are not good enough and
questions why a home has to get an order to comply from the
government before it deals with a problem that's been repeatedly
pointed out.

"There's an absolute lack of consistency in care and the homes
operate with relative impunity.  The ministry identifies problems
but there's no teeth to get things fixed in a reasonable, timely
fashion."

The launch of the class-action suit is considered the first of its
kind in Canada and, with substantial media coverage, has generated
a wave of phone calls to Ms. Oakley's office from both families of
those in Revera homes and other lawyers who have cases that could
be included in the suit.

Ms. Oakley warns that the process will be a long one and will face
numerous legal battles but Mr. Dik is readying himself for the
fight.

"Since these corporations don't want to police themselves, the
only way they're going to get better is if it's more expensive to
be non-compliant than to be compliant with the rules."


SANDRA BROWN: "Simon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Simon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sandra Brown Bryant Shaw d/b/a Abiding Angels, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00971-A (N.D. Tex., October 20, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Sandra Brown Bryant Shaw operates a home healthcare facility
located at 6800 Brentwood Stair Road, Suite 202, Fort Worth, Texas
76112.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Corinna Chandler, Esq.
      CHANDLER LAW, P.C.
      3419 Westminster #343G
      Dallas, TX 75205
      Telephone: (972) 342-8793
      Facsimile: (972) 692-5220
      E-mail: chandler@chandlerlawpc.com


STARBUCKS CORP: "Brahamsha" Suit Moved From N.J. to Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Brahamsha v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No.
3:16-cv-05573, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington (Seattle).  The Washington District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01667-RSM to the proceeding.

Headquartered in Seattle, Washington, Starbucks Corporation
retails, roasts, and provides its own brand of specialty coffee.
The Company operates retail locations worldwide and sells whole
bean coffees through its sales group, direct response business,
supermarkets, and on the world wide web.  Starbucks also produces
and sells bottled coffee drinks and a line of ice creams.

Plaintiff Alan Brahamsha, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Loly G. Tor, Esq.
          K&L GATES, LLP
          One Newark Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 848-4026
          Facsimile: (973) 848-4001
          E-mail: loly.tor@klgates.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Perrone, Esq.
          KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART PRESTON GATES ELLIS LLP
          One Newark Center, 10th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07101
          Telephone: (973) 848-4034
          Facsimile: (973) 848-4001
          E-mail: patrick.perrone@klgates.com


SWEPI LP: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Signing Bonuses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt A. Rogers, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SWEPI LP and Shell Energy Holding GP, LLC,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00999-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio., October 19, 2016), is
brought on behalf of all persons, who between January 1, 2011 and
the present day signed an Oil and Gas Lease with SWEPI LP
pertaining to land located in Ohio for breached of leases,
specifically by terminating the leases without paying the signing
bonuses and exited Southeast Ohio without drilling a single well.

SWEPI LP is engaged in the exploration, development, and
production of oil, gas, and other minerals.

Shell Energy Holding GP, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business at 150 North Dairy
Ashford, Houston, Texas 77079.  Shell GP is the sole general
partner of SWEPI.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn J. Organ, Esq.
      Douglas R. Cole, Esq.
      Carrie M. Lymanstall, Esq.
      ORGAN COLE LLP
      1330 Dublin Road
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 481-0900
      Facsimile: (614) 481-0904
      E-mail: sjorgan@organcole.com
              drcole@organcole.com
              cmlymanstall@organcole.com

         - and -

      Robert S. Safi, Esq.
      Chanler A. Langham, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 653-7850
      Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
      E-mail: rsafi@susmangodfrey.com
              clangham@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Ian M. Gore, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 471-8348
      Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
      E-mail: igore@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Patrick Buchanan, Esq.
      BUCHANAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      29006 Oakland Hills Drive
      Georgetown, TX 78628
      Telephone: (214) 934-4145
      E-mail: buchananlaw@me.com


TEXAS: Bid for Class Certification in "Green" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hon Ron Clark entered an order in the lawsuit styled STEVEN
KEITH GREEN, V. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, ET AL., Case
No. 6:16-cv-00503-RC-KNM (E.D. Tex.), denying Plaintiff's motion
for class certification based on Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell.

The Report and Recommendation contains proposed findings of fact
and recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been
presented for consideration, and no objections having been timely
filed. The court is of the opinion that the findings and
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and adopts the
same as the findings and conclusions of the court.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=P3Lc1MwR


UBER TECH: Congdon, et al. Seek to Certify Non-Opt-Out Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CHUCK CONGDON, RYAN COWDEN, ANTHONY
MARTINEZ, JASON ROSENBERG, and JORGE ZUNIGA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, RASIER, LLC, a
Delaware corporation, and RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware corporation,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-02499-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs Congdon, Torres, Webber, and Winters seek to certify
Arbitration Non-Opt-Out Class (December 2015 Agreement) and
Arbitration Non-Opt-Out Class (Pre-December 2015 Agreement).

The Arbitration Non-Opt-Out Class is defined as:

   "(A) all persons in the United States; (B) who entered the
   December 2015 Agreement (including all those persons who
   entered both the December 2015 Agreement and the 2013
   Agreement, the June 2014 Agreement, or the November 2014
   Agreement, or a combination of those prior agreements); (C)
   did not opt-out of arbitration under the December 2015
   Agreement; and Out Class (Pre-December 2015 Agreement)".

The Arbitration Non-Opt-Out Class (Pre-December 2015 Agreement) is
defined as:

   "(A) all persons in the United States; (B) who entered the
   2013 Agreement, the June 2014 Agreement, or the November 2014
   Agreement, or a combination of those agreements, but who did
   not enter the December 2015 Agreement; (C) did not opt-out of
   arbitration under the last Uber driver contract the person
   executed; and (D) provided at least one minimum fare ride on
   the UberX platform for which a Safe Rides Fee applied before
   Uber changed its local fare webpages in November 2015 to state
   that minimum fares would include Safe Rides Fees".

Excluded from each of the proposed classes are 1) the Defendants,
2) the Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom this case is assigned and
the Judge or Magistrate Judge's immediate family, 3) persons who
execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class, 4)
the legal representatives, successors, or assigns of any such
excluded person; and 5) Plaintiffs' counsel and Defendants'
counsel.

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint the named
Plaintiffs as class representatives for the issue class, and to
appoint their counsel as counsel for the issue class.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs will move for class
certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(c)(4)(A) to
litigate on a class basis whether enforcement of the arbitration
provisions in Uber's contracts frustrate each plaintiff's
substantive, contractual right to effectual relief for his or her
claims that are otherwise subject to arbitration pursuant to the
applicable Uber arbitration clause (where the relief that could
potentially be obtained through arbitration would be rendered
ineffectual by the fees they must pay to arbitrate, and, thus,
render the arbitration provision unenforceable.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John G. Crabtree, Esq.
          Charles M. Auslander, Esq.
          Brian C. Tackenberg, Esq.
          George R. Baise Jr. , Esq.
          CRABTREE & AUSLANDER
          240 Crandon Boulevard, Suite 101
          Key Biscayne, Florida 33149
          Telephone: (305) 361 3770
          Facsimile: (305) 437 8118
          E-mail: jcrabtree@crabtreelaw.com
                  causlander@crabtreelaw.com
                  btackenberg@crabtreelaw.com
                  gbaise@crabtreelaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew A. August, Esq.
          BROWNE GEORGE ROSS, LLP
          101 California Street, Suite 1225
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone (415) 391 7100
          Facsimile (415) 391 7198
          E-mail: aaugust@bgrfirm.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON AND ASSOCIATES
          113 Cherry Street, Unit 34835
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone (206) 317 3315
          Facsimile (206) 397 0875
          E-mail: Mark@mpaclassaction.com


UBER TECH: Black Drivers' Minimum Wage Suit Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that a prospective
class of Philadelphia UberBLACK drivers were given the green light
to move forward with their lawsuit alleging the company failed to
pay them the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied Uber's motion on Oct. 7 to dismiss the minimum
wage claim filed by drivers Ali Razak, Kenan Sabani and Khaldoun
Cherdoud.  Judge Baylson did, however, dismiss the drivers' claims
that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not
paying them overtime.

UberBLACK gives customers the option of selecting a luxury car --
or "black car" -- for an increased fee.

Uber has been inundated with lawsuits from across the country,
including others involving alleged labor violations.  In New York
federal court, Uber was sued by the New York Taxi Workers Alliance
over minimum wage and overtime issues.  A nationwide class action
against the company was filed in Illinois over worker
classification and the withholding of tips.

In the Philadelphia case, Uber argued the drivers' claims were
insufficient because they failed to identify their pay rates and
wages earned in a work week.  The drivers responded that such
figures were not "operative facts" and any lack of specificity was
due to the fact that Uber failed to keep records on the hours
employees worked, in violation of the FLSA.

In his opinion, Judge Baylson said the drivers are not required to
allege specifics about hours worked or wages earned because, under
the FLSA, employers are supposed to keep track of that
information.

"The instant complaint presents a close case because plaintiffs
have not explicitly alleged that their average hourly wage fell
below the federal minimum during any particular week," Judge
Baylson said.  "Construed liberally, however, plaintiffs'
complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to permit the
court to allow the reasonable inference that plaintiffs were not
paid minimum wage."

The drivers claimed that Uber automatically deducts expenses from
their earnings, including regulatory fees for the Philadelphia
Parking Authority, vehicle payments and insurance premiums.

"The aforesaid expenses are automatically deducted from the
driver's earnings, regardless of whether the driver earned enough
money to cover expenses," the drivers claimed.

An attorney for the drivers, Jeremy Abay -- jabay@sackslaw.com --
of Sacks Weston Diamond, praised the judge's decision and
criticized Uber for failing to give its drivers basic workplace
rights.

"There is something fundamentally wrong with a company that is
worth 65 billion dollars but refuses to afford its drivers -- who
are the heart and face of the business -- basic workplace rights,"
Abay said in a written statement.  "This case seeks to right that
wrong, and we are pleased that, for a second time, the court has
refused Uber's invitation to dismiss it."

As for the overtime claims, Uber repeated its argument that the
drivers failed to show how long they worked and what they were
paid.  The drivers again claimed it was Uber's job to keep track
of those figures.

Judge Baylson sided with Uber in this instance.

"While plaintiffs state the legal conclusion that defendants
failed to pay plaintiffs 'an overtime premium for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek' nowhere do they allege to have
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, let alone that there
was any given week in which they were not paid overtime," Judge
Baylson said.

Matthew J. Hank -- mhank@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson
represented Uber and did not return a call seeking comment.


UBS FINANCIAL: Class Certification Denied in Securities Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
in Puerto Rico denied class certification in a proposed securities
class action accusing UBS Group AG's Puerto Rico unit of
artificially inflating the price of shares in so-called closed-end
companies, while hiding the risks of an imbalanced market from its
investors.

According to court documents, the proposed class would have
included anyone who bought the funds from UBS Financial Services
of Puerto Rico between January 2008 and September 2013.  A
magistrate judge in March recommended that Judge Carmen Consuelo
Cerezo deny certification because the case raised individualized
issues of reliance that predominated over common ones.

The prospective class, Bruce J. McGiverin said in an 18-page
report, had bought the shares through 145 financial advisors who
worked as brokers for 23 different funds.  The pitches were highly
individualized, and the information available to each plaintiff
varied, the report read.

On the whole, Mr. McGiverin said, the complaint, filed by SDM
Holdings Inc., failed to establish the presumption of reliance
necessary to proceed as a class action on claims of securities
fraud.

"The evidence indicates that the [financial advisers] were not
required to make uniform representations to the investors. Rather,
the information provided to each investor depended on the
investor's portfolio and the dialogue between the [financial
advisers] and the investor," he said in the March 1 report.

Judge Cerezo accepted the recommendation Oct. 4, and a two-page
order denying certification was filed Sept. 31.

Much of the complaint centered allegations that UBS made
affirmative misrepresentations and manipulated the market to prop
up the price of the funds, all without the knowledge of investors.

The plaintiffs tried to invoke the presumption of reliance set out
in the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case Affiliated Ute Citizens of
Utah v. United States.  Under that framework, a clear
demonstration of a material omission is sufficient to establish
proof of reliance.

UBS had argued that Affiliated Ute was inapplicable, however,
because its presumption is limited only to omissions, and it has
never been extended to cases of misrepresentations.  The
plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that the defendants "knew
but did not disclose" the dangers of the situation.

The argument, however, fell flat with Mr. McGiverin, who drew a
distinction between the two.

"[T]hough plaintiffs contend their complaint primarily alleged the
nondisclosure of the underlying assets of the Funds, that
contention is belied by the well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint," he said.

"After reviewing the complaint, I find the allegations therein
primarily allege affirmative misrepresentations and market
manipulation."

Without a viable presumption under Affiliated Ute -- or the
related fraud-on-the-market theory -- class certification was
unwarranted because "individual issues of reliance will overwhelm
the common issues," he said.

UBS is represented by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
attorneys Paul Lockwood, Nicole DiSalvo, Elisa Klein and Matthew
Majarian and Michael Alonso.  A call to Mr. Lockwood, who acted as
lead attorney, was not returned on Oct. 1.

The SDM Holdings plaintiffs are represented by Jennie M.
Espada-Ocasio of Espada Esquire Legal Services in San Juan and
Andrea Farah, Beth A. Kaswan, Amanda F. Lawrence of Scott & Scott.
Attorneys did not immediately return calls seeking comment for
this story.

The case is captioned SDM Holdings v. USB Financial Services.


VALENCIA COLLEGE: 11th Cir. Revives Suit Over Ultrasound Probe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta has revived a
lawsuit filed by former students who sued faculty members at a
public college in Florida for requiring women to endure invasive
ultrasound probing, saying the practice violates the Constitution.

The lawsuit lists three named plaintiffs who were sonography
students at Valencia College in Orlando.  "All three students quit
the program because the employees had their students perform
transvaginal ultrasounds on each other and retaliated against the
students for objecting," wrote Judge William Pryor.  The judge
explained that such a procedure is used to search for fertility or
other problems in a woman's reproductive organs and requires the
insertion of a "rather large" probe into the vagina, which can be
difficult and painful.  "Receiving a transvaginal ultrasound is
invasive," Judge Pryor wrote.

Judge Pryor, with the concurrence of Judge Stanley Marcus of the
Eleventh Circuit and Judge Hugh Lawson of the Middle District of
Georgia, ruled that the ultrasound constitutes an unlawful search
prohibited by the Fourth Amendment and that retaliating against
students for objecting violates their First Amendment rights.  The
panel vacated a dismissal order from Judge Gregory Presnell of the
Middle District of Florida and remanded the case for trial.

Pryor found fault with Judge Presnell on several counts, saying
the trial judge was wrong to classify the students' speech as
"school-sponsored expression" that wasn't protected under the
First Amendment and that he erroneously ruled the ultrasound "was
not a search" under the Fourth Amendment.

"Inserting a probe into a woman's vagina is plainly a search when
performed by the government," Judge Pryor wrote.  "Where the
government physically intrudes on a subject enumerated within the
Fourth Amendment, such as a person, a search 'has undoubtedly
occurred.' United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 950-51 & n.3
(2012)."

Judge Pryor noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has "long recognized
that compelled blood and urine tests implicate the Fourth
Amendment." Here he cited Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n,
489 U.S. 602 (1989).  Judge Pryor added that, even under the
broader test, a search is "any governmental act that violates a
reasonable expectation of privacy," obviously the "compelled
intrusion into the body . . . infringes an expectation of privacy
that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable."

"Although the transvaginal ultrasounds were purportedly voluntary,
in practice, the employees required students to perform them on
each other," Judge Pryor wrote.  "At the orientation for new
students, a second-year student explained that the employees
believed female students should undergo the procedure to become
better technicians.  If students refused, the employees would
browbeat them and threaten their academic standing as well as
their future careers."

Two of the plaintiffs submitted to the ultrasounds.  The third
refused.  She alleged the defendants excluded her from the class,
gave her failing grades and "yelled" at her for an hour "until she
had a panic attack."

The women are asking for damages including the cost of the
program, which is highly selective and competitive, admitting only
12 students a year, Pryor wrote.

The plaintiffs' lawyer is Justin Matthew Eisele of Gagnon Eisele
Dillingham in Winter Park, Florida.  The defendants are
represented by Richard Mitchell and Sara Huff of GrayRobinson in
Orlando.  The attorneys couldn't be reached.


WELLS FARGO: Wins Dismissal of Eggers, Williams & Miller Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
In three lawsuits filed against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the Hon.
Judge Charles R. Wolle entered and order:

   1. granting Defendant's summary judgment against the many
      plaintiffs in the Williams and Eggers cases, and dismissing
      without costs assessed those plaintiffs and lawsuits; and

   2. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss in Miller case
      without cost assessed.

The 3 lawsuits are captioned as:

   CHARLENE EGGERS, Executor of the Estate of Richard Eggers, the
   Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.4-14-
   cv-394-CRW-SBJ (S.D. Iowa);

   CARA WILLIAMS, JOHNIT A SLAUGHTER, MANDRE MILLER, JAMES
   COLLIER, TERESA JONES, CHANCE KENYON, ANTHONY WILLIAMS, DEW
   ANN JONES, LEROY FIELDS-CAMPBELL, and BARBARA HANSEN,
   individually and on behalf of a putative class of similarly
   situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK,
   N.A., the Defendant, Case No.4-1S-cv-038-CRW-SBJ (S.D. Iowa);
   and

   MANDRE MILLER, JOHNIT A SLAUGHTER, JAMES COLLIER, TERESA
   JONES, CHANCE KENYON, ANTHONY WILLIAMS, CARA WILLIAMS, and
   DWANN JONES, individually and on behalf of a putative class of
   similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO
   BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 4-1S-cv-181-CRW-SBJ (S.D.
   Iowa.

The plaintiffs in these three captioned lawsuits all seek damages
and other relief from defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The
plaintiffs are terminated former WF employees or not-hired
applicants who have alleged that WF unlawfully discriminated
against them by uniformly applying FDIC section 19 because they
had committed the specified crimes of dishonesty, breach of trust,
or money laundering.

Copies of the Orders are available at no charge at

   for Case No. 4:14-cv-00394-CRW-SBJ (S.D. Iowa):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RGy6BudO

   for Case No. 4:15-cv-00038-CRW-SBJ (S.D. Iowa):
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3G9wRUdm


ZIONS FIRST: Reyes Seeks Class Cert. and Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK,
NETDEPOSIT, LLC, MP TECHNOLOGIES d/b/a MODERN PAYMENTS, TELEDRAFT,
INC., NATIONAL PENN BANK, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., and
WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., the Defendants, Case No 2:10-cv-00345-TR
(E.D. Penn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for class certification
and final approval of the proposed settlement

The grounds for the motion are set forth in the Memorandum of Law
In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and are further
supported by the Declarations of Howard Langer, Stephen Saltzburg,
and Ronald Bertino, the papers submitted as part of Plaintiffs'
petition for an award of fees and expenses, and all papers and
records on file in this matter.

The Court provisionally certified the Plaintiff Reynaldo Reyes, on
behalf of himself and the Class on July 8, 2016.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iUyKvA2a

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard Langer, Esq.
          Howard Langer, Esq.
          John Grogan, Esq.
          Edward Diver, Esq.
          Irv Ackelsberg, Esq.
          Peter Leckman, Esq.
          LANGER, GROGAN & DIVER, P.C.
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320 5660
          Facsimile: (215) 320 5703


* Judge Seeks Investigation Into Unredacted CFPB Case Court Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
C. Ryan Barber, writing for Law.com, reports that a judge wants
federal regulators and the law firm Venable to conduct internal
investigations into how secret details from a court document
became available on a legal research website, revealing the
identity of a company that fought for months to remain anonymous
in a suit against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

But the court itself might ultimately need to own up to the error.

On Oct. 1, a Venable lawyer alerted U.S. District Judge Randolph
Moss that an unredacted version of a court order was available on
CourtListener.com, a database of federal and state court opinions
that was created in 2010 by the nonprofit Free Law Project.  The
version of the ruling at CourtListener named a plaintiff--Prime
Marketing Holdings LLC, a California-based credit repair company.

Judge Moss said he was "somewhat mystified" by the disclosure of
the unredacted ruling and asked lawyers in the case to report back
to him by Nov. 1.  He acknowledged that a court error might have
made the confidential portion of the October 2015 document
publicly available.

Indeed, it's possible the court is to blame.

Michael Lissner, executive director of Free Law Project, said on
Oct. 3 that CourtListener copied a version of Judge Moss' ruling
from the website of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.  The court, like many districts, posts opinions free of
charge.

Mr. Lissner said the D.C. court "briefly posted" a version of
Moss's ruling that -- despite Prime Marketing's name being
redacted -- revealed the name of the plaintiff.  The company name
was still available under black boxes, allowing the site's
automated system to copy the text.

"In other words, if you did 'select all' and then 'copy,' you
could get everything on the page, including the text that was
supposed to be redacted," Mr. Lissner said in an email to ALM
affiliate The National Law Journal.

The website later detected that a new version of the opinion was
posted.  In the new version, Prime Marketing's name was covered by
a black box and could not be copied.  CourtListener removed the
unredacted version, leaving in place the redacted one.

"Courts do occasionally place sealed documents on their websites,
and when they do, we sometimes get them," Mr. Lissner said. "We've
collected nearly a million documents since we started this
project, and so occasionally things like this can happen."

Prime Marketing, along with four other firms, sued the CFPB amid
an agency investigation.  The dispute -- rooted in a lawyer's
testimony -- was ultimately resolved. Moss was then faced with how
much information he should reveal to the public about the CFPB
investigation.

The companies, arguing their reputation would be damaged, fought
to keep their names secret; the agency pushed to reveal the names.
Judge Moss agreed to shield the names, ruling that the stigma of
being the target of a government investigation -- in the absence
of any charges -- would cause them "substantial harm."

Any lingering concern about secrecy became moot about a week ago.

On Sept. 23, the CFPB sued Prime Marketing in a Los Angeles
federal court, alleging the company charged its customers a series
of illegal advance fees and also misrepresented the cost and
effectiveness of its credit repair services.  The case is pending
before U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell.

Judge Moss convened the lawyers in the D.C. case to his courtroom
on Oct. 1 afternoon to talk about the unredacted document posted
on CourtListener.

Venable partner Allyson Baker -- abaker@Venable.com -- and Richard
Scheff -- rscheff@mmwr.com -- of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker &
Rhoads in Philadelphia, who represent the plaintiffs, were not
immediately reached for comment on Oct. 1.

Ms. Baker and Mr. Scheff were not immediately reached for comment
on Oct. 1.

Mr. Lissner offered cautionary perspective: Attorneys and courts
should be careful posting records with information that is
supposed to be concealed.

"They should also be aware that simply blacking out text does not
redact it," he said.  "If it can be copy/pasted, it's not yet
redacted.  It looks like the court figured this out, but not until
after the document had been released to the public."



                            *********

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  * * *