/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/161109.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 9, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 224


ADEPTUS HEALTH: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
ADVANCED MICRO: Court Dismiss "Dickey" Suit Over Bulldozer Chip
ALLIANCE HEALTH: TCPA Class Action Can't Proceed, 2nd Cir. Rules
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: "Simon" Suit Alleges Bait-and-Switch Scheme
ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Smoking Class Actions Pending in Canada

ALTRIA GROUP: 9 Lights/Ultra Lights Cases Pending at October 24
ALTRIA GROUP: Court Approved $32 Million Settlement in "Aspinall"
ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiff's Bid for New Trial in "Larsen" Denied
ALTRIA GROUP: $45MM "Miner" Case Settlement Awaits Final Court OK
APPCO: Faces Class Action Over Exploitation of Workers

APPCO: To Conduct External Probe Following Bullying Claims
ASPEN DENTAL: Bageard Alleges Denial of Overtime Premium Pay
BEAUMONT PRODUCTS: Faces False Advertising Class Action
CANADA: Quebec Lawyer Mulls Class Action Over Photo Radar System
CAPITAL ONE: Can't Enforce Arbitration, 11th Circuit Rules

CARMAX AUTO: Faces Calif. Suit Over Labor Laws Violation
CASH BIZ: Hiawatha, et al. File Appeal in Texas Supreme Court
CATHAY PACIFIC: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
CHICAGO: McKenzie-Lopez Sues Over Red Light Ticket Ordinance
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE: Skyscraper Investors File Class Action

CRYPTSY: Owner's Ex-Wife Enters Into $1-Mil. Settlement
DE ALBA BAKERY: "Rodas" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
DORIAN B LASAINE: "Wilson" Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
EF INTERNATIONAL: Approval of "Russell" Case Settlement Upheld
FARMERS GROUP: Faces "Frias" Suit in Cal. Over Breach of Contract

FLAGSHIP FACILITY: "Bradford" Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
FLINT, MI: Judge Allows Water Crisis Class Action to Proceed
GLASS NICKEL: Faces "Rogers-Coxhead" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GO VENTURES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Vernon" Suit Claims
GOODLIFE: Employees' Class Action Seeks $60MM in Compensation

GROVETOWN, GA: Feb. 2017 Hearing Set in Water Bill Class Action
GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION: Hernandez-Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid OT
HOOMAN AUTOMOTIVE: "Soto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settles Fuel Economy Claims with 33 States
ILLINOIS, USA: Court Okays Prelim. Settlement in "Morales" Suit

IOOF: Class Action Can't Proceed, Victorian Supreme Court Rules
JOHN HOPKINS HOSPITAL: Families of Coal Miners File Class Action
JUDICIAL CORRECTION: Thurman's Bid for Transfer Denied as Moot
KOCH MEAT: "Nicks" Complaint Survives Dismissal Bid
LABOR READY: "Jablonski" Suit Seeks Compensation Under FLSA

LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Energy-Saving Features
LUCAS, OH: "Stuart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MCGOVERN & COMPANY: Hi-Tech Metals Sues Over Unpaid Contract Job
MDL 2419: 66 Cases Over Meningitis Outbreak Remanded
MEMPHIS, TN: 6th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in Police Case

MIDEAL FOOD: Faces "Gil" Lawsuit Alleging Violations of FLSA
MOHAWK INC: Sued in Michigan Over Unsolicited Advertisements
NBTY INC: Bid to Dismiss and Certify Class in "Sweat" Suit Denied
NEWS CORP: $244MM Settlement Granted Final Court Approval
NORTH BEACH TAVERN: "Barahona" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime

OREGON: State Supreme Court Hikes Fees Award in Pension Suit
PFIZER INC: Court Tosses Pill Package "Slack Fill" Class Action
PHILIP MORRIS: Wins Favorable Ruling in Massachusetts Case
PNC BANK: Certification of 10 Classes Sought in "Bland" Suit
POTESTIVO & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims

QBE: Ruling to Encourage Funders to Bring "Open Class" Actions
QBE: "Common Fund" Ruling May Spark More Class Actions
RAMELLI GROUP: "Escobar" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
RABOBANK NA: Asks 7th Cir. to Reject Suit Over Ch.7 Fees
SAMARITAS: "Cole" Action Alleges Unpaid Overtime Pay

SIENTRA INC: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $10.9 Million
SILVERSTAR LTD: "Bradley" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
SIMONTON WINDOWS: Faces Class Action Over Substandard Windows
SPEEDPAY INC: Pincus Seeks to Certify Class of Florida Consumers
SSM HEALTH: "Feather" Suit Transferred from S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo.

STEEL DYNAMICS: Settles Class Action for $4.6 Million
SUNEDISON INC: "Dull" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742
T&D SOLUTIONS: "Casselberry" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
TERRIBLE HERBST: Nevada Rules Reinforce Minimum Wage Amendment
TILE SHOP: Beaver County Retirement Fund Suit Underway

TIMEWARNER INC: "Chan" Files Antitrust Suit in Calif. Ct.
TITAN MOTOR: "Lopez" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Commissions
TLC Cleaners: "Chang" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Nov. 10 Hearing on Motions to Exclude Evidence
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Parties Still Disagree on Trial Process

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Burgos" Sues Over Unpaid Gratuities and Wages
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Wage Theft Class Action in New York
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Judge Okays $14.7BB Emissions Settlement
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bid to Certify Classes in "Smith" Suit Denied
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Abarca's Bid to Certify Classes

WEST VIRGINIA: Jury Selection in Chemical Spill Case Moved
WOW AIR: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action in California
WYNYARD: More Than 1,000 Shareholders Join Class Action
YALE ASSOCIATES: Must Defend Against "Noye" FCRA Suit

* Few Consumers Claim Share of Class Action Settlement
* Manhattan Inst. Balks at NLRB's Stance on Class Action Waivers
* New Wave of Class Actions Target 401(k) Sponsors
* Sen. Franken Praises FCC Stance on Arbitration Clauses
* Trump Faces 75 Pending Suits Amid Presidential Campaign

* Western District of New York Court Tackles Class-Action Claims


ADEPTUS HEALTH: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct. 27 announced that a class
action has been commenced by an institutional investor on behalf
of purchasers of Adeptus Health Inc. ("Adeptus Health" or the
"Company") Class A common shares (hereinafter the "common shares"
or "common stock") pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
secondary public offering (the "SPO") on or about July 31, 2015,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act"), as well as purchasers of the Company's common
shares between April 23, 2015 and November 16, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").  This action
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas and is captioned Oklahoma Law Enforcement
Retirement System v. Adeptus Health Inc., et al., No. 6:16-cv-
01243 (E.D. Tex.).

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from October 27, 2016.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or Mario Alba Jr. of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a
member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as
filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/adeptus/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Adeptus Health, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of its SPO with violations of the
Securities Act and/or the Exchange Act.  Adeptus Health owns and
operates a network of independent freestanding emergency rooms in
the United States.

The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and failed to
disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company's business
and prospects, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them, including that: (a) Adeptus Health had been
engaging in widespread predatory billing practices, particularly
with respect to lower acuity level patients; (b) Adeptus Health's
predatory billing practices subjected the Company to numerous
known, but undisclosed, risks, including monetary risks,
reputational risks, risks associated with improper financial
reporting, civil or criminal sanctions, and even exclusion from
federal and state healthcare programs; (c) the Company's financial
statements had not been prepared in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles; (d) contrary to defendants'
representations about the Company's practice of referring lower
acuity patients to urgent care facilities, Adeptus Health
routinely treated lower acuity patients and excessively billed
them for the services it rendered; and (e) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about Adeptus Health's then-current business and future
financial prospects.

On November 17, 2015, KUSA, an NBC-affiliated television station
located in Denver, Colorado, aired a 9WANTS To Know investigative
report about the billing practices at Adeptus Health's Colorado
First Choice emergency rooms ("ERs").  According to the report,
which had been based on "months" of investigation, the Company's
First Choice ERs engaged in a pattern and practice of predatory
overbilling.  In response to the airing of the KUSA investigative
report, the price of Adeptus Health common stock plummeted more
than 22% on very heavy trading volume, falling from $59.87 per
share on November 16, 2015 to $46.50 per share on November 17,

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Adeptus Health common stock during the Class Period and/or
traceable to the SPO (the "Class").  The plaintiff is represented
by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting
investor class actions including actions involving financial

Robbins Geller is widely recognized as one of the leading law
firms advising U.S. and international institutional investors in
securities litigation and portfolio monitoring.  With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first
in both the total amount and number of shareholder class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report for the last two years.
Robbins Geller attorneys have shaped the law in the areas of
securities litigation and shareholder rights and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of the Firm's clients.
Robbins Geller not only secures recoveries for defrauded
investors, it also strives to implement corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide.  Please visit rgrdlaw.com/cases/adeptus/ for more

ADVANCED MICRO: Court Dismiss "Dickey" Suit Over Bulldozer Chip
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San Jose,
California, on October 31, dismissed with 14 days leave to amend,
a class action accusing Advanced Micro Devices of overstating the
number of "cores" in its 8-core Bulldozer chip; cores affect the
speed of microprocessors.

The case is captioned, TONY DICKEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., Defendant., Case No. 15-cv-04922-RMW

This case involves the components of certain AMD central
processing units ("CPUs") for personal computers.  AMD, a Delaware
corporation based in Sunnyvale, California, manufactures CPUs.
Plaintiff's allegations involve the number of "cores" in AMD's
"Bulldozer" line of CPUs.  Plaintiff alleges that "a core is an
independent processing unit, which, like early CPUs, performs one
calculation at a time."  CPU manufacturers sometimes place more
than one core on one physical chip to improve performance.  As
plaintiff describes the technology, each core in a multicore CPU
is able to operate (e.g., perform calculations and execute
instructions) independently from other cores.  According to
plaintiff, an eight-core CPU should be able to perform eight
calculations simultaneously and independently.

Plaintiff is a resident of Alabama.  Plaintiff alleges that he
visited AMD's website at AMD.com on March 10, 2015.  Plaintiff
allegedly saw materials on AMD's website indicating that AMD's FX-
9590 Bulldozer chip was "the first native 8-core desktop
processor" and "had '8-cores.'"  Plaintiff alleges that he then
navigated to www.NewEgg.com, the website of an online retailer,
and purchased two FX-9590 Bulldozer processors from Newegg.com for
$299.99.  Plaintiff alleges that the Newegg.com website also
contained representations created by AMD indicating that the FX-
9590 Bulldozer was the "first native 8-core desktop processor" and
"the industry's first and only native 8-core desktop processor for
unmatched multitasking and pure core performance with 'Bulldozer'
architecture."  Plaintiff further alleges that the packaging
materials for the FX-9590 processors he received indicated that
the CPU was an "8-core" processor.

Plaintiff alleges that AMD's representations regarding the number
of cores on each Bulldozer chip were false.  In fact, according to
the complaint, the Bulldozer chips functionally have only four
cores -- not eight, as advertised -- because "AMD built the
Bulldozer processors by stripping away components from two cores
and combining what was left to make a single 'module.'"  As a
result, plaintiff alleges, the cores no longer work independently.
For example, plaintiff alleges, two of AMD's Bulldozer "module
processing units" share a single floating point unit, or FPU.
According to plaintiff "[i]f one module processing unit performs a
floating point calculation, the other must wait until that
resource is free for its own floating point calculation, creating
a bottleneck."  Plaintiff alleges that the L2 cache2 and other
components are also shared between AMD module processing units.
Plaintiff alleges that when he used the FX-9590 processors that he
purchased, the CPUs "did not perform as well as a CPU with the
same clock speed but with eight true cores."

Tony Dickey is represented by Alexander Nguyen, Esq. --
anguyen@edelson.com -- Benjamin Scott Thomassen, Esq. --
bthomassen@edelson.com -- Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- and Todd M. Logan, Esq. --
tlogan@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC

AMD is represented by Matthew David Powers, Esq. --
mpowers@omm.com -- and Edmundo Clay Marquez, Esq. --
emarquez@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP

ALLIANCE HEALTH: TCPA Class Action Can't Proceed, 2nd Cir. Rules
Joseph C. Wylie II, Esq., Molly K. McGinley, Esq. and Nicole C.
Mueller, Esq. of K & L Gates, in an article for The National Law
Review, report that the Second Circuit recently refused to allow a
plaintiff to proceed with a putative class action brought under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") in Bank v. Alliance
Health Networks, LLC, finding that he lacked standing after the
District Court entered judgment for Defendant in the amount of an
unaccepted offer of judgment on Plaintiff's individual claims.

Plaintiff Todd C. Bank, an attorney proceeding pro se, brought
individual and class-action claims against Alliance Health
Networks, LLC and Medsource Rx Pharmacy, LLC, alleging that those
entities made calls to him and others featuring an artificial or
prerecorded voice advertising diabetic testing equipment in
violation of the TCPA and New York state law.  The companies
served Bank with an offer of judgment in February 2015 and then
moved to dismiss.  The trial court dismissed his claim, finding
that an offer for more than complete relief mooted Banks' claims.

On appeal, the Second Circuit held that Bank lacked standing to
pursue the class claims following the satisfaction of the judgment
on his individual claims.  Referencing Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, in
which the Supreme Court held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of
judgment will not moot a plaintiff's claims, the Second Circuit
determined that "where judgment has been entered and where the
plaintiff's claims have been satisfied, as they were here when
Bank negotiated the check, any individual claims are rendered
moot."  It followed that because Bank lacked any connection to a
live claim, did not have "any cognizable interest in pursuing the
class claims," and there being no other plaintiff in a position to
pursue the class claims, the District Court had appropriately
dismissed the class claims.

Bank argued that his personal stake in the class controversy
hinged on the incentive reward that representatives of class
actions typically receive. The Second Circuit disagreed, finding
that such rewards are not guaranteed and are not sufficiently
concrete to meet the standing requirements under the law.  Bank
filed a motion for rehearing en banc.

Courts continue to grapple with how to implement the Supreme
Court's ruling in Campbell-Ewald, and it may be some time before a
consensus emerges as to whether, and when, defendants can moot
class actions through tender of complete relief.

ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: "Simon" Suit Alleges Bait-and-Switch Scheme
Jon Chown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a class action in Santa Monica, California accuses Anthem Blue
Cross of planning a bait-and-switch scheme to begin on Jan. 1, by
terminating its Preferred Provider Organization health plans and
switching to Exclusive Provider Organization, limiting choice and
violating the federal health care law.

Los Angeles resident Paul Simon, 42, sued Blue Cross of California
dba Anthem Blue Cross on October 31, in Superior Court, for breach
of contract, breach of faith and business-code violations.

Exclusive Provider Organization plans, or EPOs, unlike PPOs,
provide no out-of-network coverage, limiting the choice of
physicians and care.

Simon has a medical condition that requires him to use several
out-of-network providers to which he would lose access, as well as
one in-network doctor that he sees, his attorney Laura Antonini
said in an interview.

"This really affects his personal coverage," said Antonini, who is
with Consumer Watchdog in Santa Monica.

Antonini said the bait-and-switch mentioned in the lawsuit is the
method Anthem uses to renew its coverage.

"In an effort to retain its market share, Anthem is failing to
adequately inform its members that they are losing out-of-network
benefits for 2017," she said.

According to the complaint, Anthem lost a lot of customers the
last time it canceled its plans and replaced them with less
comprehensive coverage. So this time, in September, it sent out a
misleading renewal packet that said that, though the plans will
"change" on Jan. 1, customers will be automatically re-enrolled in
similar coverage.

Premiums will increase by 33 percent.

"This change leaves customers potentially facing thousands of
dollars or more in medical bills that would have been covered
under their existing plan," the complaint states. "Anthem knows
that if consumers were informed that coverage is being withdrawn
from the market and replaced with entirely different coverage as
the law requires, consumers would take a closer look at their
options, including health plans offered by other companies."

Anthem's renewal packet did not fulfill numerous federal and state
legal requirements, the complaint states.

For example, if Anthem wants to make a change in the type of plan
it offers, it must "discontinue the coverage and issue a new
product." This requires one form notifying customers of the
discontinuation and a different form of notice when a plan is
renewed. Since this was not done correctly, and federal and state
laws require 90-day notice, Anthem must renew the original plans,
according to the complaint.

Open enrollment for health coverage began Nov. 1 and consumers who
renew their Anthem coverage by that date will be locked in for
another year, the lawsuit states.

Simon seeks class certification and an order enjoining Anthem to
renew the PPO plans through 2017, plus punitive damages and costs
of suit.

"We believe that Anthem is trying to take advantage of consumers
during the open enrollment period," said Travis Corby, another of
Simon's attorneys. "They are selling 2017 Affordable Care Act
health plans as being the same as their 2016 products. ...
Existing customers are being completely misled."

Anthem Blue Cross spokesman Darrel Ng said the company is
committed to providing access to high-quality, affordable health
care and is making the changes so it can keep monthly premiums

"The benefit package being offered in 2017 was approved by the
Department of Managed Health Care and Covered California, and is
consistent with federal guidance," Ng said. "Affected members have
been mailed written notice of this change so they can make an
informed decision on their health care needs during the open
enrollment period for the coming year. We believe plaintiff's case
is without merit."

Attorney Corby -- tcorby@shernoff.com -- is with Shernoff Bidart
Echeverria in Claremont.

ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Smoking Class Actions Pending in Canada
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that as of October 24,
2016, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and Altria Group, Inc. are
named as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in
seven class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits
in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases
purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state
or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope)
and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical
injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 60
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1),
California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2),
Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1),
Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York
(2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto
Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

As of October 24, 2016, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as
defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven
class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.
In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and
Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases,
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the
actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs
seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked
defendants' cigarettes.

ALTRIA GROUP: 9 Lights/Ultra Lights Cases Pending at October 24
Altria Group, Inc. provided updates on various Lights/Ultra Lights
cases in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2016.  As of October 24, 2016, a total of 9
such cases are pending in various U.S. state courts.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory
fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been
brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group,
Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased
and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro
Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and
Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in
these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation,
injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability
under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies
with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment.

                          The Good Case

In Good, a purported "Lights" class action, the United States
Supreme Court ruled in December 2008 that plaintiffs' claims are
not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising
Act ("FCLAA"). The case was returned to federal court in Maine and
consolidated with other federal cases in the multidistrict
litigation proceeding discussed below. In June 2011, the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice.

                 Federal Multidistrict Proceeding
                   and Subsequent Developments

Since the December 2008 United States Supreme Court decision in
Good, and through October 24, 2016, 26 purported "Lights" class
actions were served upon PM USA and, in certain cases, Altria
Group, Inc. These cases were filed in 15 states, the U.S. Virgin
Islands and the District of Columbia. All of these cases either
were filed in federal court or were removed to federal court by PM
USA and were transferred and consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPMDL") before the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maine for pretrial proceedings ("MDL

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases, covering
the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia,
Illinois and Maine. These jurisdictions were selected by the
parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two
selected by defendants. Plaintiffs sought appellate review of this
decision but, in February 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal.
Later that year, plaintiffs in 13 cases voluntarily dismissed
their cases without prejudice. In April 2012, the JPMDL remanded
the remaining four cases back to the federal district courts in
which the suits originated. These cases were ultimately resolved
in a manner favorable to PM USA.

                    "Lights" Cases Dismissed,
              Not Certified or Ordered De-Certified

As of October 24, 2016, in addition to the federal district court
in the MDL proceeding, 20 courts in 21 "Lights" cases have refused
to certify class actions, dismissed class action allegations,
reversed prior class certification decisions or have entered
judgment in favor of PM USA.

Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have
refused to grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs'
class action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case
in Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs
asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection
Act. Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either
affirmed rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or
reversed rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs.

In Florida, an intermediate appellate court overturned an order by
a trial court that granted class certification in Hines. The
Florida Supreme Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme
Court of Illinois overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a
certified class in the Price case. See The Price Case below for
further discussion. In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit dismissed a purported "Lights" class action
(Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted
by the FCLAA. In New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit overturned a trial court decision in Schwab that
granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class
of all U.S. residents that purchased cigarettes in the United
States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights." In July 2010,
plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with
prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class
certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed both cases without prejudice in August 2009,
but refiled in federal court as the Phillips case discussed above.
The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory
review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought
review of an order by the trial court that refused to certify a
class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies
case with prejudice. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois federal district court's
dismissal of "Lights" claims brought against PM USA in the Cleary
case. In Curtis, a certified class action, in May 2012, the
Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of
summary judgment in favor of PM USA, concluding this litigation.

In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and
subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October
2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to
dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation.

ALTRIA GROUP: Court Approved $32 Million Settlement in "Aspinall"
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court has
approved the settlement of the Aspinall class action lawsuit in
which PM USA agreed to pay approximately $15.3 million to the
class and $16.5 million in attorneys' fees and costs.

In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court
denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and granted
plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the defenses of
federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts'
consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial
court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment
to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings
pending completion of the appellate review.

In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the
plaintiffs' cross-motion.

In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as
to liability claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the
case brought by the Department of Justice.

In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion. In
February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties,
dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against Altria
Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case.

In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Business
Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in
September 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case, which the
Massachusetts Superior Court denied in February 2014, concluding
that plaintiffs cannot obtain disgorgement of profits as an
equitable remedy and that their recovery is limited to actual
damages or $25 per class member if they cannot prove actual
damages greater than $25.

Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to report its
February 2014 ruling to the Massachusetts Appeals Court for
review, which the trial court denied. In March 2014, plaintiffs
petitioned the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review of the
ruling, which the appellate court denied.

In August 2015, the trial court denied various pre-trial motions
filed by PM USA, including a motion for summary judgment on the
ground that plaintiffs have no proof of injury. Trial began in
October 2015 and concluded in November 2015. In December 2015, PM
USA filed a motion to decertify the class.

In February 2016, the trial court issued its "Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law," finding that (1) PM USA violated
Massachusetts consumer protection laws in marketing Marlboro
"Lights" and (2) plaintiffs proved that class members were
economically injured, but did not prove a specific measure of
damages. As a result, the court awarded statutory damages of $25
per class member, for a total of $4.9 million, plus interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

In April 2016, the parties agreed to settle all claims for
approximately $32 million. The agreement is subject to approval by
the court.

In the first quarter of 2016, PM USA recorded a provision on its
condensed consolidated balance sheet of approximately $32 million
for the judgment plus interest and associated costs. In May 2016,
PM USA paid approximately $32 million to plaintiffs' escrow agent.

In September 2016, the court approved the settlement in which PM
USA agreed to pay approximately $15.3 million to the class and
$16.5 million in attorneys' fees and costs, and dismissed the case
with prejudice.

ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiff's Bid for New Trial in "Larsen" Denied
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the trial court in
the Larsen class action lawsuit has denied plaintiffs' motion for
a new trial, and plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and PM USA

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class
certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which
potential class members can qualify to become part of the class.
The class period remains 1995-2003.

In June 2010, PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment
regarding plaintiffs' request for punitive damages was denied. In
April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an
element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel
from the findings in the case brought by the Department of
Justice. The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010.

In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions
challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling
that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on
allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro
Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment

Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October 2011,
the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a
verdict. In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior
ruling granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more
dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim.

In October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and
for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous"
claim, which the court denied in June 2015.

Upon retrial, in April 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor
of PM USA. In May 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial,
which PM USA opposed in June 2016.

In August 2016, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for a
new trial, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and PM USA cross-

ALTRIA GROUP: $45MM "Miner" Case Settlement Awaits Final Court OK
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the $45 million
settlement of the Miner class action lawsuit remains subject to
final approval by the court.

In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower
court rulings in Miner (formerly known as Watson) that denied
plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed
to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendants'
contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the
"federal officer" statute. Following remand, the case was removed
again to federal court in Arkansas and transferred to the MDL

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding
remanded the case to Arkansas state court. In December 2011,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Altria
Group, Inc. without prejudice. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a
class certification motion.

In November 2013, the trial court granted class certification. The
certified class includes those individuals who, from November 1,
1971 through June 22, 2010, purchased Marlboro Lights and Marlboro
Ultra Lights for personal consumption in Arkansas.

PM USA filed a notice of appeal of the class certification ruling
to the Arkansas Supreme Court in December 2013. In February 2015,
the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's class
certification order.

In May 2015, PM USA filed a motion for partial summary judgment
seeking to foreclose any recovery for cigarette purchases prior to
1999, when a private right of action was added to the consumer
protection statute under which plaintiffs are suing. The trial
court denied the motion in July 2015. In June 2016, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment to
limit any damages claimed by the plaintiffs' class to purchases
made prior to May 2003.

In July 2016, the parties agreed to settle all claims for $45
million. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the trial
court in August 2016 and is subject to final approval by the

In the third quarter of 2016, PM USA recorded a provision on its
condensed consolidated balance sheet of $45 million.

APPCO: Faces Class Action Over Exploitation of Workers
Nick Toscano, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
some of Australia's best-known charities are urgently demanding
explanations and are considering cutting ties with fundraising
giant Appco, as young donation-collectors claim they were
exploited, underpaid and bullied.

A large class action lawsuit looms in the Federal Court against
marketing company Appco to attempt to recover up to $80 million
for up to 8000 former workers who rattled collection tins and sold
merchandise in public places on behalf of major charities.
They are alleging they were illegally classified by Appco as
contractors instead of as employees, and some claim their overall
wages were as little as $2.50 an hour.

It is also alleged that employees were subjected to bullying when
they raised questions about their workplace rights.

Many of the nation's biggest charities use Appco as a third-party
fundraiser, but several organizations are now reviewing their
contracts in light of the allegations.

CanTeen, a charity supporting young Australians with cancer, held
a meeting with Appco's Australian chief executive "as a matter of
urgency" on Oct. 24, the first business day after the claims were

"We are very concerned by the allegations raised and are taking
them extremely seriously," a spokeswoman said.

CanTeen said Appco had assured its representatives that it was
investigating the specific allegations and reviewing its
practices. CanTeen has requested daily updates from Appco, and is
reviewing its relationship with the company.

"As with any supplier, we regularly review our relationship with
Appco and will be doing so again as we gain a more thorough
understanding of the situation in the coming days and weeks," the
spokeswoman said.

Fairfax Media has confirmed that other Australian charities have
begun reviewing their contractual arrangements in light of the
troubling claims.  A number of charities have sought urgent
explanations and clarifications from Appco.

"The alleged employment practices are unacceptable," a spokeswoman
for youth homelessness charity Ladder said.

"We have raised the issue with the agency that manages the third-
party relationship with Appco."

Children's charity The Alannah & Madeline Foundation said it
expected that its partners "abide by the law in all respects".

"The Foundation expects all employees and independent contractors
to be paid properly, especially young people," a spokesman said.

Appco said it was yet to be officially advised of the class
action, but rejected allegations of "sham contracting".

Central to the legal action is the argument that fundraising
workers -- sometimes referred to as "charity muggers" or
"chuggers" -- were in fact employees of Appco, not independent
contractors, and should have been paid accordingly.

"Appco is committed to operating a responsible independent
contractor model and strongly disputes the claims around
employment made in the media," Appco said.

The case also includes claims of ritualistic humiliation of young
Appco fundraising workers.  Former staff claim that
"underperformers" were made to dress up like chickens and fight
each other.  Others said they had to slither on the floor in a
"sluggie race" in front of their colleagues.

"The bullying allegations raised in the media have not been
reported to Appco, but it absolutely does not condone the
activities described," the company's statement said.

Other major Appco clients -- the Starlight Children's Foundation
and Camp Quality -- declined to comment to Fairfax Media.

APPCO: To Conduct External Probe Following Bullying Claims
Nick Toscano, writing for The Age, reports that the owner of a
marketing firm at the centre of an alleged bullying scandal has
stood down from his job, as fundraising giant Appco launches an
urgent investigation into the treatment of donation-collectors.

Appco has ordered all of its 64 other marketing agencies to turn
over any details of "suspected or known" bullying and harassment,
and provide written assurances that they are not tolerating such

Appco chief executive Martin Gaffney said agencies that could not
give this assurance would risk losing their business with Appco.

"We will not tolerate, condone or turn a blind eye to the type of
behavior alleged," he said.

The move comes amid the fallout from explosive allegations that
workers sent to rattle collection tins in public places were
wrongly classed and paid as contractors instead of employees.  It
is also alleged workers were subjected to bullying and humiliation
rituals if they "underperformed".

Legal firm Chamberlains is leading a class action against Appco,
aiming to recoup lost wages and damages for up to 8000 former
fundraising workers, although Appco is yet to be served with the

Many of the nation's biggest charities use Appco as a third-party
fundraiser, but several well-known organizations are now reviewing
their contracts in light of the allegations.

Mr. Gaffney said Appco had engaged a top-tier law firm, Baker and
McKenzie, to carry out an investigation into the bullying and
harassment claims.

Former staff claim they were made to dress up like chickens and
fight each other, while others said they had to slither on the
floor in a "sluggie race" in front of their colleagues.

The Canberra-based marketing agency where the alleged practices
took place has voluntarily agreed to step aside while the inquiry
takes place.

Mr. Gaffney said he did not believe improper practices were
"widespread or systemic".

But the law firm launching the class action, Chamberlains, says
its evidence suggests "there has been systemic abuse of team
members throughout Australia and not isolated to one marketing

It says the central issue remains that there has been "sham
contracting" -- wrongly engaging and paying workers as contractors
when they are in fact employees -- and other measures taken to
underpay team members.

Baker and McKenzie has also been engaged by Appco to investigate
allegations of sham contracting.

"We have nothing to hide," Mr. Gaffney said.  "There is no way we
will tolerate bullying or harassment or any behavior that breaches
employment law."

Appco on Oct. 28 launched its strongest defense yet of its
independent contracting model, which it said was regularly
scrutinized through independent legal reviews.

Mr. Gaffney said there had never been an adverse finding against
the company by the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Fair Work Commission
or other regulators, and had not previously heard of allegations
contained in the looming lawsuit.

"Our business is built on an entrepreneurial philosophy which
allows individuals to build their own businesses," Mr. Gaffney

Appco claims to reach 50,000 people face-to-face every day and to
have raised $800 million in Australia for key charities and
sporting bodies.

Appco's current and former clients include some of Australia's
most high-profile and respected charities, such as Starlight
Children's Foundation, Camp Quality and the National Breast Cancer

ASPEN DENTAL: Bageard Alleges Denial of Overtime Premium Pay
Lori Bageard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aspen Dental Management, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 5:16-cv-06268 (M.D. Fla., November 1, 2016), seeks unpaid
wages, overtime premium pay, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of this action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an office manager from
January 2013 until about March 2015, at the Aspen Dental office
located in Lakeland, Florida.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Greg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Susan H. Stern, Esq.
      1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Tel: (561) 447-8888
      Fax: (561) 447-8831
      Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

BEAUMONT PRODUCTS: Faces False Advertising Class Action
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
New York consumer is suing a Georgia body products business,
alleging negligent misrepresentation.

Silvio Ciancio of Dutchess County filed a class action lawsuit,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Oct. 18 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Beaumont Products Incorporated, doing business as
Clearly Natural Essentials, alleging the defendant made false
claims regarding its products in order to misled customers.

According to the complaint, Mr. Ciancio suffered monetary damages
from being misled into purchasing a falsely advertised product.
The plaintiff alleges Clearly Natural Essentials advertises its
products as "natural" despite them having synthetic and artificial

Mr. Ciancio seeks trial by jury, injunctive relief, monetary
damages, treble damages, punitive damages, all legal fees and all
other relief the court deems just.  He is represented by attorneys
Jason P. Sultzer, Joseph Lipari and Adam Gonnelli of The Sultzer
Law Group PC in Poughkeepsie, New York.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case
number 7:16-cv-08124-KMK

CANADA: Quebec Lawyer Mulls Class Action Over Photo Radar System
CTV Montreal reports that a Quebec City lawyer is hoping to prove
that photo radar is unconstitutional.

Jean-Roch Parent plans to file a class-action lawsuit because, he
argues, using photo radar to detect speeding removes the
presumption of innocence from the owner of the vehicle.
Mr. Parent's argument is that the photo radar ticketing system
assumes the car's owner is at fault for the infraction and not the
person driving.

"The owner of a car has to prove that he was not driving the car
at the time of the offence," he said.  "This statute is against
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms . . . (which) says clearly that
in Canada, in criminal matters, the Crown has to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that you have committed the offence. It's not you
who has to prove you are not guilty."

Anyone who is interested in joining the lawsuit may do so by
visiting his website.

Mr. Parent said since 2009, almost 690,000 photo radar tickets
have been issued from Quebec's 151 units.  They have generated
more than $92 million in revenue for the Quebec government.
Bernard Levy-Soussan of Ticket 911, a law firm representing people
charged with traffic violations and criminal charges related to
driving, is unsure how Parent's battle will play out.
"He has merits to his case.  To what extent he will be successful
is a different story," said Mr. Levy-Soussan, adding that the
government would probably take the case all the way to the Supreme
Court of Canada if possible, because of the renevue the tickets
generate for the government.

He said most people tend to weigh the outcomes and decide not to

"At the end of the day, people don't want to pay legal fees and
don't want to lose half a day or a day of work to go to court.
They'd rather pay the ticket and just get it over with.  That's
the reality of it," he said.

Mr. Parent is not the first to take up the constitutional
challenge against photo radar.

British Columbia businessman Doug Stead battled for five years in
a futile battle over a 1996 photo radar speeding ticket.
Stead claimed he spent $120,000 to fight the $117 ticket.

CAPITAL ONE: Can't Enforce Arbitration, 11th Circuit Rules
Mark A. Olthoff, Esq. -- molthoff@polsinelli.com -- of Polsinelli
PC, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that a
recent decision from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida is a reminder that if a litigant
intends to enforce its contractual arbitration provision, the
issue must be raised at an early opportunity.  Otherwise, the risk
remains that the provision will not be enforced and the right to
compel arbitration may be lost.

In the case, In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, 09-MD-
02036-JLK, the court held that the defendant bank could not force
unnamed class members' claims into arbitration.  The court
concluded that the bank had litigated the matters for several
years, resulting in the expenditure of substantial court resources
and the parties' time and money.  Thus, ordering the classes to
arbitrate would be prejudicial.

The lawsuits were filed in 2008 and 2009.  At the time, the bank
argued for multidistrict litigation and that it would promote
judicial efficiency and prevent the possibility of conflicting
rulings.  Later, the court entered an order directing the
defendants to file motions to compel arbitration or to dismiss.
The bank, however, did not invoke arbitration or notify the court
or parties it intended to move to compel arbitration later.
Instead, it joined an omnibus motion to dismiss, which the court
largely denied.  Thereafter, the court provided the parties a
second opportunity to demand arbitration.  In response, the
defendant specifically informed the court it would not pursue
arbitration of the matters.  When it then filed its answer and
affirmative defenses, the bank did not assert arbitration as an
affirmative avoidance of the litigation.

Following the pleadings phase, the bank engaged in substantial
discovery, including the nature and scope of the class action and
the merits of the claims.  Nearly a year later, the bank moved to
compel arbitration of the named plaintiffs' claims for the first
time.  Again, this was well after the deadline set by the court to
file any arbitration motion and after the parties had engaged in
significant discovery extending substantial time and money. The
court rejected the bank's argument and denied the motion to compel
arbitration, finding that any right to compel arbitration had been
waived and the motion was untimely.  After an unsuccessful appeal,
the bank again invoked the court's litigation machinery for
several more months.  While simultaneously opposing the named
plaintiffs' class certification motion, the bank filed a
"conditional motion" to compel arbitration as to unnamed class
members pending a determination of the class certification motion.
That conditional motion was denied and the case was certified.
Once the court granted certification, the bank filed another
motion to compel arbitration for the claims of the unnamed class

Just as it had done before, the court determined that the bank had
waived any rights that it may have had to demand arbitration on
the unnamed class members' claims.  According to the court, the
bank had acted inconsistently with its arbitration rights in
several respects, including engaging in substantial discovery and
motion practice.  This caused the court to expend enormous amounts
of time and resources, and requiring significant expense by all
parties: "The bank's conduct reflects a deliberate strategy on its
part to try to earn through litigation a complete victory
affecting the rights, not only of the few named plaintiffs, but of
the entire class."  The court also noted that the bank twice had
declined previously to pursue arbitration by the clear deadlines
set by the court.

While the unnamed class members did not obtain official "party"
status until the court entered its certification order, the bank
knew the case was a putative class action lawsuit from the
beginning and that the class claims were driving the cases since
the time they were filed.  The bulk of the litigation activity
would not have occurred if only the modest claims of the
plaintiffs were at stake.  The bank's activities were geared
toward defeating both the claims of the named plaintiffs and the
unnamed class members.  The court stated: "Under the
circumstances, it would be unfair, and fundamentally at odds with
the principles underlying the Federal Arbitration Act, to permit
[the bank] to effectively 'wait in the weeds' and invoke
arbitration, years after litigation, now that the alternate path
the bank chose did not turn out as it had hoped."  If successful,
the bank's strategy would render the extensive resources spent a
complete waste, resulting in gross inefficiency and conflicting
with one of the fundamental tenets underlying class action
practice.  The court would not allow the bank to simply reverse
course after failing to achieve in litigation the sweeping victory
it had hoped to achieve.  Its decision and corresponding conduct
over the years contradicted an intent to arbitrate against either
the named plaintiffs or the unnamed members of the class.

The court plainly believed that the bank had rested on its rights.
Whether the bank desired to pursue arbitration with the named
plaintiffs in the cases, it still had an opportunity to preserve
its ability to pursue arbitration with unnamed class members, had
it acted early enough. Having sat on its rights, however, the
court determined that it was simply too late in the action to
raise arbitration with the unnamed class members after so much
time and money had been expended.  The case presents a stark
reminder that arbitration provisions are a contractual right that
must be asserted early (and often) or the value placed on
arbitration may be lost.

CARMAX AUTO: Faces Calif. Suit Over Labor Laws Violation
Courthouse News Service reported that Carmax Auto Superstores
California stiffs workers for overtime and violates other labor
laws, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.

CASH BIZ: Hiawatha, et al. File Appeal in Texas Supreme Court
Norris, Montray, Henry, Hiawatha, Harris, Addie, and Coleman, Jr.,
Roosevelt, and all Similarly Situated Plaintiffs, the
Petitioners, v. Cash Biz, L.P., Cash Zone, LLC d/b/a Cash Biz
Redwood Financials, LLC, the Respondents, and Texas Appleseed,
Amicus Curiae, Case No. 16-0854 (Tex Sup. Ct., Oct. 22, 2016), is
an appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Texas, from a lower
court decision in Case No. 04-15-00469-CV (4th Cir).

The Petitioners are represented by:

          H. Mark Burck, Esq.
          Daniel R. Dutko, Esq.
          Hanszen Laporte LLP
          11767 Katy Freeway, Suite 850
          Houston, TX 77079
          Telephone: (713) 522 9444
          Facsimile: (713) 524 2580

The Respondents are represented by:

          Patrick E. Gaas, Esq.
          Edward S. Hubbard, Esq.
          COATS ROSE
          9 Greenway Plz., Ste. 1100
          Houston, TX 77046-0307

CATHAY PACIFIC: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
Margaret Tumampos, on her behalf and others similarly situated v.
Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., Case No. 4:16-cv-06208-DMR (N.D.
Cal., October 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide meal periods
and rest periods to its California flight attendants.

Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. is an international airline that
employs flight attendants in California and New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon R. McKelvey, Esq.
      Alexander M. Medina, Esq.
      Timothy B. Nelson, Esq.
      983 Reserve Dr.
      Roseville, CA 95678
      Telephone: (916) 960-2211
      Facsimile: (916) 742-5151
      E-mail: brandon@medinamckelvey.com

         - and -

      Alfredo A. Bismonte, Esq.
      Ronald C. Finley, Esq.
      Kimberly P. Zapata, Esq.
      150 Almaden Blvd., 10th Floor
      San Jose, CA 95113
      Telephone: (408) 938-7900
      Facsimile: (408) 938-0790
      E-mail:  rfinley@beckllp.com

CHICAGO: McKenzie-Lopez Sues Over Red Light Ticket Ordinance
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Chicagoans sued the city for passing an ordinance that will
allow it to issue new tickets for red-light and speed violations
that a judge declared void earlier this year.

"Once upon a time, there was a mayor out of luck," the
complaint begins, with a 14-line poem that accuses Mayor Rahm
Emanuel of spending "his city's last buck."

With Rumpelstiltskin on staff, "you can always balance the
budget," the poem continues.

Yet "this is no fairy tale," according to the class-action
complaint filed on November 1, in Cook County Circuit Court. "It
is just the latest chapter in the city of Chicago's scandal-
plagued speed and red light camera program."

Lead plaintiffs Delyn McKenzie-Lopez and Erica Lieschke claim that
Chicago has collected "hundreds of millions of dollars in fines
and penalties from individuals accused of speed and red light
camera violations" over the past decade, through the 2003
automated traffic law and 2012 automated speed enforcement

"Because the city failed to properly notify these individuals of
their alleged violations and illegally sped up the imposition of
liability, a judge in the Circuit Court of Cook County recently
held that those fines and penalties are illegal and void," the
complaint states.

That order, issued in February by Judge Kathleen Kennedy in
Simpson v. City of Chicago, allegedly led the mayor to "spin straw
into gold to raise revenue."

That is, on Sept. 21, Emanuel signed into law "an ordinance that
purports to allow it to issue new tickets and initiate new
hearings that will create new liabilities, fines, and penalties
based on tickets issued years ago that a judge has already ruled
were void," November 1, lawsuit states. (Emphasis in original).

But, according to McKenzie-Lopez and Lieschke, "it is abundantly
clear that the [2016] ordinance was not passed to benefit the
citizens of Chicago, but rather was a misguided and erroneous
effort to make an end-run around the court's finding in the
Simpson litigation that the liability, fines and penalties
assessed in connection with past [automated traffic law, or ATL]
and [automated speed enforcement, or ASE] violations are illegal
and void."

The plaintiffs scoff at the city's alleged attempt to create new
liabilities for past offenses.

"How, one might ask, can that occur in the United States of
America?" the complaint asks. "The answer is that it cannot."

The lawsuit continues, "While the mayor and the city council are
free to change their own local laws to their benefit and at the
expense of Chicagoans -- a practice which they have repeatedly and
unabashedly engaged in since the filing of the Simpson suit --
they are, thankfully, still bound by the laws of the state of
Illinois and the Constitutions of the state of Illinois and the
United States."

McKenzie-Lopez and Lieschke seek to represent a class of
Chicagoans who did not receive a hearing or pay the fine before
liability was determined for traffic tickets mailed from March 23,
2010 through May 14, 2015.

Lieschke also seeks to represent all those who did not receive a
hearing or pay the fine before liability was determined for a
ticket mailed before March 23, 2010.

McKenzie-Lopez says she paid fines for one of four alleged speed
and red-light camera violations in 2014, while Lieschke says she
paid for two red-light violations that allegedly occurred in 2007
and 2010.

"Unfortunately for the city, in the real world Rumpelstiltskin
cannot save the day," the lawsuit states. "That is because the
Illinois Vehicle Code and the Illinois and United States
Constitutions specifically prohibit the procedures the ordinance
purports to authorize."

The seven-count complaint asserts violations of home-rule
authority, prohibition of adjudication of offenses, the 90-day
notice provision, due process and equal protection, as well as a
claim for illegal assessment of late-payment penalty.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and a jury
trial. They are represented by Jacie Zolna with Myron Cherry &
Associates in Chicago.

The city did not return a request for comment emailed November 2.

COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE: Skyscraper Investors File Class Action
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
group of investors who purchased space in a Philadelphia
skyscraper in a massive $152 million deal claim their broker and
lender cheated them out of millions.

Lead plaintiffs Dennis Dierenfield, William Gilmer and others say
their broker Commonwealth Land Title Company cheated them out of
millions when they purchased property at 1818 Market Street in
Philadelphia in 2006. The class action was filed Oct. 26 in San
Diego Superior Court.

The class of less than 100 plaintiffs purchased property at the
40-story skyscraper, which houses business offices in downtown
Philadelphia. They claim their lender, defendant Wells Fargo's
predecessor Wachovia Mortgage, breached escrow instructions by
tacking on a $9.6 million unauthorized mortgage loan which was
used to pay out kickbacks, including $5.9 million in commission to
an unlicensed real estate broker.

According to the 39-page complaint, each plaintiff paid a
proportionate share of $47.8 million as an equity contribution in
what was supposed to be $132 million loan, putting down $478,000
each for a 1 percent ownership interest in the property. A final
"buyer closing statement" provided by defendant TICOR Title
Company of California to each of the plaintiffs does not show any
payments inconsistent with the closing instructions, the
plaintiffs claim. They also point out they did not "receive or
authorize any other instructions that would be in conflict with
the instructions."

It wasn't until eight years later, in October 2014, that the
plaintiffs say they discovered the defendants breached escrow
instructions when closing on the massive property. They say they
learned about the illegal and unauthorized loan used to pay
kickbacks to promoters -- including the $5.9 million kickback to
Triple Net Properties Realty, which the plaintiffs claim was not a
licensed broker at the time of the transaction -- from attorneys
involved in separate litigation related to the property who
investigated and found three mortgages against the property and
unauthorized distributions from escrow, the plaintiffs say.

Triple Net Properties is not a party to the class action.

The plaintiffs say TICOR "engaged in an atypical escrow
arrangement" and disbursed the entirety of plaintiffs $33 million
in deposits without delivering the required deed, "contrary to
well-recognized and established industry practices and procedures
for the protection of escrow clients such as plaintiffs."

The money was wired to an account controlled by Triple Net
Properties, where plaintiffs' deposits were combined with loan
proceeds from three loans, establishing lender reserves and
millions which were paid in undisclosed kickbacks, according to
the complaint.

That illegal third mortgage increased the total mortgage debt to
91 percent and reduced plaintiffs' equity, the plaintiffs say in
their complaint. They also claim there were only supposed to be
two loans totaling $132 million, but there were three loans
disbursed to acquire the property for $152.8 million as determined
from transfer tax stamps discovered by the plaintiffs' attorneys.

The class action involves 11 causes of action including breach of
escrow contract, implied contract, statutory duties applied to
escrow companies and fiduciary duty of escrow company;
constructive fraud; negligence; breach of mortgage agreement;
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; breach of title
policy; estoppel; and unfair business practices.

The lawsuit is being brought on behalf of those who provided
equity funds to directly or indirectly acquire tenant in common
interests in the property in 2006.

Attached to the complaint are 158 pages in exhibits.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, a temporary restraining
order and preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent the
defendants from engaging in unlawful business practices.

Defendants include Commonwealth Land Title Company and its
insurance company, TICOR Title Company of California and Wells
Fargo Bank.

The plaintiffs are represented by Kenneth Catanzarite of Anaheim,
California, who did not wish to comment on the case. Commonwealth
Land Title Company did not return a phone request for comment.

CRYPTSY: Owner's Ex-Wife Enters Into $1-Mil. Settlement
NewsBTC reports that there have been few new developments in the
ongoing class action lawsuit against the now defunct
cryptocurrency exchange, Cryptsy.

The Bitcoin exchange based out of Florida stopped its operations
earlier this year.  At the time of shutting down, the platform
allegedly had accommodated liabilities of over $10 million, of
which $5 million belonged to the customers.  The class action
lawsuit was filed by disgruntled Cryptsy customers with an
intention of recovering at least a portion of their lost funds.

Until now, there wasn't much progress in the case as one of the
defendants, Paul Vernon -- the founder of Cryptsy -- has been on
the run.  While Mr. Vernon is suspected to have fled to China to
escape prosecution, it can't be said the same to his ex-wife who
is said to have entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs.  A
recent legal document filed with the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida reflects the class action
settlement between Lorie Ann Nettles and Brandon Leidel, Michael
Wilson and other plaintiffs who are part of the lawsuit.  The
settlement amount is estimated to be around $1 million.

Nettles became part of the class action lawsuit after the
plaintiffs concluded that she was a beneficiary of ill-gotten
Cryptsy's customer funds in the form of a Palm Beach County
waterfront property worth $1.375 million.   The property in
question was transferred to Nettles as part of a divorce
settlement between her and Vernon.   The preliminary settlement
between Nettles and the plaintiffs was mediated by Judge Howard

Terms of the arguably unfair settlement require Nettles to hand
over/liquidate the following assets whose proceeds will go towards
the Settlement Fund. The assets include:

1. A diamond ring
2. The Palm Beach County property
3. All monies received from the sale of the cryptocurrency
4. All monies received from the sale of personal property
belonging to Nettles
5. All monies received from the sale of Infiniti QX60 automobile
belonging to Nettles
6. Any other asset and monies obtained by Plaintiff's lead counsel

The settlement terms allow the attorneys to charge a maximum of
33.33% of the total value of the settlement fund.  In the case of
attorneys' fees exceeding the above-mentioned percentage, they
will be required to reduce it to meet the requirement.  After
handing over all the assets, Nettles will be left with just enough
to provide basic living necessities for herself and her children.

While the customers of Cryptsy are entitled to recover their lost
funds, the whole exercise of the settlement between Nettles and
Plaintiffs appears to go against natural justice, making one
person a scapegoat for the whole fiasco.  The Plaintiffs and the
US Court seems to have forced this settlement out of desperation
as they fear that they won't be able to recover the cryptocurrency
and other related assets, right now in the possession of Vernon.

Even though the terms of the settlement are still subject to final
approval, it shouldn't be a problem as the court is expected to
approve it.

DE ALBA BAKERY: "Rodas" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
Adilio Arcadio Cortez Rodas, Juan L. Lozano Gonzalez, Joel Medina
Torres, Jesus Munoz Gutierrez, Juan Carlos Obregon Garcia, Ulises
Perales, Oscar Manuel Garcia Fuentes, Myriam E. Garcia Molina,
Plaintiffs, v. Ana Beth De Alba, Uriel De Alba, Dora De Alba, De
Alba Bakery Management LLC, De Alba Bakery Holdings Ltd, De Alba
Foods, LLC, De Alba Bakery Cage, LLC, De Alba Bakery Closner, LLC,
De Alba Bakery Conway, LLC, De Alba Bakery Pecan, LLC, De Alba
Real Estate Company, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:16-CV-635 (S.D.
Tex., November, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages and attorney's fees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Texas Contract Law, both as an
individual action and as a collective action.

The family-owned De Alba group of companies are into baked
products and bakeries where plaintiffs were employed as cashiers,
cooks and bakers in Defendants' stores. They all claim to be
denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juan M. Gonzalez, Esq.
      8918 Tesoro Dr., Ste. 575
      San Antonio, TX 78217
      Tel: (210) 587-4002
      Fax: (210) 587-4001
      Email: jgonzalez@mgo-law.com

             - and -

      Javier N. Maldonado, Esq.
      Law Office of Javier N. Maldonado, PC
      8918 Tesoro Dr., Ste. 575
      San Antonio, TX 78217
      Tel: (210) 277-1603
      Fax: (210) 587-4001
      Email: jmaldonado.law@gmail.com

DORIAN B LASAINE: "Wilson" Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on October 28, 2016, in the case
entitled Kathleen M. Wilson v. Dorian B. LaSaine, et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-03599 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable James B. Zagel.

The minute entry states that pursuant to the parties' joint
stipulation for dismissal, the matter is dismissed in its entirety
without prejudice.  The civil case is terminated.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3FCzaa17

EF INTERNATIONAL: Approval of "Russell" Case Settlement Upheld
Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild of the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division One, affirmed the trial
court's approval of settlement in the appealed case entitled,
NADINE RUSSELL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EF INTERNATIONAL
LANGUAGE SCHOOLS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, ANDREA JESSE et
al. Objectors and Appellants, No. B263612 (Cal. Ct. App.)

EF International Schools, Inc. employs teachers who provide
English language instruction to foreign students. Most of its
classes are scheduled to last 80 minutes. Teachers were paid a
combination of a piece work rate and an hourly rate. Teachers are
also paid for rest breaks, calculated at the rate of 3.33 minutes
of break time for each 80-minute class taught--the equivalent of
10 minutes per four hours of class time. EF International's
employee handbook provides that employees are entitled to overtime
pay at the rate of one and one-half the regular pay rate for work
in excess of either eight hours in one day or 40 hours in one

On March 23, 2012, Nadine Russell filed a putative class action
complaint against EF International. The complaint alleged the
following causes of action: (1) Failure to pay employees for all
hours worked under California law (2) Waiting time penalties; (3)
Failure to provide accurate wage statements; (4) Failure to
indemnify; (5) Unfair Competition; and (6) Civil penalties under
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The alleged class
consisted of defendant's hourly teachers employed since March 23,

During mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the matter. At that time, the parties expected that there
were about 610 class members. About 11 months later, in January
2014, the parties executed a written settlement agreement. Under
the agreement, defendant agreed to pay a maximum amount of
$575,000, up to one-third of which would be paid to plaintiff's
attorneys. The agreement allocated approximately $18,000 for
litigation costs and claims administration expenses. Plaintiff
would receive a reasonable enhancement award of $15,000, and
$1,000 was designated as PAGA penalties. The total amount
available to the class was approximately $349,000. Each class
member who submitted a valid claim would receive a pro rata share
of the available settlement amount based upon his or her gross
wages during the class period.

As part of the settlement, the parties stipulated to the filing of
a first amended complaint. The new pleading re-alleged the
original six causes of action and added two more: (1) Failure to
pay employees for all hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and (2) Failure to provide meal and rest periods. The
settlement agreement included a general release by the class
members of claims related to the allegations asserted in the first
amended complaint. The release applies to all such claims arising
at any point prior to the court's preliminary approval of the

On January 22, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement. While the motion for preliminary
approval was pending, Andrea Jesse filed a putative class action
complaint against defendant in San Francisco Superior Court
alleging violations of wage and hour laws. At that time, neither
Jesse nor her counsel, Michael Sachs, were aware of plaintiff's

On March 21, 2014, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. Approximately 67 percent of the class -- 336 members
submitted claims. Based on the claims made, the payments would
range from $7.48 to $6,144.44, and the average settlement payment
would be $879.93.

One person opted out of the class and 11 class members, including
Jesse, objected to the settlement. The objectors, whom Sachs
represented, objected to the settlement. Plaintiff, with
defendant's support, filed a response to the objections and moved
for final approval of the settlement. After a hearing, the court
overruled the objections and approved the settlement, finding that
it was entered into in good faith and was fair, reasonable and
adequate. After judgment was entered, the objectors appealed.

Presiding Justice Rothschild affirmed the trial court's approval
of the settlement declaring that the approval of the settlement
was not done in abuse of discretion. Presiding Justice Rothschild
concluded that the record before the trial court was sufficient to
allow counsel and the court to act intelligently in evaluating the
settlement and thus a presumption of fairness is therefore
appropriate in the case.

A copy of Presiding Justice Rothschild's opinion dated October 27,
2016, is available at https://goo.gl/NLgnYQ from Leagle.com.

David J. Becht -- dbecht@ansbb.com -- Michael Sachs --
msachs@adamsnye.com -- Mythily Sivarajah --
msivarajah@adamsnyeemployment.com -- at Adams|Nye|Becht, for
Objectors and Appellants Andrea Jesse et al

Christian J. Rowley -- crowley@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw,
for Defendant and Respondent EF International Language Schools,

David Spivak -- david@spivaklaw.com -- Louis Benowitz -- at The
Spivak Law Firm, for Plaintiff and Respondent Nadine Russell

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One,
panel consists of Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild, and
Justices Jeffrey W. Johnson and Elwood Lui.

FARMERS GROUP: Faces "Frias" Suit in Cal. Over Breach of Contract
Ismael Frias, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Farmers Group, Inc., Fire Insurance Exchange,
Midcentury Insurance Company, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
BC638626 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 26, 2016), is a class action
for breach of contract, bad faith, and unfair business practices
against the Defendants, arising out of the improper handling of
wildfire smoke damage claims, and utilization of an unlawful
$5,000.00 sublimit for claims resulting from wild fire smoke,
soot, char, ash, and odor damage.

The Defendants operate an insurance company in Los Angeles,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua H. Haffner, Esq
      Levi M. Plesset, Esq.
      445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 514-5681
      Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
      E-mail: Ghh@haffuer1awyers.com

FLAGSHIP FACILITY: "Bradford" Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
GREGORY A. BRADFORD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FLAGSHIP FACILITY SERVICES,
INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 18CV301652 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 26, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages pursuant to the California Labor

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class for
time spent working yet were automatically deducted 30 minutes of
time as if a meal period was taken and not paid for this time,
including regular hours and for hours Plaintiff and Class Members
worked 19 in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per
week, and double time wages for work over 12 hours in a day.

Flagship Facility provides facilities maintenance and cleaning
services. The company's services include floor care, event
preparation and cleanup.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          9RRO Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387 6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com

FLINT, MI: Judge Allows Water Crisis Class Action to Proceed
David Eggert, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
Michigan judge ruled in favor of Flint residents who filed a
class-action lawsuit against the state and state officials over
the city's lead-contaminated water, rejecting a motion to dismiss
the case entirely.

The ruling made public on Oct. 27 is the first major decision to
be issued in a slew of civil suits stemming from Flint's ongoing
water emergency.

It lets the plaintiffs proceed under two constitutional claims: a
violation of their right to "bodily integrity" and inverse
condemnation, by which they are seeking compensation for plumbing
damage and reduced property values.  The suit filed in January
alleges that state officials caused and covered up the growing
public health threat posed by tap water that was improperly
treated after a 2014 switch to the Flint River while the city of
nearly 1000,000 people was under state management, leaching toxic
lead from aging pipes into the supply and exposing people to
deadly Legionella bacteria.

Court of Claims Judge Mark Boonstra said on Oct. 26 that the six
residents' allegations, if proven, would be "so arbitrary, in a
constitutional sense, as to shock the conscience."

State agencies and officials are generally immune from legal
liability for exercising governmental functions.  But Judge
Boonstra concluded that financial damages can be sought for
alleged violations of the state constitution.  He added that
because Gov. Rick Snyder and two state-appointed emergency
managers were sued in their official capacity, the "state alone
remains accountable for any resulting damage liability."

"It's a breakthrough," said Michael Pitt, a Royal Oak-based lawyer
for the residents in the case that could grow to 6,000 plaintiffs
if class-action status is granted.  "We're very, very gratified.
It's overall favorable. . . . Hopefully things will start to move
at a much quicker pace."

Judge Boonstra did throw out two other claims against the
defendants, who include Snyder, former Flint emergency managers
Darnell Earley and Jerry Ambrose, the state of Michigan, and the
Departments of Environmental Quality and Health and Human
Services.  He rejected an argument that the counts against the
managers should be dismissed because the Court of Claims handles
cases only against state and they were local officials.
Earley and Ambrose "operated as officers of the state," Judge
Boonstra said.

The state could appeal.

A spokeswoman for Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette referred
questions to the governor, whose spokeswoman declined to comment.

So far, the crisis has led to criminal charges against eight
current or former state employees and a Flint water official.  As
of earlier in October, the state was defending itself against 12
Flint-related lawsuits and had received more than 2,000 notices of
intent to sue.

Mr. Schuette has hinted that charges against higher-ranking
officials may follow.  He also has sued two water engineering
companies for negligence.

Judge Boonstra was appointed to the state Court of Appeals by
Snyder in 2012 and has subsequently been elected twice.  He and
three appellate judges also serve on the Court of Claims.

GLASS NICKEL: Faces "Rogers-Coxhead" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
Chad Rogers-Coxhead and Shaun Taliaferro, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. Glass Nickel Pizzza Co.
d/b/a Madison's Dough Boys, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00706 (W.D.
Wis., October 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Glass Nickel Pizzza Co. owns and operates a restaurant located at
2916 Atwood Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Zoeller, Esq.
      Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
      Post Office Box 2155
      Madison, WI 53701-2155
      Telephone: (608) 257-0040
      Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
      E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com

GO VENTURES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Vernon" Suit Claims
Kimberly Vernon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Go Ventures, LLC, Go Ventures-Rolly, LLC,
Tangaroo Creek, Drake Enterprises, LLC, Drake Enterprises-Holly,
LLC, Greg Taylor & Wynn Taylor, Case No. 2:16-cv-13818-GAD-EAS
(E.D. Mich., October 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure pay overtime wages for work over 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate numerous campgrounds and other
lodging facilities in multiple states, including, without,
limitation, Michigan, Tennessee, New York, Alabama, and Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Kotwicki, Esq.
      48000 Van Dyke Shelby
      Township, MI 48317
      Telephone: (586) 739-9888
      Facsimile: (586) 739-9892
      E-mail: dk@michemplaw.com

GOODLIFE: Employees' Class Action Seeks $60MM in Compensation
Hank Daniszewski, writing for The London Free Press, reports that
the sleek new headquarters of GoodLife Fitness include a coffee
bar, employee fitness centre and meeting rooms named for Jimmy
Buffett songs.

The company's website boasts of its status as one of the country's
50 best managed companies and 50 most engaged workplaces.

David Patchell-Evans -- who built GoodLife from a single gym in
1979 to Canada's biggest fitness chain -- said in an interview in
September that "Canadian values" are the secret to the company's

"Our company is run with Canadian values -- caring is the No. 1
criteria -- that's not the criteria of our (American) competitors.
They run like (Donald) Trump."

But with the paint barely dry on its new west London headquarters,
GoodLife is cutting 60 jobs at its head office and 225 positions
at clubs across Canada.

One staffer facing layoff said he's offended chief executive
Patchell-Evans didn't break the news personally, noting some
workers found out by e-mail.

Staff facing layoff include five pregnant women, people with young
families who had just bought homes and older workers unlikely to
find other work, said the employee, who asked not to be

The atmosphere among staff is "anxious and uneasy," the staffer
said.  "Not knowing what's next . . . . But knowing once we're no
longer useful to the company, and we have served their purpose,
we're gone."

The layoffs come about a month after the company moved into the
new 60,000-square-foot headquarters on Proudfoot Lane.

About 300 staff moved into the building built to accommodate 500.

GoodLife Fitness has told employees it is installing a new
management software system in its clubs next spring that will make
some jobs redundant.

Jane Riddell, the company's chief operating officer, said the
company is working to transfer some affected employees to other
jobs, including new "senior motivator" posts at the clubs.

"Our hope is that we can retain many of these great employees in
this role, or in one of the hundreds of other available

Mr. Patchell-Evans said the chain plans to expand to 1,000 clubs
while fending off competition from U.S. chains, such as Planet
Fitness and Anytime Fitness, entering the Canadian market.

GoodLife also has to contend with a potential class-action suit.

The suit, filed by Toronto law firm Goldblatt Partners, seeks $60
million in compensation for current and former GoodLife employees,
especially personal trainers, who have worked at Ontario clubs
since October 2014.

The suit alleges GoodLife "required or permitted its employees to
work many additional unpaid hours beyond those for which they were
scheduled . . . to meet their sales targets and complete the
duties required of them."

Ms. Riddell said GoodLife is in the process of reviewing and
assessing the allegations to prepare a defense.

"At GoodLife, one of our key priorities is providing a fair and
supportive work environment for all of our employees.  We disagree
with the allegations outlined in this claim."

The suit must be certified by a court before it can proceed, a
process that likely will take at least six months.

Charles Sinclair, one of the lawyers handling the case, said
Ontario law requires employers to record and pay employees for
overtime work, even if it was done voluntarily.  But in many
non-union shops, "there is a culture in place where there's an
expectation they (employees) work extra time for which they don't
get paid."

Goldblatt Partners has filed similar class-action suits against
other large employers, including Scotiabank that settled out of

GoodLife Fitness is dealing with a union drive at clubs in the
Toronto area.  About 650 personal trainers at Toronto-area clubs
voted in July to join Workers United Canada.  More recently, some
workers in GoodLife's Ajax clubs followed suit, a union official

GROVETOWN, GA: Feb. 2017 Hearing Set in Water Bill Class Action
Alma McCarty, writing for WRDW/WAGT, reports that on Oct. 27, a
lawsuit filed against the City of Grovetown moves forward, slowly
but surely, according to attorneys.

People in the city are trying to make this a class action suit,
after alleging illegal water billing practices.

Both sides headed to the Oct. 27 scheduling conference in Richmond
County Superior Court, to figure out a timeline.  The next hearing
will most likely be in February 2017.

"We're alleging some serious wrongs and the city needs to come up
with a game plan," said attorney Jeffery Piel, "We believe
everyone in the city of Grovetown was affected."

Because of that, Mr. Piel says they're looking to file a class
action suit.

"What we're saying is everyone in the city of Grovetown -- we're
going to resolve every dispute you may have with the water
department in one big mass action," he explained.

The main complaints stem from water billing, and over-billing
problems.  So, if they get the go-ahead by the judge, the
attorneys will reach out to every home in the city eligible for

"I don't get nearly the number of complaints I was receiving three
and four months ago," said Mayor Gary Jones.

The city brought in the Georgia Municipal Association to look over
the billing process.  GMA says this was the first time they've
reviewed that specific process for a city.  At the conclusion of
the review, they had some recommendations.

"We not only made some changes as far as procedural and paperwork
wise -- to be a little bit more uniform -- but we've also ordered
2,200 radio frequency water meters," said Mr. Jones.

About half the city already has the new meters.  The cost for the
final batch is just under 400 thousand dollars, to be installed
starting January first.  That process will take about a year to a
year and a half to complete.

GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION: Hernandez-Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid OT
Victor Hernandez-Rodriguez and David Vargas-Ledezma, Plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated individuals v.
Grunley Construction Co., Inc., C.R. Calderon Construction, Inc.,
Pedro & Pablo's Construction Company., Inc. and Pedro Esteban
Gonzalez-Amaya, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02167, (D.C., October
31, 2016), seeks to recover overtime pay and damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act,
District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law and the D.C.
Workplace Fraud Act.

Defendants are construction contractors who have employed the
Plaintiffs as carpenters at one time for their construction work.
Plaintiffs claim to have been misclassified as independent
contractors, thus denied overtime wages.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Andrew Hass, Esq.
      1413 K St. NW, 5th Floor
      Washington, DC 20005
      Phone: (202) 645-6356
      Fax: (202) 828-9190
      Email: ahass@dcejc.org

             - and -

      Virginia Diamond, Esq.
      1911 Virginia Ave.,
      McLean, VA 22101
      Phone: 703-627-5510
      Email: diamondvir@aol.com

HOOMAN AUTOMOTIVE: "Soto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
Antonio Soto Jr. v. Hooman Automotive, Inc., d/b/a HNL Automotive
Inc., Hooman Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, Hooman Chevrolet, Hooman
Acura, Hooman Nissan, Hooman Hyundai, and Does 1 through 16 50,
Inclusive, Case No. BC638374 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 26, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, penalties, liquidated damages,
injunctive and other equitable relief, interest and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards

The Defendants own, operate and manage multiple retail stores in

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zachary Cantor, Esq.
      Shalini Dogra, Esq.
      1112 Montana Avenue, Ste C
      Santa Monica, CA 90403
      Telephone: (310) 393-6620
      Facsimile: (310) 393-6680
      E-mail: info@cantorlawyers.com

         - and -

      Rodney Mesriani, Esq.
      5723 Melrose Ave, Ste 202
      Los Angeles, CA 90038
      Telephone: (310) 826-6300
      Facsimile: (310) 820-1258

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settles Fuel Economy Claims with 33 States
The Associated Press reports that South Korean automakers Hyundai
Motor Co. and Kia Motors Corp. will pay $41.2 million to 33 states
and the District of Columbia to settle an investigation into their
fuel economy ratings.

The fine is the latest in the ongoing fallout from misstated
mileage numbers on more than 1.2 million vehicles in the U.S.

According to the Virginia Attorney General's Office, Virginia will
receive $1,181.999.07.  Look to the right of your screen or scroll
below to see the statement about the settlement from Virginia
Attorney General Mark Herring.

In 2012, Hyundai and Kia restated the mileage on one-quarter of
their 2011-2013 model year vehicles after the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency questioned their mileage numbers.  The companies
deny they violated the law, and instead cite lack of clarity in
EPA test procedures.

The companies paid $300 million in penalties to the U.S.
government in 2014.  They say they have also reimbursed around 75
percent of customers.

A class action lawsuit remains subject to an ongoing appeal.

ILLINOIS, USA: Court Okays Prelim. Settlement in "Morales" Suit
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on October 27, 2016, in the case
captioned Moises Morales, et al. v. Adam Monreal, et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-07572 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Amy J. St. Eve.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Status hearing was held on October 27, 2016;

   -- Joint motion for class certification and joint motion for
      preliminary approval of proposed settlement agreement are

   -- Motion for final approval will be filed by January 13,
      2017; and

   -- Fairness hearing is set for January 25, 2017, at 8:30 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FMq8I3mb

IOOF: Class Action Can't Proceed, Victorian Supreme Court Rules
The Australian Associated Press reports that a proposed class
action against financial services company IOOF has been prohibited
by the Victorian Supreme Court.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers had planned to pursue a class action on
behalf of tens of thousands of IOOF shareholders over the
company's handling of allegations of corporate misconduct.

IOOF shares dropped 13 per cent in June 2015 when allegations were
raised by the media of problems with the compliance culture of its
research team.

The company said the issues had been dealt with appropriately at
the time, but Maurice Blackburn claimed IOOF breached its
continuous disclosure obligations by not previously informing the
market of the issues.

The Victorian Supreme Court on Oct. 28 issued orders prohibiting
Maurice Blackburn from proceeding with the class action.

"We have always maintained that the proposed class action was
misconceived both factually and at law," IOOF managing director
Christopher Kelaher said.

Maurice Blackburn principal Jacob Varghese said the orders
highlight extreme inadequacies in laws related to the use of
information from whistleblowers by class action lawyers.

JOHN HOPKINS HOSPITAL: Families of Coal Miners File Class Action
Daniel W. Staples, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that after shutting down its "black lung" program more than a year
ago, Johns Hopkins Hospital is under fire for claims it didn't
follow federal guidelines in determining hundreds of coal miners
were not qualified for disability benefits.

The estates of Michael Steven Day Sr. and Junior McCoy Barr filed
a class-action lawsuit in Baltimore against Johns Hopkins
University, its hospital and Dr. Paul Wheeler in Baltimore City
Circuit Court on October 28, claiming doctors skirted the law to
deny benefits to miners.

The alleged improprieties by Johns Hopkins Imaging doctors was
uncovered in a 2013 report by the Center for Public Integrity
finding that Wheeler deviated from the International Labour
Organization's standards for determining if coal miners suffered
from coal worker's pneumoconiosis, or CWP.

CWP is also known as "black lung disease," court records show.
Johns Hopkins established its "black lung program" to help
determine the presence or absence of CWP in coal miners seeking
benefits under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of

Johns Hopkins shut down its black-lung unit shortly after the
Center for Public Integrity's Pulitzer Prize-winning series that
uncovered improprieties of the doctors reading chest x-rays used
to determine if sufferers of the disease qualified for disability

"The black lung program failed to identify black lung disease in
hundreds of coal workers, many of which were denied benefits as a
direct and proximate result," according to the 31-page lawsuit.

The estates of Day and Barr claim that Johns Hopkins and Wheeler
"were paid by employer coal companies" for their opinions.

In an interview with a reporter for the Center for Public
Integrity, Wheeler allegedly admitted that the standards for B-
readers, radiological experts certified to interpret chest x-rays
for the presence of CWP, set by the International Labour
Organization, or ILO, have "some quality issues."

Wheeler also admitted during the interview that "he has
intentionally disregarded the ILO classification system, due to
his beliefs as to what the law should be," according to the
lawsuit, which quoted Wheeler as saying, "If you think it's
appropriate for somebody with sarcoid to be paid for [black lung]
because he has masses and nodules - do you think that's
appropriate? I don't think so."

According to the estate plaintiffs, Wheeler's statement flies in
the face of the standards set by the ILO.

Wheeler reportedly told the Center for Public Integrity, "I don't
care about the law."

The doctor's determinations were used to deny benefits in cases
before administrative law judges, according to the complaint.

Regulations say that if two or more opinions are in conflict, the
qualifications of the physicians interpreting the x-rays can be
taken into consideration. According to the lawsuit, the opinions
of Wheeler, who obtained his undergraduate and medical degree from
Harvard University and Medical School, often outweighed other
doctors' interpretations.

"By intentionally deviating from the ILO system, and substituting
non-conforming standards for x-ray findings, Johns Hopkins and Dr.
Wheeler were successful on denying lawfully earned federal
benefits to injured coal miners," the complaint states.

Michael Steven Day Sr. and Junior McCoy Barr had both worked for
33 years as coal miners in West Virginia.

They were both initially awarded benefits under the law, according
to their estates, but their benefit determinations were overturned
after readings by Wheeler and a fellow black-lung unit physician.

Following Day's death in 2014, an autopsy concluded he suffered
from CWP and he was posthumously awarded benefits. Barr's autopsy
after his 2011 death also concluded that he suffered from simple
CWP, but his estate never recovered benefits.

Day and Barr's estates seek at least $75,000, including punitive
damages, for claims of fraud, interference with economic
interests, RICO violations and misrepresentation.

Jonathan Nace of the Washington firm Nidel Law, who represents
the plaintiffs, was not immediately available for comment on
November 1.

A spokesman for Johns Hopkins did not immediately respond on
November 1, to an email request for comment.

JUDICIAL CORRECTION: Thurman's Bid for Transfer Denied as Moot
The Hon. R. David Proctor entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00724-RDP-TFM (M.D. Ala.), denying as moot
the Plaintiffs' motion for transfer.

"The court held a hearing on the Motion for Transfer (Doc. # 144)
on October 28, 2016.  During that hearing, the court also
discussed the appropriate schedule for deciding the outstanding
dispositive motions and class certification motion.  For the
reasons discussed on the record during the hearing, and by
agreement of the parties, the Motion for Transfer (Doc. # 144) is
DENIED AS MOOT," Judge Proctor wrote in the Order.

Furthermore, Judge Proctor held that the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification is administratively terminated, subject to re-
filing after the Court rules on the outstanding dispositive

The Plaintiffs have asserted that the dispositive motions in this
case should be decided before the class certification motion,
Judge Proctor stated.  The Court agrees with this proposed order
of operations and recognizes that the legal landscape of this case
could be quite different once the dispositive motions are decided.

Moreover, according to the Order, that change in landscape could
affect the arguments for class certification and the scope of the
proposed class.  Finally, the parties in this case and the parties
in Ray, et al. v. Judicial Correction Services, Inc., et al., Case
Number 2:12-cv-02819-RDP (N.D. Ala.), have acknowledged that the
proposed classes in these cases overlap, and rulings on the
dispositive motions and any revisions to class definitions may
help resolve the overlap, Judge Proctor noted.  Therefore, the
Court concludes that the most prudent course is for the class
certification motion to be re-filed after the Court addresses the
dispositive motions.

"In light of the administrative termination of Document 92, the
deadline for filing class certification motions is hereby EXTENDED
and SHALL be set by a later order," Judge Proctor opined.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at

KOCH MEAT: "Nicks" Complaint Survives Dismissal Bid
District Judge Amy J. St. Eve of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, denied defendant's motion to dismiss,
in the case JIMMY R. NICKS and JAMES EARL PATRICK, individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
LLC, and JET POULTRY SERVICES, INC., Defendants, No. 16-cv-6446
(N.D. Ill.)

Plaintiffs Jimmy R. Nicks and James Earl Patrick are Mississippi
residents who were previously employed by defendants Koch Meat
Co., Inc. d/b/a Koch Foods (Koch Meat), Koch Foods of Mississippi,
LLC (Koch Foods of Mississippi), and JET Poultry Services, Inc.
(JET), to catch and cage chickens as members of a live-haul crew.

Koch defendants operate one of the largest vertically integrated
poultry processors in the United States, with locations across
Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, Ohio and Tennessee. As
part of their enterprise, the Koch defendants engage third-party
contractors such as JET to employ chicken catchers such as Nicks
and Patrick for their live-haul crews.

According to plaintiffs, all 3 defendants play a role in hiring
live-haul crews, supervising live-haul crews, and determining and
recording the piece rate and number of loads captured in order to
compensate the live-haul crews. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants
paid them and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective a
piece rate basis, regardless of the number of hours worked, and
failed to pay overtime as required by federal law.

Plaintiffs brought a claim for overtime wage violations against
the Koch defendants and JET as joint employers under the FLSA.
Plaintiffs brought the FLSA collective action on behalf of all
individuals employed by Koch Meat, Koch Foods, and/or JET as
members of live-haul, chicken catching crews in the United States,
and who were paid on a piece rate and did not receive overtime
compensation from the 3 years preceding the date of the filing of
the complaint.

JET moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3) for lack of personal
jurisdiction and/or improper venue.  The Koch defendants
separately moved to dismiss the complaint on similar grounds.  In
the alternative to dismissal, all defendants request a transfer to
the Southern District of Mississippi pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1404 or 1406.

Judge St. Eve denied the Koch defendants' motion to dismiss,
without prejudice to refile the same after conducting the limited
jurisdictional and venue discovery.

The court permits limited venue discovery concerning who sets
and/or controls the relevant wage and employment policies for
individual chicken catchers in Mississippi. Plaintiffs may issue 3
targeted interrogatories on the topic to each of the Koch
defendants, in addition to examining Lance Buckert concerning
paragraph 4 of his supplemental declaration. Plaintiffs must issue
the written interrogatories by November 1, 2016, and the Koch
defendants must provide written responses by November 11, 2016.
The parties must complete the Buckert oral examination by November
18, 2016.

Judge St. Eve observed that the plaintiffs are suing Koch Meat
Co., Inc., d/b/a Koch Foods. Lance Buckert, the Chief Financial
Officer of Koch Foods Incorporated with personal knowledge of the
assets and operations of its subsidiaries, attested that Koch
Foods Incorporated is the sole member of Koch Foods of
Mississippi, LLC and is the sole stockholder of Koch Meat Co.,
Inc. Koch Foods, Inc. not Koch Meat likewise appears in many of
plaintiffs' referenced exhibits. Given this ambiguity, the court
permits plaintiffs to take the deposition of Lance Buckert
concerning paragraphs 2-3 of his initial declaration. Plaintiffs
may inquire about the assets and operations of Koch Foods of
Mississippi and/or Koch Farms of Mississippi as related to an
alter ego showing.

A copy of Judge St. Eve's memorandum opinion and order dated
October 27, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/zMu5e2 from

Plaintiffs, represented by Sarah Rebecca Schalman-bergen --
sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- Alexandra Koropey Piazza --
apiazza@bm.net -- Camille Fundora -- cfundora@bm.net -- Shanon J.
Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- at Berger & Montague, P.C.; David Alan
Hughes -- at Hardin & Hughes, LLP; Katrina Carroll --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Kyle Alan Shamberg --
kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- at Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC

Koch Meat Co., Inc. and Koch Foods of Mississippi, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Stephen Novack --
snovack@novackmacey.com -- Andrew P. Shelby --
ashelby@novackmacey.com -- Courtney D Tedrowe --
cdt@novackmacey.com -- at Novack and Macey LLP; Russell W. Gray --
rgray@bakerdonelson.com -- Scott W. Pedigo --
spedigo@bakerdonelson.com -- at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell
& Berkowitz, P.C.

J.E.T. Poultry Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam
Stone -- astone@joneswalker.com -- Kaytie M. Pickett --
kpickett@joneswalker.com -- at Jones Walker LLP; Erin D. Fowler --
ef@franczek.com -- Staci Ketay Rotman -- at Franczek Radelet P.C.

LABOR READY: "Jablonski" Suit Seeks Compensation Under FLSA
KAREN JABLONSKI, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LABOR READY SOUTHEAST, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00330-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Oct. 26,
2016), seeks to recover compensatory and liquidated damages,
attorney fees, and other relief from Defendant for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Around August, 2013, Defendant hired Plaintiff to work in payroll.
She was later promoted to the position of Customer Service
Representative. The Plaintiff was paid on an hourly basis pursuant
to a scheme under which when she exceeded 40 hours in a week,
additional hours worked that week would be taken away from her
schedule the following week and she would be paid at her regular
rate of pay instead of at a rate of time and one-half for her
overtime work. Despite working at the direction and knowledge of
Defendant, Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not paid at
an overtime rate of pay when they worked overtime.

The Defendant was a Washington corporation which provided
temporary staffing services with multiple locations including an
agency in Alachua County, Florida and it is that agency where
Plaintiff was employed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
          Gainesville, FL 32601
          Telephone: (352) 244 2069
          Facsimile: (352) 372 3464
          E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com

LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Energy-Saving Features
According to HD Guru's Gregg Tarr, the Natural Resources Defense
Council's (NRDC) recent report citing LG, Samsung and Vizio for
allegedly using more energy than is stated on Energy Guide
labeling and advertising, has started influencing a series of
class-action lawsuits from disgruntled customers.

Three recent cases have been filed against the companies following
the NRDC report issued on Sept. 21, 2016 stating that the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)-standardized test
that Department of Energy (DOE) uses in its test procedure is not
representative of how people view programming.  The NRDC alleged
that "Samsung and LG appear to be exploiting these anomalies to
achieve lower energy use levels during the test than in real-world

LG and Samsung TVs, specifically, were said to use energy-saving
motion-dimming functions that automatically darken the screen
during frequent scene changes or fast-action scenes.

Pat Remick, an NRDC spokesperson, told HD Guru: "We have no
association with any class action lawsuits or the parties who
filed them.  Nor do we have a financial or legal stake in them.
However, we completely stand behind our research and will continue
our advocacy efforts to update the Department of Energy's TV
testing method and improve the energy efficiency of new TVs.

"We recently responded to the Department of Energy's request for
information regarding improvements to the TV testing method, and
hope that our suggested changes are made as they are consistent
with the recommendations made in the report," Mr. Remick
continued. "To the extent television energy efficiency is improved
as a result of the outcome of this or a similar lawsuit, such
result would be consistent with NRDC's advocacy goals."

Although Vizio's displays don't use a motion-dimming system, the
environmental group said Vizio, like LG and Samsung, use an
energy-saving automatic brightness control that adjusts picture
brightness to suit ambient viewing conditions.  But those systems
are defeated by displays from all three brands without the
knowledge of the user when the viewer adjusts picture settings. In
the process, this turns off the default Eco Mode the displays are
set to out of the box.

Following the report's release, class-action lawsuits have emerged
against each of the three companies named by the NRDC.

According to advertising watchdog web site Truth In Advertising,
one of the most recent was filed Oct. 12, 2016 against Vizio for
allegedly marketing its televisions as "energy efficient" and
"Energy Star" certified when, in reality, software automatically
disables energy-saving features whenever picture settings are
changed.  The complaint alleges this was not adequately disclosed
to consumers, causing them to incur additional charges on their
electricity bills.

The lawsuit was filed by James Unice in U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania against Vizio, allegedly
after Unice suffered damages from being misled into purchasing a
falsely advertised television.

Unice is seeking a trial by jury and an order preventing Vizio
from destroying any records that could serve as evidence,
statutory damages, punitive damages, compensatory damages,
restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, a corrective
advertising campaign, court costs and any further relief the court

A similar complaint was filed by Andrew Schwartz, a Cook County,
Ill., resident, who alleges Vizio "falsely and misleadingly"
concealed the fact that changing picture settings caused its
displays to surpass Energy Guide energy consumption labeling
"thereby increasing purchasers' electricity costs."

A representative for Vizio did not return HD Guru's requests for

The law firm handling the case -- Lemberg Law, LLC in Wilton,
Conn. -- also filed similar class-action complaints against LG and

Earlier in October, a claim was made by Timothy Coghlan against
Samsung in U.S. District Court in Chicago (Case No. 16-cv-9658, N.
D. IL) for allegedly "misleadingly concealing that its televisions
use more energy than the Energy Guide labeling and advertising."
Mr. Coughlan alleges that energy-saving features, such as an
automatic brightness control (ABC) on the Samsung TV he purchased
are disabled "without warning whenever the factory-default picture
settings are changed," the complaint states.

The complaint also picks up on the NRDC's suggestion that Samsung
and LG allegedly use energy savings features that were "primarily
designed as a method by which to circumvent the Department of
Energy testing video used on all Defendant's televisions," the
complaint against Samsung states.

Mr. Coghlan's case alleges that neither he nor any members of the
class-action would have purchased the TVs or would have paid less
for them had they known the TVs would use more energy than was
claimed in labels and advertising.  Potential parties called out
in the class-action case includes all U.S. consumers who bought
Samsung TVs since 2011 with the ABC or motion-dimming features.

A Samsung spokesman told HD Guru that the company does not comment
on pending litigation, but following the NRDC report on Sept.
21st, a statement was issued saying: "Samsung firmly rejects the
accusation that we are misleading consumers.  Our Energy Star
rating is based on the default setting of our TVs. The majority of
users stay within the default viewing settings through the
lifetime of their television.  Furthermore, we strongly believe
that consumers should always have the option to customize the
viewing experience on their TV."

The company also noted after the NRDC report announcement that
Samsung TV purchasers are told in owners' manuals that adjusting
picture settings will turn off energy saving features.

One of the first class-action cases to emerge from the NRDC report
surfaced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Munoz et al v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Case No.
16-cv-5546, N. D. CA.) in September against LG Electronics for
allegedly marketing its televisions as "energy efficient" and
"Energy Star" certified, although the energy-saving features are
automatically disabled when picture settings are changed.  That
case also alleges that LG did not adequately disclose the fact to
consumers, causing them to incur additional charges to their
electricity bills.

A spokesman for LG said the company could not comment on pending
litigation, but like Samsung, it issued a statement immediately
following the announcement of the NRDC report denying any intent
to manipulate a loophole in the DOE test procedures.

"LG has followed both the letter and spirit of the DOE test
procedure for TV energy testing, and we take great exception to
the assertion that LG is `exploiting a loophole' in the government
test procedure," LG's statement said.

LG said it continues to work with DOE and others on developing
energy standards and "for now, the IEC test clip is the standard
that the industry must follow according to applicable law."

Furthermore, "LG is implementing software for consumer
notifications on 2016 and 2015 models that inform consumers that
changing picture modes may impact energy consumption.  It also
allows consumers to turn on energy saving features in various
picture modes."

"LG's 2017 TV models also will include a number of enhancements to
the automatic brightness control (ABC) and motion eye care (MEC)
features.  Specifically, the ABC feature will be implemented as
the default in all picture modes (except HDR modes).  What's more,
consumers will be able to activate MEC in all picture modes," LG's
stated last September.

In its study, the NRDC said it tested a total of 21 TVs including:
two Samsung, one LG and one Vizio in the lab with the rest tested
in stores encompassing a variety of makes and models. Most were 4K
Ultra HD TVs, all of which were 55-inches or larger.

Although the NRDC's goal might be to reduce global carbon
emissions, some believe their focus on television sets as a class
of offending technology has drawn the ire of picture quality

Kevin Miller, a founding member of the Imaging Science Foundation
(ISF) and a professional television calibrator, told HD Guru that
Eco Mode and similar energy saving features "are stupid" from the
standpoint of good picture quality, and lamented the fact that
ever-escalating energy consumption requirements contributed, in
part, to the end of plasma TVs, which many picture quality experts
embraced for their numerous benefits over LCD TVs.

Mr. Miller said he agrees that providing an on-screen warning
indicator prior to changing a picture setting would make sense,
but he added that ultimately it should be up consumers to choose
to use more power to get a better picture when they want to, just
as some automobiles provide more torque and use more gas in sport
mode than in eco mode.

Mr. Miller confirmed the NRDC's finding that Samsung, LG and Vizio
TVs defeat energy savings features when picture settings are
changed, and affirmed that Sony and Philips sets, which were
recognized for accolades by the NRDC, allowed keeping a TV in
energy savings mode even after adjustments are made to picture

"You have to actually take Sony TVs out of ambient light sensor
mode," Mr. Miller said.  "That does have a lot to do with
affecting Energy Star levels."

LUCAS, OH: "Stuart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
Brandon Stuard, Patrick Mangold, and Mike Ilia, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Lucas
County, Ohio, Lucas County, Ohio Auditor, Lucas County, Ohio
Sheriff's Office, and Lucas County, Ohio Juvenile Detention
Center, Case No. 3:16-cv-02616 (N.D. Ohio, October 26, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, damages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other relief pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are political subdivisions of the State of Ohio,
governmental entities, and public agencies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John D. Franklin, Esq.
      Kera L. Paoff, Esq.
      405 Madison Ave., Suite 1550
      Toledo, OH 43604
      Telephone: (419) 243-9005
      Facsimile: (419) 243-9404
      E-mail: john@wflawfirm.com

MCGOVERN & COMPANY: Hi-Tech Metals Sues Over Unpaid Contract Job
Hi-Tech Metals Mfg. LLC, on behalf of itself and all other persons
similarly situated as trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law trusts,
Plaintiff, v. McGovern & Company, LLC., Daniel G. McGovern,
Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company, John Doe 1-10 and ABC Corp.
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 655748/2016 (N.Y. Sup., October 31,
2016), seeks damages in the amount of $49,000.00 plus interest,
costs and disbursement of the action resulting from breach of
contract, foreclosure of mechanic's lien, unjust enrichment and
trust fund diversion in violation of the New York Lien Law.

McGovern & Company, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company
duly existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and is
engaged in the construction business with offices located at 286
Madison Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, NY. Plaintiff provided
various labor, services, equipment and/or materials to and/or on
behalf of the Defendant for its Madison Ave. project. McGovern
failed to pay the Plaintiff for the services rendered and as a
result, Plaintiff is requesting the court to foreclose on the
mechanic's lien and order Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company to
pay the aforementioned discharge bond.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert L. Bernstein, Jr.
      2099 Bellmore Avenue
      Bellmore, NY 11710
      Tel: (516) 783-3300

MDL 2419: 66 Cases Over Meningitis Outbreak Remanded
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a
conditional remand order for 66 actions to be remanded to their
respective transferor courts.

The dispute stems from an outbreak of fungal meningitis caused by
contaminated methylprednisolone acetate (MPA) manufactured and
sold by the New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc., d/b/a New
England Compounding Center (NECC).  NECC operated a compounding
pharmacy in Framingham, Massachusetts, that combined and mixed
ingredients to create specific formulations of pharmaceutical
products.  In the fall of 2012, health officials traced a number
of cases of fungal meningitis to vials of MPA that had been
manufactured by NECC.  NECC initiated a recall of several
contaminated batches of MPA before eventually surrendering its
pharmacy license and ceasing production of all pharmaceutical
products.  NECC filed for bankruptcy in December 2012.

The catastrophic outbreak of fungal meningitis resulted in (among
other proceedings) hundreds of individual tort lawsuits that were
eventually consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL).
Significant pretrial litigation and discovery has been conducted
in the MDL, and remains ongoing with regard to certain cases.
That said, the transferee court concluded that for 66 cases, the
efficiencies of the MDL mechanism have been exhausted, and it is
time for these actions to go their separate ways.  Therefore, the
transferee court suggested that the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation remand or transfer each of the 66 actions
to its court of origin for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Panel's October 18, 2016 conditional
remand order is available at https://is.gd/wInNhV from Leagle.com.

             About New England Compounding Pharmacy

New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc., filed a Chapter 11 petition
(Bankr. D. Mass. Case No. 12-19882) in Boston on Dec. 21, 2012,
after a meningitis outbreak linked to an injectable steroid,
methylprednisolone acetate ("MPA"), manufactured by NECC, killed
39 people and sickened 656 in 19 states, though no illnesses have
been reported in Massachusetts.  The Debtor owns and operates the
New England Compounding Center is located in Framingham, Mass.  In
October 2012, the company recalled all its products, not just
those associated with the outbreak.

MEMPHIS, TN: 6th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in Police Case
Locke Beatty, Esq. -- lbeatty@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, considers the Sixth Circuit's take
on how Rule 23's ascertainability requirement overlaps with the
different pathways to certification under Rule 23(b), as well as
some post-Spokeo dismissals of putative class actions for lack of

Sixth Circuit Holds No Showing of Ascertainability Required for
23(b)(2) Class Action:  The contours of Rule 23's implicit
"ascertainability" requirement are rarely clearly defined, and
often differ between circuits.  In affirming the district court's
certification of a class of individuals contesting the police
department's method of clearing the streets at 3:00 a.m., the
Sixth Circuit reminded practitioners that the prong of Rule 23(b)
that the class invokes also bears on the applicability of the
ascertainability requirement.  In Cole v. City of Memphis, the
court held that a class seeking injunctive relief and proceeding
under Rule 23(b)(2) need not demonstrate that the class is
ascertainable.  The court reasoned that because "[t]he main
purpose of a (b)(2) class is to provide relief through a single
injunction or declaratory judgment," the concerns about
administrative feasibility that the ascertainability requirement
is designed to address are not at play.  Accordingly, the court
joined the First, Third, and Tenth Circuits in holding that the
ascertainability requirement was inapplicable to Rule 23(b)(2)

District Courts Split on Standing Requirements for FACTA Claims
Post-Spokeo:  Two months ago, we looked at a decision from the
Southern District of Florida holding that a plaintiff asserting a
claim under FACTA for extraneous credit card information printed
on a retailer's receipts could withstand a standing challenge on a
motion to dismiss, even without specifically identifying an
increased risk of identity theft.  Earlier this month, the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri went the
opposite way when presented with almost the exact same scenario.
In Thompson v. Rally House of Kansas City, Inc., the plaintiff
brought a putative class claim alleging that a sporting goods
store violated FACTA by including too many credit card digits on
its receipts.  The court held that because the plaintiff failed to
allege his receipt was ever at risk of exposure to would-be
identify thieves (or even left his possession), and otherwise
failed to identify any exposure of his credit card information, he
had alleged "only a mere violation" of the statute without actual
or imminent concrete harm sufficient to confer standing under

Consumer's "Failure to Disclose" Class Action Cannot Survive
Spokeo Challenge:  In another post-Spokeo dismissal of a putative
class action, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey held that a class representative's claims against a rental
car company based on its failure to disclose whether certain
loyalty program terms were void in New Jersey failed for lack of
concrete injury.  The court held that even if plaintiff identified
a technical violation of New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract,
Warranty, and Notice Act, he alleged only "bare procedural harm,
divorced from any concrete harm." The court focused in particular
on the plaintiff's failure to allege whether any of the terms in
question were in fact void under New Jersey law, reasoning that
"if those provisions are ultimately applicable, it is hard to
imagine what concrete harm Plaintiff suffered."

Settlement of "All Natural" Product Labeling Suit Drives Home
Import of Injunctive Relief Side Door: We considered a decision in
an "all natural" product-labeling case that decertified the class
for the purposes of calculating damages but not for obtaining
class-wide injunctive relief, and noted that limiting available
class relief in this manner still left plenty of incentive for
class counsel to pursue similar actions in the future due to the
availability of attorneys' fees.  To put a finer point on that, we
need look no further than the preliminary approval of a settlement
agreement in the Southern District of New York that called for the
removal of "All Natural" and "100% Natural" from the defendant's
labels, and established a $4.5 million fund for covering class
members' claims and payment of attorneys' fees.  Although the
relief afforded class members in this settlement was not limited
to injunctive relief alone, class counsel working under that
limitation in future actions will argue that getting the "natural"
references removed from product labels still justifies substantial

MIDEAL FOOD: Faces "Gil" Lawsuit Alleging Violations of FLSA
Eliani Gil, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v. MIDEAL FOOD SERVICE LLC, a Florida Profit Limited Liability
Company, d/b/a PUNTO LATINO RESTAURANT AND BAKERY, individually;
LEONARDO G. CORREIA, individually; MANUEL JIMENEZ, individually
IDEAL FOOD DISTRIBUTORS LLC, a Florida Profit Limited Liability
Company, individually; EDWIN B. PEREZ, individually; Defendant,
Case No. 6:16-cv-01826-JA-GJK (M.D. Fla., October 20, 2016), seeks
to recover alleged unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards

The district judge presiding over the case, Judge John Antoon II
referred the case to Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly, according
to case docket dated October 21, 2016.

MIDEAL FOOD SERVICE LLC is in the food service business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: 305-416-5000
     Fax: 305-416-5005
     E-mail: agp@rgattorneys.com

MOHAWK INC: Sued in Michigan Over Unsolicited Advertisements
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, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-13815-JEL-SDD (E.D. Mich., Oct. 26, 2016), seeks
statutory damages for Defendants violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Defendant allegedly sent advertisements by facsimile to Plaintiff
and a class of similarly-situated persons. The Plaintiff has
received at least two of Defendant's advertisements by facsimile.

Mohawk is a pharmaceutical wholesaler that sells controlled
substances and other physician supply products in Arkansas,
Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, North Carolina, and

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658 5555

NBTY INC: Bid to Dismiss and Certify Class in "Sweat" Suit Denied
The Hon. Marcia Morales Howard denied as moot the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled JENNIFER SWEAT, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. NBTY, INC., Case No.
3:16-cv-00940-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla.), and the motion and memorandum
for class certification and for leave to supplement after

According to the Order, the Plaintiff filed her First Amended
Class Action Complaint on October 24, 2016, which rendered moot
the parties' previous pleadings.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at

NEWS CORP: $244MM Settlement Granted Final Court Approval
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in Manhattan approved a $244 million settlement in
a class-action lawsuit claiming a News Corp. subsidiary
monopolized the market for in-store promotions.

Calling the settlement "fair, reasonable, and adequate", U.S.
District Judge William Pauley granted final approval of the deal
in October 31, along with $48 million in attorneys' fees and $7.5
million in expenses.

Pauley also added incentive awards in the amount of $50,000 each
to plaintiffs Henkel Consumer Goods, formerly Dial Corporation,
Kraft Heinz Foods, Foster Poultry Farms, Smithfield Foods, HP Hood
LLC and BEF Foods.

The settlement provides that News Corp. and its subsidiaries will
pay $244 million into a common settlement fund to be distributed
on a pro-rata basis to the class members, determined by the amount
of in-store promotions purchased by each plaintiff during the
class period.

Lead plaintiff Dial Corporation filed its class-action lawsuit
against News Corp. and its subsidiaries News America, News America
Marketing FSI, and News America Marketing In-Store Services in
2012, in Eastern Michigan federal court.

Dial and the other plaintiffs accused Rupert Murdoch's news empire
of a 20-year scheme to suppress the promotion of "a massive number
of consumer goods in forty thousand retail stores, and scores of
newspapers nationwide, to acquire and maintain two unlawful
monopolies and earn large monopoly profits at the expense of its

In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Southern New
York, where Pauley granted class certification in June 2015.

News Corp. announced the settlement on Feb. 29 of this year,
ending a trial seeking $674.6 million in damages, which could have
ballooned to $2 billion under federal antitrust law.

The media giant said in a statement at the time that it denied any
wrongdoing by subsidiary News America Marketing.

"We are pleased to have concluded this settlement, which allows us
to avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigating this
matter," News Corp. said. "While we had full confidence in our
case, we believe this decision is in the best interests of our
company and stockholders."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs had initially sought $73.2 million in
fees, or 30 percent of the settlement fund. Pauley took umbrage at
the counsel's "bloated billing," which he says was "saturated by
excessive partner time and timekeeper rates." The judge adjusted
the attorneys' fees down to $48 million.

Pauley acknowledged in October 31, ruling that the News Corp.
defendants are "part of a multi-billion dollar conglomerate
recognized as one of the world's largest and most powerful

"Although they have now resolved this action through a $244
million settlement, the notion that Defendants could withstand a
judgment in the amount of Plaintiffs' damages estimate is not far-
fetched," the judge wrote in his 26-page opinion.

The settlement includes several forms of structural relief
designed to protect the class of plaintiffs against the
anticompetitive conduct alleged in their complaint.

Such relief includes preventing News Corp. and its subsidiaries,
for the next five years, from entering into any exclusive in-store
promotions contracts with a retailer for a term longer than 30
months, other than to meet competition or at the written request
of the retailer.

The settlement agreement also stipulates that the defendants
cannot prohibit retailers from disclosing the termination dates of
their in-store promotions contracts to prospective competitors.

The plaintiffs were represented in the case by R. Stephen Berry of
Berry Law PLLC in Washington, D.C.

The case is captioned, DIAL CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
against NEWS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants., 13cv6802

NORTH BEACH TAVERN: "Barahona" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
Florencio Alvarenga Barahona and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. North Beach Tavern LLC, Lara Yagiro, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-24556 (S.D. Fla., November 1, 2016), requests
overtime wages still owing, double damages and reasonable attorney
fees, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards

North Beach Tavern operates as Norman's Tavern, a limited
liability corporation in Dade County where Plaintiff worked as a
dishwasher from on or about June 1, 2015 through on or about
October 13, 2016. He claims to have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167

OREGON: State Supreme Court Hikes Fees Award in Pension Suit
Chief Justice Thomas A. Balmer of the Supreme Court of Oregon
increased the award of attorney's fees and costs, in the case
Everice MORO; Terri Domenigoni; Charles Custer; John Hawkins;
Michael Arken; Eugene Ditter; John O'Kief; Michael Smith; Lane
Johnson; Greg Clouser; Brandon Silence; Alison Vickery; and Jin
Voek, Petitioners, v. STATE OF OREGON; State of Oregon, by and
through the Department of Corrections; Linn County; City of
Portland; City of Salem; Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue; Estacada
School District; Oregon City School District; Ontario School
District; Beaverton School District; West Linn School District;
Bend School District; and Public Employees Retirement Board,
Respondents, and LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES; Oregon School Boards
Association; and Association of Oregon Counties, Intervenors, and
Ellen Rosenblum, Attorney General; and Kate Brown, Governor,
Respondents. Michael D. REYNOLDS, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT BOARD, State of Oregon; and Kate Brown, Governor, State
of Oregon, Respondents. George A. RIEMER, Petitioner, v. STATE OF
OREGON; Oregon Governor Kate Brown; Oregon Attorney General Ellen
Rosenblum; Oregon Public Employees Retirement Board; and Oregon
Public Employees Retirement System, Respondents. George A. RIEMER,
Petitioner, v. STATE OF OREGON, Oregon Governor Kate Brown, Oregon
Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, Public Employees Retirement
Board, and Public Employees Retirement System, Respondents,
S061452 (Control), S06143, S061454, S061475, S061860 (Or.)

Following the decision in Moro v. State of Oregon, claimants
petitioned for attorney fees and costs. Claimants were petitioners
or represented petitioners who challenged legislation passed in
2013 that changed the pension benefits paid to certain members of
the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) by limiting the
statutory cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and eliminating a PERS
income-tax offset for out-of-state retirees.

Four claimants seek compensation; one claimant is the law firm
Bennett, Hartman, Morris & Kaplan, LLP, which represented the Moro
group of petitioners. The 3 additional claimants Reynolds, Riemer,
and Jones are PERS members who acted as pro se petitioners in the
underlying litigation. Reynolds and Riemer, although pro se
petitioners, also are attorneys and seek both attorney fees and
costs. Jones seeks only his costs.

Claimants who seek attorney fees have calculated their fees using
the lodestar method. As it relates to costs, Bennett Hartman seeks
$62,066.13; Reynolds seeks $1,214.48; Riemer seeks $1,159.15; and
Jones seeks $1,479.24. Bennett Hartman's cost request is
substantially higher because it includes the costs of an expert
witness who testified in support of petitioners in the underlying
litigation. Bennett Hartman and Reynolds rely on the common-fund
doctrine, while Riemer relies on both the common-fund doctrine and
on the court's decision in Deras v. Myers.

Respondents agree that a fee award may be justified under the
common-fund doctrine, but they dispute the applicability of Deras,
and county/school district respondents additionally argue that a
portion of the fee award should be justified under the
substantial-benefit doctrine. Respondents also contend that,
regardless of which doctrine justifies a fee award, no fees should
be awarded to Reynolds and Riemer because of their status as pro
se petitioners, rather than attorneys serving in a representative

Chief Justice Balmer awarded Bennett Hartman $902,665.32 in costs
and attorney fees; Reynolds is entitled to $29,314.48 in costs and
attorney fees; Riemer is entitled to $10,434.15 in costs and
attorney fees; and Jones is entitled to $1,379.24 in costs. PERB
shall determine how to pay the award from the accounts held in
PERF and shall pay the amounts awarded.

Chief Justice Balmer concluded that fees should be awarded based
on the common-fund and substantial-benefit doctrines; that the
self-represented attorneys are eligible to receive a fee award
under those doctrines; that a reasonable fee award under the
lodestar approach must be based on reasonable hourly rates and
refb02ect reductions to account for duplicative work and work on
unsuccessful claims; and that an award in the case should be paid
for as determined by the Public Employees Retirement Board (PERB)
in a manner that is consistent with its statutory authority and
fiduciary obligations.

A copy of Chief Justice Balmer's opinion dated October 27, 2016,
is available at https://goo.gl/krBE57 from Leagle.com.

Gregory A. Hartman -- hartmang@bennetthartman.com -- at Bennett,
Harman, Morris & Kaplan, LLP, for petitioners Everice Moro, Terri
Domenigoni, Charles Custer, John Hawkins, Michael Arken, Eugene
Ditter, John O'Kief, Michael Smith, Lane Johnson, Greg Clouser,
Brandon Silence, Alison Vickery, and Jin Voek. Also on the
petition was Aruna A. Masih.

George A. Riemer, pro se.

Michael D. Reynolds, pro se.

Wayne Stanley Jones, pro se.

William F. Gary -- william.f.gary@harrang.com -- at Harrang Long
Gary Rudnick P.C., filed the objections to petitions for attorney
fees and costs for respondents Linn County, Estacada School
District, Oregon City School District, Ontario School District,
West Linn School District, Beaverton School District, and Bend
School District and intervenors Oregon School Boards Association
and Association of Oregon Counties. Also on the objections was
Sharon A. Rudnick.

Keith L. Kutler, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the
objections to petitions for attorney fees and costs for state
respondents. Also on the objections were Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor
General, and Michael A. Casper and Matthew J. Merritt, Assistant
Attorneys General.

Robert F. Blackmore, Innova Legal Advisors PC, Lake Oswego, filed
the objections to petitions for attorney fees and costs for
respondent Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. With him on the
objections was Heidi W. Mason.

The Supreme Court of Oregon panel consists of Chief Justice Thomas
A. Balmer and Justices Rives Kistler, Martha Lee Walters, David V.
Brewer, Richard C. Baldwin and Lynn Nakamoto.

PFIZER INC: Court Tosses Pill Package "Slack Fill" Class Action
Steven Boranian, Esq. -- sboranian@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith,
in an article for Mondaq, reports that the term slack fill refers
to empty space, like the extra air in a bag of chips.  The variant
"nonfunctional slack fill" refers to pointless empty space.  It's
just there, serving no purpose, just like a recent slack fill
class action that recently met its demise in the Eastern District
of New York, Fermin v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 15-cv-2133, 2016 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 144851 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2016).  In Fermin, the
plaintiffs' alleged that they were "tricked" into purchasing
ibuprofen because the containers were too big. Id. at *1.  Never
mind that the labels prominently and accurately stated exactly
what was in the bottles, down to the number of pills.  These
plaintiffs alleged that the "excessive empty space" in the
packaging misled them into purchasing the product, and they
purported to represent a class of purchasers under the consumer
laws of multiple states. Id.

The district court had no patience for these allegations. In
granting the defendant's motion to dismiss, the district court
noted that the plaintiffs had to allege that the packaging was
"likely to mislead . . . a reasonable consumer acting reasonably
under the circumstances." Id. at **3-4.  In other words, it is an
objective standard, and that turned out to be the plaintiffs'
undoing.  As the court bluntly held, no one could reasonably have
been deceived when the pill counts were right there on the

Plaintiffs provide no basis for disregarding the clearly stated
pill-counts on the labels, nor do they dispute the fact that the
tablet-count is clearly and prominently displayed on each of the
labels.  Plaintiffs' own exhibits show that the labels plainly
negate any supposed "reliance" on the size of the packaging as it
is impossible to view the products without also reading the total
number of pill contained in each package.  It defies logic to
accept that the reasonable consumer would not rely upon the stated
pill count.

Id. at *5 (emphasis added). Recall that this is on a motion to
dismiss.  Not only did the plaintiffs' allegations "defy logic,"
they failed to describe any deceptive practice as a matter of law.
That's pretty good, and the district court was very direct in so
ruling.  Here is what else the court said:

This Court finds, as a matter of law, that it is not probable or
even possible that [the defendant's] packaging could have misled a
reasonable consumer. . . . The suggestion that [product packaging]
laws should cover [the plaintiffs'] failure to read an unambiguous
tablet-count does not pass the proverbial laugh test.

Id. at **5-6. The court did not explain how "the proverbial laugh
test" meshes with pleading standards under Rule 12(b)(6), but it
made its point loud and clear.  With accurate pill counts staring
consumers right in their faces, containers with extra space cannot
possibly deceive anyone.

To add insult to injury, the district court also held that the
plaintiffs failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction because
they placed no amount in controversy.  Zero.  The plaintiffs
received "exactly what they paid for and suffered no loss." Id. at
**6-7.  We understand that the amount in controversy can be a
barrier to diversity jurisdiction or CAFA jurisdiction in "no
injury" cases like this one.  We also wonder what the lack of
subject matter jurisdiction does to the rest of the order.  Is it
still res judicata?  Could these plaintiffs try to re-file in
another court (at the risk of again failing the "proverbial laugh
test")?  We don't know, but we do know that this judge was
particularly blunt:  "[N]o plaintiff would be able to prove damage
under the facts pleaded here." Id. at *7.  Or, as we would
paraphrase it, this class action was nothing more than pointless
empty space.

PHILIP MORRIS: Wins Favorable Ruling in Massachusetts Case
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts has ruled in favor of
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") on plaintiffs' Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act claim and entered final judgment in favor
of PM USA.

In medical monitoring actions, plaintiffs have sought to recover
the cost for, or otherwise the implementation of, court-supervised
programs for ongoing medical monitoring purportedly on behalf of a
class of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases have
sought to impose liability under various product-based causes of
action and the creation of a court-supervised program providing
members of the purported class Low Dose CT ("LDCT") scanning in
order to identify and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these
cases have not sought punitive damages, although plaintiffs in
Donovan sought permission from the court to seek to treble any
damages awarded, which the court denied. The defense of any future
medical monitoring cases may be negatively impacted by evolving
medical standards and practice.

In Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs purportedly brought the
action on behalf of the state's residents who are: age 50 or
older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more;
and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under
investigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer. The
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in answering questions
certified to it by the district court, held in October 2009 that
under certain circumstances state law recognizes a claim by
individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the absence of
an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or not the
case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is a
factual issue to be determined at trial. The case was remanded to
federal court for further proceedings.

In June 2010, the district court granted in part the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, certifying the class as to
plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty and violation of
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but denying
certification as to plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM
USA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for
appellate review of the class certification decision. The petition
was denied in September 2010.

As a remedy, plaintiffs have proposed a 28-year medical monitoring
program with a cost in excess of $190 million. In October 2011, PM
USA filed a motion for class decertification, which motion was
denied in March 2012. In February 2013, the district court amended
the class definition to extend to individuals who satisfy the
class membership criteria through February 26, 2013, and to
exclude any individual who was not a Massachusetts resident as of
February 26, 2013.

In July 2015, both parties filed various motions, including
motions for partial summary judgment and to exclude certain
evidence. In October 2015, the district court granted PM USA's
motion for partial summary judgment holding that e-vapor products
may not be deemed an alternative design for ordinary cigarettes.

In February 2016, the trial court jury returned a verdict in favor
of PM USA on the warranty claim. In March 2016, PM USA filed a
motion for judgment on plaintiffs' Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act claim based on the jury's verdict, which the court
denied in April 2016, ruling that it would function as the finder
of fact with respect to the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.

In September 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts ruled in favor of PM USA on plaintiffs'
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act claim and entered final
judgment in favor of PM USA. Plaintiff did not appeal the
judgment, concluding this litigation.

PNC BANK: Certification of 10 Classes Sought in "Bland" Suit
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits titled LEMUEL BLAND, et al. v. PNC
BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-01042-AJS; and MARAT GOKHBERG, et al.
cv-01700-AJS, both pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, move the Court for an order
certifying these classes:

     1. A class of all current and former MLOs who worked for PNC
        throughout the United States for violations of
        Pennsylvania law and the common law;

     2. A class of all current and former MLOs who worked for PNC
        in California for violations of California law;

     3. A class of all current and former MLOs who worked for PNC
        in Ohio for violations of Ohio law;

     4. A class of all current and former MLOs who worked for PNC
        in Illinois for violations of Illinois law;

     5. A class of all current and former MLOs who worked for PNC
        in Missouri for violations of Missouri law;

     6. A class of all current and former MLOs who worked for PNC
        in New Jersey for violations of New Jersey law;

     7. A class of all current and former MLOs who worked for PNC
        in Indiana for violations of Indiana law;

     8. A class of all current and former MLOs who worked for PNC
        in Kentucky for violations of Kentucky law;

     9. A class of all current and former MLOs who worked for PNC
        in Washington for violations of Washington law; and

    10. A class of all current and former MLOs who worked for
        PNC in New York for violations of New York law.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives of their respective classes, to appoint Justin L.
Swidler, Esq., Richard S. Swartz, Esq., Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.,
Robert D. Soloff, Esq., and Marc A. Silverman, Esq., as class
counsel for all classes but New York, and to appoint Woodley &
McGillivary LLP and Spivak Lipton LLP as class counsel for the New
York Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Soloff, Esq.
          ROBERT D. SOLOFF, P.A.
          7805 SW 7th Court
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 472-0002
          Facsimile: (954) 472-0052
          E-mail: robert@solofflaw.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Silverman, Esq.
          7805 SW 7th Court
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 474-8000
          Facsimile: (954) 474-9850
          E-mail: msilverman@fwblaw.net

The New York Named Plaintiffs and New York Class Members are
represented by:

          Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
          Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
          Diana J. Nobile, Esq.
          Sarah Block, Esq.
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          E-mail: gkm@wmlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Hope Pordy, Esq.
          1700 Broadway, Suite 2100
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 765-2100
          E-mail: hpordy@SpivakLipton.com

POTESTIVO & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
Eileen and Lawrence T. Maloney, individually and on behalf of a
class of others similarly situated v. Potestivo & Associates PC
and RBS Citizens Bank NA Successor to Charter One Bank FSB, Case
No. 2016CH14019 (Ill. Ch. Ct., October 26, 2016), seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

RBS Citizens Bank NA is a bank and holder of mortgagers in Cook

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel A. Shelist, Esq.
      29 E. Madison St, Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone (312) 644-3900
      E-mail: sshelist@muchshelist.com

QBE: Ruling to Encourage Funders to Bring "Open Class" Actions
Moira Saville, Esq. -- moira.saville@au.kwm.com -- Peta Stevenson,
Esq. -- peta.stevenson@au.kwm.com -- and James Emmerig, Esq. of
King & Wood Mallesons, in an article for Lexology, report that on
October 26, 2016, the Full Court of the Federal Court handed down
its decision in Money Max Int Pty Ltd (Trustee) v QBE Insurance
Group Limited [2016] FCAFC 148, approving for the first time an
application to conduct a class action on a "common fund" basis.

This decision is a game changer in Australian class action
litigation, paving the way for litigation funders in "open class"
actions to obtain fees from class members without the need to
enter into funding agreements.

In a joint judgment, Murphy, Gleeson and Beach JJ declared: "It is
time that the Court gives further consideration to the interests
of class members in relation to the reasonableness of litigation
funding charges".  The Court supported orders imposing the burden
of funders' fees equally upon all class members who stand to
benefit from the proceeding, whether or not they had previously
entered into a funding agreement, with the Court to determine the
reasonable rate of the commission to be paid to the funder at the
end of the proceeding.  The Court also indicated that it is
"highly likely" that the rate approved will be lower than under
the existing funding agreements.

This decision may encourage funders to bring "open class" actions
with potentially larger classes, but with the payout being
determined by the Court.  It also foreshadows an increased
willingness on the part of the Federal Court to intervene to
effectively supervise funding arrangements and, in particular, the
commission paid to the funder.

Why is the "common fund" issue so significant?

To date, litigation funders have only been able to derive fees
from those class members who enter into funding agreements with
them.  The preferred model of litigation funding has been a
"closed class" action, where all class members have signed up to
funding agreements.  If a funder pursued an "open class" action,
this would result in a division between "funded class members" and
"unfunded class members".

Courts have previously sought to address the perceived inequity
which arises where the "funded class members" bear the obligation
to compensate the funder while "unfunded class members" enjoy a
"free ride", while at the same time seeking to avoid payment to
the funder of a fee greater than its contractual entitlement.

In some cases, Courts have sought to address the issue by making
"funding equalisation orders" to redistribute the additional
amounts received "in hand" by unfunded class members pro rata
across the class as a whole.[1] Courts have previously rejected
the "common fund" solution, whereby the funder is recompensed from
the common fund of proceeds obtained by the class as a whole in
any settlement or judgment, although they did not rule out the
possibility of this solution being applied in appropriate

In this decision, the Federal Court has for the first time applied
the common fund solution.

The decision

The common fund application was heard by the Full Federal Court at
the direction of the Chief Justice.

On October 26, 2016, Murphy, Gleeson and Beach JJ approved, in
substance, common fund orders sought by the applicant (other than
in relation to the funding commission rate), inviting the parties
to make further submissions before the orders are formally made.

The proposed orders require all class members, whether or not they
have entered into a funding agreement with the funder
(International Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd or "ILFP") to
pay the ILFP's commission for funding the action, in addition to
other costs. This is subject to ILFP, the applicant's solicitors
(Maurice Blackburn) and the applicant entering into undertakings
to comply with the funding terms specified by the Court.

Importantly, the Court has taken on responsibility for setting a
reasonable "Court-approved funding commission", but only at a
later stage of the proceeding (most likely at settlement approval
or judgment).  Significantly, the Court has stipulated that:

   -- the fee is "highly likely" to be less than the 32.5% or 35%
funding commission agreed under the existing funding agreements;

   -- as a "safeguard", the fees to be paid to ILFP must not
exceed the amount which it would otherwise have received, to
ensure that ILFP is no better off under the common fund
arrangement than under alternative arrangements (such as the
funding equalisation orders).

Other observations

   -- Court's power to make common fund orders: Section 33ZF of
the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the "Act"), which
empowers the Court to "make any order the Court thinks appropriate
or necessary to ensure that justice is done in the proceeding",
was held to provide a valid basis for making common fund orders.
The Court rejected QBE's contentions that the Court lacked the
requisite power, including the argument that the orders were not a
valid exercise of judicial power.

   -- Funding commission rate: The Court indicated that the
funding commission rate would only be set at a later stage in the
proceeding when more probative and complete information becomes
available to the Court to assess its reasonableness
(notwithstanding that the applicant had proposed a lower rate of
30% to apply to all class members under a common fund model).
Their Honours emphasised that the rate set is "highly likely" to
be less than the rate already agreed with funded class members.

   -- Protection of class members' interests: The Court considered
that common fund orders would better protect class members'
interests in this case, in comparison to funding equalisation
orders, which would "saddle" the unfunded class members with a
deduction equivalent to the funding rate charged to funded class

   -- Opting out: The Court observed generally that any unfunded
class members who are unhappy with a proposed common fund regime
can "opt out" of a proceeding and commence a separate proceeding
with or without funding. This was considered a sufficient
safeguard for class members' interests, provided that they are
given proper notice and a right to object.

   -- Policy considerations: The Court found that a common fund
approach to litigation funding charges and legal costs is
consistent with the broad policy aims of the regime in Part IVA of
the Act in light of the regime's aims of enhancing access to
justice and increasing the efficient use of judicial resources,
and because the regime provides for an "opt out" model which makes
it unnecessary to obtain the consent of a person to be a class
member.  As such, the Court noted that "closed class" actions have
given rise to "a number of significant problems" (including
reducing access to justice) and anticipated that common fund
orders would enhance access to justice by "encouraging open class
representative proceedings".

   -- Impact on litigation funders: While noting that a funder
"may be discomforted" by the prospect of funding a proceeding in
which its fee is set by the Court at the end of the proceeding,
the Court considered this a "matter for the funder" and noted
that, should a funder not wish to pursue common fund orders, it
may simply decline to give the required undertaking and rely on
its existing contractual arrangements.  The Court made clear,
however, that:

"We expect that the courts will approve funding commission rates
that avoid excessive or disproportionate charges to class members
but which recognise the important role of litigation funding in
providing access to justice, are commercially realistic and
properly reflect the costs and risks taken by the funder, and
which avoid hindsight bias."

This decision paves the way for an increase in "open class"
actions in Australia using the common fund model.  Whether this
will become a common fixture depends, among other things, on
funders' willingness to take on the risk and uncertainties
inherent in funding litigation in circumstances where the
potential reward for doing so is determined by the Court, only at
the end of the proceedings, and the Court's calculation will be
counterbalanced by its desire to protect class members' interests.

QBE: "Common Fund" Ruling May Spark More Class Actions
Financial Review reports that lawyers have warned of a possible
"rush" to the courts to file class actions after the full Federal
Court gave the green light to controversial common funds, allowing
anyone affected in a lawsuit to be included in a payout and
requiring them to hand a commission to funders.

The decision, in a matter involving insurer QBE brought by
litigator Maurice Blackburn, is the most significant handed down
since the court approved litigation funding in 2006, said Herbert
Smith Freehills partner Jason Betts.

Last year, corporate Australia paid out $1 billion in settling
class action disputes.

Mr. Betts -- Jason.Betts@hsf.com -- warned that the judgment would
encourage the filing of larger class actions -- as the larger the
class the greater the return to funders -- and that business will
carry the cost.

"It may also promote a 'rush to the courthouse' by class action
promoters -- especially newer players -- seeking to capture the
class before their competitors can," he said.

There was a risk that this would occur at the expense of "proper
due diligence on the merits of the class action, often linked to
the book-building process", he warned.

Under the ruling, the court will allow costs sharing and a
commission to the litigation funder on all of the group members
that benefit, regardless of whether or not they signed an
agreement.  Safeguards include that the court will determine the
commission rate and may impose a cap on the total.

Mr. Betts said that it may mark the end of "closed classes" which
include only those who have signed up with the litigation funder.

A "big unknown" was how the court will decide the level of
commission that should go to the funder, he said.  Fewer "copycat"
proceedings was among possible advantages, but he warned that
businesses would carry the cost of bigger and better-funded class

"The court appears to accept that burden as the price of greater
levels of access to justice."

'Wrong way to go'

Jones Day's head of class action defense in Australia,
John Emmerig -- jemmerig@jonesday.com -- said reform was "urgently
needed" to turn the ruling around, saying that common fund orders
were "the wrong way to go".

"Funders drive the class action market and they stand to make a
lot of money from the QBE decision," he said.

"If this development stands . . . it will ultimately be at the
expense of class members and bring with it a bigger burden on the
entire system.

"Class actions will get larger, harder to resolve and we will see
an increase in poorly considered and poorly investigated claims
being filed as funders engage in a race to the registry to get
their class action filed first to try and 'capture the ground'
because common fund arrangements cut out the need for funders to
spend time book-building before they file."

Maurice Blackburn has championed the win as one that will drive
down costs for claimants and increase access to justice.  The win
follows a previous failed attempt by the firm to get court
approval for a common fund in a shareholder class action against

The parties to the matter must now file submissions on the
"precise form of the orders and the undertaking, including the
funding terms", before the court rules on the fund.

Victorian court fielding more claims

On Oct. 27, Victorian Supreme Court chief justice Marilyn Warren
said that the court was "increasingly attracting large-scale
litigation to our jurisdiction, including investor-based, consumer
and personal injury class actions, and claims for disaster

RAMELLI GROUP: "Escobar" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
REYES RAMIREZ, and SELVIN VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RAMELLI GROUP,
K.C. STAFFING LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-15848 (E.D.
La., Oct. 26, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime compensation and other
relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendants employ individuals as manual laborers and pay those
individuals on an hourly basis. The Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated work or worked for Defendants as manual
laborers and have routinely worked more than 40 hours per workweek
without being paid an overtime rate of one and one-half times
their regular hourly rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek.

Ramelli Group provides a variety of services to its customers in
the New Orleans area and nationwide. Ramelli Group utilizes manual
laborers to provide these services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel B. Davis, Esq.
          Randall E. Estes, Esq.
          850 North Boulevard
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 336 3394
          Facsimile: (225) 384 5419
          E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com

               - and -

          Gabriel O. Mondino, Esq.
          3535 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70119-6135
          Telephone: (504) 488 3722
          Facsimile: (504) 482 8525
          E-mail: gmondino@burgoslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew T. Lofaso, Esq.
          11404 N. Lake Sherwood Ave., Ste A
          Baton Rouge, LA 70816
          Telephone: (225) 293 6330
          Facsimile: (225) 293 6332
          E-mail: matt@lofasolawfirm.com

RABOBANK NA: Asks 7th Cir. to Reject Suit Over Ch.7 Fees
Jessica Corso, writing for Bankruptcy Law360, reported that
Rabobank NA has told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit that there was no unlawful collusion between the company
and Bankruptcy Management Solutions, a software management
business, to skim Chapter 7 fees, arguing against a Chicago law
firm's suggestion that a dismissed lawsuit be reopened.  Rabobank
said U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur was right to rule that a
deal it struck with BMS to serve as the depository bank for
Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases does not constitute unlawful tying.

McGarry & McGarry, LLC, commenced class action lawsuits, first
against Rabobank in June, and then against BMS in September.

According to a report by the Class Action Reporter, the suit filed
by McGarry against Rabobank captioned McGarry & McGarry, LLC,
Plaintiff, v. Rabobank, N.A., Defendant., Case No. 1:16-cv-05978
(N.D. Ill., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover treble damages,
compensatory damages and attorney fees resulting from the anti-
competitive effects of contracts concerning bankruptcy services in
violation of the Bank Company Holding Act.

McGarry is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Illinois, with its place of
business in Chicago, Illinois.

Rabobank is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the United States, with its principal place of business in
Roseville, California.

McGarry is represented by:

      Marianne C. Holzhall, Esq.
      McGarry & McGarry, LLC
      120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1100
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 345-4600
      Email: mch@mcgarryllc.com

          - and -

      350 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10118
      Tel: (212) 332-8300

According to another report by the Class Action Reporter, in the
suit filed by McGarry agianst BMS captioned MCGARRY & MCGARRY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-08914 (N.D. Ill., September 14, 2016),
McGarry, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated, alleges
that BMS has conspired with its two largest competitors to fix the
manner of charging Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Estates for bankruptcy
software services in violation of the Sherman Act and the Illinois
Antitrust Act.

BMS is the largest provider of bankruptcy software services in the
United States.  BMS also provides ancillary services, such as data
entry or check preparation.

Jonathan Bilyk, writing for the Cook County Record, reported that
a district judge on Aug. 12, dismissed McGarry's lawsuit against
Rabobank, which argued it did not violate federal banking laws by
"tying" its services to any non-banking product, nor did it
receive any benefit from such a "tying arrangement."  Rabobank
told the district judge that "the only benefit Rabobank received
was the right to provide deposit banking services, which is not an
improper anticompetitive practice."

McGarry appealed the dismissal of that lawsuit.  As the appeal is
pending, McGarry launched the separate lawsuit against BMS.

In the lawsuit against BMS, McGarry alleged that prior to the
financial crisis that began in 2008, BMS did not charge fees for
bankruptcy software services directly to any Estate.  Rather, BMS
directed the Trustees to deposit all of the funds of the Estates
they administer in a selected bank, the bank would earn money from
the deposits of the Estates, and the bank would pay BMS a fee.
The bank would then pay interest to the Estate.

As a result of the financial crisis that began in 2008, interest
rates declined.  As a result of this decline in interest rates,
the amount of money that the bank could earn from the deposits of
the Estates also declined, as did the bank's ability to pay BMS a
fee.  Before January 2011, to increase its profits without
providing any additional services, BMS considered directly
charging Estates a fee for bankruptcy software services.   BMS
considered charging that fee to Estates in different ways,
including on a (a) per Trustee basis, (b) per case basis, and (c)
per transaction basis, such as per report generated.  However,
upon information and belief, BMS never charged a fee to any Estate
or Trustee in any of these ways.

Before January 2011, BMS considered a non-traditional way of
charging its fees for bankruptcy software services.  Specifically,
BMS considered selling bankruptcy software services only in
combination with bankruptcy banking services and directly charging
Estates a fee for those combined services based upon a percentage
of the money in the bank account of the Estate.   BMS preferred
this non-traditional way of charging fees over the alternatives
that BMS had considered.  This non-traditional way of charging
fees would mask the extent to which BMS, as opposed to its bank,
ultimately received the fees.  This non-traditional manner of
charging fees would also make it more difficult for the Trustees
to determine whether the fee in any case was modest, reasonable,
or excessive.

BMS understood that the marketplace would accept this non-
traditional manner of charging fees if, and only if, the three
major providers of bankruptcy software services -- BMS, Epiq and
TrusteSolutions -- did not charge for bankruptcy software services
separately from the bankruptcy banking services.

According to the lawsuit, in or before January 2011, BMS proposed
to Epiq and TrusteSolutions that they, inter alia, sell bankruptcy
software services only in combination with bankruptcy banking
services, and charge no fee to an Estate for those combined
services other than a percentage of the amount in the bank account
of the Estate.  Epiq and TrusteSolutions each accepted this
proposal of BMS.

Before January 2011, BMS understood that although the Bankruptcy
Court had authority to approve actual and necessary administrative
expenses, charging an Estate a fee for combined services could
violate the rule of the U.S. Trustee that prohibited Trustees from
paying bank fees from Estate accounts.   BMS, Epiq and
TrusteSolutions requested in or before January 2011 that the U.S.
Trustee suspend that rule, and allow Trustees to pay bank fees
from Estate accounts.  On April 29, 2011, the U.S. Trustee
suspended its rule prohibiting Trustees from paying bank fees from
Estate accounts.  The U.S. Trustee, however, did not approve any
amount, or rate, for those fees, and did not approve any manner of
charging those fees.

After the U.S. Trustee suspended its rule prohibiting Trustees
from paying bank fees from Estate accounts, BMS, Epic and
TrusteSolutions reaffirmed their conspiracy.  After April 29,
2011, BMS, Epic, and TrusteSolutions acted on their conspiracy to
sell Estates bankruptcy software services only in combination with
bankruptcy banking services, and to charge no fee to an Estate for
those combined services other than a percentage of the amount in
the bank account of the Estate.  BMS and its selected bank entered
into agreements with Trustees that required an Estate to pay a
combined fee for bankruptcy software services and bankruptcy
banking services based upon a percentage of the money in the
account of the Estate.   After April 29, 2011, BMS and its
selected bank then began deducting as a fee for those combined
services a percentage of the money in the bank account of the

Neither BMS, Epiq nor TrusteSolutions has consistently charged a
fee for bankruptcy software services on a (a) per Trustee basis,
(b) per case basis, or (c) per transaction basis, such as per
report generated.   Pursuant to its conspiracy with Epiq and
TrusteSolutions, BMS continues to sell bankruptcy software
services only in combination with bankruptcy banking services, and
charges the Estate no fee for those combined services other than a
percentage of the amount in the bank account of the Estate.

Currently, with certain later developed minimums, BMS and Rabobank
charge fees at the rate of 1.75 percent, Epiq and its banks charge
fees at the rate of 1.75 percent, and TrusteSolutions and its
banks charge fees at the rate of 1.9 percent, of the amount in the
bank account of the Estate.

The lawsuit says BMS has limited competition in the national
market for bankruptcy software services.  As measured by the
number of Trustees in the United States, BMS has more than a 50
percent share, Epiq has about a 35 percent share and
TrusteSolutions has less than a 15 percent share of the national
market for bankruptcy software services.  Trustees do not, at any
one time, use more than one bankruptcy software service provider.

The suit also claims that Rabobank now holds all of the funds of
the Estates of each Trustee that uses BMS bankruptcy software
services to administer an Estate.   Rabobank currently holds about
$2,000,000,000 in deposits from Trustees who contract with BMS.

Integrated Genomics, Inc. filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition
(Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. No. 11-19086) on May 4, 2011.  The U.S.
Trustee appointed Eugene Crane as the Chapter 7 Trustee of the
Integrated Estate.  On March 24, 2014, Crane deposited the funds
of the Integrated Estate at Rabobank.   Prior to the closing of
the Integrated bankruptcy case, Rabobank deducted $514.16 from
this account.  Rabobank never paid any interest on the funds in
the account of the Integrated Estate.

McGarry, an unsecured creditor of the Integrated Estate, received
from the Integrated Estate $12,472.55 on McGarry's allowed claim
of $78,308.94.   Crane filed his final account and distribution
report on April 14, 2014.  Shortly thereafter, the Integrated case
ended and the Integrated Estate closed.  McGarry thereafter
learned that Rabobank had deducted $514.16 from the Integrated
Estate's account as a fee.  Rabobank paid most, if not all, of
this amount to BMS pursuant to their contract. Neither Rabobank
nor BMS had any permission from the Bankruptcy Court to withdraw
any funds from the Integrated Estate to pay either BMS or
Rabobank.  The amount that Rabobank deducted in fees and paid to
BMS, the lawsuit contends, was greater than the amount of the fees
that would have resulted in the absence of the conspiracy.  Absent
the overcharge of BMS for bankruptcy software services resulting
from the conspiracy, McGarry would have received a greater
distribution from the Integrated Estate.

BMS was represented in the prior case by the firms of LeonardMeyer
LLP, of Chicago, and Dorsey & Whitney, of New York.

Rabobank was represented in the prior case by the firms of Jenner
& Block, of Chicago, and Davis Wright Tremaine, with offices in
San Francisco and Washington, D.C.

SAMARITAS: "Cole" Action Alleges Unpaid Overtime Pay
Jashanna Cole, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Samaritas, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01276 (S.D. Fla., October 28, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, and an award of attorney fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Samaritas is a Michigan Corporation whose company headquarters and
principal place of business is located at 8115 E. Jefferson
Avenue, Detroit, Michigan where Plaintiff provided general care-
giving services. Cole claims to have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
      600 28th Street SW
      Wyoming, MI 49509
      Tel: (616) 257-6807
      Email: ralvarez@avantilaw.com

SIENTRA INC: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $10.9 Million
Sientra, Inc., on Oct. 28 announced that it has reached an
agreement to settle all shareholder class action litigation
previously disclosed in the Company's public filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The settlement, which will be
memorialized in a stipulation of settlement, is subject to certain
conditions, including applicable court approvals.  The parties
intend to file the stipulation of settlement and joint motions for
preliminary approval promptly.  Pursuant to the terms of the
settlement, defendants will cause to be paid $10.9M (of which the
Company's D&O insurance carriers will pay $9.3M and the Company
will pay $1.6M).

SILVERSTAR LTD: "Bradley" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
Theron Bradley and Tommy Jenkins on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Silverstar, Ltd,
Gold Standard Transportation, Inc. and Amazon.com, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-10259 (N.D. Ill., November 1, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and an award of attorney
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Silverstar and Gold Standard operate a carrier and logistics
business, and among other activities, provide trucks and/or
drivers to deliver goods for Amazon customers in Illinois where
Plaintiffs worked as delivery personnel.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel: (312) 795-9121

SIMONTON WINDOWS: Faces Class Action Over Substandard Windows
Trey Barrineau, writing for Door & Window Market Magazine, reports
that Simonton Windows is facing a class-action lawsuit from a
group of homeowners who say the company distributed substandard

The suit was filed on October 17, 2016 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota against Simonton Building Products
LLC, formerly known as Simonton Building Products Inc., and other
related companies.  It alleges breach of warranty, design defect,
failure to warn, fraud, liability, negligence, product liability
and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs say the insulated glass
windows have shown defects early on, including internal
condensation, corrosion of the metallic films and/or improper
glass preparation leading to visible finger prints and smudges.
The suit says the plaintiffs suffered inconvenience, aggravation,
loss of use of their windows and/or other damages.

Reflections, Asure, Prism, Impressions, StormBreaker Plus,
ProFinish, DaylightMax, Madeira and Lumera are among the former or
current Simonton lines named in the suit.

The plaintiffs also claim that Simonton's windows contain
"multiple discrete design and manufacturing defects and
deficiencies," including lack of edge deletion on the low-e
coatings on the windows; lack of dessicant or inadequate dessicant
inside the spacer; edge seal defects; and lack of secondary window
seals.  The plaintiffs also allege that Simonton did not
adequately test its windows before selling them to the public.

On its website, Simonton says its "windows and doors are tested to
the advanced AAMA Gold Label Certification Program. The Gold
Certification is AAMA's highest level of testing with windows and
doors being tested for thermal performance as well as air, water
and structural integrity.  The standard AAMA silver label only
requires thermal testing.  Simonton's Product Development Center
is an ATI-certified lab site that enables us to perform thorough,
in-house structural and thermal testing.  An AAMA gold label
certifies that the units assembled on the production lines are
using the same process and components as the unit that was

The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial.

DWM contacted Simonton for a comment on the lawsuit, but did not
receive a response by press time.

SPEEDPAY INC: Pincus Seeks to Certify Class of Florida Consumers
Caryn Pincus submits her combined motion and memorandum in support
of class certification in her lawsuit titled CARYN PINCUS v.
SPEEDPAY, INC, a New York Corporation, Case No. 9:15-cv-80164-KAM
(S.D. Fla.).  She asks the Court to certify this class of
similarly situated persons:

     All (i) persons in Florida (ii) who paid Speedpay, Inc. a
     fee for using Speedpay, Inc.'s electronic payment services
     (iii) during the five year period prior to the filing of the
     complaint in this action through the present.

Ms. Pincus further asks that the Court appoint her as class
representative, and Michael Karnuth, Esq., Bret Lusskin, Esq. and
Scott Owens, Esq. as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Bret L. Lusskin, Esq.
          BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454-5844
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Karnuth, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: mkarnuth@keoghlaw.com

SSM HEALTH: "Feather" Suit Transferred from S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo.
The class action lawsuit titled LISA FEATHER, on behalf of
herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the SSM Plan, the Plaintiff, v. SSM
HEALTH, a Missouri Non-profit Corporation, THE PENSION COMMITTEE
SSM EMPLOYEES, each an individual, and JOHN and JANE DOES 21- 40,
each an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01669-HEA,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:16-cv-01669-HEA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
District Judge Henry Edward Autrey.

The case seeks an Order requiring SSM Health to comply with
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and afford the
Class all the protections of ERISA with respect to SSM Health's
defined benefit pension plans, as well as an Order finding that
the Church Plan exemption, as claimed by SSM Health, is
unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment.

According to the complaint, the ERISA Church Plan exemption, as
claimed by SSM Health, is an attempt to extend the accommodation
beyond churches and associations of churches, to SSM Health -- a
non-profit hospital conglomerate that has chosen to compete with
commercial businesses, including other non-profits as well as for-
profits, by entering the economic arena and trafficking
in the marketplace. Extension of the Church Plan exemption to SSM
Health violates the Establishment Clause because it (A) is not
necessary to further the stated purposes of the exemption, (B)
harms SSM Health workers, (C) puts SSM Health competitors at an
economic disadvantage, (D) relieves SSM Health of no genuine
religious burden created by ERISA, and (E) creates more government
entanglement with alleged religious beliefs than compliance with
ERISA creates.

SSM Health is a Catholic, not-for-profit United States health care
system. More than 1,300 physicians and 29,500 others employees in
four states are employed by SSM. SSM is one of the largest
employers in the cities it serves.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
          Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
          Mary J. Bortscheller, Esq.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Erin M. Riley, Esq.
          Ron Kilgard, Esq.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623 3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

STEEL DYNAMICS: Settles Class Action for $4.6 Million
Recycling Today reports that Steel Dynamics Inc., a steel producer
headquartered in Fort Wayne, Indiana, has entered into an
agreement to settle the direct purchaser class-action litigation,
Standard Iron Works v. Arcelor Mittal, et al, for $4.6 million.
The lawsuit was brought in Chicago federal court in 2008 by a
class of direct steel purchasers, alleging that the company, among
other steel producers, had participated in a conspiracy with other
steel manufacturers to restrict steel production.

A motion for summary judgment, earlier filed by SDI, was pending
at the time of settlement.

The settlement requires preliminary and final approval by the
court, which the company anticipates it will receive.  Following
preliminary approval by the court, members of the class will be
given an opportunity to opt out of the settlement.  Following
court approval and payment, SDI will receive a full release of all
claims that were or could have been brought by all participating
class members.  An existing, separate claim by "indirect"
purchasers is not affected by this settlement, though SDI and the
other defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss.

In a news release announcing the settlement, Mark Millett,
president and CEO of SDI, says, "While we had great confidence
that we would prevail on the facts and the law, we felt it was
prudent at this time to exit this costly, protracted and
distracting litigation.  We maintained at all times that the
lawsuit was without merit and that we did not conspire to limit
steel production.  To the contrary, the facts amply demonstrated
that we both increased existing production and expanded our
production capabilities during the relevant time period, and we
believe plaintiffs ultimately recognized these facts."

SUNEDISON INC: "Dull" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742
The case captioned JULIE DULL and ERIC O'DAY, individually and on
behalf of the SunEdison Retirement Savings Plan, and all other
similarly situated Plan participants and beneficiaries,
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00173 (E.D. Mo., February 9,
2016) was transferred from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri to the to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The New York District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-08163
to the proceeding.

The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In
re: Sunedison, Inc., Securities Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-02742-
PKC.  According to an order entered by the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in
the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the
actions previously transferred to the Southern District of New
York and assigned to Judge P. Kevin Castel.

In her complaint, Ms. Dull seeks recovery for alleged damages
caused to Plaintiffs and the purported Class due to the failure of
the Defendants, fiduciaries of the Plan, to protect the interests
of Plan Participants in violation of the Defendants' obligations
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA
by retaining SunEdison common stock as an investment option under
the Plan, when a reasonable fiduciary using the care, skill,
prudence, and diligence that a prudent man acting in a like
capacity and familiar with such matters would have done otherwise.

Initial Conference in MDL 2742 is set for December 19, 2016, at
2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 11D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007
before Judge P. Kevin Castel, according to a docket entry dated
October 26, 2016.

SunEdison is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Maryland
Heights, Missouri.  SunEdison finances, builds, owns, and operates
various solar and wind power plants, having developed over 1,300
solar and wind projects in 20 countries.  Originally a silicon-
wafer manufacturer established in 1959 as the Monsanto Electronic
Materials Company, the Company began as a manufacturer of silicon
wafers, a basic element of semiconductor-chip manufacturing.  The
Company entered the solar energy market in 2006 and changed its
name to SunEdison in May 2013 to reflect the Company's move into
solar energy.  In May 2014, SunEdison formally separated its
electronics-wafer business from its solar-wafer and solar-energy
business, creating the new corporate entity SunEdison
Semiconductor, Ltd., with SunEdison, Inc. maintaining a majority
stake as the largest shareholder.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Richard B. Hein, Esq.
     7750 Clayton Road, Suite 102
     St. Louis, MO 63117
     Phone: (314) 645-7900
     Fax: (314) 645-7901

        - and -

     Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
     Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
     Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
     7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Phone: (858) 914-2001
     Fax: (858) 914-2002

T&D SOLUTIONS: "Casselberry" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
Brent Casselberry, Cody Brummett, Brannon Reed and Tom Miech,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. T&D Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01180 (W.D. Tex., October 28, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

T&D Solutions, LLC, is a provider of construction and maintenance
services for electric transmission and distribution lines
throughout the Southwest.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Jackson Wisdom, Esq.
      808 Travis, 20th Floor
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 632-1700
      Facsimile: (713) 222-0101
      Email: wisdom@mdjwlaw.com

TERRIBLE HERBST: Nevada Rules Reinforce Minimum Wage Amendment
Justice Kristina Pickering of the Supreme Court of Nevada,
affirmed the district court's order granting respondent's motion
for judgment on the pleadings, in the case DEBORAH PERRY, AN
CORPORATION, D/B/A TERRIBLE HERBST, Respondent, No. 68030 (Nev.)

Appellant Deborah Perry worked as a cashier at one of respondent
Terrible Herbst, Inc.'s convenience and gas station stores in
Clark County, Nevada, from May 2007 until March 2012. More than
two years after she last worked for Terrible Herbst, in July of
2014, Perry filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that Terrible
Herbst failed to pay her and other similarly situated employees
the minimum wage required by the Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA) to
the Nevada Constitution. In her complaint, Perry asserted that she
was paid less than $8.25 an hour even though Terrible Herbst
failed to provide her with a qualifying health insurance plan. The
complaint was later amended to name other plaintiffs with similar
claims against Terrible Herbst.

Terrible Herbst filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under
NRCP 12(c). Citing the two-year statute of limitations in NRS
608.260, Terrible Herbst sought judgment in its favor on all
claims for damages that were more than two years old in July 2014,
when Perry filed suit.

The district court granted the motion for judgment on the
pleadings under NRCP 12(c).

Justice Pickering affirmed the district court's order granting
respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings, stating that
when a right of action does not have an express limitation period,
the most closely analogous limitations period will be applied.
Since the MWA does not expressly indicate which limitations period
applies and the most closely analogous statute to the MWA is NRS
608.260, as both permit an employee to sue his employer for
failure to pay the minimum wage and by applying the NRS 608.260
limitations period which is consistent with Nevada minimum wage
law, the district court's order granting Terrible Herbst's motion
for judgment on the pleadings is affirmed and Perry's claim is

A copy of Justice Pickering's opinion dated October 27, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/XOmEMs from Leagle.com.

Bradley S. Schrager -- bschrager@wrslawyers.com -- Daniel Bravo --
dbravo@wrslawyers.com -- Don Springmeyer --
dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- at Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman
& Rabkin, LLP, for Appellant

Montgomery Y. Paek -- mpaek@littler.com -- Kathryn B. Blakey --
kblakey@littler.com -- Roger L. Grandgenett, II --
rgrandgenett@littler.com -- Rick D. Roskelley --
rroskelley@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, P.C., for

The Supreme Court of Nevada panel consists of Justices James W.
Hardesty, Kristina Pickering, Mark Gibbons, Michael A. Cherry nad
Ron D. Parraguirre.

TILE SHOP: Beaver County Retirement Fund Suit Underway
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in
the case, Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, et al. v. Tile
Shop Holdings, Inc., et al., are in the process of briefing and
arguing dispositive motions.

The Company, two of its former executive officers, five of its
outside directors, and certain companies affiliated with the
directors, are defendants in a consolidated class action brought
under the federal securities laws and now pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota under the
caption Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, et al. v. Tile
Shop Holdings, Inc., et al. Several related actions were filed in
2013 and subsequently consolidated. The plaintiffs are three
investors who represent classes consisting of (1) all purchasers
of Tile Shop common stock between August 22, 2012 and January 28,
2014 (the "class period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) all purchasers of Tile
Shop common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
December 2012 registration statement, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933. Six firms who were underwriters
in the December 2012 secondary public offering are also named as
defendants.  The plaintiffs allege that during the class period,
defendants failed to disclose certain related party transactions
in the Company's SEC filings and press releases.  The plaintiffs
assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In addition to attorneys' fees
and costs, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of
class members.  Discovery has closed, and the parties are in the
process of briefing and arguing dispositive motions.

Ghe Company is a specialty retailer of manufactured and natural
stone tiles, setting and maintenance materials, and related
accessories in the United States.  The Company manufactures its
own setting and maintenance materials, such as thinset, grout, and
sealers. The Company's primary market is retail sales to
consumers, contractors, designers and home builders. As of
September 30, 2016, the Company had 120 stores in 31 states and an
on-line retail operation. The Company also has distribution
centers located in Michigan, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Virginia, and
Wisconsin. The Company has a sourcing operation located in China.

TIMEWARNER INC: "Chan" Files Antitrust Suit in Calif. Ct.
Peng Chan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. TimeWarner, Inc., Mazher Mahmood, Jim Barksdale,
John Hanke, Chris DeWolfe, News Corporation, Inc., Alphabet, Inc.,
Barry D iller, Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-
06268 (N.D. Cal., October 30, 2016), seeks pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest provided by law or allowed in equity, costs of
this litigation, nominal damages, compensatory damages,
restitution of all monies due, disgorged profits from unlawful
business practices, treble damages and all such other and further
relief resulting from fraudulent concealment, a Blasius violation,
Interference with Economic Advantage under California Law, fraud,
deceit and concealment, unjust enrichment under California Law and
violation of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, California's Cartwright
Act and California's Unfair Competition Statute and Lanham Act
provision 1125 against Defendants News Corporation, IAC,
AskJeeves, DeWolfe, Rosenblatt, Yang, Carlick, Brewer, Orrick Law.

The class action challenges an antitrust conspiracy to depress the
value of Plaintiff's and Intermix Media, Inc. shareholders' shares
between October 30, 2003 and September 30, 2005 at the time of its
sale to News Corporation. Plaintiffs owned registrable securities
or common stock in Intermix. Intermix was the controlling and
majority shareholder and owner of MySpace, Inc., a shell
corporation set up to sell-off at an unfairly low prices.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Jared Peterson, Esq.
      2003 South El Camino Real, Suite 119
      Oceanside, CA 92054
      Tel: (866) 328-4060
      Email: jplaw1@protonmail.com

TITAN MOTOR: "Lopez" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Commissions
David Lopez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Titan Motor Group, LLC, Sunrise Infiniti, LLC dba
Infiniti of Lynbrook, Joseph Valentino and Scott Reback,
Defendants, Case No. 608342/2016, (N.Y. Sup., October 27, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid commissions, overtime compensation,
penalties, interest, damages, attorneys' fees and costs under New
York Labor Laws.

Defendants, operating under the business name Atlantic Automotive
Group, employed Plaintiff as an inventory swap manager at their
dealership, Infinity of Lynnbrook.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Michael A. Tompkins
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550

TLC Cleaners: "Chang" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
Yujin Chang, Plaintiff, v. Jong Ho Kim, Young E. Kim, Yorktown
Cleaners, Inc. and TLC Cleaners at Sully Station, Defendants, Case
No. 5:16-cv-00636 (E.D. Va., October 28, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Chang seeks designation of this action as a collective action on
behalf of herself and those similarly situated.

Defendants are engaged in the laundry business where Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees worked as laborers at
Defendants' stores. Chang worked as a cashier and helper.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hyunkweon Ryu
      RYU & RYU, PLC
      301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620
      Vienna VA 22180
      Phone: (703) 319-0001
      Fax: (703) 562-0787

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Nov. 10 Hearing on Motions to Exclude Evidence
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
former Trump University students suing Republican presidential
nominee Donald Trump say things he's said and have been said about
him on the campaign trail should be fair game during a class
action trial in San Diego, later this month.

In an opposition to Trump's motion to exclude election fodder
filed November 1, Sonny Low and the other plaintiffs say Trump's
request demands "the court create a new category of immunity to
protect him from himself."

The class sued Trump in 2010, claiming he defrauded Trump
University students with a "get rich quick" scheme that was
supposed to teach real estate secrets to those hoping to cash in
on the foreclosure crisis. Some students paid upwards of $35,000
for advice they claim was little more than an infomercial.

In the final countdown to the post-election trial, both parties
filed a host of documents on Oct. 20 detailing evidence they'd
like U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel to exclude from trial.
Most notably, Trump wants everything he said or has been said
about him during his presidential stump -- including things he's
said about the case, plaintiffs and judge -- from being allowed as
evidence. The candidate claims he will be prejudiced if evidence
that "has nothing to do with the trial" but everything to do with
the election is allowed by Curiel.

But the plaintiffs say Trump wants to "rig" the trial by "hiding
the jury from his own words." They say no court has provided the
kind of "blanket immunity" Trump wants, simply because the
comments he's made are "so numerous Trump does not even try to
identify them all."

The plaintiffs want Curiel to deny Trump's blanket order, saying
the candidate "has only himself to blame." Trump's motion should
be denied outright for vagueness, since it is "practically
boundless" and does not specify what evidence Trump and his legal
team want to exclude, they add.

"By casting such an overbroad net, defendants hope to ensnare even
admissible evidence with a sweeping ruling that would inflict
maximum collateral damage on plaintiffs' ability to put on their
case-in-chief, impeach witnesses or rebut evidence," according to
the opposition.

Because Trump is an individual defendant in the case and it's
primarily about his conduct related to Trump University, what he's
said and has been said about him the past 1 « years should not be
excluded by a blanket order, the plaintiffs say.

"As they have demonstrated throughout this litigation, plaintiffs
have no desire to politicize this case. On the other hand, Trump
has repeatedly done so," the class says.  They add they should not
have to do Trump's work "for him" by trying to identify what he
wants excluded.

"He chose not to identify a single statement he wishes to exclude,
and neither the court nor the plaintiffs should attempt to fill in
this gigantic blank by identifying examples of inadmissible and
admissible statements," the class says.

Among the list of vague topics Trump seeks to exclude is
information related to his other business ventures -- including
Trump Organization, which the plaintiffs say was interconnected
with Trump University. Trump also wants to exclude statements made
by politicians or public servants, including a finding by the New
York State Education Department that Trump University unlawfully
called itself a "university."

The class claims the evidence is not unfairly prejudicial, but
could be harmful to Trump's defense. They even point to a
"Saturday Night Live" sketch where actor Alec Baldwin, playing
Trump, said the election was rigged by "taking all of the things I
say, and all of the things I do, and putting them on TV."

According to the class, "Simply because evidence tends to undercut
Trump's defense or ability to appear as a credible witness cannot
warrant its exclusion."

Without specifics, the plaintiffs say the court has no "way of
sensibly ruling" on Trump's motion to exclude other than to deny

A hearing on the motions to exclude evidence is scheduled for Nov.

The trial kicks off Nov. 28.

The case is captioned, SONNY LOW, J.R. EVERETT and JOHN BROWN, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, a New York Limited
Liability Company and DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants., No. 3:10-cv-

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Parties Still Disagree on Trial Process
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
with the first Trump University class action approaching its post-
election trial date, recently filed court documents reveal
attorneys on both sides still can't agree on how the trial should
be litigated.

Attorneys for both parties in the Low v. Trump University class
action have submitted the first of their proposed jury
instructions and special verdict forms which will advise the jury
of the issues at hand in the consumer protection case.

Sonny Low and the other plaintiffs sued Republican presidential
nominee Donald Trump and his now-defunct real estate school in
2010, claiming they were duped into paying upwards of $35,000 to
learn insider real estate secrets from instructors purported to be
handpicked by Trump himself. It turned out Trump was not involved
much in the selection of teachers, and his attorneys have since
said the school relied on "sales puffery" common in the
advertising world to market itself as relying heavily on Trump's

The trial will be two phases, with the jury tasked to decide in
phase one if Trump is liable for using false advertising to get
thousands of people to invest in Trump University. If Trump is
found liable, phase two will determine what damages should be
awarded to the former students.

In a host of court documents filed over the past few months,
attorneys on both sides have revealed their inability to cooperate
as the trial nears. Months after the trial date was set by U.S.
District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Trump's lead attorney Daniel
Petrocelli tried to get the trial date pushed back due to a
conflicting trial scheduled in another federal court. The
plaintiffs' attorney Jason Forge vehemently opposed the request,
calling it a "tactical decision that should not be rewarded by the
court," and Curiel denied pushing back the 6 «-year-old case.

The latest trial documents filed Oct. 28 by the plaintiffs say the
class "did their best" to jointly submit proposed jury
instructions agreed upon by both parties, but Trump and the other
defendants failed to respond to the plaintiffs' edits. They claim
Trump tried to "limit plaintiffs' ability to respond to newly
cited authorities" and refused to authorize the filing because
plaintiffs' "corrected defendants' last-minute misrepresentation
of a prior order of this court, among other changes."

The class adds, "Plaintiffs remain ready and willing to
collaborate with defendants and reach agreement to the extent
possible, but cannot do so on their own."

Nearly every jury instruction in the massive 148-page filing was
disputed by the plaintiffs or defendants.

The plaintiffs want Curiel to allow them to respond to any
further changes made by Trump and the others to the jury
instruction document which Curiel will read to the jury before the
trial begins.

That supposed misrepresentation cited by the class is regarding
the "sales puffery" argument that's been a main sticking point for
the parties throughout the past year. The plaintiffs say Trump
University misrepresented to consumers instructors were handpicked
by Trump himself in violation of California Consumers Legal Remedy
Act. That misrepresentation was material, the plaintiffs say, in
that consumers relied on it in deciding to purchase a Trump
University education and the defendants knew consumers would rely
on the misrepresentation when making a purchase decision.

Low and the other plaintiffs object to Trump's proposed jury
instructions on materiality and puffery, saying the defendants
"misleadingly" put brackets around Curiel's prior order on puffery
-- adding nothing to the analysis in an improper "attempt to
insert the issue as a separate inquiry for trial." The plaintiffs
also say the separate jury instruction on puffery "improperly
engraft additional elements onto plaintiffs' claims" and argue the
definition of puffery is "subsumed" by the definition of material
making it unnecessary to distinguish between the two. They also
claim jury instructions on puffery are "rarely, if ever, given."

Surprisingly, the parties agreed on instructions prohibiting
jurors from discussing the details of the high-profile case in
person or electronically, a standard instruction read to jurors
deciding civil cases. It does not appear the jurors will be
subject to heightened security concerns surrounding the case, but
more information could be revealed in a jury questionnaire not yet
filed with the court.

The Low v. Trump University trial is set begin Nov. 28.

The case is captioned, SONNY LOW, J.R. EVERETT and JOHN BROWN, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, a New York Limited
Liability Company and DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants. No. 3:10-cv-

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Burgos" Sues Over Unpaid Gratuities and Wages
Matthew B. Burgos, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and
Portier, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08512, (S.D. N.Y.
November 1, 2016), seeks reimbursement of all gratuities earned,
legal tools-of-the-trade expenses, and minimum wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Laws and the Fair Play

Matthew B. Burgos worked as a foot and bike courier for the
Defendants. UBER launched UBEReats, a food delivery service that
employed bike and foot messengers to deliver packages.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
      250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10177
      Telephone: (212) 300-5358
      Facsimile: (347) 218-9478

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Wage Theft Class Action in New York
Kevin McGowan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a New York
City taxi drivers' union and individual drivers sued Uber
Technologies Inc. for the second time in four months, claiming the
ride-sharing company engages in "wage theft" by not paying drivers
either the minimum wage or for overtime (N.Y. Taxi Workers All. v.
Uber Techs, Inc., S.D.N.Y., No. 16-8299, complaint filed

The parties' original lawsuit, filed June 2 in federal district
court in Manhattan, alleged Uber violates the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

In a tactical move, four of 10 drivers named in the original class
action Oct. 24 filed a second complaint that makes the same
substantive claims.

Those drivers, who haven't opted out of arbitration agreements
with Uber, will contend the National Labor Relations Act bars
arbitration pacts containing class action waivers, said attorney
Jeanne E. Mirer, who represents the union and drivers in both

They will argue Uber can't compel them to arbitrate the employment
dispute, Mirer told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 26.

Meanwhile, the union and the six drivers in the original lawsuit
who opted out of arbitration can more quickly move for court
consideration of their "wage theft" claims, she said.

Uber representatives weren't immediately available for comment
Oct. 26.

Whether Uber drivers are employees or independent contractors is
being litigated in multiple venues nationwide.

Courts have split on whether drivers' claims against Uber
regarding their employee status, wages or other working conditions
must be arbitrated or may proceed as class actions.

In a separate case, a federal judge in New Jersey Oct. 24
dismissed some drivers' Fair Credit Reporting Act claims against
Uber and a background check firm after the parties settled the
lawsuit for an undisclosed sum.

Class Action Waiver Issue

Federal appeals courts are split on whether class action waivers
violate workers' NLRA rights to engage in concerted activities.

The Seventh Circuit and the Ninth Circuit agreed with the National
Labor Relations Board that arbitration pacts with such waivers
violate workers' rights under the NLRA.  But other federal appeals
courts, including the Second Circuit, rejected the NLRB's position
and upheld class action waivers in arbitration.

Multiple petitions for U.S. Supreme Court review are pending, and
the justices could decide to hear the NLRA issue this term.

After the Uber drivers filed their original complaint in June, the
Second Circuit said arbitration pacts with class action waivers
are enforceable.

The Uber drivers therefore decided to split their lawsuit,
Ms. Mirer said,

"We definitely want to take part in challenging" the legality of
arbitration agreements with class action waivers, she said.

In their complaint, the Uber drivers said they lacked the
"bargaining power" to resist the "one-sided" arbitration
agreements the company presses them to sign.

Those agreements require "all claims generally applicable to
workers" to be arbitrated while not requiring arbitration on
claims that an employer typically would bring, the complaint said.

Pay Reduced to Unlawful Levels

The two lawsuits are the first class actions filed against Uber
for "New York-specific wage theft," the taxi workers' union said
in an Oct. 24 statement.

Uber deducts sales tax and a surcharge for an injured workers'
fund from drivers' pay, after the company takes its own
commission, the union said.

By contrast, other car service companies in New York add the sales
tax and surcharge to the passenger's fare, the union said.

Uber's pay practices mean many drivers working more than eight
hours a shift earn less than minimum wage and receive no overtime
pay, the union said.

Uber breached its contracts with the drivers in addition to
violating federal and state wage laws, the complaint alleged.

No attorney has yet entered an appearance for Uber in the latest
case. Littler Mendelson P.C. represents Uber in the original case
filed in June.

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Judge Okays $14.7BB Emissions Settlement
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal judge approved a $14.7 billion settlement in the class
action lawsuits filed against Volkswagen over its emissions

On Oct. 25, Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted final approval to the
settlement agreement between Volkswagen and private plaintiffs
represented by a court-appointed Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
(PSC) to resolve civil claims regarding eligible Volkswagen and
Audi 2.0L TDI vehicles in the United States.

Judge Breyer also approved a Consent Decree between Volkswagen and
the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of California by and through
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the California
Attorney General; and a Consent Order between Volkswagen and the
U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

Under the settlement, the German automaker is required to spend up
to $10 billion on vehicle buybacks and owner compensation.  It
also must pay $2.7 billion into a trust to support environmental
programs and reduce emissions, and spend an additional $2 billion
on investments and promotion of zero emissions vehicles.

According to the final approval order, the settlement also
requires Volkswagen to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
Class counsel has agreed to seek no more than $324 million, plus
no more than $8.5 million in actual and reasonable out-of-pocket
costs, for expenses incurred through Oct. 18, 2016.

Judge Breyer said the settlement, considered to be the largest
auto-scandal settlement in U.S. history, is "fair, reasonable and

"Given the risks of prolonged litigation, the immediate settlement
of this matter is far preferable," the judge noted in the final
approval order.

"As the Court stated at the outset, the priority was to get the
polluting cars off the road as soon as possible.  The Settlement
does that. It requires Volkswagen to make the funds to compensate
Class Members available within ten days of the Court's final
approval order, and the Buyback program will begin immediately
upon final approval of the Settlement and entry of the United
States' Consent Decree."

The judge continued, "For those Class Members who elect a Fix, the
Consent Decree sets forth a schedule for Volkswagen to submit
proposed Fixes; the last deadline for Volkswagen's final submittal
is October 30, 2017.  And, if no Fix is approved, Class Members
may instead participate in a Buyback. The Settlement thus ensures
Class Members that a remedy -- whether a Buyback or a Fix -- is
available immediately or, at the latest, 2018."

In particular, under the settlement, Volkswagen has agreed to: buy
back, terminate leases or provide approved emissions modifications
for nearly 475,000 2.0-liter TDI diesel cars in the United States;
provide cash payments to owners/lessees?; pay for environmental
remediation; and promote zero emissions vehicle technology.

The following 2.0L TDI engine vehicles are included in the
settlement program: VW Beetle, 2013-15; VW Golf, 2010-15; VW
Jetta, 2009-15; VW Passat, 2012-15; and Audi A3, 2010-13 and 2015.

Basically, owners and lessees can choose to have Volkswagen buy
back their cars or do an early lease termination, and receive
cash; or they can have their cars modified to improve emissions
and receive a cash payment.  However, any modifications must be
approved by the EPA and CARB.

Last year, Volkswagen admitted to intentionally programming
turbocharged direct injection, or TDI, diesel engines to activate
certain emissions controls only during laboratory emissions

Volkswagen and Audi owners began filing class actions soon after,
claiming fraud and breach of contract due to expected reductions
in horsepower and fuel efficiency.  Investors lawsuits also were
filed to seek compensation for the drop in stock value due to the

"Final approval of the 2.0L TDI settlement is an important
milestone in our journey to making things right in the United
States, and we appreciate the efforts of all parties involved in
this process," said Hinrich J. Woebcken, president and CEO of
Volkswagen Group of America Inc.

"Volkswagen is committed to ensuring that the program is now
carried out as seamlessly as possible for our affected customers
and has devoted significant resources and personnel to making
their experience a positive one."

The company said it "remains focused" on resolving other
outstanding issues in the United States and continues to work
towards an agreed resolution for customers with affected 3.0L TDI
V6 diesel engines.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris, whose office helped
negotiate the settlement, said she was pleased with the
settlement's terms.

"Curbing emissions is vital to protecting our planet for future
generations and the deceit Volkswagen practiced in pursuit of
profit is unconscionable," she said in a statement.  "This
agreement holds the company accountable for violating California
and federal environmental protection laws and requires major
investments in our environment and zero emission technology,
including over a billion dollars for California alone."

In addition to providing consumer relief funding, California will
receive $1.18 billion, representing more than one-quarter of the
funding VW must provide for environmental projects in states
injured by the company's conduct and investments it must make in
zero emission technology.

Ms. Harris also secured an additional $86 million in civil
penalties as part of a second partial settlement over the
company's use of "defeat devices" to evade emissions testing in
its diesel vehicles.

But not all were pleased with the terms of the agreement.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Class Action
Fairness called it "disappointing."

The Washington, D.C.-based public-interest law firm, which
represents class members against unfair class action procedures
and settlements, argues the agreement provides zero marginal
benefit for the class.

"This $10 billion settlement is a bad deal for consumers -- the
actual value to consumers will be far less than that and would
have been available to consumers even without this class action
settlement," said CEI attorney Anna St. John, who argued against
the settlement approval before the court in San Francisco.
"What's worse is how inadequately the plaintiffs' attorneys
represented their clients in this case.

"Class counsel violated their fiduciary duty by misinforming and
ultimately duping 475,000 class members into a settlement that
will potentially pay their attorneys hundreds of millions of
dollars for providing them next to nothing.  These dollars should
be going to the class, but instead, the lawyers' decision to
structure the settlement with self-dealing gimmicks may have cost
Volkswagen owners more than a billion dollars."

St. John put down Breyer's adoption of class counsel's claim that
the attorneys' fees will not diminish the benefits award to class
members under the settlement.

"Volkswagen is an economic actor with rational expectations, and
the expected excessive attorney-fee request was baked into its
reservation price and adversely affected what consumers received,"
she said.

According to a January order by the federal court, Elizabeth J.
Cabraser of San Francisco firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP was appointed plaintiffs' lead counsel and chair of the PSC.
Among those firms listed as members of the steering committee were
Charleston, W.Va., firm Bailey and Glasser LLP; Seattle firm
Keller Rohrback LLP; South Carolina firm Motley Rice LLC; New York
firm Weitz & Luxenberg PC; Seattle firm Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP; and Encino, Calif., firm Baron Budd PC.

WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bid to Certify Classes in "Smith" Suit Denied
The Hon. Lyle E. Strom denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification as to both the California and
Nebraska Classes in the consolidated lawsuits styled EZEQUIEL
OLIVARES ABARCA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, ALFREDO ALESNA JR., individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, DAVID CAGLE, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated, STEPHEN L. DAVIS, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, FRANK EADS,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, and
KENNETH J. SURMAN, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 8:14CV319; and WILLIAM SMITH, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., a corporation, and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 8:15-cv-00287-LES-FG3, both
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska.

The Plaintiffs "assert violations of California law" and
"violations of Nebraska law" causing "some form of injury" due to
the Defendants' uniform policy and practice of not paying all
wages owed, not paying for all time worked, making improper
deductions from pay for work performed, and not providing properly
itemized pay statements that accurately reflect hours worked.

Judge Strom ruled that the Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend
their complaint and the Plaintiffs' amendments to the third
amended complaint will be limited to only attempting to provide
the Court with an adequately defined and clearly ascertainable
definition for the California Class.  The Plaintiffs' amendments
to the third amended complaint will not substantively alter the
current complaint in any other way; including, but not limited to,
adding additional claims, parties, classes, and/or causes of

The Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint will be filed by November
9, 2016, Judge Strom said.  The Defendants will have 14 days after
the filing of the fourth amended complaint to file an answer.
Judge Strom also denied as moot the Defendants' motion for leave
to submit additional authority.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at

WERNER ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Abarca's Bid to Certify Classes
The Hon. Lyle E. Strom denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification as to both the California and
Nebraska Classes in the consolidated lawsuits styled EZEQUIEL
OLIVARES ABARCA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, ALFREDO ALESNA JR., individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, DAVID CAGLE, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated, STEPHEN L. DAVIS, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, FRANK EADS,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, and
KENNETH J. SURMAN, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-00319-LES-FG3; and WILLIAM SMITH, on
behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of
the general public v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., a corporation, and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 8:15CV287, both pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska.

The Plaintiffs "assert violations of California law" and
"violations of Nebraska law" causing "some form of injury" due to
the Defendants' uniform policy and practice of not paying all
wages owed, not paying for all time worked, making improper
deductions from pay for work performed, and not providing properly
itemized pay statements that accurately reflect hours worked.

Judge Strom ruled that the Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend
their complaint and the Plaintiffs' amendments to the third
amended complaint will be limited to only attempting to provide
the Court with an adequately defined and clearly ascertainable
definition for the California Class.  The Plaintiffs' amendments
to the third amended complaint will not substantively alter the
current complaint in any other way; including, but not limited to,
adding additional claims, parties, classes, and/or causes of

The Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint will be filed by November
9, 2016, Judge Strom said.  The Defendants will have 14 days after
the filing of the fourth amended complaint to file an answer.
Judge Strom also denied as moot the Defendants' motion for leave
to submit additional authority.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at

WEST VIRGINIA: Jury Selection in Chemical Spill Case Moved
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has again
postponed the trial against the water company accused of
insufficiently safeguarding West Virginia's capital city from a
chemical spill that polluted the drinking water of thousands of
people in 2014.

According to court officials, U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver
has moved jury selection from Oct. 28 to Oct. 31.

Attorneys for Charleston-area residents and West Virginia American
Water have been discussing a possible settlement.

Eastman Chemical, maker of the chemical, and plaintiffs' lawyers
reached a proposed settlement on Oct. 27 for undisclosed terms.

Settlements would apply to about 225,000 people and more than
7,000 businesses whose tap water was contaminated for several
days.  The chemical leaked from a storage tank of now bankrupt
Freedom Industries into the Elk River in January 2014, upstream
from the water system intake.

WOW AIR: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action in California
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two
California customers are suing an Icelandic airline, alleging
breach of contract.

Brenda Leerar of Marin County and Samantha Robman of Los Angeles
County filed a class action complaint, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Oct. 18 in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against Wow Air EHF, alleging
breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing.

According to the complaint, Ms. Leerar, Ms. Robman and those
similarly situated individuals suffered substantial monetary
damages as a result of having their flights from California to
Reykjavik, Iceland, abruptly canceled or delayed for at least
three hours or more for unknown reasons.  The suit says the class
members were not offered rerouting and compensation due under
Regulation 261.

The plaintiffs allege Wow Air failed to provide compensation to
passengers on delayed or canceled flights and caused plaintiffs to
retain and pay legal fees.

Ms. Leerar and Ms. Robman seek trial by jury, judgment against the
defendant, certifying the case as a class action, damages,
interest, attorney fees, litigation expenses, costs of suit and
all other relief the court deems just.  They are represented by
attorneys Gordon W. Renneisen -- grenneisen@cornerlaw.com -- and
Paul J. Byrne -- pbyrne@cornerlaw.com -- of Cornerstone Law Group
in San Francisco.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 3:16-cv-06011

WYNYARD: More Than 1,000 Shareholders Join Class Action
NZCity reports that the organizer of a proposed class action
against the directors of failed intelligence software company
Wynyard said there has been a rash of shareholders sign up this
since the board appointed voluntary administrators.

Logic Funds manager Greg Marshall said more than 1,000 Wynyard
shareholders have put their names forward to join the proposed
class action, including 200 on Oct. 26 alone.

KordaMentha's Neale Jackson and Grant Graham have been appointed
administrators to explore options to retain value in the business
after the board gave up on drawing a $10 million loan from major
shareholder Skipton Building Society or trying to raise new

The Auckland-based company had burned through cash and struggled
to deliver on revenue guidance, and its shares had plunged to 21.5
cents when trading in them was halted.

Mr. Marshall, who successfully waged a campaign that led to a $60
million settlement for Credit Sails investors, said the
appointment of administrators is helpful to the planned action
which will still go ahead against the company's current and former

If anything, the move "buttresses our claims that this company has
misled investors and potentially employees", he said.

Wynyard, which develops software used by governments and companies
to fight crime and corruption, listed on the NZX in July 2013
selling shares in an initial public offering at $1.15 each.  The
potential claim by investors has been extended to cover the period
from the IPO to Oct. 27 instead of the originally proposed period
of August 1, 2015, to February 16, 2016.

The claim will centre on Wynyard having misled investors over
statements relating to the $26m reported revenue for 2015 falling
well short of its guidance of $40m-$45m and director comments on
the status of the deeply-discounted $30m capital raising in March
at $2 per share.

Due to the extended period the class action will cover, different
groups of shareholders have suffered varying losses. Mr Marshall
said the current discussions he's having with "aggressive legal
minds in Australia" is how to run parallel cases for each
shareholder group under one umbrella class action.

Shareholders will not be asked to pay anything towards the
proposed action.

Mr. Marshall said he hopes to have a "more solid legal plan"
together by the end of this year and for the legal action to start
rolling out next March.

"It will take time. Credit Sails took three-and-a-half years and
this one will take two-to-three years is my guess," he said.  "We
want to step out with the most impressive claim and Rolls Royce
advisers so we can force a settlement rather than have to slug it

YALE ASSOCIATES: Must Defend Against "Noye" FCRA Suit
District Judge Yvette Kane of the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
denied defendant's motion to strike class allegation and partially
dismiss the complaint, entitled T JASON NOYE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. YALE
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, No. 1:15-cv-2253 (M.D. Pa.)

Yale Associates, Inc. operates a national database of public
records and furnishes consumer reports for employers.

Jason Noye applied for the position of Operations Supervisor with
Johnson & Johnson through a staffing company, Kelly Services, Inc.
(Kelly). Noye was offered and accepted the position on February
11, 2015. In his application, Noye indicated that he had been
convicted of a crime. Kelly requested information about Noye's
conviction, and Noye provided the additional documentation shortly

On March 13, 2015, Kelly informed Noye that Johnson & Johnson
would not hire him based on a background report obtained from Yale
Associates. Noye alleges that Yale misreported 4 summary offenses
as misdemeanors and 3 summary offenses as safety violations in
Noye's background report.

On November 24, 2015, Noye initiated an action against Yale for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C.
Sections 1681 et seq. In count I of the complaint, Noye alleges
that Yale violated the FCRA's requirement to notify the fact that
adverse public and criminal record information is being provided
to employers or prospective employers and maintain strict
procedures to insure that the public record information it sells
to employers is complete and up to date. In count II, Noye alleges
that Yale willfully and negligently misreported summary offenses
in Pennsylvania as misdemeanors or more serious offenses, thus
failing, to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy of the information. Noye brought the action on
behalf of himself and a putative class and seeks to certify the
proposed classes pursuant to Rule 23 and recover statutory
damages, punitive damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.

On March 17, 2016, Yale filed a motion to strike Noye's class
allegations, strike punitive damage requests, and dismiss Count I
of the complaint.

Judge Kane denied defendant's motion, as the motion to strike
plaintiff's class allegation is premature. The court declines to
dismiss count I on the basis that plaintiff alleges that defendant
failed to comply with both Section 1681k(a)(1) and Section
1681k(a)(2). The court will deny, at the current stage of the
proceeding, defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's claims for
punitive damages.

A copy of Judge Kane's memorandum dated October 27, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/NdPpW0 from Leagle.com.

T. Jason Noye, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Searles --
dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- James A. Francis --
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- John Soumilas --
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- at Francis & Mailman, PC;
Marielle R. Macher -- Megan Lovett -- at Community Justice Project

Yale Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kristi A.
Buchholz -- kristi.buchholz@wilsonelser.com -- Louis J. Isaacsohn
-- louis.isaacsohn@wilsonelser.com -- at Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz,
Edelman & Dicker LLP

Monty Pennell and Pennell & Associates, Inc., Amici, represented
by James F. Logue -- jflogue@zarwin.com -- at Zarwin, Baum,
DeVito, Kaplan, Schaer Toddy

* Few Consumers Claim Share of Class Action Settlement
CBS SF reports that from misleading advertising claims to exposing
their customers to identity theft, companies pay tens of millions
of dollars each year to settle class action lawsuits aimed at
addressing ways they may have wronged their customers.

Despite this, relatively few consumers ever claim their share of
the awards being offered.

"I think consumers would be very surprised at just how many class
action lawsuits they are a part of," said Joe Ridout of the
organization Consumer Action.  He says hundreds of suits are filed
each year and dozens are settled.

"In very few cases does it reach a tenth of the people who are
eligible," explained Mr. Ridout.

So, his organization has compiled the searchable Consumer Action
Class Action Lawsuit Database that helps consumers check.

Current payouts range from 50 cents for Californians who bought a
breakfast sandwich at Starbucks between April and August of 2015
to thousands of dollars for those compromised by the 2014 Home
Depot data breach.

Some require proof of purchase or other documentation, but some do

"Even for some of these very large amounts, it's not necessarily a
high burden of proof," Mr. Ridout said.

KPIX 5 legal analyst Melissa Caen points out, it's the lawyers who
take home the biggest cut. But she says the threat of a law suit
does help to keep companies honest.

"The biggest benefit to consumers is that the threat of the
lawsuit," said Ms. Caen.

Leftover funds are distributed to consumer organizations like
Mr. Ridout's, though he'd prefer you get your cut.

"We want to get the word out before it's too late," said
Mr. Ridout.

But beware: applying for a share of settlement you don't deserve
is considered fraud.

* Manhattan Inst. Balks at NLRB's Stance on Class Action Waivers
Joe Dyton, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court
to determine if arbitration agreements that prohibit employees
from pursuing class or collective actions are unlawful under the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and unenforceable under the
Federal Arbitration Act.

On Sept. 9, the NLRB asked the Supreme Court to review and reverse
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's ruling that
rejected the NLRB's decision that the aforementioned agreements
unlawfully interfere with workers' NLRA rights to engage in a
concerted activity.

While the Second and Eight circuits also rejected the NLRB's
position, the Seventh and Ninth circuits supported the NLRB's

On the other side, employers are filing Supreme Court petitions of
their own in hopes of reversing the Seventh and Ninth circuit
rulings, which means the court has its hands full with cases
presenting the class and collective waiver issue.

"I think in a normal situation, in other words, if we had a full,
nine-member court, the Supreme Court would be pretty likely to
hear this case," Jim Copland, senior fellow at the Manhattan
Institute and director of Legal Policy told Legal Newsline.

"We have a situation where a circuit is coming out with a holding
in the circuit and the NLRB is saying, 'We're not going to
acquiesce in that holding.' (But) because of the eight-member
court, I think it's questionable what they will grant because
there's the chance that it'll be a 4-4 split.  It's a tricky

Currently, employment arbitration agreements often contain class
action waivers and employers would want to hold on to those
agreements.  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is
attempting to pass a rule that would prohibit those class action

The current circuit split on the waivers has put businesses in an
"unworkable" situation in which they're unsure about the
enforceability of the waivers, according to Robert F. Friedman --
rfriedman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C.'s Dallas office
shareholder and co-chair of the firm's Alternative Dispute
Resolution Practice Group.

A Supreme Court Ruling in favor of the NLRB's position would be a
big loss for employers, as they wouldn't be able to enforce class
action waivers against the non-supervisory employees they covered.
There's also a chance the number of class or collective actions in
employment cases could increase.

On the employees' side of things, they turn to the NLRA, which
grants employees the right to engage in collective action to
improve wages, hours and working conditions.  If employers can
require their employees to sign away their rights to engage in
such activity, those statutory rights, "don't mean very much,"
according to Christine O'Brien, an attorney and labor and
employment law professor at Boston College's Carroll School of

Mr. Copland said he thinks the NLRB's stance is wrong.

"The Federal Arbitration Act is a broad grant of authority to
private parties to contract for arbitration and presumptively
enforceable; the Supreme Court has clarified that that's the case
in both consumer contracts and Anti-Trust context in a pair of
decisions," Mr. Copland said.

"I don't see any reason why the administrative agencies should be
able to override the broad statutory requirement of the Federal
Arbitration Act."

Mr. Copland doesn't believe the NLRB's actions will have too much
impact on the CFPB's proposal and vice versa.

"My guess would be that a holding in this case would not
necessarily affect the consideration of the CFPB rule-making, so I
don't think it'll control that outcome, but I do think it's a
parallel situation," he said.

"I think at the end of the day, the CFPB and NLRB are both wrong,
but they'll be decided somewhat different in terms of analysis the
courts will use."

* New Wave of Class Actions Target 401(k) Sponsors
Bruce Love, writing for Financial Advisor IQ, reports that a
cursory glance at court dockets across the U.S. would leave the
casual observer thinking there was something seriously wrong with
the way retirement plans are managed in America.  The last few
years have seen case after case brought against all manner of plan
sponsors and their financial-service providers.

In August alone several high-profile suits were brought in various
courts across the country.

As previously reported, in mid-August a $150 million class action
suit against Morgan Stanley alleged the firm mismanaged its
employees' retirement funds.  A week later, national independent
financial advisor network Edward Jones became the latest financial
services business to be targeted by such a suit from its own
employees, joining the ranks of Allianz, American Century,
Deutsche Bank, Franklin Templeton, Neuberger Berman,
New York Life Investment Management and Putnam.

In January a lawsuit against Anthem, Inc. alleged the health
insurance company was stacking its 401(k) retirement plan with
higher-priced share classes in mutual funds, ignoring lower-cost
options.  Then in May, as previously reported, Delta Air Lines
employees filed suit against their 401(k) plan provider, Fidelity
Investments, for alleged fiduciary breaches in the company's
record-keeping by accepting a portion of subcontractor Financial
Engines' advice fee without adding any value to earn the fee.

Other companies recently hit by such suits include aerospace
companies Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which last year both agreed
to settle for $57 million and $62 million respectively -- so far
the largest retirement plan settlements.

So is the 401(k) market woefully mismanaged and in need of a major
overhaul or has it simply become an easy target for opportunistic
trial lawyers in search of their next prey?

Jerome Schlichter, senior partner at St. Louis firm Schlichter
Bogard & Denton, says in a country where research firm Cerulli
Associates estimates there are more than 530,000 401(k) plans
serving 56.1 million participants, these "relatively few" lawsuits
serve to lower fees and force providers to take their investment
choices seriously.

"I've heard the argument time and again from opposing counsel that
the sky will fall and American employers will be too scared of
litigation to risk offering retirement plans.  But there's more
401(k) funds with more assets under management than ever before,"
says Mr. Schlichter.

On the country's relatively small retirement plan plaintiffs bar,
Mr. Schlichter is widely known by the judiciary and media as the
field's pioneer.

Like the attorneys who challenged Big Tobacco in the 1990s,
Mr. Schlichter's tool of choice is the class action suit, working
on contingency in the hopes of grand payouts for his clients --
and himself.

About a decade ago Mr. Schlichter said he noticed a dramatic
uptick in U.S. retirement plans moving from defined benefit plans
-- in which employers promise beneficiaries specific monthly
payments on retirement -- to 401(k) defined contribution schemes
-- where the employee takes on market risk.

Although by 2006, when he filed the first class action in the
space, the 401(k) model had become America's predominant
retirement system with over 465,400 plans and 48.4 million
participants, according to Cerulli Associates data,
Mr. Schlichter says there had never been much legal probing of
plan fees and investment choices.

"We were hearing from plan participants who were confused about
the complicated fee structures and investment choices their
providers were making," says Mr. Schlichter.

While most of these suits are settled out of court, last year one
of Mr. Schlichter's cases went all the way to the U.S. Supreme
Court, becoming a landmark case in 401(k) litigation.

The most common line of attack in class actions against plan
sponsors is to allege a violation of the sponsor's duty of loyalty
and prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, says Charles Field -- cfield@sanfordheisler.com -- a partner
in the San Diego office of Sanford Heisler.  Mr. Field, the
attorney behind the recent suit against Morgan Stanley, accuses
the wealth manager of "self-dealing" in its own funds -- stacking
the 401(k) with Morgan Stanley vehicles that "consistently
underperform compared to other similar collective investment
funds" without "thoroughly investigating" whether other third-
party funds would be better for participants, according to the

When contacted by FA-IQ, a spokesperson from Morgan Stanley said
the company had no comment on the allegations.

Mr. Field says Morgan Stanley's alleged breach of the duty it owes
to its employees as a plan sponsor is "typical" of those companies
which come under fire in such cases.  "Companies which offer
retirement plans have a continuing duty to monitor and choose the
investments in their plans and remove the imprudent ones.  If they
don't, it's a breach of their duty of prudence."

Mr. Field's language closely resembles the decision in Tibble v.
Edison International -- the Supreme Court case Mr. Schlichter won
last year and has arguably refueled plaintiff trial lawyers for a
fresh attack on retirement plan sponsors.

Mr. Schlichter himself has recently launched a series of suits on
the retirement schemes of high-profile universities which operate
403(b) schemes -- a form of retirement plan open to employees of
schools and some tax-exempt organizations.  In August
Mr. Schlichter filed suits against Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Emory,
Johns Hopkins, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, NYU,
Northwestern, Penn, USC, Vanderbilt and Yale.

While MIT would not comment on the specific allegations in the
lawsuit, a spokesperson said the institute offers a comprehensive
and competitive suite of retirement benefits to faculty and staff,
including a defined benefit pension plan funded entirely by the
institute and a supplemental 401(k) plan with a 100% MIT match on
employee contributions up to 5% of their pay.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in
this lawsuit," the spokesperson said in a statement.

Mr. Schlichter insists he has been looking into university plans
for more than a year.  "While fees have come down dramatically in
the 401(k) industry following our work, this has not happened in
some university plans, and this work culminated in filing the
cases," he says.

Law firm Sanford Heisler has also levelled a suit at Columbia
University alleging fiduciary breaches that include "excessively
duplicative" investment choices and offering underperforming

A spokesperson for Columbia said in a statement that the
university is "proud of the retirement benefits" offered to its
faculty and staff and "takes its responsibility as a fiduciary

David DeMuro, a lawyer at Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg who represents
securities companies, says there is no question that these suits
have adverse effects on 401(k) plans.

"This is impacting not only large corporates but also smaller
plans with few assets and resources," says Mr. DeMuro.  He
believes the threat of litigation creates a dilemma for smaller
plans which cannot afford to manage a wide selection of
investments and could become overly focused on fees.

"If cost becomes the only thing that matters in a plan, you would
be crazy to offer anything but cheap index funds.  This ultimately
means less choice for participants," says Mr. DeMuro.

James Carroll -- james.carroll@skadden.com -- who heads the Boston
litigation practice at international law firm Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, is currently leading the defense of
companies in various lawsuits brought by plaintiffs alleging
fiduciary breaches in companies' record-keeping responsibilities.

Speaking generally about the defense of cases in the retirement
space, Mr. Carroll says in a field where more and more class
action and speculative lawyers see the 401(k) world as
increasingly easier pickings, it has become a fact of life for
many plan sponsors that they will eventually be sued, no matter
how diligently they try to execute their fiduciary duties.

"Some plans will simply have to fight," says Mr. Carroll.  "If
someone doesn't stand up to these frivolous suits, employers may
end up deciding that instead of voluntarily contributing to their
employee's funds, they will need to earmark that money to pay to
defend themselves in court."

* Sen. Franken Praises FCC Stance on Arbitration Clauses
John Eggerton, writing for Multichannel News, reports that
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) praised FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's
commitment to taking action on mandatory arbitration clauses.

Those are contractual requirements -- unless a user opts out --
that a sub seek private arbitration, rather than lawsuits
(particularly class action suits) -- to settle disputes with their
cable or Internet service provider.

"This is huge news for nearly every American who signs a
television, internet, or phone contract," Sen. Franken said.

The senator and FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn had written an
op ed on the Time web site pledging a dual-front assault on what
they saw as the anti-consumer contracts.  Mr. Clyburn had also
worked to make a prohibition part of the FCC's broadband privacy
order voted Oct. 27, but that didn't happen.

While prohibiting the clauses did not make it into the order,
Wheeler said an inquiry had already been launched into the
potential harmful effects of those clauses, with the goal of a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by February, though he may or may
not still be in the post by then.

That pledge of action in a separate proceeding did not prevent Mr.
Clyburn from only concurring in part of the privacy order as a way
to show her disappointment at its absence, but the pledge was
drawing praise from Franken.

"For decades, big corporations have locked the courtroom doors on
their customers by slipping mandatory forced arbitration clauses
into contracts.  And ever since joining the Senate, I've made it a
priority of mine to change that, because I believe if you're
wronged, you should be able to seek justice in our legal system.
We've seen a lot of good steps recently to tackle forced
arbitration, and this one could be a true game changer.  I want to
thank FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn for her hard work on this
important issue, and I look forward to continuing to work with the
FCC as it fights against forced arbitration."

* Trump Faces 75 Pending Suits Amid Presidential Campaign
Nick Penzenstadler and John Kelly, writing for CNBC, report that
on the first anniversary of the start of his presidential
campaign, Donald Trump spent much of the day in a setting he knows
well -- a room full of high-priced lawyers battling out a civil

Trump paused his campaigning June 16 to answer questions under
oath in one of his lawsuits against two celebrity chefs.  He had
sued Geoffrey Zakarian and Jose Andres after they backed out of a
restaurant deal in response to Trump's inflammatory statements
about Mexican immigrants.

The two-hour deposition was at least the third time Trump had to
leave the campaign trail to be deposed by attorneys in one of his
organization's many lawsuits.

Just two weeks before Election Day, at least 75 of the 4,000-plus
lawsuits involving Trump and his businesses remain open, according
to an ongoing, nationwide analysis of state and federal court
records by USA TODAY.  Trump is running well behind Democrat
Hillary Clinton in most polls -- about 5 points behind in the
popular vote in RealClearPolitics' rolling average of national
polls.  But if Trump were to win, the number of unresolved cases
is unprecedented for a presidential candidate, according to
political scientists and historians.

Trump faces significant open litigation tied to his businesses:
angry members at his Jupiter, Fla. golf course say they were
cheated out of refunds on their dues and a former employee at the
same club claims she was fired after reporting sexual harassment.
There's a fraud case brought by Trump University students who say
the mogul's company ripped them off for tens of thousands in
tuition for a sham real estate course.

Trump is also defending lawsuits tied to his campaign.  A
disgruntled GOP political consultant sued for $4 million saying
Trump defamed her.  Another suit, a class action, says the
campaign violated consumer protection laws by sending unsolicited
text messages.

If elected, the open lawsuits will tag along with Trump. He would
not be entitled to immunity, and could be required to give
depositions or even testify in open court.  That could chew up
time and expose a litany of uncomfortable private and business
dealings to the public.

One Trump case, over non-payment of tips to caterers at Trump SoHo
Hotel in New York City, is scheduled to go to trial a week before
Election Day.

Even in the waning days of the campaign, in a speech in Gettysburg
outlining his first actions if he wins the White House, Trump
threatened to sue all of the women who've accused him of unwanted
sexual advances, saying all of them are lying.

Chapter 1

Potential Conflicts of Interest?

The open cases raise questions about potential conflicts of
interest that could become difficult for Trump to navigate.

For instance, could his judicial appointments be influenced by his
own court cases? This summer, he attacked a federal judge who is
presiding over the lawsuit against Trump University, saying
District Judge Gonzalo Curiel is biased against Trump because the
judge is of Mexican descent and Trump proposes a "great wall"
along the Mexican border.

Another potential issue: Would lawyers, parties in cases and even
judges seek to curry favor with a powerful individual in a way
that might alter the outcome?

Norm Eisen, who founded the nonpartisan watchdog organization
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in 2003 and later was the
top White House ethics lawyer for President Obama in 2009 and
2010, ticked off a series of potential conflicts.

The lawsuits against Trump University could raise questions about
who Trump would appoint as Education secretary, Eisen said.
"Somebody with favor to for-profit colleges?"

Trump's development of the Old Post Office building in Washington
is being overseen by the federal government, which leases the
historic building to Trump, and lawsuits involving the development
could involve government officials.

"Will he really put someone in charge that would testify against
his business?" Eisen wonders.

"And the mother of all conflict could be the IRS audit," he said.
"What if they suggest civil penalties, or even criminal

Alan Garten, general counsel for Trump and his business interests,
downplayed the significance of the cases.

Garten said only about 30 significant cases are open.  The others
are run-of-the-mill cases involving one Trump holding or another,
frivolous causes or suits destined to be dismissed.  "The reality
is we're an operating company.  We'll treat all cases the same way
if he's elected or not -- and the results shouldn't be different
in the eyes of the law."

Clinton has her own share of litigation heading toward Election
Day.  Media groups are suing her trying to get more emails from
her private server.  They've also argued for the release of
deposition videos.

The email lawsuit is among about 30 open civil cases Clinton
faces.  Dozens will likely be tossed out because of immunity
doctrines as she acted in her official role as secretary of State.
In nearly all cases, Clinton is named solely in her government
capacity, often among a laundry list of other public officials.
In a small fraction, like with the email server, some argue she
should be held accountable as a private individual.

Clinton's campaign staff did not respond to questions about the
open cases.

Chapter 2

Cases expose Trump's history

USA TODAY Network reporters spent more than six months gathering
court records in more than 4,000 lawsuits involving Trump and his
companies.  They traveled to courthouses, studied thousands of
pages of records and contacted lawyers, litigants and witnesses
across the country.  For comparison, the newspaper also pieced
together the record of Clinton's court cases.

The exclusive analysis found an unprecedented mountain of legal
battles for a presidential candidate, ranging from skirmishes with
pageant contestants to multimillion dollar real estate lawsuits.
The cases offer clues to the leadership style the billionaire
would bring to the White House.

The review shows that Trump frequently responds to even small
disputes with overwhelming legal force, not hesitating to use his
tremendous wealth and legal firepower against adversaries with
limited resources.

He has repeatedly refused to pay people and small businesses for
their work, forcing them to spend time and legal fees if they want
to recover their losses.

At least 60 lawsuits -- plus hundreds of additional liens,
judgments, and other government filings reviewed by reporters --
documented cases where people accused Trump and his businesses of
failing to pay them what they were owed for their work.  Among
them: painters, glassmakers, real estate agents, bartenders and
hourly workers at Trump resorts coast to coast. Even his own

The review also shows Trump and his companies have been accused
for years of mistreating women.  In at least 20 separate lawsuits,
plaintiffs accused Trump and managers at his companies of
discriminating against women, ignoring sexual harassment
complaints and even participating in the harassment themselves.
Women in those disputes have testified they were fired for

Trump's companies have been engaged in battles over taxes almost
every year from the 1980s until as recently as last spring, when
New York had to take legal action to collect $8,578 in unpaid
taxes on the Trump-owned company that owns the trademark Boeing
757 that jetted the mogul to campaign rallies across the country.

The review found that people who say something Trump doesn't like
will frequently get threatened with a lawsuit.  "I'll sue you" was
a Trump mantra long before "Build a wall."  The analysis of
lawsuits, however, showed that he rarely follows through with his
threatened lawsuits over people's words and almost always loses
when he does.  The lone win was a lawsuit against Miss
Pennsylvania -- over her claim on Facebook that Trump's Miss USA
pageant was rigged.

Chapter 3

Distracted and potentially sidetracked

If Trump is elected president, it won't change the way his
lawsuits are handled.

His companies face open cases of sexual discrimination and fraud,
unpaid bills and contract disputes.  In any of the open cases,
litigants would have the right to demand testimony from Trump or
people close to him, some of whom could become senior White House

Such legal action can -- and often does -- unlock private
financial and other records that could then become public.  Even
if Trump broke no laws or committed no wrongdoing, that kind of
inside information could be used by political opponents to try to
embarrass him or weaken him politically.

Clinton could face similar challenges as litigation over her
refusal to turn over emails from her time as secretary of State
moves forward.

"It could pose a problem for both sides in the presidency," said
Julian Zelizer, a history professor at Princeton University. "They
could produce damaging information, and given the partisan
environment, any kind of scandal or investigation could be used to
stifle a president."

Those kinds of tactics have impacted past presidencies.

President Grant was among the early commanders in chief beset by
scandal.  He was forced to testify under oath at the White House
in a high-profile federal prosecution of an illegal whiskey
running scheme that ensnared some of his closest political

Grant's testimony helped get his top aide off the hook and further
soiled the public perception of his administration. Today, he is
widely considered one of the least effective presidents in U.S.

In more modern times, President Nixon's administration was
ensnared by repeated legal woes, scandals, botched cover-ups and
ultimately his resignation.

Bill Clinton faced legal issues tied to Whitewater, Paula Jones
and ultimately White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton was forced to give a deposition in one sex-scandal case
involving Jones and later faced an impeachment trial over his
relations with Lewinsky at the White House.  In the latter,
Clinton became the first sitting president to testify before a
grand jury investigating his own conduct, which became a years-
long distraction.

Yet, no president had litigation in the volume of a potential
President Trump.

"Because of the Supreme Court case related to Bill Clinton,
there's no automatic shield for the president from civil action,"
said Samuel Issacharoff, a law professor at New York University.
"If he were president and called to testify and hostilities break
out in the Middle East a court would probably postpone -- but of
course it's a major dislocation to be going through these civil
trials while he's running an administration."

Chapter 4

Lingering fraud case

Among the many Trump lawsuits, the most problematic could be the
Trump University cases.

Former students from across the country have sued in two class
actions, accusing the school of charging them up to $35,000 and
lying about the value of the lessons they would receive.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued in 2013 and has
since described Trump University as a "fraud" and a "scam."

While the open cases are civil, some legal scholars raise the
prospect that a court could ultimately find Trump University or
even Trump personally liable for fraud.  In the worst case, a
finding that fraud took place -- even by a civil court -- could
provide Congress with the grounds to consider impeachment

"These claims are different in an important way than most of his
other cases," said Christopher Peterson, a law professor at the
University of Utah who's researched the Trump University cases.
Even though the burden of proof would be lower in civil court to
prove Trump liable for fraud or racketeering, Peterson said, "The
evidence that you would use to prove those claims would be
interchangeable.  It's the same kind of claims that you would get
the mob for in a concrete scam."

At a minimum, if the cases go forward, additional testimony by
instructors and students about predatory sales tactics would
become public.

Trump's already been deposed about the university.  He downplayed
his role, but could be called to testify at a trial.

If that happens, Trump would become the first modern sitting
president to do so in open court. Bill Clinton gave testimony to a
grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998.

For years Trump's legal team has successfully kept secret much of
the financial information disclosed in his court cases.

The vast majority of settlement payments Trump has made to
litigants is secret under non-disclosure agreements.

Trump's attorneys also regularly ask judges to seal records that
come out during the cases, something that is often done for
plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases.

If Trump is elected President, the already immense pressure to
release records could escalate even further.

"You don't know what you don't know," said Katie Townsend,
litigation director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the
Press, a plaintiff seeking to liberate some of the sealed records.
"Either way these documents would be newsworthy, before or after
the election."

Already Trump's candidacy has prompted court battles to get
records in his cases unsealed.

In September, a judge ruled against USA TODAY and The New York
Times in an attempt to unseal court files from Trump's 1990
divorce from his first wife, Ivana.

District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel ruled over the summer to keep
private the video recording of depositions in the Trump University
cases, partly for fear they would add to the political tint of the
case and since transcripts are already available.

But in September, Trump attorneys lost battles to keep videotapes
sealed in cases involving his Washington hotel and Jupiter, Fla.,
golf club.

And a group of journalists are battling to unseal the settlement
in a 1983 case tied to the destruction of Bonwit Tower in midtown
Manhattan to make way for Trump Tower.  The suit alleged
undocumented Polish workers performed the work off-the-books. The
settlement is still secret.  A judge ruled against unsealing those
records this summer, but the journalist group is appealing.

Chapter 5

Drawn off the job to testify

In June, in the days after the deadliest mass shooting in American
history, as both presidential candidates and the rest of the
nation were coming to grips with the terror attack on Orlando's
Pulse nightclub, Trump was also being deposed in Washington in one
of his two lawsuits against the chefs, Zakarian and Andres.

The duo wanted no part of the eatery they'd planned to open in
Trump's luxury hotel in the Old Post Office Building just down the
street from the White House.  Their reason: their reputations and
their brand were badly damaged by associating with Trump after his
comments a year earlier branding Mexican immigrants as rapists,
murderers and criminals.

As they sought to establish the idea that such statements could be
bad for any business, the chef's attorneys asked Trump about the
fallout for his businesses from his incendiary comments.  They
pressed him about whether he thought his words might keep
Hispanics from going to a restaurant in one of his hotels or to
any of his other properties.  Trump's response: The election and
the attention he's getting for the words he's using are only going
to be good for business.

"I'm running for office. I obviously have credibility because I
now, as it turns out, became the Republican nominee running
against, we have a total of 17 people that were mostly senators
and governors, highly respected people," he said under oath.

After explaining the "very dishonest" media distorted his remarks
about Mexican immigrants, he added: "I think, you know, most
people think I'm right."

His booming popularity would only help the restaurant succeed, he
testified.  But, he conceded, the comments could turn some
Hispanic patrons off.

"It is always possible," Trump said.  "I just don't know. I mean,
I don't know how to answer that question.  It's possible."

* Western District of New York Court Tackles Class-Action Claims
Sharon M. Porcellio, writing for New York Law Journal, reports
that at any given time, a cursory glance at the Western District
docket reveals that there is typically no shortage of interesting
cases.  This quarter was no exception.  From the three cases
discussed below emerge important takeaways for plaintiffs' and
defendants' attorneys alike, particularly those litigating  class-
action claims.

Defamation Claims

Among the various employment discrimination cases decided this
quarter, Senior District Judge David G. Larimer's decision in
Whipple v. Reed Eye Assocs., No. 15-CV-6759L, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 136903 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2016) stands out.  What makes this
case interesting, however, is not necessarily its potential impact
on anti-discrimination jurisprudence, but, rather, the analysis of
common law claims that were seemingly tangential to the
plaintiff's allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation.

In Whipple v. Reed Eye Assocs., a female physician commenced an
action against her former employer and named several individuals
as defendants.  The plaintiff claimed that after complaining of
sexual harassment, her alleged harasser refused to work with her
and the administrative director to whom she complained took no
action to investigate her complaints.  According to Judge Larimer,
these allegations were insufficient to state a New York State
Human Rights Law claim of retaliation against these individuals
under an "aiding and abetting" theory.  With respect to both
defendants, the plaintiff failed to allege that she suffered any
adverse employment action as a result of their alleged refusal to
work with her or to investigate her complaints.

Somewhat more interesting was Judge Larimer's analysis with
respect to the claims that did survive dismissal.  Those included
claims of tortious interference and defamation based on
allegations that one of the owners of the medical practice where
she was allegedly mistreated warned a different physician not to
hire her.  The owner allegedly told this other physician that
"plaintiff 'got real bitchy at the end [of her employment with
defendants].'" Id. at *8.

Judge Larimer sustained, in part, plaintiff's defamation claim
against the medical practice owner who referred to her as "bitchy"
to a prospective employer.  His reasoning focused not solely on
the words that were uttered, but rather, on the circumstances in
which they were said.  As Judge Larimer acknowledged, "the mere
use of the term 'bitch' has generally been held to be non-
actionable opinion." Id. at *10. Yet, in this case, the term was
used during a discussion between the plaintiff's former employer
and a prospective employer concerning "'the end'" of plaintiff's
employment. Id. at *10.  Under these circumstances, "the statement
could also be interpreted as an actionable 'mixed opinion' hinting
at the reasons for plaintiff's termination, one which is
unaccompanied by any supporting facts and 'implies that it is
based upon undisclosed detrimental facts which justify the opinion
but are unknown to those . . . hearing it.'" Id. at *10-11.

On the other hand, however, allegations that another owner of the
medical practice distributed a memorandum which "characterized
plaintiff's sexual harassment complaints as a 'distraction' that
'creates an unhealthy work environment,' and urged the partners to
focus solely on patient care" did not state a viable defamation
claim against that owner. Id. at *12.

Finally, plaintiff defeated defendants' motion to dismiss one of
her tortious interference claims. She alleged that a local
optometrist had extended her an offer of employment, but it was
withdrawn before plaintiff could accept it because another owner
of her former employer threatened retribution against the
optometrist and her husband if the optometrist hired plaintiff.
Because the optometrist's husband worked for the defendant
employer, the owner who made the threats could exercise
supervisory control over him.

Arbitration Agreement
Amid a circuit split regarding the enforceability of class-action
waivers in arbitration agreements, Senior District Judge Charles
J. Siragusa granted a motion to compel arbitration in an unpaid
wage action brought against a restaurant chain, finding that an
arbitration agreement in a non-binding employee handbook is
sufficient for dismissal of plaintiffs' claims.  Ekryss v. Ignite
Rest. Grp., No. 15-CV-6742 CJS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120818
(W.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2016).

Like most employers, Macaroni Grill maintained certain work rules,
which were set forth in a 54-page employee handbook titled
"Employment Guidelines." The Employment Guidelines covered various
topics, including policies concerning substance abuse and anti-

Incorporated into the Employment Guidelines -- not in a separate
document -- were a "Dispute Resolution Program" and a
"Confidentiality/Non-Compete/Non-Solicitation Agreement."  The
Dispute Resolution Program provided that any claims related to
employment with the restaurant must be resolved by arbitration. In
addition, such claims must be arbitrated on an individual basis,
not on a class or collective basis.

The handbook made clear that the Employment Guidelines did not
create a contract between Macaroni Grill and its employees. To
this end, the manual stated that the Employment Guidelines
"'aren't a contract (with the specific exception of the Dispute
Resolution Program and the Confidentiality/Non-Compete/Non-
Solicitation Agreement)'" (emphasis in original).  All employees
were required to sign an acknowledgement form which reiterated
these two points: (1) "except where indicated," the Employment
Guidelines were "not a contract"; and (2) the employee agreed to
arbitrate any employment-related claims.

In December 2015, a proposed class of plaintiffs brought an action
against Macaroni Grill for unpaid wages, alleging that the
restaurant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state
minimum-wage laws. Asserting that the Dispute Resolution Program
contained within the Employment Guidelines constituted a valid and
binding agreement, the restaurant moved to dismiss the complaint.
To determine whether the Employment Guidelines created an
enforceable agreement to arbitrate, the court applied Texas law,
which, as stated in the Employment Guidelines, governed the
employment relationship between Macaroni Gill and its employees.

Under Texas law, and elsewhere, a valid agreement to arbitrate
must be supported by consideration.  Plaintiffs focused on this
fundamental element of contract formation in opposing the motion.
They argued that because the Employment Guidelines expressly
stated that Macaroni Grill reserved the right to "'revise, delete
and/or add to the provisions of the Guidelines,'" the agreement
was unenforceable. Judge Siragusa acknowledged that if Macaroni
Grill's right to unilaterally, with virtually no limitation, amend
the Employment Guidelines extended to the Dispute Resolution
Program, the arbitration agreement would be illusory and,
therefore, unenforceable.

Relying upon conflicting Texas appellate court decisions, Judge
Siragusa determined that the Dispute Resolution Program was an
enforceable arbitration agreement, which was distinct from the
Employment Guidelines, despite that it was part of the greater
non-binding manual.  Critical to this determination was the "self-
contain[ing]" nature of the arbitration provision in that it did
not reference or incorporate the other rules set forth in the
Employment Guidelines; it contained its own choice-of-law
provision and savings clause; and nothing in the Dispute
Resolution Program allowed Macaroni Grill to amend or modify the
specific language of that provision.  Thus, Judge Siragusa granted
Macaroni Grill's motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration.

Although this case was decided under Texas law, it nevertheless
has interesting implications for those litigating class-action
claims in New York, especially actions involving national
companies whose headquarters are located elsewhere.

Class Action Standing
In another case involving class-action plaintiffs, Zink v. First
Niagara Bank, No. 13-CV-01076-RJA-JJM, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98104
(W.D.N.Y. July 1, 2016), Magistrate Judge Jeremiah McCarthy
analyzed the legal landscape concerning class-action standing
following a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016).

The plaintiff in Zink commenced an action against First Niagara
Bank seeking to recover class penalties pursuant to certain
sections of the New York Real Property Law and the Real Property
Actions and Proceedings Law due to the bank's alleged failure to
provide the county clerk with proof that mortgages had been
satisfied.  The provisions set forth statutory penalties for
failure to file the satisfaction within specific time periods. The
purported class did not allege any adverse consequence suffered by
the belated filings but rather sought statutory damages based on
the length of the delay in providing the satisfaction as set forth
in the statutes.

Last June, Magistrate Judge McCarthy recommended that plaintiff's
first uncontested motion seeking conditional certification of a
settlement class and preliminary approval of a class-action
settlement be denied.  The plaintiff subsequently filed a second
uncontested motion in January 2016.  The case was, however, stayed
pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, in which the Supreme Court considered "whether a violation
of a federal statute entitling a consumer to civil penalties where
no economic injury is suffered confers Article III standing."
Zink, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98104 at *8.

On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in
Spokeo.  By way of background, Spokeo operates a "people search
engine." When you enter a person's name, email address or phone
number into Spokeo's website, the site generates information about
that person.  The plaintiff alleged that the information
disseminated about him was incorrect, and he filed an action under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In reviewing whether the plaintiff had Article III standing, the
court focused on the injury-in-fact element.  "To establish injury
in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered 'an
invasion of a legally protected interest' that is 'concrete and
particularized' and 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical.'" Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1548.  In a somewhat
anti-climactic holding, the court remanded the case to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had failed to
consider the requirement of "concreteness," rendering its analysis

Although the Supreme Court in Spokeo "did not definitively decide
which types of statutory violations suffice to create Article III
standing," McCarthy analyzed the implications of the court's
decisions, determining that "some portions of the opinion could
lead to the conclusion that standing does not exist in this case."
Zink, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98104 at *10-11.  Citing to the
concurring opinion in Spokeo, Judge McCarthy focused on the idea
that deprivation of a procedural right is insufficient to
establish standing where there is no concrete interest.
Specifically, he stated:

It could be argued that First Niagara's failure to timely file a
mortgage satisfaction was a mere procedural violation which did
not affect any concrete interest of plaintiff, since he does not
allege that he suffered any adverse consequences (such as
inability to sell the property) from the belated filing. Id. at

Judge McCarthy balanced this assertion with the idea that a
"concrete injury is not necessarily synonymous with tangible." Id.
at *11 (internal quotation marks omitted). He relied upon an older
U.S. Supreme Court case, Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S.
363 (1982).  In Havens Realty Corp., individuals known as
"testers" posed as renters (without the intention of actually
renting or purchasing an apartment or home) in order to determine
whether realty corporations were engaging in discriminatory
practices in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Those testers had
standing to sue.  Based on this threshold, Judge McCarthy pointed
out that "plaintiff Zink's injury is no more ephemeral than that
of the testers in Havens." Id. at *15.

Although Judge McCarthy ultimately decided that the plaintiff had
Article III standing to pursue claims on behalf of himself and the
class, he also stated that "the substantial possibility that a
higher court might eventually rule otherwise . . . warrants the
settlement agreement's significant reduction from full value of
the class members' claims." Id. at *16.  To the extent this occurs
before the final resolution of the action, Judge McCarthy noted
that the case would have to be dismissed for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction. Given that the Supreme Court returned the
pivotal standing issue back to the Ninth Circuit in Spokeo, it
remains to be seen how courts will apply the law and how it will
impact attorneys both advocating on behalf of and defending class


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  * * *