CAR_Public/170712.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, July 12, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 136



                            Headlines

5-HOUR ENERGY: Court Tosses Consumers' Class Certification Bid
ADVANTA SEEDS: Class Action Extended to Include NSW Growers
AMERICAN SOLAR: "O'Shea" Suit Survives Dismissal Bid
ANZ SECURITIES: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Suit
APACHE CORPORATION: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

ARAMARK CORP: Settlement Deal in "Prince" Suit Has Final OK
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Fenwick Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
C-TWO GROUP: Settlement in "Mendez" Gets Final Approval
CAJUN INDUSTRIES: "Ramirez" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Bid to Dismiss "Baptiste" Partly Granted

CBE GROUP: "Truglio" Suit Seeks to Certify Debt Collection Class
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Seeks Dismissal of FACTA Class Action
CENTURYLINK INC: Fraudulent Billing Suit Filed in Colorado
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Dean Granted Leave to Amend Class Suit
COMERICA INCORPORATED: Faces "Nguyen" Suit in N.D. Texas

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Court Certifies Subclasses in "Strautch" Suit
CORECIVIC INC: Sued Over Leavenworth Jail Attorney-Client Tapings
CVS PHARMACY: Dean et al. Seek to Certify Classes of Technicians
DES MOINES, IA: Iowa App. Affirms Royal View Tenants Class Cert
DJM ADVISORY: Fla. Court Denies Bid to Expand Junk Fax Class

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Court Narrows Defenses in "Bruno" Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Can't Stop User to File Class Action in Israel
FACEBOOK INC: Internet Tracking Plaintiffs Granted to Amend Suit
FOOT LOCKER: 2d Cir. Affirms Grant of Benefits in ERISA Suit
FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Karp" Suit in E.D. New York

FORSTER & GARBUS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Cohen Claims
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: "Cruckshank" Suit Seeks Class Certification
FUJITSU LIMITED: $11.1MM in Atty Fees Awarded in Antitrust Suit
GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: Redmon Seeks to Certify Technicians Class
GRUBHUB INC: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Delivery Fees

GUVERA: Faces Shareholder Class Action Threat Over Fundraising
HEBEI WELCOME: High Court Wants SolGen to Weigh in on VitC Case
HONEYWELL INT'L: 3d Cir. Affirms Approval of $10MM Class Deal
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Vinci" Suit Over Faulty Steering Mechanism
INTERACTIVECORP: Drops Stock-Shuffling Plans, Negating Suits

LELAND STANFORD: Pereltsvaig Sues Trustees Over Unpaid Wages
LG ELECTRONICS: Judge Won't Hand Sanctions in "Frost" Suit
MASTERCARD INT'L: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of DCCPPA Suit
MDL 2540: Aguiar, Armatura Not Bound by Class Settlement
MDL 2557: Crawford's Auto Appeals Decision in Antitrust Litigation

MICHAEL S. HARRISON LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Stever"
MONSANTO COMPANY: Perez-Perez and Nieves Seek to Certify Classes
MOTT'S LLP: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of "Rahman" Certification
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Hewitt" Suit Over Personal Injury
NEW YORK, NY: Worley Sues Over School Safety Agents' Unpaid OT

NORDIC NATURALS: Attorney Loses Bid to Revive Fish Oil Case
NORTHEASTERN ASSET: Judge Granted Bid to Dismiss "Evensen" Suit
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Court Trims Claims in "Disla" Suit
OHIO: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Suit v. ODJFS
ONE NEVADA: Judge Narrows Claims in "Smith" Suit

OREGON: Counties Can't Sue Over Logging Practices, Judge Rules
OVASCIENCE INC: Freedman Family Named Lead Plaintiff in "Dahhan"
PARKING REVENUE: "Franklin" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
PONZIOS RD: "Casco" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
RIGHT PATH: Benjamin Seeks to Certify Drivers Class

RIGHTSOURCING INC: Court Dismisses "Scolaro" Class Action
ROCKFORD PROCESS: Violates FLSA and IMWL, "Andrews" Suit Alleges
ROOIBOS LTD: Tea Competition Case May Prompt Class Action
RUSHMORE LOAN: Faces "Leones" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
SEPHORA USA: July 14 Reply Deadline to Dismissal Bid in "Duran"

SET ENTERPRISES: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Shaw" Suit
SMARTPAY LEASING: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Text Messages
STAR PRO: Intentionally Misclassify Security Guards, Laster Says
STARION ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss "Owens" Suit Denied
TD BANK: To Settle Penny Arcade Users' Class Action for $9MM

TEMPUR-SEALY: Court Severs Claims in "Todd" Suit
TIM HORTONS: U.S. Franchisees Form Alliance Amid Class Action
TRANSNATIONAL FOODS: Faces "Lejbman" Suit in S.D. California
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Non-Party Not Allowed to Intervene in "Cohen"
ULTRA AVIATION: Faces "Ojeda" Suit Over Reduced Living Wages

UNITED FOOD: Court Dismissed Bid for Class Certification as Moot
UNITED STATES: Faces Common Ground Healthcare Suit
UNITED STATES: Supreme Court to Rehear Immigrant's Detention Case
USF REDDAWAY: Court Certifies Class & Subclasses in Moss, et al.
VEIN CENTERS: Missouri Court Decertifies TCPA Class

VISA INC: 9th Circuit Won't Reconsider Antitrust Suit Ruling
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Law Firm Plans to File Airbag Class Action
VTECH ELECTRONICS: Ill. Court Dismisses Data Breach Litigation
WESTERN POWER: Parkerville Fire Class Action to Goes to Trial
WOODGRAIN MILLWORK: Henderson Seeks to Certify Drivers Class





                            *********


5-HOUR ENERGY: Court Tosses Consumers' Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Strauss, Esq. -- mstrauss@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith,
in an article for JDSupra, wrote that a United States district
court recently tossed a certification bid by a putative class of
consumers who alleged that popular energy-shot, 5-Hour Energy,
deceptively marketed its effectiveness.

The action arises out of what appears to be a unique take on a
traditional "slack fill" claim -- that is, a case where the core
allegation is that a company's container deceives consumers about
the volume of that container's contents.  In this action,
plaintiffs' relied on an expert who concluded, despite the
bottle's name, that a bottle of 5-Hour Energy in fact only
provides 3.7 minutes of caloric energy.  Based on the expert's
opinion, the plaintiffs argued that 5-Hour Energy was 98.7%
deceptively "under filled."

The court, however, was not persuaded. Rather, the court concluded
that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the requirements for
certifying a class action for a variety of reasons, core among
them: the lack of common evidence supporting common consumer
behavior about the representation made by the product's name, 5-
Hour Energy.

TAKEAWAY:  Although the court's decision puts to rest nearly six-
years of litigation brought by a putative class of consumers from
six states, it is a reminder that "slack fill" actions can come in
all shapes and sizes.  Advertisers must remember that their
products' containers and any representations thereon will be
treated as advertisements and, thus, must be truthful and not
deceptive. [GN]

ADVANTA SEEDS: Class Action Extended to Include NSW Growers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grain Central reports that a class action claim against Advanta
Seeds Pty Ltd, previously trading as Pacific Seeds, that was
launched in Queensland by legal firm Creevey Russell Lawyers has
been extended to include NSW growers who have also had sorghum
contaminated with shattercane seed. [GN]


AMERICAN SOLAR: "O'Shea" Suit Survives Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California denied defendant's motion to
dismiss the case captioned KERRY O'SHEA, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
SOLAR SOLUTION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-00894-L-RBB
(S.D. Cal.).

Defendant American Solar Solution, Inc., is in the business of
selling solar energy equipment to residential and commercial
customers. To market its products and services, defendant used a
ViciDial predictive dialer to contact phone numbers uploaded into
the dialer. From November 22, 2012 to August 22, 2015, defendant
made 897,534 such calls to 220,007 different cell phone numbers.

Defendant placed fifteen calls to plaintiff Kerry O'Shea's cell
phone. There is no record of plaintiff providing express consent,
written or otherwise, to receive these calls. Plaintiff filed a
class action suit alleging that defendant's conduct violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et
seq., by using an automatic telephone dialer system (ATDS) to
place telemarketing calls to cell phones.  Defendant moved for an
order of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1).

Judge Lorenz denied defendant's motion to dismiss observing that
plaintiff had received repeated telemarketing calls from defendant
despite his repeated requests to be left alone. Each individual
call, regardless of whether plaintiff heard the phone ring or
answered it, surely contributed to the unpleasantness of the
experience by either disturbing plaintiff's peace, whether he
answered the phone or simply heard it ring, draining his cell
phone battery, clogging up the line, or creating a missed call
history informing him that the harassment continues despite his
requests that it end. Judge Lorenz finds that plaintiff has
adequately demonstrated that defendant's repeated calls caused him
concrete injury sufficient to confer standing.

A copy of Judge Lorenz's order dated June 27, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/oa9yyK from Leagle.com.

Kerry O'Shea, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Marron --
ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Alexis M. Wood --
alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- Kas L. Gallucci --
kas@consumersadvocates.com --   at Law Office of Ronald Marron

American Solar Solution, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas J.
Miletic -- at Green Solar Technologies, Inc.


ANZ SECURITIES: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court put another hurdle in the path of class action
plaintiffs on June 25 with a 5-4 ruling that strictly interpreted
deadlines for opting out of ongoing securities litigation.

Ruling on the final sitting for its current term, the court said a
three-year deadline should govern and prevent later lawsuits in
class actions.  Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion
in California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ
Securities.

"The text, purpose, structure, and history of the statute all
disclose the congressional purpose to offer defendants full and
final security after three years," Justice Kennedy wrote.

It was the first class action case in which new Justice Neil
Gorsuch participated, and as expected he joined the majority in
ruling against plaintiffs.

The ruling is a win for Paul Clement -- paul.clement@kirkland.com
-- of Kirkland & Ellis, who argued for ANZ Securities.  Tom
Goldstein -- tgoldstein@goldsteinrussell.comd -- of Goldstein &
Russell argued the case for CalPERS.

Daniel Sommers -- sommers@cohenmilstein.com -- partner of Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, a plaintiffs firm, criticized the
decision.  "Individual investors will simply have their rights
extinguished in cases where their interests were previously
protected as they never will be able to navigate the path set by
the court," Mr. Sommers said.

The case before the court stems from the financial crisis of 2008.
CalPERS sued the bankrupt Lehman Brothers and ANZ, one of its
underwriters, claiming false statements in registration documents.
The pension fund had been part of a class action, but it opted out
after a settlement was reached.

The timeline resulted in a conflict between statutory provisions
that impose a deadline on when such lawsuits must be filed.  The
Securities Act of 1933 states that lawsuits cannot be filed more
than three years after the securities offering.  But citing a 1974
Supreme Court precedent, American Pipe & Construction v. Utah,
CalPERS claimed that deadline can be tolled or delayed while class
actions are underway.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the
three-year deadline could not be put off.  But the Second Circuit
ruling also said the issue was "ripe for resolution by the Supreme
Court" because of a circuit split over the issue.  The high court
ended up affirming the Second Circuit.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, arguing that the majority
violated due process by making opt-outs more difficult.  "I
dissent from the June 26 decision, under which opting out cuts off
any chance for recovery," she wrote.  Justices Stephen Breyer,
Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the dissent.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned the high court that if the
Second Circuit were overruled, "the statute of repose in the
Securities Act, and presumably any other federal or state statute
of repose, may be circumvented by the simple expedient of filing a
complaint on behalf of a putative class."  That would expose
business defendants to liability long after "they are entitled to
peace," the brief added.  William Jay of Goodwin Procter was
counsel of record on the brief.

But Public Citizen, in a brief by Scott Nelson, said that imposing
a strict "statute of repose" would "significantly impair opt-out
rights of absent class members." [GN]

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated June 26, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/r2bBqi from Leagle.com.

The case is CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Petitioner, v. ANZ SECURITIES, INC., ET AL., No. 16-373 (U.S.).

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case:

Thomas C. Goldstein, Goldstein & Russell, P.C. --
tg@goldsteinrussell.com -- Attorneys for Petitioner, California
Public Employees' Retirement System.

Paul D. Clement, Kirkland & Ellis LLP -- paul.clement@kirkland.com
-- Attorneys for Respondents, ANZ Securities, Inc., et al.

Victor L. Hou, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP --
vhou@cgsh.com -- Attorneys for Respondents, ANZ Securities, Inc.,
et al.

Max W. Berger, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP --
max@blbglaw.com -- for Institutional Investors.

David Boies, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP -- dboies@bsfllp.com --
for SRM Global Master Fund Limited Partneership.

Callie Anne Castillo, Deputy Attorney General --
calliec@atg.wa.gov -- for Washington, et al.

Alan D. Copsey, Deputy Solicitor General -- alan.copsey@atg.wa.gov
-- for The States of Washington, et al.

Ruthanne M. Deutsch, Deutsch Hunt, PLLC --
rdeutsch@deutschhunt.com -- for Current and Former Directors of
Publicly Traded Companies: Charles M. Elson and Howard Wiener.

David Freeman Engstrom, Stanford Law School --
dfengstrom@law.stanford.edu -- for Civil Procedure and Securities
Law Professors.

David C. Frederick, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel,
P.L.L.C. -- dfrederick@kellogghansen.com -- for DeKalb County
Pension Fund.

Andrew Nathan Goldfarb, Zuckerman Spaeder --
agoldfarb@zuckerman.com -- for Retired Federal Judges.

William M. Jay, Goodwin Procter LLP -- wjay@goodwinlaw.com -- for
The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.

Scott L. Nelson, Public Citizen Litigation Group --
snelson@citizen.org -- for Public Citizen, Inc., and Public
Justice, P.C.

Mark A. Perry, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP -- mperry@gibsondunn.com
-- for The Securities Industries and Financial Markets
Association, et al.

Lyle Roberts, Cooley LLP -- lroberts@cooley.com -- for Washington
Legal Foundation.

Daniel S. Sommers, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC --
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- for North American Securities
Administrators Association, Inc.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN,
JJ., joined.


APACHE CORPORATION: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEVE HERNANDEZ and LARRY BROOKER,
individually and for others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
APACHE CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03454 (S.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for conditional certification
for a collective class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act:

   "all oilfield workers who worked for Apache during the past 3
   years who were classified as independent contractors and paid
   a day-rate with no overtime".

The Plaintiffs Steve Hernandez and Larry Brooker worked for Apache
Corporation, regularly working 16 hours a day. Apache compensated
Plaintiffs for these long hours on a day rate basis, paying them a
flat amount for all hours worked in a day without payment of
overtime even though day rate workers are entitled to overtime
under the FLSA. Apache avoided paying Plaintiffs overtime by
improperly classifying them as independent contractors.

Plaintiffs contend that their claims are straight forward:
Apache's compensation plan -- improperly classifying its Drilling
Consultants (sometimes called Company Men, Wellsite
Supervisors or Rig Supervisors) and other oilfield workers as
independent contractors and paying them a flat day rate --
violated the FLSA because it failed to pay them overtime.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qej4kVkE

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 352 1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352 3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  litkin@mybackwages.com
                  jbresler@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


ARAMARK CORP: Settlement Deal in "Prince" Suit Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted the plaintiffs' consent
motion for final approval of settlement in the case captioned
TYRONE PRINCE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARAMARK CORP., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-cv-1477 (D.C.).

Housekeeping employees at the Walter E. Washington Convention
Center sued their employers for unpaid wages and overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the
District of Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act, the District of
Columbia Living Wage Act, the District of Columbia Wage Payment
and Collection Law, and District of Columbia common law. The
plaintiffs sought to represent a class of similarly-situated
employees.

After the suit was filed and informal discovery was completed, the
parties notified the Court that they had reached a settlement in
principle.

First, the parties have agreed that the wages of all of
defendants' employees at the Washington Convention Center will be
no less than the applicable living wage required by the Living
Wage Act from November 16, 2016 forward.

Second, the defendants have agreed to pay the plaintiffs a maximum
of $466,250, plus the costs of settlement administration and any
amount of the employers' share of payroll taxes.  This $466,250
would be used to satisfy the plaintiffs' claims for damages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  Of this amount,
$373,250 will be paid to the class members as damages.

The parties have agreed to request the Court certify a class for
the purposes of settlement, and that each member of this class who
does not opt out would receive a pro-rata share of the $373,250
based on his or her share of total estimated damages, with a
minimum payment of $100.  Further, a total of $4,000 of the
$466,250 settlement will be paid to the named plaintiffs in
consideration for their time and effort in prosecuting this
lawsuit, and $89,000 will be paid to satisfy the plaintiffs'
claims for attorneys' fees and costs.

In exchange for these payments, class members who did not opt out
of the lawsuit will release the defendants, their predecessors,
assigns, and/or related companies from all wage and hour and pay-
related claims under the FLSA, District of Columbia law, or any
other federal, state, and/or local laws that were or could have
been asserted in this lawsuit and that accrued as of November 16,
2016.  The defendants denied all liability or wrongdoing and the
plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice all claims
stated in this lawsuit against the defendants on a class-wide
basis.

In its March 14, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court
preliminarily certified the plaintiff class for settlement
purposes, appointed the plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel,
preliminarily approved of the class settlement, approved of the
agreed-upon notice to potential class members of the proposed
settlement, and set a final hearing on the fairness of the
settlement.  Class counsel subsequently sent the approved notice
to the class members.

The plaintiffs then filed a Consent Motion for Final Approval of
Settlement.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted final certification of the plaintiff
class for the purposes of settlement.  The judge also found that
the class settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable and is not
the product of collusion between the parties.  Lastly, Judge
Kollar-Kotelly also found that the payment to class counsel called
for in the proposed settlement in particular is reasonable.

A full-text copy of Judge Kotelly's June 30, 2017 memorandum
opinion is available at https://is.gd/LPL4BN from Leagle.com.

TYRONE PRINCE, DE'LONN HARDIE, KIERRA OLIVER, GARY MCNAIR EL,
represented by Michelle I. Banker -- mbanker@murphypllc.com --
MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC, Mark Hanna -- mhanna@murphypllc.com --
MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC.

ARAMARK CORPORATION, ARAMARK SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES,
LLC, ARAMARK MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ARAMARK
SPORTS, LLC, ARAMARK SPORTS FACILITIES, LLC, ARAMARK FACILITY
SERVICES, LLC, represented by Anne Marie Estevez --
annemarie.estevez@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP &
Lincoln O. Bisbee -- lincoln.bisbee@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, pro hac vice.

MOTIR SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by Sadina Montani
smontani@vedderprice.com -- VEDDER PRICE P.C..


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Fenwick Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler G. Newby, Esq. -- tnewby@fenwick.com -- and Reilly Stoler,
Esq. -- rstoler@fenwick.com -- of Fenwick & West LLP, in an
article for Lexology, wrote that in a decisive 8-1 vote, the U.S.
Supreme Court rejected a theory of specific jurisdiction that
would allow a state court to assert specific jurisdiction over the
claims of out-of-state plaintiffs whose claims were not directly
linked with that state.  The opinion in the case, Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, authored by Justice
Samuel A. Alito Jr., came down on June 19. Justice Alito explained
that neither the similarity of claims between in-state and out-of-
state plaintiffs, nor the defendant's contacts with a state can
provide a basis for specific jurisdiction.  Rather, the Court
reaffirmed that "specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication
of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy
that establishes jurisdiction."

Jurisdictional Developments

A state court's jurisdiction extends to all controversies in which
it may issue a binding judgment on the defendant.  Over the years,
the Court has defined two forms of jurisdiction a state may
assert--general and specific.  General jurisdiction is typically
proper if the defendant is closely connected with the state.
Specific jurisdiction is proper if the claims are related to the
defendant's conduct within that state.

In recent years, the Court has clarified both of these standards
to limit state jurisdictional authority.  In both the Goodyear
Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown and Daimler AG v. Bauman cases,
the Court limited a state's assertion of general jurisdiction to
defendants that are either incorporated or have their principal
place of business within that state.  Then, in Walden v. Fiore,
the Court tightened the standard for a state's assertion of
specific jurisdiction, clarifying that a defendant's contacts with
a state-resident plaintiff cannot serve as the sole connection
between that state and that defendant.

Background on the Decision

In 2013, 659 plaintiffs brought claims against Bristol-Myers
Squibb Company, alleging that they suffered harm by using Plavix -
- a drug manufactured and sold by BMS.  The plaintiffs -- which
included 575 non-Californians -- brought these claims in
California Superior Court.  BMS challenged the Superior Court's
jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims of the non-residents.  The
Superior Court ruled that it could assert both general and
specific jurisdiction over BMS, and BMS appealed.

The California Appellate Court initially affirmed the Superior
Court, but later reversed its general jurisdiction determination
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Daimler.  BMS appealed
the Appellate Court's affirmance of the specific jurisdiction
determination to the California Supreme Court.  The California
Supreme Court affirmed, explaining that specific jurisdiction over
non-resident claims against BMS was proper because "BMS's forum
contacts, including its California-based research and development
facilities, are substantially connected to the nonresident
plaintiffs' claims because those contacts are part of the
nationwide marketing and distribution of Plavix, a drug BMS
researched and developed, that gave rise to all the plaintiffs'
claims."

The Supreme Court's Decision

In a much anticipated decision, the Supreme Court reversed the
California Supreme Court, reaffirming the principle that specific
jurisdiction can only be asserted when there is a direct
connection between the asserted claims and the defendant's conduct
within the forum state.  In straightforward prose, the Court
explained that "[w]hat is needed [for specific jurisdiction to be
proper] -- and what is missing here -- is a connection between the
forum and the specific claims at issue."  The Court rejected the
California Supreme Court's evaluation of the defendant's general
contacts with the state for the purposes of finding specific
jurisdiction.  Justice Alito directly rebuffed this approach as
"difficult to square with our precedents" and "resembl[ing] a
loose and spurious form of general jurisdiction." Further, the
Court was unpersuaded that the effect on mass action claims
merited a different outcome.  Justice Alito explained that the
"decision does not prevent the California and out-of-state
plaintiffs from joining together in a consolidated action in the
States that have general jurisdiction over BMS."  Interestingly,
the Court concluded with an explicit statement that its ruling did
not address "whether the Fifth Amendment imposes the same
restrictions on the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a federal
court."

In lone dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the Court's
opinion as insulating nationwide corporations from consolidated
mass actions, and forcing piecemeal litigation.

The Takeaways

On the whole, the Bristol Myers-Squibb decision is more
significant for what it rejected than for what it held.  The
California Supreme Court's decision was viewed by many as a
sideways challenge to the Court's recent restriction of general
jurisdiction, which limited its exercise to a defendant's home
court.  The California Supreme Court's analysis opened the door to
exercising specific jurisdiction over defendants with strong ties
to a forum.  In this opinion, the Supreme Court unequivocally shut
that door, consolidating its recent shifts on personal
jurisdiction.

Justice Sotomayor's dissent, in addition to concluding that
specific jurisdiction was proper in this case, dropped a footnote
addressing California's capacity to exercise general jurisdiction
(an issue not before the Court) and expressing skepticism of the
Court's post-Daimler analysis, writ large.  However, given the 8-1
vote, Justice Sotomayor's favored approach seems destined for
dissent in the foreseeable future.

The majority opinion and the dissent did agree on at least one
thing: going forward, there is no question that state court mass
actions with nationwide plaintiffs are limited to a forum that can
exercise general jurisdiction -- i.e. a defendant's home state.
This fact may limit a defendant's exposure to certain state law
causes of action, and will certainly reduce the instances in which
a defendant is forced to litigate in an unfamiliar forum.

One remaining question for defendants and plaintiffs alike is
whether the jurisdiction of federal courts is equally limited
under the Fifth Amendment.  Although largely settled in the minds
of most practitioners and judges, the Supreme Court has never
formally held that federal district courts cannot exercise
personal jurisdiction based on a defendant's nationwide contacts.
With the majority's express reservation of this question -- and
its portentous citation to a thirty year-old case reserving the
same question -- there is reason to think that the Supreme Court
will continue to modify the standards for determining personal
jurisdiction going forward. [GN]


C-TWO GROUP: Settlement in "Mendez" Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JAMIE MADRIGAL MENDEZ, Plaintiff, v. C-TWO
GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-05914-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement and
his unopposed motion for an incentive award and reimbursement of
costs.

The Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendants for violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by allegedly sending marketing
text messages to Plaintiff and the putative class using an
automatic telephone dialing system.

On June 2, 2015, the Court certified the litigation class.  The
parties have reached a settlement regarding the Plaintiff's claim.
The Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement on Aug. 26, 2016, which the Court granted on
March 27, 2017.  The Plaintiff now seeks final approval of the
settlement.

The key terms of the settlement are:

   a. Settlement Class: All individuals who entered their contact
information online through Infusion Lounge's website and were sent
a text message from SMS Short Code 99158 that referenced the
Infusion Lounge from Nov. 5, 2009 through Oct. 15, 2013.

   b. Class Certification, Representative, and Counsel: The Court
previously certified the class identified and granted the
Plaintiff's request for appointment as class representative and
the Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.

   c. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The agreement authorizes the
class counsel to apply to the Court for an award of costs incurred
in litigating this case not to exceed $6,500.  The class counsel
will not seek an award of attorneys' fees.  The Defendants agree
not to oppose a request for costs less than or equal to $6,500.

   d. Settlement Administration Costs: The Defendants will pay the
settlement administrator for all costs associated with the
settlement, including providing notice, maintaining the settlement
website and arranging for the issuance of the settlement
certificates. The parties estimate that the cost of administering
the settlement will be $7,000.

   e. Incentive Award: The agreement authorizes the named
Plaintiff to seek a $500 incentive award for her participation in
this lawsuit, which the Defendants do not oppose.

   f. Unclaimed Settlement Funds: The agreement provides that
unclaimed settlement certificates will expire 365 days after
issuance.

After considering and weighing the factors, the Court finds that
the settlement agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and
that the settlement class members received adequate notice.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class
action settlement is granted.

Having reviewed the additional documentation on the declaration of
Richard D. Lambert, a managing partner with class counsel,
indicating that class counsel incurred a total of $7,627.90 in
litigation-related costs and expenses, the Court is satisfied that
these costs were reasonably incurred and granted in full the
motion for costs in the amount of $6,500.

The Court also finds that a $500 service award is reasonable to
compensate the Plaintiff, particularly in light of the nominal
value of the settlement certificates to the class.  Accordingly,
class counsel's request for an incentive award is granted in the
amount of $500 for the named Plaintiff.

The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement
this Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance with
the terms of the settlement agreement.  The Court directed the
Clerk of the Court to enter Final Judgment consistent with this
Order, and to close the case.  The Court retains jurisdiction over
the parties to enforce the terms of the judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/jCwV65 from Leagle.com.

Jamie Madrigal Mendez, Plaintiff, represented by Richard David
Lambert -- rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com -- Stonebarger Law.

Jamie Madrigal Mendez, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine W. Yan,
Stonebarger Law, APC, Gene J. Stonebarger, Stonebarger Law, APC,
Prescott Wayne Littlefield -- pwl@kearneylittlefield.com --
Kearney Littlefield LLP & Thomas Andrew Kearney --
tak@kearneylittlefield.com -- Kearney Littlefield LLP.

C-Two Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alex F. Pevzner --
Alex.Pevzner@dot.ca.gov -- WFBM, LLP & Laurie Elizabeth Sherwood -
- lsherwood@wfbm.com -- WFBM, LLP.

C & L Associates Inc, Defendant, represented by Gregory Sterling
Nerland -- gnerland@gmail.com -- Akawie & LaPietra.


CAJUN INDUSTRIES: "Ramirez" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Reyniery Ramirez, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Cajun Industries, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-05966 (E.D. La., June 20, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, applicable liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of this action, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest on all monetary amounts awarded in this action
and such other general and equitable relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Cajun Construction, LLC is a corporation organized under the laws
of Louisiana with its principal place of business in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. It is in the construction business in the states of
Louisiana and Texas. Plaintiff worked for Cajun in New Orleans for
the city drainage project as a manual laborer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
      William H. Beaumont, Esq.
      Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
      BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 534-5005
      Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
      Email: whb@beaumontcostales.com


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Bid to Dismiss "Baptiste" Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Allyne R. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York partly granted and partly denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned RIGAL J.
BAPTISTE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, No.
17-CV-1494(ARR)(VMS)(E.D. N.Y.).

The communications at issue in this case both relate to the
mortgage secured by the Plaintiff's home.  At all relevant times,
the Plaintiff's mortgage was in default.  The last monthly payment
on the mortgage was made in November 2012.

The Plaintiff brings this putative class action alleging that
certain collections activities of the Defendant violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  Specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges that Carrington violated (i) Section 1692e(10)
by failing to disclose in a servicing transfer letter that his
mortgage indebtedness was increasing due to interest, and (ii)
Section 1692e(11) by failing to state that a notice asking the
Plaintiff to call his mortgage servicer was a communication from a
debt collector.  Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Letter violated Section 1692e(10)
because it did not disclose that his mortgage balance was
increasing due to interest, as required under Avila v. Riexinger &
Associates, LLC.  The Defendant argues that Avila is inapplicable
because the Letter was not a collection attempt, but only a notice
required under Section 1692g.  According to the Defendant, because
the Letter is not a collection attempt, it cannot be misleading
under Section 1692e.  The Avila court rejected this argument,
explaining that Section 1692e applies regardless of whether the
notice sent complied with, or was intended to comply with, Section
1692g.  Therefore, the Letter was sent in connection with the
collection of a debt.  Accordingly, Judge Ross denied the
Defendant's motion with respect to the Letter.

The Defendant argues that Section 1692e does not apply to the
Notice, because it was not a communication made in connection with
the collection of any debt.  Alternatively, it argues that the
Notice adequately discloses that it is from a debt collector.
Judge Ross said the Defendant is identified by its functional
role, as the Plaintiff's "mortgage servicer."  Once again, even
the least sophisticated consumer would know that a mortgage
servicer is a debt collector.  Therefore, Judge Ross granted the
Defendant's motion with respect to the Notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/ptNFZt from Leagle.com.

Rigal J Baptiste, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan L. Gentile, Law
Offices of Gus Michael Farinella.

Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Jordan Michael Smith -- jordan.smith@akerman.com -- Akerman
Senterfitt LLP & Kathleen Rose Fitzpatrick --
kathleen.fitzpatrick@akerman.com -- Akerman Senterfitt LLP.


CBE GROUP: "Truglio" Suit Seeks to Certify Debt Collection Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MARNI TRUGLIO, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CBE GROUP and
JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-03813-TJB
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an Order
certifying the case to proceed as a class action, and granting
preliminary approval of the settlement, on behalf of the following
class:

   "all New Jersey consumers who were sent collection letters
   and/or notice during the period beginning June 8, 2014, and
   ending June 8, 2015, from Defendant CBE Group attempting to
   collect an obligation owed to DirectTV that contain at least
   one of the alleged violations arising from Defendant's
   violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et seq., which were mailed
   in a windowed envelope such that certain alpha numeric
   information associated with the consumer's debt was visible
   from the outside of the envelope.

The Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, which alleges CBE violated the
FDCPA by sending consumers written collection communications that
contained an account number which was visible on the envelope it
was mailed in.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aspOu7bN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, New Jersey 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Seeks Dismissal of FACTA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jack Newsham, writing for Law360, reports that The Cheesecake
Factory asked a New York federal judge on June 26 to throw out a
putative class action that accuses it of printing too many credit
card numbers on consumer receipts in violation of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act, saying no harm has resulted from
its alleged wrongdoing. [GN]

The case is Tibbetts et al v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants,
Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00968 (E.D.N.Y.).  The case is assigned to
Judge Leonard D. Wexler.  The case was filed February 21, 2017.


CENTURYLINK INC: Fraudulent Billing Suit Filed in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe St. George, writing for FOX31, reports that the legal troubles
for CenturyLink appear to be growing after lawyers with Geragos
and Geragos Law Firm filed a class-action lawsuit against the
company on June 26.

The attorneys have teamed up with lawyers in Colorado from the
Shuman Law Firm and the Gardy and Notis Law Firm.

The lawsuit will be similar to what was recently filed in Arizona,
alleging employees of the company fraudulently added services to
customer accounts to meet sales goals -- costing customers as much
as $12 billion nationwide.

The first lawsuit is being brought by a fired employee claiming to
be a whistleblower.

"Colorado seems to be the epicenter of CenturyLink's corruption,"
said Ben Meiselas, an attorney on the lawsuit.

Mr. Meiselas said they are filing in federal court in each state
because each state has different consumer protections.

"The amount of responses from Colorado have been overwhelming,"
Mr. Meiselas said.

Anyone who believes they were impacted by CenturyLink employees
are asked to email Geragos@Geragos.com or call the Problem Solvers
tip line.

CenturyLink previously denied some of the accusations in a
statement.

"Unfortunately, these types of opportunistic follow-on claims are
not unexpected.  The fact that a law firm is trying to leverage a
wrongful termination suit into a putative class action lawsuit,
does not change our original position.  Our employees know that if
they have any concerns about ethics or compliance issues, we have
an Integrity Line in place, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Our former employee did not make a report to the Integrity Line
and our leadership team was not aware of the alleged matter until
the lawsuit was filed.  The allegations made by our former
employee are completely inconsistent with our company policies,
culture and Unifying Principles, which include honesty and
integrity.  We take these allegations seriously and are diligently
investigating this matter." [GN]


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Dean Granted Leave to Amend Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Jacqueline Dean, the Plaintiff, v. Colgate-
Palmolive Co., the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-00107-JGB-RAO (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order granting
Plaintiff's motion to modify a scheduling order and for leave to
file amended class action.

The Court said, "Counsel shall meet and confer and submit a
stipulation with new dates as to the Motion for Class
Certification".

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher
          Bursor & Fisher, P.A.
          1990 N California Blvd Ste 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3745

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robyn Eileen Bladow, Esq.
          Sable A. Hodson, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680 8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680 8500
          E-mail: rbladow@kirkland.com
                  sable.hodson@kirkland.com


COMERICA INCORPORATED: Faces "Nguyen" Suit in N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comerica
Incorporated. The case is captioned as Tommy Nguyen, Paulus
Niekdam, and Loc Tran, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Creditors, v. Comerica Incorporated,
JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, and E-Trade Securities LLCGreen Bank
National Association, the Garnishees, and Versacom LLC, Afreen Al-
amin, and Muhammad Al-amin, the Debtors, Case No. 3:17-cv-01701-M
(N.D. Tex., June 27, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief
Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn.

Comerica Incorporated is a financial services company
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lu Pham, Esq.
          Antonio U Allen, Esq.
          DOWELL PHAM HARRISON LLP
          505 Pecan Street, Suite 200
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 632 6300
          Facsimile: (817) 632 6313
          E-mail: lpham@dphllp.com
                  aallen@dphllp.com

               - and -

          Caroline C Harrison, Esq.
          DOWELL PHAM HARRISON, LLP
          Tindall Square Bldg. No. 2
          505 Pecan Street, Ste. 200
          Fort Worth, TX 76102-3685
          Telephone: (817) 632 6300
          E-mail: charrison@dphllp.com


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Court Certifies Subclasses in "Strautch" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOSEPH STRAUTCH and TIMOTHY COLBY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:14-cv-00956-JBA (D. Conn.), the Court grants in part and
denies in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Court does not certify any North Carolina classes. The Court
likewise does not certify proposed California and Connecticut
Senior Professional sub-classes.

The Court certifies the California and Connecticut sub-classes
comprised of Associate Professional SAs defined as:

   California Class:

   "all persons who were, are or will be employed by CSC in
   California as Associate Professional System Administrators or
   Professional System Administrators, at any time from July 1,
   2010 through the date of the final disposition of this action,
   who earn or earned less than $100,000 in total amount
   compensation, who worked more than 40 hours per week, and who
   were not members of the "Test and Training Rangers" segment
   (TTR)of CSC".

   Connecticut Class:

   all persons who were, are or will be employed by CSC in
   Connecticut as Associate Professional System Administrators or
   Professional System Administrators, at any time from July 1,
   2010 through the date of the final disposition of this action,
   who earn or earned less than $100,000 in total amount
   compensation, who worked more than 40 hours per week, and who
   were not members of the "Test and Training Rangers" segment
   (TTR)of CSC".

The Court notes that there is no named Plaintiff to represent the
California class because Mr. Strauch is classified as a Senior
Professional SA and permits Plaintiffs to amend their complaint
for the limited purpose of adding a representative plaintiff for
the California class.

The Plaintiffs brought this overtime misclassification action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the state laws of
California, Connecticut, and North Carolina, claiming that CSC has
mistakenly classified them and fellow employees with the same job
titles as exempt.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Wjj1pLDP


CORECIVIC INC: Sued Over Leavenworth Jail Attorney-Client Tapings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Margolies, writing for KCUR 89.3, reports that two former
detainees at the Leavenworth Detention Center have filed a class
action lawsuit over the taping of meetings and calls between
inmates and their attorneys at the pretrial facility.

The lawsuit follows a similar one filed by two attorneys who
alleged their phone calls and meetings with clients at the
facility were taped.

The two lawsuits are the latest wrinkles in a snowballing
controversy that has prompted a federal judge to order an
investigation of the tapings and threatens to envelop, and
possibly derail, scores of criminal cases.

Both suits seek a halt to the tapings, which the plaintiffs say
violates their rights under the Sixth Amendment.  And both seek at
least $5 million in damages from the operator of the prison,
CoreCivic Inc., and the company that provides it with phone
services, Securus Technologies.

CoreCivic officials did not respond to a request for comment.
Securus officials could not be reached for comment.

The detainee lawsuit was filed in early June by Ashley Huff and
Gregory Rapp, who were formerly held at Leavenworth. The suit
seeks class action status on behalf of detainees held there since
June 1, 2012, "whose confidential communications with their
attorneys were intercepted, disclosed or used by Defendants,"
according to the complaint.

Ms. Huff and Mr. Rapp spent months in the Leavenworth Detention
Center while awaiting trial on charges of conspiring to possess
and distribute marijuana.  Both pleaded guilty.  Earlier this
year, Ms. Huff was sentenced to 36 months in prison and Mr. Rapp
to 10 years.

The lawyer lawsuit was filed last August by Adam Crane and David
Johnson, both Kansas City-area attorneys, shortly after it was
revealed that attorney-client meetings and phone calls had been
video and audiotaped at Leavenworth.  The plaintiffs have amended
the suit several times since then.

Both lawsuits allege CoreCivic and Securus violated Missouri's and
Kansas' wiretap statutes, as well as the federal wiretap law.

Joe Eischens, an attorney for the lawyer plaintiffs, says the case
is important "because it touches on a very important
constitutional privilege -- the attorney-client privilege -- and
what it means to be represented by an attorney if you're a
criminal defendant."

"Those are really, really, really important rights that need to be
vindicated.  And if there's a deprivation of those rights through
illegal taping, surreptitious taping, somebody needs to expose
that," he says.

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson has appointed a special master
-- an independent, outside party -- to investigate the scope of
the video and audiotaping of privileged attorney-client meetings
and phone calls at Leavenworth and to determine whether law
enforcement authorities and prosecutors accessed them.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Kansas had repeatedly said it had
not listened to such recordings.  But in a recent filing, it
acknowledged that at least one prosecutor in that office had done
so.  The prosecutor, Erin S. Tomasic, is no longer with the
office. [GN]


CVS PHARMACY: Dean et al. Seek to Certify Classes of Technicians
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KEITH ROBERT DEAN, JR. and ERICKA
PRESSLEY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., and CVS
CAREMARK CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-02136-GAM
(E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify classes:

Pennsylvania Class:

   "all persons who worked for CVS in Pennsylvania as pharmacy
   technicians during the period beginning February 28, 2010
   through the date of opt-out notice in this case ("Pennsylvania
   Class Period"). (All such similarly situated persons are
   hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Pennsylvania
    Class or "Pennsylvania Class Members")"; and

New Jersey Class:

   "all persons who worked for CVS in New Jersey as pharmacy
   technicians during the period beginning October 16, 2008
   through the date of opt-out notice in this case ("New Jersey
   Class Period"). (All such similarly situated persons are
   hereinafter referred to collectively as the "New Jersey Class"
   or New Jersey Class Members")".

The case is a class action alleging non-payment for all hours
worked by the Pharmacy Technicians on mandatory electronic
training modules referred to by CVS as "LEARNet."

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          DONOVAN LITIGATION GROUP, LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2405
          Telephone: (610) 647 6067

               - and -

          Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
          Kristen M. Hurley
          GORDON LAW GROUP LLP
          585 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 536 1800
          Facsimile: (617) 536 1802


DES MOINES, IA: Iowa App. Affirms Royal View Tenants Class Cert
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Iowa affirmed the judgment in the case
captioned RESIDENTS OF ROYAL VIEW MANOR by and through JEANETTE
McDOWELL, et. al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE DES MOINES
MUNICIPAL HOUSING AGENCY d/b/a ROYAL VIEW MANOR, Defendant-
Appellant, No. 16-1230 (Iowa App.).

Fifty-five tenants of Royal View Manor filed a lawsuit on their
own behalf and on behalf of those persons similarly situated
alleging the Des Moines Municipal Housing Agency (DMMHA) breached
warranties of habitability by failing to properly remedy a bed bug
infestation in the apartment building.

The district court found the plaintiffs had met the requirements
of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure for class certification.
However, because only one resident reported contact with bed bugs
before 2010, the district court limited the class to "all tenants
of Royal View Manor from January 1, 2010, to present." The DMMHA
appeals from this order.

The Iowa Court of Appeals held that the district court
appropriately considered and weighed the factors before it in
determining the class certification would provide a fair and
efficient adjudication of the controversy.  Because the appeals
court is unable to find the district court abused its discretion
in certifying the class action, it affirms.

A full-text copy of the Iowa Court of Appeals' July 6, 2017,
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/Wzsn34 from Leagle.com.

Appellant is represented by Eric G. Hoch, Esq. --
ehoch@finleylaw.com -- Kevin J. Driscoll, Esq. --
kdriscoll@finleylaw.com -- and Kellen B. Bubach, Esq. --
kbubach@finleylaw.com -- of Finley Law Firm, P.C., Des Moines, and

     Gregory R. Brown, Esq.
     Joseph G. Gamble, Esq.
     DUNCAN, GREEN, BROWN & LANGENESS, P.C.
     400 Locust Street, Suite 380
     Des Moines, IA 50309
     Phone: 515-288-6440
     Facsimile: 515-288-6448

Steven P. Wandro and Kara M. Simons of Wandro & Associates, P.C.,
Des Moines, and Jeffrey M. Lipman of Lipman Law Firm, P.C., Clive,
for appellees.


DJM ADVISORY: Fla. Court Denies Bid to Expand Junk Fax Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Fort Myers Division, denied plaintiff's motion to amend
its complaint in the case captioned JWD AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a
Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons d/b/a NAPA Auto Care of Cape
Coral, Plaintiff, v. DJM ADVISORY GROUP LLC, BANNER LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and WILLIAM PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK,
Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-793-FtM-29MRM (M.D. Fla.).

This is a junk fax case.  On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff JWD
Automotive, Inc. filed a class-action complaint against DJM
Advisory Group LLC, Banner Life Insurance Company, and William
Penn Life Insurance Company of New York.  The one-count Complaint
accuses Defendants of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005, 47
U.S.C. Section 227, by sending Plaintiff (and others) unsolicited
commercial advertisements by facsimile machine (i.e. "junk
faxes").  Plaintiff alleges that, by sending these junk faxes,
Defendants caused Plaintiff and others to lose paper and toner,
occupied their phone lines and fax machines, and violated their
privacy interests.

The Court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Amend without prejudice and
Unopposed Revised Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Notice to the Settlement Class.

Plaintiff's request to expand the class to include nearly 130,000
members who seemingly lack standing, but who may nevertheless be
eligible to collect a pro rata share of the $3.5 million
settlement fund, potentially diminishes the amount available to
pay class members who clearly do have standing, and thus calls
into question whether Plaintiff "will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class," the District Court held.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is denied without
prejudice.

The Court also denies without prejudice Plaintiff's Revised Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Notice to
the Settlement Class.  While the Settlement Agreement defines the
class as "all persons who were sent one or more facsimiles
December 21, 2011 to the present" and further states that claiming
class members will be paid their pro rata share of the Settlement
Fund as the proposed Proof of Claim Form does not allow class
members who received more than one fax at the same fax number to
so indicate.  As a result, some class members may be prevented
from recovering their true pro rata share of the settlement fund,
the Court pointed out.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2017, Opinion and Order
penned by Senior District Judge John E. Steele is available at
https://is.gd/hexd6E from Leagle.com.

JWD Automotive, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ross M. Good, Esq.
-- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

DJM Advisory Group LLC, Defendant, represented by A. Brian
Phillips, A. Brian Phillips, PA, John H. Gionis, Certilman, Balin,
Adler & Hyman, LLP, Nicole L. Milone, Certilman, Balin, Adler &
Hyman, LLP & Paul B. Sweeney, Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman,
LLP.

Banner Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Francis
X. Nolan, IV, Eversheds Sutherland LLP, Lewis S. Wiener,
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, LLP & Patricia A. Gorham, Eversheds
Sutherland (US) LLP.

William Penn Life Insurance Company of New York, Defendant,
represented by Francis X. Nolan, IV, Eversheds Sutherland LLP,
Lewis S. Wiener, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, LLP & Patricia A.
Gorham, Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Court Narrows Defenses in "Bruno" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DANIEL BRUNO, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC and GENEVA FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Civ.
No. 2:17-0327 WBS EFB (E.D. Cal.), Judge William R. Shubb granted
in part the plaintiff's motions to strike the defendants'
defenses.

Daniel Bruno brought a putative class action against defendants
Equifax Information Services, LLC and Geneva Financial Services,
LLC, alleging that defendants sold his and putative class members'
consumer reports to other parties for impermissible marketing
purposes in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The defendants have filed separate Answers to Bruno's Complaint.
Equifax alleged seven defenses in its Answer.  Geneva alleged 16
defenses in its Answer.  Bruno moved to strike each of the
defenses alleged in the defendants' Answers under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(f).

Judge Shubb determined that Equifax's first, second, third, fifth,
sixth, and seventh defenses are not affirmative defenses.  The
judge explained that such defenses need not be pled in Equifax's
Answer although they may still be raised later in this action.
Accordingly, such defenses were stricken.

Judge Shubb also struck Geneva's first, tenth, eleventh, twelfth,
fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth defenses.  The judge
determined that these are not affirmative defenses and need not be
pled in Geneva's Answer although they may still be raised later in
this action.

Judge Shubb further found that Geneva has not provided Bruno fair
notice of its fourth, sixth, eighth and ninth defenses, and struck
those defenses.  Geneva's third and thirteenth defenses were also
stricken.

Bruno's Motions were denied in all other respects.

A full-text copy of Judge Shubb's June 30, 2017 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/gKfzZA from Leagle.com.

Daniel Bruno, Plaintiff, represented by James Louis Kohl, Law
Offices Of James Louis Kohl, Joseph Messer --
jmesser@messerstrickler.com -- Messer Strickler, Ltd., pro hac
vice.

Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Matthew H. Dawson -- mdawson@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP,
Allison L. Hill, King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice, Meryl W. Roper
-- mroper@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice & Zachary
A. McEntyre -- zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro hac
vice.

Geneva Financial Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Rebecca
Dena Wester -- rdj@smbgroup.com -- Law Offices of Henry N. Jannol,
APC.


FACEBOOK INC: Can't Stop User to File Class Action in Israel
------------------------------------------------------------
Dotan Baruch, Esq. -- dbaruch@barlaw.co.il -- of Barnea & Co, in
an article for Lexology, wrote that recently, the Israeli Attorney
General, in a legal opinion filed with the Israeli Supreme Court
as part of an appeal filed by Facebook, opined that foreign
companies (specifically those that do business via the internet)
may not escape Israeli court jurisdiction even if the terms and
conditions posted on their website state otherwise.

The appeal was filed by Facebook against a decision of a District
Court in a class action initiated against Facebook, which is
focused on privacy issues.  Facebook argued that the Court should
not allow the plaintiff to litigate in Israel, because the terms
and conditions of Facebook, to which the plaintiff agreed, state
that any legal dispute between Facebook and the members of the
social network has to be litigated in California courts in
accordance with Californian law.

However, the District Court ruled that, contrary to the legal
claim of Facebook, the plaintiff can lodge the class action in
Israel.  The District Court noted that the court jurisdiction
provision is aimed to deter the Israeli plaintiff from exercising
his/her legal rights and as such, this provision, being part of a
uniform contract, is null and void.  In reaching its conclusion,
the District Court noted the facts that Facebook provides its
services to millions of Israelis and operates a Hebrew interface.

Facebook lodged an appeal with the Israeli Supreme Court against
this decision, following which the Supreme Court asked the
Attorney General to file his opinion on this matter

The Attorney General's conclusion is that this provision of the
terms and conditions of Facebook does not bind Israelis that use
Facebook.  Several reasons were provided by the Attorney General
for this conclusion, including, inter alia, the following:

   1. This provision is aimed to deter Israelis from exercising
their rights, due to various factors such as the cost of hiring a
foreign lawyer and travel abroad;

   2. The Israeli members of the social network are at a clear and
substantial disadvantage vis-a-vis Facebook when agreeing to the
social network's terms and conditions;

   3. Any foreign company that decides to allow Israelis to use
its products and services and invests in marketing in an effort to
increase its revenues should be prepared to allow its customers to
exercise their right to litigate in Israel; this should not be
construed as an excessive burden, as the foreign company can
assess the relevant legal risks and price its products and
services accordingly;

   4. Facebook has greater access to Israeli courts compared to
the access of its Israeli members to Californian courts
The Attorney General also noted the facts that Facebook has 4
million Israeli members, operates a Hebrew interface and support
services in Hebrew and that it translated its terms and conditions
to Hebrew -- all suggesting that Facebook is doing business in
Israel.

Naturally, should the Israeli Supreme Court decide to adopt the
legal opinion of the Attorney General and reject the appeal of
Facebook, one has to acknowledge the significant effect on the
activities of all businesses that provide products and services to
Israelis through the internet; such businesses will most likely be
bound to litigate in Israeli courts according to Israeli law if
their Israeli customers take legal action against them, regardless
of provisions to the contrary in their terms and conditions. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Internet Tracking Plaintiffs Granted to Amend Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: FACEBOOK, INC. INTERNET TRACKING
LITIGATION, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J.
Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted the Plaintiffs'
administrative motion to file portions of the Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/DapHlJ from Leagle.com.

Alexandria Parrish, Plaintiff, represented by Edward D. Robertson,
III, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY.

Alexandria Parrish, Plaintiff, represented by Edward D. Robertson,
Jr., Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, James Patrick
Frickleton, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Jennifer L.
Harwood, Keefe Bartels, pro hac vice, Mary Doerhoff Winter,
Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, Paul R. Kiesel --
kiesel@kbla.com -- Kiesel Law LLP, Peter F. Burns, Peter S.
Mackey, Stephen M. Gorny -- steve@gornylawfirm.com -- The Gorny
Law Firm, LC & William Mitchell Cunningham, Jr..

Sharon Beatty, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Straite --
dstraite@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Edward D.
Robertson, Jr., Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, James
Patrick Frickleton, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Paul R.

Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Edward D. Robertson, III, BARTIMUS
FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Jennifer L. Harwood, Keefe Bartels,
pro hac vice, Joel Grant Woods, Grant Woods PC, Mary Doerhoff
Winter, Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny & Stephen M.
Gorny, The Gorny Law Firm, LC.

Brooke Rutledge, Plaintiff, represented by David Shelton, David
Shelton, PLLC, Edward D. Robertson, III, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON GORNY, Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Bartimus Frickleton
Robertson and Gorny, James Patrick Frickleton, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON GORNY, Jennifer L. Harwood, Keefe Bartels, pro hac vice,
Mary Doerhoff Winter, Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny,
Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP & Stephen M. Gorny, The Gorny Law
Firm, LC.

Michael Singley, Plaintiff, represented by Alice London, Daniel W.
Bishop, II, Bishop London & Dodds PC, Edward D. Robertson, III,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Edward D. Robertson, Jr.,
Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, James Patrick Frickleton,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Jennifer L. Harwood, Keefe
Bartels, pro hac vice, Mary Doerhoff Winter, Bartimus Frickleton
Robertson and Gorny, Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP & Stephen M.
Gorny, The Gorny Law Firm, LC.

Dana Howard, Plaintiff, represented by Edward D. Robertson, III,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Edward D. Robertson, Jr.,
Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, James Patrick Frickleton,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Jennifer L. Harwood, Keefe
Bartels, pro hac vice, Mark Chandler Goldenberg, Goldenberg Heller
Antognoli and Rowland, Mary Doerhoff Winter, Bartimus Frickleton
Robertson and Gorny, Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Stephen M.
Gorny, The Gorny Law Firm, LC & Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Goldenberg
Heller Antognoli and Rowland, P.C..

John Graham, Plaintiff, represented by Edward D. Robertson, III,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Edward D. Robertson, Jr.,
Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, James Patrick Frickleton,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Jennifer L. Harwood, Keefe
Bartels, pro hac vice, Mary Doerhoff Winter, Bartimus Frickleton
Robertson and Gorny, Michelle L. Marvel, Bartimus, Frickleton,
Robertson & Gorny, Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP & Stephen M.
Gorny, The Gorny Law Firm, LC.

David Hoffman, Plaintiff, represented by Edward D. Robertson, III,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Edward D. Robertson, Jr.,
Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, Emily Ward Roark, Bryant
Law Center, James Patrick Frickleton, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON GORNY, Jennifer L. Harwood, Keefe Bartels, pro hac vice,
Mark P. Bryant, Bryant Law Center, Mary Doerhoff Winter, Bartimus
Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP &
Stephen M. Gorny, The Gorny Law Firm, LC.

Janet Seamon, Plaintiff, represented by Edward D. Robertson, III,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Edward D. Robertson, Jr.,
Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, James Patrick Frickleton,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Jennifer L. Harwood, Keefe
Bartels, pro hac vice, L.J. Hymel, Mary Doerhoff Winter, Bartimus
Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, Michael Reese Davis, Hymel Davis
and Petersen, LLC, Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Richard P.
Ieyoub, Ieyoub Law Firm, LLC, Stephen M. Gorny, The Gorny Law
Firm, LC & Tim P. Hartdegen.

Chandra L. Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Stephan
Lyskowski, Edward D. Robertson, III, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON
GORNY, Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and
Gorny, James Patrick Frickleton, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON
GORNY, Jennifer L. Harwood, Keefe Bartels, pro hac vice, Mary
Doerhoff Winter, Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, Paul R.
Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP & Stephen M. Gorny, The Gorny Law Firm, LC.

Facebook Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Gutkin --
jgutkin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Kyle Christopher Wong --
kylewong99@yahoo.com -- Cooley LLP, Matthew Dean Brown --
brownmd@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Adam Christopher Trigg --
atrigg@be-law.com -- Cooley LLP.


FOOT LOCKER: 2d Cir. Affirms Grant of Benefits in ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
the judgment in the case captioned GEOFFREY OSBERG, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. FOOT LOCKER, INC., FOOT LOCKER RETIREMENT PLAN,
Defendants-Appellants, No. 15-3602-cv (2d Cir.).

Defendants-appellants Foot Locker, Inc., et. al., appeal from a
judgment entered by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, which held that Foot Locker
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and ordered
that participants receive an "A benefit," consisting of an initial
account balance and "B benefit," consisting of continued service
and interest credits.

On appeal, Defendants-appellants argued that the district court
erred by: (1) awarding relief to plan participants whose claims
were barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (2) ordering
class-wide relief on participants' claims without requiring
individualized proof of detrimental reliance; (3) concluding that
mistake, a prerequisite to the equitable remedy of reformation,
had been shown by clear and convincing evidence as to all class
members; and (4) using a formula for calculating relief that
resulted in a windfall to certain plan participants.

The Second Circuit, reviewing a district court's award of
equitable relief "only for an abuse of discretion" or for a clear
error of law, detected none in this case.  The Second Circuit
concluded that the district court's award of an "A benefit" and "B
benefit" to all participants did not fall outside the "range of
permissible decisions" available under an abuse of discretion
standard.

Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirms the judgment of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's July 6, 2017, Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/f0Qjtn from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff-Appellee Geoffrey Osberg is represented by:

     Julia Penny Clark, Esq.
     BREDHOFF & KAISER, PLLC
     805 Fifteenth Street N.W.
     Washington, DC 20005-2207
     Tel: (202) 842-2600

        -- and --

     Eli Gottesdiener, Esq.
     Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC
     Brooklyn, NY
     Email: eli@gottesdienerlaw.com
     (on the brief)

MYRON D. RUMELD -- mrumeld@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP,
New York, NY (Mark D. Harris, Esq. -- mharris@proskauer.com --
Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY; Robert Rachal, Esq., Proskauer
Rose LLP, New Orleans, LA; John E. Roberts, Esq. --
jroberts@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, Boston, MA; Amir C.
Tayrani, Esq. -- atayrani@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, on the brief), for Defendants-
Appellants Foot Locker, Inc., Foot Locker Retirement Plan.

EIRIK CHEVERUD, Trial Attorney (M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of
Labor; G. William Scott, Associate Solicitor; Elizabeth Hopkins,
Counsel for Appellate and Special Litigation, on the brief) for
Amicus Curiae Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of the United States
Department of Labor, Washington, DC, in support of Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Dara S. Smith, AARP Foundation Litigation, Washington, DC for
Amicus Curiae AARP, in support of Plaintiff-Appellee.
Evan Miller, Jones Day, Washington, DC, Lauren P. Ruben, Jones
Day, New York, NY for Amici Curiae the American Benefits Council,
the ERISA Industry Committee, and the Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America, in support of Defendants-Appellants


FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Karp" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus
LLP.  The case is styled as Schneur Z. Karp, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Forster & Garbus LLP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03851
(E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2017).

Forster & Garbus is a full service New York Law Firm concentrating
on creditor's rights law since 1970.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668 6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


FORSTER & GARBUS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Cohen Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aryeh Cohen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Forster & Garbus, LLP, Case No. 1:17-cv-03452
(E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2017), is brought over alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Forster & Garbus LLP is a full service New York Law Firm
concentrating on creditor's rights law since 1970.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW, P.C.
          337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
          Brooklyn, NY 11223
          Telephone: (917) 299-6612
          Facsimile: (347) 665-1545
          E-mail: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: "Cruckshank" Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Christopher Cruckshank, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Freedom
Mortgage Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00011-AYS
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs were slated to move the United States
Court for the Eastern District of New York on July 10, 2017, for
an order certifying the case as a class action, and granting final
approval of the settlement agreement in the case.

Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to certify these classes:

Class A consisting of:

   (a) all individuals (b) with a New York address (c) who were
   sent a letter from Freedom in a form materially identical or
   substantially similar to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
   Approval which was not returned as undeliverable (e) on or
   after a date one year prior to the filing of this action and
   on or before August 30, 2016 (f) concerning a mortgage loan
   that Freedom began servicing while the mortgage loan was in
   default (g) where the letter in question either (1) only
   listed the unpaid principal balance of the debt or (2) failed
   to disclose that Freedom was a debt collector or (3) failed to
   disclose that the letter was an attempt to collect a debt or
   (4) otherwise allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection
   Practices Act or the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act";
   and

Class B consisting of:

   (a) all individuals (b) with a New Jersey address (c) who were
   sent a letter from Freedom in a form materially identical or
   substantially similar to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
   Approval which was not returned as undeliverable (e) on or
   after a date one year prior to the filing of this action and
   on or before August 30, 2016 (f) concerning a mortgage loan
   that Freedom began servicing while the mortgage loan was in
   default (g) where the letter in question either (1) only
   listed the unpaid principal balance of the debt or (2) failed
   to disclose that Freedom was a debt collector or (3) failed to
   disclose that the letter was an attempt to collect a debt or
   (4) otherwise allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection
   Practices Act or the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act".

Cruckshank individually and on behalf of a class, alleged that
Freedom violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by mailing
consumers letters that listed the unpaid principal balance due on
the consumer's mortgage loan but did not list the full amount of
the debt allegedly owed (including interest and other charges) as
of the date of the letter.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wd5rpFFU

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Gentile, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA, PC
          110 Jericho Turnpike - Suite 100
          Floral Park, NY 11001
          Telephone: (212) 675 6161
          Facsimile: (212) 675 4367
          E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


FUJITSU LIMITED: $11.1MM in Atty Fees Awarded in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato of the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, granted direct purchaser class
counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses, in the case entitled, IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER
ACTIONS, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD (N.D. Cal.)

Direct purchaser plaintiff (DPP) class counsel made an application
for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses made in
connection with DPPs' motion for final approval of settlements
with Fujitsu Limited, NEC TOKIN Corporation, NEC TOKIN America,
Inc., Nitsuko Electronics Corporation, Okaya Electric Industries
Co., Ltd. and Okaya Electric America, Inc., ROHM Co., Ltd., and
ROHM Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC.

Fujitsu Limited agreed to pay DPPs $2,000,000. The parties
estimate that the company's dissolved former subsidiary, Fujitsu
Media Device (FMD), sold less than $200,000 of capacitors to U.S.
purchasers between 2002 and its 2009 dissolution. The settlement
consideration is more than ten times FMD's entire relevant U.S.
sales. NEC TOKIN agreed to pay DPPs $24,000,000. For purposes of
its guilty plea and sentencing on federal criminal price fixing
charges, NEC TOKIN estimated its U.S. capacitors sales from 2002
to 2014 totaled $51,100,000. The settlement consideration is 46.9%
of NEC TOKIN's estimated relevant U.S. sales. Nitsuko agreed to
pay DPPs $1,100,000. The parties have estimated that the company
sold less than $100,000 of capacitors to U.S. purchasers between
2002 and 2014. The settlement consideration is roughly 11 times
Nitsuko's entire relevant U.S. sales. The Okaya defendants agreed
to pay DPPs $3,650,000. The Okaya defendants have represented that
their sales to U.S. purchasers between 2002 to 2014 totaled close
to $11,000,000. The settlement consideration is approximately 33%
of the Okaya defendants' relevant U.S. sales. ROHM agreed to pay
DPPs $1,850,000. DPPs estimate that ROHM had approximately
$7,000,000 in sales to U.S. purchasers between 2004 and 2014. The
settlement consideration is 26.4% of ROHM's relevant U.S. sales.

The settlements total $32,600,000 in cash and secure agreements by
each of the five settling defendants to cooperate in DPPs'
continued prosecution of their claims against the non-settling
defendants. Direct purchaser class counsel seeks an award in the
amounts of $8,150,000 for fees accrued as of September 30, 2016,
and $3,000,000 for costs advanced on behalf of the Class during
the same period.

Judge Donato granted direct purchaser plaintiff counsel's motion.
As reflected in counsel's submission, their cumulative lodestar
and costs as of September 30, 2016 greatly exceed the compensation
they seek as the lodestar cross-check thus confirms that counsel's
$8,150,000 fee request is reasonable and should be awarded as
requested. The court grants counsel their request for a
reimbursement of expenses they have incurred as of September 30,
2016, in the amount of $3,000,000. This amount is to be paid from
the Settlement Fund. The amount is a fraction of the amounts
incurred to date. It is appropriate to reimburse attorneys
prosecuting class claims on a contingent basis for reasonable
expenses that would typically be billed to paying clients in non-
contingency matters.

A copy of Judge Donato's order dated June 27, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/Rz1PRv from Leagle.com.

Chip-Tech, Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by C. Andrew Dirksen --
cdirksen@cerallp.com --Solomon B. Cera -- scera@cerallp.com -- at
Cera LLP; Joseph J. DePalma -- jdepalma@litedepalma.com -- Steven
J. Greenfogel -- sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com -- at Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC; Andrew Michael Purdy -- apurdy@saverilawfirm.com -
- James Gerard Beebe Dallal -- jdallal@alumni.rice.edu -- Ryan
James McEwan -- rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph R. Saveri --
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- at Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.;
Daniel R. Karon -- dkaron@karonllc.com -- at, Karon LLC; Eric L.
Cramer -- ecramer@bm.net -- Michael C. Dell'Angelo, IV --
mdellangelo@bm.net -- at Berger & Montague, P.C.; James W.
Anderson -- Jessica N. Servais -- Vincent J. Esades -- at Heins
Mills Olson, P.L.C.; Jason Scott Hartley --
hartley@stuevesiegel.com -- at Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP

Dependable Component Supply Corp., Plaintiff, represented by C.
Andrew Dirksen -- cdirksen@cerallp.com --Solomon B. Cera --
scera@cerallp.com -- at Cera LLP; Steven J. Greenfogel --
sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com -- at Lite DePalma Greenburg, LLC;
Joseph R. Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- at Joseph Saveri
Law Firm, Inc.; Michael C. Dell'Angelo, IV -- mdellangelo@bm.net -
- at Berger & Montague, P.C.; William Henry London --
blondon@fklmlaw.com -- at Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC

In Home Tech Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander
Dewitt Singh Kullar -- akullar@steyerlaw.com -- Allan Steyer --
asteyer@steyerlaw.com -- Gabriel Dash Zeldin -- at Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez Smith LLP

Everett Ellis, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson -
- at Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc.; Anne
Elizabeth Smith -- Kathleen Kopach Woods -- KWoods@sls-law.com --
Richard Lombardo -- RLombardo@sls-law.com -- at Shaffer Lombardo
Shurin; William Robert Pointer, II -- at Duncan Firm

Autorama, Inc., WE 3 Gossett, LLC, Gossett Motor Cars, Inc.,
Computing Solutions, Inc., Cetacea Sound, Inc., Beverly Hills
Leasing LLC, BHRAC, LLC, Garth Russell, M.D., Scot Dunlap, Jamie
Thaemert, David C. Keller, Todd Stowater, Sean G. Tarjoto, Timothy
Duffy, Marta Michaud, John E. McDowell, Johnny Walker, Jane
Schmit, Michael W. Davis, Mike Fisher, and Fredrick P. Hege, Jr.,
Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson -- at Robinson
Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc.

Troy Gibson, David Standridge, Jennifer Rusher, Charles Rusher,
and Scott Huffman, Plaintiffs, represented by Brett Ashley Emison
-- brett@lelaw.com -- James Kent Emison -- kent@lelaw.com -- at
Langdon Emison; Daniel Stewart Robinson -- at Robinson Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc.

eIQ Energy Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Austin B. Cohen --
acohen@lfsblaw.com -- Howard J. Sedran -- hsedran@lfsblaw.com --
Keith J. Verrier -- kverrier@lfsblaw.com -- at Levin Fishbein
Sedran and Berman; Joseph R. Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -
- at Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.; Ria C. Momblanco --
rmomblanco@finekaplan.com -- Roberta D. Liebenberg --
rliebenberg@finekaplan.com -- at Fine Kaplan and Black, R.P.C.

Toy-Knowlogy Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Mark Francis Ram --
mram@cpmlegal.com -- Steven Noel Williams --
swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- at Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP; Eric
B. Fastiff -- efastiff@lchb.com -- at Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP

CAE SOUND, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Francis Ram --
mram@cpmlegal.com -- Steven Noel Williams --
swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- at Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP; Cadio
R. Zirpoli -- cadio@saveri.com -- Guido Saveri -- guido@saveri.com
-- Matthew Dickinson Heaphy -- mheaphy@saveri.com -- at Saveri and
Saveri

Michael Brooks, Plaintiff, represented by Guido Saveri --
guido@saveri.com -- Matthew Dickinson Heaphy -- mheaphy@saveri.com
-- Richard Alexander Saveri -- rick@saveri.com -- at Saveri and
Saveri; Krishna Brian Narine -- knarine@m-npartners.com -- Joel
Cary Meredith -- jmeredith@m-npartners.com -- at Meredith &
Associates

Steve Wong, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Wing Lee --
jlee@MinamiTamaki.com -- at Minami Tamaki LLP; Daniel R. Shulman
-- daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com -- at Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty &
Bennett, P.A.

David A Bennett, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Michael
Schack, Law Offices of Alexander M. Schack

Walker Component Group, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Christina
H. Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP &
Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, represented by Adam John Zapala,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Elizabeth Tran, Cotchett, Pitre
and McCarthy, Steven Noel Williams, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP,
W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P, Brian D.
Clark, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Brian P. Murray, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Brian Douglas Penny, Goldman Scarlato Karon
and Penny, P.C., pro hac vice, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson
Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Devon Paul Allard, The Miller Law Firm, PC, pro hac vice,
Elizabeth R. Odette, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M.
Silton, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Hollis L. Salzman,
Robins Kaplan LLP, Joseph C. Bourne, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Joseph
R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Kellie Lerner, Robins
Kaplan LLP, Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Richard
Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc. & Sharon S. Almonrode

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory
Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Karin Elizabeth Garvey, Labaton
Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Perez, Labaton Sucharow LLp,
pro hac vice, Alfred Luke Smith, Radice Law Firm PC, Andrew
Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Daniel R. Karon, Karon LLC,
Gerard A. Dever, Fine Kaplan and Black, RPC, pro hac vice, James
Gerard Beebe Dallal, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Jason Scott Hartley,
Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, John Daniel Radice, Radice Law Firm,
Kenneth Bruce Pickle, Jr., Radice Law Firm, PC, Matthew Duncan,
Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC, Matthew Sinclair Weiler, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Nicomedes Sy Herrera, Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, Inc., Paul Costa, Fine, Kaplan and Black, Rachel Ellen Kopp,
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., Stuart George Gross, Gross &
Klein, LLP & William G. Caldes, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.

Flextronics International USA, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Charles E. Tompkins, Williams, Montgomery & John, Ltd., Elizabeth
E. Collins, Collins & Scanlon LLP, pro hac vice, Jordan D. Shea,
Williams Montgomery & John Ltd., pro hac vice, Paul James Ripp,
Williams Montgomery John Ltd., Whitney E. Street, Block & Leviton
LLP, Anthony J. Geroulis O'Neill, Williams Montgomery and John
Ltd., pro hac vice, Eric Richard Lifvendahl, Williams Montgomery
and John Ltd., pro hac vice & Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar
Fonti & Auld LLP

Alfred H. Siegel, Liquidating Trustee of the Circuit City Stores,
Inc., Plaintiff, Pro Se

Sanyo Electronic Device (U.S.A.) Corporation, Sanyo Electric
Group, Ltd., PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA and Panasonic
Corporation, Defendants, represented by Jeffrey L. Kessler --
jkessler@winston.com -- A. Paul Victor -- pvictor@winston.com --
David L. Greenspan -- dgreenspan@winston.com -- Frank S. Restagno
-- frestagno@winston.com -- Ian L. Papendick --
ipapendick@winston.com -- Kyle James Bonacuma -- Martin C. Geagan,
Jr. -- mgeagan@winston.com -- Matthew Robert DalSanto --
mdalsanto@winston.com -- Mollie C. Richardson --
mrichardson@winston.com -- Molly Donovan -- mmdonovan@winston.com
-- Patrick Stephen Opdyke -- popdyke@winston.com -- Rebecca Lara
Litman -- rlitman@winston.com -- William Owen Cooper --
wcooper@winston.com  -- at Winston & Strawn LLP

Taiyo Yuden (USA) Inc. and Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd., Defendants,
represented by Adam C. Hemlock -- adam.hemlock@weil.com --
Christopher J. Cox -- chris.cox@weil.com -- David Ramraj Singh --
david.singh@weil.com -- Steven A. Reiss -- steven.reiss@weil.comb
-- at Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP

NEC Tokin America, Inc. and NEC Tokin Corporation, Defendants,
represented by George Arnold Nicoud, III -- tnicoud@gibsondunn.com
-- Austin Van Schwing -- aschwing@gibsondunn.com -- Eli Martin
Lazarus -- eli.lazarus@gmail.com -- Rupal M. Doshi --
rdoshi@gibsondunn.com -- Matthew Cameron Parrott --
mparrott@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP -- Jacob
R. Sorensen -- jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com -- Roxane Alicia
Polidora -- roxane.polidora@pillsburylaw.com -- Laura Christine
Hurtado -- laura.hurtado@pillsburylaw.com -- at Pillsbury Winthrop
Shaw Pittman LLP

KEMET Electronics Corporation and KEMET Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Jacob R. Sorensen -- jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com
-- Lindsay A. Lutz -- Roxane Alicia Polidora --
roxane.polidora@pillsburylaw.com -- at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP

Nippon Chemi-con Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles F.
Rule -- rrule@paulweiss.com -- Daniel J. Howley --
dhowley@paulweiss.com -- Eric Richard Sega -- Joseph J. Bial --
jbial@paulweiss.com -- at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP -- Steven Shea Kaufhold -- skaufhold@kaufholdgaskin.com -- at
Kaufhold Gaskin LLP

Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Chul Pak --
cpak@wsgr.com -- Jeffrey C. Bank -- jbank@wsgr.com -- Jonathan M.
Jacobson -- jjacobson@wsgr.com --
Justin Andrew Cohen -- jcohen@wsgr.com -- Takeyoshi Ikeda --
tikeda@wsgr.com -- at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati

Nichicon Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian Joseph Smith
-- brian.j.smith@klgates.com -- Daniel William Fox --
daniel.fox@klgates.com -- Gina Alyse Jenero --
gina.jenero@klgates.com -- John Edward Susoreny --
john.susoreny@klgates.com -- Lauren Nicole Norris --
lauren.donahue@klgates.com -- Michael Edward Martinez --
michael.martinez@klgates.com -- Philip S. Van Der Weele --
phil.vanderweele@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates LLP

Nichicon (America) Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian
Joseph Smith -- brian.j.smith@klgates.com -- Daniel William Fox --
daniel.fox@klgates.com -- Gina Alyse Jenero --
gina.jenero@klgates.com -- John Edward Susoreny --
john.susoreny@klgates.com -- Lauren Nicole Norris --
lauren.donahue@klgates.com -- Michael Edward Martinez --
michael.martinez@klgates.com -- Philip S. Van Der Weele --
phil.vanderweele@klgates.com -- Scott M. Mendel --
scott.mendel@klgates.com -- Steven M. Kowal
-- steven.kowal@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates LLP

AVX Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bruce Douglas Sokler --
BDSokler@mintz.com -- Evan Nadel -- ENadel@mintz.com -- Robert Gil
Kidwell -- RGKidwell@mintz.com -- at Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris
Glovsky and Popeo; Stephen Michael Chippendale -- at McKenna Long
and Aldridge LLP

Rubycon Corporation, Defendant, represented by Djordje Petkoski --
djordje.petkoski@shearman.com -- David Higbee --
david.higbee@shearman.com -- at Shearman & Sterling LLP; Leslie
Kostyshak -- lkostyshak@hunton.com -- Wendell L. Taylor --
wtaylor@hunton.com -- at Hunton and Williams LLP

Rubycon America Inc., Defendant, represented by Djordje Petkoski,
Shearman & Sterling LLP, David Higbee, Shearman & Sterling LLP,
Leslie Kostyshak, Hunton and Williams LLP, Michael Brett Burns,
Hunton and Williams, LLP, Robert A. Caplen, Hunton and Williams
LLP & Wendell L. Taylor, Hunton and Williams LLP

Elna Co. Ltd., Defendant, represented by Alanna Gayle Buchanan,
WilmerHale, Allyson Theresa Fortier, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, Christopher Matthew Megaw, Erik Chiles Shallman,
Wilmer Hale, Heather S. Tewksbury, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP & Thomas Mueller, WilmerHale

Elna America Inc., Defendant, represented by Alanna Gayle
Buchanan, WilmerHale, Allyson Theresa Fortier, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Christopher Matthew Megaw, Erik
Chiles Shallman, Wilmer Hale, Heather S. Tewksbury, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & Thomas Mueller, WilmerHale

Matsuo Electric Co, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Felix T. Woo,
Sonnenschein Nath et al & Bonnie Lau, Dentons US LLP

Toshin Kogyo Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Kenji Kasahara,
Representative Director of Toshin Kogyo Co., LTD

Samsung Electro-Mechanics, Defendant, represented by Derek Ludwin,
One CityCenter & Anita Fern Stork, Esq., Covington & Burling LLP

Samsung Electro Mechanics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Derek Ludwin, One CityCenter & Anita Fern Stork, Esq., Covington &
Burling LLP

Rohm Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Mallory Ann Jensen,
O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Megan Louise Havstad, O'Melveny and Myers
LLP & Michael Frederick Tubach, O'Melveny & Myers LLP

Rohm Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth
Ryan O'Rourke, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Mallory Ann Jensen, O'Melveny and Myers LLP
& Megan Louise Havstad, O'Melveny and Myers LLP

United Chemi-con Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles F.
Rule, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Daniel J.
Howley, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Joseph J.
Bial, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Eric Richard
Sega, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, Garrison LLP & Steven Shea
Kaufhold, Kaufhold Gaskin LLP

Hitachi Chemical Company America, Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Chul Pak, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey C. Bank, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Jonathan M.
Jacobson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Justin Andrew Cohen,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, pro hac vice & Takeyoshi Ikeda

Hitachi AIC Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Chul Pak,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Jonathan M. Jacobson, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Justin Andrew Cohen, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich Rosati & Takeyoshi Ikeda

TDK Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, pro hac vice

Soshin Electronics of America Inc., Defendant, represented by John
R. Fornaciari, BakerHostetler, pro hac vice & C. Dennis Loomis,
Baker & Hostetler LLP

Soshin Electric Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by John R.
Fornaciari, BakerHostetler, pro hac vice & C. Dennis Loomis, Baker
& Hostetler LLP

Nissei Electronic Co. LTD., Defendant, represented by Allyson
Theresa Fortier, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & Mark
D. Flanagan, WilmerHale

Nitsuko Electronics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ashley
Marie Bauer, Latham & Watkins LLP & Belinda S. Lee, Latham &
Watkins LLP

Shinyei Corporation of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Gaspare J. Bono, Dentons US LLP, Andrew S. Azarmi, Dentons US LLP,
Claire M. Maddox, Dentons US LLP, Eric Yu-Dar Wu, Dentons US LLP,
pro hac vice & Stephen Michael Chippendale, McKenna Long and
Aldridge LLP

Shinyei Capacitor Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Gaspare J.
Bono, Dentons US LLP, Andrew S. Azarmi, Dentons US LLP, Claire M.
Maddox, Dentons US LLP, Eric Yu-Dar Wu, Dentons US LLP, pro hac
vice & Stephen Michael Chippendale, McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP

Shinyei Kaisha, Defendant, represented by Gaspare J. Bono, Dentons
US LLP, Andrew S. Azarmi, Dentons US LLP, Claire M. Maddox,
Dentons US LLP, Eric Yu-Dar Wu, Dentons US LLP, pro hac vice &
Stephen Michael Chippendale, McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP

Taitsu America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron R. Gott, pro
hac vice & Jarod Michael Bona, Bona Law PC, pro hac vice

Taitsu Corporation, Defendant, represented by Aaron R. Gott, pro
hac vice & Jarod Michael Bona, Bona Law PC, pro hac vice

Okaya Electric America Inc., Defendant, represented by Darrell
Prescott, Baker and McKenzie LLP, Catherine Yunie Stillman, Baker
McKenzie LLP, Christina Wong, Baker and McKenzie LLP, Colin H.
Murray, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Meghan Elizabeth Hausler, Baker and
McKenzie LLP & Michael B. Atkins, Baker and McKenzie LLP

Okaya Electric Industries Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Darrell Prescott, Baker and McKenzie LLP, Catherine Yunie
Stillman, Baker McKenzie LLP, Christina Wong, Baker and McKenzie
LLP, Colin H. Murray, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Meghan Elizabeth
Hausler, Baker and McKenzie LLP & Michael B. Atkins, Baker and
McKenzie LLP

Vishay Polytech Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Alan
LeVee, Jones Day & Rachel Hadass Zernik, Jones Day

HolyStone International, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Alan
LeVee, Jones Day & Rachel Hadass Zernik, Jones Day

Holy Stone Enterprise Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
Alan LeVee, Jones Day & Rachel Hadass Zernik, Jones Day

FPCAP Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Daniel William Fox, K&L Gates LLP & Scott M. Mendel

Fujitsu Components America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul
T. Friedman, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Jeffrey A. Jaeckel,
Morrison and Foerster LLP

Sanyo North America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Frank S. Restagno, pro hac vice,
Ian L. Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Kyle James Bonacum,
Winston Strawn, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP,
Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Patrick Stephen
Opdyke, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca Lara Litman,
Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice & William Owen Cooper,
Winston & Strawn

Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Paul T. Friedman, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Jeffrey A. Jaeckel,
Morrison and Foerster LLP

SANYO Electric Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Frank S. Restagno, pro hac vice,
Ian L. Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Kyle James Bonacum,
Winston Strawn, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP,
Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Patrick Stephen
Opdyke, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca Lara Litman,
Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice & William Owen Cooper,
Winston & Strawn

Milestone Global Technology, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey Alan LeVee, Jones Day, Eric Patrick Enson, JONES DAY &
Rachel Hadass Zernik, Jones Day

Shizuki Electric Co., Ltd, Defendant, represented by Allison Ann
Davis, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Sanjay Mohan Nangia, Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP

American Shizuki Corporation, Defendant, represented by Allison
Ann Davis, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Sanjay Mohan Nangia, Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP

Shizuki Electric Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Allison Ann
Davis, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Joy Gowoon Kim, Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP & Kelly Michelle Gorton, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Shinyei Technology Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Gaspare J.
Bono, Dentons US LLP & Claire M. Maddox, Dentons US LLP

Sanyo North America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP

Holy Stone Holdings Co. Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eric
Patrick Enson, JONES DAY

HOLY STONE POLYTECH CO. LTD., Defendant, represented by Eric
Patrick Enson, JONES DAY

Quathimatine Holdings, Inc., Movant, represented by Todd Anthony
Seaver, Berman DeValerio

Schuten Electronics, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Brent
W. Johnson, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, Kit A. Pierson,
Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC & Matthew W. Ruan, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll

Top Floor Home Improvements, Interested Party, represented by
Christopher L. Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP

United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Jacklin Chou
Lem, United States Department of Justice, Alexandra Jill Shepard,
U.S. Department of Justice, Andrew Jon Nicholson-Meade, U.S.
Department of Justice, Howard J. Parker, U.S. Dept. of Justice &
Paradi Javandel, United States Department of Justice


GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: Redmon Seeks to Certify Technicians Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled BRYAN REDMON, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION
SERVICES, INC. d/b/a AMERICA'S ALLIANCE d/b/a AMERICA'S CHOICE
GARAGE DOOR SERVICE, and INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS GROUP, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01119 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff ask
the Court to certify a class of:

   "individuals classified as Independent Contractors who worked
   as garage door "Technicians" throughout the country and who
   provided services from 2014 to the present."

According to the complaint, Defendants continue to deny that they
have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act in any respect.
Defendants reserve their right to seek decertification of the
class at a later time.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5lly2HZW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd Slobin, Esq.
          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, Texas 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621 2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621 0993
          E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
                  rprieto@eeoc.net


GRUBHUB INC: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Delivery Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones and Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, report
that a Chicago man filed a proposed class action against food
delivery app GrubHub Inc. in Illinois county court on June 23,
claiming the company advertises restaurants' delivery fees at a
lower price than what they ultimately charge when the customer
places an order.

As a user scrolls through the app to find a restaurant to order
from, GrubHub shows them a delivery fee for each location,
according to the suit.  But when the customer actually selects an
establishment, GrubHub charges them a higher fee than advertised,
the man claims.

The suit, which is brought on behalf of any GrubHub customer who
was charged a delivery fee higher than what was advertised to them
on the app, accuses the company of violating the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

"While GrubHub purports to provide its delivery service for a
stated price to customers, GrubHub systematically deceives its
customers by increasing the delivery fee and charging consumers
extra monies for the deliveries from restaurant orders placed
through their mobile app," plaintiff Matthew Stockman said in the
suit.  "These heightened charges that are imposed on consumers
stand in stark contrast to the delivery prices GrubHub
affirmatively lists when it displays the list of available
restaurants to consumers."

A GrubHub spokesperson declined to comment on June 26.

Mr. Stockman claims he placed an order on June 17 for delivery
from a Chicago restaurant after the app showed him a delivery fee
of $3.  But when he was actually charged, the delivery fee was
higher, the suit claims -- although the complaint doesn't list how
high.

The shift happens after a customer taps on the restaurant they
want to order from, the suit claims.  The price changes "without
clearly disclosing that fact to the consumer," Mr. Stockman adds,
and the app doesn't ask the consumer to acquiesce to the change
before they place their order.

The suit seeks damages, restitution and attorneys' fees.

GrubHub, which has offices in Chicago, London and New York, is
also fighting a proposed class action in Illinois federal court,
although that suit is over allegedly unsolicited text messages.
That suit claims GrubHub used robodialing equipment to text people
who had never used the app that their food was ready.

Mr. Stockman is represented by Holly McCurdy, Celetha Chatman and
Michael Wood of Community Lawyers Group Ltd.

Counsel information for GrubHub was not immediately available.

The case is Matthew Stockman, et al. v. GrubHub Inc., case number
2017-CH-08812 in the Circuit Court of Cook County. [GN]


GUVERA: Faces Shareholder Class Action Threat Over Fundraising
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Walsh, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that battered
music-streaming service Guvera is staring down the threat of
potential class-action lawsuits and a corporate-watchdog probe,
saying it has always acted lawfully in fundraising.

Law firms have been looking at any potential actions for
shareholders in Guvera, which raised $185 million from investors
over its nine-year history.

Gold Coast-based Guvera -- which boasted a 30 million song library
that relied on advertising -- burned through cash, had a planned
stockmarket-float stopped last year and operations have since
ceased.

The funds were raised via Gold Coast-Amma Private Equity, whose
chairman Darren Herft also is a director of Guvera.  Amma took a
10 per cent commission on fees raised.

Amma tapped a network of clients of accountants for funds. Those
accountants steered their clients towards start-ups such as
Guvera, and themselves received either free options in the start-
ups or subsidised accommodation from Amma to events in places such
as Beverly Hills.

Law firms are doing preliminary work on any potential class-
actions examining the fundraising, The Courier-Mail understands.

An Australian Securities and Investments Commission spokesman also
confirmed the watchdog was taking a "close and active interest in
the fundraising associated with Guvera and related matters".

Mr Herft told The Courier-Mail that ASIC had "not asked any
questions" on the fundraising and was not investigating, and
Guvera had audited accounts to show where funds have gone.

He also said ASIC had over the years been provided with
information as requested.  "We have followed the Corps Act and had
legal advice to support (actions) at all times," he said. [GN]


HEBEI WELCOME: High Court Wants SolGen to Weigh in on VitC Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Kroh, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court
on June 26 asked the U.S. solicitor general to weigh in on whether
it should hear an appeal of a September Second Circuit decision
that wiped out a $147 million judgment in an antitrust class
action accusing two Chinese companies of fixing prices on vitamin
C.

The high court called for the solicitor general's views on a
petition for certiorari by vitamin C importers, who had said the
ruling deepens a split among circuit courts on the standard of
deference that should be applied to a foreign government's
interpretation of its own law.

The importers were referring to the remarkable involvement in the
case by China's Ministry of Commerce, or MOFCOM, which told the
Second Circuit that HeBei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. and
North China Pharmaceutical Group Corp. were required under Chinese
law to fix prices and reduce quantities of vitamin C sold abroad
and asked that the case be dismissed on international comity
grounds.  The case is the first time the Chinese government has
filed in a judicial proceeding in the U.S.

So far the U.S. government has stayed out of the dispute, which
deals with thorny questions of international law and risks
undermining the country's tumultuous relationship with one of the
country's most important trade partners.  MOFCOM, however, has
said that the judgment against the vitamin C producers was
disrespectful and could lead to an increase in international
disputes that would be harmful to the interests of the U.S.

"China has attached great importance to this case," the Chinese
Embassy said in a 2014 letter to the U.S. Department of State.

The Second Circuit, without consulting the U.S. and relying on an
amicus brief filed by MOFCOM, in September said the district court
abused its discretion by asserting jurisdiction in the case.  The
appeals court found that U.S. and Chinese law were truly at odds,
citing a 2002 MOFCOM notice that required the companies to comply
with the vitamin C price regime.

The members of the three-judge panel said they had to balance the
competing interests of adjudicating antitrust violations within
their jurisdiction and a foreign sovereign's right to regulate the
economy within its own borders.

The appeals court also noted that the district court's decision
had already harmed U.S.-China relations, and the Chinese
government repeatedly expressed to the court that it considered
the district court judgment offensive.

Jonathan M. Jacobson -- jjacobson@wsgr.com -- of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati PC, who represents the Chinese companies, said
the justices' call for the views of the U.S. in the case was
expected and he looked forward to "discussing the issues with the
State Department and the Antitrust Division before the brief is
filed."

A representative of the importers did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on June 26.

MOFCOM has been trying to convince the U.S. courts since 2006 that
the companies had to participate in the government-initiated trade
group system or else risk losing their export licenses.

Those entreaties did not sway a New York federal jury, which
returned a $54.1 million verdict in the case in 2013, finding a
violation of U.S. antitrust laws.  U.S. District Judge Brian M.
Cogan later trebled the damages.

The vitamin C importers have maintained that the Second Circuit
decision conflicts with the D.C. and Sixth circuits, which have
held that courts are not required to defer to foreign sovereigns
that appear in litigation, and other appeals courts have applied
different standards on the question.

"Further percolation is unwarranted," they said.  "The danger of
inconsistency is particularly acute in the antitrust context,
where the United States maintains complex relationships with
foreign trading partners that are undermined by warring judicial
rules."

The importers are represented by David Boies, Michael J. Gottlieb,
Karen L. Dunn, William A. Isaacson and Aaron E. Nathan of Boies
Schiller Flexner LLP.

HeBei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. and North China
Pharmaceutical Group Corp. are represented by Jonathan M.
Jacobson, Daniel P. Weick -- dweick@wsgr.com -- Justin A. Cohen --
jcohen@wsgr.com -- Scott A. Sher -- ssher@wsgr.com -- and Bradley
T. Tennis of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC.

The case is Animal Science Product Inc. et al. v. HeBei Welcome
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. et al., docket number 16-1220, in the U.S.
Supreme Court. [GN]


HONEYWELL INT'L: 3d Cir. Affirms Approval of $10MM Class Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
the appealed decision in the case captioned MATTIE HALLEY; SHEM
ONDITI; LETICIA MALAVE; TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF
SERGIO DE LA CRUZ, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; PPG
INDUSTRIES, INC. Maureen Chandra, Appellant, No. 16-2712 (3d
Cir.), but remanded the case with respect to costs.

This is an appeal from the approval of a settlement of a Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) class action arising out of
hexavalent chromium contamination in Jersey City, New Jersey.

The class action was brought on behalf of property owners in
several neighborhoods in Jersey City whose homes were allegedly
contaminated by byproducts disposed of at two chromium chemical
manufacturing plants.  Defendants Honeywell International, Inc.,
and PPG Industries, Inc., are the successors in interest of the
manufacturing plant owners and operators.  Plaintiffs asserted
common law tort claims and civil conspiracy claims for
depreciation of their property values due to the alleged
contamination, but not claims for harm other than economic loss to
property value, such as personal injury or medical monitoring
claims.

The District Court certified a settlement-only class as to the
claims against Honeywell1 and approved a $10,017,000 settlement
fund, which included an award of costs and attorneys' fees for
plaintiffs' counsel.

Maureen Chandra is a member of the Honeywell settlement class who
objects to various aspects of the settlement and the award of
costs and attorneys' fees.  Chandra does not dispute the District
Court's conclusions with respect to the requirements of Rule 23(a)
and (b), but argues that the District Court abused its discretion
in finding the settlement fair and reasonable under Rule 23(e) and
in awarding plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees and costs.

The District Court determined that the proposed settlement classes
should be certified after concluding the requirements of Rule
23(a) and (b) were met.  Second, the District Court determined
questions of fact relating to operation and subsequent remediation
satisfied the commonality requirement.  Third, the District Court
concluded the class representatives of Class A and Class B
satisfied the typicality requirement.  Fourth, the District Court
determined class counsel was qualified to adequately represent the
class.  The District Court also found the requirements of Rule
23(b)(3) were met.  None of the objectors raised any issues with
respect to Rule 23(a) and (b), and Chandra does not dispute these
conclusions in this appeal.

The Third Circuit concluded the District Court's findings were
well within its sound discretion and the class certification
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure are satisfied.
The District Court, according to the Third Circuit, did not abuse
its discretion in approving the settlement but the Third Circuit
remanded the case for the District Court to reconsider the award
of costs under Rule 23(h).

A full-text coy of the Third Circuit's June 29, 2017, Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/jWv5oI from Leagle.com.

Thomas Paciorkowski, Esq.,[ARGUED], P.O. Box 24182, Jersey City,
NJ 07304. Rui O. Santos, Esq., Shebell & Shebell, P.O. Box 2043,
655 Shrewbury Avenue, Suite 314, Shrewsbury, NJ 07702, Counsel for
Appellant.

Allan Kanner, Esq. -- A.Kanner@kanner-law.com -- Elizabeth B.
Petersen, Esq. -- E.Petersen@kanner-law.com -- Kanner & Whiteley,
701 Camp Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.

Ned I. Miltenberg, Esq., National Legal Scholars Law Firm, 5410
Mohican Road, Suite 200, Bethesda, MD 20816. Anthony Z. Roisman,
Esq., [ARGUED], 394 Skyline Drive, Weathersfield, VT 05156,
Counsel for Appellees Mattie Halley, Shem Onditi, Leticia Malave,
and Temporary Administrator of the, Estate of Sergio De La Cruz.

Michael D. Daneker, Esq. -- michaeldaneker@apks.com -- Allyson T.
Himelfarb, Esq. -- allyson.himelfarb@apks.com -- Arnold & Porter
Kaye Scholer, 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001.
Michael R. McDonald, Esq., Gibbons, One Gateway Center, Newark, NJ
07102, Counsel for Appellee Honeywell International Inc.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Vinci" Suit Over Faulty Steering Mechanism
----------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSTON VINCI and JAEHAN KU, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA AND DOES 1 through
100, Case No. 2:17-cv-04286 (C.D. Cal., June 8, 2017), is brought
on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of purchasers and lessees
of one or more of Hyundai's Accent and Elantra vehicles with a
faulty steering mechanism.

A defect in Hyundai's steering mechanism causes the power steering
to stop working suddenly, causing the wheel to lock or become
difficult or impossible to turn at all, the Plaintiffs contend.
They allege that Hyundai's defective steering mechanism severely
inhibits drivers' ability to react to and avoid other cars,
pedestrians, or obstacles.

Hyundai is a limited liability company organized under the laws of
the state of Delaware with its principal place of business in
Fountain Valley, California.  At all relevant times, the Defendant
took part in designing, engineering, manufacturing, testing,
marketing, supplying, selling, and distributing the Vehicles in
the United States, including California.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Innessa Melamed, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: imelamed@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Bonner Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH LLC
          21810 Pine Crest Dr.
          Bly, OR 97622
          Telephone: (541) 359-2827
          Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
          E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com

               - and -

          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, PC
          280 Highway 35, Suite 304
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 741-4290
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Laura R. Reznick, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          1 Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: lreznick@leedsbrownlaw.com


INTERACTIVECORP: Drops Stock-Shuffling Plans, Negating Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, reports that Barry Diller's
InterActiveCorp has dropped a plan to create a new class of
nonvoting stock, immediately negating a consolidated class action
that followed the company's announcement last fall, according to
filings submitted on June 23 to Delaware Chancery Court.

An attorney for the California Public Employees' Retirement
System, Joel Friedlander, asked Vice Chancellor Travis Laster in a
short letter on June 23 to approve the dismissal of the suit
because IAC "has determined to abandon the Class C
recapitalization that had been approved by stockholders with
majority voting power. [GN]


LELAND STANFORD: Pereltsvaig Sues Trustees Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
ASYA PERELTSVAIG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD
JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a board of trustees of the Leland Stanford
Junior University, a corporate trust, Case No. 17CV311521 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., June 8, 2017), accuses the Defendant
of failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the regular hourly
rate or, in the alternative, failure to pay wages for all hours
worked at the minimum wage.

The purported class action seeks damages, liquidated damages,
unpaid wages, restitution, statutory penalties, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all other individuals, who are or have been employed as
teachers in the Continuing Studies program in California by the
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University and who
earned less than the monthly salary equivalent to two times the
state minimum wage for full time employment during any pay period
during the four years prior to the filing of the action.

The Defendant is a privately appointed board of trustees that
manages and operates the Leland Stanford Junior University, which
is legally constituted as a trust.  The Defendant is the custodian
of the endowment and all the properties of the Leland Stanford
Junior University.  The Defendant is a private research university
founded in 1885.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          Polina Pecherskaya, Esq.
          Ari Cherniak, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
          1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (310) 601-6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
          E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
                  ppecherskaya@hammondlawpc.com
                  acherniak@hammondlaw.com


LG ELECTRONICS: Judge Won't Hand Sanctions in "Frost" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, denied
defendant's motion for sanction in the case styled A. FROST, ET
AL., Plaintiffs, v. LG ELECTRONICS INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 16-cv-05206-BLF (ND Cal.).

Plaintiffs brought a class action suit alleging that the LG and
Samsung defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix and
suppress compensation for their employees, violating section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, the Cartwright Act,
California Business & Professions Code Section16720, et seq.; and
the New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J. Stat Ann. Section 56:9-3.
According to the complaint, plaintiff A. Frost was contacted via
LinkedIn by a recruiter seeking to fill a position with Samsung,
but who later informed Frost "I made a mistake! I'm not supposed
to poach LG for Samsung!!! Sorry! The two companies have an
agreement that they won't steal each other's employees. Plaintiffs
also allege that plaintiff Jose Ra was told by a manager at
Samsung's finance department that they do not hire people from LG.

LG objected to plaintiffs' allegations and that the same are false
because LG does not have a policy or prohibition against
recruiting, cold-calling, or hiring Samsung employees.
Specifically, LG asserts that LG United States has hired employees
directly from Samsung-affiliated companies over the last 11 years.
In December 22, 2016, about a month after the complaint was filed,
LG counsel provided plaintiffs' counsel with evidence allegedly
showing that LG does not have the policy or prohibitions against
hiring Samsung employees. However, plaintiffs refused to withdraw
or correct the complaint as requested by LG.

Defendants LG filed a motion for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P.
11 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 and asserts that plaintiffs'
allegations that LG participated in a conspiracy by implementing a
policy of not recruiting or directly hiring Samsung employees are
factually baseless. According to LG, the evidence it has provided
to plaintiffs' counsel rebuts any contention that LG engaged in
conduct consistent with the alleged conspiracy. LG further
contends that plaintiffs' counsel did not conduct a reasonable
inquiry. Specifically, LG claims that anyone with a LinkedIn
account could have found LinkedIn users that have work experience
for both LG and Samsung.

Judge Freeman denied LG's motion for Rule 11 and Section 1927
sanction without prejudice. The court finds LG's arguments more
suited to a motion to dismiss or on adjudication on the merits of
the action, which the court does not entertain on the instant
motion. Because LG fails to show that plaintiffs' complaint is
legally or factually baseless, there can be no violation of Rule
11. The court thus need not address whether plaintiffs conducted a
reasonable and competent inquiry prior to filing of the complaint
and even if the Court were to apply Section 1927, sanction would
still not be warranted because there is no adequate showing of bad
faith, one of the necessary factors for a Section 1927 sanction.
Even assuming that the LG defendants have recruited or hired a
Samsung employee, that does not render the complaint objectively
baseless. Plaintiffs' decision to continue the suit in light of
such knowledge does not demonstrate that their counsel acted
unreasonably. Because of the inadequate showing of bad faith, the
court refuses to impose a monetary sanction pursuant to Section
1927.

A copy of Judge Freeman's order dated June 27, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/FQoe32 from Leagle.com.

A. Frost, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany N. Resch --
bresch@gustafsongluek.com -- Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith --
csmith@gustafsongluek.com -- Daniel E. Gustafson --
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- at Gustafson Gluek PLLC; Eric L.
Cramer -- ecramer@bm.net -- Michael Jay Kane -- mkane@bm.net -- at
Berger & Montague, P.C.; Kenneth A. Wexler --
kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- at Wexler Wallace LLP; Kyla Jenny
Gibboney -- kgibboney@saverilawfirm.com -- Matthew Sinclair Weiler
-- mweiler@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph R. Saveri --
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- at Joseph Saveri Law Firm; Rachel
Nicole Rivers -- rrivers@grosskleinlaw.com -- Stuart George Gross
-- sgross@grosskleinlaw.com -- at Gross & Klein, LLP; Vincent J.
Esades -- at Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.

Jose Ra, Plaintiff, represented by Adam John Zapala --
azapala@cpmlegal.com -- Steven Noel Williams --
swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- Elizabeth Tran -- etran@cpmlegal.com --
at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP

Andrew Amironovin, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Michael Lindner
-- lindner@stuevesiegel.com -- Jason Scott Hartley --
hartley@stuevesiegel.com -- at Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP

LG Display America, Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd, LG Electronics USA,
Inc., and LG Electronics Inc., Defendants, represented by John
Harrison L'Estrange, Jr. -- jlestrange@wlelaw.com -- Andrew Edward
Schouten -- aschouten@wlelaw.com -- Joseph Thomas Ergastolo --
jte@wlelaw.com -- at Wright, LEstrange Ergastolo; Nathan P. Eimer
-- neimer@eimerstahl.com -- Daniel David Birk --
dbirk@eimerstahl.com -- James William Joseph --
jjoseph@eimerstahl.com -- James Kylstra --
jkylstra%20@eimerstahl.com -- at Eimer Stahl LLP

Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Defendants, represented by Anne
Davis -- anne.davis@apks.com -- Carolyn Ann Pearce --
carolyn.pearce@apks.com -- James L. Cooper --
james.cooper@apks.com -- Kenneth Lee Chernof --
kenneth.chernof@apks.com -- at Arnold and Porter LLP


MASTERCARD INT'L: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of DCCPPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
the judgment in the captioned case ROBERT DOYLE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, No.
16-4270 (2d Cir.).

Robert Doyle appeals from a judgment dismissing his putative class
action claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the
District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("DCCPPA")
and argues further, that it was error to dismiss his putative
class claim under the DCCPPA prior to class certification.

Doyle's amended complaint alleges that, Mastercard International
Incorporated advertised nationwide that it would donate one cent
to a charitable program called "Stand Up To Cancer" for each
Mastercard credit or debit card transaction of at least $10 in a
United States restaurant.  That Mastercard breached by continuing
to advertise even after it became apparent that the $4 million
maximum donation would be, or had been, met.

Standing is generally a prerequisite to class certification. Doyle
would lack standing to sue on its behalf because he alleges no
injury under that (or any other consumer protection) statute, the
Second Circuit held.  His alleged injury is based on an entirely
separate and meritless breach of contract theory, the Second
Circuit noted.  It bears repeating that a person cannot predicate
standing on injury which he does not share, the Second Circuit
held.

Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirms the judgment of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's July 6, 2017, Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/awkp9u from Leagle.com.

TODD C. BANK, Todd C. Bank, Attorney at Law, P.C., Kew Gardens,
NY., for Appellant.

CHRISTOPHER KARAGHEUZOFF -- karagheuzoff.christopher@dorsey.com --
(Jonathan Montcalm, on the brief), Dorsey & Whitney LLP, New York,
NY., for Appellee.


MDL 2540: Aguiar, Armatura Not Bound by Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In Re: CATERPILLAR, INC., C13 AND C15 ENGINE
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2540, Master Docket No.
1:14-cv-3722 (D.N.J.), Judge Jerome B. Simandle will not bind
class members Janie A. Aguiar and Armatura, LLC to the settlement
agreement and will permit both to file late opt-out notices.

In this consolidated multi-district litigation, the plaintiffs are
initial or subsequent purchasers or lessees of vehicles with an
EPA 2007 Compliant Caterpillar on-highway C13 or C15 engine
manufactured in 2006, 2007, 2008, or 2009 by the defendant,
Caterpillar, Inc.

Caterpillar and the class reached a class-wide settlement of the
plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claims and "any claims for
relief . . . that are based on or in any way related" to the
allegations that the subject engines are defective, which was
approved by the Court on September 20, 2016.  Shortly after
entering judgment and closing the case, the Court received belated
motions to opt-out of the class action settlement from Aguiar and
Armatura and a motion by Caterpillar to enforce the Final Approval
Order and Judgment against Armatura.  Both Aguiar and Armatura are
actively litigating cases against Caterpillar related to the
subject engines in the Texas state courts, and both asserted in
their respective motions that they never received notice of this
action and the opportunity to opt-out of the settlement until
after the deadline by which to opt-out had passed.

Judge Simandle found that both Texas plaintiffs have shown
excusable neglect in missing the existing deadline.  As such, the
judge concluded that they shall be permitted to file late opt-out
notices and will not be bound by the settlement agreement.

A full-text copy of Judge Simandle's June 30, 2017 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/ySbMat from Leagle.com.

CATERPILLAR INC. C13 AND C15 ENGINE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION,
represented by JAMES HOLSEY KEALE, Tanenbaum Keale LLP, JAMES C.
SHAH, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP, JOSEPH F. FALGIANI
-- joseph.falgiani@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP & NATALIE
FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP.

JANIE A. AGUIAR, Movant, represented by RYAN S. HENRY, THE LAW
OFFICES OF RYAN HENRY, PLLC.

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, Mediator, represented by DENNIS MICHAEL
CAVANAUGH -- dcavanaugh@mdmc-law.com -- MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY
& CARPENTER LLP.

Vandalia Bus Lines, Inc., GENTRY COACH, Eclipse Charters & Tours,
LLC, Roadrunner Charters, Inc., represented by JAMES E. CECCHI --
jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY &
AGNELLO, P.C., JONATHAN SHUB -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift
& Graf, P.C., pro hac vice, Kevin T. Hoerner, Becker, Paulson,
Hoerner & Thompson, P.C., LESLIE MITCHELL KROEGER --
lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOILL PLLC,
MARK S. FISTOS, FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDSFISTOS LEHRMAN PL,
Nathan C. Zipperian, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLC, RICHARD
J. BURKE, COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC, SCOTT A. GEORGE --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS, LLP, SCOTT RHEAD
SHEPHERD, GREENFIELD & RIFKIN, ESQS., SETH MICHAEL LEHRMAN, FARMER
HAFFE SEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS LEHRMAN PL, STEVEN R. JAFFE, FARMER
JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS LEHRMAN PL, THEODORE JON LEOPOLD --
tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC &
NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH,
LLP.

BK TRUCKING CO., Plaintiff, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI,
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., JAMES C. SHAH,
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP, NATALIE FINKELMAN
BENNETT, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP & SCOTT A.
GEORGE, SEEGER WEISS, LLP.

EAGLE VALLEY SOUTH, INC., LEROY BOLTON TRUCKING CO., represented
by JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO,
P.C., JAMES C. SHAH, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP &
NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH,
LLP.

Salud Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW NEIL
FRIEDMAN, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, DOUGLAS J. MCNAMARA,
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLIC, JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE
CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., JAMIE E. WEISS, Quantum
Legal LLC, pro hac vice, JONATHAN SHUB, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.,
pro hac vice, Kevin T. Hoerner, Becker, Paulson, Hoerner &
Thompson, P.C., LESLIE MITCHELL KROEGER, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOILL PLLC, MARK S. FISTOS, FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDSFISTOS
LEHRMAN PL, Nathan C. Zipperian, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah
LLC, RICHARD J. BURKE, COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC, SCOTT A.
GEORGE, SEEGER WEISS, LLP, SCOTT RHEAD SHEPHERD, GREENFIELD &
RIFKIN, ESQS., SETH MICHAEL LEHRMAN, FARMER HAFFE SEISSING EDWARDS
FISTOS LEHRMAN PL, STEVEN R. JAFFE, FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS
FISTOS LEHRMAN PL, THEODORE JON LEOPOLD, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC, Zachary A. Jacobs, Complex Litigation Group, LLC &
NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH,
LLP.

Tri-City Charter of Bossier Inc, Plaintiff, represented by
JONATHAN SHUB, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., pro hac vice, Kevin T.
Hoerner, Becker, Paulson, Hoerner & Thompson, P.C., LESLIE
MITCHELL KROEGER, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOILL PLLC, MARK S.
FISTOS, FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDSFISTOS LEHRMAN PL, Nathan C.
Zipperian, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLC, RICHARD J. BURKE,
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC, SCOTT A. GEORGE, SEEGER WEISS, LLP,
SCOTT RHEAD SHEPHERD, GREENFIELD & RIFKIN, ESQS., SETH MICHAEL
LEHRMAN, FARMER HAFFE SEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS LEHRMAN PL, STEVEN
R. JAFFE, FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS LEHRMAN PL,
THEODORE JON LEOPOLD, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC & NATALIE
FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP.

EASTON COACH COMPANY, BAILEY COACH INC., represented by JAMIE E.
WEISS, Quantum Legal LLC, pro hac vice, JONATHAN SHUB, Kohn, Swift
& Graf, P.C., pro hac vice, RICHARD J. BURKE, COMPLEX LITIGATION
GROUP LLC & NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER
& SHAH, LLP.

EDWARD CHARLES MCLEAN, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL KENT
BRYSON, WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP, JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA
BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. & NATALIE FINKELMAN
BENNETT, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP.

Ronald Bagley, Plaintiff, represented by DARREN K. NELSON, PARR,
WADDOUPS, BROWN, GEE & LOVELESS, JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE
CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT,
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP & Robert S. Clark, PARR
BROWN GEE & LOVELESS.

G&G SPECIALIZED CARRIERS, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES E.
CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.,
Jeffrey A. Leon, Complex Litigation Group LLC & NATALIE FINKELMAN
BENNETT, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP.

Scenic Boundaries Trans. Inc., Plaintiff, represented by GARRETT
D. BLANCHFIELD, Jr., REINHARDT WENDOFF & BLANCHFIELD, JAMES E.
CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.,
ROBERTA A. YARD, REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD & NATALIE
FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP.

S&M Mercado, Inc., German Saravia, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI,
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., LINDSEY H.
TAYLOR, CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, MARK P.
PIFKO, BARON & BUDD PC, ROLAND K. TELLIS, BARON & BUDD PC &
NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH,
LLP.

Harmon Bros. Charter Services, Inc., Kelton Tours Unlimited
Limited Liability Company, First Priority Tours, Inc., represented
by ANDREW JOSEPH COOMES, MCCONNELL & SNEED LLC, GARY EDWARD MASON,
Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, JAMIE E. WEISS, Quantum Legal LLC,
pro hac vice, JONATHAN SHUB, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., pro hac
vice, Kevin T. Hoerner, Becker, Paulson, Hoerner & Thompson, P.C.,
RICHARD J. BURKE, COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC, Zachary A. Jacobs,
Complex Litigation Group, LLC & NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT,
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP.

Windy City Limousine LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Jamie
Elisabeth Weiss, Complex Litigation Group LLC, RICHARD J. BURKE,
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC & NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT,
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP.

K Double D, Inc, RICKY A. WILLIAMS, represented by JAMES E.
CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.,
RICHARD J. BURKE, COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC & NATALIE FINKELMAN
BENNETT, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP.

White Knight Limousine, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by RICHARD J.
BURKE, COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC & NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT,
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP.

DECAMP BUS LINES, NW NAVIGATOR LUXURY COACHES LLC, Brian Brown,
David Brewer, Bryant's Transport, Inc., C&F Movers, Inc., Columbia
Petroleum Transportation, LLC, John Lamanteer, MNS Enterprises,
Inc., U.S. Transport,  represented by JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA
BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. & NATALIE FINKELMAN
BENNETT, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP.

CATERPILLAR INC., Defendant, represented by ANTHONY J. ANSCOMBE,
SEDWICK, DETER, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP, Ashley Webber Broach, Swift,
Currie, McGhee & Hiers, LLP, C. Todd Koebele, Murnane Brandt, PA,
C. Bradford Marsh, Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, LLP, Gordon
James, III, Segwick, LLP, JAMES HOLSEY KEALE, Tanenbaum Keale LLP,
JOSEPH F. FALGIANI, SEDGWICK LLP, Jason T. Madden, Bradshaw,
Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, S.C., pro hac vice, John Paul J.
Gatto, Murnane Brandt, PA, Kelsey K. Black, Waterway Black,
Kenneth Wayne Waterway, Waterway Black P.A., Kimberly A. Cook,
Sedgwick LLP, Mark L. Tripp, Bradshaw Fowler Proctor & Fairgrave
PC, pro hac vice, Mary E. Buckley, Sedgwick LLP, STEPHANIE
UNDERWOOD ROBERTS, Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC, Steven Dwight Di
Saia, Sedgwick LLP & TIFFANY M. ALEXANDER, SEDGWICK LLP.

Armatura, L.L.C., Claimant, represented by PAIGE NICOLE BOLDT,
WATTS GUERRA LLP.

Rush Truck Centers of Texas, L.P. d/b/a Rush Truck Center-Pharr,
Intervenor, represented by LIZA M. WALSH, WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY
FALANGA LLP, MARC D. HAEFNER, WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP &
SELINA MIRIAM ELLIS, WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP.

T. W. Hedfelt, Intervenor, represented by LIZA M. WALSH, WALSH
PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP, MARC D. HAEFNER, WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY
FALANGA LLP & SELINA MIRIAM ELLIS, WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA
LLP.


MDL 2557: Crawford's Auto Appeals Decision in Antitrust Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Crawford's Auto Center, Inc., and K & M Collision, LLC,
filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the multidistrict
litigation known as In Re: Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 2557, and Lead Case No. 6:14-md-02557-GAP-TBS.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, collision
repairers in Pennsylvania and North Carolina have asked a Florida
federal judge to reconsider a late December order staying their
case against the Defendants, which are some of the nation's
largest auto insurers.

Middle District of Florida Judge Gregory Presnell on Dec. 22,
2016, stayed five cases from various states which a federal panel
had consolidated before his court.

Collectively, there are more than 80 insurers named as defendants
in the actions.  The Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy in the
automobile insurance industry to suppress the reimbursement rates
for automobile collision repairs, in violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act and various state laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Crawford's Auto Center, Inc.,
et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile I, et al., Case No. 17-
12583, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case stated that Appellee's
Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before July 6, 2017,
as to Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants CRAWFORD'S AUTO CENTER, INC., On Behalf Of
Itself And All Others Similarly Situated, and K & M COLLISION,
LLC, On behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          John William Barrett, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-0000
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          100 Front St., Suite 1235
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 834-7506
          E-mail: sbloch@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          135 Kings Hwy. E
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 795-0378
          E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Allison P. Fry, Esq.
          EAVES LAW OFFICE
          101 N State St.
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 355-7961
          Facsimile: (601) 355-0530
          E-mail: allison@eaveslaw.com

               - and -

          David Francis Sorensen, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC
          1622 Locust St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-4658
          Facsimile: (215) 875-5707
          E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net

Defendants-Appellees STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM
INDEMNITY COMPANY, STATE FARM GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE
FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY are represented by:

          Brent Robert Austin, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD, LLP
          111 S Wacker Dr., Suite 4100
          Chicago, IL 60606-4409
          Telephone: (312) 443-0700

               - and -

          Johanna W. Clark, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA
          450 S Orange Ave., Suite 500
          Orlando, FL 32801-3336
          Telephone: (407) 849-0300
          Facsimile: (407) 628-8099
          E-mail: jclark@carltonfields.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Helmer, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          1201 W Peachtree St., Suite 4900
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 881-4724
          Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
          E-mail: elizabeth.helmer@alston.com

               - and -

          Hal Kemp Litchford, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          200 S Orange Ave., Suite 2900
          PO BOX 1549
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 422-6600
          E-mail: hlitchford@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Michael L. McCluggage, Esq.
          EIMER STAHL LLP
          224 S Michigan Ave., Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 660-7600
          E-mail: mmccluggage@eimerstahl.com


MICHAEL S. HARRISON LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Stever"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Jose L. Linares of the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the case captioned TAYLOR STEVER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MICHAEL S. HARRISON, et al, Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-298
(JLL) (D. N.J.).

The Plaintiffs are New Jersey residents who bring this putative
Class action lawsuit asserting a claim under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  Defendant Michael S.
Harrison, LLC is a debt collection law firm located in New Jersey,
and Defendant Michael S. Harrison is a debt collection attorney.

According to the Plaintiffs, they, along with all those in the
putative class, received debt collection letters in envelopes
containing a glassine window from the Defendants.  They further
allege that being sent in window envelopes, the barcode
immediately below the return address was visible through the
window of the envelopes.  According to the Plaintiffs, when read
or scanned, this barcode results in a display of a string of
numbers, such as the account number of the alleged debts the
Defendants assigned to the Plaintiffs and or a reference or
registration code number.

The Plaintiffs allege that the account, reference or registration
numbers exposed constitute personal identifying information and
its disclosure has the potential to cause harm to the consumer.
Accordingly, they assert a claim against the Defendants for
violation of Section 1692f(8) of the FDCPA.

The Defendants filed the pending motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on April 21, 2017 arguing that
the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this lawsuit in the first
instance, and that in any event, they have failed to state a claim
under the FDCPA.  The Plaintiffs opposed the Defendants' motion on
June 5, 2017, and Defendants replied to that opposition on June
12, 2017.

Judge Linares finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged a
sufficiently particularized injury.  That is, the letters
containing the allegedly prohibited barcode was directed at and
sent to the Plaintiffs.  Hence, the Plaintiffs have alleged a harm
that is both concrete and particularized.

Judge Linares also finds that, much like the envelopes in Douglass
with visible account numbers, the envelopes at issue in this case
included symbols that contained core information relating to the
debtor's financial predicament.  These symbols, therefore,
implicate the core privacy concerns that the FDCPA was enacted to
protect.  Accordingly, he finds that the barcode is not benign,
and thus, as the Third Circuit did in Douglass, he declined to
consider whether any benign language exception applies.  The
Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled a cause of action under the
FDCPA and his conclusion is consistent with the requirement that
remedial legislation such as the FDCPA is to be construed broadly.
Therefore, Judge Linares denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss
this action.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/7OVRkM from Leagle.com.

TAYLOR STEVER, Plaintiff, represented by LAWRENCE C. HERSH --
lh@hershlegal.com.

ALEJANDRA TROMBLEY, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by
BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC & JOSEPH K. JONES,
Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.

TRACY STANILAND, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by YONGMOON
KIM, Kim Law Firm LLC.

RIJALDA DJAKOVAC, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by YONGMOON
KIM, Kim Law Firm LLC.

JULIO CANALES, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by YONGMOON
KIM, Kim Law Firm LLC.

MICHAEL HARRISON, Defendant, represented by ANDREW MICHAEL
SCHWARTZ -- amschwartz@mdwcg.com -- MARWILL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PC & MICHAEL HARRISON -- mcmongiello@mdwcg.com.

MICHAEL HARRISON, LLC., Defendant Consolidated, represented by
ANDREW MICHAEL SCHWARTZ, MARWILL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN &
GOGGIN, PC.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Perez-Perez and Nieves Seek to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERTO PEREZ-PEREZ and ARMANDO NIEVES,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
50188 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify two
classes and two subclasses:

Count I - Fair Labor Standards Act:

   "all detasseling workers who may opt in to this action
   pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and who worked for
   Monsanto from June 29, 2014 through the date of preliminary
   approval of the opt-in class";

Counts II though VI - Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers
Protection Act:

   "all detasseling workers who were purportedly paid per acre
   and who worked for Defendant between June 29, 2012 through the
   date of the preliminary approval of the class".

Counts VII though VIII - Illinois subclass:

   "all detasseling workers who worked for Monsanto in the State
   of Illinois between June 29, 2014 and the date of the
   preliminary approval of the class";

Counts IX though X - Missouri subclass;

   "all detasseling workers who worked for Monsanto in the State
   of Missouri between June 29, 2012 and the date of the
   preliminary approval of the class".

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint them as the
representatives for the classes and subclasses, and appoint their
counsel as counsel for the classes and subclasses.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9LnaaNOY

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 S. Northwest HWY Ste. 300
          Park Ridge, IL 60068
          Telephone: (847) 701 5290
          E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal

               - and -

          Teresa Hendricks, Esq.
          MICHIGAN MIGRANT LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT INC.
          1104 Fuller Ave. NE
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503-1371
          Telephone: (616) 454 5055
          E-mail: thenricks@migrantlegalaid.com

               - and -

          Patricia Kakalec, Esq.
          KAKALEC & SCHLANGER, LLP
          85 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 500 6114
          Facsimile: (646) 612 7996
          E-mail: pkakalec@kakalec-schlanger.com


MOTT'S LLP: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of "Rahman" Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MOHAMMED RAHMAN, individually and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTT'S LLP, Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-
15579 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Plaintiff's
motion to certify a liability-only class.

In this diversity action, Rahman alleges that use of the statement
"No Sugar Added" on Mott's 100% Apple Juice does not comply with
applicable Food and Drug Administration regulations and, by
extension, California's Sherman Law and Unfair Competition Law,
which wholly adopt the federal regulations. While asserting that
he satisfied the requirements for both an injunction class under
Rule 23(b)(2) and a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), Rahman
sought certification under Rule 23(c)(4) with respect to liability
issues only.

After giving Rahman ample opportunity to establish that
certification of a liability-only class would materially advance
the litigation, the district court concluded that Rahman failed to
show that certification of a liability-only class was
"appropriate" under Rule 24(c)(4).

This Court finds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Rahman's motion to certify a liability-only
class.  Accordingly, it affirmed the district court's ruling.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2017 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/yrmKR9 from Leagle.com.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Hewitt" Suit Over Personal Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH HEWITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No.
1:17-cv-01884-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 8, 2017), is brought over
alleged personal injury-related issues.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is an unincorporated
association that acts as the governing body of college sports.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW YORK, NY: Worley Sues Over School Safety Agents' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
RHAKEEMA WORLEY, ISRAEL CARTAGENA, HECTOR DIAZ, DORSEY FUTRELL,
DAHAN HAWKINS, MICHELE IORIZZO, PETAL ISAACS, SHARON LAYNE, SANDRA
REID, GALE RICHARDSON, and SHARON VICK v. CITY OF NEW YORK and NEW
YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Case No. 1:17-cv-04337-LGS (S.D.N.Y.,
June 8, 2017), is brought as a collective action due to the
Defendant's alleged unlawful deprivation of the Plaintiffs' rights
to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are employed by the City of New York and the New
York City Police Department in the position of School Safety
Agents.

The City of New York is, among other things, a juridical entity
amenable to suit under the FLSA in that it is a public agency
within the meaning of the FLSA.  The City of New York has a
principal office and place of business located at Broadway and
Park Row, in New York City.  New York City Police Department is an
administrative division of the City of New York and is, among
other things, a juridical entity amenable to suit under the
FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
          Sarah M. Block, Esq.
          WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          E-mail: gkm@wmlaborlaw.com
                  smb@wmlaborlaw.com


NORDIC NATURALS: Attorney Loses Bid to Revive Fish Oil Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Moussako, Jeannie O'Sullivan and Brian Amaral, writing for
Law360, report that the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26 declined to
take up a New Jersey attorney's bid to revive his pro se class
action, which accused Nordic Naturals Inc. of misrepresenting the
safety of its fish oil supplements but ultimately exposed him to
frivolous appeal sanctions.

The U.S. Supreme Court shot down the cert petition from
Harold Hoffman, who saw the Third Circuit not only back the toss
of his suit against Nordic Naturals Inc. but also grant the
company sanctions and refer the matter to New Jersey's Office of
Attorney Ethics.  In seeking the Supreme Court's review, Mr.
Hoffman had argued that both the district court and Third Circuit
should have first ruled on whether they had jurisdiction over the
case before deciding the claims had already been litigated.

The Third Circuit had ruled in September 2016 to not revive the
class action, finding that an earlier, nearly identical suit had
already been dismissed on the merits.  The published opinion in
Mr. Hoffman's second case against Nordic did open a new question
for the Third Circuit about whether federal or state issue
preclusion principles apply to such cases, but the panel found
that one way or the other, the claims had already been aired.

In November, the appeals court declined Hoffman's rehearing
request which argued his appeal didn't meet the "demanding
frivolity standard" to warrant sanctions.  Mr. Hoffman's rehearing
brief at the appeals court had also blasted the Third Circuit's
characterization of him as a "serial pro se class action filer."

Bill Janssen, who represented Mr. Hoffman in filing the cert
petition, on June 26 sent Law360 the following statement, which
reads in part:

"Seeking cert from the Supreme Court is always a long-odds
proposition, but we had hoped that Mr. Hoffman's fascinating
lawsuit would spur the court's interest as the ideal setting for
resolving the important, circuit-dividing issue of federal
judicial power that his petition identified."

Michael R. McDonald -- mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- who represents
Nordic Naturals, praised the decision in his own statement, which
read in part:

"[W]e are pleased that the U. S. Supreme Court, as expected,
declined to consider Hoffman's Petition. Every court to consider
this lawsuit has determined that the claims were frivolous and the
conduct of counsel egregious.  This type of litigation is a
scourge on our profession.  Consumer protection statutes are
designed to protect consumers, not to enrich serial pro se class
plaintiffs."

Mr. Hoffman originally filed the putative class action in 2012 in
New Jersey state court.  Nordic moved it to federal court, where
it remained over Mr. Hoffman's objections.  The judge dismissed it
without prejudice for failure to state a claim, allowing Hoffman
30 days to file an amended complaint.

Instead of filing an amended complaint, however, Mr. Hoffman went
back to state court and filed a nearly identical complaint against
the same parties, alleging the same facts -- that the fish oil was
potentially dangerous despite labels that it was the "world's
safest."  The only thing that was different was the class size,
which was much smaller.  Nordic moved that complaint to federal
court as well.

Back again in district court, the judge dismissed it once more,
finding the state's entire controversy doctrine precluded the suit
since it involved the same parties and the same facts, and had
already been dealt with earlier on the merits.

The district court had ruled that New Jersey's "entire
controversy" doctrine barred the claims, which Mr. Hoffman had
previously filed in a nearly identical complaint.  While affirming
the dismissal in September, the Third Circuit questioned whether
the state or federal doctrine applied, and concluded the same
result would be reached either way.

Furthermore, Mr. Hoffman had argued, the appeals court relied on
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Sinochem International v.
Malaysia International Shipping, holding that a court doesn't have
to establish jurisdiction before dismissing a case on nonmerits
grounds.  Yet the appeals judges cited that case sua sponte, as
neither party had used it in their arguments, showing it was "not
so obvious that the appeal was frivolous."

The Third Circuit in September rejected Hoffman's argument that
the district judge needed to figure out whether it had subject
matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Mr. Hoffman is represented by William M. Janssen of Charleston
School of Law.

Nordic Naturals is represented by Michael R. McDonald of Gibbons
PC.

The case is Hoffman, Harold M. v. Nordic Naturals, Inc., case
number 16-1172, in the Supreme Court of the United States. [GN]


NORTHEASTERN ASSET: Judge Granted Bid to Dismiss "Evensen" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York granted defendant's motion to dismiss
the case captioned ROSEMARY EVENSEN, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NORTHEASTERN ASSET
RECOVERY, INC., JTM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, CLAIRE HIGGINS, and
STEVE LARKIN, Defendants, No. 16-cv-1070(ADS)(AKT) (E.D.N.Y.).

Defendants Northeastern Asset Recovery, Inc. (NAR) and
Northeastern Asset Recovery, Inc. (JTM) are corporations who,
respectively, maintain principal places of business in
Cheektowaga, New York and Amherst, New York. Defendants Claire
Higgins and Steve Larkin are individuals who also maintain a
principal place of business in Cheektowaga, New York.

On March 3, 2016, plaintiff Rosemary Evensen commenced a putative
class action against NAR, JTM, Higgins, and Steve Larkin, alleging
that certain debt collection activities on the part of the
defendants violated the provisions of the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq.;
the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 47 U.S.C.
Section 227 et seq.; and Section 349 of the New York General
Business Law (GBL).

On consent of the parties, an amended complaint was filed on
January 17, 2017. The amended complaint does not contain any
factual allegations connecting the defendants to one another,
other than to allege that Higgins and Larkin are employees of
defendants, and that all of the defendants are debt collectors, as
that term is defined in the FDCPA,

Defendant JTM filed a motion to dismiss seeking to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure ("FED. R. CIV. P.") 12(b)(6), or,
alternatively, to strike the plaintiff's class allegations under
FED. R. CIV. P. 23(d)(1)(D).

Judge Spatt granted defendant's motion to dismiss viewing that,
absent any specific facts plausibly indicating that JTM directed
and/or exercised control over the debt collection activities
forming the basis of the case, or any other facts which, if
proven, would tend to establish an agency relationship between JTM
and the individual defendants, simply alleging that Higgins and
Larkin are employees of defendants is patently insufficient to
support a reasonable inference that JTM may be held vicariously
liable for their conduct.

However, consistent with the decision, the plaintiff may file a
second amended complaint within 30 days, or by July 27, 2017. In
addition to curing the deficiencies, the second amended complaint
shall omit the challenged class allegations and amend the official
caption to reflect that it is no longer a putative class action.
If, by July 27, 2017, the plaintiff has not filed a second amended
complaint, the clerk of the court is respectfully directed to
close the case as against the defendant JTM only. In any event,
the matter shall remain open to permit the plaintiff to pursue
default judgments against NAR, Higgins, and Larkin.

A copy of Judge Spatt's decision and order dated June 27, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/yzc4cY from Leagle.com.

Rosemary Evensen, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B. Sanders --
Erica Carvajal -- at Sanders Law, PLLC; David M. Barshay --
dbarshay@thesandersfirm.com -- at Barshay Sanders, PLLC

JTM Capital Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brendan
Hoffman Little -- blittle@lippes.com -- Richard M. Scherer, Jr. --
rscherer@lippes.com -- at Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Court Trims Claims in "Disla" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, granted in part and denied in part,
defendants' motion to dismiss the case RAFAEL DISLA, on behalf of
himself and all Civil Action others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC.; and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants, No. 16-cv-4422 (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff Rafael Disla incurred a debt from Barclays Bank
Delaware, which he defaulted. Defendant Northstar Location
Services, LLC a debt collector, acquired plaintiff's debt from
Barclay and eventually sent a letter to plaintiff seeking to
collect on the debt. The letter indicated plaintiff owed $4,992.08

Plaintiff contends the language in the letter is a false,
deceptive, or misleading representation of tax regulations wherein
it states, "whenever $600.00 or more of a debt is forgiven as a
result of settling a debt for less than the balance owed, it may
be considered taxable income. Barclays Bank Delaware is required
to report the amount of the debt forgiven to the Internal Revenue
Service on Form 1099C."

Plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging that defendant
sent him a letter that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e and Section 1692f. As a
consequence, plaintiff contends, a debtor could understand that
such notice to mean that settling the debt for less than the full
amount would have tax consequences with the IRS, thus
incentivizing the debtor to pay the full amount.

Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the letter contained no
false statement and thus was not false, deceptive, misleading,
unfair, or unconscionable.

Judge Cecchi denied defendant's motion to dismiss as to the
Section 1692e claim and granted as to the Section 1692f claim. In
denying the motion to dismiss as to the Section 1692e claim Judge
Cecchi held that the word "may" does not sufficiently communicate
that there are exceptions to the reporting requirement. Indeed,
the courts in Good, Balon, and Velez, all found defendants'
failure to state explicitly that there were exceptions to the $600
threshold rendered the collection letters misleading. Defendant
neglects to include the exceptional language when it quotes from
the regulation need only raise the debtor's awareness that
potentially applicable exceptions exist. In granting the motion to
dismiss as to Section 1692f claim, Judge Cecchi held that
plaintiff does not plead conduct not already covered by its
Section 1692e claim to support its section 1692f claim.

A copy of Judge Cecchi opinion dated June 27, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/1Muor6 from Leagle.com.

RAFAEL DISLA, Plaintiff, represented by:

   JOSEPH K. JONES, Esq.
   BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF, Esq.
   Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC
   375 Passaic Ave
   Fairfield, NJ 07004
   Tel: 973-227-5900

NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, represented by TODD
AVERY ROSSMAN -- todd.rossman@leclairryan.com -- at LeClairRyan


OHIO: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Suit v. ODJFS
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lisa L. Sandler of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth
District, Franklin County, reversed the judgment of the Franklin
County Court of Common Pleas and remand the case titled Matthew J.
Dunlop, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ohio Department of Job & Family
Services, Defendant-Appellee, No. 16AP-550 (Ohio Ct. App.).

After his divorce in 2007, the court of common pleas ordered
Matthew J. Dunlop to pay $691.72 per month beginning January 1,
2008. He alleges that the Franklin County Child Support
Enforcement Agency (CSEA) sent his employer a garnishment order
that specified the amount of the monthly support, provided a
calculation to determine how much money should be withheld from
his compensation based on the company's pay cycle, and included a
handwritten withholding amount on the instructions. Suspecting
that he was paying in excess of the order and contacting the CSEA,
Dunlop alleges that the CSEA told him he was building a credit
balance as a result of his employer's error in setting up the
garnishment and that he would have to wait until the child support
order was near expiration to recoup the overpayment.

In May 2011, Dunlop sued the Ohio Department of Job and Family
Services (ODJFS) in the Court of Claims of Ohio but just after
filing his complaint in the Court of Claims, Dunlop filed a class
action complaint, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
individuals he estimates to number in excess of 100,000, alleging
claims of conversion, equitable restitution, constructive trust,
breach of fiduciary duty and wrongful disposition against ODJFS
and 300 John Doe defendants, and seeking actual money damages,
equitable restitution and/or disgorgement of improperly obtained
funds, a constructive trust over all funds improperly obtained by
ODJFS, injunction, and declaratory relief. Dunlop alleges that
each John Doe defendant is a joint venture, partner, subsidiary,
parent, agent, representative, franchisee or alter ego of ODJFS,
has a unity of interest with ODJFS, and is legally, equitably or
otherwise responsible in some manner for the damages alleged.
The complaint alleges that ODJFS knowingly collects more money
than he, and persons like him, have been ordered to pay in child
support and then passes that money on to others such as ex-spouses
and/or the federal government in certain public assistance cases)
and/or retains the over-collected funds. The complaint states
under current ODJFS policies, overpaid child support may not be
recouped while an active child support order is in place and that
greater than 114,000 open child support accounts with ODJFS show a
credit balance. Dunlop alleges that Ohio's system of recoupment
does not comport with federal regulations requiring prompt refund
of amounts improperly withheld.

On June 25, 2012, ODJFS filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), which the trial court
initially denied on April 15, 2014. On April 20, 2016, ODJFS asked
the trial court to reconsider its decision based on new authority,
Cullinan v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 10th Dist. No.
15AP-390, 2016-Ohio-1083. On July 13, 2016, the trial court
granted ODJFS's motion for reconsideration and dismissed the
complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). In doing so, the trial
court noted Dunlop's arguments that evidence will be established
to show that the CSEA issued a mandatory wage withholding order to
his employer in an amount exceeding the existing court-ordered
child support obligation and that his complaint clearly alleges
wrongful conduct by ODJFS as a result of garnishing monies from
his paycheck in excess of the court order. The trial court stated
that it is not permitted to consider what future evidence may show
and that applying such standard, it agreed appellant failed to
allege any wrongful conduct on the part of ODJFS in his complaint.
Dunlop filed an appeal arguing that the trial court erred by
granting the motion of defendant-appellee, ODJFS, to dismiss the
complaint of plaintiff-appellant, Matthew Dunlop.

Judge Sandler sustains appellant's assignment of error and
reverses the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
and remand the matter for further proceedings. Judge Sandler held
that considering the Court of Appeals of Ohio limited standard of
review and the distinctions between this appeal and Cullinan, the
Court of Appeals of Ohio agree with appellant that the trial court
erred in determining appellant's complaint was not sufficient to
state a claim for wrongful collection or retention of funds to
survive ODJFS's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Sadler's decision dated June 27, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/tFnXrd from Leagle.com.

Jonathan T. Tyack -- at The Tyack Law Firm Co., L.P.A., for
appellant

Michael DeWine -- Anne Light Hoke -- Jeffrey Jarosch -- at
Attorney General's Office, for appellee

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District panel consists of
Judges Lisa L. Sandler, William A. Klatt and Jennifer Brunner.


ONE NEVADA: Judge Narrows Claims in "Smith" Suit
------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion to dismiss the case styled JOSEPH J. SMITH,
Plaintiff, v. ONE NEVADA CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-02156-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.).

Joseph Smith had obtained an auto loan from One Nevada Credit
Union in October 2004, and by November 2008, Smith alleges that
his loan was paid off and his account with One Nevada was closed.
Smith received a bankruptcy discharge in October 27, 2015. After
his relationship with One Nevada ended, Smith alleges that he did
not seek credit of any type from One Nevada, that One Nevada knew
the account had been closed.

Smith brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, asserting claims under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) and challenging One Nevada's alleged practice
of obtaining consumer credit information without authorization, as
One Nevada obtained information from a credit reporting agency on
January 15, 2016, without Smith's authorization or a permissible
purpose. Smith asserts that even if the account had not been
closed, any relationship between him and One Nevada was
extinguished by the bankruptcy discharge.

Based on such allegations, Smith alleges that One Nevada willfully
and negligently violated the FCRA. One Nevada  filed a motion to
dismiss and argues that Smith lacks standing to assert such claims
and that Smith fails to adequately allege the FCRA violations.

Chief District Judge Navarro granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's claim for negligent
violation of the FCRA is dismissed without prejudice as mere
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by
conclusory statements, are insufficient. The court dismisses such
claim without prejudice. Plaintiff's claim for willful violation
of the FCRA survives. Taking plaintiff's allegations as true, the
court finds that plaintiff has adequately alleged facts showing
defendant's interpretation of the FCRA is objectively
unreasonable. The motion to dismiss is denied as to such claim.

Plaintiff shall have twenty-one days from the filing date of the
order to file an amended complaint should he elect and failure to
file an amended complaint by that date will result in dismissal of
plaintiff's negligent violation claim with prejudice. Defendant's
motion to strike is granted.

A copy of Judge Navarro's order dated June 27, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/vrdZsr from Leagle.com.

Joseph J. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by:

David H. Krieger, Esq.
Haines & Krieger, LLC
8985 S. Eastern Ave. Suite #350
Las Vegas, NV 89123
Tel: 702-880-5554
Fax: 702-385-5518

     - and -

Michael Kind, Esq.
Kazerouni Law Group, APC
245 Fischer Ave
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: 949-612-9999

One Nevada Credit Union, Defendant, represented by James E.
Whitmire, III -- jwhitmire@santoronevada.com -- at Santoro
Whitmire


OREGON: Counties Can't Sue Over Logging Practices, Judge Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge has ruled that Oregon
counties can't sue the state government in the face of a $1.4
billion class lawsuit that seeks damages for logging practices.

The June 20 decision reverses an earlier ruling by the same judge
which stated that counties could seek damages from state
government, the Capital Press reported.

The new ruling by Linn County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Murphy
considers counties subdivisions of the state and therefore they
can't sue the state government for money.

The lawsuit, filed in March, accuses the state of Oregon of
insufficiently logging state forests.  The suit states the 14
counties gave the state forestland expecting to receive a portion
of logging proceeds in return.

The counties involved in the suit include Linn, Benton, Clackamas,
Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Douglas, Josephine, Klamath, Lane,
Lincoln, Marion, Polk, Tillamook and Washington.

Judge Murphy said he's "well aware this interpretation
contradicts" his previous ruling, but the case was complex.

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

Under Judge Murphy's ruling, counties would still be able to seek
an injunction or order to make changes to Oregon's logging
practices.

The counties have repeatedly said they are not interested in
changing logging practices, but rather want to get the
compensation they feel they deserve from timber revenues.

The counties' attorney, John DiLorenzo, said their next step may
be to amend the lawsuit or go to the appellate courts for
clarification on sovereignty immunity.

Ralph Bloemers, an environmental attorney, doesn't see much hope
for the counties' complaint after Murphy's latest ruling.

"The case should be dismissed," he said.

The Capital Press was unable to reach Oregon's attorneys for
comment. [GN]


OVASCIENCE INC: Freedman Family Named Lead Plaintiff in "Dahhan"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FADI DAHHAN, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. OVASCIENCE, INC., et
al, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-10511-IT (D. Mass.), Judge
Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts denied Dahhan's Motion for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and Approval of Counsel, and granted Freedman Family
Investments' Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval
of Selection of Counsel.

Freedman Family Investments will serve as the Lead Plaintiff for
the class, Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the lead counsel and
the Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs as the local counsel.

Plaintiff Dahhan filed this class action against the Defendant,
and others alleging violation of federal private securities laws.
Alleging losses of nearly $2,162,690 in connection with their
purchases of OvaScience securities, Freedman Family Investments
asserts the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the
class.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2017 memorandum and order
is available at https://is.gd/xBs7z9 from Leagle.com.

FADI DAHHAN, Plaintiff, represented by Mitchell J. Matorin,
Matorin Law Office LLC.

OvaScience, Inc., Defendant, represented by John F. Sylvia, Mintz
-- JSylvia@mintz.com -- Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, PC.

Michelle Dipp, Defendant, represented by John F. Sylvia, Mintz,
Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, PC.

Jeffrey E. Young, Defendant, represented by John F. Sylvia, Mintz,
Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, PC.

Freedman Family Investments LLC, Movant, represented by Alan L.
Kovacs -- akovacs@kovacslaw.com -- Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs.


PARKING REVENUE: "Franklin" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CARMEN FRANKLIN and JENIFER CHISM, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. PARKING REVENUE RECOVERY SERVICES, INC. and BRYON
BELLERUD II, PC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-02578 (N.D.
Ill.), Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of:

   "(i) all natural persons with Illinois addresses; (ii) who
   were sent a letter from Bellerud (iii) to recover an amount
   allegedly owed to Central Parking and Parking Revenue Recovery
   Services, Inc.; (iv) between April 5, 2012 and April 26 2013".

Specifically, Plaintiffs and the class members allege that the
text of a form collection (a) misrepresents the recipient's right
to dispute the debt; and (b) demands payment of an unauthorized
charge. The class has 1,799 members and their claims present the
same essential facts, i.e., the form letter, and resolving them
involves deciding whether the form's text violates the FDCPA, the
Complaint says.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=y3ZY59jb

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael S. Hilicki, Esq.
          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Michael Hilicki, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092
          E-mail: keith@KeoghLaw.com
                  mhilicki@KeoghLaw.com


PONZIOS RD: "Casco" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled OSCAR CASCO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. PONZIOS RD,
INC. d/b/a METRO DINER; and Doe Defendants 1-10, the Defendant(s),
Case No. 1:16-cv-02084-RBK-JS (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs move the
Court for an Order granting:

   a. certification of a class of:

      "all current and former Tipped Employees who have worked
      for Defendant in the State of New Jersey at any point from
      April 14, 2014 through the present";

   b. conditional certification of a Collective Class, pursuant
      to the Fair Labor Standards Act,, consisting of:

      "all persons employed by Defendant as Tipped Employees
      during the last three years; and

   c. production to Plaintiffs of all names and addresses of
      members of the collective class in accordance with Hoffman-
      La Roche v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Stephen E. Connolly, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 275
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (610) 822 3700
          Facsimile: (610) 822 3800
          E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
                  sconnolly@cwglaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Kalikhman, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364 5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364 5029
          E-mail: lkalikhman@kalraylaw.com


RIGHT PATH: Benjamin Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned XAVIER BENJAMIN, for himself and on
behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RIGHT PATH
TRANSPORTATION INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, RIGHT PATH
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, DON
JACKSON, Individually, and ROBERT RELEFORD, Individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00457-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to permit and supervise notice to:

   "all current and former Drivers who worked over forty hours in
   one or more workweeks by Defendants within the three years
   preceding the filing of the Complaint, as they were not
   compensated at one and one-half times their regular rate of
   pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more
   workweeks due to Defendants' unlawful misclassification
   Scheme".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Sm1BGCIO

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318 0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327 3016
          E-mail: Amurthy@forthepeople.com


RIGHTSOURCING INC: Court Dismisses "Scolaro" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge James V. Selna of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed the case captioned ANGELA
SCOLARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RIGHTSOURCING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:16-CV-01083-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal.) with prejudice.

On June 26, 2017, the Court granted the Parties' Joint Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and the Plaintiff's
Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

The Court granted final approval, for purposes of settlement only,
of the Class as defined in the Settlement Agreement.

Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. and Berger & Montague, P.C. are
approved as Class Counsel and are awarded $77,500 for attorneys'
fees and $12,546.09 for reimbursement of litigation costs and
expenses, which the Court finds were reasonably incurred in
prosecution of this case.

Angela Scolaro is awarded $10,000 for her services in initiating
and maintaining this litigation as Class Representative.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/6N5I7w from Leagle.com.

Angela Scolaro, Plaintiff, represented by Wilmer J. Harris,
Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP.

Angela Scolaro, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra K. Piazza --
apiazza@bm.net -- Berger and Montague PC, pro hac vice, Camille
Fundora -- cundora@bm.net -- Berger and Montague PC, pro hac vice,
Harold L. Lichten -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-
Riordan PC, pro hac vice, Isabel M. Daniels, Schonbrun DeSimone
Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, Jill S. Kahn -- jkahn@llrlaw.com --
Lichten and Liss Riordan PC, pro hac vice, Matthew David Carlson -
- mcarlson@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan PC, Sarah R.
Schalman-Bergen -- sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- Berger and Montague
PC, pro hac vice & Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger
and Montague PC, pro hac vice.

RightSourcing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark D. Kemple --
kemplem@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP.


ROCKFORD PROCESS: Violates FLSA and IMWL, "Andrews" Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly v. ROCKFORD PROCESS CONTROL, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-
50171 (N.D. Ill., June 8, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiff was
not paid one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 in a work week, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Rockford Process Control, Inc., is an Illinois entity engaged in
commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.  The
Plaintiff worked for RCI within the past three years as a
welder.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM
          200 E 5th Ave., Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  khilton@fishlawfirm.com
                  kunze@fishlawfirm.com


ROOIBOS LTD: Tea Competition Case May Prompt Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Nick Altini, writing for Moneyweb, reports that the Competition
Commission's case of exclusionary abuse of dominance against
Rooibos Limited, the largest processor of the South African tea,
could lead to damages claims against Rooibos Limited by other
local processors.  This could happen if the rooibos processor
settles (and in doing so admits a contravention of the Competition
Act, which is invariably required in settlements of this nature)
or is found guilty of the alleged conduct by the Competition
Tribunal.

One of the earliest and most prominent cases of exclusionary abuse
in South Africa involved SAA and its arrangements with travel
agents (particularly its incentivised commission schemes). This
had an exclusionary effect on other domestic airlines in that the
schemes induced travel agents not to deal with SAA's rivals in the
domestic air travel market and that caused custom to be steered
away from them.  That case culminated in a R1.1 billion damages
award by the High Court in favour of Comair earlier this year and
R105 million for the insolvent estate of Nationwide last year.

The SAA case sets the law for this type of abuse of dominance. The
basis of the SAA case was that if a firm has a dominant market
position and it leverages its market power to the exclusion of
rivals, so much that competition is substantially lessened or
prevented, it is guilty of anti-competitive conduct.

The law does permit of justification and defence in this type of
case (in contrast to collusion maters where there is no
justificatory defence available), but there is an onus on the
dominant firm to show that the anti-competitive effects of its
conduct are outweighed by pro-competitive, efficiency or
technology benefits, and that's a very high bar to clear.

The rooibos tea investigation focuses on Rooibos Limited's
monopolisation of the rooibos supply from commercial farmers in
the Western and Northern Cape, South Africa.

Most of the rooibos tea produced is supplied to Rooibos Limited.
The commission has said that Rooibos had two exclusionary
contracting strategies to foreclose the supply of tea from farmers
to other rooibos tea processors and this had denied its
competitors access to a product that is only grown in a small
region of the country.  The first exclusionary strategy referred
to long-term supply agreements with farmers for the period 2014-
2018.  The second was a supply commitment in exchange for farmers
gaining access to Rooibos Limited's production research output.
The commission said that Rooibos Limited had exploited its
research output to lock-in the supply of rooibos tea from farmers.

The commission has asked the Tribunal to decide if Rooibos Limited
has contravened the Competition Act and if so, the Commission
seeks the imposition of an administrative penalty equal to 10% of
its annual turnover.

The Competition Act has a general prohibition against exclusionary
practices by dominant firms, but it also lists particular forms of
exclusionary abuse, one of which is exclusive contracts with, or
conduct designed to induce exclusivity from, customers or
suppliers of the dominant firm (as happened in the SAA case).  If
a firm engages in one of the specified forms of exclusionary
abuse, then it is on the hook for a penalty even for a first
offence, while if a contravention under the general prohibition
occurs, then there is no penalty for a first offence.

The difficulty Rooibos Limited now faces is that if it goes to the
commission to settle -- whereby it agrees to pay a penalty and
stop its exclusionary practices -- it opens itself up to damages
litigation as was the case with SAA.  This is because settlement
invariably requires an admission that the act has been contravened
and this is the basis for a damages action for victims of the
anti-competitive conduct.  If the case is defended but the
Tribunal ultimately finds that there has been a contravention of
the act, and all appeal options are exhausted with the finding
remaining intact then a right to claim damages flows from that
order.  The other rooibos processors could conceivably group
together in a class action suit against Rooibos Limited, as they
would likely have the requisite commonality of interest to seek
class certification.

With regards to the SAA case, although it took a long time to be
heard, the High Court eventually made massive damages awards to
Comair and Nationwide, to compensate them for the patrimonial
losses they suffered as a result of SAA's unlawful conduct. [GN]


RUSHMORE LOAN: Faces "Leones" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rushmore Loan
Management Services LLC. The case is titled as Silvia Leones, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61266-WPD (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.

Rushmore Loan provides residential mortgage loan servicing and
customer support.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Harris Kline, Esq.
          2761 Executive Park Drive
          Weston, FL 33331
          Telephone: (954) 888 4646
          Facsimile: (954) 888 4647
          E-mail: emailservice@jklawfl.com


SEPHORA USA: July 14 Reply Deadline to Dismissal Bid in "Duran"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JESSICA DURAN, an individual, for herself
and those similarly situated; ROES 1 through 30,000; and the
Putative Class, Plaintiffs, v. SEPHORA USA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-01261-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
extended the time for the Plaintiff to file her responsive brief
to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by seven days from July 7,
2017, to July 14, 2017.

The Defendant's time to file its reply brief is extended by three
days from July 21, 2017 to July 24, 2017.  The hearing date of
Aug. 16, 2017 remains unchanged.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/nJ5JqQ from Leagle.com.

Jessica Duran, Plaintiff, represented by Alejandro Pedro Gutierrez
-- agutierrez@hathawaylawfirm.com -- HATHAWAY, PERRETT, WEBSTER,
POWERS, CHRISMAN & GUTIERREZ APC.

Jessica Duran, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Daniel Hefelfinger
-- bdh@calemploymentcounsel.com  -- Palay & Hefelfinger, APC &
Daniel Jay Palay -- djp@calemploymentcounsel.com -- Palay Law
Firm.

Sephora USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Ralston
Livingston -- alivingston@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, Alexandra Elena Heifetz, Orrick Herrington
Sutcliffe LLP & Alexandra H. Stathopoulos, Orrick Herrington
Sutcliffe LLP.


SET ENTERPRISES: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Shaw" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled SARAH SHAW, REBECCA WILES, and ASHLEY
HOWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE SET ENTERPRISES, INC., a
Florida Corporation, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 0:15-cv-
62152-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Court provisionally certifies this
class for settlement purposes only:

   "any exotic dancers who worked at least three days or more at
   Cheetah Pompano, Cheetah Hallandale, or Cheetah Palm Beach, at
   any time from October 13, 2010 to June 30, 2017".

The Court adopts the settlement procedure:

   a. The Court appoints Andrew R. Frisch and Morgan and Morgan,
      P.A., Jack C. Morgan, III and Aloia Roland & Lubell, PLLC,
      and John B. Gallagher and John B. Gallagher, P.A., as Class
      Counsel.

   b. Within 14 calendar days of the date of this Order,
      Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide the Claims Administrator
      the names and contact information for Class Members
      provided to them by Defendants;

   c. Within 14 days thereafter, the Claims Administrator shall
      mail the Notices to Class Members;

   d. Class Members will have 60 days from the date the Notice is
      mailed to send in their claim form and participate in the
      settlement, opt out of the settlement, or object to it;

   e. Plaintiff will file a Motion for Final Approval of
      Settlement no later than 14 days before the fairness
      hearing;

   f. The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on Friday,
      October 27, 2017 at 10:30 a.m. at the United States
      District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 299
      East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 in
      Courtroom 205B before Judge William P. Dimitrouleas;

   g. If the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval
      of the Settlement, the Court will issue a Final Order and
      Judgment. If no party appeals the Court's Final Order and
      Judgment, the "Effective Date" of the settlement will be
      the day after the deadline for taking an appeal has passed;

   h. If rehearing, reconsideration or appellate review is
      sought, the "Effective Date" shall be the day after all
      appeals are resolved in favor of final approval;

   i. Defendants will fund the settlement, based on the Effective
      Date, by remitting Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and
      costs, the amount needed to pay valid claims, plus the
      other specified costs and expenses, including Service
      Payments, pursuant to the schedule outlined in sections 1,
      2, 3, 4, 13 and 16 of the Settlement Agreement;

   j. The Claims Administrator and/or the Parties will disburse
      settlement checks to the Class Members, Class Counsel's
      attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel, and the
      Service Awards pursuant to the schedule outlined in
      sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 13 and 16 of the Settlement Agreement;
      and

   k. The parties shall abide by all terms of the Settlement
      Agreement.

   l. If the Court does not finally approve the Settlement
      Agreement or the Settlement Agreement otherwise does not
      become effective, this Order shall be void and of no force
      and effect, and cannot be used against Defendants in future
      proceedings; the Settlement Agreement shall likewise be of
      no force and effect and shall not constitute any admission
      by any Defendant; and the parties shall be restored to
      their respective positions existing immediately prior to
      the Court's entry of this Order, such that Defendants will
      not have waived any procedural or substantive defenses,
      including the right to pursue their currently-pending
      motion to compel arbitration.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1t3IVfHj


SMARTPAY LEASING: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that an Arizona resident alleges that a lease-to-own payment plan
company based in San Francisco unlawfully sent her messages.

Shawn Esparza filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on June 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Smartpay Leasing Inc. alleging
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she began
receiving several unwanted text messages from the defendant in
September 2016.  The plaintiff holds Smartpay Leasing Inc.
responsible because the defendant allegedly sent unsolicited text
messages to the plaintiff without her consent.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages, $1,500 in treble damages and any other relief as the
court deems just.  He is represented by Ronald A. Marron, Alexis
Wood and Kas Galluci of Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron in San
Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number 3:17-cv-03421-JCS [GN]


STAR PRO: Intentionally Misclassify Security Guards, Laster Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BERNELL E. LASTER, on behalf of himself and a class of others
similarly situated v. STAR PRO INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND
TRAINING, INC., a California Corporation; TERRY LEE CONVINGTON, an
individual, and DOES 1 THROUGH 25, Inclusive, Case No. 30-2017-
00925027-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., June 8, 2017),
alleges that the Defendants intentionally misclassify their
employees, in violation of the Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the case arises from the Defendants'
alleged consistent policy and practice of, among other things,
misclassifying security guards as independent contractors instead
of properly classifying them as employees, and permitting,
encouraging, and requiring security guards to work in excess of
eight hours per day or in excess of 40 hours per week without
paying them overtime compensation as required by California state
wage and hour laws.

STAR PRO is a California corporation with its headquarters in
Huntington Beach, California.  The Company provides security
services throughout California and places security guards at
various locations throughout the state.  Terry Lee Convington is a
California resident and an officer of STAR PRO.  The Plaintiff is
currently unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Alder, Esq.
          Marni B. Folinsky, Esq.
          ALDERLAW, PC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 275-9131
          Facsimile: (310) 275-9132
          E-mail: cmalder@alderlaw.com
                  mfolinsky@alderlaw.com

               - and -

          Morris Nazarian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MORRIS NAZARIAN
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1790
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 284-7333
          Facsimile: (310) 284-7332
          E-mail: mornazarian@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Soo-Hoo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN J. SOO-HOO, APC
          601 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 105
          Santa Ana, CA, 92705
          Telephone: (714) 589-2252
          Facsimile: (714) 882-7994
          E-mail: brian@thebklawgroup.com


STARION ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss "Owens" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Victor A. Bolden denied the motion filed by Starion Energy,
Inc., to dismiss the case captioned NANCY OWENS, Plaintiff, v.
STARION ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01912 (D.
Conn.).

Nancy Owens brought a putative class action against Starion
Energy, Inc., alleging violations of the "Do Not Call" provisions
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  Owens brought
the lawsuit on behalf of all people nationwide whose telephone
numbers were registered on the national Do Not Call registry and
who received unsolicited telephone calls from Starion Energy up to
four years before the filing of the Complaint.

Starion Energy moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); in the alternative,
Starion Energy sought to strike several portions of the Complaint
under Rule 12(f).

Specifically, Starion Energy argued that:

     (1) the number allegedly contacted by Starion Energy was a
         business number, not a residential number as required
         for TCPA protection;

     (2) the Complaint lacks the requisite specificity regarding
         the alleged telephone calls;

     (3) Ms. Owens fails to allege that she is the subscriber who
         registered the number on the national "Do Not Call"
         registry; and

     (4) the Complaint does not properly allege the requisite
         knowledge and willfulness to state a claim for treble
         damages under the TCPA.

Judge Bolden denied Starion Energy's motion to dismiss.  The judge
held that further discovery is warranted to determine whether the
telephone number allegedly contacted by Starion Energy was a
"residential" or "business" line.  The judge also concluded that
Ms. Owens' pleadings are sufficiently specific because, in the
absence of any binding case law indicating otherwise, detailed
allegations regarding the time and date of each telephone call are
not required at the early stage.

Judge Bolden also found that the Complaint clearly alleged that
Ms. Owens was the recipient of the telephone calls in question
from Starion Energy, and thus Ms. Owens bears the privacy
interests that Congress sought to protect by enacting the TCPA.
Therefore, the judge concluded that Ms. Owens has statutory
standing under the TCPA, whether or not she is the subscriber who
personally registered the number on the do-not-call registry.

Finally, Judge Bolden disagreed with Starion Energy's argument
that the Complaint fails to state a claim for treble damages under
the TCPA.

In addition to the various arguments described above in support of
Starion Energy's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6), Starion Energy also sought to strike various
portions of the Complaint.  Specifically, Starion Energy sought to
strike all references to attorneys' fees and costs as well as any
allegations that Starion Energy violated 47 U.S.C. section
227(b)(1), a statutory provision that governs the use of an
"artificial or prerecorded voice[.]"  Starion Energy also
challenged the Complaint's proposed definition of the purported
class, arguing that the class identified in the Complaint is an
improper "fail-safe" class and that any class-related allegations
should be stricken accordingly.

Judge Bolden pointed out that motions to strike are generally
disfavored.  The judge also found that Starion Energy has not met
its burden of showing that "(1) no evidence in support of the
allegations would be admissible; (2) the allegations have no
bearing on the issues in the case; and (3) permitting the
allegations to stand would result in prejudice to the movant" with
respect to any of the components Starion Energy wishes to strike.
Accordingly, Starion Energy's motion to strike was denied.

A full-text copy of Judge Bolden's June 30, 2017 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/3ZgRKe from Leagle.com.

Nancy Owens, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Paronich, Broderick
& Paronich, P.C., pro hac vice, Brian V. Altieri, Law Office of
Balzano & Tropiano, P.C. & Matthew Passi McCue, The Law Offices of
Matthew P. McCue, pro hac vice.

Starion Energy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas C.
Blatchley -- tblatchley@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP.


TD BANK: To Settle Penny Arcade Users' Class Action for $9MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that TD Bank would
pay almost $9 million to settle a class-action lawsuit on behalf
of customers who used the company's coin-counting machines,
according to a preliminary agreement now before a federal judge.

The deal, if approved by a federal judge in Camden, would include
$7.5 million for consumers potentially shortchanged by TD's
almost-1,200 Penny Arcades.

It also would resolve legal challenges that arose after the
disclosure in April 2016 of potential problems with the machines.

A report on NBC's "Today" show found incorrect results when $300
in coins were placed in five machines chosen at random.

TD stopped using the machines in the wake of the report and pulled
them from its branches in May 2016.

The proposed deal represents "significant monetary relief" for
people who used Penny Arcade machines from April 11, 2010, until
they became unavailable, said Stephen P. DeNittis, an Evesham
attorney representing class members.

A TD Bank spokesman said on June 26 the Cherry Hill-based company
does not comment on pending litigation.

Under the settlement, people who were TD Bank customers at the
time of Penny Arcade transactions "need not take any action to
receive their distributions."

It says the bank would use its records to determine the amount of
Penny Arcade usage by its customers.  TD would multiply that sum
by 0.26 percent to determine a customer's distribution, or
payment.

Coin-machine users who did not have TD accounts could submit
written claims, subject to the approval of a settlement
administrator.  Claims without documentation would be limited to
$500.

The agreement also would provide up to $1.5 million for attorneys
representing Penny Arcade users.  Thirteen people named as
plaintiffs in the consolidated suit would share a $50,000 payment.

The fees for the attorneys and the plaintiffs would not come from
the customers' funds.  Up to $100,000 in legal fees could come
from the customers' fund, the tentative agreement says.

Members of the class would share in any funds remaining after the
payment of all claims and expenses.

The tentative settlement awaits a decision by U.S. District Judge
Jerome Simandle in Camden.

In an unopposed court filing, Mr. DeNittis asserted the tentative
resolution "falls well within the range of reasonableness" and
payments would be "fair and adequate."

The attorney's brief said TD twice tested more than 1,000 Penny
Arcades to determine their coin-counting accuracy.  The tests
found net undercounts of 0.117 percent and 0.090 percent.

"The settlement agreement provides for a recovery (that) exceeds
the net undercount in each of TD Bank's tests," Mr. DeNittis
noted.

It said Penny Arcade users who remain TD customers will receive
automatic payments into their accounts.  Former customers and
people who make written claims would receive checks in the mail.

In a report filed June 13, an expert retained by Mr. DeNittis said
he found signs of neglect at 18 coin-counting machines at TD
branches in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York.

"The overwhelming majority of the machines inspected appeared to
be poorly maintained," said the expert, David Sise.  He noted
missing, broken and improperly installed parts, as well as loose
coins and debris that included a cigarette butt.

But Mr. Sise, who put $52.50 in coins into the machines as part of
his review, also said the Penny Arcade results "did not not yield
significant appreciable differences or significant undercounts."
[GN]


TEMPUR-SEALY: Court Severs Claims in "Todd" Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALVIN TODD, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. TEMPUR-
SEALY INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants,  Case No. 13-cv-
04984-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the defendants'
motion to sever the plaintiffs' claims and to transfer claims of
severed plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs bring an action on their own behalf and on behalf
of a putative class of purchasers of Tempur products against
Tempur-Sealy International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America,
LLC for claims arising out of the defendants' marketing and sale
of mattresses, pillows, and other bedding products containing
Tempur material.  Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the
defendants' representations of their Tempur products as
"formaldehyde free," "free of harmful VOCs," "allergen and
dustmite resistant," "hypoallergenic," and with a "completely
harmless" odor, are false and misleading.  The plaintiffs alleged
that the defendants knew their products did not conform to these
representations because internal testing revealed that the
defendants' products off-gassed many VOCs, including formaldehyde,
which can cause allergic reactions.  Further, the plaintiffs
claimed that the defendants were aware of customer complaints
about the odor and corresponding physical symptoms such as
headache, nausea, asthma, eye and throat irritation, and allergic
reactions.

On September 30, 2016, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  The Court concluded that the plaintiffs had
satisfied the numerosity, typicality, and adequacy prongs of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), but found that the
plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate commonality, predominance,
and superiority.  The Court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration.

The defendants filed a motion to sever the plaintiffs' claims and
to transfer claims of the severed plaintiffs.

In granting the motion to sever, Judge Tigar explained that
although the plaintiffs attempt to distinguish some of the
authorities the defendant cites in favor of severance, they
identified no case with analogous facts in which the court denied
a motion to sever.  Rather, the plaintiffs repeated the arguments
from their reconsideration motion that Rule 20 is satisfied
because "all [Plaintiffs] were misled by Defendants' material
omissions."  The judge explained in his order denying that motion
why the plaintiffs' omissions theory suffers from the same defects
as its affirmative misrepresentations theory.  In sum, the judge
found that the plaintiffs offered no persuasive argument for
keeping their claims together.

The defendants also sought to transfer each plaintiff's case back
to his or her home district.  Judge Tigar found that most but not
all factors weigh in favor of transfer.  The judge found that
aside from the plaintiffs' choice of forum, each of the factors is
either neutral or weighs in favor of transfer.  Given that
Plaintiffs' choice is entitled to less weight in this context,
Judge Tigar granted the motion to transfer.

A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's June 30, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/1lmeRq from Leagle.com.

Alvin Todd, Brian Stone, Robbie Simmons, Thomas Comiskey, Toni
Kibbee, Tina White, Johnny Martinez, Keith Hawkins, Patricia
Kaufman, represented by Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.,
Angelique Adams -- aadams@shipmanlaw.com -- Shipman & Wright, LLP,
pro hac vice, Anthony Gerard Simon -- asimon@simonlawpc.com -- The
Simon Law Firm, P.C., pro hac vice, Benjamin Reid Askew --
baskew@simonlawpc.com -- The Simon Law Firm, P.C., pro hac vice,
Bonan Wang Link, Allen Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice, Dana Marie
Isaac Quinn, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K. Shipman --
gshipman@shipmanlaw.com -- Shipman & Wright, LLP, pro hac vice,
John Matthew Simon -- jmsimon@simonlawpc.com -- The Simon Law
Firm, P.C., pro hac vice, Lee Brandon Lesher, Allen Stewart, P.C.,
pro hac vice, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, S.
Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners, LLP., Scott R. Frieling, Allen
Stewart PC, pro hac vice, Sean Reed Cox -- scox@coxappellate.com -
- Law Offices of Sean R. Cox, L.L.C., pro hac vice & William G.
Wright -- wright@shipmanlaw.com -- Shipman & Wright, LLP, pro hac
vice.

Alan Kaufman, Plaintiff, represented by Allen Mark Stewart, Allen
Stewart, P.C., Angelique Adams, Shipman & Wright, LLP, Anthony
Gerard Simon, The Simon Law Firm, P.C., pro hac vice, Benjamin
Reid Askew, The Simon Law Firm, P.C., pro hac vice, Bonan Wang
Link, Allen Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice & Gary K. Shipman, Shipman
& Wright, LLP, John Matthew Simon, The Simon Law Firm, P.C., pro
hac vice, Lee Brandon Lesher, Allen Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice,
Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, S. Clinton Woods,
Audet & Partners, LLP., Scott R. Frieling, Allen Stewart PC, pro
hac vice, Sean Reed Cox, Law Offices of Sean R. Cox, L.L.C., pro
hac vice & William G. Wright, Shipman & Wright, LLP.

Sara Stone, Jerry Kucharski, Julie Davidoff, Ericka Anderson, Kurt
Anderson, Melody Todd, Diane Kucharski, Tracey Palmer, represented
by Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C., Angelique Adams,
Shipman & Wright, LLP, Anthony Gerard Simon, The Simon Law Firm,
P.C., pro hac vice, Benjamin Reid Askew, The Simon Law Firm, P.C.,
pro hac vice, Bonan Wang Link, Allen Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice,
Gary K. Shipman, Shipman & Wright, LLP, John Matthew Simon, The
Simon Law Firm, P.C., pro hac vice, Lee Brandon Lesher, Allen
Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet &
Partners LLP, S. Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners, LLP., Scott R.
Frieling, Allen Stewart PC, pro hac vice, Sean Reed Cox, Law
Offices of Sean R. Cox, L.L.C., pro hac vice & William G. Wright,
Shipman & Wright, LLP.

Tempur-Sealy International, Inc., Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC,
represented by Mark Lemar Eisenhut -- meisenhut@calljensen.com --
Call & Jensen, Matthew Ryan Orr -- morr@calljensen.com -- Call &
Jensen, Samuel Gary Brooks -- sbrooks@calljensen.com -- Call &
Jensen, Daniel Jay Gerber -- dgerber@rumberger.com -- Rumberger
Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., pro hac vice, Douglas Bruce Brown --
dbrown@rumberger.com -- Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., pro hac
vice & Samantha Crawford Duke -- sduke@rumberger.com -- Rumberger


TIM HORTONS: U.S. Franchisees Form Alliance Amid Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Patton, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that about half
of U.S. franchisees have joined the new alliance Tim Hortons' U.S.
franchisees are banding together to lobby for corporate-level
changes at the coffee chain, which is owned by Restaurant Brands
International Inc., the fast-food giant that also runs Burger
King.

The move follows a similar Canadian alliance -- dubbed the Great
White North Franchisee Association -- that formed in March.  The
Canadian franchisees filed a class-action suit in early June,
arguing that Restaurant Brands executives have breached their
obligations to local branch operators.

"The stores are lacking profitability and the franchisees feel
that Tim Hortons is not helping them," said Robert M. Einhorn, an
attorney at Zarco Einhorn Salkowski & Brito in Miami who is
representing the U.S. alliance.

Like its Canadian counterpart, the U.S. group says Restaurant
Brands has diverted ad funding to other purposes, intimidated
store owners and hiked costs for key products such as coffee and
bacon, the Great White North Franchisee Association said in a
statement on June 26.

The U.S. group also says that the parent company's restaurant
inspections are unfair and "harrassing."

"They keep changing the rules," Mr. Einhorn said.  "They fail many
of the stores, which serves to demoralize the franchisees."

Restaurant Brands said its franchisees are "the foundation of its
system" and pledged to work closely with them in the U.S.

"We are committed to continued collaboration with our franchise
advisory board, the members of which are elected by our franchise
owners, to ensure that the Tim Hortons brand is healthy for the
long run by focusing on what will help us serve our guests and the
iconic Tim Hortons brand now and in the future," the company's
press office said in an emailed response to questions.

Restaurant Brands was created by 3G Capital Inc., the private
equity firm that's famous for boosting profit by trimming costs
and overhead expenses.

The new U.S. alliance is backed by almost half of the country's
Tim Hortons franchisees, including owners in the chain's key
markets of Ohio, Michigan and New York.  There are 4,600 Tim
Hortons restaurants globally, including about 700 in the U.S. [GN]


TRANSNATIONAL FOODS: Faces "Lejbman" Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transnational Foods,
Inc. The case is entitled as Vivian Lejbman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Transnational Foods, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Conservas
Cerqueira, S.A., a foreign corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-01317-CAB-MDD (S.D. Cal., June 27, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.

Transnational Foods is a U.S.-based food vendor company known for
offering leading supermarkets, wholesalers, dollar stores, and
convenience stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Michael Lopatin, Esq.
          EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
          2201 Market Street, Suite H
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 324 8620
          Facsimile: (415) 520 2262
          E-mail: blopatin@elplawyers.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Non-Party Not Allowed to Intervene in "Cohen"
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California denied non- party's motions in
the case styled ART COHEN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant, Case No. 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.).

On October 18, 2013, plaintiff Art Cohen filed a complaint on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. Cohen then
filed a notice of related case, connecting his lawsuit with Low v.
Trump University LLC, Case No. 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG, which was
filed on April 30, 2010. On February 21, 2014, the court
certified, in Low, a class of "all persons who purchased a Trump
University three-day live 'Fulfillment' workshop and/or a Elite'
program in California, New York and Florida, and have not received
a full refund. On October 27, 2014, the court granted plaintiff
Cohen's motion to certify a class of all persons who purchased
Live Events from Trump University throughout the United States
from January 1, 2007 to the present.

On November 18, 2016, plaintiffs in Cohen and Low executed a
settlement agreement with defendants, as well as with the New York
State Attorney General. The court granted the parties' joint
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement on
December 20, 2016 and set the final approval hearing on March 30,
2017.

On November 18, 2016, Leeland O. White, proceeding pro se, first
attempted to file an ex parte motion to intervene by right, but
was rejected for failure to comply with the Civil Local Rules.
White then attempted to file another motion to intervene on
January 10, 2017, but was rejected, again, for non-compliance with
the Civil Local Rules. White filed an amended ex parte motion in
right to intervene and to object, nunc pro tunc to January 19,
2017. On March 23, 2017, the court entered an order denying
White's motion to intervene.

The court held a final approval hearing on March 30, 2017 and on
the following day, the court granted the parties' joint motion for
final approval of the settlement and granted plaintiffs' motion
for approval of class representative awards. Final judgment was
entered on the same day.

White filed an amended motion to set aside judgment and amended
motion to vacate settlement agreement and reverse denial of motion
to intervene.

Judge Curiel denied White's amended motion to set aside judgment
and amended motion to vacate settlement agreement and reverse
denial of motion to intervene. The hearing scheduled for July 14,
2017 is vacated. White fails to show that he is entitled to
reconsideration on any of the grounds enumerated in Rule 60(b). He
merely reiterates arguments the Court previously considered and
rejected when denying his motion to intervene. White fails to
establish exceptional circumstances under either prong. First,
White did not participate in the proceedings in the matter.
White's participation is limited to his filing of an unsuccessful
motion to intervene. Simply filing a motion to intervene does not
grant nonparties standing to challenge a final judgment. Second,
the equities do not favor allowing White to challenge the
judgment, as White's interests fall far outside of the scope of
the legal issues in Low or Cohen.

A copy of Judge Curiel's order dated June 27, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/vXGTai from Leagle.com.

Art Cohen, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron M. Olsen --
aarono@haelaw.com -- Alreen Haeggquist -- alreenh@zhlaw.com --
Amber Lee Eck -- ambere@zhlaw.com -- at Haeggquist & Eck, LLP;
Daniel Jacob Pfefferbaum -- dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com -- Jason A.
Forge -- jforge@rgrdlaw.com -- Jeffrey J. Stein --
jstein@rgrdlaw.com -- Maureen E. Mueller -- mmueller@rgrdlaw.com -
- Patrick J. Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- Rachel L. Jensen --
rachelj@rgrdlaw.com -- Xavier Jay Alvarez -- jaya@rgrdlaw.com --
Brian E. Cochran -- bcochran@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP

Donald J. Trump, Defendant, represented by Daniel M. Petrocelli --
dpetrocelli@omm.com -- David Lee Kirman -- dkirman@omm.com -- at
O'Melveny & Myers LLP; Jeffrey L. Goldman -- at Belkin Burden
Wenig & Goldman, LLP; Jill Ann Martin -- at Trump National Golf
Club, Los Angeles & Matthew R. Maron -- at The Trump Organization

Miscellaneous Parties, represented by Alonzo Wickers, IV --
alonzowickers@dwt.com --Kelli L. Sager -- kellisager@dwt.com -- at
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP


ULTRA AVIATION: Faces "Ojeda" Suit Over Reduced Living Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
DAYLE OJEDA, MIRIAM POMERANTZ, RAUL VASALLO, ROBERTO MARTIN
GONZLEZ And all others Similarly Situated v. ULTRA AVIATION
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2017-013765-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-
Dade Cty., June 8, 2017), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs
and all similarly situated individuals employed by the Defendant
as hourly workers at the Miami International Airport during the
past two years who received the reduced "Living Wage."

The Defendant has paid the Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated the reduced "Living Wage" as if they received a
qualifying "Health Benefit Plan."  The problem is that the "Health
Benefit Plans" that the Defendant provided to the Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated did not comply with Section 2-8.9 of the
Miami-Dade County Code, as it did not qualify as a "Health Benefit
Plan," the Plaintiffs contend.

Ultra Aviation is a Florida for-profit corporation that conducts
business in Florida.  Ultra Aviation is a "service contractor" for
Miami-Dade County.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 230-4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com

               - and -

          Rodman D. Rodman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Estrada, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN, RODMAN, & FRANK, P.A.
          3636 W. Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33135
          Telephone: (305) 448-8585
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9818
          E-mail: ronrod36@aol.com
                  e.estrada.frf@gmail.com


UNITED FOOD: Court Dismissed Bid for Class Certification as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ROBBIE OHLENDORF and SANDRA ADAMS, the
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL 876, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01439-PLM-PJG
(W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Paul L. Maloney entered an order
dismissing a motion for class certification as moot.

The court said, "Plaintiffs Ohlendorf and Adams filed a motion for
class certification. In its response, Defendant Local 876 argues
that consideration of class certification motion should be
deferred until its motion to dismiss is resolved. In their reply,
Plaintiffs explicitly stated they did not oppose resolving the
motion to dismiss first. A hearing on both the motion to dismiss
and the motion for class certification occurred on June 26, 2017.
Contemporaneous with this Order, the Court has granted Defendant
Local 876's motion to dismiss. Because all claims are dismissed,
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is moot."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jjh3JFks


UNITED STATES: Faces Common Ground Healthcare Suit
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA. The case is
captioned as COMMON GROUND HEALTHCARE COOPERATIVE, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. USA,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00877-MMS (Fed. Cl., June 27,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Margaret M. Sweeney.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Andrew Swedlow, Esq.
          QUINN, EMANUEL, ET AL., LLP (IL)
          500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 705 7400
          Facsimile: (312) 705 7401
          E-mail: stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com


UNITED STATES: Supreme Court to Rehear Immigrant's Detention Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gonzales, writing for NPR, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court says it will re-hear a case that asks whether immigrants
detained by the government have a right to a bond hearing to
challenge their indefinite detention.

The case was argued in November 2016, months before Justice Neil
Gorsuch filled the vacant seat of late Justice Antonin Scalia.

It has implications for legal permanent residents that the
government wants to deport because they committed crimes and for
asylum seekers who are awaiting a court date after turning
themselves in at the border.  Immigrants' advocates contend that
many of these immigrants have a right to be free on bail until
their case is heard.

The case pits David Jennings, the field office director at U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement in California, against a legal
permanent resident, Alejandro Rodriguez, who came to the U.S. as a
child and worked as a dental assistant.

As a teenager, Mr. Rodriguez was convicted of joyriding, and at
24, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor possession of a controlled
substance.

In 2004, U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement began
deportation proceedings against Mr. Rodriguez.  He was ultimately
detained for three years without the right to appear before a
judge to ask for bond.

The American Civil Liberties Union took up Mr. Rodriguez's case.
The civil rights group filed a class action lawsuit and eventually
won his release and the cancellation of his deportation order.
Rodriguez remains in the United States.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the immigrant
detainees and asylum seekers can't be detained indefinitely and
that they have a right to a bond hearing every six months.  The
appellate court also held that in order to hold these detainees,
the government must show that the immigrants would pose a danger
or become a flight risk if set free.

The Obama administration appealed to the high court, insisting
that Congress -- not the courts -- has the power to make
immigration law and that the law allows the government to detain
"criminal and terrorist aliens" as well as "aliens seeking
admission to the United States."

The administration also argued that detained immigrants should not
be recognized as a class that could bring legal action. Lawyers
for the Justice Department said detainees should rely on
individual habeas corpus petitions to challenge their detentions.

The ACLU countered that few detainees have access to legal counsel
and that a backlog of such habeas corpus petitions almost
guarantees delays in winning release. [GN]


USF REDDAWAY: Court Certifies Class & Subclasses in Moss, et al.
----------------------------------------------------------------In
the lawsuit styled Robert Moss, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. USF
Reddaway, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-01541-JAK-FFM
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order:

   a. certifying a class of:

      "all California residents employed as truck drivers by
      Defendant in California who held California drivers'
      licenses, and who were paid, in whole or in part, on the
      basis of a certain amount per mile during the Class Period
      from June 30, 2011 up until the time the May 2016 MOU
      became effective";

   b. certifying these subclasses:

      Wage Statement and PAGA" subclass:

      "all Class members employed by Defendant from June 30,
      2014, through the time the May 2016 MOU became effective;
      and

      Waiting Time subclass:

      "all class members whose employment with Defendant ended
      between June 31, 2012, and the time the May 2016 MOU became
      effective".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dNWp4abx


VEIN CENTERS: Missouri Court Decertifies TCPA Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ST. LOUIS HEART CENTER, INC., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. vEIN
CENTERS FOR EXCELLENCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:12 CV 174 CDP
( E.D. Mo.), Judge Catherine D. Perry of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, Plaintiff
Heart Center, Inc. brought this action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), alleging that the Defendant, a
marketing firm that provides graphic design and other services to
doctors, sent junk faxes to Heart Center and thousands of others.

Judge Perry certified a class, with Heart Center as the named
representative, of all persons or entities who, between Jan. 15,
2008 and Sept. 15, 2009, were sent one or more telephone facsimile
messages by Westfax on behalf of Vein Centers that did not inform
the fax recipient both that (i) he or she may make a request to
the sender of the advertisement not to send any future facsimile
advertisements and that (ii) failure to comply with the request,
within 30 days, is unlawfulNotice was sent to potential class
members and one opt out was returned.  The Plaintiff then sought
summary judgment and statutory damages for 35,211 unsolicited fax
transmissions.  Judge Perry denied summary judgment because, based
on the evidence presented, no absent class member could prove that
they were sent a Vein Centers junk fax, as required by the class
definition.  Now, the Defendant seeks summary judgment, or
alternatively, class decertification because of the same lack of
proof of class membership.

Based on the Eighth Circuit's recent opinion discussing the
'ascertainability' requirement for class certification, McKeage v.
TMBC, LLC, and the fact that Heart Center provides no objective
criteria or common evidence for identifying potential class
members, the class in this case will be decertified.  Judge Perry
denied summary judgment, and this case will proceed to trial as to
the named Plaintiff only.

The counsel for the parties will meet and confer and file, no
later than July 20, 2017, a joint proposed schedule for all steps
remaining that are necessary to resolve this case, including
proposing several dates that both sides are available for trial
and stating the anticipated length of trial.  If the parties
cannot agree as to any matter, the disagreement must be set out
clearly in the joint proposal.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2017 memorandum and order
is available at https://is.gd/slJbmE from Leagle.com.

St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Phillip A.
Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- BOCK AND HATCH, LLC.

St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian J.
Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON AND WANCA, pro hac
vice, Max G. Margulis, MARGULIS LAW GROUP & Ryan M. Kelly --
rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON AND WANCA, pro hac vice.

Vein Centers for Excellence, Inc., Defendant, represented by Don
V. Kelly -- bshank@evans-dixon.com -- EVANS AND DIXON & Brian R.
Shank -- bshank@evans-dixon.com -- EVANS AND DIXON.


VISA INC: 9th Circuit Won't Reconsider Antitrust Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Kroh and Kat Greene, writing for Law360, report that the
Ninth Circuit on June 23 said it would not reconsider its May
decision in an antitrust suit against Visa finding that once a
suit has been removed to federal court, a proposed class can't
change it to sidestep the Class Action Fairness Act and send it
back to state court.

Circuit Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson was the only member of the
original three-judge panel who voted in favor of rethinking the
split decision.  No judge on the full Ninth Circuit panel voted in
favor of hearing the case en banc, according to the court's order.

The decision lets stand the majority's ruling that Broadway Grill
Inc. couldn't ship back to state court its proposed class action
alleging Visa Inc. violated California antitrust laws by placing
fixed rates on merchants who let customers pay with Visa-connected
credit and debit cards.  The panel determined the restaurant had
amended its suit to change the nature of its claims and to
override the requirements of CAFA.

After losing a bid to keep the suit out of federal court but
winning a chance at amendment, the restaurant changed its proposed
definition of a class to include citizens of California, rather
than anyone doing business in the Golden State, in a bid to limit
the class parameters enough to escape CAFA's preference for
federal court, according to the majority.

"The amendment in this case, however, did not provide an
explanation of the allegations, but changed the definition of the
class itself," the majority wrote. "We conclude such an amendment
is outside the exception recognized in Benko and thus cannot
affect the removability of the action."

The opinion referred to a 2015 Ninth Circuit decision in Benko v.
Quality Loan Services Corp., in which the court found an amended
complaint had sufficiently clarified the class definition to put
it back in the state court's hands. But the majority said Broadway
Grill's amendment was a bridge too far.

Judge Rawlinson, in a dissent, contended that the amendment in
fact hadn't changed the nature of the suit but clarified at a
federal standard the citizenship of the parties. In the state
court complaint, the citizenship of the class members had been
irrelevant, she wrote.

"The description of the class was defined more precisely without
in any way expanding or modifying the allegations underlying the
asserted cause of action," Judge Rawlinson wrote. "Our analysis in
Benko approves of just such an amendment, that clarifies
jurisdictional facts without altering the nature of the action."

Nancy L. Fineman -- nfineman@cpmlegal.com -- of Cotchett Pitre &
McCarthy LLP, who represents Broadway Grill, said she was
disappointed by the decision not to rehear the case.

"We thought there was more of a division in the Ninth Circuit,"
Mr. Fineman said.

She added she expected the case would be consolidated with ongoing
multidistrict litigation in a New York federal court.

A representative of Visa did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.

The underlying suit accuses Visa of setting fixed fees charged to
businesses each time a customer swipes a card for a purchase
instead of paying with cash, and that the company doesn't allow
the restaurant or other merchants to pass a portion of the fee
along to consumers, court records show.

The fees, called interchange fees, purportedly cover Visa's cost
of processing the transaction.

Broadway Grill is represented by Joseph W. Cotchett --
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- Nancy L. Fineman, Camilo Artiga-Purcell
-- cartigapurcell@cpmlegal.com -- and Brian Danitz --
bdanitz@cpmlegal.com -- of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

Visa is represented by Robert J. Vizas -- bob.vizas@apks.com --
Sharon D. Mayo -- sharon.mayo@apks.com -- and Matthew A.
Eisenstein -- matthew.eisenstein@apks.com -- of Arnold & Porter
Kaye Scholer LLP.

The case is Broadway Grill Inc. v. Visa Inc. et al., case number
17-15499, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
[GN]


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Law Firm Plans to File Airbag Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Whistleblower News Review reports that what do whistleblowers and
class actions have to do with one another? Until now, very little.
That is changing according to a recent announcement by noted
whistleblower attorney Brian Mahany.  He claims defective Takata
airbags have killed 13 people and seriously injured up to 200
others.

Takata pleaded guilty to criminal charges and is now insolvent
after being hit with almost $1 billion in fines.

Mr. Mahany says that the auto manufacturers share equal blame.
Recently he announced an investigation of Volkswagen and Audi. He
seeks both inside whistleblowers and owners of cars affected by
the recalled airbags.

According to records from the National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration, approximately 42 million cars have been
recalled because of potentially explosive airbags.

Drivers and front seat passengers in high heat and high humidity
areas are most at risk of explosions. (If you aren't sure if your
car is on the recall list or is even safe to drive, check the
NHTSA Takata Recall Database.)

One of the first people killed was a Texas teenager who died just
days after her high school graduation.  What should have been a
minor finder bender became fatal when a defective airbag actuator
made by Takata shot shrapnel into her neck.

Mr. Mahany says that instead of saving lives as they were
designed, Takata airbags can become lethal hand grenades.  Because
of problems with the propellant, some airbags explode with such
force that the metal canister breaks apart and sends metal shards
into the face and neck of front seat occupants.

To date, several automakers have resolved both individual injury
claims and class action claims filed on behalf of all owners of
the recalled vehicles.

Court records indicate Subaru has agreed to pay $68 million, Mazda
$75 million, BMW $131 million and Toyota $278 million. Honda has
settled claims but some of those settlements remain confidential.

Considering that 42 million cars have been recalled, Mr. Mahany
says that the automakers have got off too easy.

He and his firm are planning on filing a class action case against
Volkswagen and Audi.  "The first recalls began in 2008, yet just
in June Volkswagen admitted it is still making cars with the
dangerous Takata airbags," says Mr. Mahany.  "That pure lunacy, VW
seems more driven by profit rather than safety. Clearly they
didn't learn after the diesel emissions scandal," he added.

What makes his proposed class action different from the normal
class investigation is his search for whistleblowers.  Mr. Mahany
says he hopes to bring one of the first cases under the new Motor
Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Program.

That program pays whistleblowers -- motor vehicle company insiders
-- from 10% to 30% of any fines levied against the company.  For
example, if DOT fines a company $10 million, the whistleblower
would likely receive an award of between $1 and $3 million.

"Can you imagine if the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Program
was around when GM was fined $35 million in 2014 for bad ignition
switches. The whistleblower who stepped forward could have
received $10 million," said Mr. Mahany.

Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Program
The new Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Program ("MVSWP") was
passed by Congress in 2016.  Similar bills had been attempted in
prior years but either the whistleblower award language was
stripped or the bills died in the House. President Obama signed
the law last summer.

Whistleblower award programs have been around since the Civil War
but generally require a loss of government funds.  Common examples
are the federal False Claims Act and IRS Whistleblower Program.

The MVSWP is more akin to the relatively recent SEC whistleblower
program.  Awards are available even in the absence of a loss to
the government.

The new law applies to any cover up of defects "likely to cause
unreasonable risk of death or serious physical injury."  With
approximately 200 deaths and serious injuries, Takata airbags
likely qualify.

Workers at Takata can't participate as the company has already
been prosecuted and is now insolvent.  Whether it can be extended
to auto manufacturers that cover up defects remains to be seen.
Most whistleblower lawyers believe it can.

To qualify for an award, one must be an employee or contractor
working for an automaker or supplier.  You also must have original
("inside") information about a serious safety defect that was not
timely reported.

During the debates over the bill, several Congress members
discussed the Takata airbag crisis and why it took so long to
recall affected vehicles.  The Senate held its first hearing on
the airbags in November of 2014.

Many lawmakers hope the bill will encourage workers to come
forward more quickly.

Although the law was passed eight years after the Takata airbag
problem first became public, several automakers recently announced
that they were still using Takata airbags in new vehicles.

It wasn't until June 14, 2017 that Volkswagen announced it was
still selling new cars with Takata airbags. Those vehicles have
now all been recalled.

MVSWP Protects Against Retaliation
The new Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Program contains
important anti-retaliation provisions.  The law incorporates the
protections of the earlier Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act ("MAP-21").

Between the two laws, it is illegal for automakers, parts
suppliers or dealers to discriminate or punish workers who report
a defect, noncompliance or any violation of a motor vehicle defect
reporting obligation. Violations can result in reinstatement,
legal fees, damages and lost wages.

Another important feature of the new law is the anonymity offered
to whistleblowers.  Unless disclosure is required at a hearing,
DOT has pledged to keep the identities of whistleblowers secret.
Experts that will encourage more workers to step forward and
report.

Mr. Mahany echoes advocates' sentiment saying he believes that
people who died because of exploding Takata airbags might have
been spared. [GN]


VTECH ELECTRONICS: Ill. Court Dismisses Data Breach Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Manish S. Shah of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, dismissed without
prejudice the case captioned IN RE VTECH DATA BREACH LITIGATION,
Nos. 15 CV 10889, 15 CV 10891, 15 CV 11620, 15 CV 11885 (N.D.
Ill.), for failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiffs bought children's toys made by an affiliate of the
Defendant.  Those toys featured access to an online library of
educational software, games, and other content, and some provided
a communication platform through which parents and their children
could send each other messages.  Using those online features
required the submission of the Plaintiffs' personally identifiable
information, which was stored on servers operated by VTech.  Due
to VTech's inadequate security, a hacker was able to access those
servers and copied the Plaintiffs' data.  The Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of consumers and filed this suit alleging both
present and future harm resulting from the data breach and VTech's
response to that breach.  VTech moves to dismiss for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

To the extent that the Plaintiffs' claim is based on the breach of
the data security provisions, the Court finds that the exculpatory
provisions do not preclude recovery.  To the extent it is based on
the suspension of online services, the exculpatory provisions are
enforceable and VTech adequately disclaims liability.  Hence, the
motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the breach of
contract claim.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs may not plead the breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim in the
alternative to their breach of contract claim, because a breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing is a breach of contract.
The claim is therefore dismissed by the Court.

For the violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, the Plaintiffs' complaint makes only vague
references to VTech's marketing of the products, and does not
explicitly allege that they relied on that marketing.  That is
insufficient to establish an exception to the privity requirement,
the Court said.  As a result, the motion to dismiss is granted
with respect to the claim of breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability.

The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs do not allege any mention
of data security being made at the point of purchase or in any of
VTech's marketing or advertising efforts, and it is too much of a
stretch to infer that any representations of data security were
implicit when buying the product, or that VTech's inadequate data
security constitutes a material omission at the point of purchase.
Hence, their consumer-fraud claim is dismissed, and to the extent
this claim is based on representations of data security made in
the Privacy Policy, it duplicative of the breach of contract claim
and dismissed for that reason as well.

The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that VTech's data security
measures are still inadequate, and that VTech must undertake
certain steps to strengthen its data security and avoid future
injury.  As VTech notes, to the extent this claim seeks a remedy
for a present injury, it seeks the same relief as the Plaintiffs'
other claims.  And as explained, the complaint fails to state a
claim for breach of contract based on a breach of VTech's data
security obligations.  Therefore, the Court declined to declare
the adequacy of VTech's data security measures -- such a
declaration would not settle the legal relations between the
parties.

For these reasons, the Court dismissed the complaint without
prejudice for failure to state a claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/dlUmGR from Leagle.com.

Ken Tittle, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan F. Stephan, Stephan,
Zouras, LLP.

Ken Tittle, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew C. Ficzko, Stephan
Zouras, Llp, Christopher S. Hinton -- chinton@rosenlegal.com --
The Hinton Law Firm, pro hac vice, James B. Zouras, Stephan
Zouras, LLP, John A. Yanchunis, Morgan & Morgan, Complex
Litigation Group, Marisa K. Glassman, Morgan & Morgan Complex
Litigation Group, pro hac vice, Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice,
Steven W. Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A., Edward A. Wallace --
eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP & Matthew Todd Hurst -
- mhurst@shhllp.com -- Heffner Hurst.

Herber Bran, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis, Morgan &
Morgan, Complex Litigation Group, Marisa K. Glassman, Morgan &
Morgan Complex Litigation Group, pro hac vice, Steven W. Teppler,
Abbott Law Group, P.A. & Edward A. Wallace, Wexler Wallace LLP.

Fredy Giron, Plaintiff, represented by Amy N.L. Hanson --
ahanson@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback Llp, Cari C.
Laufenberg -- claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
Llp, Gretchen Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com --
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., John A. Yanchunis, Morgan & Morgan,
Complex Litigation Group, Marisa K. Glassman, Morgan & Morgan
Complex Litigation Group, pro hac vice, Steven W. Teppler, Abbott
Law Group, P.A. & Edward A. Wallace, Wexler Wallace LLP.

Jane Does 1-5, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis, Morgan
& Morgan, Complex Litigation Group, Marisa K. Glassman, Morgan &
Morgan Complex Litigation Group, pro hac vice, Steven W. Teppler,
Abbott Law Group, P.A. & Edward A. Wallace, Wexler Wallace LLP.

Mari Hawkins, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis, Morgan
& Morgan, Complex Litigation Group, Marisa K. Glassman, Morgan &
Morgan Complex Litigation Group, pro hac vice, Steven W. Teppler,
Abbott Law Group, P.A. & Edward A. Wallace, Wexler Wallace LLP.

Sharon Dashnau, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis,
Morgan & Morgan, Complex Litigation Group, Marisa K. Glassman,
Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, pro hac vice, Steven W.
Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A. & Edward A. Wallace, Wexler
Wallace LLP.

John Does 1-9, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis, Morgan
& Morgan, Complex Litigation Group, Marisa K. Glassman, Morgan &
Morgan Complex Litigation Group, pro hac vice, Steven W. Teppler,
Abbott Law Group, P.A. & Edward A. Wallace, Wexler Wallace LLP.

Sean Foyle, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis, Morgan &
Morgan, Complex Litigation Group, Marisa K. Glassman, Morgan &
Morgan Complex Litigation Group, pro hac vice, Steven W. Teppler,
Abbott Law Group, P.A. & Edward A. Wallace, Wexler Wallace LLP.

Dominique Reese, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis,
Morgan & Morgan, Complex Litigation Group, Marisa K. Glassman,
Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, pro hac vice, Steven W.
Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A. & Edward A. Wallace, Wexler
Wallace LLP.

VTech Electronics North America, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dockterman -- mdockterman@steptoe.com -- Steptoe &
Johnson LLP, James Richard Nuttall -- jnuttall@steptoe.com --
Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Jeremy Steven Goldkind --
jgoldkind@steptoe.com  -- Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Lauren Elizabeth
Jaffe, Steptoe & Johnson LLP & Michael A. Vatis --
mvatis@steptoe.com  -- Steptoe & Johnson LLP, pro hac vice.

Service List,, represented by Benjamin Scott Thomassen --
bthomassen@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C..

Justin Donnell, Movant, represented by Steven W. Teppler, Abbott
Law Group, P.A., Amy Elisabeth Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Edward A. Wallace, Wexler Wallace LLP, Gary E. Mason --
gmason@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP & Tyler J. Story
-- tjs@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP.


WESTERN POWER: Parkerville Fire Class Action to Goes to Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
WAtoday.com.au and Australian Associated Press report that a class
action over a fire that destroyed 57 homes in the Perth hills is
set to go to trial after mediation attempts failed.

The massive blaze in Parkerville started when a rotten and
termite-ridden private power pole fell over in January 2014.

The fire destroyed 57 homes and damaged dozens more.

Residents commenced legal action against the state government and
the elderly resident whose power pole fell over, after an
EnergySafety report found Western Power contractors had inspected
the rotten pole twice since July 2013.

"On 19 July 2013, six months prior to the fire, contractors
engaged by Western Power -- Thiess Services Pty Ltd -- conducted
works on the rotten pole, and inspected it, but did not detect
that it was extensively damaged by termites and fungal rot,"
Slater and Gordon lawyer Kevin Banks-Smith said at the time.

"Our clients allege Western Power had a responsibility to ensure
that it had adequate systems for the inspection, maintenance and
replacement of wooden poles in its electricity network."

Western Power, however, said when legal action first commenced in
2015 that it had adequate systems of inspection and maintenance in
place and that the pole that caused the blaze was privately owned
and not part of their network.

The matter will return to the Supreme Court on June 23 during
which Slater and Gordon, the law firm representing victims, will
ask for a trial date.

The legal firm has previously represented residents in Margaret
River class action against the state government after catastrophic
fires sparked by a prescribed burn destroyed 39 homes in 2011.
[GN]


WOODGRAIN MILLWORK: Henderson Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOHN RICHARD HENDERSON, Individually and
On Behalf of Similarly Situated Individuals, the Plaintiffs, V.
WOODGRAIN MILLWORK, INC. d/b/a WOODGRAIN DISTRIBUTION, the
Defendant, Case No 4:16-cv-01761 (S.D. Tex.), Mr. John Richard
Henderson seeks conditional certification of a collective action
consisting of:

   "all Delivery Drivers driving a local route employed by
    Woodgrain in the past 3 years who were not compensated for
    overtime".

Additionally, Henderson seeks a Court order adopting the following
schedule:

   10 Days from Order Approving Notice to Potential Class
   Members:

      Woodgrain to provide to Henderson's counsel in an Excel
      Spreadsheet the following information regarding all
      Delivery Drivers employed by Woodgrain in the last three
      years: Last Name, First Name, Last Known Address, City,
      State, Zip Code, Last Known E-Mail Address, Last Known
      Telephone Number, Beginning Date of Employment, and Ending
      Date of Employment (if any).

   20 Days from Order Approving Notice to Potential Class
   Members:

      Henderson's Counsel shall send a copy of the Court approved
      Notice and Consent Form to the Potential Class Members by
      regular First Class U.S. Mail and by e-mail.

   90 Days from Date Notice is Mailed to Potential Class Members:

      The Potential Class Members shall have 90 days to return
      their signed Consent forms to Henderson's counsel for
      filing with the Court.

   30 Days from Date Notice is Mailed to Potential Class Members:

      Henderson's Counsel is authorized to mail and e-mail a
      second identical copy of the notice/consent form to the
      Potential Class Members reminding them of the deadline for
      the submission of the Consent forms.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vherUF51

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM
          2537 S Gessner Rd., Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223 8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623 6399
          E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kimberly R. Miers, Esq.
          Russell R. Zimmerer, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2001 Ross Avenue
          Suite 1500, Lock Box 116
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 880 8100
          Facsimile: (214) 880 0181
          E-mail: kmiers@littler.com
                  rzimmerer@littler.com




                         *********


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  * * *