CAR_Public/170704.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Tuesday, July 4, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 130



                            Headlines

401 SUNRISE: "Mitropoulos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
AARON'S INC: Lundin Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
ADVANTA SEEDS: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Sorghum
AKORN INC: Faces "Harris" Securities Suit Over Fresenius Merger
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Pa. Supreme Court Approves Class Action

ANTERO RESOURCES: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action
ASSOCIATED FOOD: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
AUSTRALIA: Manus Island Teacher Says Settlement Not About Money
AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS: "Ballew" Suit Alleges Gender Discrimination
AXIS INSURANCE: Faces "Yadegar" Suit over Unsolicited Fax

BANK OF AMERICA: To Repay Excessive Debit Card Fees to Inmates
BANK OF OKLAHOMA: Disputes Bondholders' Claims in Class Action
BARNES & NOBLE: Faces "Bernardino" Suit over Social Media Plugins
BARNES AND NOBLE: Hartpence Sues over Wage & Hour Violation
BIG PICTURE: Faces "Williams" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Virginia

BISCO INC: 7th Cir. Strikes Down Class Action "Pick Off" Tactic
BLAIR'S BAIL: Faces "Egana" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Louisiana
BISCO INC: Benesch Friedlander Comments on 7th Cir. Ruling
BLUCURRENT CREDIT: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
BNC BANCORP: Shareholder Agrees to Dismiss Class Action

BOGALUSA CITY, LA: Judge Denies Suit Class Action Status
BOOT BARN: Settlement Reached in Employee Class Action Lawsuit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Akerman Attorney Discusses SCOTUS Ruling
CABELA'S INC: Faces "Solak" Securities Suit Over Bass Pro Merger
CAFE PUSHKIN: Faces "Fuerth" Suit over Employment Termination

CALAVO GROWERS: Still Defends Calif. Wage and Hour Class Suits
CALIFORNIA FAIR: Faces "Chacon" Suit Alleging Contract Breach
CANE BAY PARTNERS: "Inscho" Suit Sues over Rent-a-Tribe Scheme
CG INVESTMENTS: Chinchilla Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sued by K. Baker Over Certain Data Breach

CIENA CORP: Delaware Court Dropped 3rd Amended Complaint in May
CIENA CORP: Summary Judgment Bids Pending in Securities Suit
CLUB ANGELS: Peters Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under Labor Law
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Judge OKs $3-Mil. OT Class Deal
COLES COUNTY, IL: Faces "Perry" Suit Over Civil Rights Violations

COMPASS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Labor Code Violations
CONN'S INC: July 2018 Trial Set in Securities Class Action
CREDIT CONTROL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Alvarez Claims
DEEP ROOT: Faces Class Action Over US Voters' Data Breach
DICK SMITH: Vannin Capital to Fund Shareholder Class Action

DOLLAR GENERAL: Judge Trims Aloe Vera Gel Class Action
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Espinoza" Suit in D. Arizona
FAHRENHIT PLUMBING: Faces "Boyland" Suit in M.D. Florida
FEDERAL WARRANTY: Removes "Woturski" Suit to D.N.J.
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Violates Fair Credit Reporting, Bankhead Says

FOOT LOCKER: Class Action Judgment Still Stayed Pending Appeal
FORT SMITH, AR: Sued for Indiscriminate, Unnecessary Recycling
FXCM INC: Faces Class Action in New York Over NDD Platform
GDAX: Could Face Class Action Over Ethereum Flash Crash
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Steele" Class Suit in C.D. California

GENERAL REVENUE: Faces "Henderson" Suit in W.D. Virginia
GENGHIS GRILL: Faces "McKinley" Suit Over "Unlawful" Tip Pool
HMS HOLDINGS: Still Facing Securities Class Suit in Texas
J CREW: Misrepresents Former Prices of Sale Items, Press Alleges
JC PENNEY: Enters into Consolidated Securities Class Action Pact

JC PENNEY: Awaits Court's Final OK on ERISA Class Action Accord
JETSMARTER: Hit with Federal Class Action for Unpaid Overtime
JGWPT HOLDINGS: Court Trims Claims in "Sanders" Suit
JOPPA MAPLE, KY: Sued for Overcharging Property Taxes
K B INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Padilla" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

KABBAGE INC: Dorsey Comments on Dismissal of TCPA Suit
KING CABLE: "Nasufi" Suit Moved to Western District of Texas
KOHL'S: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Cash Program Class Action
MACY'S FLORIDA: "Adler" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
MALAYSIA AIR: Class Restricted for Survivors of Flight MH17

MANASSEH JORDAN: Kingdom Ministries Moves to Quash Subpoena
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Seeks Dismissal of Fractional Owners' Suit
MDL 2590: Navistar Still Faces MaxxForce Engine Class Suits
MI WINDOWS: 4th Cir. Applies Exception to Anti-Injunction Act
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Claims of 26 Store Managers v. MSI Pending

MICHAELS COMPANIES: MSI Still Defends Suits over FCRA Violations
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Appeals Court Affirmed Whalen Suit Dismissal
MOTLEY SERVICES: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
MURPHY OIL: Big Firms Urges Justices to Uphold Bans on Suits
MURPHY OIL: Ogletree Deakins Comments on Filing of Amicus Briefs

NATIONAL UNION: Illegally Charges Insurance Premium, Wagner Says
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Horton Sues over Debt Collection Practices
ONEBEACON INSURANCE: Faces "Martino" Suit Over Intact Merger
OOMA INC: Consolidated Stockholder Suit over IPO Still Ongoing
OVERTON SECURITY: Faces "McMillian" Wage & Hour Suit in N.D. Cal.

PAUL MICHAEL: Faces "Ceasar" Suit in District of New Jersey
PERFECTO PIZZA: Faces "Victoria" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
PILOT CORPORATION: 6th Cir. Won't Dismiss "Taylor" Suit
PURE STORAGE: July 6 Hearing Set for 2nd Demurrer in IPO Lawsuit
RAINBOW USA: Accused by "Smith" Class Suit of Violating FLSA

RIDER UNIVERSITY: Westminster Choir College Supporters Sue
ROSS STORES: Still Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Suits in Calif.
SAINT JOHN, NB: Attempts to Block Class Action
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Seek $44.6MM in Fees
SEAFARERS OFFICERS: Violates Securities Act, Seafarers Suit Says

SEMPRA ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss "Plumley" Granted
SERVIS ONE: Faces "Rivera" Suit in Middle District of Florida
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Gets Favorable Jury Verdict in Arkansas Suit
STERLING BANCORP: Has Agreement in Principle to Settle Suits
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action

SYNGENTA: Awaits Jury Verdict in Farmers' GMO Corn Class Action
TRAFFIC BAR: Faces "Granados" Suit in E.D. New York
TRAVIS KALANICK: James and Beatleston Allege Labor Code Violation
TRI-STATE WATER: 7th Cir. Affirms Ruling on Jurisdiction Issue
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Woman Appealing Settlement Needs to Post Bond

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Increases Settlement Offer in Safe Rides Suit
UNITED STATES: IRS Reopens PTIN System After Class Action Ruling
UNITED STATES: Judge Hears Arguments in Iraqi Deportation Case
US PHYSICAL: Faces Class Suit over Securities Act Breach
VILLAGE GREEN: Faces "Jensen" Suit in District of Minnesota

WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Beckman" Suit over Carafe Filter
WELLS FARGO: Fed Urged to Remove Board Members Amid Class Actions

* Class Action, SEC Settlements Hit Record High in 2016


                            *********


401 SUNRISE: "Mitropoulos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARISTOMENIS MITROPOULOS, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. 401 SUNRISE CORP.,
dba LYNBROOK DINER and NICKOLAS MAVROMIHALIS, Individually, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03618 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid wages, liquidated wages, and overtime pay under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.  According to
the complaint, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          103 Cooper Street
          Babylon, NY 11702
          Telephone: (631) 257 5588
          E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com


AARON'S INC: Lundin Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, disclosed a class action
lawsuit against Aaron's, Inc. ("Aaron's" or the "Company") (NYSE:
AAN) for possible violations of federal securities laws between
February 6, 2015 and October 29, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
during the Class Period should contact the firm prior to the
August 18, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

You can call Brian Lundin, Esq., of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-
1033, or you can e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until a class
is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney.
You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Aaron's
misled investors regarding its subsidiary, Progressive Finance
Holdings, LLC ("Progressive"), concealing from investors that it
was experiencing software issues that impacted Progressive's
underwriting algorithm. In truth, Progressive lost critical data
in February 2015, which impacted the Company's ability to make
loans and collect payments. When this information was released,
Aaron's stock price lowered materially, which caused investors
harm according to the Complaint.

Lundin Law PC was established by Brian Lundin, a securities
litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding
shareholders' rights. [GN]


ADVANTA SEEDS: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Sorghum
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Millet, writing for Northern Daily Reader, reports that a
class action claim involving allegedly contaminated sorghum is
being brought to the Liverpool Plains.

A legal firm will visit, probably in early July, to talk to
growers about the case against Advanta Seeds Pty Ltd (previously
Pacific Seeds).

The case alleges the Advanta Seeds sorghum variety MR43 Elite was
contaminated with the noxious weed shattercane between 2010 and
2014.

The class action is being served on behalf of Mallonland Pty Ltd,
the company of a Queensland grower who is the representative
plaintiff.

It claims that Advanta Seeds' actions were misleading and
deceptive and/or negligent.

Brisbane-based legal firm Creevey Russell Lawyers has been
handling the case in Queensland.

Principal Dan Creevey said it had been extended to include NSW
growers.

"I've been talking with a couple of farmers down there who have
some infestation," Mr Creevey said.

"We've been led to believe there have been somewhere between 500
and 600 people who have actually purchased this particular variety
of sorghum, MR43 Elite, and at this stage we've probably only had
about 20 contacts with actual growers ...

"If you purchased or planted MR43 seed between 2010 and 2014 and
have been infected with shattercane, you need to make yourself
known to us.

"We can then advise you whether you will be entitled to a share of
any final payment obtained from Advanta.

"There is no risk or cost for you in doing so. The only risk is
that you do not get in contact with us and consequentially miss
out on a payment that could otherwise be made to you."

Shattercane is a noxious weed which, if present in a crop of
sorghum, competes strongly with it and results in a reduced yield.

Once present on land, it can spread vigorously and it can
germinate, propagate and multiply quickly.

The name shattercane derives from the nature of the seed pod,
which contains many thousands of seeds.

Shattercane seeds can lie dormant in soil for up to 12 years.

It is difficult to eradicate and the process often means that land
cannot be used commercially for a considerable time. [GN]


AKORN INC: Faces "Harris" Securities Suit Over Fresenius Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN HARRIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AKORN, INC., JOHN N. KAPOOR, RONALD M.
JOHNSON, STEVEN J. MEYER, BRIAN TAMBI, ALAN WEINSTEIN, KENNETH S.
ABRAMOWITZ, ADRIENNE L. GRAVES, and TERRY A. RAPPUHN, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00373-JWD-RLB (M.D. La., June 14, 2017), alleges
violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act in connection
with the proposed merger between Akorn and Fresenius Kabi AG.

The total value of the transaction is approximately $4.3 billion.

The case alleges that the Board authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and false and/or misleading Preliminary
Proxy Statement.

The complaint says although Defendants represent in the Proxy that
the Merger Consideration is fair to the Company's shareholders,
they omitted certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy
incomplete and false and/or misleading, including information
regarding the following: (i) the Company's internal financial
projections; and (ii) the valuation analysis conducted by the
Company's financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, in
support of its opinion presented to and relied on by the Board
that the Proposed Merger was fair to Akorn shareholders.

Akorn, Inc. is a specialty generic pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded
prescription pharmaceuticals, as well as private-label over-the-
counter consumer health products and animal health
pharmaceuticals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lewis Kahn, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington Street
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     Phone: (504) 455-1400
     Fax: (504) 455-1498

        - and -

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
            jwilson@faruqilaw.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Pa. Supreme Court Approves Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Montales, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a
recommended federal class-action lawsuit against Allstate has been
approved by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The class-action is in relation to Allstate's policy that mandates
claimants undergo medical exams by a doctor of the carrier's
preference before they can receive benefits.

In May, U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo of the Middle
District of Pennsylvania ruled in Sayles v. Allstate Insurance
that Allstate's policy provision opposed the state Motor Vehicle
Financial Responsibility Law, and predicted that the state Supreme
Court would find the provision unenforceable.

"The court reads the plain language of Section 1796 [of the law]
to prohibit precisely what Allstate allegedly did in this case,"
Judge Caputo said, as reported in a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
article.

"Because it appears that Allstate's examination requirement
permits the insurer to require its insureds to submit to an
[independent medical exam] without first filing a petition
demonstrating good cause, and because the examination requirement
transfers control over the statutory safeguards from the province
of an impartial court to the discretion of an interested insurer,
the court predicts that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would find
the examination requirement, as alleged, in conflict with Section
1796 and thus violative of Pennsylvania public policy."

Judge Caputo dismissed all other claims raised, despite the ruling
green-lighting claims that the policy clashes with the Motor
Vehicle Financial Responsibility.

Charles Kannebecker, Weinstein Schneider Kannebecker & Lokuta,
said that the ruling must present "tremendous clarity" on the
issue.

"Now independent judges will determine who the examining physician
will be, so the insurance company can't use their hand-picked
doctors," Mr. Kannebecker said.

Mr. Kannebecker said he has seen similar provisions in different
cases concerning various insurance carriers, and plans to file
additional cases.

The initial case came about when a December 2015 car accident
injured Sayles. Allstate subsequently asked that she undergo an
independent medical exam by a doctor that the carrier picked
before she could claim any benefits.  Allstate never appealed to
the court to force the physical exam.

Sayles challenged the policy as she argued it violated the state
law that requires carriers to acquire a court order based on "good
cause" before refusing to pay a benefit. [GN]


ANTERO RESOURCES: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that
three individuals have filed a class-action lawsuit against Antero
Resources Corporation, a Colorado corporation, citing alleged
breach of contract.

Jacklin Romeo, Susan S. Rine and Debra Snyder Miller filed a
complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West
Virginia, alleging that the Colorado corporation failed to pay
royalties to them under a lease agreement for land in West
Virginia.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they
suffered monetary damages from not being paid royalties.  The
plaintiffs hold the defendant responsible for allegedly breaching
their contractual agreement with by failing to make royalty
payments after June 1, 2007.  The plaintiffs argue that the
company had to pay royalties "based upon prices received for
marketable residue gas and marketable natural gas liquids...
without deductions."

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek damages, all
royalty underpayments, interest, legal fees and any other relief
this court deems just.  They are represented by L. Lee Javins II
and Taylor M. Norman of Bailey, Javins & Carter LC in Charleston.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
case number 1:17-cv-00088-IMK [GN]


ASSOCIATED FOOD: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Associated Food
Holdings, LLC. The case is captioned as Lawrence Young,
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v, Associated Food Holdings, LLC;
Associated Food Shops Inc.; and Associated Food Stores, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04574-JPO (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken.

Associated Foods owns and operates a network of supermarkets in
New York Metro and surrounding neighborhoods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
          630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 392 4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444 1030
          E-mail: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com


AUSTRALIA: Manus Island Teacher Says Settlement Not About Money
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Bowlng, writing for Catholic Leader, reports that a former
Manus Island teacher says a huge class action against the Federal
Government on behalf of 1900 asylum seekers detained on the island
was "not about the money".

"All they wanted was to be free, and not to be tortured any more,"
Brisbane Catholic teacher Jacob Rice, who taught on Manus Island
for nine months until 2015 and witnessed the degrading and cruel
conditions suffered by asylum seekers in detention, said. "For all
the people that I know, it is not about the money."
On June 14, the Australian Government and the Manus Island
detention centre contractors agreed to pay out $70 million for
physical injuries and mental health illnesses to asylum seekers
held at the centre between 2012 and 2016.

The case is believed to be the largest human rights class action
settlement in Australian history.

Mr Rice remains in contact with asylum seekers, and recalls the
pressure they were under when the class action was launched.

"For some of the asylum seekers on Manus there was a dilemma about
whether to sign up for class action," he said.

Mr Rice recalls some of the detainees telling him: "All we want is
for them (the Australian Government) to make a call -- either you
want us and we will come and join your country, or you don't want
us, and then we have other places to apply."

Mr Rice's witness account is at odds with comments made by Senator
Pauline Hanson, who accused the class action participants of being
driven by the payout.

"They were claiming to be mistreated, and because of mental
conditions . . . Excuses why there should actually be a class
action against us to get . . . money.  That's what it's about,"
Senator Hanson said.  "We're being taken for fools.

"I'm sick and tired of the bloody do-gooders that are actually
pushing this bandwagon."

The law firm behind the class action said the asylum seekers
endured hostile conditions, many fleeing religious persecution and
violence.

"This is not an environment that any person with another safe
option would choose to live in," Slater and Gordon principal
lawyer Andrew Baker said in a statement.

Lead plaintiff Majid Kamasaee described the Manus Island detention
centre as "hell".

"I was in pain every minute of every day and I cried every night
until I had nothing left," he said.

"The way we were treated at the Manus Island detention centre was
degrading and cruel, but sadly, many of my friends are still
there."

Another detainee Benham Satah questioned what compensation would
be given to the families of detainees who had died while on Manus
Island.

"I wish that the court will give some compensation to their
families as well," he said.

The settlement details in the class action will be confidential
and subject to court approval. [GN]


AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS: "Ballew" Suit Alleges Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY BALLEW, the Plaintiff, v. AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, INC. d/b/a
AUTOMOTIVE RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL; CHRIS CLARKE and JOHN DOES
1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants, Case No. L-2530-17 (N.J. Super. Ct.,
June 22, 2017), seeks to recover judgment against the defendants
jointly, severally and in the alternative, together with
compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, cost of suit,
attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees, equitable back pay,
equitable reinstatement, and any other relief the Court deems
equitable.

The Plaintiff brings suit under the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination (LAD) alleging gender discrimination and
retaliation.

The Plaintiff held the title of heavy truck remarketer. Often
remarketers in her department, plaintiff was the only female.
In her 30-day review, 90-day review and year-end review, plaintiff
received a rating of "Meets Expectations." The Plaintiff performed
her job up to and beyond the reasonable expectations of her
employer. In February 2016, plaintiff was assigned to report to
Jim Jackson, senior remarketer and Chris Clark, manager of North
American Marketing.

According to the complaint, in Summer 2016, the plaintiff became
aware that all of her male co-workers were invited to attend an
annual fleet expo, but plaintiff, the only female in the position,
was not invited to the same. The Plaintiff challenged Mr. Jackson
regarding why she had not been invited and he could not provide an
adequate answer. The Plaintiff then took her concerns to Carol
Crist in Human Resources and stated that she felt she was being
discriminated against based on her gender. The Plaintiff thereby
engaged in protected activity under the LAD.

The Plaintiff asks that the Court order the defendants to cease
and desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made going
forward, both as to the specific plaintiff and as to all other
individuals similarly situated.

Automotive Rentals operates as a vehicle fleet management services
company. The company's services include global fleet
management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727 9700


AXIS INSURANCE: Faces "Yadegar" Suit over Unsolicited Fax
---------------------------------------------------------
YADEGAR, MINOFAR & SOLEYMANI LLP, a limited liability partnership
on its own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation,
and DOES 1-100 inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC666229 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 22, 2017), seeks injunctive and declaratory
relief forbidding Defendant from directly or indirectly
transmitting unsolicited commercial facsimiles and continuing
deceptive practices.

According to the complaint, an unsolicited fax advertisement --
such as Defendant's advertisement for professional liability
insurance -- damages its recipients. In the instant case,
Plaintiff lost the use of its fax machine for the increased amount
of transmission time necessary to transmit the extra content
Defendant added to its user's message because Plaintiff's
telephone fax line was tied up during the period.

Axis Insurance Company provides property and casualty,
professional line, terrorism, marine, energy, aviation, credit and
political risk, environmental, accident and health coverage, and
other customized insurance solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kikey L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          2815 Townsagate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270 7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270 7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

               -and -

          Bahram Nikinia, Esq.
          NIKINIA LAW FIRM
          1875 Century Park E, Suite 1240
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 601 8024
          Facsimile: (310) 909 7179


BANK OF AMERICA: To Repay Excessive Debit Card Fees to Inmates
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Bank of America Corp. will repay
tens of thousands of released Arizona prison inmates for what
advocacy groups say were excessive charges to access money on
debit cards they received when they got out of prison under a
lawsuit settlement announced on June 20.

The settlement of the class-action lawsuit brought by inmates
includes an agreement that the bank stop charging the fees, which
it did in April.  The bank has contracted to provide the debit
card services since 2012. About $168,000 will be repaid if all
inmates are located.

The bank was charging inmates $15 to withdraw cash from a teller
and other fees regular customers weren't charged.  The inmates
receive the cards loaded with cash they earned at prison jobs or
was confiscated when they were arrested when they are released.

Bank of America spokesman Will Wilson called the terms standard
for pre-paid cards and said the settlement was in everyone's best
interests.

The settlement in a lawsuit brought by a Philadelphia legal firm
that specializes in class-action cases is the second involving
bank card fees charged to inmates in the past year.  The same
firm, Golomb & Honik, P.C., settled a case against JP Morgan Chase
& Co. last year brought by inmates released from federal prisons.
The bank agreed to pay nearly $450,000 to released inmates charged
the fees.

The Arizona Justice Alliance and Reinventing Reentry are the two
advocacy groups that helped enlist the law firm.  Sue Ellen Allen
of Reinventing Reentry said released inmates have a hard enough
time reintegrating into society, and prison systems and banks
should try to assist them and not gouge them of cash they need to
get back to work.

"This is a message to departments of corrections and to banks that
charging exorbitant fees to people who are getting out and
desperately want to be members of the community again is really
not the message we want," Allen said.

Former Arizona prison inmate Daria Brill said she had about $2,000
on the books when she was released in 2016 after serving five
years for a drug sales offense.  She said she was shocked when
Bank of America charged her a fee to withdraw cash on her card at
a teller window, since she had previously been a customer and knew
that a card issued by the bank normally carries no withdraw fees.

She also said the teller could not tell her how much was son her
card, so she had to guess and return a second time, which cost her
another $15 fee.

"It's just amazing to me that institutions can rally think that
it's OK to take a population that's trying to succeed and do the
right thing and turn around and take advantage of them,"
Ms. Brill said.  "It feels really good to be part of justice and
hold people accountable. I was held accountable for my crime.  I
did my time, and it's nice to see that there's justice beyond
that." [GN]


BANK OF OKLAHOMA: Disputes Bondholders' Claims in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Casey, writing for Bond Buyer, reports that Bank of Oklahoma
Financial is disputing bondholders' claims in a class action that
it was subject to certain duties outside its trust indentures
while serving as trustee for transactions financing senior housing
projects in which proceeds were allegedly illegally commingled and
used.

BOKF's filing is the latest in a class action pending before Judge
John Dowdell of the U.S. Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma in Tulsa.  The 10 named class action participants are
seeking more than $5 million in compensatory damages after they
said BOKF kept material facts from investors, such as draws on
debt service reserve funds, failures to replenish those funds, and
the commingling of bond revenues. [GN]


BARNES & NOBLE: Faces "Bernardino" Suit over Social Media Plugins
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELINA BERNARDINO, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. BARNES & NOBLE BOOKSELLERS,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04570-LAK (S.D.N.Y., June
16, 2017), seeks to recover money damages, statutory money
damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief on behalf of
Melina Bernardino and other similarly situated customers who
purchased DVDs or other video media from Defendant's online store.

Like many online retailers, Defendant integrates social media
plugins on its website and encourages customers to share favorite
products on one of these social networks by use of the plugin. In
the case of B&N, the social media partners are Facebook, Twitter,
Pinterest and Google. Whether or not the plugins are affirmatively
clicked by the customer, however, Defendant knowingly causes each
customer's personal information, including information that
identifies the purchased Video Media, to be disclosed to the
social media partners, the Complaint alleges. With respect to
Defendant's disclosures to Facebook, Defendant also causes the
identity of the customer to be disclosed if the customer is a
Facebook subscriber.

According to the complaint, the federal Video Privacy Protection
Act and its New York state counterpart (the Video Consumer Privacy
Act or "NY VCPA") both prohibit the disclosure of personally-
identifiable video purchase records to third parties without the
express written consent of the customer in a separate stand-alone
consent form. In violation of these statutes, Defendant does not
obtain any consent, let alone the required express consent, prior
to disclosing video purchase records to Facebook.

Barnes & Noble operates an Internet bookstore. It offers books,
eBooks, magazines, toys and games, music, and DVDs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Barnes, Esq.
          BARNES & ASSOCIATES
          219 East Dunklin Street, Suite A
          Jefferson City, MO 65101
          Telephone: (573) 634 8884
          Facsimile: (573) 635 6291
          E-mail: jaybarnes@zoho.com

               - and -

          Barry R. Eichen, Esq.
          Evan J. Rosenberg, Esq.
          EICHEN CRUTCHLOW ZASLOW & McELROY
          40 Ethel Road
          Edison, NJ 08817
          Telephone: (732) 777 0100
          Facsimile: (732) 248 8273
          E-mail: beichen@njadvocates.com

               - and -

          Marc Wites, Esq.
          WITES & KAPETAN P.A.
          4400 North Federal Highway
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
          Telephone: (954) 526 2729
          Facsimile: (954) 354 0205
          E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com

               - and -

          David Straite, Esq.
          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          David A. Straite, Esq.
          Joel B. Strauss, Esq.
          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Matthew George, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687 1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687 7714
          E-mail: dstraite@kaplanfox.com
                  lking@kaplanfox.com


BARNES AND NOBLE: Hartpence Sues over Wage & Hour Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE N. HARTPENCE, 65 HEATHER COURT NEWTOWN, PA 18940, the
Plaintiff, v. BARNES AND NOBLE, INC. C/O CAPITOL CORPORATE
SERVICES, INC., 600 NORTH SECOND STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101, the
Defendant, Case No. 70602515 (Phily. Cty. Ct., June 22, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime pay under Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment & Collection Law, and the New Jersey
State Wage & Hour Law.

The Plaintiff worked as a Cafe Manager for B&N at its Clark, New
Jersey location from June 2014 through July 2015, and at its
Willow Grove, Pennsylvania location from July 2015 through August
2016.

According to the complaint, throughout their employment with
Defendant, Plaintiff and other Cafe Managers regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. Although they were labeled by B&N as
"managers," Cafe Managers did not perform and were not responsible
for true management functions. To the contrary, Cafe Managers
spend the vast majority of their time performing the same duties
as those performed by non-exempt, hourly cafe employees. The
primary duties of a Cafe Manager do not vary among B&N's stores.
The primary duties of Cafe Managers do not fall within any of the
exemptions under the wage payment and/or overtime laws of
Pennsylvania.

B&N operates retail bookstores throughout the United States, with
approximately 24 locations in Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas More Holland, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS MORE HOLLAND
          1522 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 592 8080
          Facsimile: (215) 592 8550
          E-mail: TMH@TMHLAW.COM


BIG PICTURE: Faces "Williams" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Picture Loans,
LLC.  The case is captioned as Lula Williams, Gloria Turnage,
George Hengle, Dowin Coffy, and Felix Gillison, Jr., on behalf of
themselves and all individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Big Picture Loans, LLC, Matt Martorello, Ascension
Technologies, Inc., Daniel Gravel, James Williams, Jr., Gertrude
McGeshick, Susan McGeshick, and Giiwegiizhigookway Martin, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00461-REP (E.D. Va., June 22, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Robert E. Payne.

Big Picture is a short-term loan company offering installment, or
personal, loans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424 7570
          Facsimile: (703) 591 0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          James Wilson Speer, Esq.
          VIRGINIA PROVERTY LAW CENTER
          919 E Main Street, Suite 610
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 782 9430
          Facsimile: (804) 649 0974
          E-mail: jay@vplc.org


BISCO INC: 7th Cir. Strikes Down Class Action "Pick Off" Tactic
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a loophole left open for defendants in a critical class
action ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last year is making little
headway in the courts, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit striking down the procedural maneuver.

In a June 20 opinion, the Seventh Circuit found that a defendant's
deposit of $3,600 into a court account that compensated the lead
plaintiff in full did not moot the entire class action.  Bisco
Inc., the defendant in the case, deposited the funds after the
U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez barred a
similar tactic designed to "pick off" lead plaintiffs in class
actions but reserved any opinion on whether the situation would be
different had the defendant actually paid the funds.

Seventh Circuit Chief Justice Diane Wood, writing for the
unanimous panel, wrote that Bisco made a "risky assumption" in
interpreting Campbell-Ewald.

"From a broader perspective, we see no principle distinction," she
wrote.  "In either case, all that exists is an unaccepted contract
offer, and as the Supreme Court recognized, an unaccepted offer is
not binding on the offeree."

The ruling is the latest loss for defendants hoping to use the
wording of Campbell-Ewald to bring a second wave of "pick-off"
challenges in a class action.  In its 6-3 decision, the Supreme
Court found that "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case."

But Chief Justice John Roberts, in a dissent joined by Justices
Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, wrote that the "majority's
analysis may have come out differently if Campbell had deposited
the offered funds with the district court."  Justice Alito, in a
separate opinion, noted that a defendant could ensure it makes
good on its offer by handing the plaintiff a certified check or
depositing the funds "in a bank account in the plaintiff's name."
Since Campbell-Ewald, defendants have tried to make such payments
to lead plaintiffs -- with little success.  The Ninth Circuit
found last year that Allstate Insurance Co.'s deposit of $20,000
into an escrow fund for the lead plaintiff didn't moot a class
action. In an unpublished decision, the Sixth Circuit sided with
the plaintiff in a case involving a $4,500 cashier's check.

Laura McNally, Esq. -- lmcnally@loeb.com -- a partner in the
Chicago office of Loeb & Loeb, said similar challenges are
percolating in the district courts. She said she expected more
circuits to weigh in, possibly sending the issue back to the
Supreme Court.

"This is going to continue to come up," she said.  "Because if it
works, it could be such a powerful weapon for defendants."

Adina Rosenbaum, an attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group in
Washington, who represented the plaintiff in the case before the
Seventh Circuit, praised the panel's "really compelling decision."
"This is a decision that other courts are likely to look at and
find persuasive," she said.

Jeffrey Halldin, Esq. -- jhalldin@harrisonheld.com -- a partner at
Chicago's Harrison & Held, who represented Bisco, did not respond
to a request for comment.

Fulton Dental filed the suit in 2015 after receiving an
unsolicited fax from Bisco in violation of the U.S. Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.  The TCPA allows statutory damages of
$500 to $1,500 per violation.

Unlike Campbell-Ewald, which was based on an offer of judgment
made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, Bisco made its
payment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67, which allows
parties to deposit funds with the court. U.S. District Judge
Edmond Chang of the Northern District of Illinois granted Bisco's
mootness motion, then entered judgment in the case.
But that procedure was premature, Justice Wood wrote. [GN]


BLAIR'S BAIL: Faces "Egana" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blair's Bail Bonds,
Inc. The case is captioned as Ronald Egana, Samantha Egana, and
Tiffany Brown, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Blair's Bail Bonds, Inc., New Orleans Bail
Bonds, L.L.C., Bankers Insurance Company, Inc., Bankers Surety
Services, Inc., Bankers Underwriters, Inc., A2I, L.L.C.,
Alternative to Incarceration, Inc., and Alternative to
Incarceration NOLA, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05899-
LMA-JVM (E.D. La., June 16, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Lance M. Africk.

Blair's Bail is a bail bonding company in New Orleans. The company
posts state, federal, juvenile, municipal and traffic bonds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ivy Wang, Esq.
          Caren Elaine Short, Esq.
          Samuel J. Brooke, Esq.
          Sara Zampierin, Esq.
          Southern Poverty Law Center (New Orleans)
          1055 St. Charles Ave., Suite 505
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (334) 956 8200
          E-mail: ivy.wang@splcenter.org
                  caren.short@splcenter.org
                  samuel.brooke@splcenter.org
                  sara.zampierin@splcenter.org


BISCO INC: Benesch Friedlander Comments on 7th Cir. Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
David Almedia, Esq., and Mark S. Eisen, Esq., of Benesch
Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, in an article for Lexology,
wrote that on January 2016, the Supreme Court issued its Campbell-
Ewald v. Gomez decision and definitely ruled that Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 68 could not be used to moot the claims of a named
plaintiff. Prior to that ruling, courts across the country were
split as to whether a defendant could make a complete offer of
judgment pursuant to Rule 68 -- offering to pay all, and sometimes
more than, the relief a plaintiff would be entitled to if they won
at trial -- and thus deprive the plaintiff of standing to continue
litigating the case. In other words, courts were split as to
whether a plaintiff could keep litigating after they had already
won (following an "unconditional surrender" by the defendant).

The Supreme Court, however, left open the issue of whether a
plaintiff's claim could be effectively mooted by depositing the
full amount of the claim in an account payable to the plaintiff.
Specifically, the Court held:

In sum, an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does
not moot a plaintiff's case, so the District Court retained
jurisdiction to adjudicate Gomez's complaint. That ruling suffices
to decide this case. We need not, and do not, now decide whether
the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full
amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable
to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the
plaintiff in that amount. That question is appropriately reserved
for a case in which it is not hypothetical.

Since the Campbell-Ewald decision, numerous defendants have sought
to test this unresolved issue by depositing the full amount of a
claim with the Court through Rule 67. Such a circumstance arose in
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., a TCPA class action pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. Bisco, following an unsuccessful offer of judgment,
filed a motion to deposit $3,600 with the court pursuant to Rule
67, intending to cover both the plaintiff's maximum relief as well
as any incurred costs. The District Court subsequently granted the
motion, holding that "Fulton Dental will have no remaining
personal stake in the litigation after receiving maximum statutory
damages, injunctive relief, costs, and judgment in its favor." See
2017 WL 4593825, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2016).

Bisco, having just had its putative class action swept from under
its feet, appealed to the Seventh Circuit. On June 20, 2017, the
Seventh Circuit reversed. In a short opinion, the Court held that,
though the Supreme Court left the issue unresolved, there was "no
principled distinction between attempting to force a settlement on
an unwilling party through Rule 68, as in Campbell-Ewald, and
attempting to force a settlement on an unwilling party through
Rule 67." Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., - F.3d - , 2017 WL
2641124, at *3 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).

Though brief, the Seventh Circuit's decision includes two key --
if not contradictory -- pieces of dicta, in addition to its
holding. In the first, the Court strongly implies that a named
plaintiff turning down a complete offer of judgment (or refusing
to accept a deposit under Rule 67) may have no personal stake in
the litigation, and thus "the district judge might well question
whether it is the appropriate champion for the class." Id. at *4.
While a named plaintiff may evade mootness, it may eventually thus
lose class certification as an inadequate class representative.
This line will no doubt serve as a useful argument in opposing
class certification in the Seventh Circuit.

Second, and contradictorily, the Seventh Circuit indicated that
named plaintiffs may have a monetary interest in the opportunity
to act as class representative. Specifically, the Court stated
that "we cannot say as a matter of law that the unaccepted offer
was sufficient to compensate plaintiff Fulton for its loss of the
opportunity to represent the putative class." Id. at *5. If taken
at face value, this quote suggests that the opportunity to serve
as named plaintiff is independently compensable, separate and
apart from the underlying claim. Such a theory, if true, would run
directly contrary to longstanding law that "the right of a
litigant to employ Rule 23 is a procedural right only, ancillary
to the litigation of substantive claims." Deposit Guar. Nat. Bank,
Jackson, Miss. v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 332 (1980).

The key takeaway of Fulton Dental is that Rule 67, as a tool for
mooting class action cases, is a nonstarter in the Seventh
Circuit. Secondarily, however, the extent to which Rule 67 can be
used to undercut the adequacy of a named plaintiff is very much an
open question, and may prove a useful tool moving forward. [GN]


BLUCURRENT CREDIT: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gounley, writing for Springfield News-Leader, reports that
a lawsuit has been filed in the wake of the abrupt closure of
Ozark motorcycle dealership Midwest Cycle Center.

The lawsuit, filed June 8 in Greene County, names as its sole
defendant BluCurrent Credit Union, which managed the "retail
installment sale contracts" -- essentially the financing -- for
vehicles purchased from Midwest Cycle Center and a related auto
dealership, Pro Action Auto.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are five Missouri residents who
separately purchased used motorcycles or automobiles from Midwest
Cycle or Pro Action Auto between June 2016 and April, and were
charged for service contracts, extended warranties or other
coverage.

The lawsuit alleges that Midwest Cycle, Pro Action and a third
related company, Powersports Protection -- all of which operated
at 1949 W. Boat St. in Ozark -- were not qualified or authorized
by the state to sell such contracts or warranties.

The lawsuit also states one of the plaintiffs never received a
certificate of title from Pro Action for a vehicle purchased in
late April and that the plaintiffs believe "numerous" others
experienced the same thing.

The lawsuit alleges those practices amounted to "deceptive and
unfair practices and/or fraud" and violations of the Missouri
Motor Vehicle Time Sales Act.

The plaintiffs allege that BluCurrent, by extension, is
responsible for the practices of the dealership, citing a Federal
Trade Commission rule that protects consumers when merchants sell
a consumer's credit contracts to other lenders.

Separate lawsuits were filed against BluCurrent in late May by
several of the plaintiffs in the June 8 suit.

In a statement issued to the News-Leader, BluCurrent said that it
"had no knowledge of the allegations made in these lawsuits at the
time of the sales transactions."

"We are committed to finding a satisfactory solution to the issues
alleged in the lawsuit that will best serve the interests of all
concerned, especially our members who are most important to us,"
BluCurrent said.

The plaintiffs have requested class-action status for the lawsuit
filed June 8, writing that the class "is believed to comprise
dozens of consumers."

Midwest Cycle and the related companies closed without advance
notice sometime in late May or early June.  The reason for that
move is still unclear.

The businesses were owned and managed by Nathan Powers, according
to the lawsuit.  The News-Leader was unable to find a working
phone number for Powers.  A call to Midwest Cycle was not
answered, and the voicemail box was full.

The separate lawsuits filed in late May by some of the plaintiffs
in the June 8 suit -- Willard resident Sean Anderson and Clever
residents Brian and Arnetta Roberson -- elaborate on the customer
experience at Midwest Cycle and Pro Action.

Ms. Anderson's lawsuit says when he purchased a 2009 Harley-
Davidson, he was told it was a trade-in, only to later learn it
had been purchased at an auction.  He said he was told it had no
issues, but realized immediately upon arriving home that the ABS
light stayed on and the fuel gauge wasn't working.

The lawsuit says Anderson purchased a service contract and gap
coverage for the motorcycle, and later tried to cancel it.
Anderson never received a refund, despite talking directly to
Powers, who kept repeating "we have 240 five-star ratings on
Facebook," according to the lawsuit.

The Robersons' lawsuit states that Brian Roberson was charged for
a service contract and gap coverage despite the fact that he did
not agree to purchase either in connection with his purchase of a
2013 Harley-Davidson. Roberson was also unable to get Midwest
Cycle to give him a refund, according to the lawsuit. [GN]


BNC BANCORP: Shareholder Agrees to Dismiss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
a shareholder agreed on June 20 to dismiss his class-action
lawsuit against BNC Bancorp following the bank's disclosure of
financial revenue and earnings projections.

The lawsuit was filed May 25 by Andrew Giles against the High
Point bank and its board of directors.  Mr. Giles still can pursue
attorney fees and expenses.

On June 16, a federal judge approved the dismissal, with the
condition that another plaintiffs can bring a similar complaint.

The lawsuit attempted to delay the bank's $1.9 billion sale to
Pinnacle Financial Partners Inc. of Nashville, Tenn., which closed
June 16.

Pinnacle grew to more than $20 billion in total assets, becoming a
top-50 U.S. bank, after acquiring BNC's $7.4 billion.

The lawsuit claimed the Pinnacle offer undervalued BNC and
deprived shareholders of additional benefits for selling.

On June 6, BNC disclosed in an amended proxy filing projected
annual dividend per share if it remained independent, which was 20
cents each year for 2017 through 2020.  It projected losing $5
million in annual revenue through increased expense costs once it
surpassed $10 billion in total assets.

"BNC believes that no further disclosure is required to supplement
the (May 3) proxy statement under applicable law," the bank said
in the amended proxy filing.

"However, to avoid the risk that the putative class action may
delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the merger
with Pinnacle and to minimize the expense of defending such
actions, BNC wishes to voluntarily make the supplemental
disclosures related to the proposed merger set forth below."

The lawsuit mentioned BNC having strong profit, earnings and share
price growth in the first quarter of 2017, along with promising
growth trends in other key metrics.

The $10 billion asset threshold, through the federal Dodd-Frank
Act, brings heightened regulatory oversight and expenses that have
compelled some regional banks, such as BNC, Capital Bank Financial
Corp. and Yadkin Financial Corp., to agree to be bought by out-of-
state regional banks.

The lawsuit follows a similar request pattern that attempted to
delay or halt the sale of the following companies in recent years:
Capital Bank; Hatteras Financial Corp.; Krispy Kreme Doughnuts
Inc.; Lorillard Inc.; NewBridge Bancorp.; and Yadkin Financial.

Each lawsuit had a similar complaint to Mr. Giles' action and was
settled or dismissed with a similar outcome.

Pinnacle gained its first presence in the Carolinas and Virginia
with 76 BNC branches, including 20 in the Triad and three in
Forsyth County.

Pinnacle kept an operational hub in High Point, led by BNC chief
executive and president Rick Callicutt, who became chairman of
Pinnacle's Carolinas and Virginia region.

Pinnacle owns 60 percent of the combined bank, while BNC owns 36
percent, and a separate group of private-equity investors 4
percent through a planned $175 million Tier 1 capital raise. [GN]


BOGALUSA CITY, LA: Judge Denies Suit Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Rainey, writing for NOLA.com, reports that as a "debtors
prison" case in Bogalusa grinds forward, the plaintiffs will have
to go it alone for now, a federal judge in New Orleans decided on
June 21.

U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle told attorneys that he would not
grant class action status to those plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit
against the Bogalusa city court complaining that city Judge Robert
Black had wrongfully jailed defendants who were too poor to pay
their fines and court costs.

"I'm really messed up about it," Rozzie Scott said. "I don't want
to have to do these months. These months are long and I don't even
want to be in there a week."

"The bottom line was the court declined to certify class, at this
time at least," said Ted Dittmer, Black's attorney. The plaintiffs
had sought to represent any future defendants who could face
similar penalties for not paying their fines on time.

"The court also indicated that it felt the real core issue in this
case is the structural conflict that the plaintiffs raised in
their complaint," Dittmer said.

That structural conflict is a state law that has local courts pay
for a portion of their operations through fees, fines or court
costs imposed on defendants convicted or who plead guilty. The
concern is that this practice could incentivize judges to rule
against defendants in order to help pay to keep the courtroom
lights on.

Bogalusa's city court pays for up to a fifth of its costs with
such revenue, according to the lawsuit.

Lemelle's ruling on June 21 wasn't an end-all-be-all decision. He
could revisit the argument that the case should be treated as a
class action, said Sam Brooke, deputy legal director for the
Southern Poverty Law Center.

The SPLC filed the suit a year ago, accusing Black of running a
"modern-day debtors' prison." But it's not an isolated case in
Louisiana. New Orleans is grappling with a similar lawsuit.

"I think the court recognized that this isn't something that Judge
Black created, Dittmer said.

Lemelle on June 21 also instructed both sides in the Bogalusa case
to continue working toward a settlement. Some headway has already
been made. Black agreed to refund the $50 fees collected from
defendants who had missed their payment deadlines and asked for
more time.

A trial date is scheduled for October 16. [GN]


BOOT BARN: Settlement Reached in Employee Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on June
7, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended April 1, 2017 that it has settled a class action
lawsuit filed by employees.

On April 28, 2016, two employees, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated employees, filed a wage-and-hour class
action, which includes claims for penalties under California's
Private Attorney General Act, in the Fresno County Superior Court,
Case No. 16 CE CG 01330, alleging violations of California's wage
and hour, overtime, meal break and statement of wages rules and
regulations, among other things.

On April 10, 2017, the Company reached a settlement with the
employees for an amount that is not material to the consolidated
financial statements. The amount of the settlement has been
accrued as of April 1, 2017.

Boot Barn Holdings, Inc., a lifestyle retail chain, operates
specialty retail stores in the United States.  The Company was
formerly known as WW Top Investment Corporation and changed its
name to Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. in June 2014.  Boot Barn
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1978 and is based in Irvine,
California.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Akerman Attorney Discusses SCOTUS Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fraser, Esq. -- brian.fraser@akerman.com -- of Akerman LLP,
in an article for Lexology, reports that on June 19, 2017, the
United States Supreme Court issued the latest in a line of
decisions that began in 2011 which has restricted the exercise of
personal jurisdiction over corporate defendants by state and
federal courts.  In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of
California, No. 16-466 (June 19, 2017) (BMS), the Court reversed
the California Supreme Court and held that a group of plaintiffs,
who are not residents of California and who did not allege that
they were injured in the state, may not assert claims against the
defendant pharmaceutical company alongside California plaintiffs
asserting similar claims in California state court.  The decision
removes any possible remaining doubt that courts may not exercise
personal jurisdiction over a corporate defendant without running
afoul of the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments unless it can be shown that 1) the forum is the
defendant's place of incorporation or principal place of business,
or 2) the defendant's conduct that caused the alleged injury to
the plaintiff occurred in the forum or was directed to the forum
with the specific intent to cause an effect there. Even extensive
but unrelated conduct by the defendant in the forum, which is what
the California Supreme Court relied upon in holding that the state
had jurisdiction over BMS, will not support a finding of
jurisdiction.  The fact that the defendant is properly a party
before the court for the purpose of other plaintiffs' claims also
does not change the result.

Beginning in 2011, in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v.
Brown, No. 10-76 (June 27, 2011), the Supreme Court began a
fundamental change to longstanding jurisdictional doctrine.
Although the Court in Goodyear paid lip service to the "minimum
contacts" and "traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice" standard of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326
U.S. 310 (1945), it began moving toward the current more limited
view of both general and specific personal jurisdiction.  The
Court has moved away from a focus on the convenience of the
defendant and toward an emphasis on Due Process as a tool of
Federalism to limit states' ability to impose their power over out
of state corporations.  In Goodyear, the Court held that North
Carolina did not have general jurisdiction over the tire
manufacturer arising from a bus accident in France because it was
not "at home" in North Carolina, despite substantial sales of
tires in the state.  In 2014, the Court extrapolated from the
Goodyear ruling and made explicit the general rule that a
corporation is only "at home" in its place of incorporation or
principal place of business. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct.
756 (2014).  That same year, the Court articulated a more limited
view of specific jurisdiction in Walden v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115
(2014), requiring a strong connection between the defendant's
conduct in the state or directed toward the state with an intent
to cause an effect there and the plaintiff's cause of action.  The
effect of these decisions is now being felt in the lower courts,
as judges and lawyers adjust to the new standards. See Gucci v.
Bank of China, 768 F.3d 122 (2nd Cir. 2014) (defendant did not
waive jurisdictional objection by appearing, because the Supreme
Court's decision in Daimler had unforeseeably changed the law).

Beyond cementing the new stricter jurisdictional tests laid out in
the previous cases, BMS makes clear that personal jurisdiction is
no longer about the convenience of the defendant.  After all, BMS
would be a defendant in California regardless of the outcome of
the appeal, given the claims of the California residents. But, it
also raises a tantalizing possibility for class action cases. BMS
was not a class action, rather it was a direct action brought by
86 California residents and 592 residents from 33 other states.
But the Court's reasoning suggests that a state or federal court
may not have the power constitutionally to certify a class that
includes putative class members who could not have obtained
jurisdiction over the defendant in the forum on their own.  In
other words, unless a corporate defendant is sued in the state of
its incorporation or principal place of business, where the court
has general jurisdiction over the defendant, only class members
who are resident in the forum or who suffered injury in the forum
could be certified as part of the class.  Such a rule would in
effect require all national class actions to be filed where the
defendant is headquartered or incorporated.  In her dissenting
opinion, Justice Sotomayor cited the hurdles that the majority's
decisions raises for consolidated and mass cases, and raised just
the possibility that it could also affect class actions in a
footnote: "The Court does not confront the question whether its
opinion here would also apply to a class action in which a
plaintiff injured in the forum State seeks to represent a
nationwide class of plaintiffs, not all of whom were injured
there." Id. fn 4. Given the current notion that due process in the
context of personal jurisdiction imposes a check on states' power,
there is every reason to think that BMS will be applied in the
class action context.

In the wake of BMS, class action defendants and their counsel
should re-evaluate their defenses to class certification, and
consider the effect on damages calculations and the cost of
settlement from a successful challenge to certification that
limits the class to in-forum members. [GN]


CABELA'S INC: Faces "Solak" Securities Suit Over Bass Pro Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SOLAK, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CABELA'S INCORPORATED, JAMES W.
CABELA, THOMAS L. MILLNER, MICHAEL R. MCCARTHY, DENNIS
HIGHBY, THEODORE M. ARMSTRONG, JOHN H. EDMONSON, BETH M.
PRITCHARD, DONNA M. MILROD, JAMES F. WRIGHT, and PETER
SWINBURN, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00763-UNA (D. Del., June
14, 2017), was filed in relation with the merger of the Company
with Bass Pro Group, LLC, and Prairie Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to
the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the
Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each share of Cabela's
common stock will be converted into the right to receive $61.50 in
cash.

According to the case, the Proxy contains incomplete and
materially misleading information regarding: (i) the process that
resulted in the Proposed Transaction and the conflicts of interest
infecting it, (ii) the financial analysis conducted by the
Company's financial advisor, Guggenheim Securities, LLC, and (iii)
the projections used by Guggenheim in that analysis.

Defendant is a specialty retailer of hunting, fishing, camping,
shooting sports, and related outdoor merchandise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington Street
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     Phone: (504) 455-1400
     Fax: (504) 455-1498

        - and -

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


CAFE PUSHKIN: Faces "Fuerth" Suit over Employment Termination
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEAN FUERTH, individually and on behalf of all those persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAFE PUSHKIN CENTRAL, LLC
d/b/a BETONY, CAFE PUSHKIN USA, LLC d/b/a MAISON DELLOS GROUP, and
CAFE PUSHKIN FACTORY, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 155690/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 22, 2017), seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief; an award of monetary damages made compensable pursuant to
the New York Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act;
award of statutory damages pursuant to the New York WARN Act; pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest on all amounts to which
Plaintiff is entitled; Plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees;
costs of this action; and any such other and further relief that
this Court deems just and equitable.

The Plaintiff brings this civil class action against Defendants.
Defendants engaged in a permanent plant closing thereby suddenly
rendering numerous persons unemployed without warning. Defendants
failed to give Plaintiff sufficient notice that their employment
was to be terminated. Defendants' failure violated the New York
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Blit, Esq.
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4020
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 967 3000
          Facsimile: (212) 967 3010
          E-mail: mblit@1evineblit.com


CALAVO GROWERS: Still Defends Calif. Wage and Hour Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calavo Growers, Inc. continues to defend itself against two
purported class action lawsuits related to violations of
California wage-and-hour laws, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2017.

The lawsuits were filed in Superior state courts in California
alleging violations of California wage-and-hour laws, failure to
pay overtime, failure to pay for missed meal and rest periods,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
pay all wages due at the time of termination or resignation, as
well as statutory penalties for violation of the California Labor
Code and Minimum Wage Order-2014.

The Company said, "We are still assessing the claims and
assertions made by the plaintiffs.  We intend to aggressively
challenge the merits of each lawsuit.  At this time, we are not
able to predict either the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a
potential range of loss with respect to said lawsuits."

Calavo Growers, Inc. markets and distributes avocados, prepared
avocados, and other perishable foods to food distributors, produce
wholesalers, supermarkets, convenience stores, and restaurants
worldwide.  It operates in three segments: Fresh Products, Calavo
Foods, and RFG.  The Company was founded in 1924 and is
headquartered in Santa Paula, California.


CALIFORNIA FAIR: Faces "Chacon" Suit Alleging Contract Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADELA CHACON, an individual, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA FAIR PLAN,
an unincorporated association, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants,
Case No. BC 665189 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, June 14,
2017) is a class action alleging unfair business practices, breach
of contract, and breach of implied covenant.

The purported class are California residents insured under FAIR
Plan dwelling policies who made claims for partial damage to a
structure, which claims were open between June 14, 2013, and the
present, as to which Fair Plan paid at least $2,500 in policy
benefits under Coverages A and B of the policies, and as to which
Fair Plan settled the claim based on an appraisal of the market
value of the insured property.

FAIR Plan issues property insurance to residents of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Edward Kerley, Esq.
     Dylan L. Schaffer, Esq.
     KERLEY SCHAFFER LLP
     1939 Harrison Street, #500
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 379-5801
     Fax: (51 0) 228-0350


CANE BAY PARTNERS: "Inscho" Suit Sues over Rent-a-Tribe Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK INSCHO, STEVEN PIKE,DONNA FIRKIN, DIANNE TURNER, and
LORETTA BRICKEY, on behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DAVID JOHNSON, KIRK
CHEWNING, and CANE BAY PARTNERS, VI, LLLP, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00674-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va., June 15, 2017), seeks
declaratory judgment that loan agreements related to Defendants'
rent-a-tribe scheme are void and unenforceable.

The case alleges a criminal enterprise established with the intent
of evading state usury laws. In an apparent attempt to insulate
themselves from any legal liability, Defendants established what
is commonly referred to as a "rent-a-tribe" business model, where
a payday lending scheme associates with a Native American tribe in
an attempt to cloak itself in the privileges and immunities
enjoyed by the tribe.

According to the complaint, to facilitate their blatant violations
of state lending laws, Defendants created a network of payday
lending websites, which claimed to be owned and operated by the
Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) -- three
affiliated Native American tribes located on the Fort Berthold
Reservation in North Dakota. Under the rent-a-tribe model,
Defendants were permitted to use the tribes as a front in exchange
for a nominal fee. The benefit to the tribes was nominal, while
Defendants pocketed exorbitant profits. Defendants' usurious loans
were void ab initio pursuant to Virginia Code, which provides that
any loan containing an interest rate above 12% "shall be void".
The Plaintiffs further seek a declaratory judgment that the choice
of law and arbitration provisions are unenforceable as a matter of
public policy because these provisions seek to disclaim all
federal and state laws.

Additionally, Plaintiffs allege violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which prohibits a person
associated with an enterprise to conduct or participate, directly
or indirectly, in the conduct of the enterprise's affairs through
"collection of unlawful debt." The Defendants conspired with each
other to repeatedly violate state lending statutes resulting in
the collection of "unlawful debt", which RICO defines as "money or
a thing of value at a rate usurious under State or Federal Law,
where the usurious rate is at least twice the enforceable rate".
As a result of their participation in the enterprise and the
collection of interest as high as 50 times the enforceable rate,
Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs and the
putative class members for their actual damages, treble damages,
costs, and attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs also assert a class
claim for violations of Virginia's usury laws and seek to disgorge
all amounts paid by Virginia consumers in excess of 12% plus twice
the amount of such usurious interest that was paid in the two
years preceding the filing of this action, their attorneys' fees,
and costs.

Cane Bay Partners provides management consulting services to
clients in the financial services industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424 7570
          Facsimile: (703) 591 -0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          Andrew Silver, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973 0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973 0950
          E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com
                  asilver@tzlegal.com


CG INVESTMENTS: Chinchilla Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUZ CHINCHILLA, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other
aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. CG INVESTMENTS, INC., a
California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC665540 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 16, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the California
Labor Code by failing to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees all wages due to them, including regular and overtime
wages, failing to provide complaint meal and rest period to
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, failing to pay premium
wages when compliant meal and rest periods were not provided;
failing to timey pay all wages due upon employees resignation or
termination, failing to pay wage statements, and failing to
reimburse business expenses.

CG Investments was founded in 2008. The Company line of business
includes investing in commodity contracts, tax liens, and venture
capital companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald H. Bae, Esq.
          AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP
          4156 E. Green Street, Suite 200
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Telephone: (213) 674 6080
          Facsimile: (213) 674 6081
          E-mail: rbae@aequitaslegalgroup.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sued by K. Baker Over Certain Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 5:17-cv-01134-JGB-DTB (C.D. Cal., June 9, 2017), is
brought over certain data breach.

Chipotle is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located in Denver, Colorado.  Chipotle operates a chain
of restaurants purveying Mexican food, operating over 1,200
restaurants nationwide, and nearly all operated directly by the
Company and not through franchisees.  The Plaintiffs are currently
ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
          ABINGTON COLE AND ELLERY
          320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 588-3400
          E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com


CIENA CORP: Delaware Court Dropped 3rd Amended Complaint in May
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ciena Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on June 7, 2017
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2017, that the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware has granted the defendants' motion to dismiss a
third amended complaint in the consolidated shareholder lawsuit
arising from its acquisition of Cyan, Inc.  The dismissal was
granted, with prejudice, on May 11, 2017.

From May 15 through June 3, 2015, five separate putative class
action lawsuits in connection with Ciena's then-pending
acquisition of Cyan, Inc. ("Cyan") were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.  On June 23, 2015, each of
these lawsuits was consolidated into a single case captioned In Re
Cyan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11027-CB.  On
July 9, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a verified amended class action
complaint, which named as defendants Ciena, a Ciena subsidiary
created solely for the purpose of effecting the acquisition
("Merger Sub"), and the members of Cyan's board of directors.  On
August 5, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint which named as defendants the members of Cyan's board of
directors.  Cyan, Ciena, and Merger Sub were not named as
defendants.

On July 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint,
which generally alleges that the Cyan board members breached their
fiduciary duties by engaging in a conflicted and unfair sales
process, failing to maximize stockholder value in the acquisition,
taking steps to preclude competitive bidding, and failing to
disclose material information necessary for stockholders to make
an informed decision regarding the acquisition.

The third amended complaint seeks (i) a declaration that the
plaintiffs are entitled to a quasi-appraisal remedy, (ii)
rescissory damages, (iii) recovery through an accounting of all
damages caused as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties, (iv) compensatory damages, and (v) costs including
attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

On August 5, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.  On May 11, 2017, the Court of Chancery
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint with prejudice.

Ciena Corporation is a network strategy and technology company,
providing solutions that enable a wide range of network operators
to adopt next-generation communication architectures and to
deliver a broad array of services relied upon by enterprise and
consumer end users.  The Company provides equipment, software and
services that support the transport, switching, aggregation,
service delivery and management of voice, video and data traffic
on communications networks.


CIENA CORP: Summary Judgment Bids Pending in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ciena Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on June 7, 2017
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2017, that the parties' motions for summary
judgment are still pending in a consolidated securities lawsuit in
California.

As a result of the acquisition of Cyan in August 2015, Ciena
became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit.  On April
1, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, against
Cyan, the members of Cyan's board of directors, Cyan's former
Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of Cyan's initial
public offering.  On April 30, 2014, a substantially similar
lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants.

The two cases have been consolidated as Beaver County Employees
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-14-
538355.  The consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of
purchasers of Cyan's common stock pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus for Cyan's initial public
offering in April 2013, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief.

On May 19, 2015, the proposed class was certified.  On August 25,
2015, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
based on an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the
case, which motion was denied on October 23, 2015.

On May 24, 2016, the defendants filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari on the jurisdiction issue with the United States
Supreme Court, to which the plaintiffs filed a brief in
opposition.

On November 18, 2016, the parties each filed motions for summary
judgment.

The Company said, "Ciena believes that the consolidated lawsuit is
without merit and intends to defend it vigorously."

Ciena Corporation is a network strategy and technology company,
providing solutions that enable a wide range of network operators
to adopt next-generation communication architectures and to
deliver a broad array of services relied upon by enterprise and
consumer end users.  The Company provides equipment, software and
services that support the transport, switching, aggregation,
service delivery and management of voice, video and data traffic
on communications networks.


CLUB ANGELS: Peters Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
PRINCESS PETERS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ANGELS OF THE WORLD, INC. d/b/a CLUB
ANGELS; GEORGE STOUPAS; and any other related entities, the
Defendants, Case No. 610091/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 15, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, illegally retained tips,
and improperly withheld wages pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in December 2010 and
continuing through the present, the Defendants have failed to
provide the statutory minimum hourly wage to their employees and
have engaged in a policy and practice of unlawfully demanding,
accepting and retaining gratuities received by their
employees.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laura R. Reznick, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Leeds Brown Law, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550

The Defendants are represented by:

          MONTEIRO & FISHMAN, LLP
          91 N. Franklin Street
          Hempstead, NY 11550
          Telephone: (516) 280 4600


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Judge OKs $3-Mil. OT Class Deal
------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, writing for Law 360, reports that a California
federal judge on June 22 granted preliminary approval to Cogent
Communications' $3 million deal to end class action claims that
the internet provider shorted the overtime payments of over 300
workers and purposely kept them in the dark about the state's
labor laws.

The deal releases claims that account managers were routinely
required to work more than eight hours per day and 40 hours per
week, but received the same salary regardless of how many hours
they worked. The class covers all California account managers
employed by Cogent since May 2010 who were classified as exempt
from receiving overtime. Claims will be calculated proportional to
wages earned and weeks worked.

The 59 employees who opted in to the Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action portion of the suit will get additional money
based on the same formula.

The $3 million settlement includes a $2,500 service award for each
of the 13 class representatives and up to $1 million in attorneys'
fees and $75,000 in costs. The average payout per class member is
estimated to be around $6,000. Class administration costs will be
paid separately by Cogent.

"I won't keep you in suspense," U.S. District Judge Richard
Seeborg said at the outset of  June 22's  hearing. "It looks as if
this settlement is within the realm of fair, reasonable and
adequate."

The suit, brought by former account managers in 2014, alleges
Cogent knew that none of them could be properly classified as
exempt from overtime under California law, but did nothing to stop
the practice. The class action also accused Cogent of violating
California's unfair competition statute - which protects employers
who comply with the law from those who attempt to gain an
advantage at their employees' expense - by deceiving workers so it
could withhold overtime pay.

In January 2016, Judge Seeborg certified the class and granted
conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action. Cogent appealed the decision to the Ninth
Circuit a month later, but the appeals court denied the petition
that May, according to court documents.

In March 2016, Cogent filed a motion to compel arbitration,
dismiss claims and amend the class definition. Judge Seeborg
denied it, as well as a motion to stay the proceedings for another
Ninth Circuit appeal, which is still pending.

In December, negotiations ended with a settlement between the
employees and the multinational network service provider that
offers internet access, data transport and colocation services.

At June 22's hearing, Monique Olivier of Duckworth Peters Lebowitz
Olivier LLP said class notice and allocation of claims shouldn't
be difficult, since the identities of all the 315 class members
had been established. She said they wouldn't need to use claims
forms.

"We think we'll be able to get the money to all the claimants,"
she said, adding that any unclaimed funds would be given to Legal
Aid at Work.

The judge noted that Olivier should be "prepared" at the final
approval stage to tell him why attorneys for the class deserve
more than 25 percent of the total settlement.

The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas E. Duckworth, Esq. --
thomas@dplolaw.com -- and Monique Olivier, Esq. --
monique@dplolaw.com -- of Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP
and Michael Todd Slobin, Esq. of Shellist Lazarz Slobin LLP

Cogent is represented by Tamara I. Devitt, Esq. --
tamara.devitt@haynesboone.com -- Kimberly A. Chase, Esq. --
Kimberly.chase@haynesboone.com --  Matthew E. Costello, Esq. --
matthew.costello@haynesboone.com -- and Meghaan C. Madriz, Esq. --
meghaan.madriz@haynesboone.com -- of Haynes and Boone LLP.

The case is Ambrosio et al. v. Cogent Communications Inc., case
number 3:14-cv-02182, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. [GN]


COLES COUNTY, IL: Faces "Perry" Suit Over Civil Rights Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie J. Perry, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated as Mattoon Township (Coles County, Illinois) commercial
and industrial property owners, and James Rex Dukeman, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated as Mattoon Township
(Coles County, Illinois) commercial and industrial property owners
v. Coles County, Case No. 2:17-cv-02133-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., June
9, 2017), alleges Civil Rights Act violations.

Coles County is a county located in Illinois.  The county seat is
Charleston.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Erick G. Kaardal, Esq.
          MOHRMAN KAARDAL & ERICKSON PA
          150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-1074
          Facsimile: (612) 341-1076
          E-mail: kaardal@mklaw.com


COMPASS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a federal class action law suit
against Compass Group USA, Inc. ("Compass Group" or the
"Company"), on behalf of all employees who worked as route and
delivery drivers in California since June 20, 2013.  The lawsuit
alleges that Compass Group failed to comply with the mandates of
the California Labor Code.  As a result, Plaintiffs allege that
Compass Group has underpaid its workers and denied them meal and
rest breaks required by law.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Compass Group has failed
to pay its route and delivery drivers who work for its 'Canteen'
or 'Canteen Vending' brand (http://www.canteen.com/)minimum and
overtime wages. Compass Group's route and delivery drivers service
vending machines and corporate cafeterias throughout the state of
California.  The lawsuit alleges Compass Group has systematically
run afoul of California's Labor Code in numerous ways, including
its failure to keep and maintain adequate records of hours worked,
engaging in a policy and practice of refusing to provide workers
meal and rest breaks, failing to provide a mechanism for workers
to receive payments and penalties for missed breaks, failing to
compensate workers for "off-the-clock" work before and after their
shifts, failing to reimburse workers for company-mandated use of
their cell phones, and failing to pay all wages, overtime and
commissions in compliance with California law.

"Employees today are under increasing pressure from their
employers to do more in less time to help the company's bottom
line and keep their jobs," stated Matthew George, an attorney for
the proposed class.  "Because of Compass Group's labor practices,
the hard-working route and delivery drivers we represent have lost
out on wages, reimbursements, and other compensation due under
California law and we intend to recoup what they are owed."

The complaint alleges violations of the California Labor Code and
the California Unfair Competition Law. The case, entitled Johnson,
et al. v. Compass Group USA, Inc., No. 17-cv-03543, is currently
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. [GN]

For more information about the case, to review a copy of the
Complaint filed in this action, or for more information about
Kaplan Fox, you may contact Matthew George at (415) 772-4700:

          Laurence D. King
          Linda M. Fong
          Matthew B. George
          Mario M. Choi
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, California 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Fax:  415-772-4707
          Email: lking@kaplanfox.com
                 lfong@kaplanfox.com
                 mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
                 mchoi@kaplanfox.com


CONN'S INC: July 2018 Trial Set in Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
A trial is set for July 2018 in a consolidated securities class
action litigation against Conn's, Inc., according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2017.

The Company and two of its former executive officers are
defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas (the "Court"), captioned In re Conn's Inc.
Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (the "Consolidated
Securities Action").  The Consolidated Securities Action started
as three separate purported securities class action lawsuits filed
between March 5, 2014 and May 5, 2014 in the Court that were
consolidated into the Consolidated Securities Action on June 3,
2014.

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action allege that
the defendants made false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  They allege violations of sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek to certify a class of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Conn's
common stock or call options, or sold or wrote Conn's put options
between April 3, 2013 and December 9, 2014.  The complaint does
not specify the amount of damages sought.

On June 30, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint.  At the hearing, the
Court dismissed Brian Taylor, a former executive officer, and
certain other aspects of the complaint.  The Court ordered the
plaintiffs to further amend their complaint in accordance with its
ruling, and the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Consolidated Amended
Complaint on July 21, 2015.

The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 28,
2015.  The defendant's motion to dismiss was fully briefed and the
Court held a hearing on defendants' motion on March 25, 2016 and
on May 5, 2016, the Court issued a ruling that dismissed 78 of 91
alleged misstatements.  The parties have submitted their
respective briefs in support of, and in opposition to, class
certification, and also engaged in discovery pursuant to the
Court's scheduling order.

Trial is scheduled for July 2018.

The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend against all of
the claims in the Consolidated Securities Action against us.  It
is not possible at this time to predict the timing or outcome of
any of this litigation, and we cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of possible loss from these claims."

Conn's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of durable consumer
goods and related services in the United States.  It operates
through two segments, Retail and Credit.  It was founded in 1890
and is based in The Woodlands, Texas.


CREDIT CONTROL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Alvarez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yovani Alvarez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Credit Control, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-04379-PGG
(S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2017), alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Credit Control Services, Inc., doing business as Credit Collection
Services, provides business process outsourcing solutions for
customers in the United States.  The Company offers automated
voice messaging, live agent/call center, text messaging, email
campaigns, and direct mail solutions; and consumer and commercial
credit collection services, as well as in the recovery of
large/complex contracts and tort-based obligations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Hamra, Esq.
          SIROTKIN VARACALLI & HAMRA, LLP
          110 E 59th Street, Suite 3200
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 590-0571
          E-mail: Ahamra@svhllp.com


DEEP ROOT: Faces Class Action Over US Voters' Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Bertrand, writing for Business Insider, reports that a
data-analytics firm hired by the Republican National Committee
last year to gather political information about US voters
accidentally leaked the sensitive personal details of roughly 198
million citizens earlier this month.  And it's now facing its
first class-action lawsuit.

Deep Root Analytics, a data firm contracted by the RNC, stored
details of about 61% of the US population on an Amazon cloud
server without password protection for roughly two weeks before it
was discovered by security researcher Chris Vickery on June 12.

The class-action lawsuit, filed by James and Linda McAleer of
Florida and all others similarly situated, alleges Deep Root
failed to "secure and safeguard the public's personally
identifiable information such as names, addresses, email
addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, reddit.com browsing
history, and voter ID number, which Deep Root collected from many
sources, including the Republican National Committee."

The data exposed by Deep Root included 1.1 terabytes "of entirely
unsecured personal information" compiled by Deep Root and at least
two other Republican contractors, TargetPoint Consulting, Inc.,
and Data Trust, according to an analysis from the cybersecurity
firm UpGuard.

"In total, the personal information of potentially near all of
America's 200 million registered voters was exposed, including
names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, and voter
registration details, as well as data described as 'modeled' voter
ethnicities and religions," UpGuard said.

The lawsuit says that President Donald Trump "is on record
denouncing these sorts of breaches as 'gross negligence.'"

It says that "as a direct and proximite cause of Deep Root's
conduct," those exposed in the data breach may be vulnerable to
identity theft and "a loss of privacy," and argue that the "actual
damages" exceed $5 million.

The exposed information did not include highly sensitive
information like Social Security numbers, and much of it was
publicly available voter-registration data provided by state
government officials, a company spokesman told Business Insider on
June 20.

"Since this event has come to our attention, we have updated the
access settings and put protocols in place to prevent further
access," Deep Root said in a statement.  "We take full
responsibility for this situation."

Deep Root didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on
June 21.

But the exposed database combined people's personal information
and political inclinations -- including proprietary information
gathered via predictive modeling tools -- to create a detailed
profile of nearly 200 million Americans that would be a "gold
mine" for anyone looking to target and manipulate voters, said
Archie Agarwal, the founder of the cybersecurity firm
ThreatModeler.

"This is the mother lode of all leaks," Mr. Agarwal said on
June 19.  "Governments are made or broken on this.  I don't even
have the words to describe it."

Joe Loomis, the founder and chief technology officer at the
cybersecurity firm CyberSponse, predicted that a series of
lawsuits against Deep Root over the accidental leak would prove
damaging.

"Even if it was human error and not intentional, one IT person is
probably going to put this company out of business," he said. [GN]


DICK SMITH: Vannin Capital to Fund Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that Bannister Law has
announced that it plans to file a class action lawsuit against
Dick Smith, alleging that the retailer violated its disclosure
obligations outlined in the Corporations Act of Australia.

Appliance Retailer reports that Vannin Capital will fund the
litigation.  According to Vannin's Patrick Coope, the
"investigation suggests that shareholders have a very strong case.
We are pleased to be funding the case as we think it important
that the matter be vigorously pursued."

Bannister Law founder and Principal, Charles Bannister echoed
Mr. Coope's statement, "We have investigated and followed this
matter since January 2016 and we are pleased to finally be in a
position to make this application in order issue proceedings and
to pursue shareholders losses.  We are confident that our alliance
with Vannin Capital will deliver results for shareholders." [GN]


DOLLAR GENERAL: Judge Trims Aloe Vera Gel Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge has burned off two of three counts in a class action
complaint facing Dollar General over claims the retailer's aloe
vera cooling gel didn't actually contain aloe vera.

Thera Lambert and Amy Connor, of Illinois, filed a three-count
complaint against Dollar General regarding DG Body Soothing Aloe
Gel, alleging it does not contain aloe vera despite the product
name and labeling implying it included "aloe barbadensis leaf
extract."  In an opinion issued June 16 in Chicago, Judge Harry D.
Leinenweber granted Dollar General's motion to dismiss two of the
counts without prejudice.

The women said they bought the gel in 2015 and 2016 because the
value aloe vera's ability to promote skin healing and sunburn
relief.  But laboratory testing revealed the gel lacked certain
compounds, including acemannan, glucose, malic acid and whole leaf
markers, which American Herbal Pharmacopeia and the International
Aloe Science Council state are aloe vera hallmarks, according to
the judge's decision.

Saying Tennessee-based Dollar General employed misleading cosmetic
labeling under the Food and Drug Cosmetic Act, the women formally
alleged breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty
of merchantability and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act.  The class would include
anyone in Illinois who bought the gel in the four years before
they filed the complaint.

In moving for dismissal, Dollar General's main argument was it did
not market its gel as certified by either AHP or the IASC, thus
undercutting the plaintiffs' use of those organization's
statements about the gel to establish the express warranty they
allege Dollar General violated.  Judge Leinenweber rejected that
approach, however, saying the organization's studies are allowable
components of the allegations and at this stage of the litigation
"it suffices to note that the link between the study's conclusions
and the Gel's affirmative statements of fact is plausible."

However, Judge Leinenweber sided with Dollar General with respect
to the breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim, noting
plaintiffs bringing such allegations must say the goods were not
merchantable at the time of sale, that they suffered damages as a
result of defective goods and that they gave the defendant notice
of the defect.  Dollar General said the women failed to adequately
plead the gel failed its primary purpose, a necessity to prove it
was not fit to be sold as labeled.

That argument found favor with Judge Leinenweber, who noted the
plaintiffs did not allege the gel failed to provide "after-sun
cooling relief" as advertised.  Further, neither woman said they
actually used the gel.

"Nothing in the amended complaint supports the inference that only
aloe vera can moisturize or cool skin -- such that the very
allegation of its absence from the gel plausibly states a failure
of ordinary purpose," Judge Leinenweber wrote.  "There is no
plausible claim that the Gel failed its ordinary and intended
purpose."

Dollar General attacked the state law claim by first asserting it
is barred under ICFA's safe harbor for compliance with federal law
and then by saying the state claim merely duplicates the express
warranty claim.  Judge Leinenweber rejected the first approach,
saying the claim is not implausible under the safe harbor
provision, but agreed with the second prong, explaining the state
law is not intended to apply to basic contract breach claims.

"By crying consumer fraud based only on the same affirmative
statements that backstop their breach-of-express- warranty claim,
plaintiffs fail to bring an actionable ICFA claim," Judge
Leinenweber wrote.

Dollar General asked for all counts to be dismissed with
prejudice, but Judge Leinenweber would not dismiss the first and
dismissed the second and third without prejudice, writing, "the
more prudent alternative is futility testing any amendments
plaintiffs may propose against the legal framework and analysis
set forth in this opinion."

The plaintiffs were represented in the action by attorneys with
the firms of Anderson & Wanca, of Rolling Meadows; Kohn, Swift &
Graf, P.C., of Philadelphia; Barbat, Mansour & Suciu PLLC, of
Bloomfield Hills, Mich.; JTB Law Group, of Chicago; Lite Depalma
Greenberg, of Chicago; Greg Coleman Law, of Knoxville, Tenn.; and
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., of Southfield, Mich.

Dollar General is defended by the firm of Winston & Strawn, of
Chicago. [GN]


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Espinoza" Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions Incorporated. The case is styled as Wendy Espinoza, on
behalf of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Experian Information Solutions Incorporated, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01977-BSB (D. Ariz., June 22, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade.

Experian Information, an information services company, provides
information, analytical, and marketing services to organizations
and consumers to help manage the risk and reward of commercial and
financial decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Ali Chami, Esq.
          PRICE LAW GROUP APC
          1204 E Baseline Rd., Ste. 102
          Tempe, AZ 85283
          Telephone: (866) 881 2133
          Facsimile: (866) 401 1457
          E-mail: david@pricelawgroup.com

               - and -

          Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
          382 S Convent Ave.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PLLC
          Tucson, AZ 85716
          Telephone: (520) 622 2481
          Facsimile: (757) 930 3662
          E-mail: srotkis@clalegal.com


FAHRENHIT PLUMBING: Faces "Boyland" Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fahrenhit Plumbing,
LLC. The case is titled as Ayesha Boyland, on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fahrenhit
Plumbing, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01152-PGB-KRS (M.D.
Fla., June 22, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul
G. Byron.

Fahrenheit Plumbing serves all of Orlando and surrounding cities
for 24-hour plumbing services including drain cleaning.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801-4624
          Telephone: (407) 420 1414
          Facsimile: (407) 425 3341
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


FEDERAL WARRANTY: Removes "Woturski" Suit to D.N.J.
---------------------------------------------------
Defendant Federal Warranty Service Corporation removes the civil
action captioned Rose M. Woturski, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. FEDERAL WARRANTY SERVICE
CORPORATION, Defendant (originally Docket No. CAM-L-199-17, N.J.
Super., Cape May County) from the Superior Court of New Jersey to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-04309-NLH-KMW, on June 14, 2017.

The case alleges that a service contract that Federal Warranty
issued to Ms. Woturski violated the New Jersey Truth in Consumer
Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Federal Warranty issued
to Ms. Woturski a service contract covering home appliances that
Ms. Woturski purchased from a nonparty retailer.  She contends
that two distinct contract provisions governing: (i) cancellation
by the contract holder and (ii) cancellation by the provider,
deviate from, and separately violate, the New Jersey Service
Contract Act.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     John R. Vales, Esq.
     DENTONS US LLP
     101 JFK Parkway
     Short Hills, NJ 07078
     Phone: (973) 912-7129

        - and -

     Frank G. Burt, Esq.
     Brian P. Perryman, Esq.
     CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
     1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 400 West
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 965 8100
     E-mail: fburt@carltonfields.com
             bperryman@carltonfields.com


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Violates Fair Credit Reporting, Bankhead Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LATONYA T. BANKHEAD on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES
CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 2017CV291753 (Ga. Super. Ct., June
22, 2017), seeks to hold Defendant accountable for its willful and
systemic violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Defendant has willfully violated the FCRA by systematically
reporting inaccurate information on consumers, by reporting
adverse information on consumers which antedates the report by
more than seven years.

First Advantage is a criminal background check company that
delivers global solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake Andrews, Esq.
          BLAKEANDREWS LAW FIRM, L.L.C
          1831 Timothy Drive
          Atlanta, GA 30329
          Telephone: 770 828 6225
          Facsimile: 866-828 6882
          E-mail: blake@blakeandrewslaw.com

               - and -

          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C
          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
          43 S.E. Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: 612-594 5999
          Facsimile: 612-584 4470
          E-mail: emdrakef@bm.net
                  ihashmall@bm.net


FOOT LOCKER: Class Action Judgment Still Stayed Pending Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Foot Locker, Inc. and its
retirement plan remains stayed pending the outcome of an appeal
related to the matter, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 29, 2017.

The Company and its U.S. retirement plan are defendants in a class
action (Osberg v. Foot Locker Inc. et ano., filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York) in which the
plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the 1996 conversion of
the retirement plan to a defined benefit plan with a cash balance
formula, the Company and the retirement plan failed to properly
advise plan participants of the "wear-away" effect of the
conversion.  Plaintiff's claims were for breach of fiduciary duty
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended, and violation of the statutory provisions governing the
content of the Summary Plan Description.

The trial was held in July 2015 and the court issued a decision in
September 2015 in favor of the class on the foregoing claims.  The
court ordered that the Plan be reformed.  As a result of this
development, the Company determined that it is probable a
liability exists.  The Company's reasonable estimate of this
liability is a range between US$100 million and US$200 million,
with no amount within that range more probable than any other
amount.  Therefore, in accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company
recorded a charge of US$100 million pre-tax (US$61 million after-
tax) in the third quarter of 2015.  This amount has been
classified as a long-term liability.  The Company has appealed the
court's decision, and the judgment has been stayed pending the
outcome of the appeal.

Foot Locker said, "The Company will continue to vigorously defend
itself in this case.  In light of the uncertainties involved in
this matter, there is no assurance that the ultimate resolution
will not differ from the amount currently accrued by the Company."

Foot Locker, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates in two
reportable segments -- Athletic Stores and Direct-to-Customers.
The Athletic Stores segment is one of the largest athletic
footwear and apparel retailers in the world, with formats that
include Foot Locker, Lady Foot Locker, Kids Foot Locker, SIX:02,
Champs Sports, Footaction, Runners Point, and Sidestep. The
Direct-to-Customers segment includes Footlocker.com, Inc. and
other affiliates, including Eastbay, Inc., and our international
ecommerce businesses, which sell to customers through their
Internet and mobile sites, and catalogs.


FORT SMITH, AR: Sued for Indiscriminate, Unnecessary Recycling
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Lovett, writing for Times Record, reports that a lawsuit was
filed against the city of Fort Smith for its "indiscriminate and
unnecessary" use of recycling trucks at about $53,000 a month to
dump most of the city's recyclables in the landfill since mid-
October 2014 without the public's knowledge.

Attorneys W. Whitfield Hyman of Fort Smith and Monzer Mansour of
Fayetteville represent the lawsuit's plaintiff, Jennifer Merriott
of Fort Smith. The complaint was filed in the Sebastian County
Circuit Court on June 19 and proposes a class-action suit based on
"misuse of public funds."

"To redress this misuse of public funds, the plaintiff brings this
lawsuit on behalf of herself and her fellow Fort Smith residents,"
the suit states.

The plaintiff seeks "restitution from the City in an amount equal
to the value of the benefit the City has received, retained or
appropriated from the plaintiff."

It proposes a class action for "all persons who have paid
sanitation fees" to the city of Fort Smith to operate the curbside
recycling program without having actually received that benefit.
The suit asks the court to create a common fund from monies
"disgorged by the City from which common fund restitution payments
shall be made to the class members." The "illegal exaction case"
must be certified to become a class action suit, Hyman noted.

As noted in a May 2 Times Record report on the matter, Fort Smith
residents who recycle do not pay an additional fee on top of what
they pay for sanitation. Recycling services are included in the
$13.28 plus tax monthly solid waste disposal fee, the city states.

The lawsuit argues that "Fort Smith residential customers pay
toward this recycling service through the rates and charges paid
by every person" and "all revenues that the City has used to pay
for the recycling programs has come from these same sanitation
rates and charges that the City has levied."

The lawsuit states that since October 2014 there has been more
than 7,785 tons (15.4 million pounds), of residential recyclables
sent to the Fort Smith landfill. That amounts to 92 percent of the
amount collected.

According to a chart from Fort Smith City Administrator Carl
Geffken, about 5,400 tons were dumped in the landfill from October
2014 to June 2016. That was out of about 6,073 tons of recycling
collected. During that time, from October 2014 to June 2016, about
659 tons of the city's residential recyclables were processed at
Green Source Recycling Center in Clarksville.

As noted in previous Times Record coverage of the issue, the last
time the city took any recyclable materials to Green Source was
June 27, 2016 - 9.73 tons, or about 3 percent of the 308.75 tons
of recyclable waste collected were recycled. [GN]


FXCM INC: Faces Class Action in New York Over NDD Platform
----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on June 21 disclosed that a consumer
class action lawsuit has been filed against FXCM Inc., Forex
Capital Markets, LLC and FXCM Holdings, LLC (collectively, "FXCM")
(now known Global Brokerage, Inc. (Frankfurt:YFX1.F)) and Dror Niv
("Niv"), William Ahdout ("Ahdout"), John Dittami, and Effex
Capital, LLC in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all customers of FXCM who,
between March 1, 2010 and February 6, 2017 (the "Class Period"),
placed trading orders through FXCM's "No Dealing Desk" ("NDD
Platform") while FXCM publicly stated that FXCM had no conflict of
interest in the outcome of trades made on the NDD Platform.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) between FXCM
engaged in false and misleading solicitations of its retail
foreign exchange customers by concealing its relationship with its
most important market maker and by misrepresenting that its "No
Dealing Desk" platform had no conflicts of interest with its
customers; (2) FXCM made false statements to the National Futures
Association about its relationship with the market maker; and (3)
as a result, Defendants unjustly profited from its customers
because of the aforesaid conflict of interest.

On February 6, 2017, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
("CFTC") announced in a press release and accompanying Order that
it had settled charges against FXCM and its two founders -- Niv
and Ahdout.  The CFTC found that FXCM had engaged in false and
misleading solicitations of its retail foreign exchange customers
by concealing FXCM's relationship with its most important market
maker, by misrepresenting that its NDD Platform had no conflicts
of interest with its customers, and cheating customers through
dishonest trade execution.

If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


GDAX: Could Face Class Action Over Ethereum Flash Crash
-------------------------------------------------------
Corin Faife, writing for Motherboard, reports that the price of
ether fell to as low as 10 cents on one exchange, and the wider
cryptocurrency community is still in shock.

Markets for ether, the cryptocurrency linked to the ethereum
distributed computing platform, were rocked by a huge flash crash
that saw prices fall from over $365 down to as low as 10 cents on
one exchange before bouncing back shortly afterwards-an event that
is mildly worrying for anyone concerned about cryptocurrency
volatility, but has had devastating consequences for some
professional traders who have seen their holdings wiped out.

The crash occurred at about 3:30pm ET June 22, when a huge sale of
ether was made on the GDAX exchange, an extension of the popular
Coinbase exchange and cryptocurrency wallet geared towards
professional traders. According to GDAX's official statement, a
single and as yet unknown actor sold millions of dollars worth of
ether across a range of positions from $317 down to $224, meaning
that ether was effectively trading at the lower end of this range.
The consequence of this initial drop in trading value was to
trigger a number of stop loss orders -- mechanisms by which a
trader's holdings will automatically be sold when the price dips
below a certain marker. In turn, these new sales drove the price
lower, triggering additional stop loss order in a cascading
effect. At its lowest point, ether was trading for $0.10 per unit.

The process was even more painful for the many traders who were
engaged in margin trading, a feature that GDAX has only permitted
on the exchange since March. In margin trading, traders are
permitted to place buy and sell orders for larger sums than they
have in their accounts, multiplying the potential size of both
gains and losses. According to the support documents on the site,
GDAX offered margin traders up to 3x leverage for the USD/ETH
trading pair, meaning that someone with only a $1,000 account
balance could buy or sell up to $3,000 of ether.

But as a precautionary measure, margin trading accounts are set to
automatically liquidate in order to make up the money borrowed
(i.e. sell all ether as quickly as possible) if losses exceeded a
certain amount, a process called "margin calling." With the crash
happening so fast, traders were margin called almost instantly,
and in some cases saw their entire holdings sold off at very low
prices before they could react-selling, say, 100 ETH at $2 to
cover just a few hundred dollars' loss, right before the market
bounced back to almost $300/ETH again.

Understandably, with huge sums having been lost (and in some cases
gained) in the blink of an eye, pointed questions are being asked
about the sell which first triggered the process and whether it
was an attempt at market manipulation. GDAX's blog post stated
that it will be conducting a "thorough investigation" into events,
but in the meantime the cryptocurrency trading community will be
looking for answers wherever they can find them. Some of the
affected individuals have already started to organize via a
Telegram group with the intention of filing a class action lawsuit
against the exchange, but at present GDAX's position is that all
margin trades are final, and terms were outlined in advance. [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Steele" Class Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Chester Steele, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. General Motors LLC, a Delaware
limited liability Company, Case No. 2:17-cv-04323-BRO-SK (C.D.
Cal., June 9, 2017), is brought over fraud-related claims.

General Motors, LLC, operates as a subsidiary of General Motors
Company.  General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars,
trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Karen L. Wallace, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  karen.wallace@capstonelawyers.com
                  tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com


GENERAL REVENUE: Faces "Henderson" Suit in W.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Revenue
Corporation. The case is entitled as Willie Henderson,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. General Revenue Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
7:17-cv-00292-GEC (W.D. Va., June 22, 2017). The case is assigned
to the Hon. District Judge Glen E. Conrad.

General Revenue Corporation provides debt collection services to
help improve clients' bottom line.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Palmer Fishwick, Jr., Esq.
          Monica Lynn Mroz, Esq.
          FISHWICK & ASSOCIATES, PLC
          101 S. Jefferson Street, Suite 500
          Roanoke, VA 24011
          Telephone: (540) 345 5890
          Facsimile: (540) 345 5789
          E-mail: john.fishwick@fishwickandassociates.com
                  monica.mroz@fishwickandassociates.com


GENGHIS GRILL: Faces "McKinley" Suit Over "Unlawful" Tip Pool
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER MCKINLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. GENGHIS GRILL, GENGHIS GRILL FRANCHISE
CONCEPTS, LP, CHALAK MITRA GROUP OF COMPANIES,
AL BHAKTA, CHET BHAKTA, RON PARIKH, NIK BHAKTA, MANISH PATEL, DR.
SANJAY PATEL, PUSHPAK PATEL, DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-02408-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn., June 14, 2017), alleges
that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring
Plaintiff and others similarly situated to: 1) contribute to an
unlawful tip pool, 2) work "off-the-clock" for no pay which
reduced their weekly pay below that of the applicable minimum
wage; 3) perform non-tipped job tasks that were unrelated to their
tipped occupation while only being paid the tipped minimum wage;
and 4) perform non-tipped job tasks that were related to their
tipped occupation for a substantial amount of time (20% or more)
while only being paid the tipped minimum wage.

Plaintiff McKinley was employed by Defendants as a hostess and
server at the Genghis Grill restaurant.

The Chalak Mitra Group of Companies is the owner of a Mongolian
stir-fry chain, Genghis Grill, an 80+ unit, fast-casual concept
restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bryce Ashby, Esq.
     DONATI LAW, PLLC
     1545 Union Avenue
     Memphis, TN 38104
     Phone: 901-278-3111
     Email: bryce@donatilaw.com

        - and -

     Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
     PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC
     818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
     St. Louis, MO 63104
     Phone: 314-833-4825
     Email: bwise@prwlegal.com


HMS HOLDINGS: Still Facing Securities Class Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
HMS Holdings Corp. continues to defend itself in a putative
securities class action currently pending in Texas and was
originally filed in New Jersey, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On March 3, 2017, the class action was filed in the Federal
District Court for the District of New Jersey, entitled Danahar v.
HMS Holdings Corp., et al.  The complaint names the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer as
defendants and arises out of the Company's disclosure on March 2,
2017 that the filing of its 2016 Form 10-K would be delayed in
order to permit the Company to complete the Company's previously
disclosed review of its Estimated liability for appeals and
related internal control over financial reporting, and that the
Company's auditor had informed the Company that it had identified
what it believed was a material weakness in the Company's internal
control over financial reporting related to the CMS reserves.  The
complaint alleges that the Company's Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2015 and its quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for
the period January 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016 were false and
misleading for failing to disclose the matters set forth above.

On May 19, 2017, the New Jersey District Court granted the
defendants' motion to transfer the action to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  The action is
at its early stages, and the Company has not yet responded to the
complaint.

HMS Holdings Corp., through its subsidiaries, operates in the
healthcare insurance benefit cost containment market in the United
States.  It serves state Medicaid programs, commercial health
plans, federal government health agencies, government and private
employers, child support agencies, and other healthcare payers and
sponsors.  HMS Holdings Corp. was founded in 1974 and is based in
Irving, Texas.


J CREW: Misrepresents Former Prices of Sale Items, Press Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM PRESS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. J. CREW, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-
cv-04315-JFW-AGR (C.D. Cal., June 9, 2017), arises out of the
Defendant's alleged unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business
practice commonly referred to as "false reference pricing."

"False reference pricing" is the act of misrepresenting the
former, original or regular price of some good that is purportedly
offered at a "sale price," a business practice that the Defendant
engages in to increase sales, Mr. Press alleges.  He adds that
during at least the past four years, the Defendant has misled
consumers by advertising the false former, original or regular
prices which were fabricated, and corresponding phantom "savings"
on women's, men's, and children apparel, shoes, and accessories
sold in its J. Crew Factory stores located at outlet malls and J.
Crew Mercantile stores located at convenient retail shopping
centers away from typical outlet malls in California.

J. Crew, Inc., is a Delaware corporation which is licensed to do,
and is doing, business throughout the United States, with its
principal place of business located in New York City.  As of
January 28, 2017, the Defendant operates 256 J. Crew mainline
retail stores, 136 Factory Stores, and 39 Mercantile Stores
throughout the United States, and advertises, markets,
distributes, and sells women's, men's and children's apparel,
shoes, and accessories.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zev B. Zysman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ZEV B. ZYSMAN
          A Professional Corporation
          15760 Ventura Boulevard, 16th Floor
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 783-8836
          Facsimile: (818) 783-9985
          E-mail: zev@zysmanlawca.com

               - and -

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW
          A Professional Corporation
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
                  rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
          Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq.
          KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD, LLP
          3436 N. Verdugo Rd., Suite 230
          Glendale, CA 91208
          Telephone: (213) 473-1900
          Facsimile: (213) 473-1919
          E-mail: tak@kearneylittlefield.com
                  pwl@kearneylittlefield.com


JC PENNEY: Enters into Consolidated Securities Class Action Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
June 7, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 29, 2017 that parties have
reached an agreement in principle to settle a consolidated
securities class action for US$97.5 million. The settlement is
subject to court approval and the amount will be funded by
insurance.

The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah are
parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler
Division.

The Marcus consolidated complaint is purportedly brought on behalf
of persons who acquired the Company's common stock during the
period from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, and
alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Plaintiff claims that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's
financial condition and business prospects that caused the
Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.

The consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified
compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and
expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
which was denied by the court on September 29, 2015.  Defendants
filed an answer to the consolidated complaint on November 12,
2015.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on January 25,
2016, and on August 29, 2016, a magistrate judge issued a report
and recommendation that the motion for class certification be
granted.  The district court adopted this report and
recommendation granting class certification on March 8, 2017.

Also, on August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E.
Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.  The suit is
purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired the
Company's securities other than common stock during the period
from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, generally mirrors
the allegations contained in the Marcus lawsuit discussed above,
and seeks similar relief.

On June 8, 2015, plaintiff in the Marcus lawsuit amended the
consolidated complaint to include the members of the purported
class in the Johnson lawsuit, and on June 10, 2015, the Johnson
lawsuit was consolidated into the Marcus lawsuit.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle, subject to
court approval, to settle the consolidated securities class action
for US$97.5 million, which will be funded by insurance.

The Company said, "While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final
resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity
or capital resources."

J. C. Penney Company, Inc., through its subsidiary J. C. Penney
Corporation, Inc., sells merchandise through department stores.
It sells family apparel and footwear, accessories, fine and
fashion jewelry, beauty products, home furnishings, and
appliances, as well as provides various services, including
styling salon, optical, portrait photography, and custom
decorating.  It also sells its products through its jcpenney.com
website.  The Company was founded in 1902 and is based in Plano,
Texas.


JC PENNEY: Awaits Court's Final OK on ERISA Class Action Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. is awaiting the court's final approval
of an agreement that will settle an ERISA class action litigation,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 29, 2017.

The Company's operating subsidiary J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc.
(JCP) and certain present and former members of JCP's Board of
Directors have been sued in a purported class action complaint by
plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, which was filed on July
8, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas,
Tyler Division.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Section 502 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by breaching
fiduciary duties relating to the J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc.
Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan (the Plan).  The
class period is alleged to be between November 1, 2011 and
September 27, 2013.

Plaintiffs allege that they and others who invested in or held
Company stock in the Plan during this period were injured because
defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements and/or
omissions regarding the Company's financial condition and business
prospects that caused the Company's common stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices.  The complaint seeks class
certification, declaratory relief, a constructive trust,
reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan, actual damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was
granted in part and denied in part by the court on September 29,
2015.  The parties reached a settlement agreement, subject to
final court approval, pursuant to which JCP would make available
US$4.5 million to settle class members' claims, and the court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January 3, 2017.

The Company said, "While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe that the final
resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or
capital resources."


JETSMARTER: Hit with Federal Class Action for Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Debora Lima, writing for Biz Journals, reports that federal class
action lawsuit has been filed against Fort Lauderdale jet-
chartering startup JetSmarter for alleged violations of overtime
work compensation laws.

Former JetSmarter employee Grace Lamey is suing on behalf of
herself and a group of former JetSmarter "shuttle experience
managers," a catch-all term for a customer service position that
frequently required more than 65 hours of work per week, according
to the complaint.

Filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of
Florida on June 20, the lawsuit alleges JetSmarter did not pay
Lamey and her peers the appropriate salary for overtime work, as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. It claims Lamey alone is
owed nearly $40,000.

Keith Stern, Esq. of Law Office Of Keith M. Stern, P.A. is
representing Lamey.

JetSmarter CEO Sergey Petrossov said the allegations against he
and his company are "without merit."

"A disgruntled former employee is attempting ... a money grab,"
Petrossov said in a statement. "It's an unfounded lawsuit. ...
JetSmarter cares deeply about our employees."

Founded in 2013, the Fort Lauderdale company operates an online
platform that connects users to empty seats on private jets.
JetSmarter members pay an annual fee of $14,000 to reserve seats
on scheduled flights across the United States, Europe and the
Middle East. The company has more than 10,000 members, said
business development manager Eric Schemedeman.

JetSmarter announced in December that it raised $105 million in a
Series C round of financing, bringing its valuation to about $1.5
billion. [GN]


JGWPT HOLDINGS: Court Trims Claims in "Sanders" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sara L. Ellis of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the case VALERIO
SANDERS, KENNETH JENNINGS, and KEVIN RINCK, Plaintiffs, v. JGWPT
HOLDINGS, LLC; J.G. WENTWORTH, LLC; PEACHHI, LLC; PEACH HOLDINGS,
INC.; PEACHTREE FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC; SETTLEMENT FUNDING, LLC,
D/B/A PEACHTREE SETTLEMENT FUNDING; BRIAN P. MACK; and THE MACK
LAW GROUP, P.C., Defendants, No. 14 C 9188 (N.D. Ill.)

Plaintiffs Valerio Sanders, Kenneth Jennings, and Kevin Rinck sold
their rights to receive periodic payments from structured
settlements to defendant Settlement Funding, LLC d/b/a Peachtree
Settlement Funding. Plaintiffs allege that Settlement Funding LLC
conspired to swindle them and similarly situated individuals into
selling their rights to structured settlement payments for far
less than what they were worth with defendants Brian P. Mack and
his law firm the Mack Law Group, P.C. and defendants JGWPT
Holdings, LLC, J.G. Wentworth, LLC, PeachHI, LLC, Peach Holdings,
Inc., Peachtree Financial Solutions, LLC .

The JGWPT defendants and the Mack defendants move to dismiss
plaintiffs' third amended class action complaint. The JGWPT
defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs
waived the anti-assignment provisions of the annuity contracts
that plaintiffs transferred to Settlement Funding LLC, that
plaintiffs fail to sufficiently plead their claims, and that the
statutes of limitations bar Sanders' tort claims. The Mack
defendants also move to dismiss the third amended complaint by
arguing that the statutes of limitations and repose for claims
against attorneys bar plaintiffs' claims, that judicial and
estoppel bar plaintiffs' claims, and that plaintiff have failed to
sufficiently plead their claims.

Judge Ellis granted in part and denied in part the JGWPT
defendants' motion to dismiss and the Mack defendants' motion to
dismiss. Judge Ellis reiterates that plaintiffs' claims are
dismissed with prejudice to the extent the claims rely on
allegations that Illinois courts could not hear petitions for
approval or that the Illinois courts' orders approving the
transactions are void. Judge Ellis dismisses with prejudice
plaintiffs' tortious interference with contract claim and
conversion claim against the JGWPT defendants. Judge Ellis
dismisses plaintiffs' conversion claim against the Mack defendants
with prejudice. The JGWPT defendants and the Mack defendants shall
answer the remaining claims in the third amended class action
complaint by July 14, 2017.

A copy of Judge Ellis's opinion and order dated June 20, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/ynZ4GC from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Eric D. Holland -- eholland@allfela.com
-- Randall Seth Crompton -- scrompton@allfela.com -- at Holland,
Groves & Schneller, LLC; Ryan James Mahoney -- David Cates -- at
Cates Mahoney, LLC; Brad Lee Badgley -- at Brad L. Badgley, P.C.;
Jeffrey M. Goldberg -- at Jeffrey M. Goldberg & Associates

JGWPT Holdings, LLC, J.G. Wentworth, LLC, Settlement Funding LLC,
Peachtree Settlement Funding LLC, Peachtree Financial Solutions,
LLC, Peach Holdings, Inc., and Peachhi, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Timothy Charles Sansone --
tsansone@sandbergphoenix.com -- A. Courtney Cox --
ccox@sandbergphoenix.com -- Anthony L. Martin --
amartin@sandbergphoenix.com -- at Sandberg Phoenix & Von Gontard
P.C.; Abraham Judson Souza -- asouza@reedsmith.com -- Diane Green-
Kelly -- dgreenkelly@reedsmith.com -- Margaret Grignon -- Maria
Teresa Pellegrini -- mpellegrini@reedsmith.com -- Mark S. Melodia
-- mmelodia@reedsmith.com -- Michael David Richman --
mdrichman@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP

Mack Law Group, PC and Brian P. Mack, Defendants, represented by
John Francis Grady -- jgrady@gradybell.com -- Lauren F. Catlin --
lcatlin@gradybell.com -- at Grady Bell LLP


JOPPA MAPLE, KY: Sued for Overcharging Property Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------
West Kentucky Star reports that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against the Joppa-Maple Grove School District, Massac
County's Treasurer/Collector, and Clerk by property owners within
the school district of alleged overcharging of property taxes for
nearly the past decade.

The 25-page lawsuit alleges both past and present county officials
have not been correctly collecting property tax money for the
Joppa-Maple Grove school district since at least 2008, and the
district has known about it for at least the past two years.

At issue is a referendum passed in 2000 regarding the Property Tax
Extension Limitation Law.  The suit states tax payers have been
overcharged in excess of $1.25 million over the course of the past
decade, which has gone to the school, due to the non-enforcement
of the referendum.

According to Illinois' state statutes, PTELL is designed to limit
the increases in property tax extensions (total taxes billed) for
non-home rule taxing districts.

PTELL allows a taxing district to receive a limited inflationary
increase in tax extensions on existing property, plus an
additional amount for new construction.  The law doesn't
necessarily cap rising taxes, but slows the growth of revenues to
taxing districts when property values and assessments are
increasing faster than the rate of inflation.

As for the lawsuit, it goes on to state Joppa-Maple Grove has the
money to pay it back, and "on information and belief, Plaintiffs
(the tax payers) allege that unless restrained, Defendant, Maple-
Grove will spend the excess funds on items not essential to the
operation of Joppa-Maple Grove in order to keep the excess funds
from Plaintiffs."

The lawsuit says the tax payers have tried to correct the
situation prior to filing a lawsuit.  They say they informed the
school district and county officials of the errors made in real
estate tax collection for the district.

The suit says Massac County officials and school officials
acknowledge that PTELL applies to the district, but they disagree
as to what action and steps need to be taken to correctly
calculate real estate taxes for the school district.

The taxpayers are asking the judge to order the money in question
to be placed in a "trust" for the more than 500 taxpayers impacted
to eventually get their money back.

The county's State's Attorney Office, who represents the county
officials, says they cannot comment until after the hearing on
June 16, and the school district attorney has also not returned
our calls. [GN]


K B INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Padilla" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
YUNIESKY PADILLA, and others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, vs.
K B INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP., a Florida corporation and KENNETH
BULHACK, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-61191-BB (S.D.
Fla., June 14, 2017), alleges that throughout his employment,
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the required overtime wages
when he worked in excess of forty hours per week in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant Corporation is in the business of wholesale
distribution of general line groceries. Plaintiff was responsible
for putting labels on products.  Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants as an hourly paid employee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eddy O. Marban, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
     1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 448-9292
     Fax: (305) 448-9477
     E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com


KABBAGE INC: Dorsey Comments on Dismissal of TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Schultz, Esq. -- schultz.bob@dorsey.com -- of Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that in a world
pushed forward by new technology, it's a "junk fax" case that
advances two case dispositive TCPA defense bar arguments: (1) a
plaintiff lacks Article III standing post-Spokeo unless there is a
sufficient injury-in-fact; and (2) a Rule 67 deposit moots a class
action.

In A Custom Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Kabbage, Inc.,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93134 (N.D. Ill. June 16, 2017), a plaintiff
offers an Illinois district court a penny for its thoughts about
the defendants faxing unsolicited advertisements.  Only that penny
would apparently have been better spent covering plaintiff's
damages from the fax, which the Court valued at a penny per fax.
The Court dismissed the plaintiff's conversion and state law
consumer protection claims because the plaintiff's injury (even
when combined with the injuries of the class) was insufficient as
a matter of law.  The Court did not analyze the issue as a post-
Spokeo standing argument and failed to analyze the issue in the
context of the plaintiff's TCPA claim, but the Court did use
language that may apply to a post-Spokeo lack of standing argument
in the context of a TCPA claim.

The Court also weighed in on whether defendants may utilize Rule
67 and Rule 68 compromises to moot a TCPA class action claim.
While the Court agreed with the majority of opinions holding that
a Rule 68 offer of judgment does not moot a class action claim, it
also strongly suggested that Rule 67 is an available avenue for
defendants aiming to moot a class action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc.,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118658 (N.D. Ill. September 2, 2016).  The
pro se defendant did not file a Rule 67 motion, but the Court went
out of its way to explain that a properly filed Rule 67 motion,
coupled with the unconditional furnishing of funds pursuant to a
court order and the offer of a monetary or injunctive judgment in
favor of the plaintiff, would moot both the individual and class
claims.  While the majority of courts still hold that Rule 67 does
not operate to moot a class claim, this old school fax case could
introduce a new wave of jurisprudence on the issue.  The Court
openly invited the defendant to file a Rule 67 motion and raise
the mootness argument again, and we will update this post should
the defendant do so. [GN]


KING CABLE: "Nasufi" Suit Moved to Western District of Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hamdija (Frank) Nasufi,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. King Cable Inc. and Manuel Gonzales, the Defendants,
Hamdija (Frank) Nasufi, Respondent, and DCOMM, Inc., the Movant,
Case No. 3:15-cv-3273, was removed on June 16, 2016 from the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin). The Texas
Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-mc-00590-SS to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sam Sparks.

King Cable provides voice and data systems cable and wire
installation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry Sander Hersh, Esq.
          HERSH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3626 N. Hall St., Suite 800
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 303 1022
          Facsimile: (214) 550 8170
          E-mail: bshersh@hersh-law.com


KOHL'S: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Cash Program Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Read, writing for The News-Herald, reports that a judge has
denied a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by a Willoughby woman
against Kohl's Department Stores over the company's "Kohl's Cash"
program.

Laura Henry sued Kohl's in Lake County Common Pleas Court in June
2013, seeking unspecified damages, court costs and attorney fees.

Ms. Henry alleges she bought at least $350 worth of items at
Kohl's in Mentor on April 2, 2013, earning $70 in Kohl's Cash, a
promotion in which customers earn $10 to spend at the store for
every $50 in purchases.

Ms. Henry's suit stated she returned to the store during the
redemption period with $80 worth of merchandise.  The cashier
deducted $70 in Kohl's Cash before applying a 20 percent off
coupon.

Ms. Henry claims she should have received 20 percent off of $80 in
purchases (for $16 in savings), but only received 20 percent off
of $10 (for $2 in savings), meaning she was shorted $14 in
savings.

Ms. Henry's suit contends Kohl's acted with deception by not
stating clearly any exclusions or limitations with Kohl's Cash
and/or the coupon offer.

Her attorney, Nicole Fiorelli, stated in the suit that the
complaint was filed on behalf of Henry and "thousands" of Ohio
residents who made purchases with both Kohl's Cash and a percent-
off coupon during the last two years.

Attorneys representing the Wisconsin-based retailer argued the
suit could not properly be certified as a class-action lawsuit.

After that argument was rejected, Kohl's attorneys Lisa Babish
Forbes and Heather Lutz recently asked Judge Vincent A. Culotta to
dismiss all of Henry's claims at her expense.

"This action is not appropriate for certification as a class
action under Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 23 or under the Consumer
Sales Practices Act . . .," the defendant's attorneys stated in
their June 15 answer to the class action complaint.

In addition, the alleged actions of Kohl's do not rise the level
required to sustain an award of punitive damages and do not
involve malicious, reckless or fraudulent intent, company
attorneys stated in their answer. [GN]


MACY'S FLORIDA: "Adler" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cindy Adler, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Macy's
Florida Stores, LLC. and Macy's Corporate Services, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-012029 CA 01, was removed on June 22, from
the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-22321-MGC to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Marcia G.
Cooke.

Macy's Florida owns and operates a chain of department stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Fredric Eaton, Esq.
          William Gregg Wolk, Esq.
          EATON & WOLK, P.L.
          2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 609
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 249 1640
          Facsimile: (786) 350 3079
          E-mail: deaton@eatonwolk.com
                  wwolk@eatonwolk.com

               - and -

          Robert Barry Boyers. Esq.
          LITIGATION PARTNERS, P.L.
          2333 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1120
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 512 7600
          Facsimile: (786) 509 8021

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jermaine Lee, Esq.
          WALLEN HERNANDEZ LEE MARTINEZ, LLP
          255 Aragon Avenue, Suite 200
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 842 2100
          Facsimile: (305) 842 2105
          E-mail: jlee@whlmlegal.com


MALAYSIA AIR: Class Restricted for Survivors of Flight MH17
-----------------------------------------------------------
9 News reports that a class action brought by an Australian woman
whose mother died when flight MH17 was shot down over Ukraine will
be restricted to the survivors of victims who had links to
Australia.

A Sydney judge has found the proposed criteria for who could join
the class action relating to the 2014 incident was too broad.

Lawyers for Cassandra Gibson, whose mother died when the Malaysia
Airlines plane was shot down, had argued legal representatives for
all the flight's 298 victims should be allowed to join her Federal
Court compensation bid against the airline.

But Justice Nye Perram struck out that part of her claim and on
June 23 gave permission for the representatives of a limited
number of passengers to take part in the action.

MH17 victims' families await criminal investigation findings
They can join if a victim bought their ticket in Australia, was
flying to Australia or principally lived in Australia.

Ms. Gibson's mother, Liliane Derden, was among the 38 Australians
killed in the July 17, 2014 disaster.

Barrister John Rowe said letters will be sent to representatives
and it's unknown how many will meet the criteria.

Ms. Gibson is seeking compensation under the international
Montreal Convention which sets out the liability of carriers. [GN]


MANASSEH JORDAN: Kingdom Ministries Moves to Quash Subpoena
-----------------------------------------------------------
Movant Kingdom Ministries Church, Inc., filed two motions in the
class action lawsuit entitled Molitor et al. v. Manasseh Jordan
Ministries, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-mi-00052-WSD-CMS (N.D.
Ga.):

   (1) a motion to quash or modify subpoena; and
   (2) a motion for protective order.

The Plaintiffs are Jeffrey Molitor, Laura C. De La Cabada, Steve
Clarke and Ruth Maki, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.

Manasseh Jordan Ministries, Inc., is a New York Religious
Corporation founded by Yakim Manasseh Jordan.  Mr. Jordan is a
Christian minister currently based in Boston.[BN]

Movant Kingdom Ministries Church, Inc., is represented by:

          Alex Benjamin Kaufman, Esq.
          Matthew Dempsey Treco, Esq.
          KAUFMAN & FORMAN, P.C.
          8215 Roswell Road
          Building 800
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Telephone: (770) 390-9200
          E-mail: abk@kauflaw.net
                  mdt@kauflaw.net


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Seeks Dismissal of Fractional Owners' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Carroll, writing for The Aspen Times, reports that a federal
judge is now tasked with deciding whether to dismiss a class-
action lawsuit pitting a group of owners of fractional units at
the Ritz-Carlton Club at Aspen Highlands against Marriott
Vacations Worldwide Corp.

Marriott Vacations is asking a judge to drop the complaint,
chiefly because it contends the plaintiffs have failed to provide
sufficient evidence for the case to proceed, according to court
documents.

Marriott's 21-page motion was introduced April 14, nearly 16
months after California residents Jennifer Kaplan and Alexander
Busansky sued Marriott Vacations in Pitkin County District Court
in January 2016.  The case has since transferred to the U.S.
District Court in Denver.

Ms. Kaplan and Mr. Busansky originally were the sole plaintiffs in
the suit, which has grown to a class-action complaint comprising
more than 240 fractional owners, the plaintiffs' attorneys said on
June 21.

"The case has been fully briefed and it's now in the judge's
hands," said Walnut Creek, California, attorney Michael Reiser,
who along with Aspen lawyer Matt Ferguson represents the class of
plaintiffs.

The suit claims that the values of the fractional-ownership units
have been depleted to the tune of 80 percent because of new
membership terms that were enforced without the owners' consent.
The units also aren't as marketable as they once were because the
Marriott affiliation stripped them of the exclusivity they once
had, the suit contends.

The Ritz-Carlton Club debuted at Aspen Highlands in 2001 and has
876 1/12 fractional ownership interests, which entitle owners to
four weeks of use per year.  Their prices once ranged from
$200,000 to $400,000 each, the suit claims, but have nosedived
ever since the Ritz-Carlton Club established an affiliation with
Marriott Vacation Club Destinations in April 2014.

At that time, Aspen Highlands Ritz members learned they could
exchange a week of their fractional interests for points with the
Marriott exchange program, the suit says.  That also meant that
members of Marriott Vacation Club can stay at the Aspen Highlands
Ritz-Carlton, and by doing so, have diminished the value of the
fractional units, the suit claims.

Aspen Times research of Pitkin County property records shows some
of the fractional units have sold for below six figures, including
one that closed for $28,000 on April 29.  That same fractional
sold for $432,250 in October 2006, swapping hands multiple times
for six figures before it sold for $48,000 in April 2014, around
the same time owners learned that the Marriott affiliation was a
done deal.

The case is similar to another class-action case playing out in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California,
where some owners of fractional units at the Lake Tahoe Ritz are
suing Marriott Vacations.  Like the Aspen Highlands case, the
defendants asked the judge to dismiss the case, but lost that bid
in a Feb. 13 ruling by Judge Morrison C. England Jr.

In the Aspen Highlands case, the Ritz owners say they must pay
condo association fees ranging from $12,000 to $16,000 a year,
while Marriott point-holders do not.  They also contend they had
no influence on the affiliation with Marriott, though they were
informed nearly two years before the affiliation was made official
that it was being negotiated.

Marriott, however, argued in its motion to dismiss that the Aspen
Highlands condo association's declaration did not require Ritz
members to vote on the affiliation in question.  Marriott also
contended that the trading program is strictly voluntary and Ritz
members are not obligated to participate in it.

Additionally, Marriott contends that the fractional owners have
failed to show "any casual link" that demonstrates the plummet in
their units' value can be tied directly to the affiliation.

The Ritz owners, however, argue in a May filing that Marriott was
"well aware that the proposed affiliation would both depress the
value of the plaintiffs' fractional units and enrich the Marriott
defendants."

It adds, "Due to defendants' actions, approximately 400,000
(Marriott Vacation Club) members -- who paid a small fraction of
the purchase prices plaintiffs paid, and who pay lower annual fees
-- have access to the once exclusive Ritz-Aspen. While defendants
have profited from this affiliation, the value of plaintiffs'
fractional interests has been destroyed."

Judge Philip A. Brimmer is presiding over the dispute. [GN]


MDL 2590: Navistar Still Faces MaxxForce Engine Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation continues to face various
putative class action suits in Canada and the U.S. related to
MaxxForce Engine EGR, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed
on June 7, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2017.

On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. filed a putative class
action lawsuit against NIC, Navistar, Inc. ("NI"), Navistar Canada
Inc., and Harbour International Trucks in Canada in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia (the "N&C Action").  Subsequently, six
additional, similar putative class action lawsuits have been filed
in Canada (together with the N&C Action, the "Canadian Actions").

From June 13-17, 2016, the court conducted a certification hearing
in the N&C Action.  On November 16, 2016, the court certified a
Canada-wide class comprised of persons who purchased heavy-duty
trucks equipped with Advanced EGR MaxxForce 11, MaxxForce 13, and
MaxxForce 15 engines designed to meet 2010 EPA regulations.  The
court in the N&C Action denied certification to persons who
operated but did not buy the trucks in question.  To date, no
appeals have been filed, but the deadline for the Company to
appeal the class certification decision has been extended
indefinitely, subject to a 15-day termination.

On June 5, 2017, a hearing was held in the Quebec putative class
action lawsuit captioned 4037308 Canada Inc. v. Navistar Canada
Inc., NI, and NIC.  At that hearing, the Court ruled on certain
motions regarding evidence related to certification but deferred a
ruling on plaintiff's proposed amendment to narrow the proposed
class to Quebec-only purchasers and lessees of model year 2010-13
vehicles containing MaxxForce 11, 13, and 15 liter engines.  The
class authorization hearing in Quebec has not been scheduled, and
there are no court dates scheduled in any of the other Canadian
Actions at this time.

On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class
action lawsuit against NI in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4 Action").
Subsequently, seventeen additional putative class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States district courts, including the
Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
the Southern District of Florida, the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, the Southern District of Texas, the Western District
of Kentucky, the District of Minnesota, the Northern District of
Alabama, and the District of New Jersey (together with the Par 4
Action, the "U.S. Actions").  Some of the U.S. Actions name both
NIC and NI, and allege matters substantially similar to the
Canadian Actions.  More specifically, the Canadian Actions and the
U.S. Actions (collectively, the "EGR Class Actions") seek to
certify a class of persons or entities in Canada or the United
States who purchased and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar
vehicle equipped with a model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced
EGR engine.

In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the MaxxForce
Advanced EGR engines are defective and that the Company and NI
failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect.  The EGR Class
Actions assert claims based on theories of contract, breach of
warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation
and negligence.  The EGR Class Actions seek relief in the form of
monetary damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest,
fees, and costs.

On October 3, 2014, NIC and NI filed a motion before the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") seeking to transfer and consolidate before Judge Joan B.
Gottschall of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois all of the then-pending U.S. Actions, as well
as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits
pending in various federal district courts.

On December 17, 2014, Navistar's motion to consolidate the U.S.
Actions and certain other non-class action lawsuits was granted.
The MDL Panel issued an order consolidating all of the U.S.
Actions that were pending on the date of Navistar's motion before
Judge Gottschall in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "MDL Action").  The MDL Panel
also consolidated into the MDL Action certain non-class action
MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in the various
federal district courts.

At the request of the various law firms representing the
plaintiffs in the MDL Action, on March 5, 2015, Judge Gottschall
entered an order in the MDL Action appointing interim lead counsel
and interim liaison counsel for the plaintiffs.  On May 11, 2015,
lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed a First Master Consolidated
Class Action Complaint ("Consolidated Complaint").  The parties to
the MDL Action exchanged initial disclosures on May 29, 2015.  The
Company answered the Consolidated Complaint on July 13, 2015.  On
September 22, 2016, lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed a First
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Amended
Consolidated Complaint").  The Amended Consolidated Complaint
added twenty-five additional named plaintiffs.  NI and NIC
answered the Amended Consolidated Complaint on October 20, 2016.

On May 27, 2016, Judge Gottschall entered a Case Management Order
setting a July 13, 2017 date for plaintiffs' class certification
motion.  On November 30, 2016, the court entered an order
referring discovery matters to a magistrate judge for supervision.
Pursuant to the magistrate's order, the parties jointly filed a
new proposed case management order on January 25, 2017, which
extends the fact discovery deadline to November 22, 2017.  On
January 31, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion with Judge
Gottschall requesting adjustment of the class action briefing
schedule to April 24, 2018.  On February 2, 2017, Judge Gottschall
granted the parties' motion extending the deadline to complete the
class certification briefing to April 24, 2018.  On February 6,
2017, the magistrate approved the parties' January 25, 2017
proposed case management order extending the deadline for fact
discovery to November 22, 2017.

Navistar International Corporation manufactures and sells
commercial and military trucks, diesel engines, school and
commercial buses, and service parts for trucks and diesel engines
worldwide.  The Company operates through four segments: Truck,
Parts, Global Operations, and Financial Services.  It was founded
in 1902 and is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois.


MI WINDOWS: 4th Cir. Applies Exception to Anti-Injunction Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed
the district court's order granting MI Windows' motion, in the
case entitled, In re: MI WINDOWS AND DOORS, INC., PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. ABELLA OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, Respondent-
Appellant. CONTRACTOR PLAINTIFFS' LIAISON COUNSEL; HOMEOWNER
PLAINTIFFS' LIAISON COUNSEL; HOMEOWNER PLAINTIFFS' LEAD COUNSEL;
CONTRACTOR PLAINTIFFS' LEAD COUNSEL, Plaintiffs, v. MI WINDOWS &
DOORS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and SIGNATURE HOMES, INC.;
SIGNATURE AT ABELLA, LLC; SIGNATURE PROPERTIES, INC.; KULLY
MANDON; LINDA KIME; ROBERT HUGGINS, Defendants. J. T. WALKER
INDUSTRIES, INC., Intervenor, No. 16-1146 (4th Cir.)

In 2012, the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation
transferred 18 class actions filed against MI Windows & Doors,
Inc., in various districts to the District of South Carolina as MI
Windows & Doors, Inc., Products Liability Litigation for
consolidated pretrial proceedings. In the transferred actions, the
plaintiffs sought damages caused by MI Windows' manufacture of
allegedly defective windows.

After the opt-out deadline passed, the court conducted the
fairness hearing and entered a final judgment, approving the
settlement, enjoining the class members from pursuing other
related claims against MI Windows, and dismissing the transferred
actions.

Abella Owners' Association, a California nonprofit mutual benefit
corporation, is one of the class members who received notice and
did not opt out of the class action, nonetheless continued to
prosecute its own litigation against MI Windows, which it had
previously filed in a California state court. MI Windows filed a
motion in the district court to enforce the class action
settlement against Abella, seeking an injunction prohibiting it
from continuing the California action. In response, Abella filed
an opposition contending, among other things, that the district
court lacked authority to enjoin its prosecution of the state
action against MI Windows by reason of the Anti-Injunction Act, 28
U.S.C. Section 2283, and that, in any event, Abella should not be
bound by the class action judgment because of the excusable
neglect of its counsel in overlooking the opt-out deadline. The
district court rejected Abella's arguments and, by order dated
January 15, 2016, enjoined Abella from proceeding with its claims
against MI Windows in the California state action.

Abella Owners' Association seeks relief from the enforcement of a
final class action judgment entered in the multidistrict
litigation.

Abella filed an appeal presenting two issues: (1) whether the
district court's injunction was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act;
and (2) whether the court should have treated Abella's failure to
opt out of the class settlement as excusable neglect.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dated
January 15, 2016, granting MI Windows' motion to enforce its
judgment and enjoining Abella from proceeding in California state
court with its claims against MI Windows.

The Fourth Circuit held that because Abella was a class member who
had not timely opted out and its claims filed in California
against MI Windows fell within the settlement agreement's
definition of released claims, the court concluded that the
relitigation exception allowed it to enjoin Abella's state-court
claims.

A copy of the Fourth Circuit's opinion dated June 20, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/5g8a29 from Leagle.com.

Patrick J. Perrone -- patrick.perrone@klgates.com -- Richard A.
Farrier, Jr. -- Loly G. Tor -- loly.tor@klgates.com -- at K&L
GATES LLP, for Appellee

For Appellant:

Scott A. Williams, Esq.
Beth Tenney, Esq.
WILLIAMS & GUMBINER LLP
100 Drakes Landing Rd Ste 260
Greenbrae, CA 94904
Tel: 415-755-1880
Fax: 415-419-5469

   -- and --

C. Fredric Marcinak, III, Esq.
SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD, LLP
Suite 1100, 2 W. Washington Street
Greenville, SC 29601
Tel: 864-751-7600
Fax: 864-751-7800


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Claims of 26 Store Managers v. MSI Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 29, 2017 that individual claims of 26 former
class members are still pending in a lawsuit filed on behalf of
certain former and current store managers employed by Michaels
Stores, Inc. (MSI) in California.

On September 15, 2011, MSI was served with a lawsuit filed in the
California Superior Court in and for the County of Orange
("Superior Court") by four former store managers as a class action
proceeding on behalf of themselves and certain former and current
store managers employed by MSI in California.  The lawsuit alleged
that MSI improperly classified its store managers as exempt
employees and as such failed to pay all wages, overtime and
waiting time penalties and failed to provide accurate wage
statements.  The lawsuit also alleged that the foregoing conduct
was in breach of various laws, including California's unfair
competition law.

On December 3, 2013, the Superior Court entered an order
certifying a class of approximately 200 members.  MSI successfully
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California and on May 8, 2014, the class was
decertified.  Three of the four named plaintiffs' claims were
resolved in September 2014 and the remaining one is set for trial
on September 12, 2017.  The individual claims of 26 former class
members remain pending in the Central District of California.

In addition, a separate representative action brought on behalf of
store managers throughout the state is pending in the California
Superior Court, County of San Diego.

The Company said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses and
intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.  We do not believe the
resolution of the lawsuits will have a material effect on our
consolidated financial statements."

The Michaels Companies, Inc. owns and operates arts and crafts
specialty retail stores in North America.  It was founded in 2013
and is headquartered in Irving, Texas.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: MSI Still Defends Suits over FCRA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 29, 2017 that Michaels Stores, Inc. (MSI)
continues to defend itself against purported class action lawsuits
over alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

On December 11, 2014, MSI was served with a lawsuit, Christina
Graham v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey by a former employee.  The lawsuit
is a purported class action, bringing plaintiff's individual
claims, as well as claims on behalf of a putative class of
applicants who applied for employment with Michaels through an
online application, and on whom a background check for employment
was procured.  The lawsuit alleges that MSI violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the New Jersey Fair Credit
Reporting Act by failing to provide the proper disclosure and
obtain the proper authorization to conduct background checks.

Since the initial filing, another named plaintiff joined the
lawsuit, which was amended in February 2015, Christina Graham and
Gary Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., with substantially similar
allegations.  The plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive damages
as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Following the filing of the Graham case in New Jersey, five
additional purported class action lawsuits with six plaintiffs
were filed, Michele Castro and Janice Bercut v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Michelle Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc.  in the Superior
Court of California for Sonoma County, Raini Burnside v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri, Sue Gettings v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Barbara
Horton v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  All of the plaintiffs alleged
violations of the FCRA.  In addition, the Castro, Horton and
Janice Bercut lawsuits also alleged violations of California's
unfair competition law.  The Burnside, Horton and Gettings
lawsuits, as well as the claims by Michele Castro, have been
dismissed.  The Graham, Janice Bercut and Michelle Bercut lawsuits
were transferred for centralized pretrial proceedings to the
District of New Jersey.

On January 24, 2017, the Company's motion to dismiss for lack of
standing was granted, and the court declined to rule on the merits
of plaintiffs' claims.  The dismissal order was stayed for 30 days
to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaints.  Because there
were no amendments filed, two of the three centralized cases were
dismissed and subsequently appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, and the remaining case (Michelle Bercut)
was remanded to California Superior Court.

Michaels Companies said, "The Company intends to defend the
remaining lawsuits vigorously.  We cannot reasonably estimate the
potential loss, or range of loss, related to the lawsuits, if
any."

The Michaels Companies, Inc. owns and operates arts and crafts
specialty retail stores in North America.  It was founded in 2013
and is headquartered in Irving, Texas.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Appeals Court Affirmed Whalen Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 29, 2017 that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, on May 2, 2017, affirmed the dismissal of the case
styled Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc. filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York related to a
data breach incident in 2014.

Five putative class actions were filed against MSI relating to a
January 2014 data breach.  The plaintiffs generally alleged that
MSI failed to secure and safeguard customers' private information
including credit and debit card information, and as such, breached
an implied contract and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
(and other states' similar laws).  The plaintiffs are seeking
damages including declaratory relief, actual damages, punitive
damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, litigation costs,
remedial action, pre and post judgment interest, and other relief
as available.

The cases are as follows: Christina Moyer v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., was filed on January 27, 2014; Michael and Jessica Gouwens
v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 29, 2014; Nancy
Maize and Jessica Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on
February 21, 2014; and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was
filed on March 14, 2014.  These four cases were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.  On March 18, 2014, an additional putative class action
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., but was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 11, 2014 without
prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint.  On April 16, 2014,
an order was entered consolidating the Illinois actions.  On July
14, 2014, the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint was granted.

On December 2, 2014, Whalen filed a new lawsuit against MSI
related to the data breach in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., seeking damages including declaratory relief, monetary
damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, injunctive relief, pre and post judgment interest, and
other relief as available.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss which was granted on
December 28, 2015, and judgment was entered in favor of the
Company on January 8, 2016.

Plaintiff appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit and on May 2, 2017, the Second Circuit affirmed
the dismissal.

Michaels Companies said, "The Company intends to defend any
further appeals of this case vigorously.  We cannot reasonably
estimate the potential loss, or range of loss, related to the
lawsuit, if any."

The Michaels Companies, Inc. owns and operates arts and crafts
specialty retail stores in North America.  It was founded in 2013
and is headquartered in Irving, Texas.


MOTLEY SERVICES: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MOTLEY SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-00123-RAJ-DC (W.D. Tex., June 16,
2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation for all unpaid hours
worked in excess of 40 hours at the rate of one and one half times
their regular rates, including non-discretionary bonuses, per diem
and other similar payments; liquidated damages; damages accrued
for a three year period; reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses of this action; pre-judgment and post judgment interest
at the highest rates allowed by law, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, Motley Services required and/or
permitted Christopher Rodriguez and other similarly situated
employees to work in excess of forty hours per week at its
facilities but refused to compensate them properly for such hours.
The Defendant's conduct is in violation of FLSA, which requires
non-exempt employees to be compensated for their overtime work.
Mr. Christopher Rodriguez and other similarly situated employees
are FLSA non-exempt workers who have been denied overtime pay
required by law for which they now seek recovery.

Motley Services provideS well completion and intervention services
in the Permian Basin. Motley offers coiled tubing, wireline, and
pumping.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
          YOUNG &NEWSOM, P.C.
          1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
          Amarillo, TX 79101
          Telephone: (806) 331 1800
          Facsimile: (806) 398 9095
          E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
                  collin@youngfirm.com


MURPHY OIL: Big Firms Urges Justices to Uphold Bans on Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that big-business advocates are lining up with the
Trump administration's new position in the U.S. Supreme Court that
workplace arbitration agreements banning class actions do not
violate federal labor law.

The organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the
Retail Litigation Center, submitted friend-of-the-court briefs
after acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall notified the court on
June 16 that President Donald Trump's Justice Department was
taking a different position than the Obama administration.

The justices next term will hear arguments in a trio of disputes
that will be among the most closely watched business cases. More
than 70 cases, representing major U.S. companies, were filed in
the federal appeals courts. Appeals courts were divided in their
rulings.

The three cases in the Supreme Court are: National Labor Relations
Board v. Murphy Oil USA (from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit); Epic Systems v. Lewis (Seventh Circuit), and Ernst
& Young v. Morris (Ninth Circuit). The high court will decide
whether arbitration agreements are enforceable under the Federal
Arbitration Act or whether they violate the National Labor
Relations Act.

Most of the business groups filing amicus briefs are represented
by veteran Supreme Court advocates. They include: Jones Day's Beth
Heifetz for The Employers Group; Goodwin Procter's William Jay for
The Business Roundtable; Mayer Brown's Andrew Pincus for the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce; Jenner & Block's Adam Unikowsky for the
Retail Litigation Center; and the Washington Legal Foundation's
Richard Samp.

In the U.S. Chamber's brief, Pincus, among other arguments,
contends the justices have "made clear" that a statute must
expressly mention arbitration in order to displace the Federal
Arbitration Act. "The NLRA says nothing about arbitration. Indeed,
Section 7 does not mention class actions or joint litigation--and
its general reference to 'other concerted activities' is at the
very most ambiguous about whether such activities are protected,
which is insufficient to overcome the FAA," Pincus wrote in the
brief.

Jay, in his brief for The Business Roundtable, said a decision
that says class action waivers violate the labor law "would force
employers to undergo 'arbitration' that is bereft of the benefits
of arbitration, shorn of the efficiency and cost savings that make
arbitration favored in the first place. Nothing in the collective
bargaining provisions of the NLRA compels such a result."

Friend-of-the-court briefs supporting employees in the three cases
are not yet due.

The question before the justices arose from a 2012 ruling by the
NLRB in D.R. Horton. That decision said agreements requiring
employees to use individual arbitration for all work-related
disputes interfered with employees' right to engage in "other
concerted activities," including class and collective actions. The
board said that when such an agreement violates the NLRA, the FAA
does not require its enforcement.

Last fall, Deputy Solicitor Edwin Kneedler filed a petition in the
Supreme Court on behalf of the NLRB, which had lost in the Fifth
Circuit. "The board, which is charged with enforcing the NLRA, has
reasonably concluded that such agreements are unlawful under that
act, because they would deprive employees of their statutory right
to engage in 'concerted activities' in pursuit of their 'mutual
aid or protection,'" Kneedler wrote.

The Trump administration's amicus brief announced the government's
changed position. Wall, the acting solicitor, told the high court:
"We do not believe that the board in its prior unfair-labor-
practice proceedings, or the government's certiorari petition in
Murphy Oil, gave adequate weight to the congressional policy
favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements that is reflected
in the FAA."

The NLRB is likely now to look in-house for counsel to defend its
position unless the board's composition changes and it repudiates
that position between now and the Aug. 9 deadline for filing its
brief on the merits. [GN]


MURPHY OIL: Ogletree Deakins Comments on Filing of Amicus Briefs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher C. Murray, Esq., of Ogletree Deakins, in an article
for Lexology, wrote that it was no surprise when, on June 16,
2017, numerous business and employer groups (including several
represented by Ogletree Deakins) filed over a dozen amicus briefs
supporting the employers in the three class action waiver cases
pending in the Supreme Court of the United States: National Labor
Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Epic Systems Corp. v.
Lewis, and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris.

But it was surprising that one of those amicus briefs supporting
the employers was filed by the United States Solicitor General.
This was unexpected because, up to that time, the Solicitor
General had been counsel of record representing the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) opposing the employers' position. What a
difference a few months and a new administration make. And what a
positive development for employers to have such an influential
advocate on their side.

With his about-face, the Solicitor General now agrees with the
employers that class action waivers in employment arbitration
agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
and not rendered unlawful by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA). This is directly contrary to the NLRB's
position set out in its D.R. Horton and Murphy Oil decisions.

Following the Solicitor General's switching sides, the NLRB issued
a press release noting that the Solicitor General had authorized
the Board "to represent itself" in the Supreme Court. The NLRB's
Associate General Counsel has now appeared to defend the agency's
position. The NLRB's brief in the Supreme Court is due on August
9, 2017.

Thus, as it now stands, the federal government could end up filing
briefs on both sides of these cases. While that would be an
interesting scenario, it's still possible the NLRB will switch
sides. President Trump has the opportunity to fill two of the
NLRB's five seats in short order. On June 19, 2017, the president
announced a nominee to fill one of those two slots. A second
nomination is expected at any time. A new Board majority could
overrule the Board's D.R Horton and Murphy Oil decisions while
these cases are pending.

What if the NLRB abandons its D.R. Horton and Murphy Oil decisions
prior to the Supreme Court's decision in these cases? Will the
Supreme Court dismiss these appeals as moot? That's unlikely due
to the procedural posture of two of the three cases.

As a reminder, one of the cases on appeal--the Fifth Circuit's
decision in Murphy Oil--involved that Court of Appeals's direct
review of an NLRB order finding an employer had engaged in an
unfair labor practice under the NLRA by maintaining an individual
arbitration agreement. If the Board changes its law on class
action waivers, the Board could potentially ask the Court to
remand the case to the Board for reconsideration.

Unlike the decision in Murphy Oil, however, the Seventh and Ninth
Circuit decisions in Lewis and Morris are not appeals from Board
decisions. They don't involve Board proceedings at all. Instead,
those two cases are appeals under the FAA from district court
orders ruling on employers' motions to compel individual
arbitration. In their decisions, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits
directly interpreted Section 7 of the NLRA and concluded it
unambiguously grants employees a right to invoke collective
procedures in litigation. Those two courts did not simply defer to
the Board and follow its lead; instead, they held the NLRA itself
compelled their decisions. In essence, the Seventh and Ninth
Circuits held the NLRA bans class action waivers, regardless of
how the Board interprets Section 7. Therefore, if a new Board
majority overturns the Board's D.R. Horton/Murphy Oil precedent,
the Supreme Court will likely still have to review the Seventh and
Ninth's Circuit's decisions.

In the meantime, the Solicitor General's switching sides is --
from employers' perspective -- a step in the right direction. [GN]


NATIONAL UNION: Illegally Charges Insurance Premium, Wagner Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK WAGNER, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL UNION
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., a Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01046-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal., June 15,
2017), seeks to recover actual and statutory damages as a result
of Defendant's unfair, unlawful and deceptive business practices
in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, the
California Insurance Code, including, and The Electronic Funds
Transfer Act (EFTA).

The action is based on Defendant's business pattern and practice
of unfairly, unlawfully, and deceptively charging Plaintiff and
all other California Class and EFTA Class Members for insurance
they did not authorize, and for other misleading, unlawful and
fraudulent business practices.

The Defendant provides commercial and personal insurance solutions
in the United States. The Defendant offers accident insurance
solutions for business and individual customers. The company was
founded in 1901. The Defendant operates as a subsidiary of AIG
Property Casualty U.S., Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232
          Website: www.bamlawca.com

               - and -

          Ward J. Lott, Esq.
          James B. Hardin, Esq.
          HARDIN & LOTT, APC
          4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 667 4810
          Facsimile: (949) 706 6469


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Horton Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Horton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Navient Solutions, Inc., Case No.
17-1855-BLS2 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 15, 2017), seeks to recover
injunctive relief to end Navient's illegal practice, declaratory
relief to make Navient's violations known to the class, actual and
statutory damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The action arises out of Navient's repeated violations of the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and Massachusetts Debt
Collection Regulations, in its illegal efforts to collect consumer
debts.

According to the complaint, Navient called Plaintiff at an
excessive and harassing rate, placing more than two calls per
week. For example, Navient called Plaintiff at least four times
between August 30, 2016 and September 2, 2016. The Plaintiff
discussed the Debt with Navient on the calls. Navient stated the
Debt was more than 30 days past due. Navient continued to call at
an excessive and harassing rate.[BN]

Navient Solutions provides loan management, servicing, and asset
recovery solutions to clients in higher education and business
clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653 2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653 3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


ONEBEACON INSURANCE: Faces "Martino" Suit Over Intact Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND MARTINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. ONEBEACON INSURANCE GROUP, LTD., T.
MICHAEL MILLER, LOWNDES A. SMITH, REID T. CAMPBELL, MORGAN W.
DAVIS, LOIS W. GRADY, IRA H. MALIS, G. MANNING ROUNTREE, PATRICK
A. THIELE, and KENT D. URNESS, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-02043-
DSD-DTS (D. Minn., June 14, 2017), alleges that in connection with
the sale of the Company to Intact Financial Corporation,
Defendants issued a proxy statement that omits material facts
necessary to make the statements therein not false or misleading.
As such, Defendants allegedly violated the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act.

The Proposed Transaction was valued at approximately $1.7 billion.

Specifically, the Proxy Statement is materially deficient and
misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose material
information about the valuation analyses of the Company's
financial advisor, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, and omits
material information with respect to the process and events
leading up to the Proposed Transaction, including material
information concerning OneBeacon insiders' potential conflicts of
interest, says the complaint.

OneBeacon provides a range of specialty insurance products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russell M. Spence, Jr., Esq.
     HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
     8050 West 78th Street
     Edina, MN 55439
     Phone: 952.941.4005
     E-mail: mspence@hjlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Donald J. Enright, Esq.
     Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 524-4290
     Fax: (202) 333-2121
     Email: denright@zlk.com
            etripodi@zlk.com


OOMA INC: Consolidated Stockholder Suit over IPO Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. continues to defend itself against a purported
stockholder class action related to its July 2015 initial public
offering, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2017.

On January 14, 2016, Michael Barnett filed a purported stockholder
class action in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State
of California (Case No. CIV536959) against Ooma, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters of the
Company's Initial Public Offering on July 17, 2015 (the "IPO").
Since that time two additional purported class actions making
substantially the same allegations against the same defendants
were filed, and on May 18, 2016 all three complaints were combined
into a "consolidated complaint" filed in the same court (the
"Securities Litigation").  The consolidated complaint purports to
be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of common
stock in the Company's IPO in reliance upon the Registration
Statement and Prospectus the Company filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC").

The consolidated complaint alleges that Ooma and the other
defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act") by issuing the Registration Statement and
Prospectus, which the plaintiffs allege contained material
misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act.  The plaintiffs seek class
certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, equitable and/or
injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court may deem
proper.

On July 1, 2016 Ooma filed its answer to the complaint, and on
August 26, 2016 Ooma filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The Company said, "Ooma believes that the plaintiffs' claims are
without merit and is vigorously defending against the Securities
Litigation."

Ooma, Inc. provides communications solutions and other connected
services to small business, home, and mobile users in the United
States and Canadian markets.  It offers its products through
direct sales, retailers, and online, as well as through
distributors and reseller partnership channels.  The Company was
incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in Palo Alto,
California.


OVERTON SECURITY: Faces "McMillian" Wage & Hour Suit in N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEMARIO MCMILLIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. OVERTON SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Case No.
3:17-cv-03354-JSC (N.D. Cal., June 9, 2017), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, who
have worked for Overton as non-exempt, hourly employees, including
security guards and dispatchers, to challenge Overton's alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California's wage
and hour laws.

Overton Security is incorporated in California and conduct
business throughout the state.  The Company maintains its
corporate headquarters in Fremont, California.  The Company
provides security services for a wide range of clients, including
individuals, private entities, and for the government.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com


PAUL MICHAEL: Faces "Ceasar" Suit in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul Michael
Marketing Service, Inc. The case is styled as ANDREA CEASAR, On
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. PAUL MICHAEL MARKETING SERVICE, INC., doing business
as: PAUL MICHAEL ASSOCIATES, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
04618-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., June 22, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez.

Paul Michael Marketing provides collection agency, financial and
insurance services, business administration services, business
facilities oversight and management support services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507 6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com

PERFECTO PIZZA: Faces "Victoria" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE VICTORIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against PERFECTO PIZZA CORP. (d/b/a LUNETTA
PIZZA & RESTAURANT), JOHN DOE 1 CORP. (d/b/a LUNETTA PIZZA &
RESTAURANT), JOHN DOE 2 CORP. (d/b/a LA VERA PIZZERIA &
RESTAURANT), LAMIA PIZZA & RESTAURANT CORP. (d/b/a LA MIA PIZZA),
ABDELLATIF MAHMOUD, JIM HECKLER, AND KHAIR MUHANA, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04469 (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2017), alleges that
Plaintiff Victoria regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for any
of the hours that he worked over 40 each week.

Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked and
failed to pay Plaintiff Victoria appropriately for any hours
worked over 40, it adds.  Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff Victoria the required "spread of hours" pay for any day
in which he had to work over 10 hours a day.

The case was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate and/or control four pizzerias.  Plaintiff
Victoria worked long days as a pizza maker at all four
pizzerias.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200


PILOT CORPORATION: 6th Cir. Won't Dismiss "Taylor" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed
the district court's decision in the case ARVION TAYLOR, on her
own behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
PILOT CORPORATION, PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC, Defendants-
Appellants, No. 16-5326 (6th Cir.).

Pilot operates a large, nationwide chain of truck stops. Some
locations house both a convenience store and a fast food
restaurant. As a result, Pilot employs tens of thousands of
workers to man cash registers, stock shelves, and make sandwiches,
many positions are on hourly rate basis.

Plaintiff Arvion Taylor worked at a Pilot truck stop for about two
years. She says that during such time her managers routinely
altered her time sheets to avoid paying her overtime. According to
Taylor, Pilot's managers rolled back workers' hours at locations
across the country as a matter of policy. She sought to recover
from Pilot for such alleged overtime violations by bringing a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Taylor asserted that all Pilot employees with certain job titles
were similarly situated to her and should receive notice. Pilot
opposed the request. Although neither Taylor nor the seven
employees that joined her agreed to arbitrate, Pilot said it
likely had agreements with other putative class members but would
address the issue in a separate motion. Pilot also argued that
Taylor's class covered so many employees about 80,000 that it
would make class litigation unmanageable. The district court sided
with Taylor and conditionally certified her proposed class.

Pilot asked the court to dismiss some 50,000 employees with
arbitration agreements from the class. It argued both that these
employees lacked similarity to Taylor and that the court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over their claims. As alternative
relief, Pilot asked the court to stay the proceedings under
section 3 of the FAA until all arbitration have been had.

The district court declined to do either. It said that it would
determine whether Pilot's standard arbitration contracts were
enforceable only after it collected and reviewed information on
who opted into the litigation. Pilot filed an appeal asking for
interlocutory review. Pilot primarily wants the Sixth Circuit to
hold that the district court erred in conditionally certifying
Taylor's class, and thus in approving notice to its employees with
arbitration agreements.

Pilot contends that the Sixth Circuit can correct the supposed
error immediately because the Federal Arbitration Act provides the
Sixth Circuit with jurisdiction over certain interlocutory orders.

Circuit Judge McKeague disagrees with Pilot and hold that the
Sixth Circuit lack jurisdiction to resolve the issue in an
interlocutory appeal. As to the other issue Pilot raises whether
the district court erred in denying its request for a stay under
the FAA, the Sixth Circuit have jurisdiction, but find no error.
The decision of the trial court is affirmed.

A copy of Judge McKeague's opinion dated June 19, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/mQ49sx from Leagle.com.


PURE STORAGE: July 6 Hearing Set for 2nd Demurrer in IPO Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A second demurrer is scheduled to be heard on July 6, 2017 in a
consolidated securities class action related to Pure Storage,
Inc.'s initial public offering, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2017.

The consolidated case is captioned In re Pure Storage, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation.

On September 1, 2016, a purported securities class action entitled
Ramsay v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California (San Mateo County) against the
Company and certain of its officers, directors, investors and
underwriters for its initial public offering (IPO), asserting
claims under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act on
behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of the
Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to its initial public
offering, and seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.  Substantially identical lawsuits were subsequently filed
in the same court, bringing the same claims against the same
defendants, captioned Peter Galanis v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al.
(filed September 14, 2016), Curtis Wilson v. Pure Storage, Inc.,
et al. (filed September 15, 2016), Loren Moe v. Pure Storage,
Inc., et al. (filed September 23, 2016), and Mason Delahooke and
Mahsa Shirazikia v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. (filed October 5,
2016).  On October 27, 2016, the aforementioned actions were
consolidated under the caption In re Pure Storage, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation.

On December 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint.  On January 26, 2017, the defendants filed a demurrer
(motion to dismiss) to the consolidated complaint on the grounds
that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Securities
Act.

On April 4, 2017, the court sustained the demurrer as to all
claims with leave to amend.

On May 15, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, again
asserting claims under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act against the Company and certain of its officers, directors and
underwriters for its IPO.

On May 26, 2017 the defendants filed a demurrer (motion to
dismiss) to the amended complaint on the grounds that the
plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Securities Act.  The
second demurrer is scheduled to be heard on July 6, 2017.

The Company said, "We believe there is no merit to the allegations
and intend to defend ourselves vigorously."

Pure Storage, Inc. engages in building a data platform that
enables businesses to enhance performance and reduce complexity
and costs worldwide.  It serves large and mid-size organizations
across various industries, such as cloud-based software and
service providers, consumer Web, education, energy, financial
services, government, healthcare, manufacturing, media, retail,
and telecommunications through a network of distribution and
channel partners.  The Company was formerly known as OS76, Inc.
and changed its name to Pure Storage, Inc. in January 2010.  Pure
Storage, Inc. was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Mountain
View, California.


RAINBOW USA: Accused by "Smith" Class Suit of Violating FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. RAINBOW USA, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-04368 (N.D. Ill.,
June 9, 2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation for the
Plaintiff and her similarly situated co-workers, who have worked
as exempt-classified Store Managers for the Defendant, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rainbow USA, Inc., is a New York corporation with its principal
office and place of business and headquarters located in Brooklyn,
New York.  The Company transacts business in the state of New
York, including operating more than 100 stores in New York using
the "Rainbow Shops" brand.  The Company is an "international
fashion retailer with over 1,000 locations in the United States,
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          205 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com


RIDER UNIVERSITY: Westminster Choir College Supporters Sue
----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Seltzer, writing for Inside Highered, reports that supporters
of Westminster Choir College have filed a class action lawsuit in
federal court arguing Rider University cannot legally sell the
choir college's campus in Princeton, N.J.

The filing marks an escalation in a battle that has been playing
out for months between Rider and a group called the Coalition to
Save Westminster Choir College in Princeton Inc. Facing budget
deficits, Rider has explored moving Westminster and selling the
college and its campus, which is located several miles away from
Rider's main location in Lawrenceville, N.J. That sparked
resistance from faculty members, students and alumni who believe
Rider is improperly trying to find a way to make money off a
financially healthy Westminster in order to make up for its own
financial deficiencies.

The Coalition to Save Westminster Choir College in Princeton has
proposed spinning the choir college off from the university. But
negotiations did not materialize, according to the coalition's
president, Constance Fee. As a result, the group is turning to
legal action.

The lawsuit, filed on June 20, says Rider has considered selling
the Westminster campus to real estate developers. But it argues
Rider does not have the right to sell the campus under a 1991
agreement. Westminster merged into Rider under the agreement,
which calls for Rider to continue Westminster's mission and ensure
its separate identity, the lawsuit says.

The class action suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of former Westminster
board members, current students, their parents, past students and
donors. It alleges breach of contract and asks for a judgment that
would allow Westminster to operate as a separate nonprofit higher
education institution. Alternately, it asks the court to direct
Rider to find another entity to operate Westminster on its
Princeton campus. It also asks that Rider be barred from selling
the Westminster campus to any group that will not keep the choir
college in its current location.

Rider disagrees with assertions of the lawsuit and does not
believe it serves the best interests of the choir college, said a
university spokeswoman, Kristine Brown, in a statement. The
university believes it has a strong defense and will prevail.
"As we've told the Westminster community, we firmly believe that
the choir college's legacy can best be achieved with an
institution that is better positioned to make the necessary
investments," she said. "Working closely with the Board of
Trustees and an outside firm, we've made significant progress on
our search to find a new institution willing to acquire
Westminster Choir College and continue its rich tradition." [GN]


ROSS STORES: Still Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Suits in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 29, 2017 that the Company has been named in class action
lawsuits, primarily in California, alleging violation of wage and
hour laws and consumer protection laws.  Class action litigation
remains pending as of April 29, 2017.

Ross Stores, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates off-
price retail apparel and home fashion stores under the Ross Dress
for Less and dd's DISCOUNTS brand names in the United States.  The
Company was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Dublin,
California.


SAINT JOHN, NB: Attempts to Block Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Rachel Cave, writing for CNBC, reports the City of Saint John made
another attempt on June 22 to block a class action lawsuit on
behalf of adults who say they were sexually abused as minors by
the late police officer Kenneth Estabrooks.

At a Court of Appeal hearing in Fredericton, the city sought leave
to appeal the class action certification allowed by Justice
William Grant in his Feb. 9 decision.

Estabrooks was a police officer between 1953 and 1975, when his
law enforcement career was terminated abruptly following
admissions to superiors he had sexually abused at least two boys.

Rather than being charged with a crime, Estabrooks was transferred
to the city works department, where he retired in 1983. He died in
2005.

In the city's written brief to the appeal court, Michael Denton
and Donald Keenan argued that Estabrooks was not an employee or
servant of the city when he worked in the police force.

While the city did create the police force, they argued, it did
not create liability for the conduct of its officers.

"Before the passing of the Police Act in 1977, municipalities in
this province could not be held vicariously liable for the acts or
omissions of their police officers," the brief said.

City denies liability

As for the city's potential liability when Estabrooks worked in
the maintenance garage after the police department, the brief
referred to a Supreme Court of Canada decision involving a
residential school in British Columbia.

In that case, the court ruled that the Catholic Church did not
have to pay damages to a man who was assaulted by a baker, boat
driver and odd-job man because he was not made directly
responsible for the care of the youth.

"The employment of [the man] as a baker, boat driver and odd-job
man did not put him in a position of power, trust or intimacy with
respect to the children," quoted the brief. "His job did not
require regular or private contact with the children."

Similarly, they argued, Estabrooks's employment as a labourer did
not afford him opportunity to interact with the general public, or
more particularly, minors.

They said the city in its role as a municipal government did not
have a fiduciary duty -- a duty of good faith and trust -- to its
residents when discharging its public authority as created by
statute.

Lawyer John McKiggan, Esq. -- john@mckigganhebert.com -- of
Mckiggan Herbert counsel for Bobby Hayes, who is the
representative plaintiff in the class action suit, said the
certification was correct.

McKiggan defended Grant's consideration of precedent case law and
also argued that a class action certification is a procedural
matter, not an evaluation of the merits of the case.

The certification paved the way for Robert Hayes to be the
representative appellant in a case that claims the city was
negligent and breached a fiduciary duty that it owed to the class
members, who suffered as a result.

263 possible assaults

As of April, the city had spent $446,000 on a private
investigation firm to search out and interview potential victims
from that time.

In September 2013, private investigator Dave Perry, co-chief
executive officer of Investigative Solutions Network, reported
that as many as 263 youths may have been sexually abused by
Estabrooks over three decades.

McKiggan had previously told CBC News that if the city is found
liable, the municipality may not have enough insurance to cover
the settlements.

McKiggan said the amount of insurance coverage available depends
on the year in which a victim was abused.

Some years, the city took out what are known as "diminishing
reserve" policies that set a fixed limit on the amount that could
be paid out in total claims.

"If the insurance policy limits in this case are not sufficient to
meet the claims, the city has some pretty significant potential
exposure," McKiggan said in an 2016 interview.

Justice Richard reserved decision until later. He did not set a
date.

Following the hearing, McKiggan said both sides made capable
arguments in court.

"Of course, we would prefer [Judge Richard] to deny leave to the
city so that this doesn't take any longer than it needs to," he
said.

"The plaintiffs have waited a very long time for resolution of
these claims, and we'd like to move forward as quickly as we can."
[GN]


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Seek $44.6MM in Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Graf, writing for Law360, reports that attorneys who
secured a tentative $210 million settlement to end a proposed
class action by Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. shareholders claiming
the company misrepresented inventory levels to falsely inflate its
stock price asked a New York federal judge on June 19 for $44.6
million in fees.

The shareholders' attorneys said the amount, representing about
21.24 percent of the settlement, is similar to the fees granted in
comparable class actions, and is reasonable given the "numerous
challenges" the counsel faced in proving liability and damages,
especially since they brought the action on a contingent basis.

"The significant monetary recovery was achieved through the skill,
tenacity and effective advocacy of lead counsel, which litigated
this action on a fully contingent fee basis against highly skilled
defense counsel," the attorneys said in the filing. "Lead counsel
had to devote a vast amount of time and resources to the action,
litigating through an extensive and hard-fought fact discovery
process before the settlement could be obtained."

The case originated from two securities lawsuits that were filed
after Salix stock plunged by more than 30 percent following the
company's November 2014 disclosure that it had much more inventory
of many of its drugs than management had previously claimed. The
suits were consolidated in March 2015, and the amended complaint
alleged violation of the Securities and Exchange Act.

The parties agreed to a $210 million settlement in March for a
class of shareholders estimated to be in the thousands.

The shareholders' attorneys said on June 19 that fees for a non-
class action would typically range between 30 percent and 33
percent of the settlement amount, and argued their requested award
of 21.24 percent of the settlement is "well within the range of
percentage fees that have been awarded in the Second Circuit in
securities class actions and other similar litigation with
comparable recoveries."

The requested fee is based on an agreement the firm reached with a
lead plaintiff before litigation began, and should therefore be
given a "presumption of reasonableness," according to the filing.

In addition to the $44.6 million fees award, the attorneys have
requested to be reimbursed for $1.9 million in litigation expenses
and $29,800 in costs.

Counsel for the shareholders and for Salix did not respond on June
20 to requests for comment.

The shareholders are represented by Salvatore J. Graziano --
sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- John Rizio-Hamilton -- johnr@blbglaw.com
-- and Katherine M. Sinderson -- katherinem@blbglaw.com -- of
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

Salix is represented by Brad Bondi -- BBondi@Cahill.com -- and
Charles Gilman -- cgilman@cahill.com -- of Cahill Gordon & Reindel
LLP.

The suit is In re Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd, case number 1:14-cv-
08925 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York. [GN]


SEAFARERS OFFICERS: Violates Securities Act, Seafarers Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEAFARERS OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
APIGEE CORPORATION, CHET KAPOOR, TIM WAN, BOB L. COREY, NEAL
DEMPSEY, PROMOD HAQUE, WILLIAM "BJ" JENKINS, JR, EDMOND MESROBIAN,
ROBERT SCHWARTZ, and DOES 1-2, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
17CIV02788 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 22, 2017), seeks remedies under
the Securities Act of 1933.

The case is a securities class action on behalf of all those who
purchased Apigee common stock in or traceable to Apigee's April
24, 2015 initial public stock offering, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933.

On November 28, 2014, Apigee filed with the SEC its Registration
Statement on Form S-1, which, following several amendments made in
response to comments received from the SEC and being declared
effective by the SEC on April 23, 2015, would later be utilized
for the IPO. On April 24, 2015, Apigee and the Underwriters priced
the IPO at $17 per share, filed with the SEC the final prospectus
for the IPO and sold 5,115,000 shares of Apigee common stock to
the investing public. The Registration Statement was negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing its preparation.

Apigee is a California-based software development company that has
designed a software platform to enable application-programming
interface ("API") based digital strategies and business insights
for enterprises.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288 4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288 4534

               - and -

          James I. Jaconette, Esq.
          Thomas E. Egler, Esq.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231 7423


SEMPRA ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss "Plumley" Granted
-----------------------------------------------
District Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California ruled on the parties' motions in
the case CRAIG M. PLUMLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEMPRA ENERGY,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00512-BEN-AGS (S.D. Cal.)

Sempra Energy is a publicly traded energy-services holding company
whose operating units invest in, develop, and operate energy
infrastructure, and provide gas and electricity services to
customers in North and South America. Debra L. Reed served as
Sempra's Chairwoman and Chief Executive Officer, while Joseph A.
Householder served as Sempra's Chief Financial Officer and
Executive Vice-President. Southern California Gas Company (SCG) is
one of Sempra's operating units. SCG is a natural gas distribution
utility and operates over 20,000 square miles throughout Central
and Southern California. SCG's operation includes the storage of
natural gas. It owns four natural gas storage facilities, the
largest located at the Aliso Canyon, which contains approximately
115 underground wells. One of its well, the SS-25 had a gas leak.

Sempra/SCG discovered the Aliso Canyon gas leak at the SS-25 well
on or about October 23, 2015, when residents in the nearby Porter
Ranch neighborhood reported what they believed to be a home with a
major gas leak. Sempra/SCG did not immediately report the gas leak
to the appropriate government agencies, but instead, SCG went
door-to-door reassuring residents that all was under control and
that no danger existed. Three days later, on October 26, 2015,
Sempra/SCG reported the gas leak to the appropriate authorities.
The gas leak persisted for months. On December 4, 2015, Sempra/SCG
began constructing a relief well. On January 6, 2016, Governor
Brown declared or made a proclamation of a state of emergency
regarding the gas leak. The proclamation directed additional
immediate actions to respond to the leak, and ordered a
comprehensive independent review of the safety of the storage
wells and the air quality of the surrounding community. The
proclamation also charged SCG with payment of the costs related to
the gas leak, as well as the funding of a program to mitigate the
emissions. Sempra/SCG sealed the gas leak on February 18, 2016.

Sempra and SCG have been jointly or separately named as defendants
in at least 138 lawsuits related to the gas leak. A number of
state and federal agencies, including the CPUC, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and the California Attorney
General's office have investigated, or are continuing to
investigate, Sempra's and/or SCG's conduct before and during the
gas leak. The CPUC and the California Department of Conservation's
Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources commissioned Blade
Energy Partners, a third-party investigator, to conduct a root
cause analysis of the gas leak. The first amended complaint claims
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934
and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5.
Defendants Sempra, Reed, and Householder filed a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim. Defendant SCG filed a joinder in
defendants' motion to dismiss, and moved for dismissal on a
separate ground that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring claims
against it. After filing oppositions to both dismissal motions,
plaintiffs subsequently moved to file a sur-reply to SCG's joinder
in defendants' motion.

Judge Benitez denied plaintiffs' motion to file sur-reply finding
consideration of SCG's joinder would promote the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of this action. Moreover, the court
finds plaintiffs do not appear to have suffered any prejudice
considering they provided a robust opposition to the single
paragraph of argument.

Judge Benitez denied SCG's motion to dismiss for lack of standing
as plaintiffs properly demonstrated standing, when they relied
upon SCG's material false statements or omissions in connection
with the purchase or sale of securities.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is
granted without prejudice. Judge Benitez held that plaintiffs
allege two categories of statements that were allegedly false or
misleading: (1) pre-Aliso Canyon gas leak statements, and (2)
post-Aliso Canyon gas leak statements. Judge Benitez held that
none of the alleged false or misleading statements pled in the
first amended complaint are sufficient to state a claim for
securities fraud. Even if they were, plaintiffs' first amended
complaint must still be dismissed for failing to meet their burden
to allege scienter. However, the court grants plaintiffs leave to
file an amended pleading. Plaintiffs' shall have twenty-one (21)
days from the date of the order to file a second amended complaint
that addresses the deficiencies identified in the order.

A copy of Judge Benitez's order dated June 20, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/rhtcxo from Leagle.com.

Craig M Plumley, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II -
- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Jennifer Banner Sobers --
jbsobers@pomlaw.com -- Jennifer Pafiti -- jbsobers@pomlaw.com --
Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Matthew L.
Tuccillo -- mltuccillo@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP; & Adam C.
McCall -- amccall@zlk.com -- at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Richard Berkowitz and Stephen Graham, Plaintiffs, represented by
Adam C. McCall -- amccall@zlk.com -- at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP;
Jennifer Banner Sobers -- jbsobers@pomlaw.com -- Jennifer Pafiti -
- jbsobers@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP

Sempra Energy and Southern California Gas Company Defendants,
represented by Robert E. Gooding, JR. --
robert.gooding@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Debra L Reed, Defendant, represented by Thomas J. Nolan --
thomas.nolan@lw.com -- at Latham & Watkins LLP; Allen L. Lanstra -
- allen.lanstra@skadden.com -- Jack P. DiCanio --
jack.dicanio@skadden.com -- Richard Stephen Horvath, Jr. --
richard.horvath@skadden.com -- at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher &
Flom LLP

Joseph A Householder, Defendant, represented by Matthew William
Close -- mclose@omm.com -- at O'Melveny & Myers


SERVIS ONE: Faces "Rivera" Suit in Middle District of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Servis One, Inc. The
case is captioned as Alexi Rivera and Yerika M. Rivera,
Individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Servis One, Inc., doing business as:
BSI Financial Services, a foreign corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00722-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla., June 22, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian J. Davis.

Servis One, doing business as BSI Financial Services, provides
cloud-based loan services to individuals. It offers loan
servicing.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753 8600
          Facsimile: (352) 753 8606
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Max H. Story, Esq.
          328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372 4109
          Facsimile: (904) 758 5333
          E-mail: max@storylawgroup.com


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Gets Favorable Jury Verdict in Arkansas Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Energy Company disclosed in its Form 8-K filed on
June 19, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
that a jury on June 16 returned a verdict in favor of the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries in the federal class action
lawsuit regarding royalty deductions in Arkansas.  The verdict
remains subject to post-trial motions before judgment is entered.

The plaintiff class in this lawsuit comprises a substantial
majority of similarly situated lessors of lands in Arkansas, most
of whom are named plaintiffs or members of classes in other
lawsuits.  The Company currently does not anticipate that those
other cases are likely to have a material adverse effect on the
results of operations, financial position or cash flows of the
Company and its subsidiaries taken as a whole.

On May 18, Southwestern Energy Company and certain of its
subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") entered into an
agreement to settle class action litigation filed on behalf of
lessors under leases of oil and gas in Arkansas regarding the
amount of deductions a Company subsidiary has made for gathering,
treatment and other costs in calculating royalty payments to the
lessors.  The agreement was reached in connection with the case
pending in the Circuit Court of Conway County, Arkansas (the
"Arkansas Court") under the caption Snow et al. v. SEECO, Inc.,
No. CV-2010-126.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company will pay
US$30 million upon final court approval of the settlement.  The
Company's production subsidiary also agrees, for a period of 20
years, to calculate deductions for gathering costs incurred with
an affiliate at no more than the rate charged by the affiliate
minus 4.3 cents per thousand cubic feet of gas.  The Company and
its affiliates will be released from claims relating to all past
royalty calculations for affected leases, including deductions for
gathering, treatment and other costs, such as gathering charges
incurred with an affiliate.  The settlement also validates future
deductions calculated in accordance with the terms of the
settlement.  The class for the settlement includes substantially
all persons having leases with the Company in Arkansas that permit
deductions for various costs.  The agreement contains no admission
of wrongdoing, which the Company continues to deny.

The proposed settlement received preliminary approval from the
Arkansas Court and was subject to its final approval.

Despite the pending settlement, the federal court in one of the
other class actions against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries has begun a trial of that case, according to the
Company's Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 6, 2017.

The Company had requested a stay of the litigation in the federal
court pending final approval of the settlement in the Circuit
Court of Conway County, which request was rejected. Following the
selection of the jury in the litigation before the federal court,
the settlement before the Circuit Court of Conway County has been
terminated pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement.

Southwestern Energy Company, an independent natural gas and oil
company, engages in the exploration, development, and production
of natural gas and oil in the United States.  It operates through
two segments, Exploration and Production, and Midstream Services.
Southwestern Energy Company was founded in 1929 and is based in
Spring, Texas.


STERLING BANCORP: Has Agreement in Principle to Settle Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Bancorp disclosed in its Form 8-K filed on June 8, 2017
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it has
entered into an agreement with Astoria Financial Corporation in
relation to the settlement of certain putative class actions.  The
Company has also filed additional disclosures related to the
matter, copies of which can be found as attachments in Sterling's
Form 8-K at https://is.gd/C0Bz1i

Specifically, on June 6, 2017, Company and Astoria entered into an
agreement in principle to settle claims brought by plaintiffs in
certain putative class actions captioned as follows: Jenkins v.
Astoria Financial Corporation, et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02608)
brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York; Minzer v. Astoria Financial Corporation, et
al (Case No. 2017-0284) brought in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware; MSS 1209 Trust v. Astoria Financial
Corporation, et al (Index No. 602161/2017) brought in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York in Nassau County; O'Connell v.
Astoria Financial Corporation, et al (Index No. 603703/2017)
brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Nassau
County; and Parshall v. Astoria Financial Corporation, et al (Case
No. 2:17-cv-02165) brought in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (collectively, the "Astoria
Merger Class Actions").

The Astoria Merger Class Actions relate to the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, by and between Astoria and the Company, dated as of
March 6, 2017 (the "Merger Agreement").  Under the agreement in
principle, the Company and Astoria agreed to make certain
additional information available to Astoria shareholders and
Sterling shareholders.  The additional information is contained in
the first supplement (the "First Supplement") to the joint proxy
statement/prospectus of the Company and Astoria, dated April 28,
2017 (the "Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus") attached as Exhibit
99.1 to the Company's Form 8-K.  The First Supplement should be
read in conjunction with the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus and
the documents incorporated by reference therein.

In addition, a separate putative class action captioned Garfield
v. Sterling Bancorp, et al (Index No. 031888/2017), putatively
brought on behalf of the Company's shareholders, is currently
pending before the Supreme Court of the State of New York in
Rockland County (the "Garfield Class Action" and, with the Astoria
Merger Class Actions, the "Merger Class Actions").  The Garfield
Class Action also relates to the Merger Agreement.

The Company and Astoria have agreed to make certain additional
information available to Astoria shareholders and Sterling
shareholders in contemplation of a potential settlement of the
Garfield Class Action.  The additional information is contained in
the second supplement (the "Second Supplement") to the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus attached as Exhibit 99.2 to the Company's
Form 8-K.  The Second Supplement should be read in conjunction
with the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus and the documents
incorporated by reference therein.

Sterling Bancorp operates as the bank holding company for Sterling
National Bank that provides various banking services to
commercial, consumer, and municipal clients in the United States.
The Company accepts deposit products, including checking, money
market, savings, time, and interest and non-interest bearing
demand deposits, as well as certificates of deposit and mortgage
escrow funds.  It was founded in 1888 and is based in Montebello,
New York.


SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on June 20
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. (NasdaqGS: SNCR) on behalf of all
purchasers of Synchronoss securities between October 28, 2015 and
April 26, 2017, for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by Synchronoss' officers and directors.  Synchronoss
provides cloud solutions and software-based activation for
connected devices worldwide.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
https://www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-
blog/synchronoss-technologies-inc-june-16

Synchronoss Accused of Engaging in Scheme to Inflate Company's
Stock Price

According to the complaint, Synchronoss devised a scheme to
artificially inflate the company's stock price by divesting a
substantial part of the business to an undisclosed related party
owned and managed by friends and family of Synchronoss' Executive
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Stephen G. Waldis.  Not only
did Synchronoss misrepresent the financial terms of the
divestiture, but it also misrepresented the financial strength of
the company's cloud computing segment.  On December 6, 2016,
Synchronoss announced that it was acquiring Intralinks Holdings,
Inc. for $13.00 per share or $821 million in equity value and
divesting 70% of the company's carrier activation business to
Sequential Technology International, LLC ("Sequential") for $146
million, disclosing few details.  Then, on April 27, 2017,
Synchronoss revealed that then-Chief Executive Officer Ronald
Hovsepian and then-Chief Financial Officer John Frederick were
leaving the company and warned investors that first quarter
revenue would not meet expectations. On this news, Synchronoss'
stock declined 46% to close at $13.29 per share on April 27, 2017.

Synchronoss Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a shareholder rights law firm.  The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped
its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves
and the companies in which they have invested. [GN]


SYNGENTA: Awaits Jury Verdict in Farmers' GMO Corn Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stu Ellis, writing for Herald & Review, reports that the countdown
has begun for the jury to return a verdict in one of the biggest
lawsuits involving agriculture in many years.  And unlike the $5.7
billion lawsuit that Beef Processors Inc. has filed against ABC
News for its "pink slime" reports, this $5.7 billion lawsuit
affects not just two corporate entities, but tens of thousands of
farmers.

For the past three weeks, a jury of six Kansas residents have been
in a Kansas City federal courtroom listening to testimony about
the drop in the corn market in late 2013 after China began
rejecting shiploads of U.S. corn and eventually U.S. distillers'
dried grains made from corn refined into ethanol.  China had
purchased multiple shiploads of corn and the livestock feed, but
when the ships arrived in China it was rejected because it
contained genetic traits from Syngenta which were unapproved by
the Chinese government.

Although those genetics have since been approved, the initial
shock rolled through the corn futures market, and worked its way
down to local grain elevator bids that were well below prices
prior to the report of the rejected shiploads.

Was Syngenta responsible? Yes, contend the farmers and their
attorneys who presented a preliminary class action case against
the Swiss-based global seed and chemical company.  They say
Syngenta knew China had not approved the genetics and should not
have sold the seed to farmers for planting in 2013 because of the
lack of approval.

Was it Syngenta's fault? No, says the company, because Chinese
politics got in the way, and there were other reasons that the
bottom dropped out of the corn market.  They cited a big crop
being harvested, compared to the diminished 2012 drought-stricken
crop, and the corn market was burdened by a surplus.

Decatur attorney Chris Ellis (no relation as far as we have been
able to determine) is one of the 12 members of the executive
committee of lawyers working with the federal judge to organize
the multiple state class action lawsuit against Syngenta.

He cited the testimony by one Kansas farmer who explained that he
only grows genetically modified corn.  He accepted the fact that
his livelihood is subject to numerous things that are outside of
the control of any farmer, most obviously the weather.  And while
he is more than happy to accept that risk year after year, the
damage caused to his family farm by Syngenta was unacceptable.

How much damage? Ellis says witnesses testified that the past,
present and future economic loss suffered by Kansas growers is
over $183 million.  It is anticipated that the jury will be asked
to award this and punitive damages to Kansas farmers.  Kansas is
not Iowa or Illinois, but in 2016 produced nearly 700 million
bushels of corn on 5.1 million acres. That would qualify it as the
seventh-largest corn-growing state.

What about Illinois, which is barely edged out by Iowa each year
for the top spot? The federal court, based in Kansas City, began
with a test case of Kansas farmers and their allegations against
Syngenta's corporate decisions.  Once the verdict is in, decisions
will be made by Chris Ellis, his executive committee colleagues
and the judge about how to proceed with the remaining cases from
the other Corn Belt states where farmers have signed on to class
action lawsuits.

Any trial involving Illinois farmers will have local flavor,
because two Macon County farmers have been selected to represent
all Illinois farmers in presenting their case in the federal
court. Steve Wentworth, who farms north of Forsyth, and Roger
White, who farms south of Elwin, will be testifying how they were
impacted by China's sudden halt in buying corn.

Their testimony, if the jurors in the cases find Syngenta at
fault, will be important in determining how much damage should be
awarded to farmers.  So far, there is no estimate, but Chris Ellis
and his colleagues say the damages could be substantial, and
Syngenta, which was recently valued as a $39 billion company,
should compensate them.

The Kansas verdict will be important for the case, so watch the
headlines.

Stu Ellis is an observer of the Central Illinois agriculture
scene. [GN]


TRAFFIC BAR: Faces "Granados" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Traffic Bar And
Restaurant, Inc. The case is titled as Ninoska Granados, Kristina
Griggs, Julia Main, Jessica Nienhaus, and Heather Soukas, on
behalf of themselves and other employees similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Traffic Bar And Restaurant, Inc., Christopher Foley,
Paul Valenti, Meagan Pugh, Michael O'Niel, and Joey Morgan, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-mc-01832-UAD (E.D.N.Y., June 22,
2017).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony P Consiglio, Esq.
          CARY KANE LLP
          1350 Broadway, Suite 1400
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 871 0537
          Facsimile: (646) 599 9577
          E-mail: aconsiglio@carykane.com

               - and -

          Melissa Sy Chan, Esq.
          Walter M. Kane, Esq.
          Cary Kane LLP
          1350 Broadway Ste 1400
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 868 6300
          Facsimile: (212) 868 6302
          E-mail: mchan@carykane.com
                  wkane@carykanelaw.com


TRAVIS KALANICK: James and Beatleston Allege Labor Code Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER JAMES and CHRISTINE BEATLESTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
TRAVIS KALANICK, GARRETT CAMP, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. BC666055 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 22, 2017),
seeks award restitution for all charged gratuities which were not
remitted to the drivers; award pre- and post-judgment interest;
attorneys' fees, cost and expenses.

The case is brought on behalf of individuals who have worked as
Uber drivers in California. Uber is car service that provides
drivers who can be hailed and dispatch through a mobile phone
application. Uber as misclassified these drivers as independent
contractors.

As a result of the misclassification, the drivers have had to bear
expenses that should be borne by their employer. For example, the
drivers have had to pay necessary business expenses to maintain
and purchase or lease their vehicles, as well as other expenses
such as gas, insurance and phone date charges in violation of
California Labor Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Matthew Carlson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994 5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  mcarlson@llrlaw.com


TRI-STATE WATER: 7th Cir. Affirms Ruling on Jurisdiction Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Cai Larson, Esq. -- aclarson@mcguirewoods.com -- and
Diane Flannery, Esq. -- dflannery@mcguirewoods.com -- of
McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for JDSupra, provide their
thoughts below on a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision from
earlier this year that held a counterclaim-defendant could not
rely on CAFA to avoid state court.

The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) was enacted in 2005 to expand
the subject-matter jurisdiction that Federal courts had over class
actions.  Yet CAFA's reach is not unlimited, and in some
instances, a corporation may still be stuck litigating a large-
scale class action in state court -- a venue friendly to class
action plaintiffs.

Earlier this year, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held in
Tri-State Water v. Bauer that an additional counterclaim defendant
was not entitled to remove a class action from state to federal
district court under CAFA.

The procedural posture in Bauer set the stage for the decision.
The case began as a simple collection action brought by Tri-State
Water Treatment, Inc. against Stacey and Michael Bauer.   Tri-
State alleged that the Bauers failed to pay for a water treatment
system it had installed at the Bauers' house.  The Bauers
responded by answering the complaint and counterclaiming a multi-
state class action against Tri-State for fraud in connection with
the sale of the water treatment system.

The Bauers later amended their class action counterclaim by adding
two more corporations as counterclaim-defendants.  One of the
additional counterclaim defendants, Home Depot, filed a notice of
removal under CAFA.

The District Court for the Southern District of Illinois remanded
the case to state court, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.  The
Court reasoned that "[l]ong before 2005, when CAFA was enacted,
the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who files suit in state
court is precluded from removing a case to federal court, even if
that person is later named as a counterclaim-defendant."  This
rule was not modified by the enactment of CAFA.

Notably, the Seventh Circuit was not swayed by Home Depot's
argument that "absurd results would arise if [the Court] were to
hold that additional counterclaim-defendants cannot remove actions
under CAFA" where lawyers would be able to "use small-claims
litigation as springboards for counterclaim class actions that
would be stuck in state court."   The Court stated that there is
nothing "absurd" about keeping some cases in state court, and that
Congress can "fine-tune" the rules of CAFA if it is truly
concerned about the effects of rampant forum-shopping. [GN]


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Woman Appealing Settlement Needs to Post Bond
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Moran, writing for San Diego Union Tribune, reports that
a Florida woman who is appealing the $25 million settlement
against President Donald Trump's defunct real estate seminar
business known as Trump University will have to post a $500 bond,
a federal court judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego said Sherri B.
Simpson should not be required to post a $147,388 bond while her
appeal is heard at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, as
lawyers representing members in the class-action lawsuits had
sought.

The lawyers said the six-figure bond was necessary to cover the
costs for administering and servicing the 3,700 people covered by
the settlement of the case while the appeal runs its course.

In a ruling issued on June 19, Judge Curiel said the lawyers for
the class members had not identified a law that allows including
the administrative costs into a bond posted for an appeal.

Instead, he said, a lower bond of $500 was sufficient to cover
costs such as preparing transcripts of hearings and other court
expenses.

Simpson's appeal has been fast-tracked by the appeals court.
Briefs from each side are due by July 26, and then the case will
be set for a hearing "as soon as possible," Judge Curiel wrote.

Judge Curiel approved the $25 million settlement on March 31 that
would give some 3,700 class members an estimated 90 cents on the
dollar of what they spent on Trump University.  Ms. Simpson's
notice of appeal, filed May 1, has put the settlement payouts on
hold.

Ms. Simpson is the only person to file an official objection to
the settlement.  She said she wants to pursue her own lawsuit
against Trump, an option that is not allowed as a class member.

The litigation over Trump University began six years ago and
involved three class-actions, two filed in San Diego and one by
the New York attorney general.  The suits claimed the students
were misled into thinking it was an accredited university and they
were conned into signing up for the $35,000 "Gold Elite" real
estate program.

Days after Trump won the presidency in November, the case was
settled with no admission of liability or wrongdoing by Trump or
Trump University.  Trump said in tweets that he needed to focus on
transitioning to the White House but boasted he still would have
won at trial. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Increases Settlement Offer in Safe Rides Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McGrady, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that as the popular ride-sharing giant Uber is at the forefront of
controversy, the firm also finds itself upping its settlement in a
class-action lawsuit that claims that its customers were misled
about so-called safe rides fees and the screening process for
drivers, among other alleged improprieties documented in a suit
filed with a California federal court.

Initially, Uber had offered to settle the case for $28.5 million
in McKnight et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al.  However,
Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, denied the settlement during proceedings
in 2016.  The deal to settle was then brought back to the table
after it was agreed that Uber will put up $32.5 million as
injunctive relief.

Counsels for the plaintiffs and defendants did not respond to
requests to comment by press time.

Ian Adams, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based R Street
Institute, told the Northern California Record that the judge
drove the cost of the settlement higher.

"This is another instance in which a court has seen fit to drive
the cost of settlement upward to satisfy its sense of justice
against the wishes of the plaintiffs," Mr. Adams said.  "While the
court has an obligation to ensure that members of a class are
adequately represented and is likely correct in its analysis of
the previous settlement's problematic distribution, the adequacy
of the sum of the settlement, when not clearly deficient, is
better left to the parties in interest.  A mere 14 percent
increase simply does not amount to a significant enough deviation
from reasonability to warrant intervention.  Hopefully, this time
around, Judge Tigar will approve the settlement."

The initial denial of the original settlement amount came because
Uber overlooked the fact that a large portion of the initial class
in the class-action suit didn't pay the safe rides fee.
Originally, the suit was filed by two customers and then
consolidated with several other complainants, arguing that the
company misrepresented the safe rides fee.  The consolidation took
place in 2016.

The safe rides fee was set at $1 in 2015 to help fund drivers'
background checks that the company presented as "industry
leading."  However, the fees then were set based on the location
of the driver.  For the consumers of the class-action suit, the
plaintiffs asserted that Uber violated various state consumer
protection laws.

Particularly, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and was in violation of an implied
contract upon service under the statutes of California, Illinois
and Massachusetts.  There are also allegations of false
advertising and unfair and unlawful business processes and
practices.

Now, the class action has been expanded to cover all other users
of Uber's mobile app and drive services.  If the settlement amount
is approved, all Uber customers who used the service from Jan.
1st, 2013 to Jan. 31, 2016 will be entitled to $0.25 for the first
ride that includes the payment of a safe rides fee and $0.05 for
every other ride that includes similar fees.

Pam Villarreal, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy
Analysis and a palpable voice on ride sharing and the public
policy of the sharing economy, told the Northern California Record
that the entire class-action suit is nothing but a frivolous
lawsuit.

"I think not only that the lawsuit is not only frivolous, but the
[settlement] seems like an excessive amount for an award," she
said.  "And, probably, two-thirds of it is going to go to the
attorneys."

Ms. Villarreal said the lawsuit needs be an example to fix the
courts with reforms.  She argued that potential damage caps could
be put in place and rules governing the legal counsel in the class
actions should also be created.

"There needs to be some kind of court and lawsuit reforms," she
said.  But, she did argue that such reforms are unlikely in
California jurisdictions.

Aside from the nature of this lawsuit, Uber has been the recipient
of several controversial matters in the past several months.
Specifically, the latest "embarrassment" for the firm was when a
member of the corporate board allegedly made a sexist remark at an
event on sexual harassment put on by the company.

Uber's CEO, Travis Kalanick, also stepped aside from his position
for an indefinite amount of time, which came months after a row
with a former staff engineer named Susan Fowler who alleged that
the company didn't have proper procedures in place to address
claims of sexual harassment that she and her other female
colleagues allegedly experienced.

The row resulted in the hiring of Eric Holder, former U.S.
attorney general, to conduct an audit of Uber's corporate culture.

Uber has also been on the receiving end of several other class-
action suits and lawsuits in a stream of legal trouble coming from
alleged labor violations, safety concerns and other allegations.
[GN]


UNITED STATES: IRS Reopens PTIN System After Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Phillips Erb, writing for Forbes, reports that the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) has reopened its Preparer Tax Identification
Number (PTIN) System.

The system was shut down earlier in June following a U.S. District
Court ruling which barred IRS from charging PTIN fees to tax
preparers.  However, in the case, Adam Steele, et al. v. United
States of America (Case No. 1:14-cv-01523-RCL), the Court agreed
that the IRS could continue to require the use of PTINs for tax
preparers.  A PTIN is an identifying number -- like a Social
Security number -- for tax preparers and certain other tax
professionals.  Since 1999, tax return preparers have been able to
use a PTIN on tax returns instead of their Social Security
Numbers; they used to be issued for free.  The IRS began charging
a fee for PTINs in 2010 after the implementation of new rules
which made PTINs mandatory.

On June 21, the IRS made it clear that they intend to continue to
require PTINs, confirming that a tax professional must have a PTIN
to file a tax return, to be an Enrolled Agent or schedule an
appointment for the Special Enrollment Examination.  The
difference is, of course, that at least for the time being, the
IRS cannot charge a fee to obtain a PTIN.

What does that mean for taxpayers? It's business as usual.  Just
as earlier this year, anyone who prepares federal tax returns for
compensation must have a valid and current PTIN.  PTINs don't last
forever: they must be renewed each year.  Without a current PTIN,
a tax preparer is not allowed to prepare your return.  That is the
case even after the most recent court ruling.  You can check out
PTIN qualifications on your own by using the IRS online PTIN
directory.

For tax professionals, more changes may yet be coming.  The IRS
notes that it is "working with the Department of Justice" and "is
still considering how to proceed" but is making PTINs available
while deciding how to address the court order.  That means that
tax professionals can now obtain a PTIN, without charge.  However,
the IRS isn't ruling out future charges, stating on the website:

Q: If I obtain or renew my PTIN now at no cost, will I have to pay
for it later?

A: We can make no determinations with respect to future activity
at this time. (emphasis added)

The agency says that additional information about PTINs or fees
will be posted on the Tax Pros page of the IRS website.

And now the money shot: the Court in Steele also ordered the IRS
to provide "a full refund of all PTIN fees paid."  The total PTIN
fees to be refunded could be more than $175 million (some
estimates put the number at more than $200 million).  If you're
looking for your PTIN refund, don't call the IRS.  The IRS advises
that, "[a]ny questions regarding claims or refunds should be
directed to the PTIN Fees Class Action Administrator at
www.ptinclassaction.com." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Judge Hears Arguments in Iraqi Deportation Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Friess and Mica Rosenberg, writing for Reuters, report that
a U.S. judge heard arguments on June 21 to halt the deportations
of around 100 Iraqis arrested by immigration authorities in the
Detroit area because many belong to minorities and could face
torture or religious persecution in their homeland.

In a coordinated sweep in recent weeks, immigration authorities
moved to detain Iraqi immigrants around the country who had final
deportation orders and convictions for serious crimes.  The
roundup followed Iraq's agreement to accept deportees, as part of
a deal that removed the country from President Donald Trump's
temporary travel ban signed in March.

Some of those affected came to the United States as children and
committed their crimes decades ago, but they had been allowed to
stay because Iraq previously declined to issue travel documents
for them.  That changed after the two governments came to an
agreement on March 12.

The class action lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties
Union, asks the court to issue an emergency halt to the planned
removals, arguing that many of those affected in Michigan are
Chaldean Catholics, who are "widely recognized as targets of
brutal persecution in Iraq."

The ACLU argues that deporting the Iraqis could violate the United
Nations Convention Against Torture, an international human rights
treaty adopted by the United States.

The U.S. government says the district court does not have
jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the immigrants can appeal
their claims in immigration court.

Jennifer Newby, the Justice Department attorney at the June 21
hearing before U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith in Detroit, said
the people arrested had known about their deportation orders and
should have had time to seek legal remedies.

"They waited until removal was imminent to ask for injunctive
relief, thereby creating their own emergencies," Ms. Newby said.

She said the government would not deport anyone to Iraq before
June 27 and that at least 50 people have filed motions to reopen
their individual cases in immigration court, which could delay any
deportations.

ICE has said that people with convictions for murder, rape,
assault, kidnapping, burglary and drugs and weapons charges were
among the 199 Iraqis arrested in their operations nationwide.

Judge Goldsmith did not say when he would issue a ruling in the
case.

The ICE arrests, many of them carried out on June 11 and 12,
surprised and shocked the close knit Iraqi community in Michigan.
Many of those arrested have been transported to detention
facilities in Youngstown, Ohio and other states.

Some Kurdish Iraqis were also picked up in Nashville, Tennessee,
but they are not covered by the current class action, said
Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney arguing the case.

"There's absolutely no question the government can't deport
somebody to be tortured," Mr. Gelernt argued in court. [GN]


US PHYSICAL: Faces Class Suit over Securities Act Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc. is facing a putative class action
lawsuit in New York, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on
June 7, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On March 31, 2017, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company, chief
executive officer Christopher J. Reading, chief financial officer
Lawrance C. McAfee and corporate controller, Jon C. Bates,
alleging, inter alia, that the defendants misstated or omitted to
state material information concerning the Company's historical
accounting for redeemable non-controlling interests of acquired
partnerships, in alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

The complaint seeks a declaration that the action is a proper
class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, unspecified compensatory damages in an amount to be
determined at trial and interest, costs and expenses.  The
proceeding is in its initial stages and the defendants have not
yet answered, moved against or otherwise responded to the
complaint, though they intend to defend themselves vigorously.

U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
outpatient physical therapy clinics in the United States.  Its
clinics provide pre-and post-operative care and treatment for
orthopedic-related disorders, sports-related injuries,
preventative care, rehabilitation of injured workers, and
neurological-related injuries.  The Company was founded in 1990
and is based in Houston, Texas.


VILLAGE GREEN: Faces "Jensen" Suit in District of Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Village Green
Management Company, LLC The case is captioned as Levi Jensen and
Whitney Strantz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Village Green Management Company, LLC
and Park Glen Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-02188-
DWF-BRT (D. Minn., June 22, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Donovan W. Frank.

Village Green is a full service residential property management
company offering luxury apartments for rent and award-winning
customer service nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas J Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770 9707
          Facsimile: (651) 704 0907
          E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Beckman" Suit over Carafe Filter
--------------------------------------------------------
GINA BECKMAN, as an individual, on behalf of herself and all
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES,
INC., an Arkansas corporation authorized to do business in the
state of California; BREW & SAVE, a Washington corporation
authorized to do business in the state of California; and DOES 1-
10 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.37-2017-00021869-CU-BC-CTL
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 16, 2017), seeks to recover damages,
restitution, and injunctive relief, as well as reasonable
attorneys' fee and litigation costs, as provided under California
law.

This class action is brought on behalf of all consumers of Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. and Brew & Save who purchased a Brew & Save
Carafe Filter, advertised as being compatible with Keurig 2.0 and
1.0, at a Wal-Mart retail store in California.

Wal-Mart Stores, doing business as Walmart, is an American
multinational retailing corporation that operates as a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Craig Clark, Esq.
          Dawn M. Berry, Esq.
          Monique R. Rodriguez, Esq.
          CLARK LAW GROUP
          205 West Date Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239 1321
          Facsimile: (888) 273 4554

               - and -

          William D. Pettersen, Esq.
          PETTERSEN & BARK
          205 West Date Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 702 0123
          Facsimile: (619) 702 0127


WELLS FARGO: Fed Urged to Remove Board Members Amid Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Forbes report that Wells Fargo's efforts to win back customer
trust in the wake of its fake account opening scandal saw yet
another hurdle recently, as Senator Elizabeth Warren implored the
Federal Reserve to dismiss all 12 of the bank's board members. The
Senator pointed out that Wells Fargo's board failed to monitor the
bank's risk management practices, and that the Fed has the legal
authority to remove the board members in such situations.
Notably, the demand comes on the heels of a class action lawsuit
filed by several customers against Wells Fargo for making
unauthorized changes to their mortgages.

The recently filed lawsuit alleges that the banking giant
increased the duration of mortgages taken by customers undergoing
personal bankruptcy proceedings by reducing the monthly payments.
This benefits the bank in the long run due to the jump in interest
payments over the longer loan period.  The bank allegedly did not
seek the necessary approval needed to make the modifications from
the customers and the court.

The lawsuit puts a spotlight on Wells Fargo's internal control
policies once again, and is the latest development in a chain of
issues affecting Wells Fargo that have hurt customer and investor
sentiment towards the banking giant.  While we maintain our $57
price estimate for Wells Fargo's stock, we acknowledge the
downside risk presented by the growing legal and regulatory
headwinds the bank faces.

Until last September, Wells Fargo stood out in the U.S. banking
sector as one of the few banks that emerged stronger from the
economic downturn of 2008 -- capitalizing on its risk averse,
community-focused business model to grow large enough to rival its
substantially diversified peers JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America
and Citigroup.  But the bank's strong growth story -- driven
primarily by efficient cross-selling of financial products -- had
been fueled in part by fraudulent selling practices by some of its
employees since 2011.  This misgiving resulted in Wells Fargo
paying $185 million in fines to regulators, with potentially
millions more at risk due to several large class-action lawsuit
filed by customers.  The bank's top management also took
considerable heat from investors and the U.S. Senate over the
malpractices, and then-CEO John Stumpf was forced to resign
shortly after the scandal came to light.

But the biggest fallout of the scandal for Wells Fargo was a sharp
reduction in retail banking activity at the bank over subsequent
quarters.  The bank's loan portfolio and deposit base have grown
at a noticeably slower rate than its peers over the last two
quarters, as the reputational hit resulted in existing and
potential customers switching away from Wells Fargo's services.
While the bank claimed to have made sizable progress in addressing
the core issue of weak internal controls, the recent lawsuit about
unauthorized mortgage changes highlights the need for more efforts
on this front.

This would explain why Senator Warren presented the rather radical
suggestion of dismissing the bank's entire board. Making all 12
members responsible for the bank's failure to maintain
sufficiently strong risk management standards would ensure that
the board is more cognizant of such issues in the future.  That
said, the Fed will need to initiate an enforcement action and
prove that the board members' actions were "unsafe or unsound" to
be able to get them removed.

Forbes believes that the continued regulatory pressure on Wells
Fargo will remain a deterrent to growth in the bank's retail
banking division at least in the short run.  [GN]


* Class Action, SEC Settlements Hit Record High in 2016
-------------------------------------------------------
Charles Ha, Esq. -- charlesha@orrick.com -- Suzette Pringle, Esq.,
and M. Todd Scott, Esq. -- tscott@orrick.com -- of Orrick, in an
article for JDSupra, report that proxy advisory firm Institutional
Shareholders Services ("ISS") published its semi-annual report of
the top 100 U.S. securities class action settlements and top 50
SEC settlements of all time, as of December 31, 2016.  The report
adds thirteen new class action settlements from last year --
making 2016 the most represented year in the report's settlement
rankings -- along with two new top SEC settlements.

The ISS report ranks, among other things, the top 100 shareholder
class action settlements ever reached in the U.S. for actions
filed on or after January 1, 1996, when the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act was implemented.  ISS's June 2017 report
reflects that there were 137 court-approved securities class
action settlements in the US in 2016, remaining steady with 2015.
Notably, however, 13 of the 137 class action settlements were
among the top 100 shareholder class action settlements, resulting
in a total approved settlement fund of over $5.6 billion, the
largest in a single year.  The largest of these 13 settlements was
in Lawrence E. Jaffe Pension Plan v. Household International,
Inc., et al., Case No. 02-CV-05893 (N.D. Ill.), which was based on
claims of fraudulent misrepresentations concerning allegedly
illegal sales techniques, predatory lending practices, and
accounting manipulations.  In December 2016, the Northern District
of Illinois approved a final settlement fund of $1.58 billion,
resulting in the seventh largest securities class action
settlement in U.S. history.

The report also identifies the top 50 settlements obtained by the
Securities and Exchange Commission, based on the sum of
disgorgements and civil penalties.  The list only includes
settlements for which the distribution plan has received final
approval from the Commission.  Last year brought two of the top 50
SEC settlements, including one in an action against CR Intrinsic
Investors, LLC arising out of claims of alleged insider trading.
The action resulted in a February 2016 approved settlement of over
$601 million, the third largest SEC approved settlement of all
time.  The list also includes a $65 million settlement against
Stanford International Bank Ltd., which came in as the 37th
highest SEC settlement.

Last year's record setting class action and SEC settlements
further exemplify the furious pace of securities litigation and
enforcement actions in 2016, a trend that has continued well into
2017.  It is still a matter of time to see how the pace of
securities litigation will continue this year and into 2018,
particularly in light of proposed changes to key aspects of Dodd-
Frank Act and the confirmation of a new SEC Chair. [GN]




                         *********


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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. 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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *