CAR_Public/170705.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Wednesday, July 5, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 131



                            Headlines

ABM INDUSTRIES: $110-Mil. Settlement of "Augustus" Suit Pending
ABM INDUSTRIES: Sept. 7 Final Fairness Hearing in "Karapetyan"
ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeal from "Bucio" Class Cert. Bid Order Pending
ABM INDUSTRIES: Unit Still Defends Suits on Minimum Wage Issues
AKORN INC: Aug. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Gloveli" Suit in E.D. New York
AMERICAN HONDA: Bid to Dismiss "Gerstle" Suit Partly Denied
AMERICAN SAVINGS: Faces "Moskowitz" Suit in District of Hawaii
ANTHEM INC: Plaintiffs' Counsel Discloses $115MM Class Settlement
ASCENA RETAIL: Justice Pricing Deal Final and Non-Appealable

ASCENA RETAIL: Aug. 7 Hearing Set for "Linares" Suit Settlement
ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Telemaque" Suit in E.D. New York
ASSET RECOVERY: Court Withdraws Motion for Class Certification
AXIOM HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for August 21
BALTIMORE, MD: School Commissioners Lose Bid to Dismiss "Lesser"

BEHR PROCESS: Bishop et al. Seek to Stop DeckOver Products Sales
BEST BUY: Bid for New Certification of Stockholders Class Denied
BIREN J. SHAH: "Botakhanova" Denied Minimum, Overtime Wages
BKUK 3 CORP: "Garcia" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, No Time-keeping
BLUE DIAMOND: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Painter" Class Suit

BOOZ ALLEN: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for August 18
BROADCOM LTD: Class Suits over Brocade Acquisition Still Ongoing
BROADCOM LTD: Combined State Action on Broadcom Merger Dropped
BROADCOM LTD: Appeal from Dismissed Emulex Merger Suit Pending
BROADCOM LTD: Delaware Suit Over PLX Acquisition Underway

CALIBER HOME: Judge Narrows Claims in "Altenburg" Suit
CAPITAL GROUP: Faces "Patterson" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
CASH BIZ: Texas High Court Agrees to Hear Class Action
CENTURYLINK INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
CHUGACH GOVERNMENT: Court Partly Certifies Employee Class

CUYAHOGA COUNTY: Faces "Fitzpatrick" Suit Over Longevity Pay
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Suit Over Incommoding Statue Dismissed
DONALD TRUMP: Could Face New Class Action Over Trump University
DUNKIN' BRANDS: Faces "Chen" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
EDF ENERGY: Lawyers Prepare to File Class Action Over Smart Meters

EMIL FRANC: Faces "Fernandez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Dougherty" Suit
EXPERT GROUP: Seeks Tenth Circuit Review of Ruling in Colony Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Canada Supreme Court Clears Way for BC Suit
FLOWERS FOODS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Soares"

FORD MOTOR: Judge Grants Arbitration Request
FRED'S INC: "Taylor" Class Lawsuit over FACTA Breaches Underway
FRED'S INC: "Wallace" Class Action Suit Still in Discovery Stage
GENERAL ELECTRIC: $9.5MM Class Settlement in "Maddy" Has Final OK
GENERAL MOTORS: Indian Dealers Explore Possibility of Class Action

GREAT AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations
HOME DEPOT: Claims Lumber Sizes Clearly Marked On Website
HOME WARRANTY: Court Rejects Bid to Force Fraud Claims
HOMEAWAY INC: Cal. App. Affirms Demurrer in HRC's Suit
HONDA MOTOR: Denies Knowledge on Faulty Takata Air Bags

HUMANA INC: Court Wants Class Certification Bid Revised
INNOVATE LOGISTICS: Court Grants Default Judgment in "Torres"
J. CREW GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Misrepresented Discounts
JACKSON HEWITT: Discovery Stayed in TCPA Suit
JFE FRANCHISING: "Seong" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime, Backpay

JR MEX-PRODUCTS: Denied "Carreto" Rest Periods, Wage Statements
KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Appeals Ruling in "Senne" Suit to 9th Cir.
KNR LAW: Ohio Top Court Lets County Judge Overseeing CA to Stay
LG ELECTRONICS: "Foley" Dismissed for Failure to Prove Injury
LYFT INC: Can Compel Arbitration in "Applebaum" Suit

MDL 2262: New Britain City, et al. Appeal June 13 Judgment
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON: Kerpen Appeals Ruling to Fourth Circuit
MIDLAND CREDIT: JPML Directed to Remand "Doyle" to New Jersey
MIDLAND CREDIT: MDL Panel Directed to Remand "Canter" to Fla.
MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Kraus" Suit in E.D. New York

NATIONAL WATER: Mass. Resolves Question of Law in Workers' Suit
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Peek Wants Suit to Proceed as Class Action
NEW ZEALAND: Kiwifruit Growers' Class Action Goes to Court
NIC GEORGIOU: Investors' Class Action May Receive Boost
NISSAN NORTH: "Batista" Class Settlement Gets Final Approval

NRG ENERGY: Court Wants Class Cert Bid in "Wilens" Suit Renewed
OCWEN LOAN: Court Defers Certifying Class in "Snyder"
ONEBEACON INSURANCE: Faces "Dickers" Lawsuit Over Intact Merger
OREGON: Judge Reverses Ruling in $1.4BB Timber Class Action
ORLEANS PARISH, LA: "Caliste" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

PERSONNEL STAFFING: Haack Seeks to Certify Fence Installer Class
PYRAMID HEALTHCARE: Court Certifies Background Check Class
R&L CARRIERS: "Robinson" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
RBM GROUP: Faces "Anderson" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Hit with $500MM Suit Over Misuse of Funds

RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Faces "Reyes" Suit in E.D. New York
SAFEWAY INSURANCE: N.M. App. Flips "Ullman" Class Certification
SBKU SERVICES: Faces "Cheng" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
SMARTPAY LEASING: Faces "Esparza" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Verdict in Shale Lawsuit Cuts Plaintiffs in 2

STARWOOD HOTELS: Court Dismisses "Dugas" Data Breach Suit
SUNBEAM CONSUMER: Gorss Motels Files Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Van Dusen" Suit
TESORO REFINING: Court Dismisses Meal Period Claims in "Bonner"
TITLE CASH: Faces Class Action Over Errors on Loan Calculations

TRAEGER PELLET: $2.8MM "Leverage" Class Settlement Has Prelim OK
TRANS-FAST REMITTANCE: Faces "Arboleda" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
TRISTAR RISK: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of "Kizer" Certification
UBER: Drivers Still Want Former CEO on Hook in Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Fights Use of Money from Settlement for Museum

UNITED STATES: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Immigration Suit
UNITED STATES: Court Stays ICE's Removal Orders
UNITED STATES: Gould Appeals Ruling in "Sears" Suit to Fed. Cir.
UNIVERSAL TRAVEL: Attys in Securities Suit Can Recoup $67,552
VERINT SYSTEMS: Appeal on Aug. 2016 Israel Court Ruling Underway

VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: 4MM People Can Sue for Movie Robocall
VIRGINIA, USA: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stinnie" Suit
WALMART CANADA: Lessons in Deal of Photo Centre Data Breach Suits
WAL-MART STORES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Kenny" Suit
WASHINGTON: Dismissal of Suit vs. Licensing Dept. Affirmed

WAUPACA FOUNDRY: 7th Cir. Affirms "Dekeyser" Class Certification
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Appeals Judgment in "Famular" Suit to 2nd Circuit
XPO LOGISTICS: Faces "Mansilla" Suit in Cal. Super. Court

* Lawyers: Pension Funds Must Increase Efforts to Reclaim Damages



                            *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: $110-Mil. Settlement of "Augustus" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated is still awaiting approval of its
subsidiary's US$110 million settlement of the consolidated cases
of Augustus, Hall, and Davis v. American Commercial Security
Services, filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County (the "Augustus case"), according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filed on June 8, 2017 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2017.

The Augustus case is a certified class action involving alleged
violations of certain California state laws relating to rest
breaks.  The case centers on whether requiring security guards to
remain on call during rest breaks violated Section 226.7 of the
California Labor Code.

On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment on the rest break claim, and on July 31, 2012, the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Superior
Court"), entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of
approximately US$89.7 million (the "common fund").  Subsequently,
the Superior Court also awarded plaintiffs' attorneys' fees of
approximately US$4.5 million in addition to approximately 30% of
the common fund.  Under California law, post-judgment interest on
a judgment accrues at a rate of 10% simple interest per year from
the date the judgment is entered until it is satisfied.

The Company appealed the Superior Court's rulings to the Court of
Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District (the
"Appeals Court").

On December 31, 2014, the Appeals Court issued its opinion,
reversing the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and vacating the
award of US$89.7 million in damages and the attorneys' fees award.
The plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the California
Supreme Court on March 4, 2015, and on April 29, 2015, the
California Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' petition.

On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court rendered its
decision, holding that on-call and on-duty rest breaks are
prohibited by California law, and reversed the Appeals Court
judgment on this issue.  The amount of post-judgment interest as
of December 22, 2016 was approximately US$41.2 million.

On February 6, 2017, ABM Security Services, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of ABM Industries Incorporated, entered into a Class
Action Settlement and Release with Plaintiffs Jennifer Augustus,
Delores Hall, Emanuel Davis, and Carlton Anthony Waite, on behalf
of themselves and the settlement class members, to settle the
Augustus case on a class-wide basis for US$110.0 million (the
"Augustus Settlement Agreement").

On March 17, 2017, the Augustus Settlement Agreement was amended
to address certain procedural matters.  The Augustus Settlement
Agreement, as amended, is contingent upon the approval of the
Superior Court.

On April 6, 2017, the Superior Court granted preliminary approval
of the class action settlement.  Notice to the class members was
sent on April 24, 2017 and they have until June 8, 2017 to file
any objections to the settlement.

The Superior Court scheduled a final approval hearing for June 30,
2017.

ABM Industries Incorporated, which operates through its
subsidiaries, is a leading provider of integrated facility
solutions, customized by industry, that enable its clients to
deliver exceptional facilities experiences.  ABM's comprehensive
services include electrical and lighting, energy solutions,
facilities engineering, HVAC and mechanical, janitorial, landscape
and turf, mission critical solutions, and parking, which the
Company provides through stand-alone or integrated solutions.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Sept. 7 Final Fairness Hearing in "Karapetyan"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Vardan Karapetyan v. ABM Industries Incorporated et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08313 (C.D. Cal.), Judge George H Wu entered
on June 12, an order granting preliminary approval of the parties'
settlement.

The deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final Approval
of Settlement and Motion for Additional Attorneys' Fees is Aug. 4,
2017.

A Final Fairness Hearing and Hearing on Class Counsel's Motion for
Additional Attorneys' Fees is Sept. 7, 2017, at 8:30 a.m.

ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q filed on June 8,
2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2017 that its settlement of the
lawsuit captioned Karapetyan v. ABM Industries Incorporated and
ABM Security Services, Inc., filed on October 23, 2015, pending in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (the "Karapetyan case") is contingent on the Court's
final approval.  It is also continent on the final approval by the
Superior Court of the settlement of the consolidated cases of
Augustus, Hall, and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services
pending in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County.

The Karapetyan case is a putative class action in which the
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of security guards who worked
during time periods subsequent to the class period in the Augustus
case.  The plaintiff alleges that ABM violated certain California
state laws relating to meal and rest breaks and other wage and
hour claims.

On January 30, 2017, ABM entered into a Settlement Term Sheet with
plaintiff to settle the case on a class-wide basis for US$5.0
million.

On April 17, 2017, ABM Industries Incorporated, ABM Security
Services, Inc., ABM Onsite Services, Inc., and ABM Onsite Services
- West, Inc.  entered into a Class Action Settlement and Release
with Plaintiff Vardan Karapetyan, on behalf of himself and the
settlement class members, to settle the Karapetyan case (the
"Karapetyan Settlement Agreement") on a class-wide basis for
US$5.0 million.

This settlement is contingent upon the final approval by the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California and the final approval by the Superior Court of the
Augustus Settlement Agreement.

ABM Industries Incorporated, which operates through its
subsidiaries, is a leading provider of integrated facility
solutions, customized by industry, that enable its clients to
deliver exceptional facilities experiences.  ABM's comprehensive
services include electrical and lighting, energy solutions,
facilities engineering, HVAC and mechanical, janitorial, landscape
and turf, mission critical solutions, and parking, which the
Company provides through stand-alone or integrated solutions.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeal from "Bucio" Class Cert. Bid Order Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q filed on June 8,
2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2017, that oral argument relating
to the appeal has not been scheduled.

The consolidated cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial
Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco (the "Bucio case") is a
purported class action involving allegations that the Company
failed to track work time and provide breaks.

On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class.  At the conclusion of that hearing,
the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.

On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider,
which was denied.  The plaintiffs have appealed the class
certification issues.  The trial court stayed the underlying
lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal.

On August 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on
the class certification issues.  The Company filed its responsive
brief on November 15, 2012.

On January 18, 2017, the appeals court invited the parties to file
supplemental letter briefs.  ABM and plaintiffs each filed their
respective supplemental letter briefs with the court on February
8, 2017.

ABM Industries Incorporated, which operates through its
subsidiaries, is a leading provider of integrated facility
solutions, customized by industry, that enable its clients to
deliver exceptional facilities experiences.  ABM's comprehensive
services include electrical and lighting, energy solutions,
facilities engineering, HVAC and mechanical, janitorial, landscape
and turf, mission critical solutions, and parking, which the
Company provides through stand-alone or integrated solutions.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Unit Still Defends Suits on Minimum Wage Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated's subsidiary continues to face
lawsuits initiated by employees and alleging failure to comply
with minimum wage requirement, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on June 8, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2017.

The case captioned Hussein and Hirsi v. Air Serv Corporation filed
on January 20, 2016, pending in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington at Seattle (the "Hussein
case") is a certified class action involving a class of certain
hourly Air Serv employees at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
in SeaTac, Washington.

The plaintiffs allege that Air Serv violated a minimum wage
requirement in an ordinance applicable to certain employers in the
local city of SeaTac ("the Ordinance").  Plaintiffs seek
retroactive wages, double damages, interest, and attorneys' fees.
This matter was removed to federal court.

In a separate lawsuit brought by Filo Foods, LLC, Alaska Airlines,
and several other employers at SeaTac airport, the King County
Superior Court issued a decision that invalidated the Ordinance as
it applied to workers at SeaTac airport.  Subsequently, the
Washington Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's decision.

There are disputes in federal court concerning the legality of the
Ordinance, its applicability to employers at SeaTac airport, and
whether the plaintiffs are entitled to retroactive wages, double
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On February 7, 2017, a new lawsuit styled Abdirizak Isse et al. v.
Air Serv Corporation (the "Isse case"), pending in the Superior
Court of Washington for King County, was filed against Air Serv on
behalf of sixty individual plaintiffs (who would otherwise be
members of the Hussein class) who allege failure to comply with
both the minimum wage provision and the sick and safe time
provision of the Ordinance.  The plaintiffs seek retroactive wages
and sick benefits, double damages for wages and sick benefits,
interest, and attorneys' fees.  The Isse case has since been
expanded to ninety-two individual plaintiffs.

The Company said, "In the event of a judgment against us in the
Hussein case or the Isse case, we intend to seek reimbursement
from our clients."

ABM Industries Incorporated, which operates through its
subsidiaries, is a leading provider of integrated facility
solutions, customized by industry, that enable its clients to
deliver exceptional facilities experiences.  ABM's comprehensive
services include electrical and lighting, energy solutions,
facilities engineering, HVAC and mechanical, janitorial, landscape
and turf, mission critical solutions, and parking, which the
Company provides through stand-alone or integrated solutions.


AKORN INC: Aug. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. has filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
on behalf of holders of Akorn, Inc. common stock in connection
with the proposed transaction pursuant to which Akorn will be
acquired by Fresenius Kabi AG ('Parent) through Parent's wholly-
owned subsidiary, Quercus Acquisition, Inc., announced on April
24, 2017 (the 'Complaint). The Complaint, which alleges violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Akorn, its Board of
Directors (the 'Board), and Fresenius, is captioned Berg v. Akorn,
Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00350-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at [email
protected]/* */, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On April 24, 2017, Akorn entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the 'Merger Agreement) with Fresenius. Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of Akorn will receive $34.00 per
share in cash (the 'Proposed Transaction).

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy
statement (the 'Proxy Statement) filed with the #UnitedStates
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2017. The Complaint
alleges that the Proxy Statement, which recommends that Akorn
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits
material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an
informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction,
including material information with respect to Akorn's financial
projections, the analyses performed by Akorn's financial advisor,
and the background of the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint
seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of
holders of Akorn common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 21, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, regularly prosecutes securities fraud,
shareholder corporate, and shareholder derivative litigation on
behalf of shareholders in state and federal courts throughout the
United States. [GN]


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Gloveli" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate
LLC. The case is captioned as Besarion Gloveli, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Allied Interstate LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03791
(E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2017).

Allied Interstate is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


AMERICAN HONDA: Bid to Dismiss "Gerstle" Suit Partly Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARK GERSTLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-
04384-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss certain Counts in
the Plaintiffs' complaint and request for Judicial Notice.

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the
Defendant on Aug. 3, 2016.  They subsequently filed a first
amended complaint ("FAC") on Oct. 17, 2016, alleging 69 counts
under 11 states' laws related to the defective HFL in their
vehicles.

Generally, Plaintiffs' claims relate to state consumer protection
statutes, fraudulent concealment, breaches of express and implied
warranty pursuant to state and federal laws, and unjust
enrichment.  The Defendant previously filed a motion to transfer
venue, which the Court denied.  The Defendant now moves to dismiss
all of the Plaintiffs' claims brought as a national class, the
Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, most of the Plaintiffs'
claims brought under different statutory laws, and breaches of
contract claims because they are untimely or fail as a matter of
law.

The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the presumption
against extraterritorial application of California law or
California's choice of law rules bars the non-California
Plaintiffs from invoking California law.  The Court also rejected
the Defendant's argument that dismissal of the Plaintiffs' request
for injunctive relief is required because NHTSA has general
authority over the Plaintiffs' claims.

As for tolling, the Plaintiffs' discovery rule and fraudulent
concealment theories are dismissed without prejudice for failing
to sufficiently allege the additional requirements to toll any
statute of limitations based on fraudulent concealment, while the
equitable estoppel theory is dismissed with prejudice concluding
that the statute of limitations cannot be tolled based on estoppel
and will not permit amendment of this tolling theory.

The Court denied the Defendant's motion, however, with respect to
the Plaintiffs' affirmative claims of fraudulent concealment as
the Plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment claims do not fail as a
matter of law.

Except for Plaintiff Kelly, the Plaintiffs' California Legal
Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law claims are dismissed
without prejudice as the Plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded
those bases for tolling.

The Plaintiffs' Delaware, Kansas, New Hampshire, Virginia, Texas,
and Florida consumer protection claims are dismissed without
prejudice because their (i) Delaware, Kansas, New Hampshire claims
failed to adequately allege any applicable theory to toll the
statute of limitations, the Court finds that their claims are
untimely; (ii) Virginia and Texas claim claims failed to properly
allege a theory to toll the statute of limitations for their
claims; and their Florida claims are based on fraudulent
concealment but not based on the delayed discovery rule.

The consumer protection claim under Ohio is dismissed with
prejudice because the Plaintiffs failed to properly allege a
theory to toll the statute of limitations for their claims.

With the exception of California claims based on used cars, which
is timely, the Plaintiffs' implied warranty claims under
California, Delaware, Kansas, New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas,
Virginia, and Florida law are dismissed without prejudice because
their claims are untimely under their respective state laws
governing the statutes of limitation for implied warranties.  The
same is true for the Plaintiffs' express warranty and Magnuson-
Moss Warranty claims.

The Plaintiffs' New York implied warranty claim does not fail for
lack of privity.  The Court granted the motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims with prejudice.  The
Plaintiffs appear to be attempting to describe an exception to the
valid express contract rule, but cite no authority to support the
exception.

Finally, the Court granted the motion to dismiss all claims
brought pursuant to Missouri and North Carolina law without
prejudice.  The Plaintiffs concede that they are not attempting to
pursue an alternative North Carolina class.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/z8Z4Vj from Leagle.com.

Mark Gerstle, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Gannon --
catherineg@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice.

Mark Gerstle, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher A. Seeger --
cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel
R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes
-- dfernandes@baronbudd.com  -- Baron & Budd, P.C., James E.
Cecchi -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein
Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller &
Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor -- LTaylor@carellabyrne.com --
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip
Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K.
Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, Stephen A. Weiss -- sweiss@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Shana E. Scarlett --
shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Yun-Fei Lou, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Arpan Srivastava, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro
hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E.
Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James
C. Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip
Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C.,
Scott Alan George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A.
Weiss, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Lindsey Aberin, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro
hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E.
Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James
C. Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip
Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C.,
Scott Alan George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A.
Weiss, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Don Awtrey, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Daniel Criner, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

John Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Jordan Moss, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Donald Tran, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Melissa Yeung, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Livia M. Kiser -- LKISER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Andrew
Jacob Chinsky -- ACHINSKY@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac
vice, Eric B. Scwartz -- ESCHWARTZ@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP
& Michael Christian Andolina -- MANDOLINA@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley
Austin LLP, pro hac vice.


AMERICAN SAVINGS: Faces "Moskowitz" Suit in District of Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Savings
Bank, F.S.B. The case is styled as Craig Moskowitz, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
American Savings Bank, F.S.B., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00299-KSC-NONE (D. Haw., June 23, 2017). The case is assigned to
the Hon. Magistrate Judge Kevin S.C. Chang.[BN]

American Savings is Hawaii's third-largest financial institution,
with assets of $6.7 billion. A subsidiary of Hawaiian Electric
Industries, it is headed by Chairman Constance Lau.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin A. Brackett, Esq.
          1888 Kalakaua Avenue, Suite C-312
          Honolulu, HI 96815
          Telephone: (808) 377 6778
          E-mail: debtdisputetn@gmail.com


ANTHEM INC: Plaintiffs' Counsel Discloses $115MM Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
over the 2015 cyberattack of health insurer Anthem, Inc.,
involving the theft of the personal information of 78.8 million
people. The $115 million settlement, if approved by the Court,
will be the largest data breach settlement in history. Attorneys
from Altshuler Berzon, Cohen Milstein, Girard Gibbs, and Lieff
Cabraser were court-appointed to lead the representation of the
plaintiffs in the litigation.

The proposed settlement provides for Anthem to establish a $115
million settlement fund, which will be used to 1) provide victims
of the data breach at least two years of credit monitoring; 2)
cover out-of-pocket expenses incurred by consumers as a result of
the data breach; and 3) provide cash compensation for those
consumers who are already enrolled in credit monitoring. In
addition to the monetary fund, the settlement will require Anthem
to guarantee a certain level of funding for information security
and to implement or maintain numerous specific changes to its data
security systems, including encryption of certain information and
archiving sensitive data with strict access controls. The
settlement is designed to protect class members from future risk,
provide compensation, and ensure best cybersecurity practices to
deter against future data breaches.

"After two years of intensive litigation and hard work by the
parties, we are pleased that consumers who were affected by this
data breach will be protected going forward and compensated for
past losses," said Eve Cervantez, co-lead counsel representing the
plaintiffs in the Anthem litigation.

"We are very satisfied that the settlement is a great result for
those affected and look forward to working through the settlement
approval process," added Andrew Friedman, co-lead plaintiffs'
counsel.

In early 2015, Anthem acknowledged that it had been the target of
a cyberattack, in which the personal information of 78.8 million
individuals was stolen, including, for many of those individuals:
names, dates of birth, social security numbers, and health care ID
numbers.

Over 100 lawsuits were filed against Anthem across the country and
the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California before Judge Lucy Koh, who
appointed Eve Cervantez and Andrew Friedman as Co-Lead Plaintiffs'
Counsel, and Eric Gibbs and Michael Sobol to the Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee.

A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed by
the Plaintiffs. Judge Koh is scheduled to hear Plaintiffs' motion
on August 17, 2017. If granted, the class members will be notified
about the details of the settlement, and invited to participate in
and comment on the settlement. For additional updates and
information about the lawsuit and settlement, please visit the
Anthem Data Breach Litigation Website.

         Eileen Epstein
         Girard Gibbs LLP
         Tel: 510-350-9728
         E-mail: eje@classlawgroup.com
         [GN]


ASCENA RETAIL: Justice Pricing Deal Final and Non-Appealable
------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 29, 2017, that its settlement
agreement in the Justice Pricing Litigation is "now final and non-
appealable" following a court-ordered mediation session held on
March 24, 2017.  The United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania's approval of the settlement was
previously appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

The Company is a defendant in a number of class action lawsuits
that allege that Justice's promotional practices violated state
comparative pricing laws in connection with advertisements
promoting a 40% discount.  The plaintiffs further allege false
advertising, violation of state consumer protection statutes,
breach of contract, breach of express warranty and unfair benefit
to Justice.  The plaintiffs seek to stop Justice's allegedly
unlawful practice and obtain damages for Justice's customers in
the named states.  They also seek interest and legal fees.

In July 2015, an agreement was reached with the plaintiffs in the
Rougvie case to settle the lawsuits on a class basis with all
Justice customers who made purchases between January 1, 2012 and
February 28, 2015 for approximately US$51 million, including
payments to members of the class, payment of legal fees and
expenses of settlement administration.  As a result, the Company
established a reserve for approximately US$51 million during
Fiscal 2015.

The proposed Settlement Agreement was filed with the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
preliminary approval on September 24, 2015 and received
preliminary approval by the court on October 27, 2015.  The
Company paid approximately US$51 million representing the agreed
settlement amount into an escrow account on November 16, 2015.
Formal notice of settlement was sent to the class members on
December 1, 2015.  The final approval hearing was held on May 20,
2016, and on July 29, 2016, the Court granted the parties' joint
motion for final approval of settlement and dismissed the case
with prejudice.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected
virtually all of the objections to the settlement that had been
raised, but did reduce the amount of attorneys' fees to be paid to
plaintiffs' counsel, which will not affect the total amount of the
settlement.

The Court's decision was appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.  After a court-ordered mediation
session held on March 24, 2017, the appeals were withdrawn and
dismissed with prejudice.  The Settlement Agreement is now final
and non-appealable, and it resolves all claims in all of the
outstanding class actions on behalf of customers who made
purchases between January 1, 2012 and February 28, 2015.

Potential claims related to purchases made in 2010 and 2011 have
been raised and it is possible that individual class members who
excluded themselves from the settlement may seek to pursue their
own individual or class claims not subject to the broader
settlement.

Ascena Retail said, "The Company believes it has strong defenses
to any such claims and is prepared to defend against them.  The
Company believes that the liability associated with any such
claims would not be material.  If the matters described herein do
not occur and the pricing lawsuits are not finally resolved, the
ultimate resolution of these matters may or may not result in an
additional material loss, which cannot be reasonably estimated at
this time."

Ascena Retail Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of apparel, shoes, and accessories for women
and tween girls in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico.  It
operates through six segments: ANN, Justice, Lane Bryant,
maurices, dressbarn, and Catherines.  The Company was formerly
known as Dress Barn, Inc.  and changed its name to Ascena Retail
Group, Inc. in January 2011.  Ascena Retail Group, Inc.  was
founded in 1962 and is based in Mahwah, New Jersey.


ASCENA RETAIL: Aug. 7 Hearing Set for "Linares" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
June 8, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 29, 2017, that the final approval
hearing of a settlement agreement in the case, Steven Linares v.
ANN INC., is scheduled for August 7, 2017.

On December 29, 2015, plaintiff, Steven Linares, a former ANN
sales associate, filed a class action complaint on behalf of all
sales leads, sales associates and stock associates working in
California from December 29, 2011 through the present, in Los
Angeles County Superior Court.  Plaintiff alleges on behalf of the
class that ANN did not properly provide overtime pay, minimum wage
pay, meal and rest breaks, and waiting time pay, among other
claims under the California Business and Professions Code and
California Labor Code.

At mediation, the parties agreed to settle all claims in the suit
for a total of US$3.5 million to settle both the pending claims
and other wage-and-hour claims that could have been brought as
part of the lawsuit (including claims for penalties under the
Private Attorneys' General Act).  The Company believes that such
amount reflects a liability that is both probable and reasonably
estimable, thus a reserve for approximately US$3.5 million was
established in the first quarter of Fiscal 2017.  The parties
executed a formal Joint Stipulation for Class Action Settlement
and Release, dated February 6, 2017.

The Joint Stipulation for Class Action Settlement and Release was
preliminarily approved by the Court on April 25, 2017.  The final
approval hearing is scheduled for August 7, 2017.

Ascena Retail Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of apparel, shoes, and accessories for women
and tween girls in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico.  It
operates through six segments: ANN, Justice, Lane Bryant,
maurices, dressbarn, and Catherines.  The Company was formerly
known as Dress Barn, Inc.  and changed its name to Ascena Retail
Group, Inc. in January 2011.  Ascena Retail Group, Inc.  was
founded in 1962 and is based in Mahwah, New Jersey.


ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Telemaque" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is titled as Marie Telemaque, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03789 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2017).

Asset Recovery is a full service asset recovery management company
that is committed to establishing unmatched standards of
performance.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ASSET RECOVERY: Court Withdraws Motion for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Stephen Guthrie, the Plaintiff, v. Asset
Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
10689 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman entered an
order withdrawing a motion to certify class.

A status hearing was held on June 27, 2017.  According to the
docket entry made by the Clerk on June 27, another Status hearing
is set for July 6, 2017.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yJqD3hmb


AXIOM HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for August 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Axiom Holdings, Inc.
("Axiom" or the "Company") (OTCMKT: AIOM) securities and certain
of its officers, on behalf of a class who purchased Axiom
securities between October 14, 2016 and June 19 2017, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/aiom.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

On October 10, 2016, Axiom Holdings, Inc. entered a Share Exchange
Agreement (the "Agreement") with CJC Holdings, Ltd. (and its
subsidiaries, "CJC"), a Hong Kong corporation, and the two
shareholders of CJC, Hu Dengyang and Yang Chuan (collectively, the
"CJC Shareholders"). CJC and its subsidiaries run multiple
hydropower electric generation stations and operate two hotels in
China.

Pursuant to the Agreement, Axiom was to procure all of CJC's
issued and outstanding shares from the CJC Shareholders in
exchange for the issuance of 200,000,000 shares of Axiom common
stock.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Axiom, lacked control over the merger process sufficient to ensure
that the Agreement with CJC would be completed; (2) as a result,
the Agreement with CJC was never completed; (3) Axiom's issuance
of shares to the CJC Shareholders was thus improper; and (4)
consequently, Axiom's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On June 19, 2017, Axiom revealed that it had identified
discrepancies connected to prior news releases following a
subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Specifically, Axiom disclosed: (1) issues relating to the
propriety of Axiom's December 2016 share exchange with CJC
Holdings, Ltd. ("CJC"), under which Axiom acquired all CJC's
outstanding shares; and (2) that the purported Chief Executive
Officer of CJC, who signed the share exchange agreement in
December 2016, had resigned from that role a month earlier. The
next day, Axiom advised investors that "it now appears the merger
was never completed" and that it would rescind the shares that
were issued to the CJC Shareholders in connection with the merger.
Following these revelations, Axiom stock dropped $0.44 per share,
or 37.93% over two trading days, to close at $0.72 on June 20,
2017.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/aiom or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Axiom's
you have until August 21, 2017 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. [GN]


BALTIMORE, MD: School Commissioners Lose Bid to Dismiss "Lesser"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James K. Bredar of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland denied defendant's motion to dismiss the case LORYN
LESSER, Plaintiff, v. BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF SCHOOL
COMMISSIONERS, Defendant, Civil No. JKB-17-046 (D. Md.).

Loryn Lesser was employed by the Baltimore City Board of School
Commissioners as a student support liaison beginning on August 1,
2011. On August 4, 2013, Lesser suffered a head injury. She
subsequently informed the City Board of her medical condition and
her need to undergo surgery. Despite Lesser's physician clearing
her to return to work beginning on January 21, 2014, the City
Board required Lesser to undergo a psychological fitness-for-duty
evaluation by its own medical professional. Subsequent to an
examination that Lesser alleges was incompletely and/or improperly
conducted, the City Board refused to permit Lesser to return to
her previous position and ultimately terminated her employment in
August of 2016.

Lesser brought a case against her former employer, alleging
interference under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) (Count I),
retaliation under the FMLA (Count II), and discrimination under
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Count III).

Her Amended Complaint indicates that she expects to seek class
certification on Counts I and III. The Amended Complaint alleges
that: Defendant willfully violated the FMLA by ordering plaintiff
to take a fitness for duty examination that did not comply with
FMLA regulations, refusing to pay plaintiff after she was released
to return to work on February 18, 2014, and terminating her
employment following her attempt to exercise her rights under the
FMLA. Defendant's violations of plaintiff's FMLA rights were not
done in good faith and defendant did not have reasonable grounds
for believing that their acts or omissions were not a violation of
Section 2615 of the FMLA.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), defendant
moved to dismiss the class action portions of the amended
complaint, and has filed an answer to plaintiff's other
allegations.

Judge Bredar held that the amended complaint does not allege fraud
or mistake, and its allegation of the willfulness with which
defendant violated the FMLA meets the general pleading requirement
for mental states under Rule 9(b). To the extent that defendant's
motion to dismiss challenges the sufficiency with which the
amended complaint alleges facts showing willfulness, the motion is
denied. Defendant shall file a consolidated answer to the amended
complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(a)(4)(A).

A copy of Judge Bredar's memorandum and order dated June 26, 2017,
is available at https://goo.gl/Dyrr1k from Leagle.com.

Loryn Lesser, Plaintiff, represented by Devan Michael Wae Wang --
dw@joblaws.net -- by Richard P. Neuworth -- rn@joblaws.net -- at
Lebau and Neuworth LLC

Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners, Defendant,
represented by Amanda L. Costley -- at Baltimore City Public
Schools; Tamal Ajani Banton -- at Office of Legal Counsel


BEHR PROCESS: Bishop et al. Seek to Stop DeckOver Products Sales
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN BISHOP, NANCY GRAF, JEANNE HAMAN, TOM PAUL, and MARK
SUMPTER, individually and on behalf of the putative class,
Plaintiffs, v. BEHR PROCESS CORP., a California corporation, THE
HOME DEPOT, INC., a Delaware corporation, and HOME DEPOT
U.S.A., INC. a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
04464 (N.D. Ill., June 13, 2017), seeks to halt the alleged
unlawful sales and marketing of a line of deck resurfacing
products, DeckOver, as a "premium" product and a superior
alternative to traditional paints and stains.  The product
allegedly does not live up to its promises.

Defendant Behr Process Corp. is a supplier of paint and exterior
wood care products to the United States and Canadian do-it-
yourself markets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Katrina Carroll, Esq.
     Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
     Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
     211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: (312) 750-1265
     E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
             kshamberg@litedepalma.com
             isalam@litedepalma.com


BEST BUY: Bid for New Certification of Stockholders Class Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donovan W. Frank denied the plaintiffs' request to file a
new motion for class certification in the case captioned IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund, Marion Haynes, and Rene LeBlanc,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Best Buy Co., Inc.; Brian J. Dunn; Jim Muehlbauer;
and Mike Vitelli, Defendants, Civil No. 11-429 (D. Minn.).

The plaintiffs are stockholders of Best Buy Co., Inc. who filed
suit against Best Buy for securities fraud based on alleged
misstatement in Best Buy's September 14, 2010 press release and
conference call.  The plaintiffs also sought to represent a class
of stockholders who were injured.

The case was remanded from the Eighth Circuit's reversal of the
District Court's order certifying the class.  The Eighth Circuit
did not reverse the order granting certification based on an issue
of discovery.  Instead, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the
September 14 conference call had no price impact, based in part on
the plaintiffs' own expert.

The plaintiffs sought permission to file a new motion for class
certification and to use a different expert who will opine that
the conference call produced the price impact.

Judge Frank held that because the Eighth Circuit found that the
plaintiffs failed to show price impact, the plaintiffs will have
to proceed with traditional evidence of reliance.  The judge
explained that the plaintiffs will have to show that they heard
the September 14 conference call and bought or sold the stock
because of the call.  Judge Frank opined that this individualized
inquiry is not suitable for a class action.

A full-text copy of Judge Frank's June 23, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/mURSdr from Leagle.com.

IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Aelish M.
Baig -- aelishb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Clayton D. Halunen -- halunen@halunenlaw.com --
Halunen Law, Daniel J. Pfefferbaum -- dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Darren J. Robbins
-- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- David C. Walton -- davew@rgrdlaw.com --
Kenneth J. Black -- kennyb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Melissa W. Wolchansky --
wolchansky@halunenlaw.com -- Halunen Law, Shawn J. Wanta --
sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP,
Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Steven F. Marino -- smarino@marinoassociates.net --
Vernon J. Vander Weide -- vjvanderweide@locklaw.com -- Lockridge
Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Marion Haynes, Plaintiff, represented by Aelish M. Baig, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Clayton D. Halunen,
Halunen Law, Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Kenneth J. Black, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Melissa W. Wolchansky, Halunen Law, Shawn J. Wanta, Baillon
Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP & Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Rene LeBlanc, Plaintiff, represented by Adrienne O. Bell, Clayton
D. Halunen, Halunen Law, D. Seamus Kaskela -- skaskela@ktmc.com --
Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, David
M. Promisloff, Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro
hac vice, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. --
g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield &
Shawn J. Wanta, Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP.

Best Buy Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Stujenske
-- dstujenske@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro
hac vice, Eric J. Magnuson -- emagnuson@robinskaplan.com -- Robins
Kaplan LLP, George S. Wang -- gwang@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher
& Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Jan M. Conlin --
jmc@ciresiconlin.com -- Ciresi Conlin LLP, Jeffrey Sullivan
Gleason -- jgleason@robinskaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP, Joseph
M. McLaughlin -- jmclaughlin@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Michael V. Ciresi --
mvc@ciresiconlin.com -- Ciresi Conlin LLP, Nicole S. Frank --
nfrank@robinskaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP & Stephen P.
Safranski -- ssafranski@robinskaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP.

Brian J Dunn, Jim Muehlbauer, Mike Vitelli, Defendants,
represented by Eric J. Magnuson, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jan M. Conlin,
Ciresi Conlin LLP, Jeffrey Sullivan Gleason, Robins Kaplan LLP,
Joseph M. McLaughlin, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Michael V.
Ciresi, Ciresi Conlin LLP, Nicole S. Frank, Robins Kaplan LLP &
Stephen P. Safranski, Robins Kaplan LLP.


BIREN J. SHAH: "Botakhanova" Denied Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leila Botakhanova, Yulia Gradoboeva and Inga Dolgova, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Biren J. Shah, Edison Management Co. LLC, 237 West 54 Owner LLC,
HHLP Duo Three Lessee LLC, Patel Khanbudhai, New Generation
Management Corp., Wolcott Hotel Co., S&G Hotel Corp., Eros
Management & Realty LLC, The Shoreham LLC, Alphonse Hotel Corp.,
RPH Hotels 51 Street Owner LLC, HHLP 52 Lessee LLC, Executive Le
Soleil New York LLC, Brisam Management DE LLC, 228 West 47 Street
John/Jane Doe, 228 West 47 Street XYZ Corp., 237 West 54 Street
John/Jane Doe, 237 West 54 Street XYZ Corp., 343 West 39 Street
John/Jane Doe, 343 West 39 Street XYZ Corp., 18 West 25 Street
John/Jane Doe, 18 West 25 Street XYZ Corp., 17 West 32 Street
John/Jane Doe, 17 West 32 Street XYZ Corp., 4 West 31 Street
John/Jane Doe, 4 West 31 Street XYZ Corp., 109 West 45 Street
John/Jane Doe, 109 West 45 Street XYZ Corp., 345 West 35 Street
John/Jane Doe, 345 West 35 Street XYZ Corp., 33 West 55 Street
John/Jane Doe, 33 West 55 Street XYZ Corp., 250 West 43 Street
John/Jane Doe, 250 West 43 Street XYZ Corp., 851 Eighth Avenue
John/Jane Doe, 851 Eighth Avenue XYZ Corp., 206 East 52 Street
John/Jane Doe, 206 West 52 Street XYZ Corp., 38 West 36 Street
John/Jane Doe, 38 West 36 Street XYZ Corp., 232 West 39 Street
John/Jane Doe, 232 West 39 Street XYZ Corp., Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-04296 (S.D. N.Y., June 6, 2017), seeks minimum wages,
overtime compensation and "spread of hours" pay due, liquidated
and statutory damages prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses incurred in litigating this matter together
with reasonable attorneys' fees and such other and further relief
under the Fair Labor Standard Act and New York Labor Laws.

Biren J. Shah is a provider of transportation and concierge and
staffing services where Plaintiffs worked as a concierge.
Individually, Defendants are establishments that employed
Plaintiff at certain times under Shah. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vano Haroutunian, Esq.
      729 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone (212) 575-7900
      Facsimile (212) 764-5060
      E-mail: vharoutunian@ballonstoll.com


BKUK 3 CORP: "Garcia" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, No Time-keeping
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santos Rodriguez Garcia, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BKUK 3 Corp. (d/b/a La Carbonara
Restaurant), BKUK 8 Corp. (d/b/a Serenata), BKUK 9 Corp. (d/b/a
Limon Jungle), B&R Sorrento Corp. (d/b/a Intermezzo), Besim Kukaj
and John Doe, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04385, (S.D. N.Y., June
9, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, spread of
hours premium, applicable liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants jointly own a La Carbonara, Serenata, Limon Jungle and
Intermezzo restaurant in New York City, where Rodriguez worked as
a delivery worker at Defendants' restaurants but usually performed
dishwashing, taking out the garbage and boxes, cleaning shrimp,
helping the food preparer, preparing salads, stocking, fixing
lights, plumbing, and making sauces, usually without appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he
worked over 40 in a week. He alleges that Defendants also failed
to maintain accurate recordkeeping. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE DIAMOND: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Painter" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Cynthia Cardarelli Painter filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Cynthia Painter v. Blue Diamond
Growers, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02235-SVW-AJW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

The appellate case is captioned as Cynthia Painter v. Blue Diamond
Growers, et al., Case No. 17-55901, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Cynthia Cardarelli Painter's opening brief is due
      on November 30, 2017;

   -- Appellees Blue Diamond Growers and Does' answering brief is
      due on January 2, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CYNTHIA CARDARELLI PAINTER, individually and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: glenn.danas@capstonelawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, a California corporation,
is represented by:

          Lawrence Michael Cirelli, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
          E-mail: lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey Pittman, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7057
          E-mail: gpittman@mofo.com


BOOZ ALLEN: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for August 18
---------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody ("SS&B") announces that a class action
lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of persons who purchased or
acquired shares of Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation ("Booz
Allen" or the "Company") (NYSE:BAH) between May 19, 2016, and June
15, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased Company
securities during the Class Period you apply to be lead plaintiff
by August 18, 2017.

SS&B is also investigating whether Company directors or executives
were breached fiduciary duties to Company, causing the Company
expose itself to harm to help insiders.  If you held Booz Allen
stock before the Class Period and continue to hold it, you may be
eligible to bring an action on behalf of the Company.

The Complaint alleges that although substantially all of the
Company's revenue is from the government, during the Class Period
Booz Allen and certain of its executives made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) its
accounting and indirect cost charging practices with the U.S.
government were improper; (2) the Company had material weaknesses
in its internal controls; and (3) public statements about the
Company's business, operations, and financial results were
materially false and misleading.

On June 15, 2017, Booz Allen disclosed that the Department of
Justice is investigating its cost accounting and indirect cost
charging practices with the U.S. government.

If you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael J.
Klein, Esq. at SS&B at BAH@ssbny.com, 1-800-337-4983 x147, by fax
to 212-490-2022, or by writing to 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY
10017.

SS&B has litigated class actions for violations of securities laws
and breaches of fiduciary duty on behalf of defrauded investors
over the past 40 years and has obtained court approval of
substantial settlements on numerous occasions.  SS&B has offices
in New York and Beverly Hills.  SS&B's website (www.ssbny.com) has
additional information about the firm. [GN]


BROADCOM LTD: Class Suits over Brocade Acquisition Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Limited continues to defend itself against lawsuits
related to its acquisition of Brocade Communications Systems,
Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on June 8, 2017
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2017.

On November 2, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger by and among Broadcom Communications, Broadcom
Corporation (BRCM), Brocade, a Delaware corporation, or Brocade,
and Bobcat Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct
wholly owned subsidiary of BRCM, or Merger Sub.  On December 18,
2016, BRCM assigned all of its rights and obligations under the
Brocade Agreement and transferred all of the issued and
outstanding capital stock of Merger Sub to LSI Corporation, or
LSI. The Brocade Agreement provides that, upon the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge
with and into Brocade with Brocade as the surviving corporation,
or the Brocade Acquisition. As a result of the Brocade
Acquisition, Brocade will become an indirect subsidiary of
Broadcom and the Partnership.

On December 13, 2016, December 15, 2016, December 21, 2016,
January 5, 2017 and January 18, 2017, six putative class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, or the U.S. Northern District
Court, captioned Steinberg v. Brocade Communications Systems,
Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-7081-EMC, Gross v. Brocade
Communications Systems, Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-7173-EJD, Jha v.
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-7270-
HRL, Bragan v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al., No.
3:16-cv-7271-JSD, Chuakay v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.,
et al., No. 3:17-cv-0058-PJH, and Mathew v. Brocade Communications
Systems, Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-7271-HSG, respectively.  The
Steinberg, Bragan and Mathew complaints name as defendants
Brocade, the members of Brocade's board of directors, Broadcom,
BRCM, and Merger Sub.  The Gross, Jha and Chuakay complaints name
as defendants Brocade and the members of Brocade's board of
directors.

All of the complaints assert claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.  The
complaints allege, among other things, that the board of directors
of Brocade failed to provide material information and/or omitted
material information from the Preliminary Proxy Statement filed
with the SEC on December 6, 2016 by Brocade.  The complaints seek
to enjoin the closing of the transaction between Brocade and
Broadcom, as well as certain other equitable and declaratory
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2017, January 27, 2017 and February 15, 2017, the
U.S. Northern District Court granted motions to relate the cases,
all of which are now related to the Steinberg action and before
the Honorable Judge Edward Chen.  On January 11, 2017, Plaintiff
Jha filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which was
subsequently withdrawn on January 18, 2017.

On February 6, 2017, Plaintiff Gross voluntarily dismissed the
Gross action without prejudice, which was ordered by the U.S.
Northern District Court on February 15, 2017.

On April 14, 2017, the U.S. Northern District Court granted the
Motion for Consolidation, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and
Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel filed by
Plaintiff Giulio D. Cessario, a plaintiff in the Steinberg action,
which consolidated these actions under the caption In re Brocade
Communications Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:16-
cv-07081-EMC.

The Company said, "We believe these claims are all entirely
without merit and intend to vigorously defend these actions."

Broadcom Limited is a designer, developer and global supplier of a
broad range of semiconductor devices with a focus on complex
digital and mixed signal complementary metal oxide semiconductor
based devices and analog III-V based products.  The Company has
four reportable segments: wired infrastructure, wireless
communications, enterprise storage and industrial & other, which
align with the Company's principal target markets.


BROADCOM LTD: Combined State Action on Broadcom Merger Dropped
--------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on June 8, 2017
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2017, that a consolidated state action
arising from the Broadcom Merger has been dismissed, following
final approval of a settlement resolving a related consolidated
lawsuit in federal court.

Since the announcement of the Broadcom Merger, 11 putative class
action complaints have been filed by and purportedly on behalf of
alleged BRCM shareholders.

Two putative class action complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, or
the U.S. Central District Court, captioned: Wytas, et al. v.
McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00979, filed on June 18, 2015;
and Yassian, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01303,
filed on August 15, 2015, or the Federal Actions.  On September 2,
2015, plaintiffs in the Wytas, et al. v. McGregor, et al. matter
filed an amended complaint adding claims under the U.S. federal
securities laws.

One putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned
Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-281353, filed June
2, 2015.

Eight putative class action complaints were filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Orange, captioned: Xu
v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790689-CU-SL-CXC,
filed June 1, 2015; Freed v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00790699-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015; N.J.  Building
Laborers Statewide Pension Fund v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00791484-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015; Yiu v. Broadcom
Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791490-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4,
2015; Yiu, et al. v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-
00791762-CU-BT-CXC, filed June 5, 2015; Yassian, et al. v.
McGregor, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00793360-CU-SL-CXC, filed June
15, 2015; Seafarers' Pension Plan v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00794492-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 19, 2015; and Engel v.
Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00797343-CU-SL-CXC, filed
on July 2, 2015 (together with Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., the
State Actions).

The Federal Actions and State Actions name as defendants, among
other parties, BRCM, members of BRCM's board of directors and
Avago, and allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary
duties and aiding and abetting those alleged breaches.
Additionally, the Federal Actions allege violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14-a9.

On August 14, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange, issued an order coordinating and consolidating
the State Actions, captioned Broadcom Shareholder Cases, JCCP
4834.

On September 18, 2015, the U.S. Central District Court
consolidated the Federal Actions under the caption In re Broadcom
Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 8:15-cv-00979.

On September 25, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Orange, stayed the State Actions pending the
outcome of the Federal Actions.

On October 28, 2015, BRCM supplemented its disclosures, and filed
additional proxy materials with the SEC.  On November 10, 2015,
BRCM shareholders voted to approve the Broadcom Merger.  On
November 16, 2015, the U.S. Central District Court appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel in the Federal Actions.

On January 15, 2016, lead plaintiffs in the Federal Actions filed
a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, or the
Federal Consolidated Complaint, which names as defendants, among
other parties, members of BRCM's board of directors and Avago, and
alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting those
alleged breaches, as well as violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14-a9.

On February 1, 2016, the Company completed the acquisition of
BRCM.

On September 23, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, or the Stipulation, which
has been filed with the U.S. Central District Court.  Pursuant to
the Stipulation, BRCM agreed to confirm certain facts concerning
the Broadcom Merger.  Additionally, defendants agreed to pay or
cause to be paid attorneys' fees and expenses as may be awarded by
the U.S. Central District Court to plaintiffs' counsel for their
efforts in prosecuting the litigation, as well as the costs of
administering the settlement.  The Stipulation provides that the
settlement is subject to certain conditions, including final
approval of the settlement and final certification of a settlement
class by the U.S. Central District Court.  The Stipulation
includes a release of all claims against defendants relating to or
arising from the litigation.

On December 2, 2016, the U.S. Central District Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement.

On February 27, 2017, the U.S. Central District Court granted
final approval of the settlement.  The settlement did not have an
impact on the Company's financial statements.

On March 16, 2017, the State Actions were dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to the settlement.

The Company said, "We believe that the claims in the litigation,
including the Federal Consolidated Complaint, were without merit
and that no misconduct or damages occurred.  Defendants entered
into the settlement to eliminate the burden, distraction, and
expense of further litigation."

Broadcom Limited is a designer, developer and global supplier of a
broad range of semiconductor devices with a focus on complex
digital and mixed signal complementary metal oxide semiconductor
based devices and analog III-V based products.  The Company has
four reportable segments: wired infrastructure, wireless
communications, enterprise storage and industrial & other, which
align with the Company's principal target markets.


BROADCOM LTD: Appeal from Dismissed Emulex Merger Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Limited said in its Form 10-Q filed on June 8, 2017 with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2017, that the date of any oral argument on
the appeal from the dismissal of a lawsuit arising from the
Company's acquisition of Emulex Corporation has not been
determined.

On March 3, 2015, two putative shareholder class action complaints
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, or
the Delaware Court of Chancery, against Emulex, its directors,
Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., or AT
Wireless, and Emerald Merger Sub, Inc., or Emerald Merger Sub,
captioned as follows: James Tullman v. Emulex Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 10743-VCL (Del. Ch.); Moshe Silver ACF/Yehudit Silver
U/NY/UTMA v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10744-VCL (Del.
Ch.).

On March 11, 2015, a third complaint was filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, captioned Hoai Vu v. Emulex Corporation, et
al., Case No. 10776-VCL (Del. Ch.).

The complaints alleged, among other things, that Emulex's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 25, 2015, by and
among AT Wireless, Emerald Merger Sub and Emulex and that AT
Wireless and Emerald Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The complaints sought, among other
things, either to enjoin the transaction or to rescind it
following its completion, as well as damages, including attorneys'
and experts' fees.

The Delaware Court of Chancery has entered an order consolidating
the three Delaware actions under the caption In re Emulex
Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10743-
VCL.

On May 5, 2015, the Company completed its acquisition of Emulex.

On June 5, 2015, the Court of Chancery dismissed the consolidated
action without prejudice.

On April 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. Central District Court, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al.
v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG.  The
complaint names as defendants Emulex, its directors, AT Wireless
and Emerald Merger Sub, and purported to assert claims under
Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
complaint alleged, among other things, that the board of directors
of Emulex failed to provide material information and/or omitted
material information from the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on April 7, 2015 by
Emulex, together with the exhibits and annexes thereto.  The
complaint sought to enjoin the tender offer to purchase all of the
outstanding shares of Emulex common stock, as well as certain
other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 28, 2015, the U.S. Central District Court issued an order
appointing the lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel for the
putative class.  On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint seeking rescission of the merger, unspecified
money damages, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On October 13, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the first amended
complaint, which the U.S. Central District Court granted with
prejudice on January 13, 2016.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit Court, on
January 15, 2016.  The appeal is captioned Gary Varjabedian, et
al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 16-55088.

On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff-Appellant filed his opening brief,
on August 17 and August 22, 2016, the Defendants-Appellees filed
their answering briefs, and on October 5, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellant
filed his reply brief.

The date of any oral argument has not been determined at this
time.

Broadcom Limited is a designer, developer and global supplier of a
broad range of semiconductor devices with a focus on complex
digital and mixed signal complementary metal oxide semiconductor
based devices and analog III-V based products.  The Company has
four reportable segments: wired infrastructure, wireless
communications, enterprise storage and industrial & other, which
align with the Company's principal target markets.


BROADCOM LTD: Delaware Suit Over PLX Acquisition Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware class litigation related to Broadcom Limited's
acquisition of PLX Technology, Inc. is still pending, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filed on June 8, 2017 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2017.

In June and July 2014, four lawsuits were filed in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara, or the
Superior Court, challenging the Company's acquisition of PLX.  On
July 22, 2014, the Superior Court consolidated these California
actions under the caption In re PLX Technology, Inc. S'holder
Litig., Lead Case No. 1-14-CV-267079 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa
Clara) and appointed lead counsel.  That same day, the Superior
Court also stayed the consolidated action, pending resolution of
related actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, described
below.

Also in June and July 2014, five similar lawsuits were filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.  On July 21, 2014, the Delaware
Court of Chancery consolidated these Delaware actions under the
caption In re PLX Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 9880-VCL (Del. Ch.), appointed lead plaintiffs
and lead counsel, and designated an operative complaint for the
consolidated action.  On July 31, 2014, counsel for lead
plaintiffs in Delaware informed the Delaware Court of Chancery
that they would not seek a preliminary injunction, but intend to
seek damages and pursue monetary remedies through post-closing
litigation. The Company's acquisition of PLX closed on August 12,
2014.

On October 31, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  This complaint alleges, among other things, that PLX's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to PLX's stockholders by
seeking to sell PLX for an inadequate price, pursuant to an unfair
process, and by agreeing to preclusive deal protections in the
merger agreement.  Plaintiffs also allege that Potomac Capital
Partners II, L.P., Deutsche Bank Securities, AT Wireless and Pluto
Merger Sub, Inc., the acquisition subsidiary, aided and abetted
the alleged fiduciary breaches.  Plaintiffs also allege that PLX's
Solicitation/Recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9, as filed
with the SEC, contained false and misleading statements and/or
omitted material information necessary to inform the shareholder
vote.  The plaintiffs seek, among other things, monetary damages
and attorneys' fees and costs.  On September 3, 2015, the Delaware
Court of Chancery granted motions to dismiss filed by AT Wireless,
the acquisition subsidiary and two PLX directors, and denied
motions to dismiss filed by several other PLX directors, Potomac
Capital Partners II, L.P. and Deutsche Bank Securities.

On August 17, 2016, the five remaining PLX director-defendants and
Deutsche Bank Securities entered into a stipulation of partial
settlement to resolve claims against all of the former PLX
directors and Deutsche Bank Securities asserted in the Delaware
class action.  The partial settlement also provides for a release
of all potential claims against AT Wireless, Pluto Merger Sub,
Avago and PLX.  Defendant Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P.  is
not a party to the settlement.  This partial settlement was
approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery on December 20, 2016.

The Delaware class litigation is on-going.  On November 9, 2016,
the sole remaining defendant, Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P.,
filed cross-claims against the named individual director
defendants and Deutsche Bank for contribution.  Under various
contracts and statutes, PLX may owe indemnification to each of
these parties.  The cross-claims are now barred according to the
terms of the approved partial settlement, although Potomac Capital
Partners II, L.P.  might be entitled to an offset (based on
contributory fault) of any damages it might owe to the class.

Broadcom Limited is a designer, developer and global supplier of a
broad range of semiconductor devices with a focus on complex
digital and mixed signal complementary metal oxide semiconductor
based devices and analog III-V based products.  The Company has
four reportable segments: wired infrastructure, wireless
communications, enterprise storage and industrial & other, which
align with the Company's principal target markets.


CALIBER HOME: Judge Narrows Claims in "Altenburg" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the case JEFFREY A. ALTENBURG, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., et al., Defendants,
Civil Action No.: RDB-16-3374 (D. Md.).

Plaintiff Jeffrey A. Altenburg is a resident of the State of
Maryland and an owner of the real property commonly known as 11810
Triadelphia Rd., Ellicott City, MD 21042, while plaintiff Judy
Wood, f/k/a Judy Blachowicz, formerly owned the real property
known as 20 Talister Court in Baltimore County, Maryland, which
was previously her home and property before a foreclosure sale
which occurred on December 31, 2014.

Defendant LSF9 Master Participation Trust is a Delaware statutory
trust owned by Loan Star Funds, a global private equity firm, and
managed by Hudson Advisors, L.P., an asset management firm
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. U.S. Bank, N.A., serves as trustee
for the LSF9 trust.

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against defendants
Caliber Home Loans, Inc. and U.S. Bank, N.A., solely in its
capacity as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15
U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq., the Maryland Consumer Debt
Collection Act (MCDCA), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law Section 14-201, et
seq., and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), Md. Code
Ann., Com. Law Section 13-101, et seq., based on Caliber's filing
of foreclosure actions against plaintiffs' properties on behalf of
LSF9, which was not licensed as a consumer debt collector under
the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (MCALA), Md. Code
Ann., Bus. Reg. Section 7-301.

Plaintiffs allege that as a regular part of its business, LSF9
acquires defaulted debts, including the debts of plaintiffs
Altenburg and Wood, and is, thus, a consumer debt purchaser.
Plaintiffs further allege that LSF9 has delegated and assigned all
duties related to plaintiffs' loans to Caliber, including the
retention of attorneys/substitute trustees and other collection
agencies to initiate foreclosures and assert proceedings against
Maryland residents. Through these activities, plaintiffs assert,
LSF9 and Caliber extract interest payments from consumers through
short-term forbearance loans and, when debtors are unable to make
payments on these loans, take title to the collateral properties
through foreclosure actions.

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff Wood's claims as time barred
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's one year statute of
limitations. Plaintiff Wood argues in opposition that defendants
concealed from her that LSF9 was not licensed as a collection
agency in Maryland and, thus, had no legal right to file the
foreclosure action against her property. Thus, plaintiffs argue,
the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled. In
addition, plaintiffs assert that certain collection actions and
misrepresentations occurred within the one-year period prior to
the filing of the complaint.

Count One of plaintiffs' amended complaint seeks a judicial
declaration that: (a) LSF9 is not entitled, directly or
indirectly, as a matter of law to collect against any member of
the class while acting as an unlicensed collection agency; (b)
named plaintiffs also seek a declaration that Caliber may not,
directly or indirectly threaten or actually utilize the assistance
of any Maryland court to collect or attempt to collect any
consumer debt owed to LSF9 while it is acting as an unlicensed
collection agency.

Defendants move to dismiss the count on the basis that the court
has routinely rejected claims for a declaratory judgment when the
underlying cause of action is brought pursuant to the FDCPA,
MCDCA, or MCPA. Plaintiffs argue in opposition that declaratory
relief was rejected in the cases identified by defendants not
because such relief was necessarily improper, but, rather, because
the relief sought had been rendered moot by the circumstances
surrounding those cases.

Defendants with its bid to dismiss, also argues that the court
should impose a stay in the case because plaintiffs' claims seek
to overturn state court judgments in contravention of the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine. Defendants also move in the alternative for the
court to certify two questions to the Maryland Court of Appeals:

    1. Does MCALA apply to foreign statutory trusts, such as LSF9
Master Participation Trust?

    2. Does MCALA apply to foreclosure proceedings pursued by the
trustee or servicer of a mortgage investment trust?

Judge Bennett granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion. Specifically, defendants' motion is granted as to
plaintiff Wood, whose claims are time barred, as plaintiff Wood's
claims are both untimely and not saved by the doctrine of
equitable tolling. Defendants' motion is also granted as to Count
I of plaintiffs' amended complaint, which is dismissed.
Plaintiffs' argument is without merit. The court, as defendants
note, has repeatedly rejected claims for declaratory relief
premised on violations of the FDCPA, MCDCA, and MCPA. The
principal deficiency with the plaintiffs' argument is that the
amended complaint does not cite any federal or state statutes that
independently entitle the plaintiffs to declaratory and injunctive
relief. Nor do the statutes themselves suggest the availability of
declaratory relief. Defendants' Motion is denied as to plaintiff
Altenburg's FDCPA claim against Caliber (Count II) and state law
claims against LSF9 and Caliber (Count III). It is also denied as
to the certification of questions as the court declines to
exercise its discretionary power to certify questions to the Court
of Appeals.

A copy of Judge Bennett's memorandum opinion dated June 26, 2017,
is available at https://goo.gl/Ncpa8N from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey A. Altenburg, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Phillip R. Robinson, Esq.
     Consumer Law Center LLC
     8737 Colesville Road, Suite 307
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Tel: 301-448-1304

Defendants, represented by Ava E. Lias Booker -- alias-
booker@mcguirewoods.com -- Brian E. Pumphrey --
bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com -- Emily Michele Patterson --
epatterson@mcguirewoods.com -- at McGuireWoods LLP


CAPITAL GROUP: Faces "Patterson" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
D'ANN M. PATTERSON, individually, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and in her derivative capacity on behalf of
the Capital Retirement Savings Plan, Plaintiff, v. THE CAPITAL
GROUP COMPANIES, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CAPITAL GROUP
COMPANIES, INC., THE U.S. RETIREMENT BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF THE
CAPITAL RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN, CAPITAL GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY,
CAPITAL RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT COMPANY, CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL,
INC., AND JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
04399 (C.D. Cal., June 13, 2017), alleges violations of fiduciary
duties and prohibited transaction provisions of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

Plaintiff seeks to redress losses to the Plan and the Plan
participants' accounts that were invested in the alleged unduly
expensive Capital Group-affiliated investment options managed by
CGTC, CRMC, and/or CII.

Capital Group is a financial services company that provides
investment management services through its subsidiaries, including
CGTC, CRMC, and CII.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Khesraw Karmand, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     801 Garden Street, Suite 301
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Phone: (805) 456-1496
     Fax: (805) 456-1497
     E-mail: kkarmand@kellerrohrback.com

        - and -

     Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
     Erin M. Riley, Esq.
     Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101-3052
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
             eriley@kellerrohrback.com
             gobrist@kellerrohrback.com

        - and -

     Tanya Korkhov, Esq.
     1140 Avenue of The Americas, 9th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (646) 380-6690
     Fax: (646) 380-6692
     E-mail: tkorkhov@kellerrohrback.com


CASH BIZ: Texas High Court Agrees to Hear Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Moussako, writing for Law360, reports that the Texas
Supreme Court agreed on June 23 to hear a would-be class action
from borrowers alleging payday lender Cash Biz LP broke the law
when it filed criminal charges against them for unpaid debts.

The borrowers had argued in their October 2016 petition that Cash
Biz can't enforce an arbitration provision and class action waiver
in their lending agreements after the company pursued criminal
charges against hundreds of them for allegedly writing bad checks,
and say they should be able to move forward with a class action
for alleged malicious prosecution, fraud and violations of the
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Texas Finance Code.

Counsel for the borrowers and Cash Biz were not immediately
available for comment on June 23.

According to court filings, Cash Biz filed the criminal complaints
against the former borrowers when the lender could not cash post-
dated checks they had written at the time they took out loans. The
Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner fined the company
$10,000.

A Bexar County District Judge in July 2015 denied Cash Biz's
motion to compel arbitration and enforce the class action waiver,
saying in an order Cash Biz had illegally used the criminal
justice system to enforce civil debts. The judge found the
borrowers' allegations relate solely to the company's use of the
criminal justice system, which she said happened after the lending
agreements had expired, and that because all damages at issue in
the case are related to criminal fines, jail time and lost
reputation related to the borrowers' criminal convictions, the
arbitration clauses and class action waivers are not applicable.

In a 2-1 decision, a Fourth Court of Appeals panel in July 2016
reversed that ruling and ordered the cases to arbitration. The
majority said no Texas case law addresses the specific issue of
whether the filing of a criminal complaint constitutes substantial
invocation of a judicial process sufficient to waive arbitration
in a civil suit, but concluded Cash Biz's criminal complaints did
not rise to the extent of "active engagement in litigation" that
Texas courts have held to be inconsistent with a right to
arbitrate.

In an April brief responding to the plaintiffs' petition, Cash Biz
argued that the borrowers were primarily asking for a "preliminary
procedural 'punishment'" preventing the enforcement of an
arbitration clause in the payday loan agreements without enough
evidence of a waiver.

"In lieu of evidence, petitioners argue that their substantive
allegations of wrongdoing prove 'substantial invocation of the
judicial process,' and that their substantive allegations of
damages prove prejudice. However, these arguments ignore the rule
that courts are prohibited from considering the underlying merits
of the substantive claims when determining arbitrability," Cash
Biz argued.

Led by plaintiff Hiawatha Henry, the borrowers had argued in
seeking the high court's review that Cash Biz had already
substantially invoked the judicial process and thus shouldn't be
allowed to boot the civil suits to arbitration.

"When Cash Biz illegally filed criminal charges against its
customers, it was an attempt to enforce the contracts containing
the arbitration clauses Cash Biz forced its customers to sign,"
the borrowers said in their petition. "In other words, Cash Biz
ignored the mandatory arbitration provisions in its own contracts
and instead used the criminal justice system to collect civil
debts. Cash Biz is now attempting to use the very arbitration
clause it ignored to avoid a class-action lawsuit and to avoid
being punished for its actions."

The borrowers are represented by Daniel Dutko, Esq. --
ddutko@hanszenlaporte.com -- of Hanszen LaPorte LLP.

Cash Biz is represented by Patrick Gaas, Esq. --
patrickgaas@coatsrose.com -- and Edward Hubbard, Esq. --
ehubbard@coatsrose.com -- of Coats Rose PC.

The case is Henry et al. v. Cash Biz LP et al., case number 16-
0854, in the Supreme Court of Texas. [GN]


CENTURYLINK INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against CenturyLink, Inc. ("CenturyLink" or the
"Company") (NYSE:CTL) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired CenturyLink stock on
the open market from February 27, 2014 through June 15, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) CenturyLink's
policies allowed its employees to add services or lines to
accounts without customer permission, resulting in millions of
dollars in unauthorized charges to CenturyLink customers; (2)
CenturyLink's revenues were the product of illicit conduct and
unsustainable; (3) the foregoing illicit conduct was likely to
subject CenturyLink to heightened regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as
a result, CenturyLink's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 16, 2017, Bloomberg reported on a lawsuit recently filed
by former CenturyLink employee Heidi Heiser alleging that Heiser
was fired days after notifying Chief Executive Officer Glen Post
of CenturyLink's high-pressure sales culture that left customers
paying millions of dollars for accounts they didn't request.  On
this news, shares of CenturyLink fell $1.23 per share or over 4%
to close at $25.72 per share on June 16, 2017, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 21, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  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 [GN]


CHUGACH GOVERNMENT: Court Partly Certifies Employee Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CAROLYN GALLOWAY, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. CHUGACH GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-00979-RDM (D.D.C.), the Hon. District Judge Randolph D.
Moss entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for
      conditional approval of collective action;

   2. directing Chugach to provide Plaintiffs' counsel a list of
      all employees who have worked for Chugach as Residential
      Advisors at the Potomac Job Corps dormitories since July
      12, 2014, as well as those employees' residential
      addresses, Chugach shall provide the list to Plaintiffs'
      counsel on or before July 12, 2017; and

   3. directing Plaintiffs' counsel and Defendant's counsel to
      confer and jointly propose a notice to be mailed to the
      employees.

The Court conditionally certified a class of:

   "employees who have worked for Chugach as Residential Advisors
   at the Potomac Job Corps dormitories at any point during the
   three years preceding the date of the filing with the Court of
   their written notice of consent to become a party, and who
   claim not to have been paid overtime wages by Chugach at some
   point during that period".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RPDVGSA5


CUYAHOGA COUNTY: Faces "Fitzpatrick" Suit Over Longevity Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
GARY C. FITZPATRICK, SR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CUYAHOGA COUNTY c/o County
Executive, Armond Budish, Cuyahoga Co. Administrative
Headquarters, 2079 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01235 (N.D. Ohio, June 13, 2017), was
filed on behalf of all former and current hourly non-exempt
employees of Cuyahoga County who, at any time during the last
three years, received longevity payments and worked more than
forty (40) hours in the pay period in which said payment was
earned.

Allegedly, Plaintiff and the putative class members received
longevity payments. Even though the Fair Labor Standards Act
mandates that these payments be included in Plaintiff's and the
putative class members' regular rate, the County has a policy and
practice of excluding them from Plaintiff's and the putative class
members' regular rate for purpose of computing overtime payments.

Plaintiff has been employed by the County as an hourly non-exempt
employee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     Michaela Calhoun, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER, LLC
     7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
     Massillon, OH 44646
     Phone: 330-470-4428
     Fax: 330-754-1430
     E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
             sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
             mcalhoun@ohlaborlaw.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Suit Over Incommoding Statue Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia granted defendant's motion to dismiss the
case captioned DARYL THOMAS AGNEW, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, Civil Action
No. 15-0340 (ABJ) (D.D.C.).

Plaintiffs Daryl Thomas Agnew, Alex Dennis, and Rayneka Williamson
have brought a lawsuit against the District of Columbia to
challenge their arrests and subsequent prosecutions. Plaintiffs
challenge the legality of D.C. Code Section 22-1307(a), known as
the incommoding statute, arguing that the statute is
unconstitutionally vague because it allows and encourages
arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

The statute makes it unlawful for a person or group of people:
(1) To crowd, obstruct, or incommode:(A) The use of any street,
avenue, alley, road, highway, or sidewalk;(B) The entrance of any
public or private building or enclosure;(C) The use of or passage
through any public building or public conveyance; or(D) The
passage through or within any park or reservation; and (2) To
continue or resume the crowding, obstructing, or incommoding after
being instructed by a law enforcement officer to cease the
crowding, obstructing, or incommoding.

In the course of the proceeding, plaintiffs able to make a third
amended complaint. In the third amended complaint, plaintiffs
brought claims against the District of Columbia under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 for violating their constitutional rights by
arresting them under the incommoding statute (Count I), and for
prosecuting them under the incommoding statute (Count II). The
third amended complaint also purports a class action allegations
under section 1983 on behalf of all persons arrested for violating
the incommoding statute, and all persons prosecuted under that
provision. On behalf of the putative classes, plaintiffs demand a
declaratory judgment that the incommoding statute is
unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment.

The District moved to dismiss the third amended complaint under
Rule 12(b)(6).

Judge Jackson granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim. The court concludes that the
incommoding statute does not contain the subjective element that
would invalidate it on the grounds that it invites arbitrary
enforcement on its face which is the sole challenge being
presented. Plaintiffs have not alleged the predicate
constitutional violation necessary to give rise to section 1983
liability. Their most recent complaint must be dismissed for
failure to state a claim.

A copy of Judge Jackson's memorandum and opinion dated June 26,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/5HCRHh from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Lynn E. Cunningham, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF LYNN E. CUNNINGHAM
     PO Box 1547
     Dubois, WY 82513-1547
     Tel: 307-431-4158

          -- and --

     Michael P. Bruckheim, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL BRUCKHEIM, LLC
     1 Church St Ste 910
     Rockville, MD 20850
     Tel: 240-753-8222

          -- and --

     William Charles Cole Claiborne, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CLAIBORNE III
     601 Indiana Ave NW
     Washington, DC 20004
     Tel: 202-824-0700

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, represented by
Esther Yong -- at OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA; Gregory Martin Cumming -- at OFFICE OF ATTORNEY
GENERAL


DONALD TRUMP: Could Face New Class Action Over Trump University
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian reports Donald Trump could face new legal action over
his controversial Trump University venture, after a new suit was
filed in federal court.

In November, days after he won the presidency, Trump settled three
class action fraud lawsuits over Trump University, for $25
million. More than 6,000 people were listed in the suits, claiming
they were lured into paying up to $35,000 to learn the secrets of
Trump's business success.

Now, one member of the class action lawsuits, Sherri Simpson, has
filed an appeal against the settlement, claiming she was not
allowed to exercise her right to "opt out" of the multimillion-
dollar deal.

If the ninth circuit court of appeals -- one of two courts that
ruled against Trump's travel ban in June -- decides in her favor,
Simpson intends to sue the president independently for fraud,
which she hopes could see him give evidence before a jury.

"I believed in a jury trial," Simpson told the Guardian. "It
looked like we had such a strong case for trial after seven years
of litigation."

Simpson, a bankruptcy attorney who took courses at Trump
University in 2010, had planned to sue on her own before learning
of, and joining, one of the three class action suits.

In her appeal, her lawyers allege that she was told she would be
able to be excluded from a settlement if she wished. Instead,
Simpson says, she was not given forewarning of the $25m settlement
with the president-elect -- only learning of it from the media --
and was not given a chance to withdraw.

"We're asking them to rule that there is no authority to approve a
settlement in this case, because it did not allow the class
members to opt out -- to say yes or no to the settlement," said
Gary B Friedman, representing Simpson with fellow attorney Deepak
Gupta.

Trump University, a for-profit company that was not an accredited
university or college, launched in 2005 with Trump promising that
"students" would be mentored by hand-picked staff.

A Trump University "playbook" released in May 2016 showed that one
of the pledges to enrollees read: "Only doers get rich. I know
that in these three packed days, you will learn everything to make
a million dollars within the next 12 months."

The fraud lawsuits alleged that students learnt nothing of the
sort, despite being encouraged to pay tens of thousands of dollars
to attend weekend seminars.

Simpson, who lives in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, said she received
a leaflet through the mail in 2010 and eventually ended up
spending $19,000 on tuition.

"What I found from the very beginning was that it was just all
upsell," she said. "It was all a scam. It turned out it was a lot
of cheerleading for Donald Trump and his successes."

Friedman said the ninth circuit had granted "expedited treatment"
of Simpson's appeal, with a verdict expected in late summer or
early fall. If the court rules that Simpson should not have been
included in the settlement, she will be free to pursue her own
lawsuit against Trump. She has said she will not settle out of
court.

The $25 million payout reached in 2016 was hailed as a victory by
lawyers including New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman, who
brought one of the three lawsuits involved. It is unclear what
would happen to the 6,000 people involved in the settlement if
Simpson were to win her appeal.

Trump University -- and the associated lawsuits -- became an issue
in the Republican primaries and the presidential campaign, with
opponents releasing ads which featured some disgruntled former
students.

In May 2016 a federal judge, Gonzalo Curiel, made public more than
400 "playbooks", which showed how staff were instructed to get
people to accrue credit card debt to pay for tuition fees, and
ordered to target financial weaknesses in a bid to sell further
courses.

Trump, who launched his campaign by accusing Mexico of sending
"rapists" to the US, attacked Curiel over the release.

"I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump," Trump said at a
rally. "A hater. He's a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel. And he
is not doing the right thing ... [He] happens to be, we believe,
Mexican."

Curiel was born in Indiana.

A spokesperson for Trump did not return a request for comment.
[GN]


DUNKIN' BRANDS: Faces "Chen" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dunkin' Brands, Inc.
The case is entitled as Chufen Chen, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc.
(a Delaware Corporation) doing business as: Dunkin' Donuts, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03808 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2017).

Dunkin' Brands is an American restaurant holding company which
runs two chains of fast-food restaurants: Dunkin' Donuts and
Baskin-Robbins. It is headquartered in Canton, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762 1324
          Facsimile: (718) 762 1342
          E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com


EDF ENERGY: Lawyers Prepare to File Class Action Over Smart Meters
------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Collinson, writing for The Guardian, reports they are the
mini-computers being installed in 30 million UK homes and
businesses in an GBP11bn programme that will allow the energy
companies to remotely monitor our gas and electricity usage. But
could smart meters also become the new spies in our homes, raising
fresh fears about a surveillance society as they track our daily
activities?

Campaigners in France, where a similar installation programme is
taking place, think so. On holiday in Bordeaux recently I was
struck by posters advertising a demo called "Stop Linky". Linky is
the name of French utility giant EDF's new smart meter, but it has
sparked a more vociferous backlash than here. "Dites NON! aux
compteurs communicants LINKY," posters shouted ahead of a demo in
mid-June, with others planned around the country.

Lawyers for Stop Linky are preparing a class action against EDF
and its subsidiary Enedis, which is implementing the programme.
Lawyer Arnaud Durand claims smart meters pose health and privacy
issues. He calls them a "Trojan horse'" that could harvest vast
amounts of data about our activities. Even rudimentary information
has commercial value. "For example, a telemarketing company will
know if it's a good moment to call your house."

In Britain, privacy campaigners share their fears. Guy Herbert of
NO2ID says: "Smart meters are presented as an environmental and
power-saving initiative. But it's a highly surveillant model. It
can tell how many showers you have had, when you are cooking, when
you are in and out of the home."

Evidence of the race to monetise the data from smart meters is
already emerging. A video on the website of Onzo, a British
analytics company, says: "We take energy consumption data from
smart meters and sensors. We analyse it and build a highly
personalised profile for each and every utility customer." It will
have "the ability to monetise their customer data by providing a
direct link to appropriate third party organisations based on the
customer's identified character." Last year Onzo was at a
"consumer goods hackathon" hosted by Procter & Gamble to help sell
more detergent, shampoo and toiletries.

But, as Herbert says, this is not just about commercial
activities. The Investigatory Powers Act also hands the
authorities access to bulk data, including energy data. "A smart
meter is also a smart controller," he warns.

Are these fears overblown? Bernard Lassus is head of Enedis, the
company that has already installed 4.7m smart meters in France.
Study after study in France, the US and Canada have disproved
health fears surrounding the meters, he says. The French meters
transmit energy consumption data once a day and contain no more
information than a current meter. Data is not individualised and
cannot be sold on to third parties without active prior consent by
the household.

In Britain, the industry body Smart Energy GB takes a similar
line. "Your smart meter stores and transmits simple information on
how much energy your home has used. Personal details like your
name, address and bank account details are not stored on or
transmitted by the meter. Your supplier can't use any data from
your smart meter for sales and marketing purposes unless you give
them permission to do so."

But we all know that once data is out there it is used in ways we
didn't anticipate. A smart meter bill introduced in the Queen's
speech also says there would be new "powers to make changes to
smart meter regulations".

It's not even clear if smart meters will result in more
transparent or cheaper tariffs, with some warning it is turning
into an GBP11bn white elephant. And can someone tell me why our
programme, near identical in size to that in France, is somehow
costing us more than twice the EUR5 billion it is costing them?
[GN]


EMIL FRANC: Faces "Fernandez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON A. HERRERA FERNANDEZ and other similarly-situated
individuals, Plaintiff(s), v. EMIL FRANC, INC., d/b/a CAFê
RAGAZZI, HECTOR EDUARDO REGLERO MONTANER, a/k/a RICARDO MONTANER
and HECTOR REGLERO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
22219-KMW (S.D. Fla., June 13, 2017), alleges that while employed
by Defendants, Plaintiff always worked more than 40 hours every
week. However, Defendants paid Plaintiff for 40 hours or less.
Defendants never paid Plaintiff for overtime hours.

The case avers that Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff
overtime at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for
every hour that he worked in excess of forty (40) in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Corporate Defendant EMIL FRANC, INC. operates CAFE RAGAZZI, an
Italian restaurant.  Plaintiff had duties as busser, food runner,
and cleaning employee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 South Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Tel: (305) 446-1500
     Fax: (305) 446-1502
     E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Dougherty" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ronald E. Wallace and Walter J. Minett filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Kevin Dougherty, et
al. v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-
10089, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan at Detroit.

The appellate case is captioned as Kevin Dougherty, et al. v.
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1701, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on Jan. 12,
2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and Tim
Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics,
Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089). The lawsuit alleges that the
Company and Mr. Mayleben violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly
failing to disclose in an August 17, 2015, public statement that
the FDA would require a cardiovascular outcomes trial before
approving a lead product candidate. The lawsuit seeks, among other
things, compensatory damages in connection with an allegedly
inflated stock price between August 18, 2015, and September 28,
2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 20, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit. On
July 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On December 27, 2016, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the
Company's favor.

On January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a motion
to alter or amend the judgment.

Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., is a lipid management company, a
late-stage pharmaceutical company focused on developing and
commercializing convenient, complementary, cost-effective, once-
daily, oral therapies for the treatment of patients with elevated
LDL-C.  Esperion develops new LDL-C lowering therapies that will
make a substantial impact on reducing global cardiovascular
disease -- the leading cause of death around the world.[BN]

Movants-Appellants RONALD E. WALLACE and WALTER J. MINETT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Ryan A. Llorens, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: ryanl@rgrdlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees ESPERION THERAPEUTICS, INC., and TIM M.
MAYLEBEN are represented by:

          Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          Exchange Place
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 570-1000
          Facsimile: (617) 523-1231
          E-mail: dbirnbach@goodwinprocter.com


EXPERT GROUP: Seeks Tenth Circuit Review of Ruling in Colony Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Expert Group International Inc. and Go Au Pair
Operations, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Colony Insurance Company v. Expert Group
International Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-CV-02499-RPM, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 15,
2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal from a court ruling relating
to the lawsuit.  That appellate case is captioned as Colony
Insurance Company v. Expert Group International Inc., et al., Case
No. 17-1188, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Colony Insurance Company v.
Expert Group International Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1208, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing statement is due on June 30, 2017, for Au Pair
      International, Inc., Expert Group International Inc., and
      Go Au Pair Operations, LLC;

   -- Transcript order form is due on June 30, 2017, for Au Pair
      International, Inc., Expert Group International Inc., and
      Go Au Pair Operations, LLC; and

   -- Notice of appearance is due on June 30, 2017, for Au Pair
      International, Inc., Colony Insurance Company, Expert Group
      International Inc., and Go Au Pair Operations, LLC.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by:

          Larry I. Gramovot, Esq.
          GRAMOVOT & TAKACS, P.L.
          1400 Village Square Boulevard No. 3-405
          Tallahassee, FL 32312-1231
          Telephone: (850) 325-1914
          Facsimile: (866) 386-6321
          E-mail: Larry@lig-law.com

               - and -

          John M. Roche, Esq.
          Kyle P. Seedorf, Esq.
          TAYLOR ANDERSON, LLP
          1670 Broadway, Suite 900
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 551-6660
          E-mail: jroche@talawfirm.com
                  kseedorf@talawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellants EXPERT GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC., DBA Expert
Au Pair, and GO AU PAIR OPERATIONS, LLC, DBA American Cultural
Exchange, and Defendant AU PAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., are
represented by:

          Christopher R. Mosley, Esq.
          SHERMAN & HOWARD LLC
          633 17th Street, Suite 3000
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 297-2900
          Facsimile: (303) 298-0940
          E-mail: cmosley@shermanhoward.com


FACEBOOK INC: Canada Supreme Court Clears Way for BC Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
CTV News reports that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a
clause in Facebook's terms of use is "unenforceable" in this
country, clearing the way for a Vancouver woman to sue the social
media giant for what she claims was a breach of her privacy.
Deborah Douez brought a lawsuit against Facebook over a now-
defunct advertising format that saw her name and profile photo
featured in "sponsored stories" from companies she had 'liked' on
the website.

She alleged her name and profile photo were used without her
permission and the ads were sometimes displayed on her friends'
Facebook newsfeeds.

Facebook had argued that its terms of use include a forum
selection and choice-of-law clause that requires disputes be
resolved in California, where it's based, according to California
law.

A lower court judge in British Columbia declined to enforce the
clause and certified a class-action lawsuit. But that was reversed
by the B.C. Court of Appeal.

In a 4-3 decision issued on June 23, the Supreme Court ruled that
clause unenforceable in Canada.

Douez said she was "thrilled and delighted" by the ruling.
"It's been five years getting to this point. So very pleased with
the decision," Douez told CTV News Channel on June 23.

Lawyer: Decision is 'vindication'

Douez's proposed class-action lawsuit includes all B.C. residents
who had their name or picture used in sponsored stories. The
estimated size of the class is 1.8 million people. Ultimately, the
class-action suit intends to seek damages based on a claim that
the format violated B.C.'s Privacy Act.

The B.C. woman said that bringing the case forward, for her, was a
point of principle.

"I brought it because I felt like I had to stand up for something
that I thought was wrong," she said.

Douez said it's taken her years of careful research to fully
understand the complex legal framework around companies' terms and
conditions.

"So I can certainly appreciate the fact that most Canadians don't
understand how terms and conditions and their clicking 'yes' to
them actually means," she said. "I think the reality of today is
that people just won't read terms and conditions. It's too
onerous. It's too complicated."

Despite the lengthy case, Douez said it's "all been worth it" for
the Supreme Court ruling.

Douez's lawyer, Christopher Rhone, said the case is particularly
important for the rights of consumers.

"It's a vindication for all British Columbians, and Canadians
actually, that their consumer rights will be protected in British
Columbia and that these national and international corporations
can't force people to go abroad to distant locations to enforce
their rights," he said.

Judges decry 'grossly uneven bargaining power'

Teenagers as young as 13 can create a Facebook account. Rhone says
many of those young people may not fully understand the terms and
conditions they're agreeing to when they sign up.
"You can't expect a child to understand what these clauses mean.
You can't expect the average Canadian to understand what they
mean," he said.

In the decision, the justices ruling in favour of Douez wrote that
she "established strong reasons not to enforce the clause at issue
here."

"The grossly uneven bargaining power between the parties and the
importance of adjudicating quasi-constitutional privacy rights in
the province are reasons of public policy that are compelling, and
when considered together, are decisive in this case."

Writing on behalf of the dissenting three justices, Chief Justice
Beverley McLachlin and Justice Suzanne Cote said they saw no
reason to depart from established international law upholding
forum selection clauses.

"We agree with the Court of Appeal of British Columbia that strong
cause has not been shown and that the action must be tried in
California, as the contract requires," they wrote.

The case now returns to British Columbia for a trial on the merits
of the claim. [GN]


FLOWERS FOODS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Soares"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California denied the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case captioned
MARK SOARES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-04918-JSC (N.D. Cal.).

Flowers and its network of subsidiaries manufacture and/or
distribute various bakery products, most of which are then
distributed to retail stores, restaurant, fast food business,
military and institutional accounts.  Flowers California began
distributing its bakery goods throughout Northern California in
February 2013.  For distribution purposes, Flowers divides its
Northern California market area, which extends from Visalia north
to the Oregon Border and from the Pacific Coast to the Nevada
border into distribution territories, which individuals, called
"Distributors," service.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class members are Distributors who
entered into written "Distributor Agreements" to provide
distribution services in Northern California Flowers territories
during the class period.  Generally speaking, the Distributors
purchase the exclusive right to sell Flowers' products in given
geographic territories and are responsible for delivering,
displaying, and selling Flowers products in their areas.  The
named Plaintiffs began working for Flowers as Prospective
Distributors in early 2013.  Both became Distributors by entering
into Distributor Agreements with Flowers later that year.  Soares
resigned from Flowers in May 2016.  Botelho still works as a
Flowers Distributor.

The Plaintiffs' wage-and-hour claims all arise under the
California Labor Code and include failure to reimburse them for
business expenses; making improper deductions from their
compensation because of the return of out-of-date product, work-
related expenses, and losses not attributable to them; failing and
refusing to provide them with meal periods or paid rest periods;
unlawfully deducting money from their wages; failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; intentionally, recklessly,
and/or negligently misrepresenting to them the true nature of
their employment status, and willfully and unlawfully
misclassifying them as independent contractors.  Based on these
same underlying violations, the Plaintiffs also bring a claim
under the Unfair Competition Law.  All of these claims arise from
the Plaintiffs' allegation that the Defendants misclassified them
as independent contractors/franchisees instead of employees.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3), all persons who have personally serviced a
territory in Northern California (i.e., areas from Visalia north
to the Oregon border and from the Pacific Coast to the Nevada
border) under a Flowers Baking Company of California and/or
Flowers Baking Company of Modesto 'Distributor Agreement' that
they entered into on behalf of themselves or entities in which
they have a majority ownership interest during the period
commencing Feb. 25, 2013 through the date of class certification.

Magistrate Corley finds that individualized issues over how to
determine which Distributors personally serviced their routes and
whether the Distributors' operated distinct businesses prevents
common questions of fact or law from predominating and classwide
treatment is not superior to individual actions.

The Court said, "Trying this lawsuit as a class action presents
manageability issues given the individual inquiries necessary to
establish Defendants' liability for each of the putative class
members. For example, the Court would need to hold mini-trials to
determine which drivers "personally serviced" their routes, when,
and for how many hours and whether they did deliveries for other
companies in order to analyze whether a particular driver was
engaged in a business distinct from other class members or even
whether the Distributor qualifies as a class member. There would
also need to be individualized inquiries into how to treat
Distributors who may have owned more than one territory.
Plaintiffs argue that refusal to certify a class "on the sole
ground that it would be unmanageable is disfavored and should be
the exception rather than the rule." (Dkt. No. 67 at 18 (quoting
Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121, 1128 (9th Cir.
2017) (citation omitted)).) Agreed. But here manageability is not
the only factor that weighs against class treatment. Because class
members' have an interest in individually controlling separate
actions, as evidenced by the many individual Distributors who have
filed their own actions, and trying these claims as a class action
creates manageability issues, classwide resolution is not the
superior method of adjudicating these claims."

Accordingly, she denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The Court will hold a further case management
conference on July 27, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3ILO87 from Leagle.com.

Mark Soares, Plaintiff, represented by Beth A. Ross --
bross@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP.

Mark Soares, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth R. Gropman,
Leonard Carder LLP, Peter Scott Rukin -- prukin@rhdtlaw.com --
Rukin Hyland LLP, Valerie Jean Brender -- vbrender@rhdtlaw.com --
Rukin Hyland LLP & Aaron D. Kaufmann --
akaufmann@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder, LLP.

Brian Botelho, Plaintiff, represented by Beth A. Ross, Leonard
Carder LLP, Elizabeth R. Gropman, Leonard Carder LLP, Peter Scott
Rukin, Rukin Hyland LLP, Valerie Jean Brender, Rukin Hyland LLP &
Aaron D. Kaufmann, Leonard Carder, LLP.

Flowers Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony Craig
Cleland -- craig.cleland@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Timothy L. Reed -- treed@vhattorneys.com  -
- Villarreal Hutner PC, Alexander Miller Chemers, Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Brian Davis Berry --
brian.berry@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Christopher William Decker --
christopher.decker@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart PC, Jared Lee Palmer -- jared.palmer@ogletree.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Kevin Patrick
Hishta -- kevin.hishta@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins, pro hac
vice.

Flowers Baking Co. of Modesto, Defendant, represented by Anthony
Craig Cleland, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.,
Timothy L. Reed, Villarreal Hutner PC, Alexander Miller Chemers,
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Brian Davis Berry,
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Christopher
William Decker, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Jared
Lee Palmer, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Kevin
Patrick Hishta, Ogletree Deakins, pro hac vice.

Flowers Bakeries Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony
Craig Cleland, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.,
Timothy L. Reed, Villarreal Hutner PC, Alexander Miller Chemers,
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Brian Davis Berry,
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Christopher
William Decker, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Jared
Lee Palmer, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Kevin
Patrick Hishta, Ogletree Deakins, pro hac vice.

Flowers Baking Co. of California, Defendant, represented by
Anthony Craig Cleland, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,
P.C., Timothy L. Reed, Villarreal Hutner PC, Alexander Miller
Chemers, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Brian
Davis Berry, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.,
Christopher William Decker, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart
PC, Jared Lee Palmer, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,
P.C. & Kevin Patrick Hishta, Ogletree Deakins, pro hac vice.


FORD MOTOR: Judge Grants Arbitration Request
--------------------------------------------
Rachel Graf, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois federal
judge on June 22 granted Ford Motor Credit Company LLC's request
to arbitrate a proposed class action alleging the company violated
its obligations on a security release, saying the parties agreed
to arbitrate claims about the arbitration agreement itself.

U.S. District Judge David R. Herndon said a "delegation provision"
in the parties' arbitration agreement requires claims regarding
the scope of the agreement itself be arbitrated. Jeffrey Burcham's
argument that his allegation is excluded from the arbitration
agreement is therefore subject to arbitration, Herndon said.

"The 'delegation clause' in the arbitration agreement is
unambiguous in both declaring and requiring parties to arbitrate
'[c]laims regarding the interpretation, scope or validity of [the
arbitration] clause, or arbitrability of any issue,'" the court
said.

The court noted that a delegation provision," which can delegate a
controversy to an arbitrator, is valid unless "pointedly
challenged," according to the filing. Burcham failed to even
mention -- much less challenge -- the provision in his response to
Ford's motion to compel arbitration, making arbitration
appropriate in this case, the court said.

Burcham filed his proposed class action in Illinois state court in
July accusing Ford of skirting its obligations on a security
interest release for vehicles financed by the automaker's credit
arm.

The complaint said that once a lienholder, like Ford, has received
payment to satisfy a security interest, the lienholder must send
the certificate of title to the title's new owner within 21 days
under the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code. The code stipulates that
failure to do so entitles the new lienholder to $150 in damages.

According to the complaint, Burcham purchased a Ford vehicle in
March 2009 and signed an installment contract to pay for it. The
rights to this installment contract were transferred to Ford
Credit.

Burcham entered into Chapter 13 bankruptcy in August 2009, which
caused him to pay the remaining balance on the vehicle to Ford
Credit, except for a small difference in interest rates between
the installment contract and the bankruptcy payment plan. Burcham
received a discharge from his bankruptcy in November 2014, and the
interest difference was discharged along with it, the complaint
said.

But Burcham said that while his exit from bankruptcy granted him a
security interest release, Ford did not send him the title within
the 21-day window. He said that he and the members of his proposed
class are entitled to $150 in damages each, plus attorneys' fees.

Burcham sought to certify a class of affected Ford owners who were
Illinois residents at the time of contracting for the purchase of
a vehicle, entered into a vehicle contract in the state and had
their accounts paid off within the last five years.

Counsel for Ford and for Burcham didn't respond on June 23 to
requests for comment.

Ford is represented by Patrick D. Cloud, Esq. --
pcloud@heylroyster.com -- of Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen and
Thomas M. Byrne, Esq. -- thomasbyrne@eversheds-sutherland.com --
and Valerie S. Sanders, Esq. -- valeriesanders@eversheds-
sutherland.com -- of Eversheds Sutherland LLP.

Burcham is represented by Shari L. Murphy, Esq. of The Law Offices
of Shari L. Murphy LLC

The case is Burcham v. Ford Motor Credit Company LLC, case number
3:16-cv-00943, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois. [GN]


FRED'S INC: "Taylor" Class Lawsuit over FACTA Breaches Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fred's, Inc. defends itself against a lawsuit entitled Tiffany
Taylor, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. Fred's Inc. and Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc., alleging
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act,
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.

On March 30, 2017, the lawsuit was filed in the United Stated
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Southern
Division.  The complaint alleges that the Company wrongfully and
willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
("FACTA").  The complaint is filed as a Class Action, with the
class being open for five years before the date the complaint was
filed.  The complaint seeks statutory damages, attorney's fees,
punitive damages, an injunctive order, and other such relief that
the court may deem just and equitable.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, and this
Motion is still pending before the court.

The Company said, "Future costs and liabilities related to this
case may have a material adverse effect on the Company; however,
the Company has not made an accrual for future probable losses
related to these claims as future losses are not considered
probable and an estimate is unavailable."

Fred's, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, sells general
merchandise through its retail discount stores and full service
pharmacies.  The Company, through its stores, offers household
cleaning supplies, health products, beauty and personal care
products, disposable diapers, pet foods, paper products, various
food and beverage products, and pharmaceuticals to low, middle,
and fixed income families in small- to medium- sized towns. It
also sells general merchandise to franchised Fred's stores.
Fred's, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Memphis,
Tennessee.


FRED'S INC: "Wallace" Class Action Suit Still in Discovery Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Melanie Wallace, Sascha Feliciano, and
Heather Tyler, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc., is in the discovery
stage, according to Fred's, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed on June 8, 2017
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 29, 2017.

On April 11, 2017, the lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of
Fulton County in the state of Georgia.  The complaint alleges that
the Company wrongfully and willfully violated the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA").  The complaint is
filed as a Class Action.  The complaint seeks statutory damages,
attorney's fees, punitive damages, and other such relief that the
court may deem just and equitable.

The Company is still completing the discovery stage of this
lawsuit, as no filing deadlines have been set at this time.

The Company said, "Future costs and liabilities related to this
case may have a material adverse effect on the Company; however,
the Company has not made an accrual for future probable losses
related to these claims as future losses are not considered
probable and an estimate is unavailable."

Fred's, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, sells general
merchandise through its retail discount stores and full service
pharmacies.  The Company, through its stores, offers household
cleaning supplies, health products, beauty and personal care
products, disposable diapers, pet foods, paper products, various
food and beverage products, and pharmaceuticals to low, middle,
and fixed income families in small- to medium- sized towns. It
also sells general merchandise to franchised Fred's stores.
Fred's, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Memphis,
Tennessee.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: $9.5MM Class Settlement in "Maddy" Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, granted plaintiffs'
motion seeking final approval of the settlement in the case styled
DONALD MADDY, et al., Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Defendant, Civil No. 14-490-JBS-KMW (D.N.J.).

On October 25, 2013, Rolando Alvarez and other GE service
technicians filed a collective and class action law suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
On January 23, 2014, Donald Maddy and other GE service technicians
filed a collective and class action law suit against GE, but in
the District of New Jersey alleging that GE failed to pay
overtime. The Alvarez lawsuit was transferred to the District of
New Jersey and, ultimately, was consolidated with the Maddy
lawsuit.

GE has agreed to pay $9,500,000 to settle all claims in the
action. The settlement terms are as follows: The $9,500,000 shall
be placed into an Escrow Account for which the claims
administrator will administer the notice of settlement, the
allocation, and distribution, of the settlement payments. Class
counsel seeks an award of $3,166,666 (33 1/3%) of the settlement
payment as an award for attorneys' fees. Litigation costs and
expenses and the claims administrator's fees shall also be paid
from the settlement payment.  The net settlement payment shall be
disbursed to members of the Rule 23 and FLSA collective action
classes based on the following agreed upon formula:

All qualified class members who are non-opt-in plaintiffs shall
receive a flat $750 payment and shall also be awarded 1 point for
each workweek worked during the class period. All qualified class
members who are opt-in plaintiffs shall receive a flat $1,500
payment (representing the $750 awarded to non-opt-in plaintiffs in
addition to $750 in liquidated damages available pursuant to the
FLSA) and shall also be awarded 2 points for each workweek worked
during the class period. After subtracting from the net settlement
payment all amounts paid pursuant to subsections 3.4(A) (1 and 2),
the dollar value of each point shall be computed by dividing the
remainder of the net settlement payment by the number of points
awarded under subsections 3.4(A) (1 and 2). Each qualified class
member shall receive a total settlement distribution of the total
of the flat payment in addition to the dollar value of the number
of points awarded under the allocation. Non-opt-in plaintiffs'
payments shall be reported as taxable wages and shall be issued a
W2 form for the entire payment. Opt-in plaintiffs' payments shall
be 50% taxable wages, which will be reported on a W2, and 50%
liquidated damages, which will be reported as non-wage income on a
1099.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, plaintiffs and each
qualified class member agree to fully release General Electric
(and Haier U.S. Appliance Solutions, Inc.) from all state and
federal wage and hours laws through December 31, 2016. The
settlement agreement also contains a confidentiality provision
wherein the parties agree that they will not publicize the terms
of the agreement.

Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and defendant General Electric Company have agreed to
settle the collective and class action resolving plaintiffs'
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201
et seq. (FLSA) and various state wage and hour statutes. On
January 6, 2017, the court granted plaintiffs' unopposed motion
seeking preliminary approval of the settlement. Plaintiffs then
filed a motion seeking final approval of the settlement agreement,
class counsel' requested fees and costs, the claims
administrator's fees and costs and service payments to named
plaintiffs.

Magistrate Williams approves the settlement agreement, awarded
attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $3,166,666 and
$180,988.61 respectively.

As the court had previously appointed Angeion Group to administer
the settlement, Angeion's fees to date, which include estimates
for tasks that have yet to be performed, are $35,597.67. The court
approves this amount and will permit up to a 10 percent upward
deviation from said figure, if necessary. Thus, if after the
settlement administrator completes all of its tasks and its costs
exceed the foregoing, any additional amounts must be approved by
the court. Finally the court will approve the request for service
payments for the named plaintiffs, David Leppo, and Guy Leone in
the amount of $5,000, totaling no more than $75,000.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Williams's opinion dated June 26, 2017,
is available at https://goo.gl/CeUcCT from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by JUSTIN L. SWIDLER -- jswidler@swartz-
legal.com -- TRAVIS B. MARTINDALE-JARVIS -- tmartindale@swartz-
legal.com -- JOSHUA S. BOYETTE -- jboyette@swartz-legal.com -- at
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by NINA K. MARKEY
-- nmarkey@littler.com -- RACHEL FENDELL SATINSKY --
rsatinsky@littler.com -- at LITTLER MENDELSON PC


GENERAL MOTORS: Indian Dealers Explore Possibility of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Times of India reports dealers of General Motors in India have
decided to explore the possibilities of filing class action suits
against the American automaker in the US over inadequate
compensation being offered to them.

GM has decided to stop selling vehicles in India by the year-end
and focus just on exports from here, offering compensation to its
dealers.

In a meeting held on June 24, which was also attended by the
entire senior leadership of Federation of Automobile Dealers
Associations (FADA), around 40 dealers of the company decided to
take up the issue of measly compensation being offered to them
with various ministries as well.

"We have asked our legal counsel to speak with senior attorneys in
the US to look at the possibility of filing class action suit
against the company. If it can be done we will do it," FADA
President John Paul Kuttukaran told.

The decision whether dealers would file the cases directly or
under the aegis of FADA would be finalised soon, Kuttukaran added.

"We are considering all options, whether arbitration, or filing
cases in the US. The fact of the matter is that these people who
have put in large investments are feeling cheated. We will do
everything in our power to help them," Kuttukaran said.

A majority of General Motors 96 dealers, which operate around 140
showrooms across India, are unhappy with the company's offer of
just around 12 per cent of total investments they have made as
compensation.

When asked for other decisions taken at the meeting, Kuttukaran
said that the dealers and FADA would be writing to PMO and various
ministries to put pressure on the company to give dealers adequate
compensation.

"Around 15,000 people are going to lose their jobs. How can the
government let it happen? We will also be demonstrating at Jantar
Mantar to highlight our grievances," Kuttukaran added.

The company kept the dealers in dark about shutting domestic
operations and now they are using various tactics to force them
accept inadequate compensation, Kuttukaran said.

As per the conditions set by General Motors, a dealer who does not
accept its offer by July 15, would only get 50 per cent of the
compensation amount being offered.

In case a dealer does not accept the offer by September 15, he
won't get any of the compensation at all.

In 2015, the company had announced to invest USD 1 billion in
India to enhance manufacturing operations and roll out 10 locally
produced models in the country over the next five years.

In January this year, the American firm put on hold its
investments on new models for the country as it undertook a full
review of its future product portfolio in the country.

On May 18, General Motors suddenly decided to stop selling its
vehicles in India as there was no turnaround in its fortunes here
after struggling for over two decades to make a mark.

The company will now focus on exporting vehicles from its
manufacturing plant at Talegaon in Maharashtra after it stopped
production at its first plant at Halol in Gujarat in May. [GN]


GREAT AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
property management and automobile marketing supplies company is
accused of sending junk faxes to a Metairie business.

AMP Automotive LLC filed a complaint on June 8 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against B F T
LP, doing business as Great American Business Products, alleging
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that plaintiff
suffered actual damages for misappropriated fax paper, toner and
annoyance and inconvenience. The plaintiff holds B F T LP
responsible because the defendant allegedly made 15 unsolicited
fax advertisements to plaintiff's facsimile telephone number and
failed to comply with the opt-out notice requirements of the TCPA.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order
certifying this action as a class action, appointing plaintiff as
representative for the class and this counsel as class counsel,
awarding plaintiff an incentive for its efforts as class
representative, payment of costs of litigation and all further
relief as the court shall deem just and proper. It is represented
by George B. Recile, Esq. Preston L. Hayes, Esq. Ryan P. Monsour,
Esq. Matthew A. Sherman, Esq. and Patrick R. Follette, Esq. of
Recile, Stakelum & Hayes LLP in Metairie.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:17-cv-05667 [GN]


HOME DEPOT: Claims Lumber Sizes Clearly Marked On Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Long, writing for 11 Alive, reports that it's been one of
the most clicked on stories on 11Alive.com: the lawsuit against
Home Depot and Menard's over the size of their lumber.

The class-action suit says the stores sell wood that is not
actually the size they say it is.

It seems fairly simple -- right? Take a 2-by-4, for instance. It
is labeled as a 2-by-4 in every single store. But to answer the
Verify question, does it actually measure out to be 2-inches by 4-
inches?

When we measured, it actually came out to  1 1/2-by-3 1/2 inches.
It's an industry standard -- the way it's always been, and now,
the 'War of the Woods' is heading to court.

Keith Holloman has been a contractor and carpenter for the better
part of a decade. He knows his stuff.

He says his brother taught him about carpentry. And one of the
first things his brother taught him was that wood sizes on the
label are not actually the sizes of wood in reality.

"You're not going to go into the store and ask for a 1 1/2-by-3
1/2," Holloman said. "No. You ask for a 2-by-4. So they give you
the closest measurements."

Keith's right. Look at this chart -- If it says 2 inches, you're
getting 1.5 inches. If it says 4 inches, you're getting 3.5
inches.

In a memorandum to dismiss the case, Home Depot said:

Retailers such as Home Depot did not create these lumber sizing
standards or naming conventions and should not be subject to suit
simply for following them. Plaintiff's attempt to turn this
accepted lumber naming convention into a class action lawsuit
should be rejected. To do otherwise would ignore nearly a century
of standardization and disturb an entire industry's reliance on
these lumber names.
We took it to the streets to ask the simple question: 'Did you
know?'

"No, I had no idea," said one person.

"I did now that," said another. "I had previous knowledge that you
aren't actually buying what you're buying."

"No, I didn't know about it," said a third.

"I think if people sue over that, they need to get a live,"
someone else said.

"If it doesn't matter, we should just let it go," said an
individual.

And one exchange was pretty pragmatic about it:

"How big is this piece of wood, sir?"

"Technically, 1 1/2-by-3 1/2..."

"So, not 2-by-4?"

"Used to be... There's no trees left!"

And as for Keith, and if he wants in on the class action lawsuit?

"It ain't even worth it," he said. "A waste of time!"

We spoke with a Home Depot representative, who told us they have
the actual sizes clearly marked on their website -- and they hope
this measuring mess is dropped soon. [GN]


HOME WARRANTY: Court Rejects Bid to Force Fraud Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wichert, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey state
appeals court on June 23 rejected a bid from home warranty
companies to force a putative class action over consumer fraud and
related allegations into arbitration, saying a contract did not
clearly notify a customer that she was waiving her right to pursue
her claims in court.

The two-judge appellate panel upheld a trial court ruling last
year that the arbitration clause in named plaintiff Amanda
Kernahan's agreement with the businesses is unenforceable under
the requirements established by the New Jersey Supreme Court's
2014 decision in Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group LP, which
held that such provisions must "clearly and unambiguously" signal
such a waiver.

"With these principles in mind, we have considered the language in
this arbitration provision and agree with the trial judge that it
failed to clearly and unambiguously inform plaintiff of her waiver
of the right to pursue her claims in a judicial forum," the panel
said.

"To the contrary, the clause before us does not contain any waiver
language at all," the panel added. "As the Supreme Court noted,
'an average member of the public may not know -- without some
explanatory comment -- that arbitration is a substitute for the
right to have one's claim adjudicated in a court of law.'"

The appellate opinion affirmed the trial court's denial of a
motion to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, to compel
arbitration from defendants Home Warranty Administrator of Florida
Inc. and Choice Home Warranty.

Kernahan entered into a service agreement with the companies in
2015 for the repair or replacement of home appliances and systems,
the opinion said.

Later that year, Kernahan filed a proposed class action in
Middlesex County Superior Court, alleging violations of New
Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act and Truth in Consumer Contract,
Warranty and Notice Act, as well as breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, according to the opinion. The
lawsuit names the business and related parties as defendants.

Kernahan has asserted that the agreement misrepresented the term
of the contract, the opinion said.

While the cover page of the agreement said the contract term ran
from April 23, 2015, to Oct. 23, 2018, the second page included a
section titled "Coverage Period" that stated that "[c]overage
starts 30 days after acceptance of application by Us and receipt
of applicable contract fees and continues for 365 days from that
date," the opinion said.

Kernahan also alleged that a section on the last page of the
agreement -- titled "Mediation" -- failed to advise her that she
was waiving her right to file a court action and have her claims
decided by a jury, according to the opinion.

The companies moved to dismiss the complaint or force arbitration
based on the arbitration provision in that section, but the trial
court found that Kernahan had sufficiently pled her causes of
action to avoid dismissal and that the arbitration clause did not
comply with the Atalese requirements, the opinion said.

"The motion judge determined that the arbitration provision failed
to apprise plaintiff of the required notice elements and of the
rights she was waiving," the opinion said.

The trial court denied the motion and later rejected the
defendants' motion for reconsideration, according to the opinion.
In denying that subsequent motion, the court "noted that there was
no language advising plaintiff that she was waiving her right to
bring her claims in court and proceed to a jury trial," the
opinion said.

In their appeal, the companies asserted that the arbitration
provision conforms with the Atalese requirements and is
enforceable, the opinion said.

That provision states in part that any claims arising out of the
agreement "shall be resolved exclusively by the American
Arbitration Association in the state of New Jersey under its
Commercial Mediation Rules," according to the opinion.

But the panel said: "Just stating that arbitration is the
'exclusive' remedy, as this provision does, is not sufficient."

"It must be clear to the parties that 'arbitration is a substitute
for the right to seek relief in our court system,' and by agreeing
to this provision, the parties have waived their right to a court
action," the panel said, quoting from the state Supreme Court's
2016 decision in Morgan v. Sanford Brown Institute. "The
deficiency renders the arbitration clause unenforceable."

Stephen T. Sullivan Jr., an attorney representing Kernahan, told
Law360 on June 23 that the appellate opinion was consistent with
applying general contract principles in New Jersey that, if a
right is being waived, "the language has to be concise ... and
understandable to the average lay person."

"That's what the panel found, that this language was not
consistent with Atalese, was not consistent with ... the knowing
waiver of a right," Sullivan said.

Lori Grifa, an attorney representing the companies, said on June
23 in an email, "We received the decision from the Appellate Court
this morning and are reviewing it. The interpretation of the law
in this area has been very fluid in recent years; in fact the US
Supreme Court just rendered a decision on this topic on May 15.
So, we are considering our options."

Grifa was referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Kindred
Nursing Centers LP v. Clark et al., in which the justices found
that the Kentucky high court's refusal to send to arbitration a
wrongful death suit filed against a nursing home ran afoul of the
Federal Arbitration Act.

Judges William E. Nugent and Heidi Willis Currier sat on the
appellate panel.

Kernahan is represented by Stephen T. Sullivan Jr., Esq. --
sullivan@keefelawfirm.com -- of Keefe Law Firm and Jonathan
Rudnick, Esq. -- jonr@jonrudlaw.com -- of Carton & Rudnick.

The defendants are represented by Lori Grifa and Josiah Contarino
of Archer & Greiner PC.

The case is Amanda Kernahan v. Home Warranty Administrator of
Florida Inc. et al., case number A-1355-16T4, in the Superior
Court of the State of New Jersey, Appellate Division. [GN]


HOMEAWAY INC: Cal. App. Affirms Demurrer in HRC's Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals affirmed judgment in favor of
HomeAway, Inc., in the case captioned, HOUSING RIGHTS COMMITTEE OF
SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HOMEAWAY, INC,
Defendant and Respondent, Case Nos. A146178 (Cal. App.).

Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco (HRC) filed a lawsuit
against HomeAway, Inc., on behalf of itself and a proposed class
of San Francisco residents, challenging HomeAway's operation of a
"hosting platform" that can be used to arrange short-term
apartment rentals in San Francisco.  HRC sought damages and
injunctive relief for violations of local ordinances restricting
the rental of residential units for transient or tourist use;
unlawful business practices in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law (the UCL); and creating a public and private
nuisance. HRC also attempted to hold HomeAway liable as an aider
and abettor for encouraging unnamed landlords to violate local
ordinances, and for breach of the implied covenant of quiet
enjoyment.

The trial court entered judgment in favor of HomeAway after
sustaining a demurrer to HRC's second amended complaint without
leave to amend.

On appeal, HRC argues that it "pleaded" at least two "code
violations" to support its nuisance per se claim. First, it relies
on SAC allegations that HomeAway violated unspecified sections of
the San Francisco Planning Code. Second, HRC relies on SAC
allegations that HomeAway violated sections 10130 and 10131 of the
Business and Professions Code by acting as a real estate broker
without obtaining a license.
In his Opinion dated June 22, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/pBBlNk from Leagle.com, the Cal. App. held that
these pleading allegations were vague and conclusory, and HRC did
not clarify them in its appellate briefs and the alleged
violations do not support a nuisance per se cause of action
because the law does not expressly declare such conduct to be a
nuisance.


HONDA MOTOR: Denies Knowledge on Faulty Takata Air Bags
-------------------------------------------------------
Japan Times reports Honda Motor Co. on June 23 denied claims it
knew about Takata Corp.'s faulty air bag inflators nearly two
decades ago.

The automaker released an email written in 2013 by one of its
engineers suggesting he had knowledge of Takata's problems,
together with an affidavit from the engineer saying he was
mistaken.

The email and affidavit were released as part of Honda's defense
in a class action suit in Florida, where plaintiffs are seeking
compensation for the lost value of vehicles due to defects in
Takata air bag inflators.

Honda's move precedes Takata's expected filing for bankruptcy
protection on June 26, to address the massive liabilities from
global recalls of its air bags.

With liabilities exceeding ù1 trillion ($9 billion), Takata's
bankruptcy would be the largest by a Japanese manufacturer in the
postwar period. [GN]


HUMANA INC: Court Wants Class Certification Bid Revised
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAVID POGGI, on his own behalf and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HUMANA, INC, the Defendant,
Case No. 8:17-cv-00433-SCB-MAP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Susan
Bucklew entered an order:

   1. consolidating Case No. 8:17-cv-1234-T-24 JSS with 8:17-cv-
      433-T-24 MAP;

   2. assigning Case No. 8:17-cv-433-T-24 MAP as the lead case,
      and all further pleadings will be filed therein;

   3. directing Clerk to administratively close case number 8:17-
      cv-1234-T-24 JSS;

   4. directing Plaintiff Cruz's counsel to file a motion for
      appointment of lead plaintiffs' counsel by July 7, 2017,
      responses must be filed by July 14, 2017;

   5. directing parties to file a joint case management report by
      July 31, 2017;

   6. directing Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint by
      August 11, 2017l

   7. directing Plaintiffs to file an amended motion for
      conditional certification by August 25, 2017, where Court
      denies the original motion for conditional certification as
      moot; and

   8. terminating the motion to schedule a status conference.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Rw0fl9A8


INNOVATE LOGISTICS: Court Grants Default Judgment in "Torres"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Walls of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey granted the plaintiff's motion for a default
judgment in the case captioned JORGE TORRES, for himself and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated workers Plaintiff, v.
INNOVATE LOGISTICS, LLC, MATTHEW KIM, and "Anonymous Managers 1-5"
(names being fictitious), Defendants, Civ. No. 15-05770 (D.N.J.).

The lawsuit stems from Jorge Torres' employment as a truck driver
for Innovate Logistics, LLC and its principal Matthew Kim.  The
amended complaint alleged that the defendants deducted various
amount from Mr. Torres's pay in violation of a lease agreement,
the Motor Carrier Act, and Truth-in-Leasing Regulations.
Additionally, the amended complaint included causes of action for
common law conversion, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.  After a year-and-a-half of
litigation, Innovate's counsel moved to withdraw in November 2016.
Innovate has had six months to obtain new counsel and has failed
to do so.  On April 25, 2017 the Clerk of Court entered default as
to Innovate and Matthew Kim.

Torres then moved for a default judgment to him under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 55(b)(2) as to Innovate and Kim.

Judge Walls found that the defendants have failed to plead or
otherwise defend the lawsuit.  The judge granted Torres' motion
without oral argument under Fed. R. Civ. P. 78.  Judgment was
entered against the defendants severally in the total amount of
$17,213.80.  Additionally, Torres was entitled to $73,504.75 for
attorney fees and $1,368.09 for costs.

A full-text copy of Judge Walls' June 23, 2017 amended opinion is
available at https://is.gd/QLQVMq from Leagle.com.

JORGE TORRES, represented by DAVID TYKULSKER -- david@dtesq.com


J. CREW GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Misrepresented Discounts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
consumer has filed a class-action lawsuit against J. Crew Group
Inc.; J. Crew Operating Corp.; J. Crew Inc.; J. Crew International
Inc.; Chinos Holdings Inc.; Chinos Intermediate Holdings A Inc.;
and Chinos Intermediate Holdings B Inc., alleging that the
clothing manufacturers misrepresented the price of their products.

Caron Coladonato filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on June 7 in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the defendants alleging that
they made false claims regarding discounts on their products.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she
suffered from being misled into purchasing a falsely advertised
product. The plaintiff holds J. Crew and Chinos responsible
because the defendants allegedly advertised their products in J.
Crew Factory outlet stores and on the J. Crew Factory website as
being 50 percent off despite the fact that they were actually
being offered at a 49 percent discount.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks disgorgement,
restitution, economic and compensatory damages, punitive and
exemplary damages, interest, all legal fees and any other relief
as this court deems just. She is represented by Ross H. Schmierer,
Esq. -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- of DeNittis Osefchen Prince
P.C. in Marlton, New Jersey.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York case
number 1:17-cv-04287-UA [GN]


JACKSON HEWITT: Discovery Stayed in TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Scoma CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a Florida
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons Plaintiff, v. JACKSON HEWITT INC.,
JACKSON HEWITT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC, ASTRO TAX SERVICES LLC,
JOHN DOES 1-5 and NAVEEN MATHUR, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-24-
FtM-38CM (M.D. Fla.), Judge Carol Mirando exercised the Court's
discretion in staying discovery pending a ruling on the Jackson
Hewitt defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The
judge also denied without prejudice the motion to bifurcate
discovery until the Court rules on the motion to dismiss.

Scoma CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., filed a class action complaint against
Jackson Hewitt Inc., Jackson Hewitt Technology Services LLC, Astro
Tax Services LLC, John Does 1-5, and Naveen Mathur pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Junk Fax
Prevention Act (JFPA).  Scoma's operative complaint, filed on
February 10, 2017, alleged that he received an unsolicited
facsimile from the defendants on or about December 23, 2016.
Scoma also alleged that the facsimile did not display a proper
opt-out notice as required by 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200.
Moreover, Scoma alleged that "[o]n information and belief,
Defendants faxed the same and other unsolicited facsimiles without
the required opt-out language to Plaintiff and at least 40 other
recipients or sent the same and other advertisements by fax with
the required opt-out language but without first receiving the
recipients' express invitation or permission . . ."

On March 20, 2017, Jackson Hewitt Inc. and Jackson Hewitt
Technology Services LLC (collectively, the "Jackson Hewitt
Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss Scoma's amended complaint
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  In
their motion to dismiss, the Jackson Hewitt Defendants argued,
among other things, that the amended complaint fails to allege
facts related to each of the defendants that would establish the
individual liability of each or how one might be liable for a
violation of the TCPA by another.  Additionally, the Jackson
Hewitt Defendants argued that Scoma fails to provide any factual
allegations to support its allegations that this case is
appropriate for class treatment; instead, it merely recites the
statute.

The Jackson Hewitt Defendants requested an order staying discovery
pending a resolution of their motion to dismiss, and if Scoma's
complaint survives the motion, bifurcating discovery into two
phases: merits and class discovery.

Because there is a pending motion by the Jackson Hewitt Defendants
challenging the legal sufficiency of Scoma's amended complaint,
which after taking a "preliminary peek" the Court found
meritorious, Judge Mirando will stay discovery pending a ruling on
the motion to dismiss.  The judge, however, declined to make a
bifurcation determination at this time pending a ruling on the
Jackson Hewitt Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

For the same reasons, Judge Mirando granted Jackson Hewitt's
Motion for Rule 16(a) Pretrial Conference, and will schedule same
upon the Court's ruling on the pending motion to dismiss.  Scoma's
Unopposed Motion for Relief from Local Rule 4.04(b) was also due
to be granted.

A full-text copy of Judge Mirando's June 26, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/f6II5Y from Leagle.com.

Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., Plaintiff, represented by Ross M. Good -
- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Ryan M. Kelly --
rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

Jackson Hewitt Inc., Jackson Hewitt Technology Services LLC,
Defendants, represented by Dale A. Evans, Jr. --
dale.evans@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP, Michael Peter De
Simone, Locke Lord, LLP, Thomas Justin Cunningham --
tcunningham@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP & Joseph E. Hopkins,
Locke Lord LLP.

Naveen Mathur, Defendant, represented by Naveen Mathur.


JFE FRANCHISING: "Seong" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime, Backpay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seong Song and Jae Bak Bae, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JFE Franchising Inc.,
and Jim Kim, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01775 (S.D. Tex., June
9, 2017), seeks to recover back pay, unpaid overtime wages, lost
wages, liquidated damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

JFE Franchising Inc. is a franchise licensing company that is
headquartered in Houston, Texas, currently engaged in franchising
sushi kiosks in retail grocery chains across the United States.
Seong and Jae worked as data analyst and executive chef,
respectively. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Terrence B. Robinson, Esq.
      Shalini Khan-Ali, Esq.
      TB Robinson Law Group, PLLC
      1616 S. Voss Rd., Suite 870
      Houston, TX 77057
      Phone: (713) 568-1723
      Facsimile: (713) 965-4288
      Email: TRobinson@TBRobinsonlaw.com
             SKhan-Ali@TBRobinsonlaw.com


JR MEX-PRODUCTS: Denied "Carreto" Rest Periods, Wage Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Carreto, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. J.R. Mex-Products, Defendants, Case No.
BC664608 (Cal. Super., June 9, 2017), seeks unpaid wages and
interest thereon for failure to pay for all hours worked and
minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, failure to authorize or permit required rest periods,
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, unpaid vacation wages, reimbursement of
business-related expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable
relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest pursuant to
California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders.

Defendant operates two bakeries in La Puente, Los Angeles where
Carreto worked as a restaurant worker. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul J. Denis, Esq.
     Ethan E. Rasi, Esq.
     DENIS & RASI, PC
     38 Corporate Park
     Irvine, CA 92606
     Telephone: (714) 242-4557
     Fax: (213) 443-9601


KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Appeals Ruling in "Senne" Suit to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit titled Aaron
Senne, et al. v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Co., et al., Case No.
3:14-cv-00608-JCS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 26,
2017, Aaron Senne, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
relating to the lawsuit.  Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., et
al., have also previously filed an appeal.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act on
behalf of all minor league baseball players employed by Major
League Baseball or any MLB franchise under the Minor League
Uniform Player Contract.

The appellate case is captioned as Aaron Senne, et al. v. Kansas
City Royals Baseball Co., et al., Case No. 17-16276, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 17, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on August 17, 2017;

   -- Appellants AZPB L.P., Angels Baseball LP, Athletics
      Investment Group, LLC, Baseball Club of Seattle, LLP,
      Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC, Cincinnati Reds, LLC,
      Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd., Detroit Tigers, Inc.,
      Houston Baseball Partners LLC, Kansas City Royals Baseball
      Corp., Los Angeles Dodgers Holding Company LLC, Los Angeles
      Dodgers LLC, Miami Marlins, L.P., Milwaukee Brewers
      Baseball Club, Inc., Minnesota Twins, LLC, New York Yankees
      P'ship, Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Padres
      L.P., Pittsburgh Associates, LP, Rangers Baseball Express,
      LLC, Rangers Baseball, LLC, Rogers Blue Jays Baseball
      Partnership, San Diego Padres Baseball Club, L.P., San
      Francisco Baseball Associates, LLC, Allan Huber Selig, St.
      Louis Cardinals, LLC and Sterling Mets L.P.'s opening brief
      is due on September 25, 2017;

   -- Appellees Omar Aguilar, Craig Bennigson, Daniel Britt, Matt
      Daly, Leonard Davis, Jose Diaz, Grant Duff, Matt Frevert,
      Lauren Gagnier, Jon Gaston, Nick Giarraputo, Brandon
      Henderson, Mitch Hilligoss, Ryan Hutson, Jorge Jimenez,
      Witer Jimenez, Jake Kahaulelio, Ryan Khoury, Ryan Kiel,
      Matt Lawson, Michael Liberto, Yadel Marti, Edwin Maysonet,
      Brad McAtee, Aaron Meade, Jorge Minyety, Justin Murray,
      Jeff Nadeau, Joseph Newby, Brett Newsome, Kyle Nicholson,
      Oliver Odle, Jake Opitz, Roberto Ortiz, Tim Pahuta, Dustin
      Pease, Brandon Pinckney, David Quinowski, Gaspar Santiago,
      Aaron Senne, Lee Smith, Brad Stone, Helder Velaquez, Mark
      Wagner, Kris Watts and Kyle Woodruff's answering brief is
      due on October 25, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees AARON SENNE, MICHAEL LIBERTO, OLIVER ODLE,
BRAD MCATEE, CRAIG BENNIGSON, MATT LAWSON, KYLE WOODRUFF, RYAN
KIEL, KYLE NICHOLSON, BRAD STONE, MATT DALY, AARON MEADE, JUSTIN
MURRAY, JAKE KAHAULELIO, RYAN KHOURY, DUSTIN PEASE, JEFF NADEAU,
JON GASTON, BRANDON HENDERSON, TIM PAHUTA, LEE SMITH, JOSEPH
NEWBY, RYAN HUTSON, MATT FREVERT, ROBERTO ORTIZ, WITER JIMENEZ,
KRIS WATTS, MITCH HILLIGOSS, DANIEL BRITT, YADEL MARTI, HELDER
VELAQUEZ, JORGE JIMENEZ, JORGE MINYETY, EDWIN MAYSONET, JOSE DIAZ,
NICK GIARRAPUTO, LAUREN GAGNIER, LEONARD DAVIS, GASPAR SANTIAGO,
GRANT DUFF, OMAR AGUILAR, MARK WAGNER, DAVID QUINOWSKI BRANDON
PINCKNEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly
Situated, JAKE OPITZ and BRETT NEWSOME are represented by:

          Robert L. King, Esq.
          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          Aaron Michael Zigler, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 North 7th Street
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1625
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
          E-mail: rking@koreintillery.com
                  stillery@koreintillery.com
                  azigler@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Bobby Pouya, Esq.
          Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW & PENNEY, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: bpouya@pswlaw.com
                  dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNEY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com

The Defendants-Appellants KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP.; MIAMI
MARLINS, L.P.; SAN FRANCISCO BASEBALL ASSOCIATES, LLC; OFFICE OF
THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, an unincorporated association, DBA
Major League Baseball; ALLAN HUBER SELIG, "Bud"; ANGELS BASEBALL
LP; ST. LOUIS CARDINALS, LLC; COLORADO ROCKIES BASEBALL CLUB,
LTD.; CINCINNATI REDS, LLC; HOUSTON BASEBALL PARTNERS LLC;
ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; ROGERS BLUE JAYS BASEBALL
PARTNERSHIP; PADRES L.P.; SAN DIEGO PADRES BASEBALL CLUB, L.P.;
MINNESOTA TWINS, LLC; DETROIT TIGERS, INC.; LOS ANGELES DODGERS
LLC; STERLING METS L.P.; AZPB L.P.; NEW YORK YANKEES P'SHIP;
RANGERS BASEBALL EXPRESS, LLC; MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB,
INC.; CHICAGO CUBS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC; PITTSBURGH ASSOCIATES, LP;
BASEBALL CLUB OF SEATTLE, LLP; LOS ANGELES DODGERS HOLDING COMPANY
LLC; and RANGERS BASEBALL, LLC, are represented by:

          Neil Abramson, Esq.
          Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
          Adam M. Lupion, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: Nabramson@proskauer.com
                  ebloom@proskauer.com
                  alupion@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Harold M. Brody, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
          Telephone: (310) 557-2900
          Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
          E-mail: hbrody@proskauer.com

               - and -

          D. Gregory Valenza, Esq.
          SHAW VALENZA LLP
          300 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 983-5960
          Facsimile: (415) 983-5963
          E-mail: gvalenza@shawvalenza.com


KNR LAW: Ohio Top Court Lets County Judge Overseeing CA to Stay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Shaffer, writing for Cleveland.Com, reports that the Summit
County judge overseeing a potential class-action lawsuit against
the KNR law firm does not have to recuse herself over campaign
contributions she took from the firm, the Ohio Supreme Court has
ruled.

Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor rejected a
request, made by attorneys for three former clients who are
accusing the firm of illegal kickback and fraud schemes, to have
Common Pleas Judge Alison Breaux removed from the case.

A $3,600 in-kind campaign contribution from KNR to Breaux's
election campaign is not enough to disqualify Breaux, and attorney
Subodh Chandra did not show that the contributions unfairly
influenced the judge into making rulings against the plaintiffs,
including issuing a gag order and restricting access to online
records in the case, O'Connor wrote.

"Without more, the record does not establish that Judge Breaux's
recent legal decisions were the product of bias or favoritism
toward defendants based on KNR's contribution to her campaign,"
O'Connor wrote.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of three former KNR clients, accuses
the firm and owners Alberto Nestico and Robert Redick of engaging
in illegal kickback schemes with chiropractors and lending
agencies, and charging clients fees for "investigations" that
never happened.

KNR denied the allegations, and Breaux dismissed the claims
against Nestico and ordered the plaintiffs to pay his attorney
fees.

KNR allowed Breaux's campaign to use a billboard truck from May
through November, and the firm and its employees made a number of
contributions and campaigned on behalf of Joy Oldfield, another
Common Pleas Judge and a close friend of Breaux's.

Subodh Chandra, who represents the former employees suing KNR,
argued that those efforts to elect Oldfield could sway Breaux, but
O'Connor called that argument "too speculative."

Cleveland.com, with help from the First Amendment and the Arts
Project, a new clinical initiative of the Spangenberg Center for
Law, Technology and the Arts at the Case Western Reserve
University School of Law, has challenged Breaux's orders for the
Summit County Clerk of Courts to remove all court records from the
clerk's online docket and not distribute any digital copies of the
records.

That gag order remained in place on June 23, and no records were
available online.

The orders stemmed from a stash of internal KNR emails that
Chandra's firm attached to a motion to get Nestico back on the
case. Those emails were provided by a former employee, Roy Horton,
and KNR argued they amounted to proprietary information that
competitors could use to undercut their business. Chandra and
Pattakos reject that claim and argue they amount to evidence that
shows Nestico should be restored as a defendant.

KNR has filed a counterclaim against Horton and sought to keep
Horton from providing other records to Pattakos and Chandra. [GN]


LG ELECTRONICS: "Foley" Dismissed for Failure to Prove Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety in the
case captioned, BRIAN THOMAS FOLEY, Plaintiff, v. LG ELECTRONICS,
INC., et. al, Defendants, Case No. 1:16CV1479 (N.D. Ohio).

Plaintiff Brian Foley filed his original Complaint on June 15,
2016, against Defendant LG Electronics and two of its
subsidiaries, alleging seven causes of action relating to three
models of ovens marketed and sold by Defendant. One claim is
brought under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act on behalf of the
class of people nationally who purchased LRE3083, LRE3021ST, or
LRE3085ST ovens. Five claims are brought on behalf of the sub-
class of people within the State of Ohio who purchased any of the
aforementioned ovens. The six Class Action claims all relate to
the alleged lack of Sabbath Mode on all three models of oven.
Plaintiff also brings one individual claim for breach of express
warranty for Defendant's failure to fix the lack of a true
convection feature on the Oven. Plaintiff seeks lost profits from
his business as well as the cost of the oven in damages for the
individual breach of warranty claim.

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on July 11, 2016, and filed
his Second Amended Complaint on September 19, 2016.

Defendant moves to dismiss all claims, arguing that Plaintiff
lacks Article III standing for all claims relating to the Sabbath
Mode feature because Plaintiff has not been injured by the alleged
lack of Sabbath Mode feature. Defendant further argues that
Plaintiff's individual claim should be dismissed for failure to
state a claim under 12(b)(6), because Plaintiff took himself
outside the scope of the express limited warranty by using the
Oven for commercial purposes.

Plaintiff argues that he was injured because the alleged lack of
Sabbath Mode feature diminished the value of the Oven. Plaintiff
also argues that his individual claim does have sufficient facts
to support a claim for relief because the language of the warranty
is ambiguous and because Defendant's conduct waived the limitation
on the warranty.
In his Opinion and Order dated June 22, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/mGcuLD from Leagle.com, Judge Boyko held that the
Plaintiff suffered no injury from the alleged conduct and
Plaintiff voided the warranty under which he seeks to recover.

Brian Thomas Foley is represented by Mark Schlachet, Esq. --
markschlachet@me.com -- LAW OFFICE OF MARK SCHLACHET

LG Electronics USA, Inc, is represented by James A. Wilson, Jr.,
Esq. -- jawilson@vorys.com -- and -- Mitchell A. Tobias, Esq. --
matobias@vorys.com -- VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE -- Michael
Harrison Rubin, Esq. -- WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & RASATI


LYFT INC: Can Compel Arbitration in "Applebaum" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted defendant's motion to compel
arbitration in the case styled APPLEBAUM, on Behalf of Himself and
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LYFT, INC.,
Defendant, No. 16-cv-07062 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.).

Lyft Inc. is a Delaware company with its principal place of
business in California. It is a transportation company that
connects consumers to drivers through its mobile application, it
facilitates peer-to-peer ridesharing by connecting passengers who
need a ride with available Lyft drivers through the Lyft App,
which is available for download on smartphones. Lyft charges
consumers for rides using Lyft's rates plus additional rates, if
applicable, such as surcharges and tolls.

Plaintiff Josh Applebaum, a citizen of New York created his
registered profile in the Lyft App on or around April 6, 2016. At
the time, the registration process required the plaintiff to input
certain information into a series of screens presented on his
smartphone. The plaintiff was asked to provide Lyft with certain
information, such as his name, e-mail address, supply payment
information. Plaintiff however had the option of temporarily
bypassing the step until he first requested a ride. During this
process, plaintiff did see a light blue-texted Terms of Services
hyperlinked to a separate scrollable page containing Lyft's
February 8, 2016 Terms of Services. Clicking the hyperlink was not
required to create the registered profile and indeed, plaintiff
swears that he did not read the February 8, 2016 Terms of
Services, and that he did not at the time knowingly agree to any
arbitration agreement.

On May 30, 2016, he used the Lyft App to arrange a ride from New
York City to New Jersey. Plaintiff alleges that Lyft overcharged
him by $2.50 because he was charged the non-discounted cash rate
of $15.00 for the Holland Tunnel toll, instead of the discounted
E-Z Pass rate of $12.50 that the driver actually paid. Plaintiff
claims that Lyft misled consumers including him into believing
that they would be charged the discounted rate.

Plaintiff initiated an action on September 9, 2016, on behalf of a
purported class and alleges that Lyft overcharges its New York
City metropolitan area consumers by charging them the non-
discounted cash price for tolls, as opposed to the discounted rate
that Lyft's drivers may receive by using E-Z Pass. Plaintiff has
asserted claims for violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. Section 349 and
unjust enrichment.

Lyft updated its Terms of Service on September 30, 2016. Any
existing Lyft customer that accessed the Lyft App after the update
was automatically presented Lyft's September 30, 2016 Terms of
Service. Plaintiff accessed the Lyft App on November 22, 2016, and
clicked I accept when he was presented with the screen containing
the September 30, 2016 Terms of Service.

Lyft initially moved to compel arbitration based on the February
8, 2016 Terms of Service. In their briefing on that motion, Lyft
argued for the first time in its reply papers that the plaintiff's
acceptance of the September 30, 2016 Terms of Service showed that
the plaintiff had no opposition to arbitrating his claims pursuant
to the February 8, 2016 Terms of Service. On March 17, 2017, the
court ordered supplemental briefing on whether the plaintiff had
agreed to arbitrate his claims pursuant to his alleged acceptance
of the September 30, 2016 Terms of Service.

Lyft moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay the action, and
to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA), 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.

Judge Koeltl granted defendant's motion to compel arbitration
pursuant to the FAA, as the method for presenting the September
30, 2016 Terms of Service to existing customers who had already
registered conspicuously cured the defects in the notice for the
February 8, 2016 Terms of Service. Judge Koeltl also observed that
plaintiff assented to the terms of the September 30, 2016 Terms of
Service when he clicked I accept on November 22, 2016 and the
arbitration agreement contained a very broad arbitration clause
together with a delegation clause that gave the arbitrators the
power to decide issues of arbitrability.

The parties shall submit a proposed order to the court by July 10,
2017, in accordance with the decision that directs the parties to
arbitrate their dispute. If the parties cannot agree to a jointly
proposed order, each party may submit a proposed order to the
court by July 10, 2017, and any objections to the other side's
order by July 12, 2017. The action is stayed pending the
resolution of the arbitration.

A copy of Judge John G. Koeltl opinion and order dated June 26,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/YBg2Ny from Leagle.com.

Josh Applebaum, Plaintiff, represented by Lee A. Weiss -- at Berns
Weiss, LLP; Nealraj Bhushan -- at The Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Firm

Lyft, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves --
agroves@winston.com -- Jeffrey J. Amato -- jamato@winston.com --
Sean D. Meenan -- smeenan@winston.com -- at Winston & Strawn, LLP


MDL 2262: New Britain City, et al. Appeal June 13 Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs City of New Britain, Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, Vistra Energy Corporation, Yale University and Jennie
Stuart Medical Center, Inc., filed an appeal from a District Court
judgment dated June 13, 2017, relating to the multidistrict
litigation styled In Re Libor-Based Financial Instruments
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1:11-md-2262-NRB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs in the MDL (including the Petitioners) allege that the
Defendants conspired to artificially depress USD LIBOR for profit-
and reputation-based reasons.  The Defendants then sold price-
fixed financial instruments incorporating USD LIBOR to U.S.
financial institutions, including the Petitioners.  The
Petitioners also allege a broader conspiracy in which the
Defendants agreed to boycott actual or potential LIBOR competitors
in the market for interest-rate benchmarks to facilitate their
price-fixing agreements.

The appellate case is captioned as In Re Libor-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 17-1915, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants City of New Britain, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, Vistra Energy Corporation, Yale University and Jennie
Stuart Medical Center, Inc., are represented by:

          William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-3334
          E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com

Defendants-Appellees Lloyds Banking Group plc and HBOS plc are
represented by:

          Marc J. Gottridge, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          875 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 918-3000
          E-mail: marc.gottridge@hoganlovells.com

Defendants-Appellees Bank of America Corporation and Bank of
America, N.A., are represented by:

          Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4000
          E-mail: rwise@dpw.com

Defendants-Appellees The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and
Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, agent of RBS Citizens Bank, NA,
are represented by:

          David Sapir Lesser, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 230-8851
          Facsimile: (212) 230-8811
          E-mail: david.lesser@wilmerhale.com

Defendants-Appellees Citibank, N.A., and Citigroup Inc. are
represented by:

          Andrew A. Ruffino, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          1 CityCenter
          850 10th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (212) 841-1097
          E-mail: aruffino@cov.com

Defendant-Appellee Credit Suisse Group AG is represented by:

          Joel Kurtzberg, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          80 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 701-3120
          E-mail: JKurtzberg@cahill.com

Defendant-Appellee Deutsche Bank AG is represented by:

          Moses Silverman, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000
          E-mail: msilverman@paulweiss.com

Defendants-Appellees JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., are represented by:

          Thomas C. Rice, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          E-mail: trice@stblaw.com

Defendant-Appellee The Norinchukin Bank is represented by:

          Andrew W. Stern, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5300
          E-mail: astern@sidley.com

Defendant-Appellee UBS AG is represented by:

          Jefferson E. Bell, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-4000
          E-mail: jbell@gibsondunn.com

Defendants-Appellees WestLB AG and WestDeutsche ImmobilienBank AG
are represented by:

          Christopher Martin Paparella, Esq.
          HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP
          1 Battery Park Plaza
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 837-6644
          E-mail: paparella@hugheshubbard.com

Defendant-Appellee Royal Bank of Canada is represented by:

          Robert Thomas Smith, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2900 K Street, NW, North Tower
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 625-3616
          E-mail: robert.smith1@kattenlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees HSBC Bank PLC and HSBC Holdings PLC are
represented by:

          Edwin R. DeYoung, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 740-8000
          E-mail: edeyoung@lockelord.com

Defendant-Appellee The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., is
represented by:

          Christopher Michael Viapiano, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          1700 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 956-6985
          E-mail: viapianoc@sullcrom.com

Defendants-Appellees Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays PLC are
represented by:

          Amos Amory Friedland, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8248
          Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
          E-mail: afriedland@bsfllp.com

Defendant-Appellee Societe Generale S.A. is represented by:

          Henninger S. Bullock, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 506-2500
          E-mail: hbullock@mayerbrown.com

Defendants-Appellees Credit Suisse International and Credit Suisse
(USA), Inc., are represented by:

          Elai Katz, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          80 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 701-3039
          Facsimile: (212) 378-2512
          E-mail: ekatz@cahill.com

Defendant-Appellee Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen -
Boerenleenbank B.A. is represented by:

          Arthur Joseph Burke, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4000
          E-mail: arthur.burke@davispolk.com


METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON: Kerpen Appeals Ruling to Fourth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Phil Kerpen, Austin Ruse, Cathy Ruse, Charlotte
Sellier, Joel Sellier and Michael Gingras filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit titled Phil Kerpen v. Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01307-JCC-
TCB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia at Alexandria.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 7,
2017, Judge James C. Cacheris granted the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss the case for failure to state a claim.

Judge Cacheris also denied the Plaintiffs' Motions for Partial
Summary Judgment and for Leave to File Supplemental Authority and
dismissed the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

The appellate case is captioned as Phil Kerpen v. Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority, et al., Case No. 17-1735, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that initial
forms are due within 14 days.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants PHIL KERPEN, AUSTIN RUSE, CATHY RUSE,
CHARLOTTE SELLIER, JOEL SELLIER and MICHAEL GINGRAS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are represented
by:

          Robert John Cynkar, Esq.
          Christopher Ivan Kachouroff, Esq.
          Patrick Michael McSweeney, Esq.
          MCSWEENEY, CYNKAR & KACHOUROFF PLLC
          13649 Office Place
          Woodbridge, VA 22192
          Telephone: (703) 621-3300
          Facsimile: (703) 759-3688
          E-mail: rcynkar@mck-lawyers.com
                  chris@mck-lawyers.com
                  sPatrick@mck-lawyers.com

               - and -

          Stuart Kyle Duncan, Esq.
          Gene C. Schaerr, Esq.
          SCHAERR DUNCAN LLP
          1717 K Street NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 714-9492
          Facsimile: (571) 730-4429
          E-mail: KDuncan@Schaerr-Duncan.com
                  gschaerr@schaerr-duncan.com

Defendant-Appellee METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY is
represented by:

          Leslie W. Kostyshak, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 955-1500
          E-mail: lkostyshak@hunton.com

               - and -

          Sona Rewari, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP
          1751 Pinnacle Drive
          McLean, VA 22102-0000
          Telephone: (703) 714-7512
          E-mail: srewari@hunton.com

Defendants-Appellees ANTHONY FOXX, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Transportation, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION are represented by:

          Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Esq.
          Kimere Jane Kimball, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          2100 Jamieson Avenue
          Alexandria, VA 22314-5194
          Telephone: (703) 299-3891
          Facsimile: (703) 299-3983
          E-mail: dennis.barghaan@usdoj.gov

Defendant-Appellee ANTHONY FOXX, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Transportation, is represented by:

          Lauren Anne Wetzler, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          2100 Jamieson Avenue
          Alexandria, VA 22314-5194
          Telephone: (703) 299-3752
          E-mail: lauren.wetzler@usdoj.gov

Intervenor/Defendant KARL ANTHONY RACINE, and Intervenor DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA are represented by:

          Michael A. Tilghman, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          441 4th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-0000
          Telephone: (202) 727-6247
          Facsimile: (202) 741-8776
          E-mail: michael.tilghman@dc.gov


MIDLAND CREDIT: JPML Directed to Remand "Doyle" to New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DANA A. DOYLE, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-00851-MMA-MDD (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Michael M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and suggested that the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") remand this action to
the District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed this action against
Defendant in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").  On Feb. 18, 2015, she amended her
complaint to include violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").  On April 17, 2015, the JPML transferred
this action to the District Court for the Southern District of
California.

On Dec. 2, 2016, the Court granted final approval of the Class
Settlement in In Re: Midland Credit Management, Inc. Telephone
Consumer Protection Act Litigation.  The Class Settlement resolved
all TCPA claims by class members against the Defendant for calls
made during the period of Nov. 2, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2014.

Specifically, the Class Settlement released all claims relating to
the making, placing, dialing or initiating of calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded
voice, any and all claims for violation of the TCPA, and the
regulations promulgated thereunder or related thereto, and any and
all claims for violation of any laws of any state that regulate,
govern, prohibit or restrict the making, placing, dialing or
initiating of calls using an automatic telephone dialing system,
an artificial or prerecorded voice, or any automated process or
technology.

Class members had the right to opt out of or object to the terms
of the Class Settlement.  On Dec. 22, 2016, the Court ordered the
Plaintiff to file a Status Report identifying any remaining claims
not released by the Class Settlement, as it appeared that she had
not opted out of the Class Settlement.  On Jan. 17, 2017, she
filed a Status Report identifying claims under the TCPA and FDCPA.

On March 24, 2017, the Defendant filed the instant motion to
dismiss.  The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's TCPA
claims as well as her FDCPA claims to the extent that the FDCPA
claims rely on the use of an automatic telephone dialing system
("ATDS"), prerecorded or artificial voice, or any automated
process or technology.  On April 5, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a
response in which she opposed dismissal of her TCPA and FDCPA
claims, and requested this matter be remanded to its original
jurisdiction in the District of New Jersey for adjudication.

The Court said the modes of providing notice were adequate and
compliant with Rule 23 despite that the Plaintiff may not have
received a postcard regarding the settlement.  Consequently, her
TCPA claims were released because she is a member of the Class
Settlement who did not timely opt out.  Accordingly, the Court
granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's TCPA
claims, and dismissed the Plaintiff's TCPA claims with prejudice.

Because the Class Settlement only contemplates TCPA claims and
claims that involve the use of an ATDS, artificial or prerecorded
voice, or any automated process or technology, the Plaintiff's
FDCPA claims were not released by the Class Settlement.  The Court
declines to engage in piecemeal dismissal of Plaintiff's claims.
Therefore, the Court declined to engage in piecemeal dismissal of
the Plaintiff's claims.

The Plaintiff's sole remaining claims are not contemplated by the
Midland MDL.  Remand to the District of New Jersey best serves the
relevant interests of the judiciary and the Parties in terms of
convenience and efficiency.  Accordingly, the Court suggested that
the JPML remand this action to the District Court for the District
of Jersey for adjudication.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/SpjSlG from Leagle.com.

Dana A. Doyle, Plaintiff, represented by David Paul Force, LAW
OFFICES OF MICHAEL LUPOLOVER PC.

Dana A. Doyle, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Taylor Sheffield,
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL LUPOLOVER & Stuart Price, Price Law Group.

Midland Credit Management Inc, Defendant, represented by Amy M.
Gallegos -- agallegos@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Andrew
Michael Schwartz -- amschwartz@mdwcg.com -- Marwill, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C., Lawrence J. Bartel, III --
ljbartel@mdwcg.com

-- MARWILL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN & Ronald Michael
Metcho, II -- rmmetcho@mdwcg.com -- MARWILL DENNEHEY WARNER
COLEMAN & GOGGIN PC.


MIDLAND CREDIT: MDL Panel Directed to Remand "Canter" to Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AYZA CORUJO CANTER and STEVEN M. CANTER,
Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:14-cv-02939-MMA-MDD (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael M. Anello of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, and suggested that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL Panel") remand this action to the District Court
for the Southern District of Florida to address the Plaintiffs'
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") claims.

On Aug. 18, 2014 Plaintiff Ayza Canter filed this action against
the Defendant in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida alleging violations of the FDCPA, and the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  On Dec. 11, 2014, the MDL Panel
transferred this action to this Court to be litigated as part of
the Midland MDL. The Midland MDL consists of cases alleging
violations of the TCPA.

On Dec. 2, 2016, the Court granted final approval of the Class
Settlement in the Midland MDL.  The Class Settlement resolved all
TCPA claims by class members against the Defendant for calls made
from Nov. 2, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2014.

Specifically, the Class Settlement released all claims by class
members against the Defendant relating to the making, placing,
dialing or initiating of calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice, any and all
claims for violation of the TCPA, and the regulations promulgated
thereunder or related thereto, and any and all claims for
violation of any laws of any state that regulate, govern, prohibit
or restrict the making, placing, dialing or initiating of calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system, an artificial or
prerecorded voice, or any automated process or technology.

The Class members had the right to opt out of the settlement or to
object to the terms of the Class Settlement.  On Dec. 12, 2016,
the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file a Status Report
identifying any remaining claims not released by the Class
Settlement, as it appeared that they had not opted out of the
Class Settlement.  They did not file a Status Report in response
to the Court's Order.

Accordingly, on Jan. 1, 2017, the Court issued an Order to Show
Cause requiring the Plaintiffs to explain why their case should
not be dismissed by Feb. 6, 2017.

On Feb. 7, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a response to the Order to
Show Cause and included a "Status Report."  In the Status Report,
they state that their TCPA claims were swept up into the Class
Settlement.  However, they contend that their FDCPA and FCCPA
claims remain.  The Status Report also contained a request to
transfer their claims back to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida for adjudication.  On March 24, 2017,
the Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss.  It moves to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' TCPA claims as well as their FDCPA and
FCCPA claims to the extent that they rely on the use of an
automatic telephone dialing system, artificial or prerecorded
voice, or any automated process or technology.

The Plaintiffs do not contest that they are members of the
settlement class and did not timely opt out of the Class
Settlement.  They Plaintiffs are therefore bound by the Class
Settlement, and their TCPA claims have been released.
Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
as to the Plaintiffs' TCPA claims, and dismisses the Plaintiffs'
TCPA claims with prejudice.

While there may be overlap between the purpose of the TCPA and the
rights protected by the FCCPA and FDCPA, the relevant provisions
of the FDCPA and FCCPA focus on the abusive and harassing nature
of the conduct of debt collectors, and do not require the use of
an ATDS, artificial or prerecorded voice, or any automated process
or technology.  Thus, the Class Settlement did not contemplate
settlement of such claims.  Accordingly, the Court denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' FDCPA and
FCCPA claims.

In sum, the sole remaining claims are not claims contemplated by
the MDL that this action was transferred to be a part of.  Remand
to the Southern District of Florida best serves the relevant
interests of the judiciary and the Parties in terms of
convenience, efficiency, and familiarity with the relevant law.
Accordingly, the Court suggested that the MDL Panel remand this
action to the District Court for the Southern District of Florida
for adjudication.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/pbPZTm from Leagle.com.

Ayza Corujo Canter, Plaintiff, represented by Steven M. Canter,
Steven M. Canter, Esq.

Steven M. Canter, Plaintiff, represented by Steven M. Canter,
Steven M. Canter, Esq.

Midland Credit Management Inc, Defendant, represented by Amy M.
Gallegos -- agallegos@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP &
Jacqueline A. Simms-Petredis -- jsimms-petredis@burr.com -- Burr &
Forman, LLP.


MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Kraus" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as David Kraus, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03793 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2017).

Monarch Recovery, an accounts receivable management company,
provides financial recovery solutions. It offers collection and
payment.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NATIONAL WATER: Mass. Resolves Question of Law in Workers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk, resolves the
question of law presented in the case ROBERT GEORGE & others vs.
NATIONAL WATER MAIN CLEANING COMPANY & others, No. SJC-12191
(Mass.).

Several employees of National Water Main Cleaning Company filed a
class action suit against the company and its parent company,
Carylon Corporation, in the Superior Court, alleging, among other
claims, nonpayment of wages in violation of the Massachusetts Wage
Act, G. L. c. 149, Sections 148, 150.  After the case was removed
to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, the judge granted final approval of a class
settlement agreement that resolved all outstanding issues except
one question of law.

The District Court judge certified to the Supreme Judicial Court
of Massachusetts the following question pursuant to S.J.C. Rule
1:03, as appearing in 382 Mass. 700 (1981):

     "Is statutory interest pursuant to G. L. C. 231, Section 6B
or 6C, available under Massachusetts law when liquidated damages
are awarded pursuant to G. L. c. 149, Section 150?"

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that, under
Massachusetts law, statutory prejudgment interest pursuant to G.
L. c. 231, Section 6H, will be added by the clerk of court to the
amount of lost wages and other benefits awarded as damages
pursuant to G. L. c. 149, Section 150, but will not be added to
the additional amount of the award arising from the trebling of
those damages as liquidated damages.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts declines to answer the
questions because, even if prejudgment interest could not be added
to Wage Act awards under Section 6B or Section 6C, it plainly
could be added under G. L. c. 231, Section 6H, which declares that
interest at the rate of twelve per cent per year will be added to
the award of damages in any action in which damages are awarded,
but in which interest on said damages is not otherwise provided by
law.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts'
opinion dated June 26, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/7r68ue
from Leagle.com.

Adam J. Shafran -- ashafran@rflawyers.com -- Jonathon D. Friedmann
-- jfriedmann@rflawyers.com -- at Rudolph Friedman LLP for the
plaintiffs

Richard L. Alfred -- ralfred@seyfarth.com -- Dawn Reddy Solowey --
dsolowey@seyfarth.com -- Anne S. Bider -- abider@seyfarth.com --
at Seyfarth Shaw LLP

John Pagliaro -- Martin J. Newhouse, for New England Legal
Foundation, amicus curiae

Annette Gonthier Kiely -- Kathy Jo Cook -- Thomas R. Murphy --
Timothy J. Wilton, for Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys,
amicus curiae, submitted a brief

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts panel consists of
Chief Justice Ralph D. Gants and Justices Barbara A. Lenk,
Geraldine S. Hines, David A. Lowy and Kimberly S. Budd.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Peek Wants Suit to Proceed as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Heidi PEEK; and John
KUKULKA, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.;
and LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST ("LSF9"); and U. S. BANK
TRUST, NA, as Trustee of LSF9, Case No. 1:17-cv-00230-SM (D.N.H.),
ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. allowing the case to be proceed on a classwide basis
      pending class discovery and briefing; or

   2. deferring consideration of the Motion pending class
      discovery and briefing.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward K. O'Brien, Esq.
          O'BRIEN LAW FIRM, PC
          77 Sundial Avenue, Suite 148W
          Manchester, NH 03103
          Telephone: (603) 672-3800
          E-mail: eobrien@ekoblaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph Farside, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2800 Financial Plaza
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 455-7648
          E-mail: joseph.farside@lockelord.com


NEW ZEALAND: Kiwifruit Growers' Class Action Goes to Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Newshub reports seven years after the outbreak of vine disease
PSA, a group of kiwifruit growers bringing a class action lawsuit
against the Government is set to have its day in court.

The 212 members of the group, calling itself the Kiwifruit Claim,
will have their case against the Ministry for Primary Industries
heard in the High Court in just over a month.

The 12-week trial will begin in Wellington on August 7.

The growers allege MPI's biosecurity services were negligent in
not stopping the vine-killing disease's introduction into New
Zealand in 2010 and say the industry lost more than $800 million
as a result.

"There were growers who were wiped out, and faced with no crops
and plummeting values of their orchards, lost their businesses,
and were forced to sell at heavily discounted prices," claim chair
John Cameron said.

MPI denies any allegation of negligence and says it acted "in
accordance with its international obligations and with scientific
knowledge available at the time".

It also argues it has immunity from civil lawsuits under the
Biosecurity Act and that $25 million of Government compensation
was made available to growers. [GN]


NIC GEORGIOU: Investors' Class Action May Receive Boost
-------------------------------------------------------
Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that the looming
class action suit against Nic Georgiou and Orthotouch by investors
in the failed R4.6 billion Pickvest property syndication schemes,
may receive a significant boost.

Morkel Steyn, a senior marketing executive of Pickvest and a
director of all the Highveld Syndication schemes, has
"disassociated" himself from property magnate Nic Georgiou,
Orthotouch and several other related individuals, as he doesn't
believe they act in the best interest of investors.

He has now approached the Highveld Syndication Action Group
(HSAG), the driver of the class action application, to offer his
assistance. "I am doing this for investors. I have been with
Pickvest from the start as the National Marketing director and for
many investors I am the face of the scheme. I have significant
information which may help the class action gain some momentum."

Steyn was the former national marketing director of Pickvest and
was until recently closely involved with the management of the
business rescue plan. He has, however, not met with the HSAG legal
team, but the parties have been in contact.

Steyn said he closely monitored all developments within the
Pickvest companies since the implementation of the business rescue
plan in 2011. "Over a long period of time I have tried to
constructively address several internal matters with Georgiou and
other key individuals, but these issues were not resolved.

"Someone needs to make a stand against possible maladministration
and possible irregularities," he said.

Investigations

Steyn said it was critical that an investigation be conducted into
the proposed listing of the Capital Growth Fund (CGF), a company
that will own many of the various scheme's properties and which
will allow investors to convert their historical investments into
shares in a listed company.

This listing was one of the options in the original scheme of
arrangement and will allow investors to get access to their
capital by selling their shares in the open market. This option is
being aggressively marketed to investors, who currently receive
monthly interest.

"I am really worried about this option, as investors will not
receive more than 25% of the value of their original investments.
The option is hugely beneficial for Georgiou as he would not have
to continue paying interest to the investors who elect this
option."

He added that he was also concerned about the quality of the
management of the various properties housed in CGF as many of the
properties have deteriorated in recent years.

In a recent letter Orthotouch sent to shareholders, the company
states that the listing "is well underway and is anticipated to be
finalised during September 2017".

Steyn also wants to investigate various developments and
agreements that triggered the collapse of the scheme. This
includes the sales agreement of PIC Investment Holdings by Durant
Botha to Rikus Myburgh.

"I want to see the sale contract for this transaction, including
all back to back agreements between Myburgh and Botha, as well as
with Nic Georgiou.

"I also want to look at the flow of funds between various entities
including Bosman & Visser."

Steyn also wants some answers as to the R882 million dispute
between Georgiou (Zelpy/Zephan Properties) and Bosman & Visser,
which led to Georgiou cancelling the head lease and buyback
agreements which was the core of the financial product.

"This dispute has never been investigated and it was the event
that caused the current dilemma."

Jacques Theron, legal representative of the HSAG, said he welcomed
the development and will engage Steyn. "We welcome any assistance
and information that will accelerate the class action process."

The class action application was launched in 2014 and since then
Georgiou has fought it tooth and nail. This application hasn't
even been heard and the parties have been involved in at least 15
other cases. Georgiou has also settled the claims or employed
several key individuals that were initially strong proponents of
the class action.

Georgiou Fails to Pay Investors

It has also become apparent that Georgiou failed to fully repay
investors who elected the option in terms of the scheme of
arrangement to receive a once-off payment of 40% of their initial
capital investment.

It is not known how many of the 18 000 investors elected this
option, but of 89 people who participated in a HSAG pole, 79
stated they have not received full payment.

In a letter to investors, Orthotouch claims that investors were
paid a third of the amounts due to them, and that the balance
would be paid on August 31. Investors would receive 10% interest
on the outstanding balance.

The letter states that the payment was delayed as Orthotouch
hasn't receive the proceeds from two buildings that were sold. It
is not clear which buildings were sold.

Theron says Georgiou has disclosed during negotiations that
investors representing around R400 million of the total n
investments elected this option, indicating that the total
repayment is around R160 million.

Georgiou did not respond to emailed questions prior to
publication. [GN]


NISSAN NORTH: "Batista" Class Settlement Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert N. Scolar, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida granted final approval of the class
action settlement and attorneys' fees and expenses in the case
captioned Kenai Batista, and others, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nissan North America,
Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-24728-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fl.).

The Court certified a Settlement Class, for settlement purposes
only, consisting of all current and former owners and lessees of
2013-2014 model year Nissan Pathfinder and 2013-2014 model year
Infiniti JX35/QX60 vehicles equipped with the FK-*k2 CVT in the
United States and its territories, including Puerto Rico.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) NNA, any entity or
division in which NNA has a controlling interest, its/their legal
representatives, officers, directors, assigns and successors; (ii)
any judge to whom this case is assigned and the judge's clerks and
any member of the judge's immediate family; (iii) fleet and
government purchasers and lessees; and (iv) those persons or
entities that validly and timely elected exclusion from the
Settlement Class.

Any objector that timely filed an objection to the Settlement
Agreement may choose to opt out of the Settlement on or before
July 12, 2017, by following the same opt out procedure delineated
in the Notice to the Settlement Class.

The Lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.

The named Plaintiffs are suitable class representatives and are
appointed representatives for the Settlement Class.  The Court
approved an award of $5,000 to each of Plaintiffs Kenai Batista,
Andy Chance, Angela Matlin, Tung Nguyen and Gerardo Torres as a
reasonable payment for his or her efforts, expenses and risks as
Plaintiffs in bringing the lawsuit, which will be paid by NNA as
provided in the Settlement.

The Court appointed Cory Watson, P.C., Weil Quaranta, P.A.,
Newsome Melton, LLP, Berger & Montague, P.C., and Capstone Law APC
as counsel for the Settlement Class.  The Court approved an award
of $3,750,000 to the Plaintiffs' counsel as reasonable payment for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, which will be paid by NNA as
provided in the Settlement.

The Court finds that no just reason exists for delay in entering
this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal.  Accordingly, the
Clerk is directed to enter final judgment and to close this case.
All pending motions, if any, are denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/vlGlwE from Leagle.com.

Kenai Batista, Plaintiff, represented by Adam W. Pittman, Cory
Watson, PC, pro hac vice.

Kenai Batista, Plaintiff, represented by C. Richard Newsome,
Newsome Law Firm, Frank Jerome Tapley, Cory Watson, P.C., Hirlye
R. Lutz, III, Cory Watson PC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Osterwise --
josterwise@bm.net -- Berger & Montague PC, pro hac vice, Lawrence
D. Deutsch -- ldeutsch@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac
vice, Maria Victoria Olszewska -- molszewska@weilquaranta.net --
Weil Quaranta, P.A., William Carl Ourand, Jr., Newsome & Melton &
Ronald Peter Weil -- rweil@weilquaranta.net -- Ronald Weil PA.

Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by E. Paul
Cauley, Jr. -- paul.cauley@dbr.com -- Sedgwick, LLP, pro hac vice,
Ramon A. Abadin -- ramon.abadin@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP,
S. Vance Wittie, Sedgwick LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher J.M.
Collings -- christopher.collings@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP,
Ryan Christopher Brown -- ryan.brown@dbr.com -- Sedgwick, LLP &
Valerie Shea -- valerie.shea@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP.


NRG ENERGY: Court Wants Class Cert Bid in "Wilens" Suit Renewed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JEFFREY WILENS, on behalf of himself and
all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NRG ENERGY, INC,
and NRG RESIDENTIAL SOLAR SOLUTIONS LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
8:15-cv-01128-CJC-JCG (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. District Judge Cormac
J. Carney entered an order denying without prejudice all pending
motions other than Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend.

The Court believes that simultaneous consideration of Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, Plaintiff's motion for leave to
amend, and Defendants' motion to strike would be chaotic and
counterproductive. In order to proceed in a deliberative and
rational manner, the Court denies without prejudice all pending
motions other than Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend.
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend will be considered by the
Court in due course with briefing pursuant to Local Rules 7-9
and 7-10. The hearing on that motion, set for July 24, 2017,
remains on calendar. Within 14 days of the Court's resolution of
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, the motion for class
certification is to be renewed. Defendants may respond in due
course by renewing their motion to strike. Any motion other than
Defendants' opposition to the motion for class certification
should be regularly noticed and is to be filed within 14 days of
Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Should Defendants file
such motions, the Court will set the briefing and hearing schedule
on the renewed motion for class certification in its resolution of
those motions. Should Defendants choose not to file any such
motions, their opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is due six weeks after the motion for class
certification is filed. Any reply is due two weeks after that. The
hearing on the motion for class certification will be at 1:30 p.m.
on a Monday not earlier than 21 days after that in Courtroom 9B.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sUGP53jz


OCWEN LOAN: Court Defers Certifying Class in "Snyder"
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois deferred to certify class in the
cases captioned KEITH SNYDER and SUSAN MANSANAREZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, TRACEE A. BEECROFT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case Nos. 14 C
8461, 16 C 8677 (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiffs filed suit against the Defendant, alleging that
Ocwen made debt-collection phone calls using an autodialer in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Plaintiffs Snyder and
Mansanarez sued on behalf of a class of similarly situated
Plaintiffs.  They have moved for a preliminary injunction to
prevent Ocwen from continuing practices that allegedly violate the
TCPA and certification of a limited class for this purpose.  They
are separately moving for certification of a class on all their
claims, including their claims for damages, but due to the need
for discovery that motion was only recently filed.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have established the basis for
certification of a limited class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2) and an entitlement to at least some of the
preliminary injunctive relief they seek.  But more work is
required before the Court can finalize a class certification order
or an appropriate preliminary injunction order.

By no later than July 10, 2017, Ocwen is directed to file a
report, supported by affidavits, including the following:

     a. A description of how Ocwen will go about conducting a
search for the files of borrowers that reflect a phone number
having been obtained by NVLS, including how long it will take to
conduct the search and the type of information that the search
will report.

     b. A description of the feasibility, cost, and time needed to
add a field to the REALServicing database that would identify the
means by which any particular number for a borrower was obtained.

     c. A detailed description of Ocwen's current policies and
practices regarding revocation of TCPA consent, including any
documentation describing these policies and practices.

A status hearing, to be conducted by telephone, is set for July
12, 2017 at 8:30 a.m.  The Counsel are directed to set up a call-
in number and are to provide it to chambers by no later than 12:00
p.m. on July 11, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/fwgHha from Leagle.com.

Keith Snyder, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Daniel Ankcorn --
MARK@ANKCORNLAW.COM -- Ankcorn Law Firm, PLLC.

Keith Snyder, Plaintiff, represented by Adrienne D. McEntee --
amcentee@terrellmarwill.com -- Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC, pro
hac vice, Alexander Holmes Burke -- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com --
Burke Law Offices, LLC, Ann Marie Hansen, Ann Marie Hansen, Beth
Ellen Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarwill.com -- Terrell Marwill
Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel J. Marovitch, Burke Law
Offices, LLC, Guillermo Cabrera --  gil@cabrerafirm.com
gil@cabrerafirm.com  -- The Cabrera Firm, Apc, Jared Matthew
Quient, The Cabrera Firm, pro hac vice & Mark Luther Heaney --
mark@heaneylaw.com -- Heaney Law Firm, Llc.

Susan Mansanarez, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Daniel Ankcorn,
Ankcorn Law Firm, PLLC, Adrienne D. McEntee, Terrell Marwill Law
Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Alexander Holmes Burke, Burke Law
Offices, LLC, Beth Ellen Terrell, Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC,
pro hac vice & Daniel J. Marovitch, Burke Law Offices, LLC.

Tracee A. Beecroft, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Simon A.
Fleischmann -- sfleischmann@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Brian
Vincent Otero -- botero@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP, pro
hac vice, Chethan G. Shetty -- cshetty@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord
LLP, David F. Standa -- dstanda@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP,
Ryan Andrew Becker -- rbecker@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP,
pro hac  vice, Stephen Roy Blacklocks -- sblacklocks@hunton.com --
Hunton & Williams LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Justin Cunningham --
tcunningham@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP.

Wilmington Trust, N.A., Movant, represented by Frank A. Hirsch,
Jr. -- frank.hirsch@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice
& Kenneth Michael Kliebard -- kenneth.kliebard@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

U.S. Bank, N.A., Movant, represented by Kenneth Michael Kliebard -
- william.kraus@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP &
William James Kraus, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Movant, represented by
Kenneth Michael Kliebard, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & William
James Kraus, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


ONEBEACON INSURANCE: Faces "Dickers" Lawsuit Over Intact Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARRIN DICKERS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. 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-02015 (D. Minn., June 13, 2017), alleges violation of
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act in connection with the
proposed merger between OneBeacon and Intact Financial
Corporation.  The deal has an approximate total value of $1.7
billion.

Allegedly, the Board authorized the filing of a materially
incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement that failed
to disclose 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 misleading.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for
the Company; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
in support of its fairness opinion; and (iii) the sales process.

The special meeting of OneBeacon shareholders to vote on the
Proposed Merger is scheduled for July 18, 2017.

OneBeacon is a specialty property and casualty insurance writer
that offers a range of insurance products in the United States,
primarily through independent agencies, regional and national
brokers, wholesalers and managing general agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas B. Altman, Esq.
     Adam M. Altman, Esq.
     ALTMAN & IZEK
     901 North Third Street, Suite 140
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 335-3700
     Fax: (612) 335-3701

        - 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


OREGON: Judge Reverses Ruling in $1.4BB Timber Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mateusz Perkowski, writing for Capital Press, reports that a judge
has ruled that counties can't sue the State of Oregon for
financial damages, potentially undermining a $1.4 billion class
action lawsuit over state logging practices.

Linn County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Murphy has reversed an
earlier ruling in the case, which held that Oregon's "sovereign
immunity" doesn't bar counties from seeking such damages.

In his most recent June 20 decision, Murphy has agreed with
Oregon's attorneys that counties -- as subdivisions of the state
-- cannot sue the state government for money.

Murphy said he's "well aware this interpretation contradicts" his
earlier opinion, but he will provide the plaintiff counties with
"the opportunity to re-plead their case in such a manner that is
supported by the law if they can."

"Like peeling a very large onion this case contains complex layers
of legal issues and theory that can take time to unravel," he
said.

The judge has left open the possibility for the plaintiffs to seek
an "equitable" remedy, such as an injunction or order that
requires the state government to take certain actions without
paying financial damages.

However, the counties have repeatedly said they're not aiming for
Oregon to change its logging practices, but instead seek
compensation for insufficient timber revenues.

The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of 14 counties that
donated forestland to the state government in exchange for a
portion of logging proceeds.

The counties argue that a 1998 rule change emphasizes
environmental and recreational values over timber harvest, thereby
violating a contract that required logging to be maximized.

John DiLorenzo, attorney for the counties, said his clients may
decide to recharacterize their complaint or seek clarification
from an appellate court regarding sovereign immunity and other
issues.

In the long term, such an opinion would provide a "road map" for
the litigation, DiLorenzo said.

"Maybe we're better off having clear declarations from the
appellate courts on what the law is," he said.

Capital Press was unable to reach an attorney representing Oregon
in the case.

Ralph Bloemers, an environment attorney with the Crag Law Center,
said that Murphy's latest ruling has effectively "torpedoed" the
counties' lawsuit.

"In essence, he's granting the motion to dismiss for sovereign
immunity," Bloemers said, adding that he expected the state's
attorneys to refile a motion for the complaint to be thrown out.

"The case should be dismissed," he said.

The plaintiffs face an uphill battle if they decide to seek an
equitable remedy, Bloemers said.

It's tough enough to win an injunction, let alone an order
requiring the state government to manage its forests a certain
way, he said. [GN]


ORLEANS PARISH, LA: "Caliste" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ADRIAN CALISTE and BRIAN GISCLAIR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. HARRY E. CANTRELL, Magistrate Judge of Orleans
Parish Criminal District Court, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
06197-EEF-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify
a declaratory Plaintiff class consisting of:

   "all presumptively innocent arrestees who are now before or
   will come before Defendant Magistrate Judge of Orleans Parish
   Criminal District Court for proceedings concerning pretrial
   release or detention and who are unable to pay the financial
   condition that Defendant Cantrell imposes as a requirement for
   their immediate release".

The Plaintiffs also asks the Court to appoint Plaintiffs' counsel
as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katie M. Schwartzmann, Esq.
          Eric A. Foley, Esq.
          RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          4400 S. Carrollton Ave.
          New Orleans, La 70119
          Telephone: (504) 620-2259
          Facsimile: (504) 208 3133
          E-mail: katie.schwartzmann@macarthurjustice.org
                  eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org

               - and -

          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th Street NW, Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202)-681 2409
          E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org


PERSONNEL STAFFING: Haack Seeks to Certify Fence Installer Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROMAN HAACK, CODY CLAY and RYAN BANTA, and
all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC, DANIEL S. BARNETT, individually,
DAVID BARNETT, individually, NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE dba COMPLETE
NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE or "CNI", COMPLETE FENCE, INC., US
INSTALLERS, dba NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE, and RAYMOND HOHE,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02854 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all individuals who were employed by, or are currently
   employed, by one or more of the Defendants, their subsidiaries
   or affiliated companies, as a fence installer or laborer who
   worked on installing fences, either commercial or residential
   fences, at any time during the relevant statute of limitations
   period".

The case is class and collective action brought by Plaintiffs to
redress Defendants' systematic, companywide wrongful
classification of Plaintiffs and dozens of other similarly
situated fence installers as doing "piecework", thereby relieving
themselves from the obligation to pay minimum and overtime wages
as required by Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Tj96otNz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Steven Platt, Esq.
          ROBBINS, SALOMON & PATT, LTD
          180 N. LaSalle, Suite 3300
          Chicago IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 456 0285
          E-mail: lsplatt@rsplaw.com


PYRAMID HEALTHCARE: Court Certifies Background Check Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DENISE GRAHAM, on her own behalf and all
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. PYRAMID
HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01324-
JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody entered an
order:

   1. denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment;

   2. granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification;

   3. certifying a Background Check Class:

      "all Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. employees and job
      applicants who applied for or worked in a position at
      Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. in the United States and
      who were the subject of a consumer report that was procured
      by Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. within two years of
      the filing of this complaint and as to whom Pyramid
      Healthcare Solutions, Inc. used the employment application
      and purported disclosure and authorization form.

   3. approving Denise Graham as Class Representative and her
      counsel, Andrew Ross Frisch, C. Ryan Morgan, and Marc Reed
      Edelman, as Class Counsel;

   4. directing parties within 30 days from the date of this
      Order, to confer regarding issues that may arise associated
      with the administration of the class, including the form
      and content of the notice, and the establishment of an
      optout period and procedure, and to advise the Court on
      these efforts and whether there are issues that require the
      Court's resolution.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3Prc8zHQ


R&L CARRIERS: "Robinson" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Larry E. Robinson, Jr., Plaintiff, v. R&L Carriers Shared
Services, LLC, R&L Carriers Payroll, LLC and R&L Carriers, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01762 (S.D. Tex., June 9, 2017), is a
collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees owed to him and other similarly
situated employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The R&L Group is a transportation company that employed Robinson
as a fork lift driver unloading trucks at their warehouse. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patricia Haylon, Esq.
      WARREN & SIUREK, L.L.P.
      3334 Richmond, Suite 100
      Houston, TX 77098
      Tel: (713) 522-0066
      Fax: (713) 522-9977
      Email: thaylon@warrensiurek.com


RBM GROUP: Faces "Anderson" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE RBM GROUP LLC.
The case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE RBM GROUP LLC
doing business as: DOCKS OYSTER BAR AND SEAFOOD GRILL, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03798 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2017).

RBM Group LLC is a boutique consulting firm specializing in
providing a full range of customizable services to the food and
beverage hospitality industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


RESTAURANT BRANDS: Hit with $500MM Suit Over Misuse of Funds
------------------------------------------------------------
QSR Web reports that a Tim Hortons franchisee is suing the chain's
parent company, Restaurant Brands International, for $500 million
in damages, claiming that RBI used national advertising funds
improperly.

A report in the Toronto Sun said that Canadian franchisee Mark
Kuziora is bringing the suit and seeks to make it a class action.

RBI, which also is the parent for Burger King, acquired the iconic
Canadian-born Tim Hortons brand three years ago. That's when the
franchisee, Mark Kuziora, told an Ontario Superior Court that an
RBI subsidiary, TDL Group Corp., started charging Tim Hortons
franchisees fees for things such as training, fees that Kuziora
alleges were then funneled into the RBI ad fund, although RBI
never issued required statements on that fund's operations.

"RBI has funneled the money to itself, TDL, and the individual
defendants at the wrongful expense of the franchisees," Kuziora's
claim read.

TDL and a number of RBI leaders, including RBI CEO Daniel
Schwartz, have been named as defendants in the proposed class
action. The Toronto Sun said that the Great White North Franchisee
Association, in which Kuziora is a member, was recently formed to
raise franchisees' concerns related to the matter.

"The claim was filed because RBI failed to adequately respond to
legitimate questions about its use of advertising funds collected
from Tim Hortons franchisees," according to a group statement.

Schwartz previously has said that he wishes the group had
privately relayed their concerns when they met with him, the
report said.

"We vehemently disagree with and deny all the allegations," an RBI
statement to the newspaper said.The brand's franchisees each give
3.5 percent of gross sales to the fund, which had collected nearly
$700 million three years ago, the article said.

In unrelated news about RBI brands, another of its chains, Burger
King, committed to ending the use of chicken raised with
antibiotics important to human medicine by the end of 2018,
according to the National Resources Defense Council. NRDC states
that as of today, 11 of the 15 leading fast food chains have now
committed to some level of responsible antibiotics use in their
chicken supply.

RDC estimates that nearly half of the nation's chicken industry
has committed to similar action or already has such an action in
place, according to published statements and data from the
WattPoultryUSA 2017 Survey. [GN]


RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Faces "Reyes" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retrieval Masters
Creditor's Bureau, Inc. The case is captioned as Roberta Reyes, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Retrieval Masters Creditor's Bureau, Inc. also known
as: AMCA or American Medical Collection Agency a/k/a American
Medical Collection Association, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03800 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2017).

Retrieval Masters is a consumer recovery agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SAFEWAY INSURANCE: N.M. App. Flips "Ullman" Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jonathan B. Sutin of the Court of Appeals of New Mexico
reversed the district court's class certification in the case
captioned Betty E. Ullman, for herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant, and RICHARD BAILEY, Defendant, No. 34,897
(N.M. App.), and remanded to the district court for whatever
further proceedings may be required.

This matter comes to the Court on interlocutory appeal from the
denial of Defendant Safeway's motion for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of class action claims.  Safeway sought to prove that
its insurance documents were legally adequate to support its
rejections of claims of class members to uninsured and
underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits.  The district court
certified that the case involved a controlling question of law as
to which there is a substantial difference of opinion and that an
immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination
of the litigation.  The court identified that controlling question
as whether Safeway has complied with New Mexico law in obtaining
waivers of UM/UIM coverage insurance, including stacked coverage,
from its insureds.

Safeway asks this Court to (i) rule that Safeway obtained valid
rejections of UM/UIM coverage in compliance with New Mexico law;
(ii) reverse the order denying Safeway's class-related motion for
summary judgment; and (iii) remand with instructions to dismiss
the class claims with prejudice and de-certify the class because a
ruling on the certified question in Safeway's favor means that the
alleged violation of law that grounds the class definition and
class claims does not exist, leaving no common question
appropriate for class litigation.

In certifying the class, the district court presumably determined
that the class was appropriate because the documents were the same
or essentially the same for all class-member insureds.  Judge
Sutin's determination in this appeal that the uniform documents
are legal and valid as a matter of law and in compliance with New
Mexico law would appear to constitute a determination common to
and predominating the class.  Safeway's forms complied with New
Mexico law in all respects as to what is required for a valid
rejection of UM/UIM coverage, including stacking.  Judge Sutin
further held that, on remand, the district court is to address any
remaining class-related issues or concerns.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/sYRuhT from Leagle.com.

Law Offices of Geoffrey R. Romero Geoffrey R. Romero, Albuquerque,
NM.

Garcia Ives Nowara, LLC, Matthew L. Garcia. Albuquerque, NM.

Freedman, Boyd, Hollander, Goldberg, Urias & Ward, P.A., Joseph
Goldberg, David A. Freedman -- DAF@FBDLAW.COM -- Vincent J. Ward -
- VJW@FBDLAW.com -- Albuquerque, NM.

Vargas Law Firm, LLC, Ray M. Vargas, II, Albuquerque, NM.

O'Connell Law LLC, Erin B. O'Connell, Albuquerque, NM, for
Appellees.

Butt, Thornton & Baehr, P.C., Rheba Rutkowski, James H. Johansen -
- jhjohansen@btblaw.com -- Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant.


SBKU SERVICES: Faces "Cheng" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Xiao Cheng, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, against SBKU Services Inc. d/b/a
Kumo Japanese Steakhouse, Cheung Wah Lam, Bobby Lam,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03573 (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2017),
accuses Defendants of willfully and intentionally committing
widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New
York Labor Law by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to
pay their employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation
for all hours worked over forty (40) each workweek and the spread
of hours premium.

SBKU Services Inc. is in the liquor business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: 718.353.8588
     E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


SMARTPAY LEASING: Faces "Esparza" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN ESPARZA, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SMARTPAY LEASING, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-03421-JCS (N.D. Cal., June 13, 2017), seeks to stop
Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited and promotional text
messages to telephones of prospective consumers nationwide in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Smartpay Leasing, Inc. is a business that provides lease-to-own
payment plans for cellular equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
     Alexis Wood, Esq.
     Kas Gallucci, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
     651 Arroyo Drive
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 696-9006
     Fax: (619) 564-6665
     E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
             alexis@consumersadvocates.com
             kas@consumersadvocates.com


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Verdict in Shale Lawsuit Cuts Plaintiffs in 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Walkenhorst, writing for Arkansas Online two class-action
lawsuits against Southwestern Energy Co. and three of its
subsidiaries can now represent only about 4,400 people after a
recent jury verdict in favor of the company in a third class-
action lawsuit.

Three class-action cases had sought to represent thousands of
Fayetteville Shale property owners who signed leases with
Southwestern Energy subsidiary SEECO, claiming that Southwestern
and its subsidiaries had wrongfully deducted profits for the
companies from the checks they wrote to landowners for the use of
their land. The other subsidiaries sued are Southwestern Energy
Services Co. and DeSoto Gathering Co.

The simultaneous certification of the three class-action cases
created what legal experts called a "race to judgment," in which
the first case to be resolved will determine the outcome for
nearly all class members.

In this case, the federal jury's verdict, because it was the first
judgment to resolve one of the three cases, covers everyone who
didn't opt out of the lawsuit. About 12,000 leases signed by
people who owned land in the Fayetteville Shale were covered by
the federal trial in which the jury sided with the company instead
of landowners.

About 300 to 400 people opted out of being represented in the
federal lawsuit -- Connie Jean Smith v. SEECO, et. al. --
according to Tim Holton, an attorney working on one of the other
two cases, Sara Stewmon v. SEECO, et. al. People who owned another
4,000 leases were inadvertently never given notice that they were
supposed to be covered by the federal lawsuit and were not
affected by the jury's verdict.

"It's unfortunate what happened to those 8,000 people," said
Daniel Smolen, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in Eldridge
Snow v. SEECO, et. al, the first lawsuit filed against the
companies.

In Smolen's case, parties had already reached a global settlement
of up to $45 million, but the companies terminated that settlement
after a jury was seated in the Smith case. The companies had
motioned to delay the trial, citing the settlement and a need for
class members to consider it, but were denied.

Smolen said he expects a trial date to be set on Snow v. SEECO,
which seeks to represent owners of about 4,000 leases, instead of
the 13,000 leases the settlement had agreed to cover.

Conway County Circuit Court had received a couple of objections to
the settlement, which was agreed to May 18. They came from a group
that claimed their properties should have been included in it and
a man who believed the settlement wasn't enough money to pay back
royalty owners.

On June 6, after requests to put the Smith v. SEECO federal trial
on hold were denied, the companies pulled out of the settlement,
which was allowed under the terms of the agreement. The companies
could no longer go through with the settlement because of the
conflicting nature of a settlement agreement pending at the same
time as a trial was taking place over many of the same issues
representing many of the same people.

"Final resolution of this action and the Similar Lawsuits
therefore cannot occur through the Settlement Agreement," the
filing reads.

The Stewmon case, which Holton is working on, has had few filings
since having its class certification affirmed by the Arkansas
Supreme Court in December.

Southwestern Energy declined to discuss the cases with the
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, but the company has said in a recent 8K
filing that it expected the remaining lawsuits to have little
effect on the company. An 8K is a "current report" filing that a
company is required to make when significant events occur that
would be of interest to shareholders.

"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," reads the company's June 19 8K
filing, which was written after the outcome of the Smith trial.
[GN]


STARWOOD HOTELS: Court Dismisses "Dugas" Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California dismissed without prejudice the
case captioned PAUL DUGAS, Plaintiff, v. STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS
WORLDWIDE, INC.; HST LESSEE SAN DIEGO, LP; HST GP SAN DIEGO, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00014-GPC-BLM (S.D. Cal.), because
the Plaintiff has failed to address the deficiencies set forth in
the Order to Show Cause ("OSC").

On Dece. 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint ("SAC") against the Defendants alleging two class
action claims against the Defendants under the California Customer
Records Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law.  He states
that this Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over these
claims pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").

The Plaintiff has brought this lawsuit against the Defendants on
behalf of all current and former customers of Starwood Hotels who
have provided Starwood with their consumer information.  In
November 2015, Starwood explained in an Internet press release
that there had been a data breach earlier in the year around April
13, 2015.  The SAC asserts, though, that malware had been
installed on Starwood's customer systems, targeting customer
information, since November 2014.  The SAC alleges that Starwood
knew or should have known the value of the information they were
storing and that such information made them a high profile target.
He Plaintiff seeks damages for injuries stemming from these
breaches.

In sum, the Court finds that the SAC has not made a plausible
showing that CAFA's jurisdictional bar has been met.  It also
concludes that it cannot assess whether it must, irrespective of
the jurisdictional minimum, decline to assert CAFA jurisdiction
pursuant to the mandatory "local controversy" exception because
the Plaintiff has not properly alleged the citizenship of two of
the Defendants and has not specified the citizenship of the
proposed class.

In light of the aforementioned deficiencies and the Plaintiff's
failure to adequately respond to the Court's OSC, the Court
dismissed this action without prejudice.  The Plaintiff has 14
days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint that
cures the deficiencies identified by this Order, that makes a
plausible showing that CAFA's jurisdictional threshold has been
met, and that permits the Court to assess whether CAFA's mandatory
"local controversy" exception applies.  The Court warned that
failure to do so will result in a final Order dismissing this
civil action either for want of CAFA jurisdiction or for failure
to prosecute in compliance with a Court order requiring amendment.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/vlGlwE from Leagle.com.

Paul Dugas, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis J. Price, II, Potter
Handy LLP.

Paul Dugas, Plaintiff, represented by Mark D. Potter, Center for
Disability Access & William A. Lemkul --
lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com -- Morris & Sullivan LLP.

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Charles D. Austin -- caustin@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jeffrey L. Poston -- jposton@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jennifer Salzman Romano -- jromano@crowell.com -- Crowell &
Moring LLP & Nathanial John Wood -- nwood@crowell.com -- Crowell &
Moring.

HST Lessee San Diego, LP, Defendant, represented by Charles D.
Austin, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey L. Poston, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jennifer Salzman Romano, Crowell & Moring LLP & Nathanial
John Wood, Crowell & Moring.

HST GP San Diego, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles D.
Austin, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey L. Poston, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jennifer Salzman Romano, Crowell & Moring LLP & Nathanial
John Wood, Crowell & Moring.


SUNBEAM CONSUMER: Gorss Motels Files Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. SUNBEAM CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00969
(D. Conn., June 13, 2017), challenges Defendants' practice of
sending unsolicited facsimiles that describes the commercial
availability or quality of Defendants' products, goods and
services, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and
belief avers, that Defendants have sent, and continue to send,
unsolicited advertisements via facsimile, including but not
limited to those advertisements sent to Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
     ANDERSON + WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Rd., Ste. 760
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Tel: 847-368-1500
     Fax: 847-368-1501
     E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
             bwanca@andersonwanca.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Van Dusen" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Swift Transportation Company Incorporated, Interstate
Equipment Leasing Incorporated, Chad Killibrew and Jerry Moyes
filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled
Virginia Van Dusen, et al. v. Swift Transportation Company I, et
al., Case No. 2:10-cv-00899-JWS, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

The Respondent in the appeal is the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, Phoenix.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Virginia Van
Dusen and Joseph Sheer are interstate truck drivers, who entered
into contracts with Swift Transportation Company, Inc. and
Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc. The contracts designated Van
Dusen and Sheer as independent contractors, not employees. Each
contract also contained a clause to arbitrate all disputes and
claims arising under, arising out of or relating to the agreement.

The complaint alleged that Swift misclassified Van Dusen and
others as independent contractors. The complaint also alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor
Code, New York labor laws, state and federal minimum wage laws,
and laws prohibiting forced labor, among other claims.

Swift has also filed a previous appeal in the lawsuit.

The appellate case is captioned as Swift Transportation Co. Inc.,
et al. v. USDC-AZP, Case No. 17-71757, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INCORPORATED,
INTERSTATE EQUIPMENT LEASING INCORPORATED, CHAD KILLIBREW and
JERRY MOYES are represented by:

          Karin Dougan Vogel, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          501 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101-3598
          Telephone: (619) 338-6532
          E-mail: kvogel@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Kevin Michael Cloutier, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          70 West Madison Street, 48th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 499-6300
          E-mail: kcloutier@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Paul Scott Cowie, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
          Telephone: (415) 774-3182
          E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Robert Mussig, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          E-mail: rmussig@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq.
          Ronald J. Holland, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          555 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 615-6052
          E-mail: ellen.bronchetti@dlapiper.com
                  ron.holland@dlapiper.com

Plaintiffs-Real Parties in Interest JOSEPH SHEER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, and VIRGINIA VAN
DUSEN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons, are represented by:

          Dan Getman, Esq.
          GETMAN & SWEENEY, PLLC
          9 Paradise Lane
          New Paltz, NY 12561
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
          E-mail: dgetman@getmansweeney.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq.
          Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
          Susan Joan Martin, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONNETT, PLLC
          1850 N. Central Ave.
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 240-6900
          Facsimile: (602) 240-2345
          E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
                  jkroll@martinbonnett.com
                  smartin@martinbonnett.com

               - and -

          Edward Tuddenham, Esq.
          228 W. 137th Street
          New York, NY 10030
          Telephone: (512) 413-4863
          E-mail: etudden@prismnet.com


TESORO REFINING: Court Dismisses Meal Period Claims in "Bonner"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JINETRA BONNER, individually, on behalf
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TESORO
REFINING & MARKETING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
17-CV-00936-WBS-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
parties' joint stipulation to dismiss the meal period claims.

The Court dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' (i) First
Cause of Action for Unlawful Use of an "On-Duty Meal Period
Agreement" or alternatively, Failure to Provide Timely, Off-Duty,
30-Minute Meal Periods; (ii) Second Cause of Action for Failure to
Provide Suitable Facilities for Meal or Rest Periods; (iii) Fifth
Cause of Action for Civil Penalties under the Private Attorneys
General Act for non-compliant meal periods, except paragraphs 53,
54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, and 63; and (iv) Sixth Cause of Action
for Civil Penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act for
Failure to Provide Suitable Facilities for Meal or Rest Periods.

The Plaintiff's Fourth and Eighth Causes of action are dismissed
in part, without prejudice, only to the extent those claims are
predicated on the violations asserted in the First, Second, Fifth,
and Sixth Causes of Action.

Any and all allegations specifically seeking relief pursuant to
Wage Order 1, section 11 and Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512
with respect to the alleged failure to comply with meal period
laws or failure to provide suitable facilities for meal or rest
periods under California law, including but not limited to
Subclass One and Subclass Two, are dismissed without prejudice by
the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/PtGkgW from Leagle.com.

Jinetra Bonner, Plaintiff, represented by James Jason Hill --
jhill@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan & Khoury & Singer.

Jinetra Bonner, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D. Singer --
msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer & Timothy Douglas
Cohelan -- tcohelan@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC, Defendant, represented by
Michael Warner Kopp -- mkopp@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
William J. Dritsas -- wdritsas@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP &
Timothy M. Rusche -- trusche@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw, LLP.


TITLE CASH: Faces Class Action Over Errors on Loan Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Bonar, writing for KSHB 41, reports that Janie Wilkinson, a
Jackson County resident, on June 22 filed a class-action lawsuit
against Title Cash of Missouri, Inc.

Wilkinson says the company offers cash loans using people's
vehicle titles as collateral. However, Title Cash is registered in
Missouri as a payday lender and a consumer installment lender.
It's not registered as a title lender.

Title Cash gave Wilkinson a loan for $2,950 in Oct. 2016, using
her Chevy Trailblazer as collateral, and charged her an annual
percentage rate of 152.08 percent. That means Wilkinson was set to
pay $6,565.52 in interest for a total payment of $9,515.52 on her
original loan.

Wilkinson says Title Cash made several errors when applying her
payments and eventually repossessed her car. She filed a complaint
with the Missouri Division of Finance over that payment dispute.

Wilkinson is bringing this class action lawsuit on behalf of all
Missouri citizens who received a loan from Title Cash in which a
vehicle was listed as collateral in the last five years. [GN]


TRAEGER PELLET: $2.8MM "Leverage" Class Settlement Has Prelim OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DAVID LEVERAGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-
00784-KAW (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement between the parties.

On Feb. 16, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the instant putative class
and collective action complaint for violation of various federal
and California labor laws.  On March 25, 2016, they filed an
amended complaint, adding additional claims under California labor
laws.  On May 26, 2016, the parties stipulated to allow the
Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, which added an
unlawful deductions claim.  On June 8, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed
their second amended complaint.

On June 22, 2016, the Defendants filed a motion, seeking dismissal
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) based on
improper venue, or, in the alternative, to transfer the case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) to the United States
District Court for the District of Utah.  They also sought
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).  After their motion was fully
briefed, the parties stipulated to allow the Plaintiffs to file
the operative third amended complaint, which added a new
plaintiff.  On Oct. 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to
conditionally certify a class under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

On Oct. 19, 2016, the Court filed an order, requiring supplemental
briefing on the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case for
improper venue or transfer to Utah. On Oct. 28, 2017, the parties
again stipulated to an extension of the motion and hearing dates
in order to continue settlement discussions.

On Dec. 6, 2017, the parties filed a notice of settlement, and
requested that all pending hearings and deadlines be taken off-
calendar.  The parties also requested that the Court set a
deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for preliminary
approval.

Following a number of extensions, on April 7, 2017, the Plaintiffs
filed the instant motion for preliminary approval on April 7,
2017.  On April 14, 2017, the Defendants filed a statement of non-
opposition.  On May 2, 2017, the Court issued an order requiring
supplemental briefing on the motion for preliminary approval.  On
May 31, 2017, the parties filed a joint supplemental brief in
support of the motion for preliminary approval.

The Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval on June 15, 2017.  At the hearing, the parties agreed to
make certain changes to the settlement agreement.  On June 23,
2017, the parties filed a supplemental brief, which attached a
revised settlement agreement and notices.

Under the terms of the settlement agreements, the Defendants agree
to pay a "Maximum Settlement Amount" of $2,850,000.  Of the
Maximum Settlement Amount, Plaintiff's counsel intends to seek an
award of 25%, or $712,500, as well as expenses not to exceed
$60,000.  The Maximum Settlement Amount also includes $65,000 in
incentive payments to the named Plaintiffs, and an estimated
$35,000 for administration costs.  Finally, the Maximum Settlement
Amount includes $66,666.67 in penalties under California's Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"); $50,000 will be paid to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA"), and
$16,666.67 will be distributed to California members based on the
number of weeks each member worked in California between Feb. 16,
2015 and the date of preliminary approval.  This leaves a "Net
Settlement Amount" of $1,910,833.33 for distribution to an
estimated 909 class members.

The Settlement provides for three classes: (i) the "California
Class," which consists of employees who worked for the Defendants
in California; (ii) the "Non-California Rule 23 Class," which
consists of employees who worked for the Defendants in states
outside of California under whose laws Plaintiffs have alleged
state-law claims in the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint; and
(iii) the "FLSA Class," which consists of employees who worked for
Defendants in all other states.  The California Class and Non-
California Rule 23 Class are opt-out classes, while the FLSA Class
is an opt-in class.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the parties' proposed
Settlement Agreement, including the provisional certification of
the class and collective action, as well as the filing of the
proposed Fourth Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiffs will file the
proposed Fourth Amended Complaint on the docket as a separate
entry.  The Court appointed, for settlement purposes only, David
Leverage, Michael Lentini, Peter Dana, Chris Benhardus, and Tracy
Powell as class representatives; Haines Law Group, APC and Kilgore
& Kilgore, PLLC as class counsel; and Simpluris, Inc. as
Settlement Administrator.  The Court approved the notice provided
by the parties.

The Court sets the following schedule:

   a. Defendants to provide Class Member list - 7 business days
from the date of the Order

   b. Settlement Administrator to mail Notice - 10 business days
after receiving Class Member Packets List

   c. Class Counsel to file Motion for Attorney's service awards
fees, costs, and class representative - 14 days before Response
Deadline

   d. Deadline for Class Members to opt-in (FLSA 60 days after
mailing of Notice Packets class members), opt-out (California and
Non-California Rule 23 class members), and/or object to the
Settlement Agreement

   e. Plaintiffs to file Motion for Final Settlement Approval -
Oct. 12, 2017

    f. Final Approval Hearing - Nov. 16, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/QXNt0r from Leagle.com.

David Leverage, Plaintiff, represented by John Henry Crouch, IV,
Kilgore Kilgore PLLC.

David Leverage, Plaintiff, represented by Fletcher W.H. Schmidt --
fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC, Paul Haines
-- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC, Sean M.
Blakely --  sblakley@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC,
Tuvia Korobkin --  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law
Group, APC & Christine A. Hopkins, Kilgore & Kilgore, PLLC.

Michael Lentini, Plaintiff, represented by John Henry Crouch, IV,
Kilgore Kilgore PLLC, Fletcher W.H. Schmidt, Haines Law Group,
APC, Paul Haines, Haines Law Group, APC, Sean M. Blakely, Haines
Law Group, APC, Tuvia Korobkin, Haines Law Group, APC & Christine
A. Hopkins, Kilgore & Kilgore, PLLC.

Peter Dana, Plaintiff, represented by Christine A. Hopkins,
Kilgore & Kilgore, PLLC, Fletcher W.H. Schmidt, Haines Law Group,
APC, Paul Haines, Haines Law Group, APC, Sean M. Blakely, Haines
Law Group, APC, Tuvia Korobkin, Haines Law Group, APC & John Henry
Crouch, IV, Kilgore Kilgore PLLC.

Chris Bernhardus, Plaintiff, represented by Christine A. Hopkins,
Kilgore & Kilgore, PLLC & Paul Haines, Haines Law Group, APC.

Traeger Pellet Grills, LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy
Joseph Long -- tjlong@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP & David Peter Fuad -- dfuad@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington
and Sutcliffe LLP.

Xen 2, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Joseph Long, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & David Peter Fuad, Orrick Herrington
and Sutcliffe LLP.


TRANS-FAST REMITTANCE: Faces "Arboleda" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans-Fast
Remittance, LLC. The case is titled as Jacqueline Arboleda, on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Trans-Fast
Remittance, LLC, doing business as: Trans Fast Remittance LLC; GCP
(JPM) Investments, LLC, doing business as: GCP Capital Partners;
GCP Capital Partners Holdings LLC, doing business as: GCP Capital
Partners; GCP Capital Partners LLC, doing business as: GCP Capital
Partners; Joseph Tumbarello; Samish Kumar; Patricia Bennis;
Therese Gamboa; and Robert Niehaus, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-04772 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2017).

Transfast provides cross-border money transfer and payment
services to consumers and businesses in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TRISTAR RISK: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of "Kizer" Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Richard M. Aronson of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's order
in the case VALERIE KIZER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT, Defendant and Respondent, No. G052558
(Cal. Ct. App.).

Tristar Risk Management provides third party risk management
services, including claims adjusting and administrative services,
with specialization in handling worker's compensation and general
liability claims. Tristar's California clients include privately
held, self-insured companies, publicly traded companies, and
public entities, such as cities and counties. Tristar maintains
branch offices in nine cities throughout California. Each branch
typically is staffed with a branch manager, claims supervisors,
administrative staff, and claims examiners I, II, and III.

Valerie Kizer worked for Tristar as a claims examiner III from
February 2011 to January 2014, and Sharal Williams worked for
Tristar as a claims examiner II from April 2006 to January 2014.
In February 2014, Kizer and Williams filed a putative class action
against Tristar alleging it misclassified them and other similarly
situated claims examiners as exempt from California's overtime
laws. According to them, Tristar required its claims examiners to
work more than eight hours a day and 40 hours per workweek, but
paid no overtime based on the exempt classification it applied to
its claims examiners. The complaint alleges claims for (1) UCL
violations, (2) failure to pay overtime compensation (Lab. Code,
Sections 510, 1194, 1198), (3) failure to provide itemized wage
statements (Lab. Code, Section 226), and (4) failure to provide
wages when due (Lab. Code, Sections 201, 202, 203).

In November 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class
composed of "all individuals who are or previously were employed
by Tristar as Claims Examiners II and Claims Examiners III in
Tristar's Workers' Compensation Division between February 25, 2010
and December 31, 2014.Plaintiffs argued class certification was
appropriate to determine their claim that Tristar had a uniform
policy of misclassifying its claims examiners as exempt under wage
order No. 4-2001. According to plaintiffs, they planned to
bifurcate liability from damages such that a trial on the
propriety of the exemption can first proceed before damages are
assessed. In support, plaintiffs offered evidence describing the
job duties of Tristar claims examiners and the supervision Tristar
imposed on them to show they could establish by proof common to
the entire class that the administrative employee exemption did
not apply. Tristar opposed the motion, arguing individual issues
regarding how each claims examiner performed his or her job
predominated on several of the elements necessary to establish the
administrative employee exemption.

After twice continuing the hearing for supplemental briefing and
evidence, the trial court denied plaintiffs' class certification
motion because they failed to present substantial evidence showing
their claims were typical of the proposed class and common issues
of law or fact predominated. The court found Tristar's alleged
misclassification of the proposed class members suitable for class
treatment, but it denied the motion because misclassification does
not give rise to liability on an overtime claim unless the
employees first show they worked hours or days that required
overtime compensation. The court explained plaintiffs failed to
present evidence showing Tristar had a generally applicable policy
or practice that required employees to work overtime, and
therefore plaintiffs failed to show they could establish Tristar's
liability based on proof common to all class members.
Consequently, the court concluded class treatment of plaintiffs'
claims was not appropriate.

Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred because the amount
of overtime worked by the individual class members is a damages
issue, and the need for individual proof of damages is not a
proper basis for denying class certification. Plaintiffs also
contend that the trial court erred in refusing class certification
on their claim under California's unfair competition law.
According to plaintiffs, the UCL authorizes restitution and other
relief without a showing that each class member individually
suffered injury, and therefore plaintiffs' were not required to
present evidence of the amount of overtime each putative class
member worked.

Justice Aronson held that plaintiffs misconstrue the governing
legal standards and the basis for the court's ruling. The trial
court did not deny the motion based on plaintiffs' failure to show
the amount of overtime worked by each putative class member.
Rather, the court denied the motion because plaintiffs failed to
show that whether the putative class members worked any overtime
at all was subject to common proof. To satisfy the commonality
requirement for class certification, plaintiffs were required to
show their liability theory could be established on a classwide
basis through common proof. Typically, in overtime claims,
plaintiffs show this by presenting evidence of an employer policy
or practice that generally required the class members to work
overtime. Plaintiffs presented no evidence of any such policy or
practice. On the second allegation, plaintiffs again misconstrue
the governing law. The cases plaintiffs cite address standing to
bring a UCL claim do not address the showing required to obtain
class certification. The governing case law makes clear that,
aside from standing, a plaintiff seeking class certification on a
UCL claim still must establish common issues of law or fact
predominate, the representative's claim is typical of the class,
and all other elements required for class certification. Because
substantial evidence supports the court's decision plaintiffs
failed to make that showing. The court's decision in denying class
certification is affirmed.

A copy of Justice Aronson's opinion dated June 26, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/wjd89E from Leagle.com.

Norman B. Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawca.com -- Kyle R. Nordrehaug --
kyle@bamlawca.com -- at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, for
Plaintiffs and Appellants

Jon D. Meer -- jmeer@seyfarth.com -- Sheryl L. Skibbe --
sskibbe@seyfarth.com -- Leo Q. Li -- lli@seyfarth.com -- at
Seyfarth Shaw

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division
Three panel consists of Acting Presiding Justice William W.
Bedsworth and Justices Richard M. Aronson and David A. Thompson.


UBER: Drivers Still Want Former CEO on Hook in Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Lien, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports recent
scandals have put Uber on such shaky ground that a lawyer
representing aggrieved drivers has filed a lawsuit against Travis
Kalanick and Garrett Camp -- the ride-hailing firm's co-founders -
- in case the company doesn't survive long enough to defend
itself.

Describing the lawsuit filed on June 22 in the Superior Court for
the State of California in Los Angeles County as a precaution in
the event Uber goes bust, attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan
acknowledged that her new filing shares many similarities with a
2013 class-action suit she filed alleging Uber wrongly classified
drivers as independent contractors.

"I filed this as a precaution to ensure that if we are successful,
and Uber is not around to see the end of this case, Travis
Kalanick and others will be personally liable for that debt to the
drivers," Liss-Riordan said.

"Last year it looked like Uber was unstoppable, and its only
trajectory was up, and now it looks like the opposite. I wanted to
take measures to protect drivers if things do turn south."

The suit, filed on behalf of plaintiffs Christopher James of
Arcadia, Calif., and Christine Beatleston of San Francisco in the
Superior Court for the State of California in Los Angeles County,
alleges that Kalanick, Uber's chief executive until he resigned
and currently a board member, and Camp, board chairman, advised
the company to misclassify drivers.

The lawsuit alleges that this misclassification cheated drivers
out of expense reimbursements. The lawsuit also alleges that the
co-founders advised Uber to cheat drivers out of gratuities.

Uber did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case shares many similarities with the 2013 lawsuit, which
Liss-Riordan filed in Federal court and is ongoing. Both lawsuits
seek reimbursement for expenses such as gas and mileage. Both want
the defendants to pay tips to drivers that were collected but
never paid out. (In its early days of operation, Uber marketed
that tips were included in the passenger's fare; the company added
tipping to its app).

Liss-Riordan has filed more than a dozen lawsuits against Silicon
Valley technology companies, alleging that many have misclassified
drivers and delivery workers as independent contractors. As
independent contractors, workers are not entitled to expense
reimbursements or benefits such as health insurance, social
security or paid time off. Unlike employees, independent
contractors are also not guaranteed a minimum wage.

The most high-profile of Liss-Riordan's cases is her class-action
against Uber. In San Francisco's Federal Court, Judge Edward Chen
certified the class in 2015, which at the time numbered some
240,000 Uber drivers in California (the number of drivers in
California is likely much higher now). Uber, however, appealed the
certification, arguing that the majority of its drivers had signed
an arbitration agreement, which forbids them from taking part in
class-action suits against the company. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals will be hearing arguments in September.

If the appeals court rules to exclude drivers who signed Uber's
arbitration agreement from participating, then the class size
could drop to between 8,000 and 10,000 drivers.

Uber also tried to settle that particular case with Liss-Riordan
last year for $100 million, but Judge Chen threw out the
settlement because he believed the amount was too low.

There have been no further discussions about a settlement, Liss-
Riordan said.

While Uber's arbitration agreements are broad, legal experts said
a lawsuit brought against individuals instead of the company could
potentially get around such an agreement.

"You may recall that Gretchen Carlson tried the same thing against
Fox News when she was bound by an arbitration agreement with Fox,"
said Richard J. Reibstein, a lawyer who specializes in employment
law at Pepper Hamilton. "She claimed her lawsuit against Roger
Ailes was not governed by the Fox arbitration agreement because
Mr. Ailes was not a party to the arbitration provisions."

Fox settled the lawsuit with Carlson last year for $20 million.

This isn't the first time Kalanick and other Uber executives have
been the subject of lawsuits. The 40-year-old co-founder was sued
by a woman who had been raped by an Uber driver in India, alleging
that Kalanick and other Uber executives later violated her privacy
by obtaining her medical records and attempting to discredit her.

Uber itself has faced a litany of lawsuits over its seven-year
history, including wrongful-death lawsuits and an ongoing case
involving the alleged theft of trade secrets from Waymo, Google's
self-driving vehicle project. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Fights Use of Money from Settlement for Museum
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian reports that the Trump administration is opposing an
attempt to use unclaimed money from a legal settlement over the
government's infamous Tuskegee syphilis study to fund a museum
honoring its victims.

The justice department argued in court documents recently that
providing the money to the Tuskegee Human and Civil Rights
Multicultural Center would violate an agreement reached in 1975 to
settle a class-action lawsuit.

Days after the government made its argument, attorney general Jeff
Sessions issued a memo barring third-party organizations from
receiving money from settlements involving the government.

For the study, hundreds of black men suffering from the sexually
transmitted disease were allowed to go untreated for decades so
doctors could analyze the progression of the illness.

The government said that it "does not intend in any way to
justify, condone, or defend the Tuskegee syphilis study" but
contended that allowing remaining money from a $9m settlement to
be used for the museum would violate the original provision that
any leftover money go back to the government.

Fred Gray, a civil rights attorney who represented men in the
study and made the funding request in 2016, declined comment on
the government's position.

US district judge Myron Thompson held a telephone conference on
the request on 30 May, records show, but has not yet ruled.

Starting in 1932 and continuing for four decades, government
medical workers in rural, segregated Alabama withheld treatment
from unsuspecting black men infected with syphilis so doctors
could track the disease and dissect their bodies when they died.

When the study was revealed by the Associated Press in 1972, it
ended and the men sued, resulting in the settlement negotiated by
Gray on behalf of the victims, all of whom have died.

The men wanted to be remembered in a memorial that told their
story, Gray said in court documents, adding that a county-owned
history museum that includes exhibits about the study could use
the "relatively small" amount of unclaimed money. The men's names
are emblazoned in a circle on the floor of the museum, which only
opens in the summer because of funding shortages.

The justice department said sending the money to the museum would
"fundamentally alter the terms of the agreement".

Officials say more than 6,000 heirs of the roughly 600 men who
were involved in the study received settlement payments through
the decades, but an undisclosed amount of mainly interest earnings
remains in court-controlled accounts. Court officials say they
cannot find additional descendants, if any exist.

Some descendants of the men have said they support using the
settlement money to help the museum, while others like the idea of
a new memorial at Tuskegee University, where the study was based.
Others want new medical screenings on relatives.

A judge's decision could be a step toward ending the study
participants' class-action lawsuit, which was first filed in 1973.
[GN]


UNITED STATES: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Immigration Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jurist reports the US District Court for the Western District of
Washington on June 21 denied in part and granted in part a motion
to dismiss a class-action suit filed against President Donald
Trump and the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

The suit was filed against the Controlled Application Review and
Resolution Program (CARRP) and claims that the USCIS secretly and
unlawfully targets immigration applicants who are Muslim or from
certain Muslim-majority countries. Judge Richard Jones certified
anyone who had applied for naturalization and been subject to
CARRP or a successor "extreme vetting" program as a class. The
order also certified an "adjustment class" for applicants seeking
an adjustment to their citizenship status. However, the order
dismissed with prejudice a due process claim for the adjustment
class.

Cases concerning issues of immigration from predominantly Muslim
countries continue to be processed in the Federal Judiciary. on
June 22 the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
temporarily blocked the deportation of over 100 Iraq nationals,
arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents,
for approximately two weeks, during which time the court will
decide whether it has jurisdiction in the matter. The US Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against the majority of
Trump's revised executive order limiting travel from six Muslim-
majority countries. That ruling affirmed the majority of a
district court injunction in March that blocked the order from
being enforced. In May, a federal district court in Washington
granted a temporary restraining order to allow legal aid groups to
continue to provide certain kinds of assistance to undocumented
immigrants. Five days prior a Michigan federal district court
ordered the Trump administration to disclose the draft of the so-
called "Muslim ban" executive order. In March California Attorney
General Xavier Becerra announced that his state would be joining
Washington and Minnesota in their lawsuit against Trump's revised
executive order banning citizens from six Muslim-majority
countries from entering the US. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Court Stays ICE's Removal Orders
-----------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan stayed the Government's
execution of Petitioners' final orders of removal pending the
Court's jurisdictional determination in the case captioned, USAMA
J. HAMAMA, et al., Petitioners, v. REBECCA ADDUCCI, Respondent,
Case No. 17-cv-11910 (E.D. Mich.).
On June 11, 2017, over 100 Iraqi nationals, including Petitioners,
were arrested and detained by agents of the United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These individuals are
all subject to final orders of removal, some decades old, after
being convicted of various crimes. According to Petitioners, the
Government was unable to execute the orders of removal because of
Iraq's refusal to issue travel documents for repatriation and, in
some cases, for humanitarian reasons.
On June 15, 2017, Petitioners filed the habeas corpus class action
petition, seeking, among other relief, an order enjoining the
Government from removing them to Iraq without first providing them
an opportunity to demonstrate that, in light of changed country
conditions, they would face persecution, torture, or death, if
removed to Iraq. Petitioners argue that they are eligible for
relief from removal under both the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioners also
argue that the Government is violating the Fifth Amendment's Due
Process Clause by failing to give them the opportunity to be heard
regarding Iraq's changed conditions prior to removal.

Petitioners move for a temporary restraining order and/or stay of
removal, arguing that they are likely to succeed on their
statutory and constitutional claims. They also argue that they are
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the form of persecution,
torture, or death, while the Government may only suffer a brief
delay in removal proceedings. Finally, Petitioners argue that a
temporary restraining order or stay is in the public interest
because the public benefits from a fair immigration system. The
Government defends against the motion solely on the basis of a
lack of jurisdiction, the complexity of which issue is discussed
below.
In his Opinion and Order dated June 22, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/8sk2oL from Leagle.com, Judge Goldsmith stayed the
Government's execution of Petitioners' final orders of removal
pending the Court's jurisdictional determination because the Court
is unsure whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction.

Usama J. Hamama, et al. are represented by Kimberly L. Scott, Esq.
-- scott@millercanfield.com -- and -- Wendolyn W. Richards, Esq. -
- richards@millercanfield.com -- MILLER, CANFIELD, & MARGO
SCHLANGER

            -- and --

      Bonsitu A. Kitaba, Esq.
      Kary L. Moss, Esq.
      Michael J. Steinberg, Esq.
      Miriam J. Aukerman, Esq.
      AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN
      2966 Woodward Ave,
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Tel: (313)578-6800

Rebecca Adducci is represented by:

      Jennifer L. Newby, Esq.
      U.S. ATTORNEY
      1620 Pendleton Street
      Columbia, SC 29201
      Tel:(803) 705-5100


UNITED STATES: Gould Appeals Ruling in "Sears" Suit to Fed. Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Denzil J. Gould, John E. Bradley, June A. Bradley,
Norval K. Mosher, Esther M. Mosher, Charles S. Heene and Richard
K. Richards Estate filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Sears v. US, Case No. 1:12-cv-00889-CFL, in the
United States Court of Federal Claims.

The other Plaintiffs are CLAUDE SEARS, DONALD E. BRACY, ANNA L.
BRACY, O. BERNICE DICKKUT RESIDUARY TRUST, FIRST UNION LLC,
CHARLES E. LAKIN REVOCABLE TRUST, DERRICK NEDERHOFF, ROGER L.
OSGOOD, GLENDA L. OSGOOD, PROSSER FARMS, INC., WILLIAM L.
ROBINSON, CORY J. SCHURMAN, DEANNA L. SCHURMAN, and CHARLES
WILLIAM STEINFELDT, For themselves and as Representatives of a
Class of Similarly Situated Persons.

The nature of suit is stated as taking-realty.

The appellate case is captioned as Sears v. US, Case No. 17-2172,
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

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

   -- Entry of Appearance was due on June 30, 2017;

   -- Certificate of Interest was due on June 30, 2017;

   -- Docketing Statement is due on July 17, 2017; and

   -- Appellants' brief is due on August 15, 2017.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DENZIL J. GOULD, JOHN E. BRADLEY, JUNE A.
BRADLEY, NORVAL K. MOSHER, ESTHER M. MOSHER, CHARLES S. HEENE and
RICHARD K. RICHARDS ESTATE are represented by:

          Thomas Scott Stewart, Esq.
          STEWART WALD & MCCULLEY, LLC
          2100 Central
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 303-1500
          Facsimile: (816) 527-8068
          E-mail: stewart@swm.legal

Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division
          U.S. Department of Justice
          PO Box 480
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000


UNIVERSAL TRAVEL: Attys in Securities Suit Can Recoup $67,552
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Michael Vazquez of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted Lead Plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the settlement subject to
modifications to the Lead Plaintiffs' award and the motion for
attorneys' fees is also granted in the case captioned, P. VAN HOVE
BVBA, et al., individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSAL TRAVEL GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 11-2164 (D.N.J.).

The suit is a securities class action brought on behalf of
investors in Universal Travel Group, Inc. (UTG) who purchased or
otherwise acquired UTG securities from March 12, 2009 through
April 11, 2011. UTG was allegedly an online travel agency, and
although its stock was listed on a United States exchange, its
operations were based entirely in the People's Republic of China.
Lead Plaintiffs allege violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, maintaining the UTG
overstated its revenues and profitability in SEC financial
statements.

Lead Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on May
1, 2014, and certain UTG Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
June 27, 2014. Lead Plaintiffs then learned that the SEC settled
an administrative proceeding against a different auditor
associated with UTG that revealed additional facts as to ACSB. Due
to the additional facts revealed through this SEC matter, the
Court terminated the pending motion to dismiss and provided Lead
Plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint.
While the Lead Plaintiffs negotiated a settlement with the UTG
Defendants. The settlement states that in exchange for the UTG
Defendants' payment of $2 million and the Auditor Defendants'
payment of $2.075 million, Lead Plaintiffs and the settlement
class will release their securities claims against Defendants. The
Auditor Defendants and the UTG Defendants are each using assets
from their respective insurance policies. Specifically, UTG is
using $2 million of the remaining $2.5 million in its policy and
the Auditor Defendants will contribute almost half of the
remaining $4.4 million from its policy.

Lead Plaintiffs P. Van Hove BVBA, Pascal Van Hove GVC, John
Thollon, Michael Zabinski, Jean Doyle, and Mark Larosa move for
final approval of the class action settlement, Lead Plaintiffs ask
the Court to certify a class. Concerning the motion for attorneys'
fees, Lead Counsel seeks an award of attorneys' fees of one-third
of the settlement fund, or $1,368,333; reimbursement of $67,552.15
in out-of-pocket expenses; and a $4,000 award for each Lead
Plaintiff; all of which would be paid from the settlement fund.

In his Opinion dated June 26, 2017 at https://is.gd/8sk2oL from
Leagle.com, Judge Vazquez reaffirmed the finding in the
Preliminary Approval Order because the class notice methodology
and contents satisfied the requirements of Rule 23, the PSLRA, and
Due Process. The Court found that the expenses are reasonable and
will award the requested amount of $67,552.12 to Lead Counsel. P.
Van Hove BVBA and Pascal Van Hove GCV will collectively receive
$3,200; John Thollon will receive $4,500; Michael Zabinski will
receive $2,500; Jean Doyle will receive $3,000; and Mark Larosa
will receive $3,300.

Hans Spliethoff is represented by Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. --
SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

P. Van Hove Bvba, et al. are represented by Erica L. Stone, Esq. -
- estone@rosenlegal.com -- and -- Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA

Universal Travel Group, Inc. is represented by Michael Hugh
Ference, Esq. -- mference@srfkllp.com -- SICHENZIA ROSS FRIEDMAN
FERENCE LLP -- and -- Jonathan Rotenberg, Esq. --
jonathan.rotenberg@kattenlaw.com -- KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP

Acquavella, Chiarelli, Shuster & Co., LLP is represented by Clark
E. Alpert, Esq. -- calpert@weinerlaw.com -- and -- Ronald A.
Berutti, Esq. -- rberutti@weinerlaw.com -- WEINER LAW GROUP LLP --
Michael Robert Mcandrew, Esq. -- Bob.McAndrew@ros.com -- WILSON
ELSER


VERINT SYSTEMS: Appeal on Aug. 2016 Israel Court Ruling Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on June 8,
2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2017, that the appeal of its
former parent company Comverse Technology, Inc., as defendant,
from an August 2016 ruling by the Tel Aviv District Court is still
pending.

The Company said, "On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced
by Ms. Orit Deutsch, a former employee of our subsidiary, Verint
Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional
Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and
against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1335/09)
(the "Deutsch District Action").  In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms.
Deutsch filed a motion to approve a class action lawsuit on the
grounds that she purported to represent a class of our employees
and former employees who were granted Verint and CTI stock options
and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during the period from March 2006 through March 2010,
during which we did not make periodic filings with the SEC as a
result of certain internal and external investigations and reviews
of accounting matters discussed in our prior public filings.

"In the Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Deutsch was seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged
negligence by CTI in its financial reporting.  The class
certification motions do not specify an amount of damages.

"On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for
lack of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action.

"On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions
were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's
former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in
the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the
"Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District
Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action").

"In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a
class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were
allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during an extended filing delay period affecting CTI's
periodic reporting discussed in CTI's historical SEC filings.  In
the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by
CTI in its financial reporting.  The class certification motions
do not specify an amount of damages.

"On March 2, 2010, the Katriel Labor Action was transferred to the
Tel Aviv District Court, based on an agreed motion filed by the
parties requesting such transfer.

"On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an
uncontested motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on
June 7, 2012, the District Court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms.
Katriel to file the consolidated class certification motion and an
amended consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse
Limited.  Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect
the distribution of all of the issued and outstanding shares of
capital stock of its former subsidiary, Comverse, Inc., on July
12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the
District Court order CTI to set aside up to US$150.0 million in
assets to secure any future judgment.

"The District Court ruled at such time that it would not decide
this motion until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification
motion was heard.  Plaintiffs initially filed a motion to appeal
this ruling in August 2012, but subsequently withdrew it in July
2014.

"Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests
in us and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third parties.  On
October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share distribution,
in which it distributed all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders.  As a result of the
Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an independent public
company and ceased to be a wholly owned subsidiary of CTI, and CTI
ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interest
in us.

"On September 9, 2015, Comverse changed its name to Xura, Inc.
and, on February 28, 2017, Xura, Inc. changed its name to Mavenir
Inc.

"On February 4, 2013, we merged with CTI.  As a result of the
merger, we have assumed certain rights and liabilities of CTI,
including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch District
Action and the Katriel District Action.  However, under the terms
of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse relating to
the Comverse share distribution, we, as successor to CTI, are
entitled to indemnification from Comverse (now Mavenir) for any
losses we suffer in our capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI
in connection with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel
District Action.

"Following an unsuccessful mediation process, the proceeding
before the District Court resumed.

"On August 28, 2016, the District Court (i) denied plaintiffs'
motion to certify the suit as a class action with respect to all
claims relating to Verint stock options and (ii) approved the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class action with
respect to claims of current or former employees of Comverse
Limited (now Mavenir) or VSL who held unexercised CTI stock
options at the time CTI suspended option exercises.  The court
also ruled that the merits of the case and any calculation of
damages would be evaluated under New York law.

"On December 15, 2016, CTI filed with the Supreme Court a motion
for leave to appeal the District Court's August 28, 2016 ruling.
The plaintiffs did not file an appeal of the District Court's
August 28, 2016 ruling.

"On December 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice with the
District Court regarding the appointment of a new representative
plaintiff, Mr. David Vaaknin, for the current or former employees
of VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the time CTI
suspended option exercises in replacement of Ms. Deutsch.  On
February 5, 2017, the District Court issued its decision to
approve the appointment of Mr. Vaaknin as lead plaintiff.

"On April 19, 2017, the parties submitted an agreed motion for a
procedural arrangement according to which the deadline for
submission of the plaintiffs' amended complaint will be 45 days
after a decision of the Supreme Court on defendant's appeal."

Verint Systems Inc. provides actionable intelligence solutions and
value-added services worldwide.  It sells its solutions through
its direct sales team; and through indirect channels, such as
distributors, systems integrators, value-added resellers, and
original equipment manufacturer partners.  The Company was founded
in 1994 and is headquartered in Melville, New York.


VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: 4MM People Can Sue for Movie Robocall
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Collins and Gideon Resnick, writing for The Daily Beast,
report that potential litigants from Nebraska to Oklahoma received
mailers offering the opportunity to join a class action lawsuit if
former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee robocalled their houses
with advertisements for a straight-to-DVD movie about the War on
Christmas.

"If you received one or more telephone calls that used the
recorded voice of Mike Huckabee to deliver a message as part of a
campaign for the movie Last Ounce of Courage, you may be a class
member in a class action lawsuit," the mailer reads.
Lawyers for plaintiffs Dorit and Ron Golan, who first filed the
suit in 2014, allege that more than 4 million calls were made in
the marketing campaign for Last Ounce of Courage. The case was
first dismissed in May of 2014, then allowed to proceed by the 8th
Circuit Court of Appeals in June of 2015. The class action was
certified by a U.S. district court judge in St. Louis in January
of this year.

Huckabee himself was originally listed as a defendant but was
later removed from the case, according to a memorandum from United
States District Judge E. Richard Webber, the person who initially
determined that the Golans did not have a case. The suit hinges on
the plaintiffs alleging that the calls are in potential violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which stipulates that
unsolicited messages with commercial content via telephone is
unlawful.

Huckabee did not respond to a request for comment from The Daily
Beast.

According to LastOunceClassAction.com, notice was sent out to
possible class members this past  June 19 . Ron Golan referred The
Daily Beast to his lawyers, Ron Eisenberg and Robert Schultz, but
they did not respond to calls and emails at press time.

Diane Levesque of Enid, Okla. came into contact with one of the
mailers for the class action.  It was addressed to her deceased
neighbor, whose mail she says she now takes care of.
She quickly took pictures of the mailer and posted it on Twitter,
asking for more information. "Anybody know anything about this
#Huckabee #ClassAction lawsuit?" she asked.

Last Ounce of Courage is a 2012 movie about a small-town mayor
named Bob Revere whose Christmas-themed celebration is put into
legal jeopardy by a big-city lawyer named Warren Hammerschmidt.

The film is directed by Darrel Campbell, who previously worked as
a comedy writer for Home Improvement and wrote the premiere
episode of The Lion King's Timon and Pumbaa, which initially aired
on CBS followed by ABC Saturday mornings.

Campbell did not respond to an emailed request for comment about
this story.

According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, lawyers for the Golans,
residents of St. Louis County, contend that the entertainment
company responsible for producing Last Ounce of Courage was
involved with Huckabee in an elaborate advertising campaign.

The complaint alleges that James R. Leininger, the manager of the
San Antonio-based Mission City Management and Stephen Wayne
Griffin, the President/CEO of Veritas Marketing and Veritas
Entertainment invested money in the film.

According to the complaint, they subsequently went to a man named
Gabe Joseph of ccAdvertising, a Virginia marketing and polling
firm that had previously been used to spam-text against President
Barack Obama, to figure out how to promote the film.

"Griffin and Joseph then engaged in a series of discussions about
a telemarketing campaign to promote Last Ounce of Courage, with
Griffin acting on behalf of both Veritas Entertainment and Veritas
Marketing," the complaint, written by Ronald Eisenberg continues.

Leininger, who also goes by "Dr. Jim," then introduced Griffin to
radio talk show host and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee,
according to the complaint. The movie was later screened at
Huckabee's home in Florida.

"The advertising campaign for Last Ounce of Courage included
approximately 4 million telephone calls to residential telephone
numbers through many states in the United States and 'Email to
Text (ETT) Messages' to 30 million cell phones," the complaint
alleges.

What's more is that the complaint contends the calls were meant to
appear as if they were a survey to see whether call recipients had
"traditional American values." And "if the recipients believed in
freedom and liberty, they would enjoy Last Ounce of Courage."
Joseph allegedly referred to the calls as an "Artificial
Intelligence Call."

"The technology functioned 'like a decision tree' or, in the words
of Joseph, a 'logic tree,' in that the recipient's yes or no
responses to questions would dictate the next prerecorded
question," the complaint alleges.

Here are some of the segments the complaint alleges were featured
in the call:

"Hello, this is Governor Mike Huckabee with a 45-second survey. Do
you believe in American Freedom and Liberty?"

"Would you, like me, Mike Huckabee, like to see Hollywood respect
and promote traditional American values?"
"I am an enthusiastic supporter of a new movie called Last Ounce
of Courage. It is a film about faith, freedom, and taking a stand
for American values."

Some of the calls also allegedly included plugs for Huckabee's
radio show, which the Golans' lawyers point to in the complaint.

"Huckabee composed, reviewed, and modified the script, made the
recording, inserted material into the script and recording
advertising his radio show, inserted material into the recording
personally benefitting him, all with the knowledge and expectation
that his recording be played on 4 million illegal calls," the
complaint alleges.

The complaint claims that ccAdvertising was paid $248,500 by
Veritas for "4 million AIC calls to residential telephone numbers
and $30,000 for 30 million Emails to Text Messages to cell
phones."

John, who lives in Omaha, Nebraska and did not give his last name
to The Daily Beast, also received the notice pertaining to the
suit and posted it to Twitter, along with the acronym "Lmao."

"I am stunned that such a proceeding is still going. I'm actually
working on a serious class action matter involving securities and
such so seeing this little thing was doubly hilarious to me," John
said.

"My family and I simply received this notice. We don't plan on
acting on it in any way. Just found it funny."
And while Levesque isn't a potential class member, she was still
intrigued by the case itself.

"The card stated that there were court rulings already decided on
the matter, so I'd also like to know what went on in prior court
proceedings," she told The Daily Beast. "I've got more questions
than I've got answers, I'm afraid." [GN]


VIRGINIA, USA: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stinnie" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Damian Stinnie, Demetrice Moore, Robert Taylor and Neil
Russo filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit
styled Damian Stinnie v. Richard Holcomb, Case No. 3:16-cv-00044-
NKM-JCH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Virginia at Charlottesville.

Richard D. Holcomb is the Commissioner of the Virginia Department
of Motor Vehicles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, a federal
judge has dismissed the class action lawsuit filed against the
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles over its automatic license
suspension program.  In an opinion issued on March 13, Federal
Judge Norman Moon concluded, "That unflinching command may very
well violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to due process and
equal protection."

However, he also concluded that the matter could not be determined
by the U.S. Western District of Virginia, because the allegations
involve actions by Virginia state courts.

The appellate case is captioned as Damian Stinnie v. Richard
Holcomb, Case No. 17-1740, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case stated that the Case
Initial forms are due within 14 days.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DAMIAN STINNIE, DEMETRICE MOORE, ROBERT
TAYLOR, and NEIL RUSSO, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Mary Catherine Bauer, Esq.
          Angela Adair Ciolfi, Esq.
          Mario David Salas, Esq.
          LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
          1000 Preston Avenue
          Charlottesville, VA 22903
          Telephone: (434) 977-0553
          E-mail: mary@justice4all.org
          E-mail: angela@justice4all.org
          E-mail: mario@justice4all.org

               - and -

          Patrick Stephen Levy-Lavelle, Esq.
          LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
          123 East Broad Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Personal: 804-643-1086
          E-mail: pat@justice4all.org

               - and -

          David Preston Baugh, Esq.
          DAVID P. BAUGH, PC
          2025 East Main Street
          Richmond, VA 23223
          Telephone: (804) 743-8111
          Facsimile: (804) 225-3071
          E-mail: dpbaugh@dpbaugh.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Todd Blank, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          P. O. Box 1288
          Charlottesville, VA 22902-0000
          Telephone: (434) 977-2582
          Facsimile: (434) 980-2258
          E-mail: jblank@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Leslie Carolyn Kendrick, Esq.
          UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW
          580 Massie Road
          Charlottesville, VA 22903-1789
          Telephone: (434) 243-8633
          Facsimile: (434) 924-7536
          E-mail: kendrick@virginia.edu

Defendant-Appellee RICHARD D. HOLCOMB, in his official capacity as
the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, is
represented by:

          Janet Westbrook Baugh, Esq.
          Nancy Hull Davidson, Esq.
          Margaret Hoehl O'Shea, Esq.
          Adam John Yost, Esq.
          SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA
          202 North 9th Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-0000
          Telephone: (804) 786-4596
          E-mail: jbaugh@oag.state.va.us
                  ndavidson@oag.state.va.us
                  moshea@oag.state.va.us
                  Ayost@oag.state.va.us


WALMART CANADA: Lessons in Deal of Photo Centre Data Breach Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley J. Freedman, Esq., of Borden Ladner Gervais, in an article
for Lexology, reports Canadian class action lawsuits over the
Walmart Canada Photo Centre data breach were settled in May 2017.
The lawsuits and settlement provide useful lessons for Canadian
organizations that collect and process sensitive customer
information.

The Data Breach

The Walmart Canada Photo Centre website, operated by Vancouver-
based service provider PNI Digital Media ("PNI"), was the victim
of a cyber-attack that installed malware on PNI's data centre
servers to collect customers' credit card data and other personal
information (e.g. names, emails and account passwords). After
learning of the incident, Walmart Canada suspended the Photo
Centre website, notified the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of
Canada, engaged an independent consultant to conduct an
investigation of the incident, and notified potentially affected
customers.

Walmart Canada advised Photo Centre customers to closely monitor
their credit card transactions and contact their financial
institutions if they suspected irregular credit card activity, and
recommended that customers change their passwords for other sites
or services that were the same as their Photo Centre password.
Walmart Canada did not offer a free credit monitoring service to
all affected customers.

                      The Class Action Lawsuits

A representative plaintiff brought a national class action lawsuit
in Ontario courts against Walmart Canada and PNI seeking $550
million in damages and other remedies (including a funded credit
monitoring program) on behalf of Canadian customers who used the
Walmart Canada Photo Centre website during the relevant period and
whose personal information might have been compromised by the data
security incident. A parallel class action lawsuit was commenced
by another representative plaintiff in Saskatchewan courts.

The Statement of Claim in the Ontario action invoked various legal
causes of action, including negligence, breach of contract and
breach of duties imposed by common law and statute. The Statement
of Claim included detailed allegations that Walmart Canada and PNI
failed to adequately protect customer data, including:

-- use of inadequate data encryption;
-- engagement of personnel or contractors with inadequate skills,
    education, training and expertise;
-- failure to use an outside, secure payment service;
-- failure to use adequate technological security measures (e.g.
    firewalls, encryption, up-to-date hardware, software and
    security protocols, and protection against known
    vulnerabilities);
-- failure to heed warnings about inadequate security and related
    risks;
-- failure to follow industry standards and guidelines (e.g. PCI-
    DSS) for the protection of personal information and financial
    information; and
-- failure to establish and effectively implement an internal
    computer security protocol.

The Statement of Claim also alleged that Walmart Canada and PNI
breached duties and engaged in "reprehensible conduct" by failing
to give affected customers timely notice of the breach and timely
advice about mitigating credit card fraud risks.

The allegations in the Statement of Claim were not proven in
court, and Walmart Canada and PNI denied any wrongdoing or
liability of any kind.

                           The Settlement

The parties agreed to settle both class action lawsuits, subject
to court approval. The Ontario court certified the class action
for settlement purposes in December 2016. The Saskatchewan court
conditionally approved the payment of legal fees to the
Saskatchewan plaintiff in April 2017. The Ontario court approved
the settlement in May 2017. The main terms of the settlement are
as follows:

-- Credit Monitoring: Walmart Canada and PNI will pay the costs
    of a one-year credit and identity theft monitoring service (or
    reimbursement of previously incurred costs for a similar
    service) for affected customers. The maximum cumulative total
    available for credit monitoring for all affected customers is
    $350,000.
-- Recovery of Expenses: Walmart Canada and PNI will reimburse
    affected customers for their out-of-pocket losses,
    unreimbursed charges and time spent remedying issues traceable
    to the data security incident (at $15 per hour for up to five
    hours) to a maximum of $5,000 for any one customer. The
    maximum cumulative total available for recovery of expenses
    for all affected customers is $450,000.
-- Administration Costs: Walmart Canada and PNI will pay up to
    $250,000 for the reasonable costs of administering the
    settlement, including the costs of a court-appointed
    independent claims administrator.
-- Plaintiffs' Legal Fees: Walmart Canada and PNI will pay a
    total of $500,000 as legal fees (including disbursements and
    taxes) for the plaintiffs' lawyers for both class action
    lawsuits.

                               Lessons Learned

The Walmart Canada Photo Centre data breach lawsuits and
settlement provide useful lessons for Canadian organizations that
collect and process sensitive customer information.

Governance Framework: An organization should establish a
documented, comprehensive information security governance
framework to ensure that appropriate practices, procedures,
policies and systems for the protection of personal information
and payment card information are established, consistently
understood and effectively implemented. For more information, see
BLG Bulletin Regulatory Enforcement Action Emphasizes Need for
Information Security Governance Framework.

Supply Chain Cyber Risk Management: An organization's cyber risk
management program should include risks arising from suppliers of
products and services used by the organization for its internal
purposes or integrated into the organization's products or
services, and from business partners with access to the
organization's systems or who might otherwise be a risk to the
organization's cybersecurity posture.

Data Breach Response: An organization should have a comprehensive
and suitable data security incident response plan and a trained
incident response team. The plan should be consistent with
applicable law, regulatory guidance and current best practices,
and should be designed and implemented by a multidisciplinary
team, including public relations advisors, senior management and
legal counsel. For more information, see BLG Bulletin Data
Security Incident Response Plans Some Practical Suggestions.

Data Breach Notification: An organization should give timely
notice of a data security incident to affected individuals and
organizations (including payment service providers), regulators
and law enforcement in accordance with data incident notification
obligations under statute, contract and generally applicable
common law and civil law. For more information, see BLG Bulletin
Data Incident Notification Obligations.

Litigation Risk Management: An organization should carefully
consider whether to voluntarily offer to provide affected
customers with reasonable remedies (e.g. credit and identity theft
monitoring and limited reimbursement for documented out-of-pocket
costs) in order to reduce the incentives for class action
plaintiffs to commence costly litigation. [GN]


WAL-MART STORES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Kenny" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Kris
Kenny v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00967-R-
KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court to the District
Court.

The appellate case is captioned as Kris Kenny v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 17-80111, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent KRIS KENNY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David M. deRubertis, Esq.
          THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM, APC
          4219 Coldwater Canyon Avenue
          Studio City, CA 91604
          Telephone: (818) 761-2322
          Facsimile: (818) 761-2323
          E-mail: david@derubertislaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, are represented by:

          Mark D. Kemple, Esq.
          Ashley Michelle Farrell, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: kemplem@gtlaw.com
                  farrellpicketta@gtlaw.com


WASHINGTON: Dismissal of Suit vs. Licensing Dept. Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division, One, affirmed the
trial court's dismissal of the case styled CANDEE WASHINGTON, and
all other persons similarly situated, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF
THE DEPARTIMENT OF LICENSING, a subdivision of the State of
Washington, in his/her official capacity; JOHN and/or JANE DOE,
unidentified Swinomish tribal police officers and general
authority police officers pursuant to chapter 10.92 RCW in their
official capacity; and all tribal police officers involved in the
seizure and forfeiture of automobiles owned by non-Native
Americans as individuals, Respondents, No. 75670-2-I (Wash. Ct.
App.).

After losing her vehicle to the Swinomish Tribe in civil
forfeiture, Candee Washington filed a class action complaint in
Skagit County Superior Court against John and/or Jane Doe
Swinomish Tribal police officers and the Director of the
Department of Licensing.  She requested certification of two
classes, one class whose property has been seized by the Tribe,
and one class whose property has been seized by other tribes.
Against the Department, she sought a judgment for every
certificate of ownership changed based upon presentation of an
Indian order of forfeiture. And, against the unnamed officers, she
sought a judgment and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 damages.

The Department moved to dismiss under CR 19 for failure to join
the tribe. The trial court granted the motion. Washington appealed
directly to the Washington Supreme Court. But, the Supreme Court
transferred the case to Division One.

Washington makes three arguments. First, her primary argument is
that the trial court erred in dismissing this case under CR 19 on
sovereign immunity grounds. Second, in a motion to modify a
commissioner's order, Washington argues that the case should be
remanded to the trial court for factual development. Third,
Washington seeks attorney fees.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order of
dismissal. The Court of Appeals held that the Tribe was an
indispensable party, and the action may not proceed without it.
The trial court properly dismissed this case on CR 19 grounds.
Washington did not establish all six elements of RAP 9.11 have
been met, and such the denial of the motion. And, because RAP 9.11
has not been satisfied, the court need not wade into the complex
substantive federal questions raised about the construction and
applicability of 25 U.S.C. Section 5321(c)(3)(A). The resolution
of the motion does not affect the preceding analysis on the merits
of the appeal. Washington's motion to modify is denied. Lastly,
Washington is not entitled to relief. Her request for attorney
fees is denied.

A copy of the Court of Appeals' opinion dated June 26, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/YDJCeA from Leagle.com.

Counsel for Appellants:

     William Joseph Johnston, Esq.
     Attorney at Law
     PO Box 953
     Bellingham, WA 98227-0953

Counsel for Respondents:

     Dept of Lic & Admin Law A.g. Office
     Attorney at Law
     1125 Washington Street Se
     PO Box 40110
     Olympia, WA 98504-0110

        -- and --

     R July Simpson, Esq.
     Washington Attorney General
     Po Box 40110
     Olympia, WA 98504-0110

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division, One panel consists
of Acting Presiding Judge Michael Trickey and Judges Marlin
Appelwick and Ronald Cox.


WAUPACA FOUNDRY: 7th Cir. Affirms "Dekeyser" Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District affirmed the
district court's certification decision in the case captioned,
RYAN DEKEYSER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THYSSENKRUPP
WAUPACA, INC., doing business as WAUPACA FOUNDRY, INC., Defendant-
Appellant, Case No. 16-2159 (7th. Cir.).

The suit alleges that Waupaca violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., by its longstanding practice
of not treating the time that its foundry workers spend changing
clothes and showering on-site at the end of a foundry shift to be
compensable "work" time. The action is brought against Waupaca
Foundry, Inc. in a federal district court in Wisconsin on behalf
of a number of the workers that it employs in six foundries that
manufacture ductile and gray cast iron parts for use in the
automotive and other industries

The plaintiffs allege that they end their shifts covered in a
layer of "foundry dust," which can irritate the skin and cause
lung disease if inhaled. The plaintiffs have also alleged
violations of Wisconsin wage law.
After the district court in 2008 conditionally certified the
plaintiffs' FLSA collective-action class (consisting of current
and former Waupaca foundry employees at any of the company's six
foundries), several hundred current and former Waupaca employees
from all three states opted in to the lawsuit. Waupaca responded
by moving to decertify the class.

The Waupaca's Wisconsin employees, moved to certify a Rule 23
class just for their Wisconsin state-law claims and so didn't
oppose the decertification of those Indiana and Tennessee
employees who had previously opted into the FSLA class. The
district judge agreed that a class action on behalf of just the
Wisconsin plaintiffs made sense and certified a class accordingly,
denied Waupaca's request to decertify the entire FSLA class, and
divided the FLSA class--which included employees from Indiana and
Tennessee as well as from Wisconsin--into three subclasses, one
for each state.

On appeal, Waupaca contends, though in tension with its
encouraging all its foundry workers to take the precautions noted,
that the plaintiffs haven't met Rule 23's requirement of
identifying questions of fact common to the class because these
precautions do not reduce the risks of foundry work to the health
of all the workers by the same amount. Waupaca insists that to
prevail a plaintiff must provide an individualized analysis of the
chemicals that he is exposed to in the foundry and provide
information about his personal medical background that will
demonstrate that changing clothes and showering on-site would
indeed significantly reduce the risk to his health.

In the Decision dated June 22, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/K3RLPL from Leagle.com, the Seventh Circuit held
that the district court did not err concluding that the plaintiffs
have produced common evidence tending to prove their common
assertion, as Rule 23 and section 216(b) require.

Waupaca Foundry, Inc. is represented by Paul E. Benson, Esq. --
pebenson@michaelbest.com -- Joseph L. Olson, Esq. --
jlolson@michaelbest.com -- MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

Ryan Dekeyser is represented by Anne T. Regan, Esq. --
aregan@hjlawfirm.com --- HELLMUTH & JOHNSON -- John Gordon Rudd,
Jr., Esq. -- gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com -- ZIMMERMAN REED


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Appeals Judgment in "Famular" Suit to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Whirlpool Corporation filed an appeal from the District
Court's amended opinion and order, and judgment, both dated June
7, 2017, in the lawsuit titled Famular v. Whirlpool Corporation,
Case No. 16-cv-944, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (White Plains).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that Whirlpool falsely labeled as energy-efficient certain
of its washing machines.

The appellate case is captioned as Famular v. Whirlpool
Corporation, Case No. 17-1918, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent Walter Famular, On behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7165
          E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com

Defendant-Petitioner Whirlpool Corporation is represented by:

          Galen D. Bellamy, Esq.
          Eric L. Robertson, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 17th Street
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 244-1800
          Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
          E-mail: bellamy@wtotrial.com
                  robertson@wtotrial.com


XPO LOGISTICS: Faces "Mansilla" Suit in Cal. Super. Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xpo Logistics
Worldwide, Inc. The case is captioned as Juan Mansilla,
Individually, and on Behalf of other Members of the General Public
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Xpo Logistics Worldwide,
Inc., A Delaware Corporation, and Does 1 through 10, Inclusive,
Case No. RG17865271 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 23, 2017).

XPO Logistics provides local, national and global supply chain
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: Arnab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com


* Lawyers: Pension Funds Must Increase Efforts to Reclaim Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leen Preesman, writing for Investment and Prensions Europe,
reports pension funds must become more assertive in reclaiming
damages caused by companies in which they are invested behaving
improperly, legal experts have argued.

During the annual congress of IPE's Dutch sister publication
PensioenPro in Amsterdam, Guus Warringa of US law firm Grant &
Eisenhofer (G&E) said schemes could earn "decent money" from
reclaiming damages.

"The money is available, and if you don't grab it, somebody else
will," he said. "Moreover, it is good for the implementation of
the ESG principles."

Warringa emphasised that ESG criteria was becoming increasingly
important, with new generations of investors more focused on
sustainability and climate issues.

He also contended that the largest companies usually only listened
"when they become aware that it is not only a matter of barking".

As an example, the lawyer cited the emissions scandal at
Volkswagen. G&E represents more than 600 investors in a class
action in the US, including more than 40 Dutch pension funds,
asset managers, and insurers.

He said investors were unfamiliar with the legal options for
reclaiming damages and suggested that pension funds draw up a
policy to be ready when a new case arises.

Referring to a similar emissions scandal at Mitsubishi, Warringa
said that Japan would be also a good place to bring a case, adding
that he expected more "diesel cases".

According to the lawyer, pharmaceutical firms that suddenly
multiply the price of products could also be subject to claims by
shareholders who lost out.

G&E is also active in the case against Brazilian state-owned oil
company Petrobras, engulfed in a large corruption scandal.

In Warringa's opinion, while there were 10-15 Dutch pension funds
currently participating in legal action, the number could be much
higher.

"Schemes that have incurred damage should look at it," he said.

Also during the congress, Jeremy Lieberman, co-managing director
of US law firm Pomerantz, echoed that pension funds should have a
procedure in place for analysing potential claims, deciding what
the trigger level would be, and how they will take action.

He said that more than $5 billion(EUR4.5 billion) of class action
settlements had become available in the US last year and that the
amount had totalled "dozens of billions" over the past decades.

According to Lieberman, reclaiming damages is also becoming more
important in Europe "as investors notice that it is effective".
His company has set up a European office in Paris recently. [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  * * *