CAR_Public/170802.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, August 2, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 151



                            Headlines

1220 MANAGEMENT: "McGregor" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
1220 MANAGEMENT: Withheld Tips Claimed in "Keltz" Labor Suit
ABOVE THE REST: Unpaid Overtime Wages Sought in "Heiser" Suit
ADVANTAGECARE: Faces "Kiler" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AEROTEK INC: Ohio Court Adopts Report & Recommendation in "Moore"

AFFORDABLE SENIOR: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
ALABAMA: Court Explains Final Approval of "Braggs" Deal
ALBANY MOLECULAR: Faces "Eyre" Suit Over Carlyle Merger
ALLIANCE ENERGY: Ct. Conditionally Certifies Class in "Dearmond"
AMERICO FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses "Hancock" Without Prejudice

ANZ SECURITIES: Class Suit Face Tougher Road After Ruling
APPLE INC: Bid to Dismiss "Davidson" Suit Partly Granted
ARCONIC INC: Faces "Tripson" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
ARIZONA: Corrections Dept. Fails to Fix Health Care Issues
ASIMRAS LLC: "Troitino" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages

ATKINS NUTRITIONALS: Sued Over Misleading "Net Carbs" Claims
AUSTRALIA: Indonesian Cattle Cruelty Shown at Class Action Trial
AUSTRALIA: NT Cattlemen's Association Happy with Case Progress
AWP INC: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Luster"
BANK OF AMERICA: "Castillo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages

BAY OF PLENTY: Edgecumbe Flood Class Action Gains Supporters
BBC: Female Reporters Mull Class Action Over Gender Pay Gap
BEANOCCHIO OF YORK: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
BULL ROGERS: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Calvillo"

BURLINGTON COAT: Settlement in "Horosny" Gets Final Approval
CALIFORNIA: "Fire Tax" Class Action to Continue Despite Repeal
CANADA: Apology to N&L Residential School Survivors Long Overdue
CARE CAPITAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit
CESAR'S RESTAURANT: "Leyva" Seeks Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips

CHICAGO, IL: Agrees to Settle Red Light Tickets Class Action
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sept 18 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S: Court Dismisses "Durham" With Prejudice
CLASSIC PARKING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Lembeck" Suit Claims
CLOROX COMPANY: Faces Class Action for False Advertising

CLOROX COMPANY: "Gregorio" Alleges Product Mislabeling
COLLECTO INC: Jones Files Suit Over FDCPA Violations
COVISINT CORP: "Lai" Claims Shortchanged on Merger Deal
CREDIT CONTROL: "Evans" Hits Unjust Threat in Collection Letter
CSW INC: Bid to Invalidate Private Deals in "Morgan" Granted

DEMO MASTERS: Gregorio Sues Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
EXTENDED STAY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
FACEBOOK INC: Fights Data Security Class Action in EU Court
FCA US: Loses Bid to Deny Class Certification in "Victorino"
FLOYD COUNTY, IN: Proposed Class Action Deal Awaits Approval

FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Driveshaft Flexible Coupling
GALLERY AUTOMOTIVE: "Sullivan" Remanded to Mass. State Court
GENERAL MOTORS: "Pope" Hits Share Price Drop from Emissions Fraud
GREATBANC TRUST: "McMaken" Suit Asserts ERISA Breach
GOOD SHEPHERD: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Jones" Suit Alleges

HENKEL AG: Faces Class Action Over Check Rebates
IMG COLLEGE: Faces "Spielman" Over Athletes Compensation
INDIANA BMV: Agrees to Settle Class Action Suit For $33.6-Mil.
IDT CORPORATION: JDS1 Seeks to Invalidate Straight Path Sale
JAMES RAPP: Dismissal of Suit vs. County Court Judge Affirmed

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Seek Answers on Mesh Case Funds
KONG TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Certification in "Opperman" Suit
LA STANZA: Accused by Altamirano of Not Paying Min. and OT Wages
LURE GROUP: "Ferguson" Suit Seeks to Recover Withheld Tips
MASTERCARD: Freshfields Wins Success in Antitrust Class Action

MASTERCARD: Court Blocks $18-Bil. British Class Action
MERCEDES-BENZ: Sued in California Over Illegal Defeat Device
MONSANTO COMPANY: "Turner" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MURPHY OIL: Justices to Hear NLRB Class Action Waiver Cases
NANDU THONDAVADI: "Brown" Sues Over Share Price Drop

NINE WEST: Covell Files Suit Over Deceptive Sale Prices
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $49-Mil.
PANAGIA TINOS: "Pospoy" Seeks Spread-of-Hours, Overtime Pay
PERSHING LLC: Court Dismisses "Hemphill" Suit Without Prejudice
PJ OPS IDAHO: "Edwards" Suit Seeks Reimbursements, Overtime Pay

PRET A MANGER: Escobar Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime
PURDUE PHARMA: Settlement May Become Precursor to Gov't Lawsuits
SCRUB INC: Fails to Properly Pay Cabin Cleaners, Adames Alleges
SERVE U BRANDS: "Lusk" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages for Drivers
SILVER LINING: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Altier Claims

SKM RECYCLING: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Plant Fire
SOUTHERN GLAZER: Faces Class Action Over False & Misleading Info
SPOTIFY: Faces New Lawsuits Following Class Action Settlement
STATE FARM: Ordered to File Amended Notice of Removal in "Ayers"
STATE FARM: Faces "Martinez" Suit in Ill. Over Breach of Contract

T&R MARKET: Faces Class Action Over Tax Refund Anticipation Loans
TEXOLLINI INC: "Corrales" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT
THALES AVIONICS: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work
TREASURY WINE: Ruling Explores Class Closure Appropriateness
TURNER BROADCASTING: "Henley" Race Discrimination Suit Dismissed

U-HAUL: Hit With Class Action Over Breach of Contract
ULTA SALON: Court Approves $718K in Atty Fees, Costs in "Moore"
USAA CASUALTY: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in "Archuleta" OK'd
USAA CASUALTY: District Ct. Rulings vs. Attys in "Adams" Reversed
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Attorneys Get $125MM in Second Emission Settlement

WAL-MART STORES: Mo. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Corozzo" Suit
WELLS FARGO: Can Compel Arbitration in "Jeffries" Suit
WEST CHESTER: Court Dismisses "McCann" Suit with Prejudice
WEST CHESTER: Court Dismisses "Middendorf" Suit with Prejudice
XBIOTECH INC: "Rezko" Sues Over IPO Share Price Drop

YORK, ME: Court Denies Dismissal of "LeGrand" Suit
ZAYO GROUP: Zhirovetskiy Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometrics Data

* CFPB's Arbitration Rule Boon for Class Action Lawyers
* Consumers Receive $366MM More Via Litigation Than Arbitration
* FTC Issues 2nd Federal Register Notice on CA Programs Study
* Republicans Launch Challenge to CFPB Class Action Rule




                            *********



1220 MANAGEMENT: "McGregor" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen McGregor on her own behalf and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. 1220 Management Group, LLC, MH Employment Services,
LLC and Keith Menin, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
22481 (S.D. Fla., July 5, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages,
tip reimbursements, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs as well as a claim for retaliation for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a restaurant "Bodega" in Miami-Dade County,
Florida where Plaintiff worked as a bartender. McGregor was fired
allegedly for complaining about her withheld tips. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin R. Jackson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN JACKSON, PA
      136 Southeast, Third Avenue
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Phone: (954) 779-2272
      Email: kjackason@krjlaw.com


1220 MANAGEMENT: Withheld Tips Claimed in "Keltz" Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Keltz on her own behalf and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. 1220 Management Group, LLC, MH Employment Services,
LLC and Keith Menin, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
22486 (S.D. Fla., July 5, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages,
tip reimbursements, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs as well as a claim for retaliation pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a restaurant called "Bodega" in Miami-Dade
County, Florida where Plaintiff worked as a bartender. Keltz was
allegedly fired for complaining about her withheld tips. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin R. Jackson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN JACKSON, PA
      136 Southeast, Third Avenue
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Phone: (954) 779-2272
      Email: kjackason@krjlaw.com


ABOVE THE REST: Unpaid Overtime Wages Sought in "Heiser" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Heiser, Plaintiff, v. Above the Rest Appliance Repair, LLC,
and James Lengyel, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
04931 (D. N.J., July 5, 2017), is a collective action seeking
recovery of overtime hours due but not properly compensated,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey
State Wage and Hour Law.

Defendants own and/or maintain an appliance repair company in
Netcong, Morris County, New Jersey where Heiser is employed by
Defendants as a full time appliance repair man. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
             AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com


ADVANTAGECARE: Faces "Kiler" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marion Kiler, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Advantagecare Physicians, P.C., Case No. 156389/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., July 14, 2017), seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights
violations committed by the Defendant, against the blind in New
York State, specifically by denying blind individuals throughout
New York State equal access to the goods and services
Advantagecare Physicians provides to their non-disabled customers
through http://www.acpny.com/.
Advantagecare Physicians, P.C. operates a medical clinic located
at 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


AEROTEK INC: Ohio Court Adopts Report & Recommendation in "Moore"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EBONY MOORE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AEROTEK, INC.,
Defendant, AND JOSE RUBIO-DELGADO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AEROTEK, INC.,
Defendant, Case Nos. 2:15-cv-2701, 2:16-cv-1066 (S.D. Ohio), Judge
George C. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, adopted and affirmed the
Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge
on June 30, 2017, recommending the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative
Service Awards be granted.

The parties were specifically advised of their right to object to
the Report and Recommendation and of the consequences of their
failure to do so.  There has nevertheless been no objection to the
Report and Recommendation.

Judge Smith adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge for
approval of the settlement amount of $15,000,000, and of Class
Counsel's application for Attorneys' fees and costs in the amount
of $5,069,964.27, and for Class Representative Awards of $5,000
each to Plaintiffs Moore and Rubio-Delgado and $3,000 each to
Plaintiffs Hubbard and Burgess.  Further, an amount not to exceed
$856,849.87 is authorized to cover the Settlement Administrator's
fees and costs.  The amounts are to be deducted from the
settlement funds as set forth in detail in the Settlement
Agreement.

The Clerk is directed to remove Documents 30, 33, and 39 in Case
No. 2:15-cv-2701 and Documents 104, 114, and 120 in Case No. 2:16-
cv-1066 from the Court's pending motions list; and enter final
judgment in the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/QPuh6J from Leagle.com.

Ebony R. Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew A. Dooley --
mdooley@omdplaw.com -- O'Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora, Co.
LPA.

Ebony R. Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony R. Pecora --
apecora@omdplaw.com -- O'Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora, Co.
LPA,

Eleanor Michelle Drake -- emdrake@bm.net -- Berger & Montague &
Joseph C. Hashmall, Berger & Montague.

Aerotek, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chad J. Kaldor --
ckaldor@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Alison S. Hightower --
ahightower@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C., pro hac vice.


AFFORDABLE SENIOR: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alla Nesterenko, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Affordable Senior Care Inc., Case No.
156367/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 14, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, "spread of hours" compensation, reimbursement for
business expenses borne for the benefit and convenience of the
Defendant.

Affordable Senior Care Inc. is primarily engaged in providing
nursing and home health aide services at the residences of its
clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
      Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
              llusher@vandallp.com


ALABAMA: Court Explains Final Approval of "Braggs" Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EDWARD BRAGGS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 2:14cv601-MHT (M.D. Ala.), Judge Myron H. Thompson of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama,
Northern Division, explained the Court's reasons for granting
final approval of the proposed phase 2A ADA settlement agreement
and granted the parties' request that their settlement agreement
be entered as a consent decree.

The individual Plaintiffs in Phase 2A of this lawsuit are
prisoners with serious mental illnesses in the custody of the
Defendants.  The Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program ("ADAP"),
Alabama's protection and advocacy organization for people with
disabilities, is also a Plaintiff.

In this phase, the Plaintiffs assert the claim that the Department
is in violation of two statutes: Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA").  They claim that systemic deficiencies
within the Department result in discrimination against, and the
Department's failure to accommodate, prisoners with mental
disabilities.  Following months of negotiations, the parties have
settled these contentions.

This case has twice been bifurcated for administrative convenience
of the court and the parties.  In September 2015, this case was
divided into two distinct phases, with the first phase, Phase 1,
involving ADA claims unrelated to mental health and the second
phase involving all other claims.  Then, in September 2016, Phase
2 of this case was further bifurcated into Phase 2A, encompassing
an Eighth Amendment claim related to the treatment of prisoners
with mental illness, involuntary-medication claims, and an ADA
claim of prisoners with only mental disabilities; and Phase 2B,
involving Eighth Amendment claims related to medical and dental
care.

The parties reached a settlement of the Plaintiffs' Phase 1 ADA
claims for prisoners with physical disabilities.  After an
exhaustive approval process, the Court approved the Phase 1
settlement agreement, which resulted in a consent decree.

During the Phase 2A trial, the parties, with the able assistance
of United States Magistrate Judge John E. Ott of the U.S. District
Court for Northern District of Alabama, reached a settlement of
the remainder of the Plaintiffs' ADA claims: the Phase 2A ADA
claim now before the Court concerning prisoners with only mental
disabilities.  After a hearing, the Court preliminarily approved
the proposed Phase 2A ADA settlement agreement.

After the hearing, the Court entered an order granting final
approval of the proposed phase 2A ADA settlement agreement and
granted the parties' request that their settlement agreement be
entered as a consent decree.

Broadly speaking, the agreement does two things: (i) it applies
the provisions of the Phase 1 ADA settlement agreement to
prisoners with only mental disabilities; and (ii) it requires the
Department to administer an adaptive-behavior and life-skills
course for mentally disabled inmates.

The Department will (i) enroll appropriately identified prisoners
into an adaptive-behavior and life-skills training program within
six months of identification; (ii) attempt to minimize the
transfer of prisoners while they are enrolled in the adaptive-
behavior and life-skills training program; and (iii) provide an
initial adaptive-behavior and life-skills training program that
includes 22 hours of instruction, not to exceed 90 minutes per
class.

In addition to these substantive provisions, the settlement
agreement contains the following implementation provisions, which
were also included in the Phase 1 consent decree:

     a. ADAP will monitor the Department's compliance with the
consent decree, and will be entitled to access relevant documents
and to conduct interviews with prisoners and staff.

     b. Both the Named Plaintiffs and unnamed class members
(either with or without representation by class counsel) must
arbitrate claims that the Department is not in compliance with the
consent decree.

     c. After five years, the Department may request termination
of the consent decree, which will terminate after six years unless
plaintiffs request, and the court grants, an extension.

     d. The parties may mutually amend the agreement.  The parties
agree to re-evaluate deadlines in the transition plan if Alabama
passes legislation to construct new prison facilities.

     e. The Department will make good-faith efforts to obtain
necessary funding to comply with the agreement.

     f. Finally, the agreement states that the Department will pay
Plaintiffs' attorneys $250,000 in fees and costs, as well as
additional fees of $195 per hour (subject to caps) for monitoring
services, and fees for any litigation necessary to enforce the
resulting consent decree.

Additionally, as in Phase 1, the parties agreed that no part of
the agreement applies to death-row prisoners.

Finally, the agreement is predicated on -- and the Defendants
consent to -- the certification of a settlement class consisting
of any current or future inmate in the physical custody of ADOC
who has a disability as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 12102 and 29
U.S.C. Section 705(9)(B) relating to or arising from mental
disease, illness, or defect.  The Court found class certification
and final approval of the agreement appropriate.

Judge Thompson explained that as was the case during Phase 1, the
parties' settlement of the Phase 2A ADA claim reflects the Alabama
Department of Corrections' commitment to making manifest the
rights of disabled prisoners in its custody; it represents the
shouldering of significant responsibility, and presents an equally
significant opportunity, by delineating a years' long process of
Censuring compliance with the dictates of federal disability law.
The Court understands the Department's investment in this process
to be genuine, and commends it for it.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ZIvo2h from Leagle.com.

Edward Braggs, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh --
awalsh@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz PC.

Edward Braggs, Plaintiff, represented by Brooke Menschel, Southern
Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard, Southern Poverty Law
Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice,
Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette
McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria V. Morris, Southern
Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law
Center, pro hac vice, Patricia Clotfelter --
pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty Law Center,
William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell
& Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities
Advocacy Program.

Tedrick Brooks, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh,
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke Menschel,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice,
Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette
McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria V. Morris, Southern
Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law
Center, pro hac vice, Patricia Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman
Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty
Law Center, William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama
Disabilities Advocacy Program.

Gary Lee Broyles, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh,
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke Menschel,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice,
Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette
McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria V. Morris, Southern
Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law
Center, pro hac vice, Patricia Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman
Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty
Law Center, William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama
Disabilities Advocacy Program.

Chandler Clements, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh,
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke Menschel,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice,
Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette
McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria V. Morris, Southern
Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law
Center, pro hac vice, Patricia Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman
Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty
Law Center, William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama
Disabilities Advocacy Program.

Christopher Gilbert, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip
Walsh, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke
Menschel, Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law
Center, pro hac vice, Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law
Center, Latasha Lanette McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center,
Maria V. Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl
Haskell, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Patricia
Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda
C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty Law Center, William Glassell
Somerville, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz &
William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program.

Dwight Hagood, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh,
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke Menschel,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice,
Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette
McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria V. Morris, Southern

Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law
Center, pro hac vice, Patricia Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman
Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty
Law Center, William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama
Disabilities Advocacy Program.

Sylvester Hartley, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh,
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke Menschel,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice,
Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette
McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria V. Morris, Southern
Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law
Center, pro hac vice, Patricia Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman
Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty
Law Center, William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama
Disabilities Advocacy Program.

Christopher Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip
Walsh, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke
Menschel, Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law
Center, pro hac vice, Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law
Center, Latasha Lanette McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center,
Maria V. Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl
Haskell, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Patricia
Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda
C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty Law Center, William Glassell
Somerville, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz &
William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program.

Brandon Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh,
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke Menschel,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice,
Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette
McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria V. Morris, Southern
Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law
Center, pro hac vice, Patricia Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman
Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty
Law Center, William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama
Disabilities Advocacy Program.

Alabama Department of Corrections, Defendant, represented by David
Randall Boyd -- dboyd@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, John W.
Naramore -- jnaramore@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, John
Garland Smith -- jgsmith@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, Anne
Adams Hill, Alabama Department of Corrections, Elizabeth Anne
Sees, Alabama Department of Corrections, Joseph Gordon Stewart,
Jr., Alabama Dept of Corrections, Steven C. Corhern --
scorhern@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham & William Richard Lunsford -
- lpotter@maynardcooper.com.

Ruth Naglich, Defendant, represented by Anne Adams Hill, Alabama
Department of Corrections, David Randall Boyd, Balch & Bingham
LLP, Elizabeth Anne Sees, Alabama Department of Corrections, Evan
Patrick Moltz -- rbennett@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper &
Gale, P.C., John Garland Smith, Balch & Bingham LLP, Joseph Gordon
Stewart, Jr., Alabama Dept of Corrections, Luther Maxwell Dorr,
Jr. -- rdorr@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C.,
Matthew Reeves -- mreeves@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper &
Gale PC, Mitesh Bansilal Shah -- mshah@maynardcooper.com --
Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC, Steven C. Corhern, Balch & Bingham,
William Richard Lunsford, Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, Melissa K.
Marler -- mmarler@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale PC,
Michael Paul Huff -- mhuff@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper &
Gale PC & Stephen Clarence Rogers -- srogers@maynardcooper.com --
Maynard Cooper and Gale PC.

Jefferson S. Dunn, Defendant, represented by Anne Adams Hill,
Alabama Department of Corrections, David Randall Boyd, Balch &
Bingham LLP, Elizabeth Anne Sees, Alabama Department of
Corrections, Evan Patrick Moltz, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C.,
John Garland Smith, Balch & Bingham LLP, Joseph Gordon Stewart,
Jr., Alabama Dept of Corrections, Luther Maxwell Dorr, Jr.,
Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Matthew Reeves, Maynard Cooper &
Gale PC, Mitesh Bansilal Shah, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC, Steven
C. Corhern, Balch & Bingham, William Richard Lunsford, Maynard
Cooper & Gale PC, Melissa K. Marler, Maynard, Cooper & Gale PC,
Michael Paul Huff, Maynard Cooper & Gale PC & Stephen Clarence
Rogers, Maynard Cooper and Gale PC.

MHM Correctional Services, Inc., Movant, represented by Brett T.
Lane -- djohnson@mhm-services.com -- MHM Services, Inc. & Deana
Johnson, MHM Services, Inc., pro hac vice.

Corizon Health, Inc., Movant, represented by Melissa K. Marler,
Maynard, Cooper & Gale PC, Stephen Clarence Rogers, Maynard Cooper
and Gale PC & William Richard Lunsford, Maynard Cooper & Gale PC.

Kim Thomas, Movant, represented by Evan Patrick Moltz, Maynard,
Cooper & Gale, P.C., Melissa K. Marler, Maynard, Cooper & Gale PC,
Mitesh Bansilal Shah, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC, Stephen Clarence
Rogers, Maynard Cooper and Gale PC & William Richard Lunsford,
Maynard Cooper & Gale PC.


ALBANY MOLECULAR: Faces "Eyre" Suit Over Carlyle Merger
------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL EYRE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ALBANY MOLECULAR RESEARCH INC., THOMAS E. D'AMBRA,
PH.D, WILLIAM S. MARTH, DAVID H. DEMING, GERARDO GUTIERREZ
FUENTES, KENNETH P. HAGEN, ANTHONY J. MADDALUNA, FERNANDO
NAPOLITANO, AND KEVIN O'CONNOR, Case No. 1:17-cv-00932-UNA (D.
Del., July 11, 2017), is brought on behalf the public holders of
the common stock of Albany arising from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with the proposed merger between Albany and affiliates of The
Carlyle Group and affiliates of GTCR.

On June 5, 2017, the Company's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to
which each share of common stock of Albany will be converted into
the right to receive $21.75 in cash.

Albany is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal
executive offices at in Albany, New York.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Albany is a contract research and manufacturing company that
provides drug discovery, development, and manufacturing services.
The Company supplies a range of services and technologies
supporting the discovery and development of pharmaceutical
products, the manufacturing of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients
and drug product for new and generic drugs, as well as research,
development and manufacturing for the agrochemical and other
industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Ave., 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com

ALLIANCE ENERGY: Ct. Conditionally Certifies Class in "Dearmond"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lance M. Africk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification in the case captioned DAVID DEARMOND, v.
ALLIANCE ENERGY SERVICES, LLC. SECTION I, Civil Action No. 17-2222
(E.D. La.).

At the outset, the Court observes that Alliance concedes that it
failed to comply with the FLSA in at least some regards.  As
Alliance's own general counsel admits, hourly employees working on
jobs where the Alliance customer did not allow Alliance to charge
time for safety meetings were not paid for those safety meetings.
So, given that concession, Alliance really does not have an
argument that the policy or practice is purely personal to the
Plaintiff.

Instead, what Alliance tries to argue is that (i) the policy or
practice is not widespread enough to justify a collective action;
(ii) Alliance's effectuation of a DOL supervised settlement, which
included the mailing of checks to supposedly cure any payroll
deficiencies, means that there are no longer any potential class
members other than the Named Plaintiff; and (iii) Alliance's
unaccepted offer of judgment moots the case.

The Court held those arguments fail. First, the mere fact that the
policy or practice may not have affected every employee at
Alliance is not enough, at the conditional certification stage, to
bar conditional certification.  Second, Alliance cannot rely on
the fact that two of the present opt-in Plaintiffs cashed checks
sent to them by Alliance to establish that the Named Plaintiff is
the only individual with a remaining claim.  Third, the unaccepted
offer of judgment provided by the Defendant does not moot the
case.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied his
limited burden at the conditional certification stage, and this
case should proceed through discovery as a collective action.

Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification.  The Court conditionally certifies this
matter as a collective action with respect to all current and
former hourly paid offshore employees who attended a safety
meeting who worked for the Defendant at any location throughout
the United States from three years prior to the date of this order
to the present.

The Defendant will provide counsel for the Plaintiff with the
class list within 10 days of the date of the Order.  The
Plaintiff's counsel will mail a copy of the "notice of rights" and
"consent form" attached to their motion via regular U.S. Mail and
via electronic mail to all persons contained on the class list
within ten days of receiving the class list.  Simultaneous with
the first mailing, the Plaintiff's counsel will send a text
message to the class members with a link to the notice of rights
and consent form.  Thirty days after the first mailing, the
Plaintiff's counsel will send a reminder notice to all class
members who have not opted into this case.  The class members will
also be given the option to execute their consent forms
electronically online.  All consent forms will be returned to the
Plaintiff's counsel, who in turn will be responsible for filing
them with the Court.

The class members will have 60 days from the date of the mailing
of the notice to file their notice of consent opting-in to this
lawsuit as Plaintiffs, unless good cause is shown to merit
extending the deadline.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order and reasons is
available at https://is.gd/uNEYVt from Leagle.com.

David DeArmond, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Broussard Landry,
III, Robert B. Landry, III, PLC.

David DeArmond, Plaintiff, represented by Beatriz Sosa Morris,
Sosa Morris Neuman Attorneys at Law, pro hac vice & John Anthony
Neuman, Sosa Morris Neuman Attorneys at Law, pro hac vice.

Tyrel Credeur, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Broussard Landry,
III, Robert B. Landry, III, PLC, Beatriz Sosa Morris, Sosa Morris
Neuman Attorneys at Law, pro hac vice & John Anthony Neuman, Sosa
Morris Neuman Attorneys at Law, pro hac vice.

Dustin Nichol, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Broussard Landry,
III, Robert B. Landry, III, PLC, Beatriz Sosa Morris, Sosa Morris
Neuman Attorneys at Law, pro hac vice & John Anthony Neuman, Sosa
Morris Neuman Attorneys at Law, pro hac vice.

Alliance Energy Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jean-Paul
Layrisson, Scandurro & Layrisson, L.L.C., Krista M. Eleew,
Scandurro & Layrisson, L.L.C. & Timothy D. Scandurro, Scandurro &
Layrisson, L.L.C..


AMERICO FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses "Hancock" Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division, granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned WILLIAM T.
HANCOCK, SR., Individually and in a representative capacity on
behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
AMERICO FINANCIAL LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, INVESTORS
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, and AMERICO LIFE, INC.,
Defendants, No. 7:16-CV-350-FL (E.D. N.C.) for failure to state a
claim.

The Plaintiff commenced this action on Oct. 14, 2016, asserting
claims against the Defendants arising from the sale by Defendant
Investors Life of a policy of life insurance to him in February
1985, policy number 303 1163280, and collection of premiums
thereunder through October 2013.  The Plaintiff claims that
Defendant Investors Life, in conjunction with the other Defendants
who are allegedly affiliated entities, breached the terms of the
policy.  He asserts claims for breach of contract; declaration and
injunction; equitable rescission; unjust enrichment and
constructive trust; fraudulent suppression and concealment; fraud;
breach of duties of good faith and fair dealing; unfair and
deceptive trade practices; and violations of North Carolina's
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") act.  He
seeks compensatory and punitive damages and certification of the
case as a class action on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated.

The Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss on Dec. 9,
2016.  The Court stayed scheduling activities pending decision on
the motion.  The Plaintiff responded in opposition to the instant
motion on Jan. 20, 2017, and the Defendants replied on Feb. 3,
2017.

The Defendant seeks dismissal of the Plaintiff's tort claims on
the basis that they are not distinct from breach of contract, and
on the basis that the Plaintiff has failed to plead them with the
requisite specificity, among other grounds.  Judge Flanagan agrees
as to both grounds for dismissal and thus need not reach the
additional grounds raised by the Defendants.

Judge Flanagan explained that the Plaintiff's tort claims are
based upon the alleged concealment by the Defendants of certain
facts concerning the operation of the policy.  These alleged acts
of concealment, however, are premised upon the terms contained in
the policy and the interpretation of those terms.  Whether or not
the policy permitted the Defendants to undertake the actions
allegedly concealed is a matter of interpretation of the terms of
the policy, which must be relegated to the arena of contract law.
In this manner, all of the Plaintiff's tort claims are an attempt
to refashion alleged breaches of the policy into torts.  In
addition, to the extent the Plaintiff asserts concealment or
misrepresentation outside the policy, he has not pleaded with the
requisite particularity the asserted acts of concealment or
misrepresentation forming the basis for his tort claims.  In sum,
the Plaintiff's tort claims fail as a matter of law and must be
dismissed.

For these reasons, Judge Flanagan granted the Defendant's motion
to dismiss and the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6.  He
directed the clerk to close this case.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/K5dLh0 from Leagle.com.

William T. Hancock, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by H. Forest
Horne, Jr., Martin & Jones, PLLC.

William T. Hancock, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Karl Joseph
Amelchenko, Martin & Jones, PLLC & John Alan Jones, Martin &
Jones, PLLC.

Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Carl C. Scherz -- cscherz@lockelord.com -- Locke
Lord LLP, Debbie Weston Harden -- dharden@wcsr.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Jackson R. Price --
japrice@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Meredith
J. McKee, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Roger B. Cowie --
rcowie@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP & Taylor F. Brinkman, Locke
Lord LLP.

Investors Life Insurance Company of North America, Defendant,
represented by Debbie Weston Harden, Womble Carlyle Sandridge &
Rice, LLP, Jackson R. Price, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP,
Meredith J. McKee, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Roger B.
Cowie, Locke Lord LLP & Taylor F. Brinkman, Locke Lord LLP.

Americo Life, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carl C. Scherz,
Locke Lord LLP, Debbie Weston Harden, Womble Carlyle Sandridge &
Rice, LLP, Jackson R. Price, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP,
Meredith J. McKee, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Roger B.
Cowie, Locke Lord LLP & Taylor F. Brinkman, Locke Lord LLP.


ANZ SECURITIES: Class Suit Face Tougher Road After Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
class-action lawsuits, an important tool for public pension funds
and other investors to address perceived wrongs, could become less
viable options following a Supreme Court ruling and new positions
from the departments of Labor and Justice.

One of the biggest game changers came June 26, when the Supreme
Court ruled 5-4 against the $323.6 billion California Public
Employees' Retirement System, Sacramento, in a case challenging
the amount of time investors have to decide whether to opt out of
securities class-action lawsuits and pursue their cases alone.

Instead of having a class complaint serve to "toll," or suspend,
the statute of limitations for opting out to file individual
claims, as CalPERS had argued, the Supreme Court opinion said the
law "in clear terms" bars any action more than three years after
the securities offering.

The CalPERS decision "did change things," said attorney
David Wertheimer -- david.wertheimer@hoganlovells.com -- a New
York-based partner at Hogan Lovells LLP, who represents public
company defendants in securities class actions. "It likely changed
the mindset of institutional investors, who are now evaluating
their claims."

The issue was pivotal enough to prompt an amicus brief from an
international group of 75 pension funds and other institutional
investors with a collective $4 trillion in assets,  including the
National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems, state
and municipal U.S. pension funds, and large overseas investors
such as the $468 billion APG Asset Management, $351 billion Aegon
Asset Management and $210 billion PGGM Investments in the
Netherlands.

Blair A. Nicholas, San Diego-based managing partner at Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, who filed the group's brief, said
the tolling issue "is extremely important for efficiency and
resource purposes."

1974 precedent

Until 2013, investors relied on a 1974 Supreme Court decision in
American Pipe & Construction Co. vs. Utah, which held that the
commencement of a securities class action preserves the timeliness
of individual claims while a court decides whether to grant class-
action status.

That changed in 2013 when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled in Police & Fire Retirement System vs. IndyMac MBS Inc. that
the American Pipe decision applies only to the statute of
limitations and not to the statute governing repose, which creates
an absolute three-year deadline for filing an action.

In a dissenting opinion in the CalPERS case, Supreme Court Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited the pension fund's argument that the 5-4
decision could "gum up the works of class litigation" by giving
defendants an incentive to slow walk pre-certification proceedings
until the clock runs out on potential opt-outs.

CalPERS spokeswoman Megan White said the ruling, while
disappointing, "reiterates the importance of remaining vigilant"
about future securities class-action cases and deciding whether to
opt out.

Mr. Wertheimer cited one study from NERA Economic Consulting that
showed the median time for class certification decisions to be
made is 2.5 years after cases are filed, which leaves little time
under the new three-year deadline.

"That statistic suggests that people are going to have to make
tactical decisions much earlier.  They will not have the luxury of
deciding later," he said.  NERA also found that a record 300
securities class actions were initiated in 2016, a 32% increase
over 2015.

Hogan Lovells partner Christopher Pickens --
christopher.pickens@hoganlovells.com -- noted there are pending
cases that will soon be coming up against the three-year statute
of repose, "and you have to start making those decisions today.  I
expect those discussions are now being had at plaintiffs' firms."

Jeff Mahoney, general counsel for the Council of Institutional
Investors in Washington, whose general members have a combined $3
trillion in assets, noted that while pension funds are often
passive investors without a direct case, "they are going to have
think about establishing new procedures with respect to their
oversight of class-action litigation within three years of a
securities offering to protect their right to opt out and pursue
an individual case."

Going it alone "could be a good idea" if there is a potentially
larger recovery, he said.  "The bottom line is, it's going to take
more effort."

The Supreme Court will address class actions in at least two more
cases involving public pension funds when members start their new
term this fall.

Disclosure issues

On the question of whether an issuer's duty to disclosure certain
information allows for class-action lawsuits, Leidos Inc. is
challenging a decision in favor of the $31 billion Indiana Public
Retirement System, Indianapolis.  At issue is the Securities and
Exchange Commission's regulation S-K, which requires companies to
disclose "any known trends or any known demands, commitments,
events or uncertainties that will result in or that are reasonably
likely to result in the registrant's liquidity increasing or
decreasing in any material way."

Leidos petitioned the Supreme Court to decide whether that duty to
disclose allows shareholders to file lawsuits under Section 10(b),
the antifraud provision of the Securities and Exchange Act.

"It is an interesting case with a lot of ramifications," said
Mr. Wertheimer of Hogan Lovells.  "There are a lot of issues that
could be swept up by the court's recognition of a disclosure duty.
(Such a decision) has the potential for public companies to be
second-guessed by the plaintiffs' bar."

In Cyan Inc. vs. Beaver County (Pa.) Employees Retirement Fund,
the Supreme Court will consider whether state courts can hear some
investor lawsuits, revisiting a 1998 securities law that limits
jurisdiction of state courts in certain securities violations.

After purchasing Cyan stock, the $277 million pension fund claimed
that documentation in the initial public offering allegedly
included altered and misleading statements.

A California appeals court ruled that state courts do have
jurisdiction, and the U.S. solicitor general's amicus brief urged
the Supreme Court to resolve an issue "that has generated
confusion in lower courts."

The CalPERS vs. Anz Securities Inc. decision may increase the
number of opt-outs in federal securities class-action cases,
including some filed in state courts.  And, in the case of foreign
securities litigation, "state courts have become a potential venue
for pension plans," said Mr. Mahoney of CII, in light of a 2010
Supreme Court decision in Morrison vs. National Australia Bank
Ltd. that U.S. law against securities fraud does not apply to
certain foreign-issued securities.

The federal government's position on class-action lawsuits is in a
state of flux as well.

In a brief filed on July 3 in a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
challenge to the Labor Department's new fiduciary rule, the
Justice Department on behalf of the DOL argued that the rule
should be upheld except for the part allowing class actions
against financial advisers.  Government lawyers said they would
not defend the provision that allows investors to file class-
action suits against financial advisers who violate the rule's
best-interest standard.

Not as significant

Kent Mason, a partner with Davis & Harman LLP who represents
several major financial institutions, points out that the
government decision to not defend the provision is not as
significant as it might seem because the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority precludes broker-dealers from requiring
clients to waive the right to pursue class actions. To avoid
creating new class actions, Mr. Mason said, the Department of
Labor would need to eliminate the fiduciary rule's best-interest
contract requirement.

In June, the Justice Department also reversed its position on
banning class actions in workplace arbitration agreements.  In an
amicus brief to the Supreme Court, acting Solicitor General
Jeffrey Wall said the department "reconsidered the issue and has
reached the opposite conclusion" from one taken by the department
during the Obama administration. [GN]


APPLE INC: Bid to Dismiss "Davidson" Suit Partly Granted
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case
captioned THOMAS DAVIDSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-4942-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

On Aug. 27, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint against the Defendant that alleged causes of action
under (i) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (ii) Unfair
Competition Law; (iii) False Advertisement Law; (iv) common law
fraud; (v) negligent misrepresentation; (vi) unjust enrichment;
(vii) breach of implied warranty; (viii) violation of the
Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act ("Magnusson-Moss Act"); and (ix)
violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

On Oct. 7, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint that added several named Plaintiffs and added causes of
action under the consumer fraud statutes of Illinois, New Jersey,
Florida, Connecticut, Texas, Colorado, Michigan, New York, and
Washington.  On Dec. 2, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Class Action Complaint ("SACC"), which added a Utah
Plaintiff and a cause of action under Utah's consumer fraud
statute.  They sought to represent a Nationwide Class of all
persons or entities in the United States that purchased an Apple
iPhone 6 or 6 Plus.  Alternatively, they sought to represent state
sub-classes.

On Jan. 6, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the SACC.
On Feb. 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition.  On Feb. 17,
2017, the Defendant filed a Reply.  On March 14, 2017, the Court
dismissed all 10 of the selected claims with leave to amend.  On
March 21, 2017, in response to the Court's order, the parties
filed an amended joint list of causes of action to litigate for
purposes of the second round motions to dismiss.  The Plaintiffs
elected to litigate their common law breach of warranty claims
under Illinois law.  The Defendant elected to litigate its common
law fraud claim under Pennsylvania law.

On April 4, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint ("TACC"), alleging violations of various state
consumer fraud statutes, common law fraud, and breach of express
and implied warranty.

On April 18, 2017, Apple moved to dismiss the TACC.  On May 16,
2017, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition.  On June 6, 2017, Apple
filed a reply.

The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the TACC.  The Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' requests for injunctive relief is granted with
prejudice as to Plaintiffs Davidson, Borzymowski, Muilenburg,
Petty, Bon, Corbett, and Pajaro, and denied as to Plaintiffs
Brown, Baker, Cleary, Benelhachemi, Bauer, and Heirloom Estate
Services.  The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act; Washington Consumer Protection Act; Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act; Colorado Consumer Protection Act; and common
law fraud claims is granted with prejudice to the extent that
these claims are premised on an affirmative misrepresentation
theory.  The Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act; Washington Consumer Protection Act;
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Colorado Consumer Protection Act;
and common law fraud claims to the extent that these claims are
premised on a fraudulent omissions theory.  However, it granted
with prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims for fraud under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and
Pennsylvania common law.  The Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claim for breach of express warranty under Illinois
law is granted with prejudice.  The Court also granted with
prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim
for breach of implied warranty under Illinois law.  It granted
with prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Magnusson-Moss Act claim based on the Plaintiffs' express and
implied warranty claims under Illinois law.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/Lu7Bsu from Leagle.com.

Thomas Davidson, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman,
Greg Coleman Law PC.

Thomas Davidson, Plaintiff, represented by David Christopher
Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Joseph G. Sauder,
McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY
CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry
LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo,
LLP.

Todd Cleary, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg
Coleman Law PC, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo,
LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell
M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly,
Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune,
Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

Jun Bai, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg
Coleman Law PC, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo,
LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell
M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly,
Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune,
Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

William Bon, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg
Coleman Law PC, Stephen Gerard Larson, Larson O'Brien LLP, David
Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Joseph G. Sauder,
McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY
CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry
LLC, pro hac vice, Richard Christian Harlan, Sidley Austin LLP &
Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

Adam Benelhachemi, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman,
Greg Coleman Law PC, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright
Arevalo, LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice,
Mitchell M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul
J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D.
McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

Brooke Corbett, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg
Coleman Law PC, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo,
LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell
M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly,
Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune,
Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

Matt Muilenburg, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman,
Greg Coleman Law PC, Stephen Gerard Larson, Larson O'Brien LLP,
David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Joseph G.
Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit,
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly, Jr.,
Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice, Richard Christian Harlan,
Sidley Austin LLP & Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo,
LLP.

Kathleen Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg
Coleman Law PC, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo,
LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell
M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly,
Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune,
Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

Taylor Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg
Coleman Law PC, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo,
LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell
M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly,
Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune,
Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

Apple, Inc., Defendant, represented by Arturo J. Gonzalez,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, David Ramraj Singh, Weil, Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Alexandria Armida Amezcua, Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Christopher Leonard Robinson, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Diane P.
Sullivan, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Penelope
Athene Preovolos, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Tiffany Cheung,
Morrison & Foerster LLP.


ARCONIC INC: Faces "Tripson" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Tripson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Arconic Inc. and Klaus Kleinfeld, Case No. 1:17-cv-
05369 (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose
(a) that Arconic was knowingly selling Reynobond PE for use in
construction projects where the product was to be used in a manner
that the Company knew was unsafe and presented a fire hazard; (b)
that Arconic's marketing and sales of highly-flammable Reynobond
PE sales for use in high-rise tower projects across the U.K. and
other countries directly conflicted with the purported strong
culture of safety, ethics and legal compliance that the Company
claimed to have and exposed Arconic to hundreds of millions of
dollars in potential civil and criminal liability and reputational
harm; (c) that Arconic's own oft repeated claims that Reynobond PE
was "a fully tested product, with building-code approvals
throughout the world," coupled with its strong
assurances of effective global safety and integrity practices,
concealed from investors the immense risk Arconic had assumed
through its sales and marketing practices; and (d) as a result,
Defendants' statements about Arconic's business, operations and
financial prospects were materially false and misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Arconic Inc. is engaged in the engineering and manufacturing of
aluminum and other lightweight metals into products used worldwide
in the aerospace, automotive, commercial transportation,
packaging, building and construction, oil and gas, defense,
consumer electronics, and industrial industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY  11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
      300 Mt. Lebanon Boulevard, Suite 206-B
      Pittsburgh, PA 15234-1507
      Telephone: (412) 391-5164
      Facsimile: (412) 471-1033
      E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


ARIZONA: Corrections Dept. Fails to Fix Health Care Issues
----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Weill, writing for Daily Beast, reports that Arizona inmates
went to court to describe their poor medical treatment: hours
spent waiting for nurses outdoors in dangerous heat; cells so hot,
inmates could barely breathe.  Within days of their testimony,
half of those inmates reported retaliation by corrections
officers.

On July 14, four inmates went to court with allegations that could
cost the Arizona Department of Corrections more than $2 million in
penalties.  The state prison system was flouting its basic rules
for medical care, the inmates testified, putting people with
health conditions at serious risk.  But when they returned from
court, the inmates found themselves in an even more dangerous
prison environment, their lawyers claim in a new court filing.

The case has its roots in a 2012 lawsuit by Arizona inmates who
also accused the state of lax medical practices, which they
claimed resulted in unnecessary death and injury within the prison
system.  The case, which ballooned into a class action on behalf
of 33,000 Arizona inmates, was eventually settled in 2014, with
the Department of Corrections agreeing to strict new health
standards.

But inmates claim the Department of Corrections has reneged on its
promises to fix its health code.

In advance of the July 14 hearing, lawyers compiled a report
detailing "2,127 separate incidents" from June 14 and July 11, in
which the Department of Corrections allegedly failed its own
medical standards.  Among these alleged incidents were more than
1,100 cases in which inmates either did not receive their
medications on time, or did not receive their medications at all.
The report also detailed hundreds of cases in which medical
reports went ignored for days or weeks.

During the July 14 hearing in a Phoenix court, four inmates
described the Department of Corrections' alleged violations in
chilling detail.  Instead of receiving prompt medical care,
inmates are made to wait long hours outdoors in order to receive
their medications, they testified.

"If you leave the area, you risk losing your place in line,"
Mark Blocksom, an inmate at a state facility testified on
July 14, the Phoenix New Times reported.  Mr. Blocksom, who
receives treatment for HIV, hepatitis C, and other ailments, said
he has waited outdoors upwards of three hours. Other inmates have
waited seven hours to see a nurse, he said. [GN]


ASIMRAS LLC: "Troitino" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Carlos Picans Troitino and Janet Elgueta, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Asimras LLC
and Antonio Gomes, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04936 (D.N.J.,
Jul7 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendants owned, operated and controlled a bar/grill located at
376 Ferry Street, Newark, New Jersey 07105 under the name "Paleio
Bar & Grill." Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as bartenders
and servers, but they also were required to perform other
restaurant worker duties such as cleaning, stocking, painting,
table preparation, going on errands and occasionally delivering
food. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sara J. Isaacson, Esq.
      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Phone: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: sisaacson@faillacelaw.com


ATKINS NUTRITIONALS: Sued Over Misleading "Net Carbs" Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHANA GARCIA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. ATKINS NUTRITIONALS, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-05232-JFK
(S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2017), challenges the Defendant's alleged
deceptive practice of marketing its food products with "Net Carbs"
claims to mislead consumers about those products' impact on blood
sugar levels.

The founder of Atkins Nutritionals, Dr. Robert Coleman Atkins, was
an early pioneer of the low-carbohydrate approach to dieting
before it became popular and accepted by an increasing number of
medical professionals and researchers.  Traditional dieting
approaches focused on limiting calories and fat.

Atkins Nutritionals, Inc., is a corporation organized under the
laws of New York with its headquarters in Denver, Colorado.  The
Company develops, markets and sells its extensive line of energy
bars, snack food, frozen meal, and shake products under the
"ATKINS(R)" brand name throughout the United States, through
numerous retail and online outlets such as Target, Duane Reade,
CVS, Rite Aid, and Amazon.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUSTRALIA: Indonesian Cattle Cruelty Shown at Class Action Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Bettles, writing for North Queensland Register, reports that
day three of the Indonesian live cattle ban class action trial was
dominated by the defence presenting extensive and intimate details
of animal cruelty practices that underpinned the government's
sudden decision to cut off trade.

Lights in the court room were dimmed as Defence Senior Counsel
Neil Williams showed selected extracts from the controversial ABC
Four Corners episode of May 30, 2011 "A Bloody Business" which was
also introduced into trial evidence.

Graphic images of cattle mistreatment ignited the public uproar
that applied intense pressure on the former Labor government and a
few days after the ABC broadcast the then Agriculture Minister Joe
Ludwig eventually suspended the entire market for up to six
months.

The Federal Court case is being held in Sydney and seeking to
prove misfeasance by the commonwealth -- claiming about $600
million in damages -- in Mr Ludwig's signing of the second control
order that shut trade, to try and address animal welfare standards
in Indonesian abattoirs.

On day three, the plaintiff's Senior Counsel Noel Hutley spent the
day presenting his argument and allowed several Four Corners
extracts to be shown to the court room.

But he objected to an attempt by Mr Williams to produce extracts
from another batch of "extended footage" that the defence said was
supplied to the minister's department, on May 31, 2011.

Mr Hutley said "we don't know what the Minister saw" and "we don't
know what anybody saw'.

"We don't know when it came and we require that to be properly
proved," he said.

"We want proof that what you're going to be shown was what was
seen by the Minister, not general statements about it -- in press
conferences.

"It's by no means clear what the Minister saw . . . and the
Minister was in a perfect position to give that evidence."

As well as exerts several exerts from Four Corners, Mr Williams
also read extensively from the transcript of the ABC broadcast
with regular reference to central players in the controversy
including leading industry representatives and Animal Australia's
investigator Lyn White, the RSPCA Australia and leading animal
behaviour expert Temple Grandin.

Justice Rares said the FourCorners report "exposes horrific abuse
faced by Australian cattle in Indonesia".

Use of various restraint boxes installed in Indonesian abattoirs
by Meat and Livestock Australia, in contributing to poor animal
welfare outcomes during slaughter, like cattle heads slapping on
concrete after tripping up, was also discussed extensively by Mr
Williams during day three.

The independent expert's report of May 2010 -- released in January
2011 -- that investigated animal welfare standards in the
Indonesian cattle market, and RSPCA's response to it in
communications, as a template for the animal mistreatment seen on
the FourCorners episode, was another central point of evidence
presentation.

The report's executive summary was read out during the July 21
proceedings which said, "Animal welfare was generally good.
Occasional incidents of noncompliance with the OIE code were
observed and recommendations to address these are made through the
report.  Australian cattle generally found to be coping well in
Indonesia with conditions to which they're exposed".

But RSPCA's response was also produced as evidence which provided
a different view on the concern about welfare standards.

"From the information available in the report, it's clear that the
majority of animals observed, and likely the majority of animals
exported, were subjected to significant levels of pain, fear and
distress during their handling and slaughter," it said.

"The scale and significance of the animal welfare issues described
in the report show that, in terms of risks to animal welfare, the
situation in Indonesia is equal to the Middle East.

"Given this, it's not a trade that the RSPCA believes should
continue."

Analysis by RSPCA chief scientist Dr Bidda Jones of the video
footage taken by Animals Australia in March 2011 and shown in the
ABC broadcast was also presented with records of critical meetings
and communications between the two groups, with the minister's
office, leading into the second control order being signed.

Mr Williams said RSPCA was "not primarily an activist organisation
in the way that many of the groups under the umbrella of Animals
Australia are".

"RSPCA has a much wider role, and it's, of course, long
established and widely respected," he said.

Mr Williams read a letter from RSPCA pressuring the government to
ban the Indonesian market following the ABC broadcast, expressing
views also held by Animals Australia about the market's pitfalls
and government's suggested response.

"As you were informed today by Tom Maguire of the Australian Meat
Industry Council the failure of the Government to appropriately
address the situation in Indonesia means the community is losing
confidence in domestic livestock industry, is also impacting on
our international reputation in key export markets," RSPCA's
letter said.

"The only option the government has available to it is to
immediately halt the live trade in the interests of the whole
Australian meat and cattle industry.

"As previously conveyed, the implementation of the export control
orders that relate to the 12 abattoirs will in no way serve to
protect the welfare of cattle.

"There is no traceability within the supply chain.

"Even if animals could be prevented from being supplied to these
abattoirs, they would simply be slaughtered at a neighbouring
facility where they will be subjected to equally brutal
treatment."

Who cares what others say it's about the minister's decision

Justice Rares however disputed Mr William's attempt to use
evidence of a press conference with the animal welfare
organisations and two independent members of parliament -- SA
Senator Nick Xenophon and Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie, pressuring
the government to ban the trade.

Mr Williams referred to comments made by Senator Xenophon at the
press conference, saying, "these are boats that have to be
stopped. What we know is the system in Indonesia is so broken, so
systematically flawed, that the only sensible response is to have
an immediate moratorium".

But Justice Rares said there was "no evidence" it had been
publicised.

He said there was also "no evidence" it had come to the Minister's
attention or the Prime Minister or a cabinet colleague who said,
"Look at what Senator Xenophon said.  You know, you've got to do
something', or, 'This is what you've got to do'".

"I mean, the fact that a whole lot of people in the community say,
'You should do this or that', doesn't mean that the action you
ultimately do is more or less rational because a whole lot of
other people say that's what you should do," he said.

But Mr Williams said the joint press conference was between the
RSPCA, Senator Xenophon and Mr Wilkie, who made "significant,
strong public statements" calling for the banning.

"That was part of the context in which the Minister and the
department were called upon to assess what steps to take -- that's
the basis on which we tender it," he said.

However, Justice Rares said there was a "huge amount" of public
pressure on the Minister to make a decision and a variety of views
were being expressed in the community about what his decision
should be but "I don't care what all these other people said he
should do".

"It's his job to make the decision, and if he has properly
exercised his functions, he has . . .done nothing wrong and if he
hasn't properly exercised his functions, then I say the decision
is invalid and then there's the next question as to whether it's a
decision that . . . is a misfeasance of his office, which is
potentially a different question," he said.

"But the fact that there is a lot of political pressure on him . .
. that doesn't make his decision rational or irrational, good or
bad.

"It just says, as I don't need to be told in a great deal of
evidence, there's a lot of pressure coming on about him having to
do something about this because it revealed a very shocking and
awful situation in Indonesia.

"At the moment I'm not accepting this in evidence."

Suspension a cabinet decision?

Late in the day, Justice Rares also said he understood the
decision -- to ultimately ban the trade for up to six months --
was made by cabinet and it was something Mr Williams or Mr Hutley
"will need to disabuse me of".

"Once the cabinet came to a view, the Minister went to implement
that view," he said.

"This went to cabinet.

"I don't know what happened in cabinet and that's not the subject
of evidence, but the inference I would draw is that the Minister's
decision was the cabinet's decision and he implemented it."

But Mr Williams said "No, your Honour" and "what emerged there was
a process of departmental advice".

He said on Monday June 6, 2011, draft recommendations were sent
through to the Minister's office which was a "developmental
proposal" to the Minister and "it wasn't a cabinet submission".

"The Minister has a discussion with his cabinet colleagues late on
the afternoon of June 6 and then proceeds through the next day to
take a decision," he said.

"He plainly proposes to consult with his cabinet colleagues late
on the afternoon of June 6.

"There are then further steps taken the next day and he takes a
decision, which we will show your Honour is consistent with one of
the suite of three recommendations that were sent later on the
Monday, in the middle of the day on the Monday, containing three
different options.

"And he takes a decision which is consistent with the first of
those, option A.

"But in terms of this being a cabinet decision, there's no
evidence to support that, and the evidence is inconsistent with
it.

"It shows a process of departmental advising to their Minister
who, being a lawyer, appreciated that he was the person with the
power.

"It would not be a great leap for your Honour to conclude that if
the cabinet had told him that they didn't agree with a proposal he
was taking forward, that he might not have made the decision he
ultimately did.

"But there isn't a basis on which an inference can properly be
drawn that there was a cabinet decision taken to this effect,
rather a process of consultation, and the Minister's decision was
made, in fact, the following night when he signed the order."

But Mr Hutley said "that's a disputed fact" with the debate then
focussed on when the actual second control order was signed and
registered to take effect.

Justice Rares said "It was registered on the 7th. Therefore, it
was made on the 6th.  It comes into effect the next day".

Mr Hutley said "And there's a note saying he had made it that
evening of the 6th -- the night of the 6th he made the decision".

But Mr Williams said "that hasn't been my understanding at all".

"They were registered at 9.30 pm on Tuesday, June 7 and then there
were the two instruments, each of which is signed and each of
which is dated June 7."

Mr Hutley said the chronology produced by the department -- by the
advisors -- said the Minister made the decision to suspend the
trade on the evening of the 6th.

Justice Rares said "The decision antedates the registration. It's
coming into effect is when it's registered".

"If you look at the entry on the 6th, the Foreign Minister, the
Trade Minister, and I don't know what Minister Macklin's office
did, but the Foreign Minister was Mr Rudd, the Trade Minister was
Mr Emerson, from my recollection," he said.

"They were all told that night and then they were going to talk to
people and draft orders to suspend were sent to the office after
midnight on July 24.

"Issues needed to be resolved, six months or ongoing.

"So they had made the decision, but you say it hasn't been the --
the six months were ongoing, that left that all to happen on the
7th.

"As it must have, because that's when it was signed."

Mr Williams said "to be clear, we say that the Minister may well
have reached a process of mental reasoning, and the evidence
suggests that he did, on the night of the 6th that he would make a
control order".

AMIC back the ban

Mr Williams also presented evidence of written communications to
the government from AMIC following the ABC broadcast, supporting
the ban and disagreeing with the industry's plan of attack using
facilities already able to process cattle to acceptable standards.

"The announcement of a suspension of live export of cattle to the
11 abattoirs does not, in our opinion, adequately address this
issue given that live export go to feedlots in Indonesia for
finishing before slaughter," a letter read out by Mr Williams
said.

"AMIC questions how the Australian government will enforce this
ban.

"AMIC recommends that all live shipments to Indonesia be suspended
until there is in place an agreement and a process, including
enforcement of whole of life animal welfare standards which are
the equivalent of the world class standards applied in Australia.

"Without adequate supply chain control, AMIC is concerned that
these animal welfare issues in Indonesia will remain, thus
presenting further risk not only to the live export trade but,
more importantly, to the reputation of the Australian meat and
livestock industry."

Another communication with the minister's office at the time said
AMIC "strongly recommends" the government not accept the
industry's proposal in response to animal welfare issues that
addresses the processing of only 40 per cent of the current
shipments of live cattle to Indonesia.

"There is no advice on the proposed slaughter arrangement for the
majority 60 per cent of live export cattle shipments, only five of
the proposed 25 plants are using stunning of the cattle
effectively and consistently prior to slaughter," the
communication said.

The story Indonesian cattle cruelty exhibited at class action
trial first appeared on Farm Online. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: NT Cattlemen's Association Happy with Case Progress
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Manicaros, writing for NT News, reports that territory
cattlemen are getting their day in the court as a landmark class
action stemming from the live export ban in 2011 returns to the
Federal Court.

NT Cattlemen's Association chief executive Tracey Hayes said they
were happy with the way the case was progressing so far.

"The people of the North are getting their day in court," she
said.

If cattlemen are successful, compensation for the case could run
into hundreds of millions of dollars, with the Commonwealth
already conceding loss was suffered.

During hearings on July 21 there was argument regarding the
admissibility of evidence and the decision of the responsible
minister not to give testimony.

The Brett Cattle Company v Ludwig case is before Justice Steven
Rares.

The Commonwealth's silk Neil Williams used a quote from crossbench
Senator Nick Xenophon as support for then-Minister Joe Ludwig's
decision to ban all live exports on June 7, 2011.

"What we know is the system in Indonesia is so broken, so
systematically flawed, that the only sensible response is to have
an immediate moratorium," Senator Xenophon said.

Mr Williams argued: "The relevance is this: the case that's put
against us is that the minister was rushed or panicked into making
a hasty and poorly conceived decision."

Justice Rares said it was he who would determine if it was
"rationally open".

"Senator Xenophon is perfectly entitled to express his view ...
but it's not evidence of a rational response. It's evidence of his
response," he said.

"Why is this admissible on the question of what a rational
response is?

"This is a case where you've chosen not to call him (Minister),
that's perfectly all right, but if you're putting this to me that
this is what was before him, I can't accept, on that basis,
because I've got no evidence of it." [GN]


AWP INC: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Luster"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PAULETTE LUSTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AWP,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:16CV2613 (N.D. Ohio), Judge
Christopher A. Boyko of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' for Conditional Certification, Court-
Facilitated Notice and Expedited Discovery pursuant to Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) and 83(b).

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated on Oct. 26, 2016, against the
Defendant, alleging violations of Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").  On Dec. 30, 2016, they filed a Motion for Conditional
Certification, Expedited Opt-In Discovery and Court-Supervised
Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs.

The Defendant employs traffic control specialists who direct
traffic in temporary roadway construction zones.  Employees are
required to fuel the trucks and perform inspections to ensure the
trucks are in good condition.  The Plaintiffs were employed by the
Defendant as traffic control specialists.  Plaintiff Betty Haas
drove a truck directly from her home to the work site and
Plaintiff Luster drove a truck from the Defendant's place of
business to the work site.

They Plaintiffs allege that they were not paid for any time spent
driving the Defendant's trucks to and from work sites, fueling
trucks or performing inspections.  They also allege they were not
paid time and a half for hours worked over forty each week,
despite being classified as non-exempt hourly workers.  Twenty-
three additional Plaintiffs have since opted in to the action.
They filed a motion requesting conditional certification for the
collective action, as well as expedited discovery and Court-
facilitated notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs.  The Defendant
objects to conditional certification because the Plaintiffs have
not identified an unlawful policy the class is subject to and
conditional certification would not serve judicial economy because
the putative class definition is overbroad.  It also objects to
their Motion for Expedited Discovery and Court-Facilitated Notice.

Having considered the arguments and evidence submitted by the
parties, the Court finds that at this stage of the proceedings,
the Plaintiffs have met their "slight" burden and are entitled to
conditional certification.  They have satisfied their modest
burden by their Declarations.  This is sufficient to meet their
"slight" burden to show that the members of the putative class
were all subject to the same policy.  Thus, even though the
Plaintiffs did not respond directly to the Defendant's argument
that the class definition is overbroad, the Defendant's argument
does not support denying conditional certification at this stage.

Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Class Certification of the FLSA claim. The Class is
defined as all current and former traffic control specialists
employed by AWP, Inc. at any time between October 26, 2013 and the
present.  If discovery shows that claimants are not similarly
situated, the Court will decertify the class and dismiss the opt-
in Plaintiffs without prejudice.

Within 10 days of the Order, the parties will submit to the Court
proposed language for notification and consent forms to be issued
via First-Class Mail.  The Plaintiffs seek to compel the Defendant
to answer their interrogatories within 14 days.  However, given
the potential size and scope of the class, the Court ordered the
Defendant to file with the Court no later than three days from the
date of the Order a proposed time schedule to provide the
Plaintiffs the names, last known addresses, last known phone
numbers and dates of employment of employee class members.  Upon
receipt, the Court will order expedited discovery and will set an
opt-in period.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/68lOp7 from Leagle.com.

Paulette Luster, Plaintiff, represented by Chastity L. Christy,
Lazzaro Law Firm.

Paulette Luster, Plaintiff, represented by Lori M. Griffin,
Lazzaro Law Firm & Anthony J. Lazzaro, Lazzaro Law Firm.

Betty Haas, Plaintiff, represented by Chastity L. Christy, Lazzaro
Law Firm, Lori M. Griffin, Lazzaro Law Firm & Anthony J. Lazzaro,
Lazzaro Law Firm.

AWP Inc., Defendant, represented by Carl H. Gluek --
cgluek@frantzward.com -- Frantz Ward, Ryan T. Smith --
rsmith@frantzward.com -- Frantz Ward & T. Merritt Bumpass, Jr. --
mbumpass@frantzward.com -- Frantz Ward.


BANK OF AMERICA: "Castillo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy R. Castillo, on behalf of the general public as private
attorney general, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America National
Association, a North Carolina Corporation and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2017-00930099 (Cal. Super.,
July 6, 2017), seeks compensation resulting from failure to
accurately pay overtime wages and minimum wages, failure to
provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; and all wages earned and owed
upon separation from Defendant's employ under California Labor
Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Defendants own and operate full service banks, which serve the
general public with call centers, throughout the United States,
including California, where Castillo worked as a call center
agent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Hawkins, Esq.
      Gregory E. Mauro, Esq.
      JAMES R. HAWKINS, APLC
      9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Tel: (949) 387-7200
      Fax: (949) 387-6676
      Email: james@jamesha wkinsaplc.com
             greg@jamesha wkinsaplc.com


BAY OF PLENTY: Edgecumbe Flood Class Action Gains Supporters
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Shand, writing for Stuff, reports that a class action
fighting on behalf of Edgecumbe residents displaced by the floods
has the support of more than 100 residents.

Lawyers Matt Josephson, Esq. -- matt.josephson@mcjlaw.co.nz -- of
MCJ Law famous for his victories in the leaky homes saga, and
David Heaney QC -- david@wmclaw.co.nz -- of William Martin
Chambers Barristers  are in Edgecumbe meeting with locals and
speaking to experts ahead of the class-action.

Edgecumbe was submerged as the river's stopbank burst during heavy
rains during ex-tropical Cyclone Debbie in April.

The pair are looking at possible reasons for the breach and where
culpability can be assigned.

"Let me put it this way, I'd rather be on our side," Heaney said.

"There are a lot of people who have suffered some horrific losses.
Between us we have a wealth of experience in this type of
litigation."

Rangitaiki Community Board Member Greame Bourk said he has been
busy signing people up to take part in the class action suit.

"It's been very busy," he said. "We've got close to 100 on paper
and more signed up online."

Josephson has set up a public meeting St David's Church, Edgecumbe
at 4pm on July 21 to explain the legal case in more detail to
residents.

"I think we have a strong case," he said. "Enough to come down
here and invest money into investigating.

"The important thing is it will not cost residents anything to get
on board so the only investment from people is an hour or two."

Josephson said the class-action would only see compensation go to
the legal team should a "realistic recovery" be awarded as a
result of the case. [GN]


BBC: Female Reporters Mull Class Action Over Gender Pay Gap
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Rapana, writing for honey.nine.com, reports that at least
10 female BBC reporters are set to sue the national broadcaster if
it does not close the gender pay gap, The Telegraph reports.

A list of the BBC's highest earners was published on July 19,
which revealed the network's female presenters, many of whom are
household names from British radio and TV, are being paid
significantly less than their male colleagues of the same job
descriptions.

Female presenters affected have reportedly been discussing the
best way forward with at least 10 are said to be considering legal
action against their employer.

And, according to The Telegraph, that number is expected to grow
in the coming days.

They are expected to first go to management, using a "strength in
numbers" approach, to demand their salaries are brought into line
with their male counterparts.

Under UK law, it is illegal for two people doing the same job to
be paid at different rates because of their gender.

Radio 4 Woman's Hour presenter Jane Garvey, who is leading the
charge, told The Telegraph a class action was "certainly a
possibility".

She added "not a single male broadcaster" had been in contact to
offer support.

The July 19 list revealed the enormous salaries of some of the
BBC's biggest names, including presenter Matt Baker who is earning
รบ500,000 a year.

However as it scrambles to deal with the fallout, the BBC has
reportedly ordered its highest earners to keep their salary
breakdowns hidden from the public, preventing like-for-like
comparisons of what male and female presenters earn for presenting
the same show which would aid lawyers.

Hours after the news broke on July 19, BBC breakfast presenter
Louise Minchin looked visibly unimpressed when her co-host Dan
Walker, named on the rich list, made an awkward comment about the
pay dispute.

Walker later took to Twitter to defend his earnings, stating that
he and Minchin are paid exactly the same for their work on the
top-rating show and the only reason he earns more -- and was
subsequently included on the rich list -- is because he has a
second job presenting for the show Football Focus. [GN]


BEANOCCHIO OF YORK: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ismael Juarez, Gustavo Velazquez a/k/a "Jonathan" and
Ricardo Alberto, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. Beanocchio of York, Inc. d/b/a BEANOCCHIO'S, THE GREEN
BEAN CAFE, CORP. d/b/a The Green Bean Cafe, Darrell Morris and
Ayman Nammoura a/k/a "Iman", Case No. 156357/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
July 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours compensation,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate two restaurants under the trade names
"Beanocchio's" and "The Green Bean Cafe" in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


BROWN UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------
Diane G. Short, Samira Pardanani, Judith Daviau and Joseph
Barboza, Individually and as representatives of a class of
participants and beneficiaries in and on behalf of the Brown
University Deferred Vesting Retirement Plan and the Brown
University Legacy Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs, v. Brown University
in Providence in the State of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00318, (D.R.I., July 6,
2017), seeks restoration of all Plan losses resulting from each
breach of fiduciary duty, equitable or remedial relief, and
attorney's fees and costs under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

Short, Barboza and Pardanani are participants in the Legacy
Retirement Plan while Daviau is a participant in the Deferred
Vesting Retirement Plan.

Brown University in Providence in the State of Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations is a private, not-for-profit, nonsectarian
institution of higher learning in Providence, Rhode Island.

Defendant caused the Plans to pay unreasonable and excessive fees
for investment and administrative services. Defendant selected and
retained investment options for the Plans that historically and
consistently underperformed their benchmarks and charged excessive
investment management fees, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sonja L. Deyoe, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SONJA L. DEYOE
      395 Smith Street
      Providence, RI 02908
      Telephone: (401) 864-5877
      Facsimile: (401) 354-7464
      Email: sld@the-straight-shooter.com

             - and -

      Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
      John J. Nestico, Esq.
      Michael McKay, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKYWOTKYNS LLP
      8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
      Scottsdale, AZ 85253
      Tel: (480) 428-0142
      Fax: (866) 505-8036
      Email: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
             mmckay@schneiderwallace.com
             jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

             - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
      Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      Email: scarson@bm.net
             sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             elechtzin@bm.net
             apiazza@bm.net

             - and -

      Todd Schneider, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Tel: (415) 421-7100
      Fax: (415) 421-7105
      Email: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com

             - and -

      Todd S. Collins, Esq.
      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Ellen T. Noteware, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
      Email: tcollins@bm.net
             scarson@bm.net
             enoteware@bm.net


BULL ROGERS: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Calvillo"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PATRICIO CALVILLO, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED UNDER 29 USC Sec. 216(b), Plaintiffs, v. BULL ROGERS,
INC. and HELEN MARIE WALLACE, individually, Defendants, No. 16-cv-
919WJ-GBW (D. N.M.), Judge William P. Johnson of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico granted Plaintiffs' Motion
for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and Conditional Certification,
except for certain language proposed by the Plaintiff in the
proposed consent form.

The Plaintiff is suing the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime
wages that the Defendants failed to pay in accordance with the
FLSA.  The Defendants are involved in oilfield casing services
throughout New Mexico and Texas over the last three years and
employ non-exempt employees to help perform casing services.  The
Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated casing employees pursuant to the FLSA.  He also
brings this action as a Rule 23 class action pursuant to New
Mexico Wage Law.  The Amended Complaint asserts two counts:
Failure to Pay Wages in Accordance with the FLSA (Count I) and
Violation of New Mexico Wage Law (Count II).

This motion seeks an Order allowing Notice to Potential Plaintiffs
and Conditional Certification pursuant to the collective action
provision in the FLSA that no employee will be a party plaintiff
to any action to recover under the FLSA unless he gives his
consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is
filed in the court in which such action is brought.

The Court finds that the "similarly situated" inquiry under its
immediate consideration requires only a colorable basis showing
the putative class members are victims of a single decision,
policy or plan, and the Plaintiff has satisfied this lenient test.
The putative Plaintiffs worked for the same employer, performed
largely similar duties and their allegations of FLSA violations
are derived from the same alleged practices of either not paying
for overtime hours worked or miscalculating those hours.  The
allegations in the Amended Complaint, together with the
Plaintiff's proffered exhibits are therefore sufficient as a basis
for the Court to grant conditional certification.  Accordingly,
the Court conditionally certified this collective action brought
under the FLSA.

As to the Plaintiff's motion for a supervised Notice to the
potential or putative plaintiffs, the Court finds further
discussion regarding whether notice by email and text should be
allowed to pointless because the law is on the Plaintiff's side.
Courts have recognized that notice by email and text is reasonable
in today's mobile society and that these methods of communication
may offer a more reliable means of reaching an individual even if
that individual is away from home or has moved.  Therefore, the
Court granted the Plaintiff's request to send notice to putative
plaintiffs by email and text as well as by United States Postal
Service.

While the Court generally approves of supervised notice as well as
the Plaintiff's requested methods of notice, the Court finds it
necessary to specifically address the proposed notice forms.  The
Court therefore stuck some of the language in the proposed consent
form.  The Plaintiffs' counsel will ensure that the Notice be
modified to contain the exact wording approved by the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/e00L1S from Leagle.com.

Patricio Calvillo, Plaintiff, represented by J. Derek Braziel, Lee
& Braziel LLP.

Patricio Calvillo, Plaintiff, represented by Jack L. Siegel,
Siegel Law Group PLLC, Jesse Hamilton Forester, Lee & Braziel LLP
& Travis Andrew Gasper, Lee & Braziel, LLP.

Bull Rogers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrea K. Robeda --
Andrea.Robeda@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, LLC, Danny W.
Jarrett -- JarrettD@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, LLP,
Vanessa R. Winton, Jackson Lewis P.C. & William Stukenberg --
William.Stukenberg@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., pro
hac vice.

Helen Marie Wallace, Defendant, represented by Andrea K. Robeda,
Jackson Lewis, LLC, Danny W. Jarrett, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Vanessa
R. Winton, Jackson Lewis P.C. & William Stukenberg, Jackson Lewis,
P.C., pro hac vice.


BURLINGTON COAT: Settlement in "Horosny" Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JAMES HOROSNY, et al, Plaintiffs, v.
BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, et al, Defendants,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05005-SJO-MRWx (C.D. Cal.), Judge S. James Otero
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Costs, Costs of Administration, and Representative
Enhancement Payments.

Judge Otero finds that the action meets all the requirements for
class certification, and ordered that the Settlement Class is
finally approved and certified as a class for purposes of
settlement of this action.

He granted the Parties' Amended Settlement Agreement ("ASA") final
approval as it meets the criteria for final settlement approval.

Judge Otero finds and determines that the Notice to Class Members
was complete and constitutionally sound, because individual
notices were mailed and/or emailed to all Class Members whose
identities and addresses are reasonably known to the Parties, and
Notice was published in accordance with the Court's Preliminary
Approval Order, and such notice was the best notice practicable.

Pursuant to the terms set forth in the ASA, (i) KCC is awarded
$1,137,000 for their services as Settlement Administrator; (ii)
Class Representatives James Horosny and Jennifer Price are each
awarded the sum of $5,000 as a Class Representative Payment; (iii)
and the Class Counsel is awarded $927,500, as attorneys' fees and
costs.

By means of the Final Order and Judgment, Judge Otero entered
Final Judgment in this action.  This action is dismissed with
prejudice, each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees
except as provided by the ASA and it is the Final Order and
Judgment.  The Court reserves its exclusive, general and
continuing jurisdiction over the ASA as needed or appropriate in
order to administer, supervise, implement, interpret or enforce
the Settlement in accordance with its terms.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/naDLEd from Leagle.com.

James Horosny, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Caiafa --
dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com -- Douglas Caiafa APLC.

James Horosny, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Morosoff -
- cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com -- Law Offices of Christopher J
Morosoff.

Jennifer Price, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Caiafa, Douglas
Caiafa APLC & Christopher J. Morosoff, Law Offices of Christopher
J Morosoff.

Burlington Coat Factory of California, LLC, Defendant, represented
by Bethany W. Kristovich -- Bethany.Kristovich@mto.com -- Munger
Tolles and Olson LLP.


CALIFORNIA: "Fire Tax" Class Action to Continue Despite Repeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Donnelly, writing for Breitbart, reports that a lawsuit
against California's controversial "fire prevention fee" (a.k.a.
"fire tax") will continue, despite being suspended as part of a
deal Republican leaders made to pass cap-and-trade.

The tax was levied on almost 800,000 rural property owners in
mostly Republican districts.  The plaintiffs are continuing with
their lawsuit and may seek to have the tax refunded in full.


Republican legislators are divided over the impact of the recent
deal, when eight Republicans, dubbed the "Swamp 8" by conservative
pundits and talk radio hosts, voted in favor of Gov. Jerry Brown's
massive extension of California's cap-and-Trade program.

Predictably, supporters of the bill -- which the Legislative
Analyst Office (LAO) predicts could push gasoline prices .63 to
.73 higher are trying to spin the deal as a net tax cut and "a
huge victory" for Californians.

But State Senator Ted Gaines (R-El Dorado Hills), the leading
legislative critic of the "Fire Tax," disagrees.  "I view it as a
bait and switch," Gaines told the Times. "People may think that
with the moratorium on the fire tax that it is a good thing, but
you've got to weigh that against the cap-and-trade impact on
gasoline and energy in California."

The group suing the state over the "fire tax" has been encouraged
by property owners forced to pay what they allege is an "illegal
tax."

If the courts agree, that could force the state to refund almost
$500 million dollars collected since 2011 -- much of which went to
fund existing programs, not the new "fire prevention" efforts
promised.

Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association estimates
that the net effect of the passage of the cap-and Trade expansion,
including the suspension of the rural "fire tax" will cost the
average California driver more than $400 in higher gas prices.

"It's not even close," Mr. Coupal said.  "The financial hit that
middle-class Californians will take as a result of this
legislation is going to be enormous." [GN]


CANADA: Apology to N&L Residential School Survivors Long Overdue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Quinn, writing for CBC News, reports that a federal
government apology to Newfoundland and Labrador residential school
survivors is long overdue, according to a lawyer who represented
almost a thousand of them in a class-action lawsuit settled last
year.

"The judge and all of the lawyers in this case recognize the
general urgency to get this thing done.  We learn of people within
the class dying almost on a daily basis," said Steven Cooper, who
is with the law firm Cooper Regel.

One class member who died recently is Inuk Nicky Obed. When he
spoke to CBC News in 2015, the nine-year court battle to reach a
settlement hadn't yet ended.

At the time, Obed said Newfoundland and Labrador residential
survivors who had suffered sexual abuse and lost their Indigenous
languages and cultures wanted an apology more than compensation
for their suffering.

"We were forgotten and it hurt us because of what we all went
through," he said in 2015.

Residential school students still want apology, compensation
In 2008, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood up in the House
of Commons to offer an apology to Canadian residential school
survivors.

"We now recognize that far too often these institutions gave rise
to abuse or neglect and were inadequately controlled and we
apologize for failing to protect you," he said.

But that apology excluded Indigenous people who attended
residential schools in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Obed lived to see a $50-million settlement reached with the
federal Liberal government, but he died in June without an
apology.

Mr. Cooper said that's a tragedy.

"An apology after death is no apology at all."

Apology more important than money

Mr. Cooper said the remaining residential school survivors now
want an apology more than financial compensation.

"It's long overdue and it's far more essential to the
reconciliation and health of survivors than any cheque from the
government of Canada," said Mr. Cooper.

"They want to be included in the group that was validated.  They
need to be told that the Canadian government understands and
accepts what happened to them and apologizes for what happened to
them."

Mr. Cooper said the number of survivors contacting him spiked in
May after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asked the Pope to
apologize to former residential school students.

"It's increasingly frustrating for them," said Cooper.

"When the prime minister asked the Pope for an apology from the
Catholic Church, I got a flurry of phone calls and emails saying,
'Why is he asking for that when he has control over an apology in
this country for what this government did to this class of
people?'"

Nearly a thousand Indigenous people who attended five schools in
Newfoundland and Labrador after 1949 have received compensation
from the class-action settlement.

Their lawyers argued in court that the federal government had the
same responsibilities to them as it did to all other Indigenous
people in Canada after Newfoundland joined Confederation.

Federal response to call for apology

When asked for comment by CBC News, the Prime Minister's Office
did not respond directly to Cooper's call for an apology.

"Colleagues at Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada/Minister
Bennett's office will be following up with you on your questions,
as they fall under their purview," wrote a PMO spokesperson in an
email.

In a statement, Carolyn Bennett's office stopped short of saying
an apology will be given.

"Former students and their families have indicated that an
official apology on behalf of the government of Canada is
important to their healing and ability to move forward. The
government is listening," it says.

"Canada recognizes the value of an official apology in achieving
reconciliation with former students of Newfoundland and Labrador
boarding schools, and is presently considering these views."

Retired judge and Inuk James Igloliorte has been appointed to lead
the healing and commemoration portion of the Newfoundland and
Labrador Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada says Igloliorte is
preparing a report for Bennett.

"We look forward to hearing from his recommendations on how to
best move past this dark chapter in our history," says the
department's statement. [GN]


CARE CAPITAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, case no. 1:17-cv-00859, on behalf of
shareholders of Care Capital Properties, Inc. ("Care Capital" or
the "Company") (NYSE: CCP) who have been harmed by Care Capital's
and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with  the proposed sale of the
Company to Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc. ("Sabra").

On May 7, 2017, the Company announced it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") under which each
outstanding share of Care Capital common stock will be exchanged
for 1.123 common shares of Sabra (the "Proposed Transaction"), for
an implied value of $29.96 per share based on Sabra's closing
price on May 5, 2017.  The shareholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction is expected to occur on August 15, 2017.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/CCPnotice.

The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 Registration Statement
(the "S-4") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") on June 12, 2017 to solicit votes in favor of the Proposed
Transaction violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
because it provides materially incomplete and misleading
information about the Company and the Proposed Transaction,
including material information concerning the Company's financial
projections and analyses, on which the Board relied to recommend
the Proposed Transaction as fair to Care Capital shareholders.

                           Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California,
Georgia and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice.  Any member of
the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Tel.: (212) 983-9330
         Fax: (212) 983-9331
         E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
         jwilson@faruqilaw.com
         nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com [GN]


CESAR'S RESTAURANT: "Leyva" Seeks Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips
-------------------------------------------------------------
Isabel Leyva, Ericka Rodriguez and Jorge Luis Arriaga, Plaintiff,
v. Cesar's Restaurant, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04987
(N.D. Ill., July 5, 2017), seeks liquidated damages from unpaid
overtime wages, minimum wages and withheld tips, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of this action and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois
Minimum Wage Law the and Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.

Cesar's Restaurant, Inc., operates two restaurants in Chicago,
Illinois where Plaintiffs worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      Workers' Law Office PC
      53 W. Jackson blvd., Suite 701
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Tel: (312) 795-9121


CHICAGO, IL: Agrees to Settle Red Light Tickets Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
John Bryne, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that Chicagoans
who have winced at the flash of red light cameras while driving
through intersections or spit invective upon finding familiar
Revenue Department envelopes in their mailboxes might be in line
for a bit of payback from the much-loathed automated camera ticket
program.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel's administration has agreed to a $38.75 million
settlement of a class-action lawsuit alleging Chicago failed to
give adequate notice to red light camera and speed camera
violators.

Under the massive deal, more than 1.2 million people could be in
line for payments of half of whatever they paid the city for their
tickets. Those who qualify will receive letters in the mail in
upcoming months notifying them they were part of the suit and
telling them how to collect, according to attorney Jacie Zolna,
Esq. -- jzolna@cherry-law.com -- of Myron Cherry whose firm
brought the legal challenge.

The March 2015 suit claimed the city violated its own rules by
failing to send a second notice of a violation before guilt was
determined, and by doubling the fine for late payment of tickets
sooner than allowed.

A couple of months later, the Emanuel administration responded by
changing the city ordinance to eliminate the requirement for a
second notice. In September 2016, the city passed an ordinance to
give those who hadn't gotten second notices from 2010 to 2015 a
do-over, sending notices giving people the right to request an
administrative hearing to contest their tickets. Emanuel's lawyers
argued that brought them into compliance.

Then-city Corporation Counsel Stephen Patton said the change
"further bolsters our case" by addressing the argument that people
who didn't get a second notice were wronged.

But Zolna said the city trying to retroactively meet its own
standards didn't cut it.

"When they passed that law and did that sneaky move, it just
emboldened me," he said on July 20 while discussing the
settlement. "I decided I wouldn't let them try to do that."

In November 2016, a Cook County judge approved class action status
for the suit, greatly increasing City Hall's exposure and helping
drive a settlement.

on July 20, city Corporation Counsel Ed Siskel, Esq., said the Law
Department is recommending the settlement because the city could
be on the hook for more than $250 million if it lost the case.
While the city has successfully defended against other ticket
camera lawsuits, that type of possible judgment is too risky,
Siskel said.

The agreement still needs City Council approval. The Finance
Committee is slated to consider it on July 24, and in the likely
event it passes, it would go to the full council on July 26.

Under the settlement, people who got tickets from 2010 to 2015
will be paid out of a $26.75 million pot. The city also will
forgive another $12 million in motorists' unpaid tickets. In
addition, the city will agree not to count the tickets toward
violations that could get drivers' cars booted or their licenses
suspended.

Zolna said his firm, Myron M. Cherry & Associates, will get a
little less than one-third of the settlement.

Vishal Aggarwal of Naperville was part of the suit. Under the
settlement, he's in line for $50 from the city for a $100 red
light ticket he got in September 2014 on Foster Avenue in the
Uptown neighborhood. Aggarwal said the money will be nice, but
he's mainly happy City Hall is being held accountable for breaking
the rules.

"Morally, the point is, if something's wrong, it's wrong," he
said.

The settlement is just the latest problem for the city's troubled
red light camera system.

Zolna's suit was among half a dozen cases that followed a Chicago
Tribune investigation of corruption and mismanagement within the
city's $600 million red light program. The series exposed a $2
million City Hall bribery scheme that brought the traffic cameras
to Chicago as well as tens of thousands of tickets that were
unfairly issued to drivers.

The investigation found malfunctioning cameras, inconsistent
enforcement and millions of dollars in tickets issued purposely by
City Hall even after transportation officials knew that yellow
light times were dropping below the federal minimum guidelines.

Throughout the scandal, the Emanuel administration has been
reluctant to issue refunds, in some cases forcing drivers to file
paperwork and apply for a rehearing process some critics have
called onerous.

Last year, former City Hall operative John Bills was sentenced to
10 years in prison for taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in
bribes to steer tens of millions of dollars in red light camera
contracts to an Arizona company, Redflex Traffic Systems Inc.

According to testimony at his federal trial, Bills took a cash
bribe of up to $2,000 for each of the 384 red light cameras that
were installed while he oversaw the program.

A Tribune-sponsored study of the red-light program in 2014 found
that nearly 40 percent of the intersections equipped with the
cameras are likely making the streets more dangerous. The study
found that the cameras caused a 22 percent increase in rear-end
crashes, yet provided no safety benefit at intersections that
never had a problem with right-angle crashes in the first place.

The city will use $10 million it will receive by year's end from a
settlement with Redflex over the bribery scandal to pay part of
the $26.75 million, according to city Budget Department
spokeswoman Molly Poppe. The city will tap "available operating
dollars first and using bond proceeds where necessary" to pay the
balance, Poppe said in an email.

Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th, who has railed against the red light and
speed cameras, said the huge settlement underscores that the
ticket programs are not about safety, but about "trying to balance
the books on the backs of the people who can least afford to pay."

"What I can tell you is, 'I told you so,'" said Beale, City
Council Transportation Committee chairman, when told of the
settlement on July 20. "If you recall, years ago I said the whole
red light camera issue was more about revenue than it was about
public safety." [GN]


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sept 18 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc. ("Chipotle" or the "Company") (NYSE:CMG) and certain
of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, District of Colorado, and docketed under 17-cv-
01760, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Chipotle securities, seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Chipotle securities between
February 5, 2016, and July 19, 2017, both dates inclusive, you
have until September 18, 2017, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529
(or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-
mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and the number of shares purchased.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. owns and operates quick-serve Mexican
restaurants. The Company operates restaurants throughout the
United States.

In 2015, numerous customers fell ill after eating at Chipotle
restaurants, exposing the fact that Chipotle's quality controls
were not in compliance with applicable consumer and workplace
safety regulations and were inadequate to safeguard consumer and
employee health.

Facing a sharp drop-off in sales, Chipotle responded with widely
publicized measures that the Company touted as improvements to its
food safety protocols.  On February 8, 2016, the Company closed
all of its restaurants for several hours for an all-staff meeting
regarding food safety.  In addition, Chipotle hired a new head of
food safety who implemented a number of changes to policies at the
Company's restaurants--for example, requiring all employees to
wash their hands every half hour, mandating that two employees
verified that certain ingredients had been immersed in hot water
for at least five seconds to kill germs, and using Pascalization
to pre-treat food ingredients.  By touting these measures, along
with free food promotions and increased advertising, Chipotle
aimed to restore customer confidence in the safety of its food.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) Chipotle's purported
improvements in its restaurants' food safety policies were
inadequate; (ii) accordingly, Chipotle's quality controls were
still not in compliance with applicable consumer and workplace
safety regulations; (iii) in turn, Chipotle's quality controls
remained inadequate to safeguard consumer and employee health; and
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, Chipotle's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 18, 2017, media outlets reported that Chipotle had closed
a restaurant in Sterling, Virginia due to a suspected norovirus
outbreak.  According to Business Insider, citing information from
iwaspoisoned.com, a website on which consumers document suspected
incidents of foodborne illness, at least 13 customers fell ill
after eating at the Chipotle restaurant in question between July
14 and July 15.  The Business Insider article further stated that
customers who fell sick after eating at the restaurant reported
"vomiting violently," fevers, "violent stomach cramps," and
dizziness for several days.

On this news, Chipotle's share price fell $17.02, or 4.34%, to
close at $374.98 on July 18, 2017.

On July 20, 2017, The Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled "Over 100 Report Being Sickened at Virginia Chipotle,"
disclosing that the number of reports of illness associated with
the restaurant-chain continues to rise.

On that same day, Reuters published an article entitled "Chipotle
Virginia customer tested positive for norovirus -- official,"
reporting that a county health department official has confirmed
norovirus in a customer who ate at the Virginia Chipotle Mexican
Grill Inc. restaurant.

Later in the day, CNBC published an article entitled "Rodents
reportedly fall from ceiling of Dallas Chipotle," reporting that
rodents were spotted at a Dallas-area Chipotle on July 19, 2017.
According to the article, diners captured the incident inside the
restaurant on video, which shows "rodents crawling around the
floor and one climbing up the wall," and with customers claiming
the rodents were falling from the ceiling.

On these disclosures, Chipotle's share price fell $16.78, or 4.5%,
to close at $356.05 on July 20, 2017.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.

        Robert S. Willoughby
        Pomerantz LLP
        Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S: Court Dismisses "Durham" With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy S. Black of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division, granted the Defendant's motion
to dismiss with prejudice the case captioned JACOB DURHAM,
Plaintiff, v. CINCINNATI CHILDREN's HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-438 (S.D. Ohio).

This case is one of hundreds of cases in both Ohio state courts
and federal courts stemming from the alleged conduct of an
orthopedic surgeon named Abubakar Atiq Durrani who formerly lived
and worked in the Cincinnati area.  In 2013, allegations surfaced
that Dr. Durrani had for years subjected his patients to
unnecessary surgeries without informed consent as part of a
financial scheme.  He was criminally indicted in late 2013, but
fled to his native Pakistan before trial.  There is no indication
he will return.  In his absence, hundreds of allegedly wronged
patients have filed civil suits against numerous related parties,
from Dr. Durrani himself to the facilities where surgeries
allegedly took place to the manufacturers of the medial products
that were allegedly inserted into patients' without their informed
consent.  The majority of the Plaintiffs in these various lawsuits
are represented by a single law firm, the Deters Law Office.

In the case currently before this Court, Plaintiff Durham has
filed a proposed class action suit against the Defendant on behalf
of himself and all patients who, as of the filing of this
complaint, have undergone surgery at CCHMC and had Infuse/BMP-2
placed in them without their knowledge and consent during surgery
by Dr. Durrani and other surgeons.  The complaint advances claims
of fraud and violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Protection Act.

The Defendant filed a timely motion to dismiss, which was placed
on hold while the Court adjudicated a motion to remand filed by
the Plaintiffs.  The Court has rejected the motion to remand.

The Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss acknowledges
that he is an inappropriate class representative because he is not
a member of the proposed class due to his previous association
with the Deters Law Office as the Plaintiff in an Ohio state court
action raising similar claims to the present action.  He has
accordingly indicated that he no longer wishes to proceed as the
class representative in this action.  In an attempt to preserve
this action, three potential Intervenor Plaintiffs, Christina
Rutter, Joseph Rutter, and Carson Rutter, have filed a motion to
intervene as class representatives in this action.  That motion
has been opposed by the Defendant.

Ultimately, Judge Black held that there appears to be little need
for this class action, which seems to him to merely be an attempt
by the Deters Law Office to "corner the market" on any potential
Plaintiffs they may have missed who are not among the hundreds of
Plaintiffs currently pursuing their claims in Ohio state court.
This is an inappropriate use of the class action mechanism, and if
allowed would create duplicitous litigation that would threaten to
waste judicial resources and prolong the ultimate resolution of
the many serious claims arising from the alleged acts of Dr.
Durrani.  As it stands, allowing this complaint to proceed would
serve no one but the Plaintiff's counsel.

Accordingly, Judge Black granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, denied (on the merits and as moot) the Intervenor
Plaintiffs' motion to intervene, and dismissed with prejudice the
case.  He directed the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly,
whereupon this civil action will be closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/d4pZ2Z from Leagle.com.

Jacob Durham, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew J. Hammer, The
Deters Law Firm P.S.C..

Jacob Durham, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Albert Winter, Jr..

Jacob Durham, Plaintiff, represented by James P. Triona, The
Deters Firm.

Christina Rutter, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Robert
Albert Winter, Jr..

Joseph Rutter, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Robert Albert
Winter, Jr..

Carson Rutter, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Robert Albert
Winter, Jr..

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Defendant,
represented by Jon David Brittingham --
david.brittingham@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl, Allison Knerr
-- Allison.Knerr@Dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore and Shohl & Michael
Jeffrey Gray -- michael.gray@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl,
LLP.


CLASSIC PARKING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Lembeck" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Lembeck, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and as representative of other aggrieved employees v.
Classic Parking, Inc. and Does 1 through 250, inclusive, Case No.
BC668709 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 14, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

Classic Parking, Inc. offers parking, transportation, and security
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
      Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
      Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
      Jean P. Buchanan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
      555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 432-8933
      Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
      E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
              brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
              laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
              jean@carlinbuchsbaum.com


CLOROX COMPANY: Faces Class Action for False Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a New York consumer and an Orange County man allege
that a line of cleaning supplies falsely advertises that they are
natural.

Joseph Gregorio and Patrick Quiroz filed a complaint individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated on July 5 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against The Clorox Co. alleging violation of the California Unfair
and Deceptive Acts and Practices Law, California's False
Advertising Law and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they
purchased the defendant's Green Works Naturally Derived
Dishwashing Liquid earlier this year because they had an interest
in purchasing natural cleaning products.

The plaintiffs holds The Clorox Co. responsible because the
defendant allegedly claims that its product is natural or
naturally derived despite containing synthetic and non-natural
ingredients, such as boric acid and calcium chloride.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages, interest, restitution, order the
defendant in a corrective advertising, injunctive relief all legal
fees, and any other relief as the court deems just. They are
represented by L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. -- ltfisher@bursor.com --
of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. in Walnut Creek and by Scott Bursor, Esq.
--  sbursor@bursor.com -- of the same firm in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number 3:17-cv-03824-JCS [GN]


CLOROX COMPANY: "Gregorio" Alleges Product Mislabeling
------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Gregorio and Patrick Quiroz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Clorox Company,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-03824 (N.D. Cal., July 5, 2017), seeks
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest
on all amounts awarded, restitution and all other forms of
equitable monetary relief, a corrective advertising campaign,
injunctive relief as pleaded, reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses, and costs of suit resulting from breach of express and
implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation and fraud, and violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law
and Unfair Competition Law under the Business and Professions
Code, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, New York's
General Business Law (False Advertising).

The Clorox Company produces, markets and distributes the Green
Works (R) home cleaning products. Quiroz purchased Green Works
Naturally Derived Dishwashing Liquid and Green Works Naturally
Derived Laundry Detergent from a Target store located in Orange
County, California. Clorox claims that their products are
"natural" and "naturally derived" despite containing synthetic and
non-natural ingredients, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      Email: ltfisher@bursor.com

             - and -

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: scott@bursor.com


COLLECTO INC: Jones Files Suit Over FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Gregory Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Collecto, Inc., d/b/a EOS CCA, a Massachusetts
corporation, and US Asset Management, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-02346-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind., July 11,
2017), alleges that the Defendants' debt collection letter form
violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS CCA, is a Massachusetts
corporation, which acts as a debt collector because it regularly
uses the mails or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect,
delinquent consumer debts.  EOS operates a nationwide debt
collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers
in virtually every state, including consumers in the state of
Indiana.

US Asset Management, Inc., is a Delaware corporation that acts as
a debt collector.  US Asset is a bad debt buyer that buys large
portfolios of defaulted consumer debts for pennies on the dollar,
which it then collects upon through other collection agencies,
such as EOS.  US Asset's principal, if not sole, business purpose
is the collection of delinquent consumer debts originated by
others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angiekrobertson@aol.com

               - and -

          John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
          5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Telephone: (317) 780-8300
          Facsimile: (317) 217-1320
          E-mail: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


COVISINT CORP: "Lai" Claims Shortchanged on Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Valiant K. Lai, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Covisint Corporation, John F. Smith,
Bernard M. Goldsmith, William O. Grabe, Dave Hansen, Sam Inman
III, Andreas Mai, Jonathan Yaron, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
12183 (E.D. Mich., July 5, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and
permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
acquisition of Covisint Corporation by Open Text Corporation and
Cypress Merger Sub, Inc.

The Plaintiff further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts'
fees and granting such other and further relief under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

Covisint Corporation will be acquired by Open Text Corporation and
Cypress Merger Sub, Inc. where shareholders of Covisint will
receive $2.45 in cash for each share of Covisint common stock.
Defendants have allegedly locked up the deal and have precluded
other bidders from making successful competing offers for the
company. Said merger consideration is inadequate considering that
the intrinsic value of the Company is materially in excess of the
amount offered thus denying Plaintiff their right to share
proportionately and equitably in the true value of the Company's
valuable and profitable business and future growth in profits and
earnings.

Covisint provides an open, developer-friendly, enterprise-class
cloud platform to facilitate the rapid development and deployment
of Internet of Things, Identity Management and B2B collaboration
solutions. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
      KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
      206 Covington Street
      Madisonville, LA 70447
      Tel.: (504) 455-1400
      Fax: (504) 455-1498
      E-mail: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com

             - and -

      Anthony L. DeLuca, Esq.
      ANTHONY L. DELUCA, PLC
      14950 East Jefferson Ave., Suite 170
      Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230
      Tel: (313) 821-5905
      Fax: (313) 821-5906
      Email: Anthony@aldplc.com


CREDIT CONTROL: "Evans" Hits Unjust Threat in Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Evans and Cristina Wiseman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Credit Control, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01350 (S.D. Cal., July 5, 2017), seeks
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

In April 2016, Evans and Wiseman incurred financial obligations to
Capital One, N.A. for personal credit cards. Defendant, in their
collection letter, threatened to share Plaintiffs' personal
information without the Plaintiffs' consent in their attempt to
collect said debt.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      Yana A. Hart, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26
      Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com
             yana@westcoastlitigation.com

             - and -

      Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY
      409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 222-7429
      Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
      Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


CSW INC: Bid to Invalidate Private Deals in "Morgan" Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DWAYNE MORGAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CSW
INC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-C-1283 (E.D. Eis.), Judge
William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin (i) granted CSW's and Withdrawal Plaintiffs'
motion to invalidate the private settlements; and (ii) set on the
court's calendar for hearing the settlement reached by the
Plaintiffs' counsel with CSW.

The Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated against the Defendants, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Wisconsin
Wage and Hour Law.  The FLSA claim is brought as an "opt-in"
collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA.  The
Wisconsin wage and hour claim is brought as an "opt-out" Rule 23
Class Action.  The amended complaint alleges that the Plaintiff
Employees were employed directly by CSW, a Mississippi corporation
that recruits and hires construction workers to work on
construction projects throughout the country.

During the relevant time period, the Plaintiff Employees worked
under a contract between CSW and Northern Concrete at Northern
Concrete's Wisconsin job sites.  They allege that they were joint
employees of both CSW and Northern Concrete, and that both the
Defendants are jointly and severally liable for violations of
federal and state laws governing minimum wages.  CSW is currently
unrepresented and has failed to answer the amended complaint,
though the Plaintiffs have not moved for default.  Northern
Concrete denies liability as a joint employer and claims that CSW
contractually agreed to assume full responsibility for all human
resources functions.

Currently before the court is a motion to invalidate the alleged
settlements made without court approval between CSW and five of
the Named Plaintiffs -- Paul Robinson, Clint Robinson, Shaun
Saunders, Michael Owens, and Cornelius Buford ("Withdrawal
Plaintiffs") -- and to issue a court-authorized notice that the
Withdrawal Plaintiffs remain a party in the lawsuit.  Also before
the court is the Plaintiffs' motion to approve a settlement
reached between the Plaintiffs' counsel and CSW and for leave to
withdraw all claims against CSW pursuant to that settlement.
Northern Concrete opposes both motions.

The Court explains that the Plaintiffs have submitted sufficient
evidence for the Court to conclude it is likely that the
Withdrawal Plaintiffs' actions were the result of private
settlement agreements with CSW.  Invalidating the Withdrawal
Plaintiffs' settlements also does not necessarily force the
unwilling Plaintiffs to continue litigating this matter.  After
the Withdrawal Plaintiffs receive notice that their withdrawals
are invalid and that they remain parties to this lawsuit, they
remain free to withdraw from the case subject to either proof that
their decision to withdraw was not the result of a settlement
agreement with CSW or, if it was, approval of the settlement by
the Court.

Accordingly, the motion to invalidate any settlements between CSW
and the Withdrawal Plaintiffs is granted.  The Plaintiffs attached
to their motion a proposed notice which would notify the
Withdrawal Plaintiffs that any settlements of their FLSA claims
have been invalidated and that they remain Plaintiffs in this
case.  That notice is approved with one addition.  It should
include a statement advising the individual Withdrawal Plaintiffs
that they can request court approval of the settlements they
reached with CSW by filing with the court a written motion
requesting court approval and explaining why they believe the
settlement is fair and reasonable.  The motion should also include
the Withdrawal Plaintiff's address and a telephone number where he
can be reached so that the Court can conduct a telephone hearing
on the request in the event further information is required.  With
that addition, the proposed notice submitted by counsel should be
sent to the Plaintiffs who sought to withdraw from the action.

With respect to the Plaintiffs' request for court approval of the
proposed settlement agreement between their counsel and CSW, the
Court says it does not have enough information to approve or
reject the proposed settlement in this unusual case.  Accordingly,
it directed the Clerk to set a hearing on the Court's calendar at
which counsel will appear and address the Plaintiffs' motion to
withdraw all claims against Defendant CSW.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/6PQVZo from Leagle.com.

Dwayne Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens,
The Previant Law Firm SC.

Dwayne Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by Sara J. Geenen, The
Previant Law Firm SC & Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC.

Clint Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens,
The Previant Law Firm SC, Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC
& Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC.

Paul Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens,
The Previant Law Firm SC, Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC
& Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC.

Michael Owens, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens,
The Previant Law Firm SC, Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC
& Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC.

Marques Stewart, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens,
The Previant Law Firm SC, Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC
& Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC.

Cornelius Buford, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens,
The Previant Law Firm SC, Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC
& Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC.

Shaun Saunders, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens,
The Previant Law Firm SC, Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC
& Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC.

Daunte Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens, The
Previant Law Firm SC, Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC &
Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC.

Kendall Holmes, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens,
The Previant Law Firm SC, Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC
& Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC.

Northern Concrete Construction Inc, Defendant, represented by
Devin S. Hayes -- dhayes@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper SC,
Geoffrey S. Trotier -- gtrotier@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen &
Roper SC & Roy E. Wagner -- rwagner@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen
& Roper SC.


DEMO MASTERS: Gregorio Sues Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Gregorio and Patrick Quiroz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Demo Masters,
Defendant, Case No. RG17866648 (Cal. Super., July 6, 2017), seeks
compensation resulting from Defendant's failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements under California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Demo Masters offers total turnkey demolition services for
manufacturing plants, airports, governmental facilities and
commercial facilities. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Tel: (818) 990-8300
      Fax: (818) 990-2903
      Email: eric@kingsleykingsley.com


EXTENDED STAY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Williams, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Extended Stay America, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01877-C (N.D.
Tex., July 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Extended Stay America, Inc. operates an economy, extended-stay
hotel chain consisting of 629 properties in the United States and
Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles W. Branham III, Esq.
      DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
      302 N. Market St., Suite 300
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 722-5990
      Facsimile: (214) 722-5991
      E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com


FACEBOOK INC: Fights Data Security Class Action in EU Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Euronews reports the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ)
heard arguments on July 19 over whether to allow a class action
suit against Facebook, brought by Austrian privacy activist Max
Schrems -- and about 25,000 other users across the globe. Schrems
is claiming 500 euros (GBP442) in damages for each signatory to
his lawsuit, one of a series of European challenges to U.S.
technology firms and their handling of personal data. Schrems's
lawsuit concerns alleged violations of privacy by Facebook through
its use of personal data and tracking of users on external pages,
among other things. Schrems argues it is vital that the case be
treated as a class-action suit. He believes 25,000 individual
lawsuits on user privacy would be "impossible" due to the
financial burden on users and the inefficiency for judges. "If
privacy claims cannot be grouped, they (Facebook) can get away
with violating the law," Schrems said in a statement. While common
in the United States, class action suits are generally not
recognised in Europe. Facebook calls the suit a way to get around
that, brought by an activist so well-known he has merited an
exhibit dedicated to his campaign against Facebook in Berlin's Spy
Museum. Schrems launched the lawsuit in August 2014 at his home
court in Vienna against Facebook Ireland Ltd, the subsidiary
offering the social network to more than 80 percent of active
users worldwide. Around 25,000 other Facebook users transferred
their financial claims to him, forming an artificial class action
suit, although legally the case remains between two parties.
Austria's Supreme Court referred two questions to the European
court. Firstly, it asked whether people lose the status of
"consumer" when they publish books, deliver lectures, collect
donations and operate websites. Secondly, in the event that
Schrems could be considered a consumer, it asked whether it could
hear the class action case when some of the consumers involved may
not be based in Austria or even in the EU. Facebook argues that
Schrems cannot be considered a "consumer". He has spoken and
written extensively on privacy law, and, according to Facebook,
used the social media platform to further those professional
activities -- something Schrems denies. A Facebook spokesperson
said: "Mr. Schrems's claims have twice been rejected on the
grounds that they cannot proceed as 'class action' on behalf of
other consumers in Austrian courts. We were pleased to be able to
present to the CJEU and look forward to resolving these claims."
European consumer group BEUC backed Schrems's bid to have the case
handled as a class action. "Consumers are often powerless when
tech giants breach data protection rules," said BEUC's Christoph
Schmon. "It makes sense to bundle multiple claims and avoid
parallel procedures in different countries." A court adviser,
Advocate General Michal Bobek, is expected to issue his opinion on
November 7, with the final judgement to come by the end of the
year. [GN]


FCA US: Loses Bid to Deny Class Certification in "Victorino"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CARLOS VICTORINO and ADAM TAVITIAN,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 16cv1617-GPC(JLB)(S.D.
Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California denied the Defendants' motion to
deny class certification.

The Plaintiffs bring this purported first amended class action
complaint based on defects in the 2013-2016 Dodge Dart vehicles
equipped with a Fiat C635 manual transmission that cause the
vehicles' clutches to fail and stick to the floor.  As a result,
the vehicles equipped with the defective manual transmission
exhibit stalling, failure to accelerate, and premature failure of
the Clutch System's components, including the clutch master
cylinder and reservoir hose, clutch slave cylinder and release
bearing, clutch disc, pressure plate, and flywheel.  The Defendant
designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs,
sells, and leases passenger vehicles, including the Plaintiffs'
vehicles.

On Feb. 13, 2017, the Defense Counsel emailed the Plaintiffs'
attorneys, Jordan Lurie and Tarek Zohdy, with the subject line
"Settlement" where the Defendant offered to pay the two plaintiffs
in the DeCoteau case and the Plaintiffs in the Victorino case
$10,000 each for a total of $40,000 total.  The offer was
contingent on acceptance by all four plaintiffs in both cases.
The settlement offer was made in response to a $10,000 demand for
an individual settlement made by the plaintiffs' counsel in the
DeCoteau.  The Defendant agreed to accept the demand made in
DeCoteau contingent upon acceptance of the settlement by all four
plaintiffs in DeCoteau and this case.

When the Plaintiffs' counsel never responded to the offer, it was
withdrawn over a month later on March 10, 2017 due the start of
discovery.  When the Plaintiffs were deposed in April 2017, they
indicated they were not aware of a settlement offer made by the
Defendant to resolve their claims.

Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to deny class
certification filed on May 19, 2017.  The Plaintiffs filed an
opposition on June 16, 2017.  On June 30, 2017, Defendant filed a
reply.

The Defendant argues that the adequacy requirement for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4)
cannot be satisfied because the Plaintiffs' counsel violated their
ethical obligation under California Rules of Professional Conduct
3-510 by failing to communicate to the Plaintiffs the settlement
offer made by the Defendant.  It contends that the Plaintiffs'
counsel's failure to communicate the settlement offer demonstrates
they will act in the same unethical manner throughout the
litigation.

Judge Curiel held that the Plaintiffs' counsel's failure to
communicate the Defendant's settlement offer was contrary to
California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-510 which raises a
question as to counsels' integrity and trustworthiness to
represent the interests of the class.  However, there were
reasons, albeit incorrect, why the Plaintiffs' counsel did not
believe they needed to communicate the settlement offer.  Based on
the record to date, Judge Curiel cannot conclude that the
Plaintiffs' counsel's conduct creates a serious doubt on their
integrity and trustworthiness as representatives for the class.

As noted by the new evidence of a potential new conflict of
interest and solicitation issue raised in the reply, discovery on
class certification is still ongoing.  Therefore, at this early
stage, Judge Curiel denied the Defendant's motion to deny class
certification subject to the adequacy of counsel being raised
again in conjunction with the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification where the Court will consider all Rule 23 factors.
The hearing date of July 28, 2017 will be vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/DvPNtz from Leagle.com.

Carlos Victorino, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett,
Capstone Law APC.

Carlos Victorino, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan L. Lurie,
Capstone Law APC, Karen Lynn Wallace, Capstone Law APC, Robert
Kenneth Friedl, Capstone Law APC & Tarek H. Zohdy, Capstone Law
APC.

Adam Tavitian, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett, Capstone
Law APC, Jordan L. Lurie, Capstone Law APC, Karen Lynn Wallace,
Capstone Law APC, Robert Kenneth Friedl, Capstone Law APC & Tarek
H. Zohdy, Capstone Law APC.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathleen Ann Wisniewski,
Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, Scott H. Morgan, Thompson
Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen Anthony D'Aunoy, Thompson Coburn
LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Thompson Coburn LLP, pro
hac vice, William M. Low, Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP & Edwin
Mendelson Boniske, Higgs Fletcher & Mack, LLP.


FLOYD COUNTY, IN: Proposed Class Action Deal Awaits Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Depompei, writing for News and Tribute, reports that a
proposed $1.23 million settlement between the Floyd County jail
and former inmates who say jail staff violated their
constitutional rights could be approved or denied by a judge on
July 24.

The class action lawsuit represents more than 200 people confined
to padded cells and allegedly "deprived of clothing, bedding and
hygiene products" from June 12, 2012, to the present. Louisville-
based attorney Laura Landenwich of Clay, Daniel Walton & Adams
first filed the complaint on behalf of former inmate Tabitha
Gentry in June 2014. Five other former inmates eventually joined
the lawsuit, which was later certified as a class action.

According to court documents, Gentry was arrested on multiple
misdemeanor charges on March 20, 2014. Gentry reported she was
forcibly stripped of her clothes, Tased and pepper-sprayed while
being held in a padded cell for nearly five hours.

At the time, staff under then-Sheriff Darrell Mills operated on a
policy that detailed how to handle "combative or potentially
suicidal subjects" entering the jail. That policy, a copy of which
is included in court records, states that it was the supervisor's
discretion as to who was deemed "stable or unstable," and whether
that person posed a harm to themselves or someone else.

The policy directed staff to remove such a person's clothing and
provide a smock. Clothing was to be removed by an officer of the
same gender as the inmate, "unless the threat of physical
resistance is too great a risk . . . . "

Per a proposed settlement, which has been preliminarily approved
by a U.S. District Court judge, that policy would not be allowed
to be reinstated. Floyd County Sheriff Frank Loop said he stopped
operating under the policy when he took office in January 2015.
Loop is not directly named in the lawsuit, and by agreeing to a
settlement, the jail does not admit any wrongdoing.

"I can only talk about my current policy, [which] is that if we
have a combative person -- which we have on a regular basis -- and
we determine that they need to be placed in a padded cell, they
are placed in there in a restraint chair," Loop said in a phone
interview on July 18. "And there's a set training for the
restraint chair and when we place those people in there, it
doesn't matter what they're dressed in."

The jail has two padded cells and two restraint chairs with six
buckles each. Loop said the only scenario where someone is
stripped of their clothing is if they meet the guidelines for a
strip search.

"But we never just take their clothes away and leave them
unclothed," he said.

Some plaintiffs were Tased and/or pepper sprayed at the jail. In
one case, a plaintiff claimed he was Tased seven times and that an
officer "choked him until he lost consciousness." The previous
policy noted that staff is trained to maintain control of inmates
"by both verbal and physical means if necessary." It also notes
that the highest number of use of force or physical altercations
occurred during the book-in process.

As part of the settlement, more than 200 former inmates
potentially affected by the previous policy were identified.
Nearly 60 of those people were Tased or pepper sprayed while in
the jail. Per the settlement, those people could receive an
initial payment of $3,000. The rest of the money would be divided
between all members of the class action, the amount per person not
to exceed $25,000.

But before those payouts, 37 percent of the $1.23 million
settlement would go toward attorneys' fees, and roughly $45,000
would be applied to court costs. Another $15,000 would go to each
of the six original plaintiffs in the case.

In addition to ceasing the former combative subjects policy, the
settlement would require more training for corrections officers.
And that's something Loop supports.

" . . . . I actually agreed with them that we should train
everybody before they actually do the job instead of, for forever
it was 'Oh hire somebody, throw them in the job and we'll train
them when we can,' " Loop said. "And that's part of what the
problems were."

A notice of the class action suit, along with settlement
documents, have been posted at floydcountyjailclassaction.com.
Former inmates who qualify can submit claims until July 21.

A final hearing on the settlement is schedule for July 24 at 1
p.m.  Landenwich, the attorney for the former inmates, said that
as long as the judge deems the settlement fair, it should be
approved and payments can start being disbursed.

Loop said that in addition to hiring more corrections officers and
beginning jail renovations, he recently hired a law firm to do a
complete review of the jail's policies and procedures. He expects
those to be finalized in the next 30 days.

". . . . Which will bring us up to date on what we're supposed to
do so we can avoid litigation in the future," he said. [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Driveshaft Flexible Coupling
------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Ford Transit van driveshaft flexible coupling lawsuit alleges
2015-2017 Ford Transit vans have driveshaft flexible couplings,
also known as flex discs, that crack and fail and cause serious
dangers and a huge expense to repair.

The driveshaft flexible coupling is a type of joint that connects
the transmission to the driveshaft.  The failure of the driveshaft
flexible coupling can cause the driveshaft to rip away from the
transmission, causing severe damage to surrounding components.

Those components include brake and fuel lines, the transmission,
rear end differential, torque converter and evaporation container.

The vans are popular with business owners who depend on the
vehicles for their livelihoods, and it is business owners who
filed the class-action lawsuit.

The problems allegedly experienced by the plaintiff (All Care
Transport) reads like the script of a soap opera.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff bought a new 2015 Ford
Transit van in May 2015 and in November 2016, the driver heard a
loud popping noise and felt a vibration while driving on the
freeway.  The driver allegedly lost steering and braking because
the flex disc failed, causing the driveshaft to separate from the
engine.

The failure of the flex disc was so violent that it also sheared
the brake lines and coolant lines, damaged the fuel line and
evaporation canister and broke the transmission mount bracket and
flange, all of which had to be replaced and repaired.

The van was taken to a dealer where it was out of service for
almost a month while being repaired, causing a repair bill of
$3,204.03.

All Care Transport also bought a new 2016 Ford Transit van in
September 2015, but in November the van was taken back to the
dealer because the vehicle was vibrating.  Technicians inspected
the flex disc and found the driveline coupler was coming apart,
causing the van to spend two weeks in the shop.

On June 5, 2017, All Care Transport brought the same van to a
dealership because the catalytic converter allegedly failed, so
the plaintiff asked technicians to check on the flex disc.  The
service tech found the flex disc (which had been installed new
only six months and 47,335 miles earlier) was cracked, so they
replaced it with a new driveshaft flexible coupling at a cost of
$267.11 to All Care Transport.

Then there is a third Transit van the plaintiff purchased new in
December 2015.  After the first van experienced catastrophic flex
disc failure and the second van had a cracked flex disc, All Care
Transport brought their other vans to a dealer to have the flex
discs checked.

On December 8, 2016, the service center found the driveshaft
flexible coupling in the third van was cracked and coming apart,
so the flex disc was replaced.

On May 13, 2017, as the third Transit van was being accelerated on
a freeway entrance ramp, the driver felt a hard vibration and
heard a loud popping noise and pulled over to the side of the on-
ramp.

The van was towed at a cost of $160 and technicians found the flex
disc (which had just been installed new five months earlier) had
catastrophically failed, causing the driveshaft to drop off the
engine and tear into pieces, shearing the transmission off its
mount, shredding the fuel lines, damaging the evaporator box and
lines and the heater hose.

The plaintiff says when the driveshaft separated from the engine,
it nearly tore through its catch-loop, something that would have
caused the Transit to pole-vault down the highway.

It allegedly took more than five weeks for the dealer to repair
the van, at a cost of $5,211.

But then there is a fourth Transit van that was purchased new in
May 2016.  The plaintiff had the van at a shop in April 2017 and
asked workers to check the flex disc.  They allegedly found the
disc was cracked and had to replace it at a cost of $356.11 to All
Care Transport.

The lawsuit alleges when Ford Transit owners complain to the
automaker about the driveshaft problems, Ford allegedly denies
knowledge of the problems and makes owners pay for repairs.
However, the plaintiff says Ford has known about the driveshaft
flexible coupling problem since 2014 and finally ordered a recall
in June 2017.

The recall notice says "continuing to operate a vehicle with a
cracked flexible coupling may cause separation of the driveshaft,
resulting in a loss of motive power while driving or unintended
vehicle movement in park without the parking brake applied."

In addition, Ford told Transit owners that "separation of the
driveshaft from the transmission can result in secondary damage to
surrounding components, including brake and fuel lines."  Ford
also acknowledged that "driveshaft separation may increase the
risk of injury or crash."

In its recall notice, Ford requires Transit owners to replace the
driveshaft flexible coupling "every 30,000 miles" until a
permanent remedy (which Ford does not have) becomes available. The
plaintiff says Ford not only doesn't have a fix for the problem,
but nothing in the documents indicates that Ford will reimburse
owners who have paid to have the flex discs repaired.

Currently the proposed class-action lawsuit includes 2015-2017
Ford Transit owners and lessees in California only, but lawsuits
such as this often begin in localized areas and then expand to
other parts of the country.

The Ford Transit van driveshaft flexible coupling lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Eastern Division - All Care Transport, LLC, et. al.,
v. Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiff is represented by Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP, Jones Ward, and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. [GN]


GALLERY AUTOMOTIVE: "Sullivan" Remanded to Mass. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
the case captioned DONALD SULLIVAN, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GALLERY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP,
LLC and YUSUKE MIKI, Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-12552-GAO (D.
Mass.).

According to the Plaintiff's allegations, Defendant Gallery
Automotive operates multiple car dealerships in Massachusetts.
Defendant Miki is a manager at the company.  In December 2014, the
Plaintiff was hired as a car salesperson compensated by draw pay
and commissions.  While a salesperson, he worked more than 40
hours in multiple workweeks, including more than 45 hours in some
workweeks.  At no time was he compensated at a rate of one and one
half times his regular rate of pay for the hours he worked over
forty per week.

In April 2016, the Plaintiff was promoted to the position of
financial services manager responsible for selling automobile
financial products to customers.  He continued to be compensated
by draw pay and commissions.  While a manager, he worked more than
40 hours in multiple workweeks, including more than 60 hours in
some workweeks.  At no time was he compensated at a rate of one
and one half times his regular rate of pay for the hours worked in
excess of forty per week.  The pay slips issued by the Defendants
failed to list his hourly rate or actual number of hours he worked
per week.  Additionally, the Defendants failed to pay him
$8,710.27 in commission earned from the sale of automobile
financial products in August and September 2016, as well as for
four paid holidays.

In October 2016, the Plaintiff brought this suit in Plymouth
County Superior Court on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, alleging class claims of non-payment of wages in
violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, Sections 1A, 1B (Count I),
non-payment of wages in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149,
Sections 148, 150 (Count II), and failure to maintain proper
payroll records in violation of various state laws and regulations
(Count III), as well as separate claims by Sullivan as an
individual for non-payment of wages in violation of Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 149, Sections 148, 150 (Count IV), breach of contract
(Count V), and unjust enrichment/quantum meruit (Count VI).  The
complaint does not include a claim for a specific amount of
damages.

The Defendants removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sections 1332, 1441, and 1446.  The Plaintiff now moves to
remand, contending that the case does not satisfy the amount-
incontroversy requirement for this Court to exercise diversity of
citizenship jurisdiction under Section 1332(a).

First, in order to assign a dollar figure to the Plaintiff's
unspecified overtime claims, the Defendants assume that the
Plaintiff worked an average of 12.53 hours of overtime per week
for his 88 weeks of employment, and multiply that figure by a
weighted average overtime rate of $14.04 to contend that the
damages would eclipse $75,000 after mandatory trebling under Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section.  However, according to Judge O'Toole,
the assumption that the Plaintiff worked an average of 12.53 extra
hours of overtime per week is not only hypothetical, but it is
also belied by the Defendants' own payroll records which reveal a
lower average.

Second, the Defendants' contention that the Plaintiff's two
specific allegations regarding unpaid commissions are mere
examples of other potential -- but unspecified -- commissions rest
on a contorted reading of the complaint.  Without more, Judge
O'Toole finds the Defendants' contention regarding an amount of
unpaid commissions is merely speculative.

Third, although a potential award of attorneys' fees may properly
be considered in determining the amount in controversy when, as
here, they are provided for by statute, the Defendants have not
shown that it is reasonably probable in this case that attorneys'
fees would boost the damages amount beyond the $75,000 threshold.

Accordingly, in light of the speculative nature of the Defendants'
arguments, Judge O'Toole concluded that the Defendants have failed
to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 for the Plaintiff's individual claims.
Therefore, he granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand as to an
order of remand.  Although the Plaintiff's motion is meritorious,
Judge O'Toole does not find that there was no objective basis for
the Defendants to remove the case, and therefore he denied the
Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees incurred as result of the
removal.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/r53rNd from Leagle.com.

Donald Sullivan, Plaintiff, represented by Raven Moeslinger --
rm@mass-legal.com -- Law Office of Nicholas F. Ortiz, P.C..

Yusuke Miki, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Fritz, Fisher &
Phillips, LLP, Joseph W. Ambash, Fisher & Phillips LLP & Joshua D.
Nadreau, Fisher & Phillips, LLP.

Gallery Automotive Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua D.
Nadreau -- jfritz@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP,
Jeffrey A. Fritz -- jfritz@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher &
Phillips, LLP & Joseph W. Ambash -- jambash@fisherphillips.com --
Fisher & Phillips LLP.


GENERAL MOTORS: "Pope" Hits Share Price Drop from Emissions Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD POPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. General Motors Company, Daniel F. Akerson,
Mary T. Barra, Daniel Ammann and Charles K. Stevens III,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-12185 (E.D. Mich., July 5, 2017)
seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as
their reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and
such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

General Motors Company (GM) designs, builds, and sells cars,
trucks, crossovers and automobile parts. It is alleged of
installing at least three distinct defeat devices in over 700,000
trucks with Duramax diesel engines from 2011 to 2016 in order to
cheat emissions tests in the U.S. thus resulting in their trucks
emitting up to five times the legal limit of nitrogen oxide
pollutants.

On this news, GM's share price fell $0.60, or 1.81%, to close at
$32.60 on May 25, 2017. Plaintiff owns GM shares and lost
substantially. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul F. Novak, Esq.
      Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
      Chrysler House
      719 Griswold Street, Suite 620
      Detroit, MI 48826
      Telephone: (313) 800-4170
      Facsimile: (646) 293-7992
      Email: pnovak@weitzlux.com
             gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com

             - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Hui M. Chang, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             hchang@pomlaw.com

              - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


GREATBANC TRUST: "McMaken" Suit Asserts ERISA Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Michael V. McMaken, on behalf of the Chemonics International, Inc.
Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Greatbanc Trust
Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04983, (N.D. Ill., July 5,
2017), seeks compensation for losses resulting from breaches of of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974; restoration
of any profits Defendant has made through use of assets of the
Plan; equitable relief; recovery for the Plan's overpayment on
company stock; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit
incurred; disgorgement of any fees Greatbanc received in
conjunction with its services as Trustee for the Plan; as well as
any earnings and profits, prejudgment interest and such other and
further relief.

GreatBanc is an independent trust company headquartered at 801
Warrenville Road, Suite 500, Lisle, Illinois 60532. It is the
trustee for the Chemonics International, Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership Plan where Plaintiff is a participant in the Plan and is
vested in shares of Chemonics allocated to his account.

GreatBanc allegedly used the Plan to purchase Chemonics stocks
paying more than its fair market value and took a loan from
parties in interest to purchase 792,942 outstanding shares of
Chemonics common stock for an aggregate price of $216,124,272, of
which 18,344 shares were purchased outright and 774,598 shares
were financed by the Sellers with a note that bore 3.86% interest
per annum and was to be repaid over a 20-year period. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     3930 N. Lowell Ave.
     Chicago, IL 60641
     Telephone: (847) 899-1646
     Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
     Email: pmuench@baileyglasser.com

            - and -

     Gregory Y. Porter, Esq
     Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
     BAILEY GLASSER LLP
     1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 463-2101
     Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
     Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com
            rjenny@baileyglasser.com


GOOD SHEPHERD: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Jones" Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CASSANDRA JONES, individually & on behalf of all similarly
situated v. GOOD SHEPHERD HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
3:17-cv-00411-DJH (W.D. Ky., July 11, 2017), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Good Shepherd Healthcare Solutions, Inc., is a Kentucky
corporation that operates under the assumed name corporation
BrightStar of Kentucky.  The Defendant is a franchisee of
BrightStar Care.  The Defendant is in the business of home
care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          333 W Vine St., Suite 1200
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 286-8368
          E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


HENKEL AG: Faces Class Action Over Check Rebates
------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a New
Jersey consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against a variety
of companies, alleging negligent misrepresentation.

John Sacchi filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, July 3 in U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against Henkel AG & Company, KgaA, Henkel
Consumer Goods Inc., Henkel Corporation, The Dial Corporation, and
Does 1 through 10, alleging they intentionally issued checks that
did not have funds in them.

According to the complaint, Sacchi was financially damaged when
the defendants closed the account on which the check rebate had
been drawn.

Sacchi seeks trial by jury, damages, compensatory, general,
incidental and consequential damages, special damages, punitive
damages, restitution and disgorgement, interest, court costs and
all further relief the court grants. He is represented by attorney
Stephen J. Simoni, Esq. -- stephensimonilaw@gmail.com -- of Simoni
Consumers Class Action Law Offices in Florham Park, New Jersey.

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey case number
3:17-cv-04889-AET-LHG [GN]


IMG COLLEGE: Faces "Spielman" Over Athletes Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
Charles C. Spielman a/k/a Chris Spielman, individually and/or as
an officer, Shareholder and/or Affiliate of Profectus Group, Inc.,
d/b/a The College Football Players Club, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. IMG College, LLC, IMG Worldwide,
Inc., WME Entertainment ("WME"), d/b/a IMG, d/b/a International
Management Group d/b/a Ohio State IMG Sports Marketing
(collectively referred to as "IMG"); and The Ohio State University
(a/k/a "OSU"), John Does 1-10, ABC Company's 1-10, Case No. 2:17-
cv-00612-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, July 14, 2017), is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendants' practice of  engaging in a
price-fixing conspiracy and a group boycott/refusal to deal that
has unlawfully foreclosed class members from receiving
compensation in connection with the commercial exploitation of
their images following their cessation of intercollegiate athletic
competition.

The Defendants operate a collegiate sports marketing company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian K. Duncan, Esq.
      BKD LEGAL, LLC
      119 East Granville Street
      Sunbury, OH 43074
      Telephone: (740) 965-1347
      Facsimile: (614) 386-0410
      E-mail: bduncan@bkdlegal.com


INDIANA BMV: Agrees to Settle Class Action Suit For $33.6-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Perleberg, writing for Eagle Country Online, reports that the
Indiana BMV has agreed to repay more than $62 million in excessive
fees to settle a class-action lawsuit. Attorney Irwin Levin, who
represented citizens in the lawsuit, said the BMV overcharged for
driver licenses, vehicle registrations and other services between
2002 and mid-2006.

A court in Marion County approved the settlement agreement this
week.

The $62 million includes $33.6 million the Indiana BMV began
refunding last year for overcharging between 2006 and 2014.

How much could you see refunded? It depends on the number and type
of transactions at the BMV during the noted years. Levin said most
people qualifying for a refund would be entitled to somewhere
between $1 and $50.

For overcharges after mid-2006, the amount owed to motorists will
be applied as a credit toward future BMV transactions. Refunds for
transactions before mid-2006 can be obtained by filling out an
electronic form available online at http://www.in.gov/bmv/3183.htm
[GN]


IDT CORPORATION: JDS1 Seeks to Invalidate Straight Path Sale
------------------------------------------------------------
JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of Straight Path Communications Inc., and
derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Straight Path
Communications Inc., Plaintiff, v. IDT Corporation, The Patrick
Henry Trust, Howard Jonas, Davidi Jonas, K. Chris Todd, William F.
Weld and Fred S. Zeidman, Defendants and Straight Path
Communications Inc., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2017-0486 (D.
Del., July 5, 2017), seeks to invalidate the sale of Straight Path
to AT&T.

The lawsuit seeks  damages resulting from breach of fiduciary
duties for the unfair selling price of Straight Path stock, an
indemnification against IDT and the transfer of Straight Path's IP
Assets in a constructive trust, disgorgement of any ill-gotten
profits, extraordinary equitable and injunctive relief, costs and
disbursements of the action including reasonable attorneys' fees,
accountants', consultants' and experts' fees costs, and expenses
and such further relief for Defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duties.

Straight Path is a holding company for wireless spectrum licenses
and related patents, holding millimeter bandwidth licenses for 5G
networks. Straight Path was previously a subsidiary of IDT
Corporation, but became a standalone company following the Spin
Off on July 31, 2013.

In January 2017, Straight Path entered into a consent decree with
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to forfeit
approximately 20% of its wireless licenses, pay a $15 million fine
and sell itself to AT&T and then pay 20% of the sale proceeds as a
fine to the FCC.

Plaintiff owns over 172,000 Straight Path shares worth nearly $32
million and seeks to assert direct claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against the Straight Path Board of Directors for manipulating
the Straight Path sale process. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
      John Vielandi, Esq.
      David MacIsaac, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
      New York, NY 10020
      Tel: (212) 554-1493
      Fax: (212) 554-1444

            - and -

      Ned Weinberger, Esq.
      Thomas Curry, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 573-2530


JAMES RAPP: Dismissal of Suit vs. County Court Judge Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronal Lee Gilman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court to grant the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned TIMOTHY H. COOPER
et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JAMES S. RAPP et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 17-3068 (6th Cir.).

This appeal involves sanctions imposed by Ohio state-court Judge
James S. Rapp while presiding over a class-action lawsuit.  After
Judge Rapp granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in
that case, he issued monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs Cooper
and both monetary and nonmonetary sanctions against his African-
American attorney, Ambrose Moses III.  In response, in April 2016,
Cooper and Moses filed suit in federal court against Judge Rapp
and the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that the
sanctions were motivated by Judge Rapp's racial prejudice.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants' racially discriminatory
conduct during the state-court proceedings violated the First,
Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.  As part of their request for relief, the Plaintiffs
also sought an order enjoining the March 2016 sanctions hearing
and the imposition of Judge Rapp's order that Moses surrender
himself to the sheriff in May 2016.  It is noted, however, that
the requests for these specific injunctions were moot by the time
the district court entered its judgment.

Judge Rapp and the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss all of these claims under
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  The district court granted their motion on both
grounds in December 2016.  It first held that it lacked subject-
matter jurisdiction based on both the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and
on Younger abstention principles.  In the alternative, the court
held that Judge Rapp was entitled to absolute judicial immunity
and that the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas was an entity
incapable of being sued.

Judge Gilman explains that Judge Rapp's actions are
paradigmatically judicial.  Even assuming that Judge Rapp's facial
expressions and body language indicated that he was racially
biased, his conclusion remains the same.

As to the declaratory relief against Judge Rapp, he finds that
Judge Rapp acted as a disinterested judicial adjudicator, bound to
decide the issues before him according to the law.  Under these
circumstances, Judge Rapp is not amenable to a suit for
declaratory relief under Section 1983.  The district court
therefore did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs' request for
declaratory relief against Judge Rapp.

The district court also correctly noted that the Plaintiffs failed
to allege that Judge Rapp violated a declaratory judgment, finds
Judge Gilman.  Nor did they demonstrate that declaratory relief
was "unavailable," albeit, they are not entitled to such relief.
The court therefore did not err in holding that Judge Rapp was
immune from their claims for injunctive relief.  And because Judge
Rapp is entitled to judicial immunity on their claims, Judge
Gilman affirmed the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Lastly, Judge Gilman adds that the Plaintiffs similarly fail to
address with any specificity the district court's dismissal of
their claims against the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas.
But even if they did not waive their right to appeal this issue,
the court correctly concluded that the Wyandot County Court of
Pleas is not a proper party, because it lacks an independent legal
existence and thus is incapable of being sued.

For these reasons, Judge Gilman affirmed the judgment of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/Ss0U4P from Leagle.com.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Seek Answers on Mesh Case Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne McCarthy, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that women
pelvic mesh victims suing Johnson & Johnson in one of Australia's
largest health class action legal cases are seeking urgent answers
after a report saying the multinational drug company has reduced
the pool of assets available if more than 700 women win.

Finance commentator Michael West said an investigation of Johnson
& Johnson's tax affairs and financial statements shows a deed of
cross guarantee between seven of the company's subsidiaries has
been allowed to lapse, potentially restricting available funds if
the women's case succeeds.

The company's legal firm advised the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission in a letter uncovered during the
investigation, Mr West said.  Until 2017 the seven subsidiaries
had guaranteed each others' debts.

The investigation also revealed the subsidiaries had failed to
file accounts, in breach of the Corporations Act.

One of the women registered in the class action, Jo Manion, said
women were shocked by the report and had contacted their legal
firm, Shine Lawyers, for answers.

"Johnson & Johnson's record of accountability on mesh is not good
so we are concerned by this report and we want to know what's
going on," Ms Manion said.

"I think it's fair to say that the history of women and Johnson &
Johnson on mesh is that they just want the whole issue to go
away."

Johnson & Johnson communications director Meshlin Khouri did not
respond directly to Mr West's claim that the lapsed deed of cross
guarantee would restrict available funds if the women win.

In a statement on July 23 to the Newcastle Herald, Ms Khouri said
the company did not agree that matters raised by Mr West had been
"properly reported", but they had been "addressed and resolved
with ASIC" and were "unrelated to the litigation".

"The financial position of Johnson & Johnson Pty Ltd and its
subsidiaries, including Johnson & Johnson Medical Pty Ltd, has not
changed as a consequence."

Ms Khouri said the company believed the pelvic mesh class action
would "show we have acted ethically and responsibly in the
research, development and supply of these products".

In his report Mr West noted that Johnson & Johnson paid a
"reasonable amount of tax" when compared with other multinationals
operating in Australia.  Over 10 years the company paid $238
million in income tax based on $12 billion in revenue, he found,
in an investigation of 20 multinationals sponsored by GetUp! and
the Tax Justice Network.

In America more than 50,000 women are suing the company because of
serious injuries they allege occurred after mesh surgery. Johnson
& Johnson announced it would appeal a $20 million judgment awarded
to one woman in April, after a jury found the company's TVT-Secur
mesh device was defectively designed and caused the woman's
injuries. The jury also found the company failed to provide
adequate warnings about the risks.

TVT-Secur is one of nine Johnson & Johnson mesh devices subject to
the Australian class action, which was cleared for use in
Australia in October, 2006 but withdrawn by the company and
cancelled by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in May,
2012.

Johnson & Johnson continues to market three incontinence mesh
devices in Australia that are implanted via the vagina, all
classified as IIb or medium to high risk by the TGA, after
satisfying requirements of safety and efficacy. [GN]


KONG TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Certification in "Opperman" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARC OPPERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KONG
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification Regarding False Advertising Law and Related
Claims.

This is a putative class action challenging Apple's alleged
misrepresentations regarding the security features on certain
Apple devices.  The Plaintiffs allege that, between July 10, 2008
and February 2012, they owned one or more of three Apple products
-- the iPhone, iPad, and/or iPod touch ("iDevices").  They further
allege that Apple engaged in a mass marketing campaign in which it
consciously and continuously misrepresented its iDevices as
secure, and that the personal information contained on iDevices
could not be taken without their owners' consent.  They Plaintiffs
and the putative class allege they overpaid for their iDevices in
reliance on Apple's misrepresentations.

In February 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification against Path and Apple for their intrusion upon
seclusion claim against Path and for aiding and abetting against
Apple, which was granted in part and denied in part.

On Aug. 23, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for
class certification.  They seek to certify the class against Apple
with regard to the Plaintiffs' California's False and Misleading
Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, deceit,
and Unfair Competition Law claims, of all United States residents
who, prior to Feb. 8, 2012 purchased an iDevice of the following
models: iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4s, iPad, iPad 2
or the second through fourth generations of the iPod Touch.

Apple opposes the motion for class certification, arguing that the
Plaintiffs have not established predominance under Rule 23(b)(3);
that they have not demonstrated that damages can be measured, as
required by Comcast Corp. v. Behrend; and that the proposed class
contains uninjured members.

Having now reviewed the body of evidence offered by the Plaintiffs
in support of class certification, Judge Tigar finds they have
failed to demonstrate that Apple's privacy-related marketing was
sufficiently extensive to support an inference of class-wide
exposure.  They have also failed to demonstrate that class members
were exposed to the materials containing allegedly misleading
representations about privacy.  Accordingly, they have failed to
demonstrate predominance.  Furthermore, Judge Tigar finds that the
Plaintiffs' proposed damage model fails to satisfy the
predominance requirement for the additional reason that it does
not comport with Plaintiffs' theory of liability.  Comcast
requires that a model purporting to serve as evidence of damages
in this class action must measure only those damages attributable
to that theory.  If the model does not even attempt to do that, it
cannot possibly establish that damages are susceptible of
measurement across the entire class for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3).

Because Judge Tigar concluded that the Plaintiffs have not
established predominance or demonstrated a feasible way of
measuring damages, he denied certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/ogI3yf from Leagle.com.

Marc Opperman, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP.

Marc Opperman, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Scott Edwards,
Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of
Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP,
James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von
Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Judy Long, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Claire Moses, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Gentry Hoffman, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Steve Dean, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Alicia Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Alan Beueshasen, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards,
Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of
Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Scott Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Greg Varner, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Rachelle King, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Kong Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory J.
Casas, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Jedediah Wakefield, Fenwick & West
LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K.
Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP,
Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri
LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Twitter, Inc., Defendant, represented by James G. Snell, Perkins
Coie LLP, Lauren Beth Cohen, Perkins Coie LLP, Timothy L. Alger,
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., John Randall
Tyler, Perkins Coie LLP, Julie Erin Schwartz, Perkins Coie LLP,
Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri
LLP, Ryan T. Mrazik, Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice & Tyler
Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Apple Inc, Defendant, represented by Alan D. Albright, Gray Cary
Ware & Freidenrich LLP, Clayton Cole James, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Jessica Adler Black Livingston, Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac
vice, Jessica S. Ou, Gibson Dunn, Robert B. Hawk, Hogan Lovells US
LLP & Stacy R. Hovan, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Yelp! Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Henry Page, Durie
Tangri LLP, Peter D. Kennedy, George & Donaldson, L.L.P., Claudia
Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon
Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey
Antia, Cooley LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Instagram, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason, Cooley
LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Michael G. Rhodes, Cooley
LLP.

Foursquare Labs, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Frank
McDowell, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison
& Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James
G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP,
Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP, Molly A. Smolen, Morrison &
Foerster LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Gowalla Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Harmeet K.
Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison &
Foerster LLP, James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Krista Lee
Baughman, Dhillon Law Group Inc., Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP,
Micah R. Jacobs, Dhillon Law Group, Inc., Michael Henry Page,
Durie Tangri LLP, Rachel Kung-Lan Loh, Dhillon Law Group, Inc. &
Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Foodspotting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Henry Page,
Durie Tangri LLP, Peter D. Kennedy, George & Donaldson, L.L.P.,
Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon,
Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda
Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West
LLP.

Kik Interactive, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason,
Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael G. Rhodes,
Cooley LLP, Christopher Brian Durbin, Cooley LLP, Claudia Maria
Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Erin Elisa Goodsell, Cooley LLP,
Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell,
Perkins Coie LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler
Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Instagram, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Dean Brown,
Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Erin Elisa Goodsell, Cooley LLP, Harmeet
K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie
LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby
Fenwick & West LLP.


LA STANZA: Accused by Altamirano of Not Paying Min. and OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO ALTAMIRANO, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. LA STANZA NYC LLC d/b/a La Stanza, HOUSE OF LASAGNA,
INC. d/b/a House of Lasagna, AVE. S. RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a
Domenico's and d/b/a Fagiolini, SALMON RIVER PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a
Salmon River, LA PICCOLINA, INC. d/b/a Piccolino, JOHN C O'BRIEN
a/k/a Jack O'Brien, MARIA O'BRIEN, and GABRIELE RANZATO, Case No.
1:17-cv-05234 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2017), accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
by, among other things, failing to pay their employees minimum
wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.

La Stanza NYC LLC, doing business as La Stanza, is a domestic
limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of
New York with a principal address at 334B Lexington Avenue, in New
York City.  House of Lasagna, Inc., doing business as House of
Lasagna, is a New York domestic business corporation with a
principal address at 334 Lexington Avenue, in New York City.  Ave.
S. Restaurant Corp., doing business as Domenico's and doing
business as Fagiolini, is a New York domestic business corporation
with a principal address at 120 E 40th Street, in New York City.

Salmon River Partners, LLC, doing business as Salmon River, is a
domestic limited liability company organized under the laws of the
state of New York with a principal address at 120 E 40th Street,
in New York City.  La Piccolina, Inc., doing business as
Piccolino, is a New York domestic limited liability company with a
principal address at 120 E 40th Street, in New York City.  The
Individual Defendants are officers, directors, managers, majority
shareholders or owners of the Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants operate a group of Italian restaurants doing
business variously as La Stanza, House of Lasagna, Domenico's,
Fagiolini, Salmon River, and Piccolino.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LURE GROUP: "Ferguson" Suit Seeks to Recover Withheld Tips
----------------------------------------------------------
Cair Ferguson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Lure Group, Billiard Balls Management
LLC, Louis Paloubis, Aristotle Hatzigeorgiou, Anahid Hatzigeorgiou
and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No. 156054/2017
(N.Y. Sup., July 6, 2017), seeks to recover unlawfully retained
tips and gratuities owed pursuant to New York Labor Law and New
York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

Defendants operate nightclub, restaurant and catering venues
located in the State of New York, commonly known as Slate NY,
Governors' Club, Clinton Hall and Ambrose Beer and Lobster. [BN]

Ferguson worked for Defendants as a bartender from approximately
November 2015 through approximately May 2016 at Defendants' Slate
NY location.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MASTERCARD: Freshfields Wins Success in Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Global Legal Post reports that Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has
had a major success after the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT)
ruled against certifying a US-style GBP14 bn opt-out consumer
damages antitrust class actions against its client MasterCard.

Mr Justice Roth, CAT President, ruled against allowing the
collective proceedings application on the basis that claimants
from potentially disparate groups of claimants could not actually
form a single class action for the purposes of this claim.  The
former UK chief financial services ombudsman Walter Merricks had
been seeking damages for 46 million UK consumers in relation to
multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) charged to retailers which he
argued had resulted in people being unfairly charged for alomost
18 years from 1992 to 2008.

First of a kind

This would have been the first collective damages action of its
kind and was one of the first to be filed under the Consumer
Rights Act 2015 which was set up to allow US style opt-out group
damages claims in the UK.  Mr Merricks said: "The new collective
action regime was introduced by the Consumer Rights Act to
overcome the difficulty for consumers seeking to recover losses
from competition law infringements.  I am concerned that this new
regime, designed to benefit consumers, may never get off the
ground."

Disappointing

He added: "It is disappointing that the Tribunal determined that
even if I could identify accurately the loss suffered by all 46
million consumers, the fact that I could not precisely calculate
the individualised loss for each of those 46 million consumers,
means consumers should get nothing at all." [GN]


MASTERCARD: Court Blocks $18-Bil. British Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Kirstin Ridley, writing for Reuters, reports that a 14 billion
pound ($18 billion) class action lawsuit against MasterCard for
allegedly overcharging more than 45 million people in Britain over
a 16-year period was blocked by a British court on July 21.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), a newly-empowered court
that oversees Britain's fledgling class action regime, ruled that
it would not grant the necessary collective proceedings order for
the case to proceed to trial.

Had it been allowed to proceed, the case would have been the
largest and most complex in British legal history and would have
tested the limits of the new Consumer Rights Act, which introduced
U.S.-style "opt-out" collective class actions for breaches of UK
or European Union competition law in 2015.

MasterCard welcomed the judgment, saying the claim was "completely
unsuitable" to be brought under the collective action regime.

Law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan launched the case on
behalf of adults in Britain after MasterCard lost a drawn-out
appeal against a 2007 European Commission decision that ruled its
fees were anti-competitive.

The case centered on so-called interchange fees, the charges
levied by credit and debit card companies such as Mastercard on
merchants' banks, which card companies say cover the costs of
operating card services, security and innovation.

It alleged these fees were a significant cost for retailers and
were passed on through increased prices of goods and services to
all UK consumers, including those who paid in cash and not just
MasterCard holders.

London-based Walter Merricks, a lawyer who once led the Financial
Ombudsman Service group that handles consumer disputes with banks
and who is the representative named on the proposed action, said
he was considering an appeal with his advisers.

"The new collective action regime was introduced by the Consumer
Rights Act to overcome the difficulty for consumers seeking to
recover losses from competition law infringements," he said. "I am
concerned that this new regime, designed to benefit consumers, may
never get off the ground."

He added that concerns cited by the tribunal, which included the
difficulties in providing evidence that MasterCard fees were
passed on to consumers and in precisely calculating individual
losses for so many consumers, could have been overcome.

The planned lawsuit had been dubbed by one lawyer the "perfect
exam question" for Britain's CAT, nominated in 2015 to oversees
the country's maiden "opt-out" class action lawsuits in antitrust
cases.

Under the regime, UK-based members of a defined group are
automatically bound into legal action unless they opt out.

Critics say such regimes encourage claims without merit. But
others argue they are designed to offer a more effective and
economic route to compensation for UK-based consumers and
businesses who fall victim to anti-competitive conduct and saves
on hefty advertising costs to rally a large group together.

London's High Court ruled in January that MasterCard had charged
interchange fees at a lawful level and without restricting
competition in a similar dispute with retailers. [GN]


MERCEDES-BENZ: Sued in California Over Illegal Defeat Device
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagop Bazrganian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Daimler AG, Daimler
Trucks North America LLC, Detroit Diesel Corporation, Daimler Vans
USA, LLC, Daimler Vehicle Innovations, LLC, Daimler North America
Corporation, Calstar Motors, and Carrie Kinney, Case No. BC668527
(Cal. Super. Ct., July 14, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the California law and Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") standards, specifically by outfitting
and selling Mercedes' Diesel vehicles equipped with the illegal
Defeat Device horn to detect when the vehicle is undergoing
official emissions testing and turns full emissions controls on
only during the test.

The Defendants manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and
warranted Mercedes-brand vehicles throughout the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
      David R. Lira, Esq.
      Christopher T. Aumais, Esq.
      Ashkahn Mohamadi, Esq.
      GIRARDI | KEESE
      1126 Wilshire Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 977-0211
      Facsimile: (213)481-1554


MONSANTO COMPANY: "Turner" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on May 16, 2017 captioned Ronnie L.
Turner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 7:17-cv-00093 was
transferred from the District of Georgia Middle to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
03979-VC to the proceeding.

The case is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide
Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology
corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's
leading producer of glyphosate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eugene C. Brooks IV, Esq.
      BROOKS LAW FIRM
      PO Box 9545
      Savannah, GA 31412
      Telephone: (912) 233-9696
      E-mail: gbrooks@brooks-law.com


MURPHY OIL: Justices to Hear NLRB Class Action Waiver Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Braden Campbell, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court has set Oct. 2 as the date for oral arguments in a closely
watched battle over the legality of arbitration agreements
requiring workers to waive their rights to file class or
collective actions against their employers, according to a notice
filed on July 19.

The case stems from a series of rulings by the National Labor
Relations Board that such agreements violate National Labor
Relations Act provisions guaranteeing the rights of workers to act
collectively to improve their working conditions.

Employers often use class action waivers as a tool to reduce legal
exposure by keeping labor disputes in arbitration rather than in
court as class actions, which are more costly to fight and
resolve. Employee advocates argue these agreements unfairly block
workers from having their cases heard in public and as a group.

The justices in January granted three petitions for certiorari
asking whether class action waivers are legal, agreeing to settle
a question that has polarized the circuit courts. The Seventh and
Ninth Circuits have agreed with the NLRB in cases involving
software company Epic Systems Corp. and accounting firm Ernst &
Young, respectively, and the Fifth Circuit has rejected the labor
board's position in a suit involving gas exploration company
Murphy Oil Corp. Raymours Furniture Co. employees had asked the
high court to review a Second Circuit decision that sent their
proposed wage class action to arbitration, but the Supreme Court
did not address their petition.

The justices agreed to take the case at an uncertain time for the
NLRB's stance, which was laid out by liberal board members
nominated by President Obama. The doctrine is on the shortlist of
policies attorneys expect will be rolled back when Republicans
hold a majority of seats on the labor board. A Senate subcommittee
on July 19 approved the nominations of management-side labor
attorney William Kaplan and government attorney Marvin Kaplan, who
would create such a majority if confirmed, but Senate leaders have
not set a date for a floor vote.

The U.S. Department of Justice has already come out in defense of
class action waivers, arguing in an amicus brief that the NLRB
rulings contradict the Federal Arbitration Act's presumption that
arbitration agreements are valid unless blocked by contract law.
The DOJ argued the opposite last year on the NLRB's behalf.

The DOJ's brief echoes those of Murphy Oil, Epic and Ernst &
Young, which filed their opening briefs with the high court.
Murphy Oil and Epic Systems together argued the FAA's clarity on
arbitration agreements and the NLRA's ambiguity -- the act does
not discuss arbitration agreements explicitly -- mean the former
should trump the latter.

Ernst & Young made similar arguments, saying nothing in the
language of the NLRA or its legislative history suggests that
Congress intended the NLRA to supersede the FAA. Nor is the NLRA's
purpose -- to smooth employee organizing and collective bargaining
-- at odds with that of arbitration, it argued.

Representatives for the NLRB, Ernst & Young, Murphy Oil and Epic
did not immediately respond on July 20 to requests for comment.

Ernst & Young is represented by Rex S. Heinke, Esq. --
rheinke@akingump.com -- Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. --
gknopp@akingump.com -- Pratik A. Shah, Esq. -- pshah@akingump.com
-- and Daniel L. Nash, Esq. -- dnash@akingump.com --  of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, and Kannon K. Shanmugam, Esq. --
kshanmugam@wc.com -- Allison Jones Rushing, Esq. --
arushing@wc.com -- A. Joshua Podoll, Esq. -- apodoll@wc.com --
William T. Marks, Esq. -- wmarks@wc.com -- and Eden Schiffman,
Esq. -- eschiffman@wc.com -- of Williams & Connolly LLP.

Epic Systems and Murphy Oil are represented by Thomas P. Schmidt,
Esq. -- Thomas.schmidt@hoganlovells.com -- Neal Kumar Katyal, Esq.
-- neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com -- Frederick Liu, Esq. --
Frederick.liu@hoganlovells.com -- Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak, Esq. --
colleen.rohsinzdak@hoganlovells.com -- and Daniel J.T. Schuker,
Esq. -- daniel.schuker@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells. Epic
Systems is also represented by Noah A. Finkel, Esq. --
nfinkel@scroggins.com -- and Andrew Scroggins, Esq. --
ascroggins@seyfarth.com -- of Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Murphy Oil is
also represented by Jeffrey A. Schwartz, Esq. --
schwartzj@jacksonlewis.com -- and Daniel D. Schudroff, Esq. --
SchudroffD@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis PC.

The DOJ is represented by acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B.
Wall, Esq. -- Jeffrey.wall@usdoj.gov -- Deputy Solicitor General
Malcom L. Stewart, Esq. -- Malcolm.stewart@usdoj.com -- and
Assistant to the Solicitor General Allon Kedem, Esq. --
allon.kedem@usdoj.com

Counsel information for the NLRB was not available.

The cases are Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Stephen Morris et al.,
case number 16-300, NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA Inc., case number 16-
307, and Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, case number 16-285, before
the Supreme Court of the United States. [GN]


NANDU THONDAVADI: "Brown" Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Dean Brown, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nandu Thondavadi, Dhru Desai, Thomas E.
Sawyer, Philip Firrek and Eric Gurr, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
04908 (D. N.J., July 5, 2017) seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendants are members of the board of directors of Quadrant 4.
The latter provides cloud based platform-as-a-service and
software-as-a-service products to the health insurance, media, and
education verticals in the United States.

According to the complaint, Thondavadi and Desai, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Quadrant 4 respectively
understated the company's liabilities and inflated its revenues
and assets and evaded scrutiny by providing forged and falsified
financial statements. They were arrested in November 30, 2016.

On this news, shares of Quadrant 4 fell $0.16 per share or over
80% from its previous closing price to close at $0.03 per share on
December 1, 2016, damaging investors, including the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


NINE WEST: Covell Files Suit Over Deceptive Sale Prices
-------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Covell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nine West Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-01371 (S.D. Cal., July 5, 2017), seeks damages,
restitution and disgorgement of all profits and unjust enrichment
that Nine West retained from Plaintiff as a result of its
unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices.

The Plaintiff further seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
corrective advertising campaign, attorneys' fees and costs and
such other and further relief for violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, Business and Professions Code, California's False
Advertising Law, Business and Professions Code, California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Nine West Holdings, Inc. maintains the Nine West brand, a fashion
line of women's clothing, shoes, handbags and other accessories.
Defendant operates Nine West retail and outlet stores and the
www.ninewest.com website and advertises, markets and sells its
merchandise in California and throughout the United States.

Covell purchased a pair of Nine West Stefao shoes for $44.50 at a
Nine West outlet store located at the Carlsbad Premium Outlets in
San Diego. The price tag showed a suggested retail price of
$89.00, thus implying a 50% discount. However, Plaintiff observed
that this scheme was in effect for more than three months and
really never reverted to its suggested retail price, thus implying
that the discount was a farce. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      402 W Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Phone: (619) 756-6994
      Fax: (619) 756-6991
      Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $49-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Lane, writing for Housing Wire, reports Ocwen Financial will
pay at least $49 million to settle a class action lawsuit over the
nonbank restating its 2013 and 2014 earnings after its auditor
found a potential "material weakness" in the way it valued and
recorded a financial transaction.

Ocwen disclosed the settlement on July 20 in a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The settlement stems from Ocwen misstating its net income for the
last three quarters of 2013 and the first quarter of 2014 due to a
flaw in the company's system.

That flaw also led to Ocwen paying a $2 million fine to the SEC
after an investigation found that the company misstated its
financials on several occasions by using what the SEC called
"flawed, undisclosed methodology" to value mortgage servicing
rights that were sold to an Ocwen-associated company, Home Loan
Servicing Solutions.

That SEC investigation also found that Ocwen's close relationship
with Altisource Residential, Altisource Asset Management Corp,
Altisource Portfolio Solutions, and Home Loan Servicing Solutions
and William Erbey's former role as chairman of each company
contributed to the faulty financial dealings.

Erbey founded Ocwen, and served as chairman of the board of Ocwen,
Altisource Residential, Altisource Asset Management, Altisource
Portfolio Solutions and Home Loan Servicing Solutions until the
relationship between those companies became the subject of intense
investigation by the New York Department of Financial Services.

That NYDFS investigation led to Erbey being forced to resign from
his positions with each company and a $150 million fine for Ocwen.

The SEC stated that Ocwen's internal controls failed to prevent
"conflicts of interest" involving Erbey because Erbey did not
recuse himself from dealings between the various companies he
chaired, despite Ocwen's claim to its investors that Erbey was
required to recuse himself from those dealings.

Now, Ocwen will pay at least $49 million to settle a class action
suit related to those issues.

According to Ocwen, the nonbank and the class members reached a
settlement after a mediated settlement process.

In addition to paying $49 million to the class members, Ocwen also
agreed to give $7 million in company stock to the plaintiffs.

Specifically, Ocwen agreed to give 2.5 million shares of the
company's stock to the class members, provided the shares have a
total value of $7 million based on the company's stock price over
a five-day period.

However, if the value of the 2.5 million shares does not equal $7
million because Ocwen's stock value is too low, Ocwen may be
required to give the class members more shares.

Alternatively, Ocwen may simply give the class members an
additional $7 million in lieu of the shares.

In its filing, Ocwen said that it expects insurance to cover
between $12 million to $14 million of the $49 million payout.

Ocwen also said that it estimates the net pre-tax expense impact
of the settlement on its earnings to be between $34 million and
$36 million.

"While the company believes that it has sound legal and factual
defenses, Ocwen agreed to this settlement in order to avoid the
uncertain outcome of trial and the additional expense and demands
on the time of its senior management that a trial would involve,"
the company said in its filing.

The settlement agreement now goes to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida for approval.

Ocwen cautions that there can be "no assurance" that the
settlement will be finalized and approved by the court.

"In the event the settlement in principle is not ultimately
finalized and approved, the litigation would continue and we would
vigorously defend the allegations made against Ocwen," the company
added. "If our efforts to defend against such claims were not
successful, our business, financial condition, liquidity and
results of operations could be materially and adversely affected."
[GN]


PANAGIA TINOS: "Pospoy" Seeks Spread-of-Hours, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Pospoy, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Panagia Tinos Corp., Kostas
Psillis, Michael Psillis and Margarita "Doe," Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-04031 (E.D. N.Y., July 6, 2017), seeks to recover overtime
wages, spread-of-hours premium for each day Plaintiff worked ten
or more hours, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, compensation for failure to provide wage notice at the
time of hiring and failure to provide paystubs and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor
Law and the NY Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Pospoy is a resident of Queens and was employed as a dishwasher
and kitchen prep worker by Defendants Panagia Tinos Corp. who
operates Lollipop's Diner at 153-31 Cross Island Pkwy.,
Whitestone, NY 11357. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     Hang & Associates, PLLC
     136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Tel: (718) 353-8588
     Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


PERSHING LLC: Court Dismisses "Hemphill" Suit Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Julie A. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas granted without prejudice the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction the case
captioned REBECCA HEMPHILL, Plaintiff, v. PERSHING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 16-2557-JAR-GLR (D. Kan.).

The Plaintiff brings this action alleging jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act on behalf of herself and other investors
who owned tax-deferred brokerage accounts that earned more than
$1,000 of unrelated business taxable income in 2014.  The
Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and other putative class
members incurred more than $5 million in damages as a result of
the Defendant's failure to timely file Internal Revenue Service
Form 990-T filings for the relevant accounts.

The Complaint asserts claims against Pershing for breach of
fiduciary duty and negligence, and seeks actual damages in the
form of penalties and interest charged as well as fees collected
by Pershing for preparation of the tax returns.  The proposed
class is defined as all Retirement Account owners/holders for
which Pershing was or is the custodian or similar fiduciary role
over the Retirement Accounts invested in Kinder Morgan limited
partnerships during 2014, for which Pershing failed to timely file
a Form 990-T filing for the year 2014.  The putative class
consists of approximately 5,052 Retirement Accounts.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1) (Doc. 20).  The Plaintiff was permitted to conduct
discovery on the jurisdictional issues, and supplemental briefs
were submitted.

Pershing challenges the Plaintiff's allegation of jurisdiction,
and calculates the amount in controversy as far less than the
requisite $5 million.  Specifically, it argues that the maximum
amount in controversy is the Gross Tax Related Liabilities
($2,535,561) plus the Tax Return Fees ($721,100), which equals
$3,256,661.  In support, Pershing attaches the 990T-Return for
each of the 2,222 Retirement Accounts that incurred a Tax-Related
Liability in 2014.  Pershing states that the remaining 2,830
Retirement Accounts for which 990T-Returns were filed for tax year
2014 did not earn taxable UBTI or incur taxes, penalties, or
interest.  Thus, it submitted evidence showing more than half of
the putative class did not incur actual damages beyond the fee
paid to Pershing, resulting in an amount in controversy
approximately $1.7 million short of the requisite $5 million.

Judge Robinson held that a reasonable estimate of the amount in
controversy at the time the lawsuit was filed is $3,256,661, as
substantiated by sworn testimony and production of the 2,222 990T-
Returns.  The Plaintiff has neither rebutted this evidence nor
identified any additional damages that could have been incurred by
members of the putative class that would account for the
$1,700,000 deficit.  Because the Plaintiff has not satisfied her
burden that it is not a legal certainty that the class will not
recover more than $5 million, the Court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction over this case.  Therefore, Judge Robinson
granted without prejudice the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 memorandum and order
is available at https://is.gd/lGASk7 from Leagle.com.

Rebecca Hemphill, Plaintiff, represented by Gary J. Willnauer --
gwillnauer@mwcattorneys.com -- Morrow Willnauer Church, LLC.

Pershing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Leopold --
chris.leopold@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP & Scott C.
Hecht -- scott.hecht@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP.


PJ OPS IDAHO: "Edwards" Suit Seeks Reimbursements, Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Edwards, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PJ Ops Idaho, LLC, Papa John's
International, Inc. and Tom Wylie, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00283 (D. Idaho, July 5, 2017), seeks appropriate monetary,
declaratory, and equitable relief based on failure to pay minimum
wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and Idaho wage
law.

PJ Ops Idaho, LLC and Tom Wylie own and operate Papa John's
franchise locations in the Boise, Idaho area as well as in
Kentucky, Colorado, Louisiana, and Kansas.

Edwards worked for Defendants as a delivery driver at their Papa
John's Pizza restaurant at 1323 Broadway in Boise, Idaho.
Defendants improperly applied a tip credit to delivery driver
wages and failed to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for
their delivery expenses, thereby rendering their compensation
below the minimum wage rate. Plaintiff also claims overtime rate
for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeff Hepworth, Esq.
      HEPWORTH LAW OFFICES
      2229 W. State St.
      Boise, ID 83702
      Tel: (208) 333-0702
      Fax: (208) 246-8655

             - and -

      Andrew Biller, Esq.
      Andrew Kimble, Esq.
      MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
      3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
      Cincinnati, OH 45209
      Tel: (513) 651-3700
      Fax: (513) 665-0219
      Email: abiller@msdlegal.com
             akimble@msdlegal.com


PRET A MANGER: Escobar Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY ESCOBAR, TONAKIA MOSHA EVANS, and DIANNA ABRAMOVA, on
behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v.
PRET A MANGER (USA) LIMITED, and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100, Case
No. 1:17-cv-05227 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2017), alleges that pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, the
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid
overtime, (2) unpaid compensation due to time shaving, (3)
liquidated damages and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.

Pret A Manger (USA) Limited is a foreign business corporation
doing business in New York State with a principal executive office
located in New York City.  The Doe Defendants are subsidiaries of
and 100% owned by the Company.  The Defendants operate a food
services enterprise under the trade name "Pret A Manger."  The
Defendants' food services enterprise operates restaurants
throughout New York, (as of the day of the complaint, 49 locations
in New York City) as well as stores in Chicago, Washington, D.C.
and Boston.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


PURDUE PHARMA: Settlement May Become Precursor to Gov't Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Ausness, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
on July 19 an Ontario court approved a $20-million settlement to
around 2,000 Canadians who had brought a class-action suit against
Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, a powerful opioid
drug.

Not only does the settlement provide compensation to the Canadian
victims of opioid addiction, but it may become a precursor to
lawsuits by provincial and local governments.  This has now
started to occur in the United States and will potentially affect
not only Purdue Pharma, but other opioid manufacturers,
distributors and pharmacy chains as well.

This is not necessarily good news.  While governmental entities
and individuals who have suffered harm deserve compensation,
lawsuits that snowball out of control threaten the continued
availability not only of painkillers, but of other beneficial
drugs as well.

Purdue Pharma began marketing OxyContin in 1996. Its principal
feature was a patented time-release mechanism that allowed its
analgesic ingredient, oxycodone, to be released over a 12-hour
period.  Although oxycodone prescriptions at the time were
generally limited to cancer patients, Purdue and other
manufacturers aggressively promoted opioid drugs for the treatment
of arthritis and chronic back pain.  They also assured doctors and
the Food and Drug Administration that these products were not
addictive if used properly.  Nevertheless, widespread abuse of the
drug occurred in the United States and Canada.

The problem of opioid addiction in the United States first came to
the attention of the general public with the publication of a New
York Times article in 2001.

This resulted in a stream of individual lawsuits and class actions
against Purdue Pharma shortly thereafter.  Various liability
theories were invoked, including negligence, defective design,
failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, violation of consumer
protection laws, negligent marketing, fraud, conspiracy and
"malicious conduct."

For the most part, these lawsuits were not successful because
Purdue Pharma was able to raise a number of defences based on
expiration of the statute of limitations, misuse and lack of
causation.  These defences were effective primarily because courts
were not sympathetic to plaintiffs whom they considered to be drug
abusers.

However, the situation began to change when the federal government
became involved.  In the fall of 2001, the United States Attorney
for the Western District of Virginia began a criminal
investigation of Purdue Pharma.  In 2007, the company and three of
its executives plead guilty to "misbranding a drug" and agreed to
pay criminal fines and civil penalties of more than $600-million
(U.S.).  Lawsuits were also filed by West Virginia and Kentucky
and eventually settled.

However, in recent years, other states and cities in the United
States have brought suits against drug manufacturers, such as
Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson and Teva Pharmaceuticals, Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Allergan PLC and Actavis Pharma.  These lawsuits
have also targeted distributors, such as McKesson Corporation,
AmerisourceBergen and Cardinal Health, as well as retail outlets
such as Walgreens, Rite Aid and CVS.  To date, approximately 25
states, counties and cities have begun legal actions against one
or more of these corporations and more of them are likely to join
in.

So how will it all end? One possibility is that all of the parties
will get together and reach some sort of global settlement as
occurred in the tobacco litigation of the 1990s.  To be sure,
there are parallels between today's lawsuits and the tobacco
litigation of yesteryear.

In both cases, the product in question was dangerous and it
imposed substantial economic costs on health insurers and
governmental entities, the manufacturers engaged in advertising
and publicity campaigns designed to mislead consumers and others
about the risks of consuming these products, and the defendants
pursued a hard-nosed "no settlement" policy that resulted in some
early victories.  Finally, at least in the United States, state
and local officials hired outside lawyers to handle the litigation
on a contingent fee basis.

However, there are also important differences.  First of all,
tobacco products had relatively low utility while pharmaceutical
products, including opioids, are essential to the treatment of
disease.  Second, tobacco products were subject to minimal
regulation by the government while drugs are closely regulated by
the FDA.  Third, and perhaps most importantly, there were only 50
or so plaintiffs in the U.S. tobacco litigation while there could
be hundreds, or even thousands, of cities and states (or
provinces) involved in today's drug litigation, making a global
settlement much less likely.

Is litigation a viable tool for curbing bad corporate behaviour?
Probably not. In the past, some companies have exercised extremely
bad judgment or even committed criminal acts.  While it is
comforting to punish them, we should realize that companies like
banks, oil companies and pharmaceutical companies provide the
public with useful, and even essential, products. [GN]


SCRUB INC: Fails to Properly Pay Cabin Cleaners, Adames Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carmelo Adames, Marisol Adames-Reyes, Karen Agosto, Alma Aguiniga,
Francisco Andino, Mildred Aponte-Lebron, Rosa Arellano, Melinda
Arocho, Marta Arroyo, Brittnee Bannister, Tianna Barber, Tanisha
Barber, Fatima Barkati, Andrew Borodziuk, Laura Boyd, Christian
Bracero-Vazquez, Ma Brigida-Garcia, Felipe Cabral, Humberto
Carillo-Lopez, Brenda Carter, Dewandee Carter, Angel Casiano,
Bernalisse Castellano, Tatiana Chavez, David Cienke, Tiffany
Clark, Schaniqua Cobbins, Shamece Cole, Gretta Coleman, Loretta
Coleman, Belquis Colindres-Mejia, Addisalem Dagnew, Jameka Dean,
Katarzyna Demczuk, Dayami Diaz, Stephanie Diaz-Conner, Saw-Sar
Doe-Wah, Imesha Doll, Katrina Duckins, Tyenika Effinger, Nadia
Estefania, Victor Estrada-Mendoza, Jessica Feliciano, Paul
Figueroa-Ocampo, Albena Georgieva, Santosi Ghalley, Lucely Grueso,
Ashley Harris, Diana Hernandez, Viviana Hernandez, Prince Hill,
Ladana Horton, Tierra Hughes, Janesha Jacobs, Nazik Jebrouni,
Angelique Jenkins, Latasha Johnson, Vera Johnson, Tasha Jones,
Jasmine Kellar, Mbowa Kitenge, Czeslawa Kuziora, Yolanda Leonard,
Lauri Lopez, Grisel Lozada, Khin Lwin, Maria Martinez, Priscila
Martos-Barreto, Francisco Mata-Hernandez, Heather Mccallum, Sarath
Meas, Elizabeth Medina, Nilton G. Medina, Arichely Mendez,
Alexandra Mendoza, Javier Mendoza-Perez, Maria Michel, Mohamed
Mohamed, Mariah Moncure, Cassandra Monroe, Carolina Montes,
Tamatha Moore, Stephen Mwai, Jessica Myles, Emily Naquin, Hassan
Nejatsabet, Omolara Odebunmi, Lynette Olivo, Gloria Orellana,
Ieashia Parnell, Xiomara Pastoriza, Alisa Patinla, Irina Pismenny,
Janet Pleasant, Araminta Ramos-Vega, Ana Reinoso, Rosa Reyes,
Sidney Rivera, Cynthia Rivera, Chiketa Robertson, Tierra Robinson,
Cecila Rodriguez, Jules Roldan, Jeanelle Rosa, Vanessa Ruiz,
Sandra Sagastume, Abigail Salgado, Alizet Santiago, Tyisha
Scurlock, Angel Segura, Lolita Smith, Kibitu Sori, Dimitrinka
Tacheva, Dil Tamang, Angelica Taylor, Degitu Tessema, Luis Torres,
Graciela Torres-Vences, Brittney Turner, Wirdalys Velez-Matos,
Lisbeth Vera-Zambrano, Claudia Villa, Shaquana Vincent, Keosha
Walker, Theresa Watson, Ashley M. Wells, Tahara Wells, Carolyn
White, Francis Williams, Chamara Williams and Manual Williams v.
SCRUB, INC.; TERESA KAMINSKA; and MARK RATHKE, Case No. 1:17-cv-
05135 (N.D. Ill., July 11, 2017), is brought under the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act,
as well as individual actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act
for each of the named Plaintiffs.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs' clock times as
reflected on punch cards were improperly and detrimentally rounded
by the Defendants, and they were otherwise not properly
compensated.  In addition, each of the Plaintiffs and the proposed
class members were denied the full extent of their statutorily-
required meal breaks, and were not paid for work performed during
their unpaid meal breaks.  The Defendants' practices caused injury
to the Plaintiffs because they deprived the cabin cleaners of
their earned wages and overtime, the Plaintiffs contend.

Scrub, Inc. is a janitorial service contractor founded in 1969.
The Company is incorporated in Illinois and its corporate
headquarters are located in Chicago.  The Company provides
janitorial cleaning services to purchasers of janitorial cleaning
services at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, including
cleaning of airplanes.

Teresa Kaminska is an owner, the vice president of operations, the
president and a manager of Scrub.  Mark S. Rathke has been the
General Manager and a partial owner of Scrub.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
          JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
          221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 789-9700
          Facsimile: (312) 789-9702
          E-mail: jeff@jgbrownlaw.com

               - and -

          Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 546-5056
          E-mail: gdunn@gjdlaw.com


SERVE U BRANDS: "Lusk" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages for Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
SKYLER LUSK, TIA COUNCIL, VIKTORIA O'BRIEN, AND JUSTIN BYROAD, on
behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated v.
SERVE U BRANDS, INC., INSOMNIA COOKIES, LLC, AND SETH BERKOWITZ,
Case No. 6:17-cv-06451 (W.D.N.Y., July 11, 2017), seeks to recover
damages in the form of unpaid wages and pay, as well as injunctive
relief and declaratory relief on behalf of the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated delivery drivers, who work or have worked at
the Defendants' Insomnia Cookies locations.

Serve U Brands, Inc., is a business corporation registered in New
York with its principal place of business at 440 Park Avenue
South, in New York City.  Serve U Brands is a hospitality group
that owns and operates Insomnia Cookies.  Seth Berkowitz is the
founder and CEO of Insomnia Cookies and is also the CEO of Serve U
Brands.

Insomnia Cookies, LLC, is a limited liability corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware,
with its principal place of business also at 440 Park Avenue
South.  Insomnia Cookies is a subsidiary of Serve U Brands, which
runs a chain of more than 100 Insomnia Cookies locations across
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
          Michael J. Lingle, Esq.
          Sarah E. Cressman, Esq.
          Jessica L. Lukasiewicz, Esq.
          THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Telephone: (585) 272-0540
          E-mail: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com
                  mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com
                  scressman@theemploymentattorneys.com
                  jlukasiewicz@theemploymentattorneys.com


SILVER LINING: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Altier Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JONNA ALTIER, an individual on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, PO Box 145, Corning, Ohio 43730 v. A SILVER
LINING LLC, c/o Kelly Tilley, 3580 Frenchpark Drive, Columbus,
Ohio 43231, Case No. 2:17-cv-00599-GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, July 11,
2017), challenges the Defendant's alleged policies and practices
that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act, including failure to
pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 in certain
workweeks.

A Silver Lining LLC is an enterprise within the meaning of 29
U.S.C. Section 203(r), and an enterprise engaged in commerce or in
the product of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
Section 203(s)(1).  The Company employed the Plaintiff as a
caregiver in people's homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SKM RECYCLING: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Plant Fire
-------------------------------------------------------
Sky News reports Melbourne man Castor Murillo says he was forced
out of his home for five nights and continues to receive medical
treatment after a recycling plant fire sent plumes of toxic smoke
over nearby suburbs.

He is among a group of residents suing the factory operators,
claiming the still-smouldering blaze caused health concerns and
damaged homes.

The class action was filed in the Victorian Supreme Court on July
21 against SKM, which runs the Coolaroo Recycling Plant in
Melbourne's north.

Fire engulfed the facility on July 13, burning strongly for
several days as it billowed toxic smoke into the sky and sprinkled
ash across the city.

Crews are still pulling apart smouldering piles of debris and
don't expect to extinguish the fire completely until next week.

It is the third fire at the plant in 2017, after blazes in
February and June.

Residents claim SKM was negligent because it knew there was a fire
risk and should have done more to protect the nearby Coolaroo and
Dallas neighbourhoods.

'SKM stored highly flammable waste at the plant, was aware such
waste could ignite and cause a fire, and was aware there had been
two fires . . . in the previous five months,' the writ said.

'SKM owed the group members a duty to take reasonable care to
prevent a fire starting at the plant, and prevent the emissions
from any such fire spreading to the affected area.'

The group said the company should have installed an appropriate
fire suppressing system, separated their waste better and done
more to control fire emissions.

Mr. Murillo was forced to leave his home at suburban Dallas and
required chest x-rays and medication after the smoke inhalation.

He and others had to fork out time and money to clean the smoke
and toxins from their homes, the writ says.

They are seeking damages for these expenses and the nuisance the
fire caused, as well as legal costs, but there has not been a
value placed on the action.

As air quality levels plummeted nearby the plant, 115 residents
were evacuated.

More than 100 people have joined the class action.

The factory was due to be inspected over its fire management
practices on the day the fire ignited.

SKM said it was 'extremely sorry for what our neighbours and the
local community have gone through'. [GN]


SOUTHERN GLAZER: Faces Class Action Over False & Misleading Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against a
liquor distributor, alleging fraud.

James C. Nguyen filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, July 5 in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against Southern Glazer's Wine
and Spirits, LLC, and Southern Wine & Spirits of America Inc.,
alleging they issued false and misleading information to the
plaintiff.

According to the complaint, Nguyen, a liquor license holder for
Arena Restaurant and Lounge in San Jose, was damaged monetarily
from being misled into purchasing goods and services and that the
defendants failed to disclose confidential information to the
plaintiff about their liquor products.

Nguyen seeks trial by jury, restitution and disgorgement, punitive
and exemplary damages, interest, court costs and all further
relief the court grants. He is represented by attorneys Scott
Edward Cole, Kevin Francis Barrett, Teresa Denise Allen and Corey
Benjamin Bennett of Scott Cole & Associates APC in Oakland, and by
Kelly Gelini and Wesley Wakeford of Wakeford Gelini in San
Francisco.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number 5:17-cv-03805-HRL [GN]


SPOTIFY: Faces New Lawsuits Following Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lulu Chang, writing for Digital Trends, reports that it may be
your favorite music service, but it's certainly not popular among
songwriters or the court system.  Spotify faces another couple
lawsuits.

It may be the most popular music streaming service in the world,
but that won't be a compelling defense for Spotify now that it's
being hit with yet another two lawsuits.  Back in May, the wildly
popular music platform settled a $200 million class-action lawsuit
from songwriters for $43 million, but the company is far from out
of the woods.  Two new lawsuits were launched earlier in
Nashville, Tennessee, and they could certainly put a wrinkle in
Spotify's plans to IPO this year.

The new lawsuits come a couple months after its most recent court
battle, but it's clear that when it comes to copyright law,
Spotify still has a lot to learn.  One of the new cases being
brought against Spotify comes from songwriter Bob Gaudio, who
claims that famous songs like Can't Take My Eyes Off You and Rag
Doll are being distributed without proper licensing.

Bluewater Music Services Corporation brings the second case
against Spotify -- the publishing rights company claims that
"anything less than the maximum $150,000 statutory damage award
for each of the Infringed Works involved herein would encourage
infringement, amount to a slap on the wrist, and reward a
multibillion dollar company, about to go public, that rules the
streaming market through a pattern of willful infringement on a
staggering scale."

While Spotify has certain licensing deals and has purchased some
blanket licenses, individual songs that are owned by publishers
and songwriters aren't necessarily covered by these licenses.
Every time one of those songs is played, the writers are meant to
get a payout.  But Spotify has admitted that finding each of those
writers has proved a "daunting" task, and is one that the company
apparently doesn't always complete.  And that's getting Spotify in
a lot of hot water.

Bluewater estimates that around 35 billion unpaid streams were
played between June 2011 and the end of 2015, which resulted in
the non-payment of some $15 million in royalties.  As such, the
company claims, even existing settlements have not resolved "the
outstanding issues with the Spotify licensing and royalty payment
system."  Bluewater's lawsuit further notes that after class-
action lawyers are paid, "Spotify will be allowed to walk away
after paying approximately four dollars ($4.00) per infringed
composition. Such a settlement is essentially an empty gesture
that encourages infringement and is entirely insufficient to
remedy years of illegal activity." [GN]


STATE FARM: Ordered to File Amended Notice of Removal in "Ayers"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FRANK AYERS, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; RUTH MIER GRAHAM; GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY; TAMMY BOOTH; and STEVEN HERSH,
Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-1265-Orl-37TBS (M.D. Fla.), Judge Roy
B. Dalton, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Orlando Division, found that the Defendant has failed
to adequately establish the Plaintiff's citizenship and directed
it to file an amended notice of removal that remedies the
deficiency identified.

In the instant action, the Plaintiff asserts: (i) six individual
state-law claims against all the Defendants based on deceptive and
unfair insurance practices; and (ii) a putative class action
breach-of-contract claim ("Class Claim") against the Defendant.
On July 11, 2017, State Farm removed the action to this Court on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA").

In the Notice of Removal, State Farm asserts that the Class Claim
satisfies CAFA's minimal diversity requirement.  In support, it
alleges that minimal diversity is satisfied because: (i) it is a
citizen of Illinois; and (ii) the Plaintiff is a citizen of
Florida.

Importantly, State Farm's allegation of the Plaintiff's
citizenship is based upon information and belief.  Additionally,
it admits that the basis for the Plaintiff's citizenship rests
only on the allegation in the Complaint that the Plaintiff is a
resident of Orange County, Florida.  But residence alone is
insufficient to establish a party's citizenship.  Rather, the
citizenship of an individual is determined by domicile, which is
established by residence plus an intent to remain.  While courts
may consider a party's residence as part of the totality of the
evidence indicating domicile, State Farm has submitted no
additional evidence to supplement the Residence Allegation.

Because State Farm has insufficiently established Plaintiff's
citizenship, Judge Dalton held that it has failed to carry its
burden of invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction under CAFA.
Accordingly, on Aug. 8, 2017, he directed the Defendant to file an
amended notice of removal that remedies the deficiency identified
in the Order.  Failure to timely file will result in this action
being summarily remanded without further notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/ESx0ot from Leagle.com.

Frank Ayers, Plaintiff, represented by Henry Arnold Seiden, Seiden
Law.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Benjamine Reid -- breid@carltonfields.com --
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, David Matthew Allen --
mallen@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA &
Jeffrey A. Cohen -- jmcohen@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, PA.

Ruth Mier Graham, Defendant, represented by David Cyril Knapp,
James A. Coleman, PA, James A. Coleman, James A. Coleman, PA,
Kendall B. Rigdon, Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP & Kurt Edward
Alexander, Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP.

Government Employees Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Kendall B. Rigdon, Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP & Kurt Edward
Alexander, Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP.

Tammy Booth, Defendant, represented by John W. Weihmuller --
jweihmuller@butler.legal -- Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP.

Steven Hersh, Defendant, represented by John W. Weihmuller, Butler
Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP.


STATE FARM: Faces "Martinez" Suit in Ill. Over Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance
Company, Case No. 2017-CH-09630 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 14, 2017), is
an action for damages as a proximate result of the breach of
contract by State Farm, specifically by refusing to pay General
Contractor's Overhead and Profit ("GCOP") claims on property
damage claims.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company operates an
insurance company in Bloomington, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas F. Burke, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS F. BURKE
      53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1441
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (215) 915-8328
      E-mail: tburke@BorumBurke.com

         - and -

      Terrence Buehler, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER
      17W220 22nd Street, Suite 410
      Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
      Telephone: (312) 372-2209
      E-mail: info@touhylaw.com


T&R MARKET: Faces Class Action Over Tax Refund Anticipation Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that in a federal class-action
lawsuit, an Albuquerque law firm accuses a loan company with
offices in New Mexico and Arizona of making predatory tax-refund-
anticipation loans to people living in and around the Navajo
Nation.

The lawsuit says the plaintiffs -- William Dejolie and Sammia
Dejolie of Gallup -- were charged a 385 percent annual interest
rate on a $1,250 loan they obtained in November 2014. The lawsuit,
which calls the interest rate unconscionable, also accuses the
defendants of violating the Truth in Lending Act, willful breach
of contract and unjust enrichment, the Santa Fe New Mexican
reported.

The company, which has offices in Gallup, Farmington, Shiprock and
Chinle, Arizona, also operates grocery store, feed store, pawn
shop and tax preparation businesses in the areas it serves.

The complaint says the three defendants in the case -- T&R Market
Inc., Tancorde Finance Inc. and T&R Tax Service Inc. -- are all
part of business venture that makes thousands of tax-refund-
anticipation loans each year.

In 2017, the New Mexico Legislature passed a bill that eliminated
payday loans. But an amendment exempted tax-refund-anticipation
loans like the one the Dejolie's obtained from T&R Market.

A phone message left by the Santa Fe New Mexican at T&R Market in
Gallup was not immediately returned.

Other states have reported seeing a shift to tax-refund-
anticipation loans after cracking down on payday loans.

Nicholas Mattison, the Albuquerque attorney representing the
Dejolies, said the high interest rate loans are particularly
egregious because they focus on clients who are eligible for the
federal earned income tax credit, typically low-to moderate-income
working individuals and couples with children.

"It's supposed to be a source of support for the working poor. But
instead it is being taken advantage of by the lenders out there,"
he said. [GN]

TEXOLLINI INC: "Corrales" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Erika Susana Corrales, an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Texollini, Inc. and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC667601 (Cal. Super.,
July 6, 2017), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure
to pay for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure to
authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or
permit required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the
form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all
wages due upon separation of employment, unpaid vacation wages,
reimbursement of business-related expenses, injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest pursuant to California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Texollini is a fabric supplier and operates a vertically
integrated knitting mill and textile manufacturing plant in Long
Beach, California.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Tagore Subramaniam, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Tel: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310)531-1901
      Email: mmatem@matemlawgroup.com
             tagore@matemlawgroup.com


THALES AVIONICS: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work
----------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Steele, an individual, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Thales Avionics, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01246 (M.D. Fla., July 6, 2017), seeks
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief
under the overtime and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant is engaged in the business of performing maintenance and
upkeep on in-flight entertainment systems on commercial aircrafts
where Plaintiff was employed as a line maintenance technician.
Steele claims to have rendered uncompensated off-the-clock work.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jill S. Schwartz, Esq.
      David H. Spalter, Esq.
      John M. Hunt, Esq.
      JlLL S. SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, PA.
      655 W. Morse Blvd, Suite 212
      Winter Park, FL 32789
      Telephone: (407) 647-8911
      Facsimile: (407) 628-4994
      E-mail: jschwartz@jschwartzlawfirm.net
              dspalter@jschwartzlawfirm.net
              jhunt@jschwartzlawfirm.net


TREASURY WINE: Ruling Explores Class Closure Appropriateness
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross McInnes and Yasmin Monfared of Clayton Utz, in an article for
Lexology, wrote that the latest decision in the Melbourne City
Investments Pty Ltd / Treasury Wine Estates saga explores when it
is appropriate for a Court to make "class closure" orders in class
actions where it can facilitate the desirable end of settlement.

When Parliament introduced an opt-out class action regime, it did
so for the dual purpose of providing access to justice and to
provide an efficient and effective procedure to deal with multiple
claims. The Courts quickly recognised that a common if not
inevitable feature of opt-out class actions was that the defendant
will be faced with uncertainty regarding the quantum of class
members' claims.

Uncertainty about the quantum of the class action claims in turn
generates uncertainty about settlement -- a defendant faces the
challenge of weighing up the strength (or otherwise) of their
position, and the likely cost of resolving the class action.

A practice of "closing the class" therefore developed. Class
closure orders are a vehicle through which some certainty and
scope can be provided in an uncertain world. They occur when the
Court establishes a process for class members to identify
themselves (usually through registration), generally for the
purposes of participation in settlement discussions. Class members
who do not register their interests are not able to participate in
the fruits of any settlement.

Over the years there had been some divergence in judicial
practice. In Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Treasury Wine
Estates Limited [2017] FCAFC 98 (MCI v TWE) the Full Court took
the opportunity to provide some guidance on class closure issues
(even though it was no longer necessary to deal with the arguments
because the applicant had abandoned its contentions on the issue).

MCI v TWE

In mid-2014, Mr Brian Jones commenced a shareholder class action
against TWE. During an opt-out hearing, TWE sought class closure
orders which would close the class for all purposes. The practical
effect of such an order would be that the class members who
neither opted out nor registered were precluded from any
settlement and, if settlement was not achieved, any subsequent
favourable judgment.

The primary judge did not make the order. Rather, a class closure
order was made which precluded group members who neither opted out
nor registered from sharing in any settlement, but expressly
preserved their rights to share in any subsequent judgment.

MCI lodged an appeal against the primary judge's findings in
respect of the opt-out application, including that the primary
judge's requirement for class members to register their claim in
order to continue to participate in the proceedings, prior to
settlement or judgment and before the terms and consequences of
settlement were known, was an error of law and had the effect of
improperly excluding them.

The Full Court explains how class closure works

The Full Court upheld the primary judge's class closure order. In
doing so, the Full Court made a number of observations about class
closure more generally.

First, it must be accepted that the requirement for class members
to take active steps to register in order to share in a settlement
of a class action undercuts to some extent the opt-out rationale
underpinning the Part IVA regime.

Second, if a class closure order operates to facilitate the
desirable end of settlement, it may be reasonably adapted to the
purpose of seeking or obtaining justice in the proceedings and
therefore appropriate under section 33ZF of the Act. In that
regard, an important aspect of the utility of a class proceedings
is that they may achieve finality not only for class members but
also for the respondent.

Third, the Court should be cautious before making a class closure
order that, if settlement is not achieved, operates to lock class
members out of their entitlement to make claim and share in a
judgment. While the facilitation of settlement is a good reason
for a class closure order, an order to shut out class members who
do not respond to an arbitrary deadline is not.

Fourth, the Court should usually not exercise the discretion to
make a class closure order based merely on a respondent's
assertion that it is unwilling to discuss settlement unless such
an order is made.

Finally, whether a class closure order is appropriate in a
particular proceeding is a question of balance and judicial
intuition. The interests of the class as a whole, the surrounding
circumstances, the stage of the proceedings, the attitude of the
party, the complexity of the case and likely duration of the
proceedings were all identified as potentially relevant factors.

For example, in MCI v TWE, the class closure order was appropriate
in circumstances where the proceedings were at a stage where
prospects could be reasonably assessed and the solicitors for the
applicants were experienced and able to assess whether the closure
was in the interests of the class members. However, in Winterford
v Pfizer Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1199, class closure orders were not
appropriate in circumstances were pleadings remained open, common
questions were not yet settled and no settlement discussions had
begun.

Moving forward with more certainty

Parties to class actions now have points of guidance when
determining when a class closure order is appropriate, as well as
a greater understanding of the Court's attitude towards the
protection of class member rights to the fruits of judgment. It
will not be good enough for parties to class actions to ask the
Court to make class closure orders merely because the respondents
state that they are unwilling to contemplate settlement unless a
class closure order is made. It will be necessary to convince the
Court that it is in the interests of the class as a whole,
especially if the orders will facilitate the desirable end of
settlement. [GN]


TURNER BROADCASTING: "Henley" Race Discrimination Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CELESLIE HENLEY and ERNEST COLBERT, JR.,
Plaintiffs, v. TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., TIME WARNER INC.,
CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., and TURNER SERVICES, INC., Defendants,
No. 1:16-cv-4506-WSD (N.D. Ga.), Judge William S. Deffey, Jr. of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division, granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,
Strike, and/or for More Definite Statement of Plaintiffs'
Complaint; and denied both the Plaintiffs' Motions for Leave to
File Surreply in Opposition to Defendants' Reply in Support of its
Motion to Dismiss, and for Leave to Amend the Complaint to
Voluntarily Withdraw its Original Complaint.

On Dec. 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, asserting
discrimination claims on behalf of themselves and the putative
class of all African-American persons employed by Defendants in
salaried positions and mid-level managerial positions
(specifically, managerial positions inferior to the Director, Vice
President, Senior Vice President positions) in the United States
at any time from April of 1997, to the present, who are subject to
the Defendants' employment and human resources policies and
practices, including, but not limited to, current or former
salaried employees of Turner Broadcasting Systems, including
Turner's subsidiaries, Time Warner, Inc. and Turner Services,
Inc., and who have been, continue to be, or may in the future be,
adversely affected by Defendants' racially discriminatory
employment policies and practices (the Class).

Count 1 asserts that, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, the
Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of intentional race
discrimination against the Plaintiffs and the Class by denying
them equal treatment in promotions, compensation, performance
evaluations, and the terms and conditions of employment.  Count 2
asserts that the Defendants intentionally discriminated against
Plaintiffs, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 ("Title VII"), by (i) declining to promote Colbert to Senior
Manager until August 2016, (ii) paying the Plaintiffs less than
similarly situated white employees, (iii) denying the Plaintiffs
equal terms and conditions of employment, and (iv) retaliating
against Henley for the discrimination complaint made to White.
Count 3 asserts that the Defendants' policies and practices on
compensation, promotions, and performance evaluations disparately
impact African-American employees, in violation of Title VII.

On Feb. 7, 2017, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Complaint.  On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed
their Motion to Amend, seeking leave to amend their Complaint to
"clarify" their allegations and assert "new facts."  The
Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend on the grounds
that the Proposed Amended Complaint does not state viable claims
and an amendment would be futile.  On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs
requested leave to file a surreply in opposition to the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Judge Deffey finds that the Plaintiffs' Surreply Motion does not
specifically identify the Defendants' new arguments and false and
misleading representations.  The Defendants' reply, however,
squarely responds to the arguments in the Plaintiffs' response
brief, and does not advance new arguments.  The Plaintiffs have
not identified unusual circumstances in this case, and they fail
to demonstrate that a particular argument or representation made
by the Defendants in their reply brief warrants the filing of a
surreply.  Accordingly, he denied the Plaintiffs' Surreply Motion.

As to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs fail to
state individual claims under section 1981 because they have not
shown they were subject to intentional race discrimination.  They
also fail to state a section 1981 claim on behalf of the putative
Class because they are barred from representing the Class and,
even if they were not, they fail to plausibly allege a pattern and
practice of intentional race discrimination.  Therefore, Judge
Deffey granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

With respect to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend, Judge Deffey
finds that the Plaintiffs' Proposed Amended Complaint retains
Count 1, omits Counts 2 and 3, and offers no new substantive
allegations.  It includes only cosmetic amendments -- largely
stylistic changes -- which do not cure the deficiencies in the
Complaint.  Because the Proposed Amended Complaint would require
dismissal for the same reasons as the initial Complaint, he denied
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend as futile.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/A1fAEj from Leagle.com.

Celeslie Henley, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Meachum,
Daniel R. Meachum & Associates, LLC.

Celeslie Henley, Plaintiff, represented by James D. Williams, Law
Offices of James D. Williams, pro hac vice, Mario Bernard
Williams, Williams Oinonen, LLC & James E. Voyles, The Voyles
Milhollin Law Firm.

Ernest Colbert, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Meachum,
Daniel R. Meachum & Associates, LLC, James D. Williams, Law
Offices of James D. Williams, pro hac vice, Mario Bernard
Williams, Williams Oinonen, LLC & James E. Voyles, The Voyles
Milhollin Law Firm.

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy
Mariko Palesch, Littler Mendelson PC, Dionysia L. Johnson-Massie,
Littler Mendelson PC, James Andrew Lamberth, Troutman Sanders, LLP
& Leslie A. Dent, Littler Mendelson PC.

Time Warner Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Mariko Palesch --
apalesch@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, Dionysia L. Johnson-
Massie -- djmassie@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, James
Andrew Lamberth -- james.lamberth@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman
Sanders, LLP & Leslie A. Dent -- ldent@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC.

Cable News Network, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Mariko
Palesch, Littler Mendelson PC, Dionysia L. Johnson-Massie, Littler
Mendelson PC, James Andrew Lamberth, Troutman Sanders, LLP &
Leslie A. Dent, Littler Mendelson PC.

Turner Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Mariko
Palesch, Littler Mendelson PC, Dionysia L. Johnson-Massie, Littler
Mendelson PC, James Andrew Lamberth, Troutman Sanders, LLP &
Leslie A. Dent, Littler Mendelson PC.


U-HAUL: Hit With Class Action Over Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a New York
customer has filed a class action lawsuit against U-Haul, alleging
breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and unfair
competition.

Trang Nguyen filed a complaint, individually on behalf of all
others similarly situated, June 30 in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against U-Haul Co. of New York and
Vermont, Inc., U-Haul International Inc., and Amerco, alleging
they failed to deliver on their promise of a 6x12-foot cargo
trailer for the plaintiff.

According to the complaint, Nguyen was damaged as the result of
not being compensated for her inconvenience of not receiving a
promised cargo trailer, for which she had paid $37.95. The
plaintiff alleges U-Haul failed to compensate her plaintiff as
promised in their $50 guarantee policy for failing to deliver
their promised cargo trailer to her earlier this year.

Nguyen seeks trial by jury, restitution and disgorgement,
interest, compensatory and other damages, actual and statutory
damages, interest, court costs and all relief this court grants.
She is represented by attorneys C.K. Lee and Anne Seelig of Lee
Litigation Group PLLC in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York case
number 1:17-cv-03947-RJD-RLM [GN]


ULTA SALON: Court Approves $718K in Atty Fees, Costs in "Moore"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SARAH MOORE, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS &
FRAGRANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. CV 12-3224 FMO (AGRx) (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California ordered the payment of (i) the
attorney's fees and costs, (ii) the Plaintiff's service payment,
and (ii) the fees and expenses in connection with the
administration of the Settlement Agreement.

In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the
Court's Order Re: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement;
Approval of Attorney's Fees, Costs & Service Award, Judge Olguin
ordered that (i) Plaintiff Moore will be paid a service payment of
$5,000; and (ii) the Class counsel will be paid $697,500 in
attorney's fees and $20,753.43 in costs.  He also ordered that the
settlement administrator, CPT, will be paid up to $112,500 for its
fees and expenses in connection with the administration of the
Settlement Agreement.

Except as to any class members who have validly and timely
requested exclusion, this action is dismissed with prejudice, with
all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth
and in the prior orders of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 judgment is
available at https://is.gd/0XMyfh from Leagle.com.

Sarah Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy K. Hobbs, II, Hobbs
Law Group.

Sarah Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Alejandro D. Blanco, The
Blanco Law Firm PC, Dennis Patrick Wilson --
WILSONTRIALGROUP@ATT.NET -- Law Offices of Dennis P Wilson &
Kristin Hobbs -- khobbs@shernoff.com -- Shernoff Bidard Echeverria
LLP.

Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc, Defendant, represented by
Alexis A. Sohrakoff -- asohrakoff@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson
PC, John C. Kloosterman -- jkloosterman@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC & Kai-Ching Cha -- kcha@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC.


USAA CASUALTY: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in "Archuleta" OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JERRY ARCHULETA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. USAA CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, and UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-cv-00191-RBJ (D. Colo.), Judge R.
Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado granted the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings.

Plaintiff Archuleta, a Colorado resident, was injured in a car
accident with an underinsured motorist.  He submitted insurance
claims to United Services Automobile Association ("USAA") under
his policy for medical payments ("MedPay") and
uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM/UIM") coverage.  USAA paid
Mr. Archuleta $5,000 in MedPay benefits and later paid an
additional $17,000 in UM/UIM benefits pursuant to a settlement
agreement.  According to Mr. Archuleta, USAA disclosed during the
negotiations that it believed he was entitled to $22,000 in UM/UIM
coverage, but it subtracted the $5,000 paid for MedPay benefits
under a non-duplication provision of the insurance policy.  With
the advice of counsel, Mr. Archuleta accepted this setoff and
signed a release discharging USAA's duty to pay under the policy.

More than a year later, however, the Colorado Supreme Court held
in Calderon v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. that such
setoff policies violate state law.  Mr. Archuleta then filed this
class action against the Defendants, alleging that they have
systematically reduced UM/UIM payments by the amount of MedPay
payments in violation of state law since 2008 -- eight years
before Calderon clarified the law.  The Defendants have filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that Mr.
Archuleta's signed release is fatal to his claims.

Judge Brooke explains that Mr. Archuleta cannot get out of his
settlement agreement because no public policy outweighs the
interest in enforcing the parties' settlement agreement.  Mr.
Archuleta argues that Calderon manifests Colorado's policy of
forbidding setoffs of UM/UIM benefits by MedPay payments.
However, the present settlement agreement does not concern the
amount of UM/UIM coverage available on Mr. Archuleta's claim, but
rather the amount of money he was willing to accept to release
whatever claim he had.  This situation is unlike the other
Colorado Supreme Court cases Mr. Archuleta cites.  The line of
cases leading up to Calderon involved the requirements of UM/UIM
coverage, not settlements for less (or more) than the amount of
coverage.

Because Mr. Archuleta's personal allegations concern only USAA, he
does not have standing to bring a claim individually or on behalf
of a class against the Defendants.  Additionally, since Mr.
Archuleta's substantive claim fails, his request for declaratory
relief is dismissed as well.  For these reasons, Judge Brooke
granted the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and
dismissed with prejudice Mr. Archuleta's complaint.  As the
prevailing party, he awarded the Defendants their reasonable costs
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/jfxgVy from Leagle.com.

Jerry Archuleta, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Aaron Levin,
Levin Sitcoff PC.

Jerry Archuleta, Plaintiff, represented by Franklin David Azar,
Franklin D. Azar & Associates, PC, Jonathan Steven Parrott,
Franklin D. Azar & Associates, PC, Keith Richard Scranton,
Franklin D. Azar & Associates, PC, Nelson Andrew Waneka, Levin
Sitcoff PC, Patricia A. Meester, Franklin D. Azar & Associates,
PC, Susan S. Minamizono, Levin Sitcoff PC & Tonya L. Melnichenko,
Franklin D. Azar & Associates, PC.

USAA Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Marilyn
S. Chappell, Sweetbaum Sands Anderson, P.C., Michael Douglas
Mulvaney -- mmulvaney@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale,
PC, Thomas Julian Butler -- tbutler@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard
Cooper & Gale, PC & Jon F. Sands, Sweetbaum Sands Anderson, P.C..

United Services Automobile Association, Defendant, represented by
Marilyn S. Chappell, Sweetbaum Sands Anderson, P.C., Michael
Douglas Mulvaney, Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, Thomas Julian Butler,
Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC & Jon F. Sands, Sweetbaum Sands
Anderson, P.C..


USAA CASUALTY: District Ct. Rulings vs. Attys in "Adams" Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Mark I. Adams; Katherine S. Adams,
Plaintiffs, v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, doing business as
USAA; USAA General Indemnity Co., doing business as USAA; United
Services Automobile Association, doing business as USAA,
Defendants, v. Wystan Michael Ackerman, Respondent, Kenneth
(Casey) Castleberry, Appellant, Stephen O. Clancy; Stephen C.
Engstrom; Stephen Edward Goldman, Respondents, John C. Goodson; D.
Matt Keil; Matthew L. Mustokoff; Timothy J. Myers; Richard E.
Norman, Appellants, Lyn Peeples Pruitt Respondent, William B.
Putman; Jason Earnest Roselius; W. H. Taylor; A. F. (Tom)
Thompson, III; Stevan Earl Vowell; R. Martin Weber, Jr.
Appellants. Competitive Enterprise Institute Center for Class
Action Fairness, Amicus Curiae-Appellee, Mark I. Adams; Katherine
S. Adams, Plaintiffs, v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, doing
business as USAA; USAA General Indemnity Co., doing business as
USAA; United Services Automobile Association, doing business as
USAA, Defendants, v. Wystan Michael Ackerman, Appellant, Kenneth
(Casey) Castleberry; Stephen O. Clancy; Stephen C. Engstrom,
Respondents, Stephen Edward Goldman, Appellant, John C. Goodson;
D. Matt Keil; Matthew L. Mustokoff; Timothy J. Myers; Richard E.
Norman, Respondents, Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Appellant, William B.
Putman; Jason Earnest Roselius; W. H. Taylor; A. F. (Tom)
Thompson, III; Stevan Earl Vowell; R. Martin Weber, Jr.
Respondents, Competitive Enterprise Institute Center for Class
Action Fairness, Amicus Curiae-Appellee, Nos. 16-3382 and 16-3482
(8th Cir.), Judge Lavenski R. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's finding that
the Plaintiffs' counsel and the Defendants' counsel violated Rule
11 and abused the judicial process by stipulating to the dismissal
of the federal action for the purpose of seeking a more favorable
forum and avoiding an adverse decision; and remanded for further
proceedings.

The Plaintiffs filed this case as a putative class action in the
Circuit Court of Polk County, Arkansas, on Dec. 5, 2013.  On Jan.
15, 2014, the Defendants removed the matter to the federal
district court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
On April 29, 2014, the Defendants moved for partial judgment on
the pleadings.  On May 5, 2014, the district court stayed the
action for mediation on the parties' joint motion.

On March 16, 2015, the parties notified the district court that
they had reached an agreement on most material terms.  They
reached a settlement agreement in principle on March 31, 2015,
which terms included dismissal of this action and refiling in Polk
County, Arkansas.  On April 15, 2015, the Defendants withdrew
their motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, and the
parties jointly filed a Rule 26(f) report setting forth several
dates for continued litigation of this action in the district
court.  On May 5, 2015, the district court entered a final
scheduling order based on the Rule 26(f) report.

On May 13, 2015, the district court held a hearing in a separate
case also brought by Mark and Kathy Adams (the same plaintiffs in
this matter) on preliminary approval of a class-action settlement
of claims almost identical to those raised in the instant matter
and brought by many of the same Plaintiffs' counsel.

On June 16, 2015, the parties in the present case executed a
settlement agreement identifying the Circuit Court of Polk County
as the reviewing court.  On June 19, 2015, the parties in the
present case jointly dismissed this action by stipulation.  The
Clerk's order of dismissal was entered on June 22, 2015.

On June 23, 2015, the parties refiled the action in the Circuit
Court of Polk County.  The parties also filed a joint motion to
certify a class action and to approve the stipulated class
settlement that the parties had negotiated and executed while
appearing in the federal action.  The next day, the district court
approved the Adams I amended stipulation.

On Aug. 26, 2015, the state court certified a settlement class,
and it also preliminarily approved the settlement agreement.  On
Dec. 14, 2015, the district court first learned that the parties
had refiled the action in the Circuit Court of Polk County and
that the state court's final approval of the settlement was
imminent.  On Dec. 21, 2015, the state court entered its final
order approving settlement, and it awarded attorney's fees.  On
that same day, the district court entered its show-cause order.

On Feb. 11, 2016, the district court notified all counsel of
record that, in addition to the Rule 11 sanctions, it was also
considering imposing sanctions under its inherent authority.  On
April 14, 2016, the district court issued an order finding that
the Plaintiffs' counsel and the Defendants' counsel violated Rule
11 when they stipulated to dismissal of the federal action for the
improper purpose of seeking a more favorable forum and avoiding an
adverse decision.  On June 24, 2016, the court heard argument "on
the issue of whether and what sanctions should be issued."  The
court absolved the Defendants' counsel of any bad faith based on
"mitigating factors."

In this consolidated appeal, the appellants, attorneys for the
Plaintiffs and the Defendants in a putative class action, appeal
from the district court's orders (i) finding that the appellants
violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and abused the
judicial process when they stipulated to the dismissal of the
federal action; and (ii) reprimanding some of the Plaintiffs'
attorneys as a sanction for the violation.  Specifically, the
district court found that the appellants violated Rule 11 when
they stipulated to the dismissal of the federal action for the
allegedly improper purpose of seeking a more favorable forum and
avoiding an adverse decision.

Judge Smith held that the counsel did not violate Rule 41(a)(1) in
stipulating to the dismissal of the action and had at least a
colorable legal argument that the district court's approval was
not needed under Rule 23(e) to voluntarily dismiss the claims of
the putative class.  Therefore, he held that the district court
abused its discretion in determining that counsel violated Rule 11
and abused the judicial process.  As a result, it also abused its
discretion in imposing sanctions upon the Plaintiffs' counsel for
the purported violation.  Accordingly, Judge Smith reversed the
judgment of the district court and remanded for further
proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/4LbNoS from Leagle.com.

John Russell Elrod -- jelrod@cwlaw.com -- for Appellant.

Gregory P.N. Joseph, for Appellant.

David R. Matthews, for Defendant-Not Party.

Lyn Peoples Pruitt -- lpruitt@mwlaw.com -- for Defendant-Not
Party.

Vicki D. Bronson -- vbronson@cwlaw.com -- for Appellant.

Stephen Edward Goldman -- sgoldman@rc.com -- for Defendant-Not
Party.

Wystan M. Ackerman -- wackerman@rc.com -- for Defendant-Not Party.

Theodore H. Frank, for Amicus Curiae.

Courtney Solomon -- csolomon@jha.com -- for Appellant.

Mara Leventhal -- mleventhal@jha.com -- for Appellant.

Stephen O. Clancy -- sclancy@rc.com -- for Defendant-Not Party.

Sandra Myndelle Lipsman, for Appellant.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Attorneys Get $125MM in Second Emission Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a federal judge on July 21 awarded $125 million in fees and costs
to lawyers who secured a second settlement in Volkswagen's diesel
emissions cheating scandal.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer approved the $1.2 billion
settlement in May, one of two deals worth nearly $16 billion, to
settle claims in Volkswagen's installation of emissions test
cheating software in some 580,000 diesel-powered vehicles sold in
the United States.

"The settlement not only provides class members with significant
value, but class counsel obtained the settlement swiftly," Judge
Breyer wrote in his 7-page ruling.  He noted that the second deal
was approved less than 18 months after lead class counsel Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein was appointed by the court.

It was the second big payday for attorneys in the multidistrict
consumer class action.  Judge Breyer in March awarded counsel $175
million for securing a $14.7 billion deal for 500,000 2.0-liter
engine vehicles. In that settlement, Volkswagen agreed to spend
$10 billion on vehicle buybacks and emissions-reducing repairs,
and $4.7 billion to regulators for air quality improvement
programs.

The 3.0-liter engine deal approved in May comes with a value of at
least $902 million for consumers, along with payouts to U.S. and
California for air pollution mitigation.  Under the settlement,
Volkswagen could have to pay an extra $4 billion if it can't come
up with regulator-approved, emissions-reducing repairs for 58,000
newer-model cars by deadlines in October, November and December
this year.

The requested $121 million in attorneys' fees accounts for 13.4
percent of the estimated $902 million value of the settlement,
"well below the Ninth Circuit's 25 percent benchmark for common
fund cases," Judge Breyer wrote in the July 21 ruling.

He found the attorneys' request for an additional $4 million in
expenses was reasonable and granted it.

Volkswagen has paid more than $20 billion in U.S. civil
settlements and criminal fines so far for installing of emissions-
cheating software in some 11 million vehicles worldwide, and U.S.
prosecutors have criminally charged six of its executives with
conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Judge Breyer approved a third partial consent decree in which
Volkswagen agreed to pay a $93.8 million fine to California's air
quality regulator, the California Air Resources Board.  That money
will go to the state's Air Pollution Control Fund, according to
the consent decree.

On top of that, Volkswagen will pay California another $60
million, in $10 million installments over six years, to reimburse
it for the costs of securing three consent decrees.  The third
consent decree also requires Volkswagen make changes to its
corporate governance structure, maintain an approved whistleblower
system, and hire third-party testers and auditors to evaluate its
emissions compliance.

Volkswagen spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan and California Attorney
General Xavier Becerra's office did not immediately return emails
seeking comment.

The plaintiffs' steering committee said in a statement on July 21
that it appreciated the court's consideration of its fee request
and was "gratified" to be implementing the two class-action
settlements.

More than 10,000 of 30,000 filed claims have been paid for the
3.0-liter settlement in less than two months, and more than $540
million in payment offers have been made, according to class
attorneys.

"We negotiated these agreements to hold Volkswagen accountable for
its breach of consumer trust, and we hope that all class members
choose to take advantage of the benefits detailed in these
settlements," the class attorneys said in a statement. "These
legal fees are in addition to the compensation Volkswagen has
already agreed to pay under the terms of the settlement, and will
not be deducted from any class member's recovery amount." [GN]


WAL-MART STORES: Mo. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Corozzo" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark D. Feiffer of the Court of Appeals of Missouri for the
Western District affirmed the Circuit Court's order dismissing
with prejudice the case captioned JOSHUA COROZZO and ARTHOR RUFF,
Appellants, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Respondent, No. WD80121 (Mo.
App.).

On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a class action against Wal-
Mart, alleging willful violations of the  Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA").  Specifically, they alleged that Wal-Mart's
Disclosure Form contained extraneous information, inaccurate and
misleading statements, and did not provide the putative class
members with a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing in a
document that consisted solely of the disclosure that a consumer
report may be obtained for employment purposes.  As relief, they
sought statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney's
fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA.

The circuit court docket sheet shows "Judge Assigned" the same day
the case was filed.  It also shows an "Order" entered by Judge Jon
Beetem on Sept. 1, 2015, which order included a statement that
Division 1 recused on its own motion and transferred the case file
to the Presiding Judge for re-assignment.  On Oct. 2, 2015, the
docket sheet shows the Presiding Judge entered an "Order for
Change of Judge" assigning the case to Division 2.

Wal-Mart filed its answer on Oct. 19, 2015, alleging as one of its
affirmative defenses that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring
the claims set forth in their Complaint because they involve no
threatened or actual injury to them.  The Plaintiffs lack standing
to assert the claims in their Complaint because, among other
reasons, they have not suffered an injury-in-fact.

A docket sheet entry on Oct. 20, 2015 shows "Judge Assigned,
Motion to Stay" and indicates that Wal-Mart's motion to stay
discovery and suggestions in support were sent to the assigned
judge for review.

On Nov. 10, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for change of
judge.  The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion on Nov.
18, 2015.  After hearing the parties' arguments, the trial court
denied the motion for change of judge and permitted the parties to
argue Wal-Mart's motion to stay discovery, which the trial court
sustained in part.

Thereafter, Wal-Mart moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' petition for
lack of standing on the grounds that they asserted only a bare
procedural violation; they did not assert any concrete harm or
injury; and therefore they failed to satisfy the injury-in-fact
requirement of standing.  After a hearing on the motion, the trial
court entered its judgment dismissing the case with prejudice.
Corozzo and Ruff timely appealed.

Judge Feiffer held that the record clearly reflects that on Oct.
2, 2015, Presiding Judge Joyce issued a written order assigning
the case to Division 2, which order was entered in the docket on
that date.  This constituted the relevant designation of the trial
judge for the purposes of Rule 51.05(b).  Pursuant to Rule 51.05,
the Plaintiffs' motion for change of judge was due within 30 of
that designation.  Because they did not file their motion until
Nov. 10, 2015, it was untimely, and they were not entitled to
relief.

Pursuant to the precedent of Spokeo v. Robins and the reasoned
analysis by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Braitberg v.
Charter Communications, Inc., Judge Pfeiffer concluded that the
Plaintiffs have not pleaded an actual injury as contemplated by
Missouri's pleading requirements related to the concepts of
justiciability and standing.  All they allege is that the format
of Wal-Mart's Disclosure Form did not comply with the FCRA's
disclosure requirement because Wal-Mart's Disclosure Form included
extraneous information.  Like the plaintiff in Spokeo, the
Plaintiffs simply cannot satisfy Missouri's standing requirements
by alleging a bare procedural violation, divorced from any
concrete harm.

For these reasons, Judge Feiffer affirmed the trial court's
judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/hdw0a0 from Leagle.com.

Jonathan Sternberg and Ashlyn Buck Lewis, Kansas City, MO, and C.
Jason Brown -- jcbrown@brownlawoffices.com -- and Jayson A.
Watkins, Gower, MO, Attorneys for Appellants.

Matthew D. Turner -- mturner@armstrongteasdale.com -- J. Kent
Lowry -- klowry@armstrongteasdale.com -- and Alex C. Barrett --
abarrett@armstrongteasdale.com -- Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys
for Respondent.


WELLS FARGO: Can Compel Arbitration in "Jeffries" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge L. Scott Cooler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, Southern Division, granted the Defendants'
motions to compel arbitration in the case captioned DOUGLAS
JEFFRIES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, No. 2:16-cv-01987-LSC (N.D. Ala.).

On Feb. 5, 2014, the Plaintiffs opened a joint checking account
and a joint savings account at their local Wells Fargo branch in
Gulf Shores, Alabama.  In so doing, they executed a Consumer
Account Application.  After opening their accounts, the Plaintiffs
received three Wells Fargo credit cards that, according to them,
they neither requested nor authorized.  They believe that they
received the cards because Wells Fargo's employees used their
personal information to open the credit card accounts without
their knowledge or consent.

The Plaintiffs filed this action in Alabama state court on Nov. 4,
2014, alleging that Wells Fargo's employees used their personal
information to open additional, unauthorized accounts and
purporting to represent all Alabama consumers whose personal
information was also used to create such accounts.  The Defendants
removed the case to this Court on Dec. 13, 2016, and filed a
motion to compel arbitration shortly after.

This action is one of several suits alleging similar claims
against Wells Fargo that have been filed in other courts across
the United States, and the Plaintiffs in one such case moved to
have all cases consolidated before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.  The Panel denied the motion because the
parties had reached a nationwide class settlement in principle in
Jabbari, et al. v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al., currently
pending in the Northern District of California.  The settlement
was preliminarily approved by the district court on July 8, 2017,
and a class action fairness hearing is set for Jan. 4, 2018.  The
Jabbari settlement would encompass Plaintiffs' claims in the
action before this Court.

Judge Cooler held that the Plaintiffs did agree to arbitrate any
disputes with Wells Fargo pursuant to the "dispute resolution
program" described in "the applicable account agreement."  It is
undisputed that when they opened their accounts with Wells Fargo
in February 2014, they signed the Consumer Account Application
document.  Directly above the signature line, this document states
that account holder also agrees to the terms of the dispute
resolution program described in the foregoing agreements.  Under
the dispute resolution program, their disputes will be decided
before one or more neutral persons in an arbitration proceeding
and not by a jury trial or a trial before a judge.  Therefore,
Judge Cooler said that at the time the Plaintiffs sought to
establish a banking relationship with Wells Fargo, they received
notice that Wells Fargo followed a "dispute resolution program"
that would require disputes to be resolved through arbitration,
rather than litigation.

Judge Cooler explained further that even assuming the Consumer
Account Application is not a contract but merely an offer to enter
into a contract, the Application clearly informed the Plaintiffs
that disputes with Wells Fargo would be resolved through
arbitration.  By establishing a banking relationship with Wells
Fargo and thereafter using the accounts they opened for several
months, they expressed their assent to the "dispute resolution
program."  This is true even though the Plaintiffs argue that they
never received a copy of the Consumer Account Agreement containing
the full terms of the program.

For the reasons, Judge Cooler granted the Defendants' motions to
compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 memorandum of
opinion is available at https://is.gd/C4Ci3b from Leagle.com.

Douglas Jeffries, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher B. Hood --
chood@hgdlawfirm.com -- HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC.

Douglas Jeffries, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Randall Keenen --
mark@hgdlawfirm.com -- HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC, Taylor C.
Bartlett -- taylor@hgdlawfirm.com -- HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS & W.
Lewis Garrison, Jr. -- wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com -- HENINGER
GARRISON DAVIS LLC.

Joann Jeffries, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher B. Hood,
HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC, Mark Randall Keenen, HENINGER
GARRISON DAVIS LLC, Taylor C. Bartlett, HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS &
W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC.

Wells Fargo & Company, Defendant, represented by Erin J. Cox --
Erin.Cox@mto.com -- MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP & William O.L.
Hutchinson -- whutchinson@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRE WOODS LLP.

Wells Fargo Bank Nat'l Assn, Defendant, represented by Erin J.
Cox, MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP & William O.L. Hutchinson, MCGUIRE
WOODS LLP.


WEST CHESTER: Court Dismisses "McCann" Suit with Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy S. Black of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division, granted the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the case captioned HEATHER McCann, Plaintiff, v. WEST
CHESTER HOSPITAL, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-440
(S.D. Ohio).

This case is one of hundreds of cases in both Ohio state courts
and federal courts stemming from the alleged conduct of an
orthopedic surgeon named Abubakar Atiq Durrani who formerly lived
and worked in the Cincinnati area.  In 2013, allegations surfaced
that Dr. Durrani had for years subjected his patients to
unnecessary surgeries without informed consent as part of a
financial scheme.  Dr. Durrani was criminally indicted in late
2013, but fled to his native Pakistan before trial.  There is no
indication he will return.  In his absence, hundreds of allegedly
wronged patients have filed civil suits against numerous related
parties, from Dr. Durrani himself, to the facilities where
surgeries allegedly took place, to the manufacturers of the medial
products that were allegedly inserted into patients without their
informed consent.  The majority of the plaintiffs in these various
lawsuits are represented by a single law firm, the Deters Law
Office.

In the case currently before the Court, Plaintiff McCann has filed
a proposed class action suit against Defendants West Chester
Hospital and UC Health.  The amended complaint advances claims of
fraud and negligent credentialing, supervision, and retention.

The proposed class advanced by the amended complaint is all
persons who received Puree Osteoprogenitor Cell Allograft from the
Defendants during either cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine
surgeries: (i) performed at either West Chester Hospital or
hospitals and surgical centers owned or operated by UC Health,
(ii) from Oct. 10, 2011, to the date of filing of this action.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April
17, 2017.

Judge Black finds that the fundamental problem with this class as
defined by the Plaintiff is that she is specifically included in a
class in which she would not otherwise belong for no logical
reason other than as a brazen attempt to avoid dismissal for lack
of a proper representative plaintiff.  McCann is currently
represented by the Deters Law Office in an Ohio state court action
raising similar claims against the Defendants in the present
action (among others).  Judge Black cannot allow the Deters Law
Office to use Ms. McCann as a vehicle to keep its proposed class
action afloat by proposing a class that is not based solely on
objective, generalized criteria.  Without Ms. McCann, the proposed
class from the complaint has no class representative.  With no
named party pursuing the claims of the complaint, this case must
be dismissed.

Judge Black held that ultimately, there appears to be little need
for this class action, which seems to him to merely be an attempt
by the Deters Law Office to "corner the market" on any potential
plaintiffs they may have missed who are not among the hundreds of
plaintiffs currently pursuing their claims in Ohio state court.
This is an inappropriate use of the class action mechanism, and if
allowed would create duplicitous litigation that would threaten to
waste judicial resources and prolong the ultimate resolution of
the many serious claims arising from the alleged acts of Dr.
Durrani.  As it stands, allowing this complaint to proceed would
serve no one but the Plaintiff's counsel.

Accordingly, Judge Black granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's amended complaint.
He directed the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly, whereupon
this civil action will be closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/L84b19 from Leagle.com.

Heather McCann, Plaintiff, represented by Glenn D. Feagan,
Rockefeller Building.

Heather McCann, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew J. Hammer, The
Deters Law Firm P.S.C., Robert Albert Winter, Jr., & James P.
Triona, The Deters Firm.

West Chester Hospital, LLC, Defendant, represented by John B.
Nalbandian -- nalbandian@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius &
Hollister, Philip D. Williamson, Taft, Stettinius, & Hollister
LLP, pro hac vice & Russell S. Sayre -- sayre@taftlaw.com -- Taft
Stettinius & Hollister.

UC Health, Defendant, represented by John B. Nalbandian, Taft
Stettinius & Hollister, Philip D. Williamson, Taft, Stettinius, &
Hollister LLP, pro hac vice & Russell S. Sayre, Taft Stettinius &
Hollister.


WEST CHESTER: Court Dismisses "Middendorf" Suit with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy S. Black of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division, dismissed with prejudice the
case captioned LYNDSEY MIDDENDORF, Plaintiff, v. WEST CHESTER
HOSPITAL, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-439 (S.D.
Ohio).

This case is one of hundreds of cases in both Ohio state courts
and federal courts stemming from the alleged conduct of an
orthopedic surgeon named Abubakar Atiq Durrani who formerly lived
and worked in the Cincinnati area.  In 2013, allegations surfaced
that Dr. Durrani had for years subjected his patients to
unnecessary surgeries without informed consent as part of a
financial scheme.  Dr. Durrani was criminally indicted in late
2013, but fled to his native Pakistan before trial.  There is no
indication he will return.

In his absence, hundreds of allegedly wronged patients have filed
civil suits against numerous related parties, from Dr. Durrani
himself, to the facilities where surgeries allegedly took place,
to the manufacturers of the medial products that were allegedly
inserted into patients without their informed consent.  The
majority of the plaintiffs in these various lawsuits are
represented by a single law firm, the Deters Law Office.

In the case currently before the Court, Plaintiff Middendorf has
filed a proposed class action suit against Defendants West Chester
Hospital and UC Health.  The complaint advances claims of fraud
and violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Protection Act. (Doc. 3,
at 41-46).1 The proposed class advanced by the complaint is any
BMP-2 patient at West Chester Dr. Durrani implanted BMP-2 who is
not already a Deters Law Office or other law office client who has
brought a claim for BMP-2.  Ms. Middendorf is represented by the
Deters Law Office in both this case and a separate case filed in
Ohio state court raising similar claims against, among others, the
defendants in this case.

The Defendants filed a timely motion to dismiss, which was placed
on hold while the Court adjudicated a motion to remand filed by
the Plaintiffs.  The Court has denied the motion to remand.  The
Defendants argue in their motion to dismiss that class
certification should be denied and the complaint should be
dismissed because Lyndsey Middendorf is not a proper class
representative for the class advanced in the complaint.  The
Defendants are correct, Judge Black agrees.

Ms. Middendorf is clearly not a member of the class she seeks to
represent.  While the members of the putative class include people
who are not already a Deters Law Office or other law office client
who has brought a claim for BMP-2, Ms. Middendorf is currently
being represented by the Deters Law Office in a case in state
court advancing similar claims to those advanced in this
complaint.  She therefore cannot be a member of the proposed class
in this case.  That is the end of the Court's necessary inquiry
into the merits of this class action.  Without Ms. Middendorf, the
proposed class from the complaint has no class representative.
With no named party pursuing the claims of the complaint, this
case must be dismissed.

Judge Black held that ultimately, there appears to be little need
for this class action, which seems to him to merely be an attempt
by the Deters Law Office to "corner the market" on any potential
plaintiffs they may have missed who are not among the hundreds of
plaintiffs currently pursuing their claims in Ohio state court.
This is an inappropriate use of the class action mechanism, and if
allowed would create duplicitous litigation that would threaten to
waste judicial resources and prolong the ultimate resolution of
the many serious claims arising from the alleged acts of Dr.
Durrani.  As it stands, allowing this complaint to proceed would
serve no one but the Plaintiff's counsel.

Accordingly, Judge Black granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
count II and count IV of the complaint without prejudice and
granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  This case is dismissed
with prejudice.  He directed the Clerk to enter judgment
accordingly, whereupon this civil action will be closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/gBXkgM from Leagle.com.

Lyndsey Middendorf, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew J. Hammer,
The Deters Law Firm P.S.C..

Lyndsey Middendorf, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Albert
Winter, Jr. & James P. Triona, The Deters Firm.

West Chester Hospital, LLC, Defendant, represented by John B.
Nalbandian -- nalbandian@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius &
Hollister, Philip D. Williamson, Taft, Stettinius, & Hollister
LLP, pro hac vice & Russell S. Sayre -- sayre@taftlaw.com -- Taft
Stettinius & Hollister.

UC Health, Defendant, represented by John B. Nalbandian, Taft
Stettinius & Hollister, Philip D. Williamson, Taft, Stettinius, &
Hollister LLP, pro hac vice & Russell S. Sayre, Taft Stettinius &
Hollister.


XBIOTECH INC: "Rezko" Sues Over IPO Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Yogtna Rezko, Aaron Le and Andrew Bank, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Xbiotech Inc.,
John Simard, Queena Han, Fabrizio Bonanni, W. Thorpe McKenzie,
Daniel Vasella, and WR Hambrecht & Co., LLC,, Case No. D-1-GN-17-
003063 (S.D. Tex., July 6, 2017), seeks compensatory damages,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including
counsel fees and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure
of damages and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

XBiotech is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company engaged in
the discovery and development of human antibodies intended for the
treatment of a variety of diseases. Its lead product candidate is
"Xilonix," intended to treat patients with advanced colorectal
cancer, especially those who have reduced tolerance for toxic
therapy.

The company's Initial Public Offering (IPO) documents failed to
disclose that it had already experienced substantial delays in
achieving its patient enrollment targets in the early stages of
the Phase III Trial of Xilonix beginning in July 2014, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs acquired XBiotech shares pursuant and/or traceable to
the Registration Statement for the IPO and lost substantially.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yusuf A. Bajwa, Esq.
      Erin Hudson
      SANDERS BAJWA LLP
      919 Congress Avenue, Suite 750
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 535-5220
      Facsimile: (512) 270-5111
      Email: ybajwa@sandersbajwa.com
             ehudson@sandersbajwa.com

             - and -

      Keith R. Lorenze, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A,
      101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Tel: (215) 600-2817
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: kiorenze@rosenlegal.com

             - and -

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

             - and -

      Michael Goldberg, Esq.
      GOLDBERG LAW PC
      13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404
      Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
      Phone: 1-800-977-7401
      Fax: 1-800-536-0065


YORK, ME: Court Denies Dismissal of "LeGrand" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RENEE LEGRAND et al., v. YORK COUNTY JUDGE
OF PROBATE, No. Yor-16-194 (Me.), Judge Jeffrey Hjelm of the
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss and affirmed York County Superior Court's judgment
declining to grant declaratory and injunctive relief.

In December 2014, Plaintiff LeGrand filed for joint or sole
guardianship of her granddaughter in the York County Probate
Court, alleging that her daughter was unfit to act as a parent to
the granddaughter.  In March 2015, Judge Robert M.A. Nadeau issued
an order, effective until Aug. 31, 2015, granting LeGrand
temporary guardianship of the child.  A hearing on LeGrand's
petition for permanent guardianship was scheduled for July and
then for August 2015, but the hearing was not held due to
scheduling conflicts attributable both to the court and to the
attorneys.

On Dec. 2, 2015, the Named Plaintiff filed a complaint against
Judge Nadeau in the Superior Court, along with motions for class
certification, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction, and for an expedited hearing.  She filed the action on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, whom she
described as individuals adversely affected by scheduling
practices in the York County Probate Court.

Judge Nadeau did not file an opposition to LeGrand's motion for
class certification, and in an order issued in late December 2015,
the court granted the motion ordering that the class would
comprise all litigants who presently are or may in the future be
harmed by alleged delays in the York County Probate Court as a
result of the scheduling decisions alleged in the Plaintiff's
amended complaint.

Judge Nadeau's response to the complaint included a motion to
dismiss based on judicial immunity, which the court denied.
Additionally, in February 2016, Judge Nadeau moved to dismiss the
class members' claims against him and to decertify the class, on
the ground that the claims had become moot because the underlying
Probate Court actions involving LeGrand and other class members
had been resolved.

While those motions remained pending, in February 2016, the court
held a three-day consolidated hearing on the complaint and the
motion for preliminary injunctive relief.  In the resulting
judgment issued on March 29, 2016, the court found in favor of
Judge Nadeau concluding that the class members had not been denied
access to the Probate Court to an extent that affected their
constitutional rights to open courts and procedural due process.
As for the substantive due process claim, the court did not reach
the question of whether Judge Nadeau's actions violated that
right.

The judgment recognized but did not explicitly rule on Judge
Nadeau's motions to dismiss the complaint and to decertify the
class.  In response to a post-judgment motion filed by Judge
Nadeau, however, the court issued an order clarifying that it had
denied those motions and intended the March 29 order to serve as a
final judgment.

LeGrand timely appealed.  While the appeal was pending, Judge
Nadeau filed with the Court a motion to dismiss LeGrand's appeal,
contending in part that the case became moot when he lost the
November 2016 election for the probate judgeship.

Judge Hjelm held that the scope of the class as defined by the
court essentially ensures that there will always be class members.
Thus, even as older cases are resolved, at least some newly filed
cases will be affected by the schedule implemented by Judge
Nadeau, causing injury to those litigants and thereby qualifying
them for class membership.  Because there are class members with
pending cases for whom there remain sufficient practical effects
flowing from the resolution of the litigation to justify the
application of limited judicial resources, the claims asserted
here are not moot.

However, he said that the court did not abuse its discretion by
ultimately determining that, because the most significant problems
created by the schedule changes had dissipated and the remaining
effects of those changes were limited, declaratory and injunctive
relief would not serve a useful purpose in this case.
Accordingly, the court did not err in declining to reach the
underlying question of whether LeGrand had established violations
of substantive due process.

Therefore, Judge Hjelm denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
and affirmed the judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/1YvVpC from Leagle.com.

Robert E. Mittel, Esq. -- rmittel@mittelasen.com -- (orally),
MittelAsen, LLC, Portland, and Temma Donahue, Esq. --
mma@rdcplawyers.com -- Rioux, Donahue, Chmelecki & Peltier LLC,
Portland, for appellants Renee LeGrand and other class members.

Peter J. Brann, Esq. -- pbrann@brannlaw.com -- (orally), and
Michael E. Carey, Esq. -- MCarey@brannlaw.com -- Brann & Isaacson,
Lewiston, for appellee York County Judge of Probate.


ZAYO GROUP: Zhirovetskiy Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometrics Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Denis Zhirovetskiy, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Zayo Group, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2017CH09323 (Ill. Cir., July 6, 2017), seeks injunctive
and equitable relief, statutory damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs, and other litigation expenses, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and such other relief for violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Defendant, a telecommunications service provider and an operator
of data storage facilities in Illinois, is alleged of collecting,
storing and using Plaintiff's and other similarly situated
consumers' biometric identifiers and biometric information without
informed written consent. Zhirovetskiy, at one time, requested
access to one of Defendant's many data centers located in
Illinois. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Myles McGuire, Esq.
      Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
      David L. Gerbie, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 893-7002
      Fax: (312) 275-7895
      Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
             emeyers@mcgpc.com
             dgerbie@mcgpc.com


* CFPB's Arbitration Rule Boon for Class Action Lawyers
-------------------------------------------------------
Alan Kaplinsky and Mark Levin, writing for USA Today, report that
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's arbitration rule is a
bust for consumers but a boon for class action lawyers.

The supposed basis for the rule is the bureau's 2015 study of
consumer arbitration.  But the study actually showed that
arbitration is faster, less expensive and far more effective for
consumers to resolve disputes than class action litigation.

Here are the facts: The average arbitration takes less than seven
months, while class actions go on for years. In most arbitrations,
consumer costs are capped at $200, but it costs $400 just to
initiate a federal court lawsuit.

According to the study, consumers who prevailed in arbitration got
an average award of about $5,400, but the average class action
settlement payment was a paltry $32.

Meanwhile, plaintiffs' class action lawyers pocketed a staggering
total of $424,495,451.

Let consumers sue banks

The study also showed that just 12.3% of class action cases
resulted in classwide settlements and benefits to class members.
And only 4% of consumers who were entitled to a settlement payment
actually filed the necessary claim forms.  Probably because the
payoff was so small.

The arbitration rule will exact a huge financial toll on the
53,000 companies that currently use arbitration agreements.  We
calculate that it will cost those companies between $2.6 billion
and $5.2 billion over five years to deal with 6,042 additional
federal and state court class actions that will be filed once
class action waivers are eliminated.  Those numbers will be
repeated every five years.

At least some, if not most, of the increased defense costs will
likely be passed on to consumers through higher costs or reduced
services.  Further, the public will have to bear the massive extra
expense that our underfunded and overburdened courts will incur in
handling the deluge of class actions.

More class action lawsuits aren't such a good deal -- unless you
are a class action lawyer.

Alan S. Kaplinsky and Mark J. Levin are partners at the law firm
Ballard Spahr LLP in Philadelphia. Mr. Kaplinsky leads the firm's
consumer financial services group. [GN]


* Consumers Receive $366MM More Via Litigation Than Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Times-Tribune reports that mandatory arbitration of customer
complaints against companies is the most anti-consumer development
of this century.

Buried deep in the finest print of contracts for many credit
cards, insurance and other services are clauses binding aggrieved
consumers to arbitration, rather than litigation, when they
believe that the companies have done them wrong.  Those systems
most often are constructed in the companies' favor, saving them
not only the costs of litigation, but reducing the amounts of
penalties and diminishing deterrence of demonstrably bad behavior.

A few weeks ago, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a
rule allowing class action lawsuits by consumers to replace
mandatory arbitration.  A group of Senate Republicans responded a
with a bill that would overturn that rule and leave the deck
stacked in favor of credit card companies and banks like Wells
Fargo, which the CFPB recently caught ripping off millions of its
customers.

The senators characterized the CFPB rule as a vehicle to enrich
lawyers.

Yet, according to the pro-consumer Center for Responsible Lending,
consumers receive about $366 million more a year through settled
litigation than arbitration, even with tight restrictions on class
action suits.

The real value of allowing the class actions is deterrence.  The
objective is to make arbitration and litigation rare through the
honest conduct of financial services companies.  Forced
arbitration allows them to act with impunity; class actions raise
the prospect of real penalties.

Consumers outnumber bankers among every politician's constituency.
Members of Congress should serve the consumers' interests. [GN]


* FTC Issues 2nd Federal Register Notice on CA Programs Study
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Iandolo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the Federal
Trade Commission announced July 12 that it is issuing a second
Federal Register notice to continue its study of the effectiveness
of class action settlement notice programs.

The FTC first announced the study in 2015 as part of its Class
Action Fairness Project. The commission sought to examine consumer
perceptions and the effectiveness of these notices. In November
2016, the FTC issued orders to eight claims administrators,
mandating that the administrators provide information on how they
inform consumers of settlement notices. The commission asked the
administrators to note the response rate for various methods of
notification.

The FTC had received two public comments in response to the first
Federal Register notice. The second notice is a response to those
comments as well as an announcement to the public that the
commission is seeking OMB clearance to continue conducting the
study.

The FTC voted 2-0 to approve the publication of the Federal
Register notice. Robin Moore of the Bureau of Consumer Protection
is the staff contact for the case. [GN]


* Republicans Launch Challenge to CFPB Class Action Rule
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lawler, writing for The Washington Examiner, reports
Republicans are going to the well once more to block an Obama-era
regulation through the special rule-erasing tool known as the
Congressional Review Act.

GOP members of the House and Senate introduced legislation on July
20 to undo the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's newly-
finalized arbitration rule through the special procedure.

By putting the resolution on President Trump's desk, Republicans
hope to stop the bureau from liberalizing class-action lawsuits
for financial products.

The rule in question would stop banks from utilizing what is
referred to as mandatory arbitration, or the practice of including
clauses in contracts for credit cards and bank accounts requiring
that disputes be handled in private arbitration rather than
through the courts.

Republicans say the rule is interference in the free market, and
trial lawyers, rather than consumers, would benefit.

Earlier this year, Republicans succeeding in overturning 14 late
Obama-era regulations using the Congressional Review Act, which
allows for passage of resolutions with only 51 votes in the
Senate.

Under Barack Obama appointee Richard Cordray, the bureau finalized
the arbitration rule last week, defying the earlier expectations
of some in the industry.

If Congress erases a rule through the CRA, the agency is prevented
from writing a similar regulation in the future without
authorization.

"The CFPB's anti-arbitration rule hurts consumers and it's another
example of the problems caused by this rogue and unaccountable
agency," said Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania, the sponsor of the
resolution in the House. Rothfus was joined by all the GOP members
of the Financial Services Committee on the resolution. [GN]


                         *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *