CAR_Public/170809.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, August 9, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 156



                            Headlines

ADVANCED OILFIELD: "Brotherton" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
AETNA INC: Faces Investor Suit Over ACA Marketplace Withdrawal
ALDO'S DELI: Faces "Reyes" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations
ALL AMERICAN: Faces "Palos" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations
ALLIANCE ENERGY: Offshore Employees Class Conditionally Certified

AMERICAN QUALITY: "Cross" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
AMERIMEX MUFFLERS: Hernandez Seeks to Certify Mechanics Class
ANGEL BRIGHT: "Trevino" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
APPLE-METRO: "Ghee" Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
ARCONIC INC: Faces "Brave" Securities Suit Over Reynobond PE

ASB BANCORP: Faces "Rubin" Lawsuit Over Sale to First Bancorp.
ASD SPECIALITY: Eversheds Sutherland Comments on 6th Cir. Ruling
BA VICTORY CORP: OT Pay, Paystubs Sought in "Tenegusnay" Suit
CAS INC: Shaw, et al. Sue Over Non-payment of Overtime Work
CELEDON TRUCKING: Faces "Williams" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

CENTURYLINK: "Petersen" Hits Stock Price Drop
CITY CENTER PARKING: "Rios" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
COMMUNITY EDUCATION: Giles Seeks Approval of $950,000 Settlement
COVISINT CORP: Berg Sues Over Sale to Open Text Corp.
CREDIT CONTROL: "Ringgold" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y.

DESIGNS BY RJR: "Olano" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
DITECH FINANCIAL: Faces "Rapp" Suit Alleging RESPA Violation
DR PEPPER: Webb Sues over "Made from Real Ginger" Label
EGS FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
EL MUNICIPIO DE GUAYNABO: Faces Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

ELITE LINE: "Prieto" Suit Sues over Wage and Hour Laws
FIAT CHRYSLER: Loses Early Bid to Beat Class Cert. in Defect Suit
FLORIDA: "Prunty" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
FORD MOTOR CO: "Baranco" Sues Over Defective Door Latch
FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Court Certifies 401(k) Retirement Plan Class

FXCM INC: "Cardi" Files Suit Over Conflict of Interest Issues
FYRE MEDIA: Class Action Suits to be Consolidated in New York
GLOBAL TEL: Alexander, et al. Sue Under RICO Over ICS System
GOB SERVICES: "Brotherton" Action Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
HATFIELD LAWN: "Perry" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA

HOLIDAY INN: Labor Trafficking Victims File Class Action
HSBC BANK: "Giron" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
I.C. SYSTEM: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
IDEAL TAX: "Meyer" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
IPLAY INC: Spearman Sues over Teethers' "BPA Free" Label

ISOHAMA JAPANESE RESTAURANT: "Gil" Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit
J & M PREMIER: "Santos" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
JPMORGAN CHASE: Vague Collection Notice Disputed by "Hunt"
K N M CONSTRUCTIONS: "Trujillo" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Fights Liability Over Account Ease Program

LAKE VIEW: Faces "Suts" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Ohio Min. Wage Act
LG CHEM: Eligible Claimants Can File for Class Settlement Money
M.A.C. COSMETICS: Kobbervig Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
MATTRESS FIRM: Court Certifies Class of Drivers in "Blair" Suit
MDL 2555: Aug. 18 Hearing on Bid to Certify Consumer Class

MEDICAL BUSINESS: "Garrett" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
MEDSOLUTIONS INC: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
MENS WEARHOUSE: Court Grants Class Certification Bid in "Oliver"
MERCK & CO: Smith Seeks to Certify Sales Representative Class
MICRO MATIC: Doritty Sues Over Age Discrimination in Employment

MIDDLESEX CORPORATION: "Myrick" Suit Seeks Class Certification
MIDLAND CREDIT: Judge Denies Class Certification in FDCPA Case
MIDLAND FUNDING: Janetos' Cert. Class Bid Hrng. Cont'd to Sept. 8
MISSOURI: Court Granted Class Cert. in Postawko, et al. Suit
MONSANTO CO: Brown Seeks to Recover Roundup(R)-Related Damages

MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Trottier Sues over Federal Securities Laws
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Certification Bid in "Zaklit" Granted
NEXT LEVEL: Faces "Scott" Suit Over Use of ATDS to Get Clients
NIANTIC: Gamer Files Class Action Over Failed Pokemon Go Festival
NICHOLAS CTY, WV: Certification of Class Sought in "Bragg" Suit

NOODLES & COMPANY: Court Tosses Data Breach Class Actions
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: "Cox" Labor Suit Alleges Misclassification
OHIO: Families of People with Disabilities OK'd to Join Case
OHIO PIZZA: Mullins Seeks to Certify Delivery Drivers Class
ONEBEACON INSURANCE: Berg Files Suit Over Sale to Intact Fin'l.

OVERTON RUSSELL: Carpenter Moves for Cert.; Hearing on Sept. 7
PACIFIC BELL: Larson's Bid to Certify Tossed Due to Agreement
PARAMOUNT CARE: "Brown" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
PAUL E WALSH: Faces "Dreasher" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
PREMIUM ASSET: "Navarroli" Suit Seeks Class Certification

PUBLIC STORAGE: Faces "Fox" Suit Over Illegal Debits
QUINCY PROPERTY: Brasher Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Suit
R GUERRERO'S CONSTRUCTION: "Lira" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
RUSK INDUSTRIES: "Lindsey" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
SCOTTS COMPANY: Lawn Technicians Class Certified in "Vasquez" Suit

SEARS ROEBUCK: "Greene" Suit Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
SERVIS ONE: "Kolenko" Says Policies Undermine Duty to Homeowners
SPECIALIZED LOAN: "Mason" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
STRONGHEALTH NETWORK: "Castillo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
TALBOTS INC: "Fliegelman" Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.

TARPON TURTLE: Faces "Rish" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
TIRRENIO INC: "Recarte" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NYLL
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Ferris Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Asks Judge to Toss Drivers' Ride Pricing Suit
UNITED INSURANCE: Sued Over Life Insurance Benefits

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Doe" Suit Over Reimbursement Penalties
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Settles Suit With Payments, Vouchers
USAA CASUALTY: 8th Cir. Reverses Sanctions for Re-Filing Suit
VALLEY COLLECTION: Faces "O'Toole" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
VIZIO: Loses Another Round in Privacy Battle

WINN-DIXIE MONTGOMERY: Managers Class Certified in "Chaves" Suit
WOLF APPLIANCE: "Garfinkle" Seeks Warranty on Oven Chipping
WTRMLN WTR: Faces Class Action Suit Over False Representation
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action

* Chancellor Urges Del. High Ct. to Change Derivative Suits Test




                            *********



ADVANCED OILFIELD: "Brotherton" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Brotherton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Advanced Oilfield Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00825 (W.D. Pa., June 21, 2017), seeks
overtime wages, all available relief, including compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio
Prompt Pay Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Advanced Oilfield provides critical completion and production
related services to oil and gas companies throughout the United
States including construction, maintenance, trucking and
roustabout services. Advanced Oilfield currently has locations and
operations in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, North Dakota and
Colorado. Brotherton worked for Advanced Oilfield as a rig welder
at their Claysville, Pennsylvania location but also performing
jobs in Ohio. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
     BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
     250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Telephone: (614) 221-4221
     Fax: (614) 744-2300
     Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

            - and -

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com


AETNA INC: Faces Investor Suit Over ACA Marketplace Withdrawal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reports that Aetna Inc. was slapped
with a putative class action in Pennsylvania state court on July
25 alleging that it cost investors $1.7 billion by withdrawing
from Affordable Care Act insurance exchanges to make good on
threats aimed at coercing government approval of its now-defunct
merger with Humana Inc.

The Allegheny County Employees' Retirement Fund said that Aetna's
stock fell by more than two percent in January after a federal
judge issued an opinion concluding that the insurer had used
threats of withdrawal from ACA exchanges as leverage to seek
favorable treatment from federal officials tasked with reviewing
its then-pending $37 billion deal to acquire Humana.

The investors added that the company's decision to make good on
its threats had also closed the door on potential profits it could
have reaped by participating in the exchanges.

"Aetna has sustained and will continue to sustain significant
damages, including financial harm and loss of goodwill," the
investors said in their complaint. "Perhaps most concerning of
all, by pulling out of exchanges where the company's on-exchange
plans were making money, Aetna insiders chose to forgo corporate
profits simply to make good on their wrongful threats to the
government."

According to the complaint, Aetna announced last August that,
after what it cast as a "thorough business review," it was
withdrawing from public insurance exchanges in 11 of the 15
states, including in Pennsylvania, where it offered plans.

What the complaint said the insurer did not reveal in making its
withdrawal announcement, however, was that the decision came after
repeated threats from Aetna officials that its participation in
the ACA exchanges was contingent on the government's approval of
the Humana merger.

The complaint pointed to comments that Aetna chairman and CEO Mark
Bertolini included in a letter to the Department of Health & Human
Services in July 2016 threatening that the insurer would
"immediately take action [to] reduce our 2017 exchange footprint"
in the event the government sued to enjoin the Humana deal.

Despite the threats, the Department of Justice, along with eight
individual states, filed suit later that month to enjoin Aetna's
acquisition of Humana.

U.S. District Judge John Bates pulled back the curtain on Aetna's
alleged gambit in January as he issued a decision enjoining the
merger and chiding the insurer for making its withdrawal decision
not for business reasons "but instead to follow through on the
threat that it made earlier."

This, the investors said on July 25, sent Aeta's stock tumbling
$3.33 per share and erased $1.7 billion worth of market
capitalization.

Aetna has been hit with at least one other derivative suit --
coming in January in Connecticut federal court on behalf of a
union benefit fund -- over the federal court's conclusions
regarding the insurer's withdrawal decision.

That case was voluntarily withdrawn in April, according to court
records.

A representative for Aetna declined to comment when contacted on
July 25, and an attorney for the investors did not immediately
return a message from a reporter.

The stockholders are represented by Eric Zagar, Esq. --
ezagar@ktmc.com -- and Kristen Ross, Esq. -- kross@ktmc.com -- of
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, and Ned Weinberger, Esq. --
nweinberger@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow LLP.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately
available.

The case is Allegheny County Employees' Retirement Fund v. Mark
Bertolini et al., case number 170702608, in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. [GN]


ALDO'S DELI: Faces "Reyes" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEREMIAS REYES and GUADALUPE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves,
FLSA COLLECTIVE, Plaintiffs, v. ALDO'S DELI & BAGELS CORP. d/b/a
ALDO'S DELI, ADAM'S DELI ON THE CORNER CORP. d/b/a ADAM'S DELI,
ADAM'S DELI ON THE CORNER II CORP. d/b/a ADAM'S DELI, LAZARO
HERRERA and FRANCISCO MACARENO-VAZQUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-04201 (E.D.N.Y., July 14, 2017), alleges that Defendants'
decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures,
protocols, routines, and rules, all culminated in a willful
failure and refusal to pay them (i) the proper minimum wage; and
(ii) overtime premium at the rate of one and one half times the
regular rate for work in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek;
and (iii) the unpaid wages due to time shaving. The case alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Furthermore,
allegedly, a subclass of FLSA Collective Plaintiffs who were
tipped employees comprised of employees including delivery
persons, also suffered from Defendants' failure and refusal to pay
them the proper minimum wage.

The Defendants operate three delicatessens.  Plaintiff GEREMIAS
REYES was hired by Defendants to work as a delivery person.  The
case was filed on behalf of all non-exempt employees, including
delivery persons, cashiers, stock persons, general helpers,
counter persons, cooks, food preparers and dishwashers.[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
     Tel.: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


ALL AMERICAN: Faces "Palos" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
KRYSTAL PALOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALL AMERICAN HOMECARE AGENCY INC., and
ALBERT ISAKOV, in his individual and corporate capacity,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05360 (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2017),
alleges violations of (1) the overtime requirements under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, (2) the minimum wage and overtime
requirements under New York Labor Law ( "NYLL"), (3) the wage
statement and notice requirements of NYLL; and (4) the prohibition
against taking deductions from wages under NYLL.

Plaintiff Krystal Palos is an intake coordinator.  The case was
filed on behalf of "intake coordinators, home health aides,
personal care aides, consumer directed personal assistant program
workers, and consumer directed personal assistant services
workers".

All American Homecare Agency provides skilled and non-skilled home
health care services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ariel Y. Graff, Esq.
     THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
     401 Park Avenue South
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 571-2000
     Fax: (212) 571-0505
     Email: ari@ottingerlaw.com


ALLIANCE ENERGY: Offshore Employees Class Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAVID DEARMOND, v. ALLIANCE ENERGY SERVICES,
LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-02222-LMA-KWR (E.D. La.), the Hon. Lance M.
Africk conditionally certifies a class of:

   "all current and former hourly paid offshore employees who
   attended a safety meeting who worked for Defendant Alliance
   Energy Services, LLC at any location throughout the United
   States from three years prior to the date of this order to the
   present".

The Court said, "Defendant shall provide counsel for plaintiff
with the names, positions, dates of employment, all personal
addresses, telephone numbers (home and mobile) and all personal
email addresses for the class members ("class list"). Defendant
shall provide such information in a format, to be agreed upon by
the parties, within ten days of the date of this order. The
Plaintiff's counsel shall 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, plaintiff's counsel shall 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, plaintiff's counsel
shall send a reminder notice consisting of the notice of rights
and consent form via mail, email, and text message to all class
members who have not opted into this case. Class members shall
also be given the option to execute their consent forms
electronically online. All consent forms shall be returned to
plaintiff's counsel, who in turn will be responsible for filing
them with the Court. The class members shall 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 copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ydhJPtyV


AMERICAN QUALITY: "Cross" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Cross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. American Quality Remodeling, Inc. and Ziv
Hajaj, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01271 (S.D. Cal., June 21,
2017), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Defendants used an automated dialer to market its home improvement
services, notes the complaint. Cross registered his phone number
on the national "Do Not Call Registry" yet received calls from the
Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      Kevin Lemieux, 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
             kevin@westcoastlitigation.com

             - and -

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com


AMERIMEX MUFFLERS: Hernandez Seeks to Certify Mechanics Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned HECTOR HERNANDEZ and GERARDO JACOBO, the
Plaintiffs, v. AMERIMEX MUFFLERS AND BRAKES 6, INC., and LEONARDO
MARTINEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07513 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to:

   1. conditionally certify Count I as a collective action and
      permit Plaintiffs to mail notice of the lawsuit to:

      "all individuals who worked between July 26, 2014 and
      October 1, 2016 at one of 12 car repair shops owned by
      Martinez and whose paycheck stubs show that they were not
      paid one-and-a-half times their regular rate for all hours
      over forty in at least one workweek";

   2. approve a proposed notice;

   3. direct Defendants to produce, in a computer-readable
      format, within fourteen days, the names, social security
      numbers, last-known addresses, and telephone numbers of all
      putative class members as well as copies of their paycheck
      stubs; and

   4 allow a two-month opt-in period from the date of mailing of
     the notice.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other persons
similarly situated, allege that Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay them one-and-a-half times their
regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty in a
workweek.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
          Juliet V. Berger-White, Esq.
          Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
          HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS, RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
          Three First National Plaza
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 580 0100


ANGEL BRIGHT: "Trevino" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA TREVINO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ANGEL BRIGHT HOME HEALTH, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00262 (S.D. Tex., July 27, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime wages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

Linda Trevino brings this action individually and on behalf of all
employees who worked for Angel Bright Home Health, Inc., and were
paid hourly but did not receive overtime, during the past three
years.

Angel Bright is an individual and family services company located
in 5866 S Staples St, Corpus Christi, Texas, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlwaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com


APPLE-METRO: "Ghee" Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kendall Ghee and Yang Shen, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Apple-Metro, Inc., a New York corporation, 42nd Apple LLC,
doing business as Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar a New York
corporation and Broadway Apple, LLC doing business as Applebee's
Neighborhood Grill & Bar, a New York corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01554, originally file on March 20, 2017, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, was removed
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on July 28, 2017.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-05723-JPO to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge
J. Paul Oetken.

Apple-Metro Inc. is the New York Metropolitan Area franchisee for
Applebee's (TM) Neighborhood Grill and Bar.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 661-1008
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: anne@leelitigation.com

      - and -

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Andrew B Lustigman, Esq.
   OlshanFromeWolosky LLP
   1325 Avenue of the Americas
   New York, NY 10019
   Tel: (212) 451-2300
   Fax: (212) 451-2222
   Email: alustigman@olshanlaw.com

      - and -

   Scott Allen Shaffer, Esq.
   OlshanFromeWolosky LLP
   1325 Avenue of the Americas
   New York, NY 10019
   Tel: (212) 451-2300
   Email: sshaffer@olshanlaw.com


ARCONIC INC: Faces "Brave" Securities Suit Over Reynobond PE
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BRAVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ARCONIC INC., KENNETH J. GIACOBBE, and
KLAUS KLEINFELD, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05312 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 13, 2017), was filed on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
Arconic securities between February 28, 2017 and June 26, 2017,
both dates inclusive.  The case 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) Arconic
knowingly supplied its highly flammable Reynobond PE polyethylene)
cladding panels for use in construction; (ii) the foregoing
conduct significantly increased the risk of property damage,
injury and/or death in buildings constructed with Arconic's
Reynobond PE panels; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Arconic's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

Arconic Inc. is a global provider of lightweight multi-material
solutions, focused on the aerospace market in addition to serving
the automotive, industrial gas turbine, commercial transportation,
and building and construction markets. The Company also provides
titanium, aluminum, nickel-based super alloy, and specialty alloy
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


ASB BANCORP: Faces "Rubin" Lawsuit Over Sale to First Bancorp.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RUBIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ASB BANCORP, INC., SUZANNE S. DEFERIE,
PATRICIA S. SMITH, JOHN B. GOULD, JOHN B. DICKSON, LESLIE D.
GREEN, KENNETH E. HORNOWSKI, STEPHEN P. MILLER, LAWRENCE B.
SEIDMAN, ALISON J. SMITH, WYATT S. STEVENS, and KENNETH J WRENCH,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00410 (W.D.N.C., July 14, 2017),
arises out of the Defendants' attempt to sell the Company to First
Bancorp.  The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $175
million.

Allegedly, the Registration Statement, which recommends that ASBB
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) the Company's financial projections, relied upon by ASBB's
financial advisor, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., in its financial
analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses prepared by KBW in
connection with the rendering of its fairness opinion; (iii) the
background process leading up to the Proposed Transaction; and
(iv) KBW's conflicts of interest.

ASBB is the holding company for the Asheville Savings Bank,
S.S.B.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Janet Ward Black, Esq.
     Nancy Meyers, Esq.
     WARD BLACK LAW
     208 West Wendover Avenue
     Greensboro, NC 27401
     Phone: (336) 510-2104
     Fax: (336) 510-2181
     Email: jwblack@wardblack.com

        - and -

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
     Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 682-3025
     Fax: (212) 682-3010


ASD SPECIALITY: Eversheds Sutherland Comments on 6th Cir. Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Fuchs, Esq., and Lewis Weiner of Eversheds, Esq., at
Sutherland (US) LLP, in an article for JD Supra, wrote that what
is seemingly a growing divide between circuits has developed on
the appropriate standard for assessing ascertainability in federal
class actions, including Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
class actions. Ascertainability, the implied requirement in Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that there be
a means of determining class membership in a proposed class
action. Courts have disagreed on the appropriate standard for
assessing ascertainability.

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has articulated a
"heightened" ascertainability standard requiring not only that a
class be defined with reference to objective criteria, but also
that plaintiffs put forward a reliable and administratively
feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members
fall within the class definition. The Second, Sixth, Seventh,
Eighth and Ninth Circuits, however, have all expressly declined to
apply a "heightened" ascertainability standard, and instead
require only that a class be defined with reference to objective
criteria. While this trend towards a lower ascertainability
standard may seem to provide an easier path to class certification
for TCPA plaintiffs, several recent decisions have signaled that
even under a lower standard, courts are unwilling to accept
unreliable proof of class membership in TCPA class actions.

On July 11, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
affirmed the denial of class certification in a TCPA case
involving junk faxes, upholding a district court ruling that the
lack of logs or other records reflecting successful facsimile
transmissions rendered plaintiffs' proposed class of fax
recipients unascertainable.

In the case, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. ASD Specialty
Healthcare Inc., No. 16-3741 (6th Cir. July 11, 2017), plaintiffs
had moved to certify a class of fax recipients, proposing that
individual affidavits, attesting to receipt of the fax, could be
used to determine class membership. In affirming the district
court denial of certification, the Sixth Circuit found that in the
absence of fax logs demonstrating who actually received a
facsimile, objective criteria for determining class membership did
not exist. The court specifically noted that fax recipients could
not realistically be expected to remember receiving a one-page fax
sent years prior, and therefore relying on self-serving affidavits
was not an objective means to ascertain class membership. The
Sixth Circuit also found that reliance on individual affidavits
raised commonality and predominance questions, because assessing
the veracity of the affidavits would necessarily require
individualized "mini-trials."

Just a week prior to the Sixth Circuit's decision in Sandusky, the
US District Court for the Western District of Missouri reached a
similar holding in St. Louis Heart Center Inc. v. Vein Centers for
Excellence Inc., 4:12-cv-00174 (July 5, 2017), decertifying a
class of fax recipients on ascertainability grounds. St. Louis
Heart Center concerned the alleged transmittal of unsolicited
faxes sent on behalf of Vein Centers, a physician marketing firm.
Although fax logs reflecting successful transmissions were
unavailable, a class of all individuals who were sent a fax by
Vein Centers was certified by the court in 2013.

Following clarification from the Eighth Circuit in McKeage v.
TMBC, LLC, 847 F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 2017), that the makeup of a
class must be determined by "objective criteria," the district
court reversed course, denying plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment and granting defendant's motion for decertification. The
court found that in the absence of fax logs, plaintiffs had failed
to identify "objective criteria" through which the class could be
identified. The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that
potential class members could sign affidavits or claim forms in
response to a notice that would go out after the case was
resolved, finding, similar to the Sixth Circuit, that it would be
difficult to determine whether recollections of having received a
fax years ago were valid.

Earlier this year, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
also weighed in on the issue, affirming a district court's denial
of class certification on ascertainability grounds in a TCPA case
where call logs did not exist. In Leyse v. Lifetime Entm't Servs.,
Inc., No. 16-1133-cv, 2017 WL 659894 (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2017),
plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Lifetime for
allegedly violating the TCPA by making a series of unlawful,
prerecorded telephone calls. Plaintiffs proposed identifying class
members through affidavits from individuals who would testify to
receipt of the calls, because logs of the call recipients did not
exist. The district court concluded -- and the Second Circuit
affirmed -- that this was not an ascertainable way to identify
class members given "(1) no list of the called numbers existed;
(2) no such list was likely to emerge; and (3) [ ] proposed class
members could not realistically be expected to recall a brief
phone call received six years ago or . . . to retain any concrete
documentation of such receipt."

These decisions illustrate that even under a "lower"
ascertainability standard courts still require some objective
means of determining class membership. In the TCPA context, this
may mean requiring logs that illustrate who received a call or
fax. At a minimum, these cases provide a new tool for companies
defending TCPA cases in which logs or other records are lacking.

With the ongoing wave of TCPA litigation, the standard for
ascertainability will continue to be a key issue in many new and
ongoing cases. [GN]


BA VICTORY CORP: OT Pay, Paystubs Sought in "Tenegusnay" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Tenegusnay, on behalf of himself and the Class, Plaintiff, v.
BA Victory Corp. and Ismael Alba, Defendants, Case No. 155654/2017
(N.Y. Sup., June 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
compensation for off-the-clock work, statutory penalties,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New
York Labor Law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a restaurant under the trade name "Buenos
Aires," located at 513 E 6th Street, New York, New York 10009.
Tenegusnay worked for the Defendants as a dishwasher until April
8, 2017. Defendants allegedly have no time-keeping facilities in
place and do not issue wage statements, thus failing to account
for Plaintiff's overtime. [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
     Tel: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181


CAS INC: Shaw, et al. Sue Over Non-payment of Overtime Work
-----------------------------------------------------------
JACOB SHAW, MITCHELL ROSIERE, AND ALFRED JACQUES individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAS,
Inc. d/b/a KBRwyle and d/b/a Wyle Cas; KBRWYLE TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a KBRwyle and d/b/a CAS Group; and KBR, INC
d/b/a KBRwyle and d/b/a CAS Group, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00142 (S.D. Tex., July 14, 2017), alleges that Defendants are
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay its
employees, including the Named Plaintiffs and Class Members, who
perform Field Service Representative (also referred to as
RAID Maintenance/Operators) tasks at one-and-one-half times their
regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours
within a workweek.

Defendants have further allegedly violated the FLSA by
misclassifying Mitchell Rosiere as exempt from the FLSA's overtime
requirements while he was employed by Defendants as a C-RAM Site
Lead.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
     Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
     MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
     13590 Ranch Road 12
     Wimberley, TX 78676
     Phone: (512) 782-0567
     Fax: (512) 782-0605
     Email: edmond@morelandlaw.com
            daniel@morelandlaw.com


CELEDON TRUCKING: Faces "Williams" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
LEON WILLIAMS, III, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CELEDON TRUCKING SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00563-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss., July 13,
2017), alleges that Plaintiff routinely worked over forty (40)
hours in a given workweek; however, he was not compensated at a
rate of time and one-half for those overtime work hours, rather,
he was paid at a rate of time and one-half for his overtime work
hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a truckload shipping company, offering storage,
transportation, distribution and logistical solutions.  Plaintiff
was employed as non-exempt shuttle driver and in this capacity
performed "spotting services" or logistical services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher W. Espy, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC
     4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 200
     Jackson, MS 39211
     Phone: 601-718-2087
     Fax: 601-718-2102
     Email: cespy@forthepeople.com


CENTURYLINK: "Petersen" Hits Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------
Larry Allen Petersen, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Centurylink, Inc., Glen F. Post,
III, R. Stewart Ewing, Jr. and David D. Cole, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-04579, (C.D. Cal., June 21, 2017), seeks compensatory
damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Centurylink is accused of adding services or lines to customer
accounts without customer approval. On June 16, 2017, a former
CenturyLink employee claimed she was fired for blowing the whistle
on the Company's high-pressure sales culture that allegedly left
customers paying millions of dollars for accounts they didn't
request.

On this news, the company's stock price fell $1.23 per share, or
4.5%, to close at $25.72 per share on June 16, 2017, on unusually
heavy trading volume. Plaintiff owns Centurylink securities and
lost substantially.

CenturyLink is an integrated communications company that provides
local and long-distance voice, broadband, Multi-Protocol Label
Switching, private line, Ethernet, colocation, hosting, data
integration, video, network, public access, Voice over Internet
Protocol, information technology and other ancillary services.
CenturyLink, Inc. is incorporated in Louisiana and its
headquarters are in Monroe, Louisiana. CenturyLink's common stock
trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "CTL."

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com


CITY CENTER PARKING: "Rios" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
JESSE RIOS, an individual, ANTHONY DE LOS ANGELES, an individual,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CITY CENTER PARKING, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC670147 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 27, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation under labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay
wages for all hours worked, including for hours worked in excess
of eight hours a day or 40 hours a week; failed to pay minimum
wages; failed to pay overtime compensation due; failed to provide
the Parking Lot Attendants with timely and accurate wage and hour
statements; failed to pay compensation in a timely manner upon
their termination or resignation; failed to maintain complete and
accurate payroll records; and failed to indemnify the Parking Lot
Attendants for all necessary expenditures or losses.

City Center Parking was established in Portland in 1955 and has
operated as an active parking management company for 60 years.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas W. Falvey, Esq.
          Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
          Armand R. Kizirian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547 5200
          Facsimile: (818) 500 9307
          E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmail.com
                  mike.falveylaw@gmail.com
                  armand.falveylaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Marcus A. Mancini, Esq.
          MANCINI & ASSOCIATES
          15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 600
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 783 5757
          Facsimile: (818) 783 7710


COMMUNITY EDUCATION: Giles Seeks Approval of $950,000 Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled AARON GILES, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public, the Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTERS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04863-DMG-KS (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will move to Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a settlement class;

   2. preliminarily approving class action settlement reached
      between the parties;

   3. approving the notice of class action settlement;

   4. appointing class counsel and the class representatives;
      and,

   5. setting the final approval hearing.

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

Under the terms of the proposed Stipulation of Settlement,
Plaintiffs and Defendant have agreed that all class-action claims
in this case will be fully and finally resolved for a settlement
amount of $950,000 in exchange for a release of all Released
Claims by each Class Member who does not opt out. Furthermore,
Plaintiffs shall receive, subject to the Court's approval,
compensation in the following amounts as Class Representative
Enhancements for their services and participation as Class
Representatives: $10,000 each to Aaron Giles and Paul Jimenez.
These Class Representative Enhancements are to be paid exclusively
from the Maximum Settlement Fund. Additionally, the Parties have
agreed that, subject to the Court's approval, Berenji Law Firm,
APC, shall receive an award of attorneys' fees in an amount equal
to 30% of the Maximum Settlement Fund and costs not to exceed
$10,000. The attorneys' fees and costs amount is to be paid
exclusively from the Maximum Settlement Fund. Defendant does not
oppose the amount of attorneys' fees and costs award. Given the
work performed and benefit provided to the settlement class and
for purposes of this settlement, the award is reasonable and
should be approved. Moreover, the Parties have agreed that the
costs of the claims administration, up to $15,000, will be paid
out of the Maximum Settlement Fund.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shadie L. Berenji, Esq.
          BERENJI LAW FIRM, APC
          8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 708
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 855 3270
          Facsimile: (310) 855 3751
          E-mail: berenji@employeejustice.law


COVISINT CORP: Berg Sues Over Sale to Open Text Corp.
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Berg, 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, Open Text Corporation and
Cypress Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-12000 (E.D.
Mich., June 21, 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 lawsuit further seeks rescissory damages, costs of
this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees and other 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.

The complaint said the 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:

      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

             - and -

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      (302) 295-5310

            - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800


CREDIT CONTROL: "Ringgold" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Raymond D. Ringgold, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit
Control Services, Inc. doing business as Credit Collection
Services d/b/a Credit Collection Services, Defendant, Case No.
604545/2017 was removed on July 28, 2017, from the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-04464 to the proceeding.

Credit Control Services, Inc. is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff appeared PRO SE.

The Defendant is represented by:

   Matthew Brady Johnson, Esq.
   Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin
   88 Pine Street
   21st Floor
   New York, NY 10005
   Tel: (212) 376-6433
   Fax: (212) 376-6490
   Email: mbjohnson@mdwcg.com


DESIGNS BY RJR: "Olano" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAMONA OLANO, the Plaintiff, v. DESIGNS BY RJR, LTD. d/b/a RANDI
RAHM ATELIER and RANDI RAHM, individually, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-05703 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Plaintiff and the collective class work or have worked as
sample makers at Designs by RJR, Ltd. located in New York City
owned by Randi Rahm. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated current and former non-exempt
workers who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA,
and specifically, the collective action provision of 29 U.S.C.
216(b), to remedy violations of the wage-and-hour provisions of
the FLSA that occurred at Designs owned and controlled by Rahm in
New York, NY. The Plaintiff and the FLSA collective also bring
this action under the Wage Theft Protection
Act for the Defendants' failure to provide written notice of wage
rates in violation of said laws.

Rahm has owned, maintained control, oversight and the direction of
Designs in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 323 6980
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


DITECH FINANCIAL: Faces "Rapp" Suit Alleging RESPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENIA RAPP, on behalf of herself and all individuals similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00801-AJT-JFA (E.D. Va., July 14, 2017), challenges
Ditech's practice of allegedly furnishing information to consumer
reporting agencies regarding disputed payments after it receives a
notice of error on credit reports of consumers.  The case alleges
violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC is a mortgage loan servicing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
     Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
     KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
     3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Phone: (703) 424-7572
     Fax: (703) 591-0167
     Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
            aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com


DR PEPPER: Webb Sues over "Made from Real Ginger" Label
-------------------------------------------------------
ARNOLD E. WEBB JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP,
INC., and DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-
cv-00624-RK (W.D. Mo., July 27, 2017), seeks to recover damages,
restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and all other
remedies the Court deems appropriate.

The Plaintiff brings this consumer protection and false
advertising class action lawsuit against Defendants, based on
Defendants' false and misleading business practices with respect
to the marketing and sale of its Canada Dry Ginger Ale.  The
Defendants has labeled, packaged, and marketed the Product as
being "Made from Real Ginger," indicating that the Product
contains ginger.  However, independent testing by a laboratory
determined that the Product does not contain a detectable amount
of ginger. Therefore, unbeknownst to consumers, the Product was
and continues to be falsely advertised because the Product does
not contain a detectable amount of ginger, despite Defendants'
representations. Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the
Product, reasonably relying on Defendants' deceptive
representation about the Product, and believing that the Product
contained a detectable amount of ginger. Had Plaintiff and other
consumers known that the Product did not contain a detectable
amount of ginger they would not have purchased the Product or
would have paid significantly less for the Product. Therefore,
Plaintiff and consumers have suffered injury in fact as a result
of Defendants deceptive practices.

Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. is an American soft drink company,
based in Plano, Texas. Formerly called Cadbury Schweppes Americas
Beverages, on May 5, 2008, it was spun off from Britain's
Cadbury.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tim E. Dollar, Esq.
          DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER, L.C.
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 876 2600
          Facsimile: (816) 221 8763
          E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com


EGS FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JENNIFER GAJEWSKI, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EGS
FINANCIAL CARE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01055-LA
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying a proposed classes in this case, appointing the
Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


EL MUNICIPIO DE GUAYNABO: Faces Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA PAGAN PRORRATA, ANIBAL JIMENEZ, DANIEL CUMBAS APONTE,
ROBERTO SANTOS TORRES, CARLOS MORALES FIGUEROA, LUIS ORTIZ OJEDA,
and their respective conjugal partnerships, Plaintiffs, vs. EL
MUNICIPIO DE GUAYNABO, PUERTO RICO, INSPECTOR WILFREDO MARTINEZ
HERNANDEZ, in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01961 (D.P.R., July 14, 2017), alleges that Defendants failed to
properly pay Plaintiffs for all time actually worked in violation
of the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Puerto Rico
Wage Payment Statute, Puerto Rico Code.

Plaintiffs worked as hourly paid, non-exempt canine unit police
officers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jane Becker Whitaker, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JANE BECKER WHITAKER
     P.O. Box 9023914
     San Juan, PR 00902-3914
     Phone: 787-754-9191
     Fax: 787-764-3101
     Email: janebeckerwhitaker@yahoo.com
            janebeckerwhitaker@gmail.com

        - and -

     Jean Paul Vissepo Garriga, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JANE BECKER WHITAKER
     PO Box 3671116
     San Juan, PR 00936
     Phone: 787 633-9601
     Email: jp@visseppolaw.com


ELITE LINE: "Prieto" Suit Sues over Wage and Hour Laws
------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PRIETO and MICHAEL SEGURA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ELITE LINE
SERVICES, INC, a Florida Corporation, formerly doing business in
California as Elite Line Services, a limited liability company;
MARLA MATLOCK, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC67048 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 27, 2017),
seeks to recover monetary damages, penalties and injunctive relief
against the defendants for violating wage and hour laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay
minimum wages, failed to pay all bonuses earned, failed to pay
overtime wages for all hours worked, failed to account for earned
non-discretionary bonuses when calculating overtime pay, failed to
provide duty-free meal periods and failing to pay all premium pay
due, including the full statutory premium for reported missed meal
periods; failed to provide duty-free rest periods and failed to
pay all premium pay due; failed to reimburse for business expenses
incurred; failing to provide itemized, compliant and accurate wage
statements; and failed to timely pay all wages owed upon
separation of employment.

Elite Line provides airport facility equipment operation and
maintenance services to a range of international and regional
airports. The company offers planned and corrective maintenance
services for in-line baggage handling systems, passenger boarding
bridges, ground support equipment, facilities, and airport vehicle
fleets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lee R. Feldman, Esq.
          Stuart E. Cohen, Esq.
          FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES, APC
          12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207 8500
          Facsimile: (310) 207 8515
          E-mail: lee@fbo-law.com
                  stuart@fbo-law.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Loses Early Bid to Beat Class Cert. in Defect Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on July 25 denied Fiat Chrysler's bid to prevent
class certification in a putative class action from Dodge Dart
owners over alleged clutch defects, shooting down arguments that
the plaintiffs' counsel is inadequate because they didn't address
a settlement offer with their clients.

In May, FCA US LLC filed a motion to deny class certification,
saying that the plaintiffs in the suit couldn't meet adequacy
requirements under Rule 23 standards because they didn't convey a
settlement offer from FCA to their clients.

But the plaintiffs' counsel, which had yet to file a motion for
certification, argued in response that the court should deny the
pre-empetitve motion, saying that FCA never communicated a valid
settlement offer. The purported offer wasn't classwide, and was
contingent upon settling in another case, their response said.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel denied FCA's motion to deny
class certification in a 13-page order, saying a failure to
communicate a settlement offer doesn't render counsel inadequate.
The plaintiffs' counsel from Capstone Law APC have a long history
of working on class actions, including those in the automotive
arena, and have proven they are committed to representing their
clients, the judge said.

"Here, plaintiffs' counsel's failure to communicate 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," the
judge said. "However, there were reasons, albeit incorrect, why
plaintiffs' counsel did not believe they needed to communicate the
settlement offer. Based on the record to date, the court cannot
conclude that plaintiffs' counsel's conduct creates a 'serious
doubt' on their integrity and trustworthiness as representatives
for the class."

Jordan Lurie of Capstone Law APC, who represents the plaintiffs,
told Law360 that Judge Curiel reached the correct decision in
denying FCA's motion.

"We also appreciate the court's acknowledgement that Capstone Law
has 'diligently prosecuted the case with vigor and expended
substantial resources in doing so,'" he said, quoting the order.
"We are continuing to vigorously litigate this case, focusing our
efforts on class certification."

The denial of FCA's motion to deny class certification follows
Judge Curiel's June decision denying the automakers' motion for
summary judgment this past June, which also allowed the plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint.

Named plaintiffs Carlos Victorino and Adam Tavitian are seeking to
represent a nationwide and California class of drivers who own or
lease certain 2013 to 2016 Dodge Dart models equipped with a Fiat
C635 manual transmission. They claim the vehicles' transmission
contains a defect in the clutch master cylinder that causes the
clutch pedal to lose pressure, stick to the floor and fail to
engage or disengage gears.

According to the court's history of the case, FCA's lawyers sent
the plaintiffs' counsel an email in February with the subject line
"Settlement," saying they could end the case for $40,000 -- a
$10,000 award for Tavitian and Victorino, plus two more in an
unrelated putative class action against the company.

The plaintiffs' counsel didn't respond to the email, and Tavitian
and Victorino weren't aware of the offer when they were deposed in
April, according to Judge Curiel's history of the case.

July 25's opinion looked at other cases with similar situations,
with Judge Curiel concluding that a lack of notification to the
clients about the offer doesn't render the plaintiffs' counsel
inadequate.

"Based on a review of the cases that have denied class
certification, failure of counsel to communicate a settlement
offer, itself, does not demonstrate inadequacy of counsel under
Rule 23(a)(4) and Rule 23(g)," he said.

Attorneys for FCA didn't immediately respond to requests for
comment on July 26.

The drivers are represented by Karen L. Wallace, Esq. --
Karen.wallace@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. --
Jordan.laurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. --
tarek.zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and Cody R. Padgett, Esq. --
Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com --  of Capstone Law APC.

FCA is represented by Edwin M. Boniske, Esq. --
eboniskewlow@higgslaw.com -- and William M. Low,  Esq. --
wlow@higgslaw.com -- of Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP and by Kathy W.
Wisniewski, Esq. -- kwisniewskitazar@thompsoncoburn.com -- Stephen
A. D'Aunoy, Esq. -- sdaunoytazar@thompsoncoburn.com -- and Thomas
L. Azar Jr., Esq. -- tazar@thompsoncoburn.com -- of Thompson
Coburn LLP.

The case is Victorino et al. v. FCA US LLC, case number 3:16-cv-
01617, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California. [GN]


FLORIDA: "Prunty" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROBERT R. PRUNTY, ET AL, PRO SE (AND
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED), the Plaintiffs, v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
OF DESOTO COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL; THE AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE
ADMINISTRATION, ET AL & THE JACK NICKLAUS MIAMI CHILDREN'S
HOSPITAL ET AL, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00291-UA-CM (M.D.
Fla.), Mr. Prunty asks the Court to certify a class of all persons
who:

   "are African American Parents and their children of Public
   School age occupying the Desoto County School District from
   grades K Thru 12, who received Federal I.E.P. Contracts by
   U.S. Mails for at least the past (5) years".

There are 611 Black or African American students in Arcadia,
Florida School System and roughly 300 Parents representing these
Children bringing the potential Class total to 911 persons.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RwIynjg2

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorney for School District of Desoto County:

          Jeffrey Jensen, Esq.
          UNICE, SALZMAN JENSEN PA
          Patriot Bank Building, Second Floor
          1815 Little Road
          Trinity, FL 34655

Attorney for Healthcare Administration:

          Anne Mc Donough, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100
          Tampa, FL 33602 5242

Attorney for Jack Nicklaus Miami Children's Hospital:

          Glen P. Falk, Esq.
          WAAS, HERNANDEZ, CORTINA, SOLOMON & BONNER
          135 San Lorenzo Ave., Ste 500
          Coral Gables, FL 33146-1872


FORD MOTOR CO: "Baranco" Sues Over Defective Door Latch
-------------------------------------------------------
David Baranco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ford Motor Company, Lincoln Motor Company,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-03580 (N.D. Cal., June 21, 2017),
seeks damages, restitution and disgorgement of monies acquired
illegally, injunctive and declaratory relief, repair or
replacement of defective door latch switches on concerned
vehicles, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all amounts
awarded, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such
other relief resulting from breach of express and implied warranty
and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and
Consumers' Legal Remedies Act.

Baranco purchased a 2013 Ford Edge in Santa Clara, California.
Within a week of his purchase, said vehicle's "open door" alarm
kept on lighting up, leading to the doors not automatically
locking and the battery running low.

Ford Motor Company sells, markets, distributes and services Ford
and Lincoln vehicles in California and throughout the United
States. It is the parent company of Lincoln Motor Company. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
      Camille S. Bass, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      701 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 338-1100
      Fax: (619) 338-1101
      Email: tblood@bholaw.com
             lhurst@bholaw.com
             cbass@bholaw.com

             - and -

      Courtney L. Davenport, Esq.
      THE DAVENPORT LAW FIRM LLC
      18805 Porterfield Way
      Germantown, MD 20874
      Tel: (703) 901-1660
      Email: courtney@thedavenportlawfirm.com


FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Court Certifies 401(k) Retirement Plan Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MARLON H. CRYER, individually and on
behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, and on
behalf of the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan, the
Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN TEMPLETON RESOURCES, INC.; and THE FRANKLIN
TEMPLETON 401(k) RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-04265-CW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Claudia Wilken certifies a class of:

   "all participants in the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement
   Plan from July 28, 2010 to the date of judgment".

Excluded from the class are Defendants, Defendants' beneficiaries,
and Defendants' immediate families.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff's request for leave to file under
seal A to his Motion is denied. Plaintiff shall refile the exhibit
without any redactions or withdraw it from consideration.
FRI's request for leave to file under seal portions of its
Opposition and supporting exhibits is granted in part and denied
in part. The motion is granted as to Plaintiff's severance
agreement. It is denied as to (1) the Willard report and its
exhibits and (2) the ADR agreement. It is denied without prejudice
to resubmission in accordance with this Order and the Local Rules
as to (1) portions of FRIs Opposition that refer to the Willard
report, ADR agreement and severance agreement and (2) portions of
the declaration of Sharon Geary that refer to the ADR and
severance agreements".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N3kXTU1E


FXCM INC: "Cardi" Files Suit Over Conflict of Interest Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur P. Cardi, Bikram Randhawa, Mark Govers, Steven Plunger, and
Rosimara Tadrous, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FXCM Inc., Forex Capital
Markets, LLC, FXCM Holdings, LLC, Dror Niv, William Ahdout, John
Dittami and Effex Capital, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
04699, (S.D. N.Y., June 21, 2017), seeks compensatory damages
including interest, reasonable costs and expenses, equitable
and/or injunctive relief and such other and further relief
resulting from conflict of interest and violations of the
Commodities Exchange Act.

FXCM is an online provider of foreign exchange trading and related
services to over 175,000 active retail accounts globally. Effex
was an FXCM-backed startup firm that was created and financed by
FXCM. Dittami created an algorithmic trading system that could
make markets to FXCM's customers and replace or compete with the
independent market makers on FXCM's No Dealing Desk Platform. FXCM
allegedly created Effex as a separate stand-alone company to
operate its new algorithmic trading system that Dittami built in
order to conceal FXCM's economic interest in Effex from customers,
regulators and investors.

FXCM continued to own the trading system, finance the business and
maintain a 70% interest in all profits of Effex through discrete
contractual arrangements.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
      GAINEY, McKENNA, & EGLESTON
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 983-1300
      Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
      Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
             gegleston@gme-law.com


FYRE MEDIA: Class Action Suits to be Consolidated in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Parisi, writing for Variety, reports that Fyre Media class
action lawsuits in four states appear destined for consolidation
in New York based on the indication of a panel of federal judges
who heard geographical arguments on July 26 in Los Angeles. The
case is moving on dual criminal and civil tracks as aggrieved
parties pursue remedy from promoters of the ill-fated Bahamian
concert series, which was to have begun in April.

Meanwhile, a trio of investors filed to force the beleaguered Fyre
Media into involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which was of interest
to the multi-district litigation judges in L.A., as was the fact
that none of the central defendants -- Fyre principals Billy
McFarland and Jeffrey Atkins (Ja Rule) nor the Fyre corporation --
have responded to any of the class action suits, putting them at
risk for entry of default judgments against them.

McFarland, who on June 30 was arrested in New York on criminal
wire fraud charges and was represented by a public defender at his
bond hearing pending release, has retained the pricey Boies
Schiller Flexner LLP to defend him in the criminal case.

Fyre Festival Organizer Billy McFarland Released From Jail on
$300,000 Bond

Representatives for the defense did not appear at July 27's civil
hearing in Federal Court for the Southern District of California,
where a panel of six judges heard arguments for why the six
separate class action cases should be consolidated in either New
York, California, or Florida.

The majority interested parties argued in favor of a Manhattan
venue -- Federal Court for the Southern District of New York.
Based on the fact that the defendants and potential investor
defendants are based in Manhattan, the judicial panel also seemed
to lean to Gotham, but will issue a formal decision. The court can
either order the class actions consolidated to a specific venue,
or direct the plaintiffs to decide among themselves, in which case
majority opinion also favors New York.

Representing plaintiff Daniel Jung in a $100 million class action
suit, Geragos & Geragos argued to keep the federal class actions
in Los Angeles where the firm is headquartered, based on the fact
that they represent the majority of plaintiffs, at about 500, and
which they project will swell to more than 1,000 and possibly as
many as 3,000, since clients have contacted the firm on behalf of
themselves and friends.

The law firm of Levy & Levy argued to consolidate in Florida,
which gained no traction and made for some comic relief. Asked by
Judge Charles R. Breyer -- a silver-haired jurist who bears a
striking resemblance to his brother, Supreme Court Justice Stephen
Breyer, "Why Florida?," attorney Chad Levy said, "Because
everything happened in the Bahamas," prompting Breyer to quip, "I
think the point is nothing happened in the Bahamas," sparking
laughter and the additional rejoinder, "But if the case is
transferred there, I'm willing to sit." And Judge David Proctor
jumped in with, "We have a Fire Island in New York, too."

For the defendants, the situation is no laughing matter, though it
was much remarked upon in the hallways that McFarland, whose
finances appear to be in disarray, managed to come up with the
funds to secure the Boies firm, best known for David Boies'
representing Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election vote
recount case argued before the Supreme Court. It is believed
attorney Randall Jackson has been assigned to McFarland.

In addition to other civil investor lawsuits totaling millions,
the trio of financiers who pressed the Chapter 7 bankruptcy claim
on Fyre Media in New York on July 7 -- John Nemeth, Raul Jimenez,
and Andrew Newman -- said they sunk $530,000 into the company
based on fraudulent misrepresentations of adequate capitalization
and rosy financial forecasts.

Talk of the Chapter 7 petition prompted discussion of the fact
that if Fyre is bankrupt there will be no spoils for the
beleaguered plaintiffs, raising the "doe" defendants, or Fyre
Media "participant investors," some of whom appear to have deep
pockets. Judge Sarah Vance, panel chair, asked, "Why would
investors invest in something they knew wasn't ready for
primetime?," adding, "I don't know how they're going to be
defendants."

While that casually tossed-off opinion has no legal weight, as
insight into bench-think it could bode ill for plaintiffs trying
to squeeze funds from a stone. Geragos counsel Ben Meiselas said
Vance wasn't taking into account the standard of "recklessness,"
which could potentially expose participant investors to liability.
[GN]


GLOBAL TEL: Alexander, et al. Sue Under RICO Over ICS System
------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH R. ALEXANDER, JOHN P. ALEXANDER, MARY SESSUMS, SANDRA
GLASSMIRE, JAI GIBSON, SHARON JOSEPH, individually and on behalf
of all the others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL TEL
LINK CORPORATION, CHRISTOPHER EPPS, SAM WAGGONER AND DEFENDANTS
DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00560-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss.,
July 13, 2017), asserts claims for violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The case alleges that Mr. Epps, Mr. Waggoner and GTL knowingly and
intentionally conspired to devise schemes using overt acts such as
bribery, kickbacks, unfair and deceptive trade practices,
misrepresentation, fraud, concealment, money laundering,
fraudulent use of "sole-source" contracts when competitive bidding
was required (for the provision, installation and management of
Inmate Calling Services system), and other wrongful conduct, all
with the intended purpose and effect of overcharging and bilking
the Plaintiffs for inmate calling services.

GLOBAL TEL LINK CORPORATION -- http://www.gtl.net/-- offers
integrated information technology solutions for the corrections
market.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Wilson H. Carroll, Esq.
     WILSON CARROLL, PLLC
     3520 Old Canton Road
     Jackson, MS 39216
     Phone: 601-953-6579
     Fax: 888-505-0012
     Email: wilson@wilsoncarroll.com

        - and -

     Bradley S. Clanton, Esq.
     CLANTON LAW FIRM, PLLC
     P.O Box 4781
     Jackson, MS 39296
     Phone: (601) 487-1212
     Fax: (866) 421-9918
     Email: brad@clantonlawms.com
     Website: http://www.clantonlawms.com


GOB SERVICES: "Brotherton" Action Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Brotherton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. G.O.B. Services LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00537 (E.D. Ky., June 21, 2017), seeks overtime,
liquidated damages, fees and costs, and any other remedies for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio's Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

G.O.B. Services performs civil and mechanical construction for oil
and gas companies of the North Eastern regions of the United
States. Brotherton worked for G.O.B. Services as a Rig Welder from
approximately January 2014 through October 2014 and worked
throughout Southern and Eastern Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
     Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
     BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
     250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Telephone: (614) 221-4221
     Fax: (614) 744-2300
     Email: rderose@barkanmeizlish.com
            rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

            - and -

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com


HATFIELD LAWN: "Perry" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jodi Perry, 298 W. Hillsdale Ln., Holland, Ohio 43528, the
Plaintiff, v. Hatfield Lawn & Landscape, LLC, 8354 W. Central
Avenue, Sylvania, Ohio 43560; and Victoria Hatfield, 2715 Spring
Water Drive, Toledo, Ohio 43617, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01584-JJH (N.D. Ohio, July 27, 2017), is a collective action
complaint against Defendants for their failure to pay employees
overtime wages seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.

Hatfield Lawn is full-service landscaper with landscaping services
throughout the Toledo Ohio area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, Ohio 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949 1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386 9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, Ohio 43207
          Telephone: (614) 704 0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573 9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


HOLIDAY INN: Labor Trafficking Victims File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Norman Transcript reports that Legal Aid at Work, Equal
Justice Center, and the ACLU of Oklahoma have filed a federal
lawsuit on behalf of workers recruited from the Philippines to
work at a hotel and restaurant in Oklahoma. Plaintiffs claim they
were induced to pay high recruitment fees with the false promise
of fair wages and free room and board and allege they were paid
less than promised, threatened with harm, and denied the food,
lodging, and transportation promised.

Instead of the wages promised, the plaintiffs allege in their
complaint that they were paid so little that they could not cover
their expenses in Oklahoma, much less send money home to family
members or repay the funds they borrowed to pay the recruiters.
Among the defendants are the operators of a Holiday Inn Express, a
Montana Mike's Steakhouse, and the Water Zoo and related
businesses in Clinton, Oklahoma.

"This suit seeks to hold these Western Oklahoma businesses
accountable for claims of human trafficking," said Brady
Henderson, Legal Director for ACLU of Oklahoma. "The sort of
exploitation alleged is this complaint is incredibly serious and
can stand in conflict with workers' most basic rights."

Plaintiffs Madelyn Casilao, Harry Lincuna, and Allan Garcia are
seeking class action status for the case. According to their
complaint, Walter Schumacher, Carolyn Schumacher, Hotelmacher LLC,
and their other businesses received federal Department of Labor
certifications for H-2B visas for more than 110 workers in 2008,
2009, 2012, and 2014.

The complaint alleges violations of U.S. anti-trafficking laws and
breach of the employment contracts that were entered into with the
workers or for the benefit of the workers. [GN]


HSBC BANK: "Giron" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RAMIRO GIRON, NICOLAS J. HERRERA, ORLANDO
ANTONIO MENDEZ, on behalf of themselves and a class of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI
BANKING CORPORATION, LIMITED, a foreign company; HSBC BANK USA,
N.A., a national banking association; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-08869-ODW-JC (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs will moved the Court on September 11, 2017
for an order to:

   1. certify that this action is maintainable as a class action;

   2. certify a class persons of:

      "all individuals or entities who invested and lost money
      after September 30, 2013 with any of the WCM777 entities by
      transferring or having their money transferred to one of
      the WCM777 accounts at HSBC Hong Kong. For purposes of this
      class definition, an individual or entity lost money only
      if the amount of money that the individual or entity
      received from WCM777, including any return on investment,
      commissions, fees or any other payments, was less than the
      amount of the individual's or entity's money invested with
      WCM777. Excluded from the Class are governmental entities,
      any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over this
      matter and the members of his or her immediate family, the
      Defendants, along with their respective parents,
      subsidiaries and/or affiliates. Also excluded from this
      class are the legal representatives, heirs, successors and
      attorneys of any excluded person or entity, and any person
      acting on behalf of any excluded person or entity; and

   3. certify these individual plaintiffs as representatives of
      the plaintiff class and their counsel of record as counsel
      for the plaintiff class.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M1HYsyXP

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter C. Ward, Esq.
          Christopher H. Hagen, Esq.
          Steven M. Nunez, Esq.
          WARD & HAGEN, LLP
          440 Stevens Avenue, Suite 350
          Solana Beach, CA 92075
          Telephone: (858) 847 0505
          Facsimile: (858) 847 0105

               - and -

          Julio J. Ramos, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JULIO J. RAMOS
          35 Grove Street, Suite 107
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 948 3015
          Facsimile: (415) 469 9787


I.C. SYSTEM: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled PETER LOVELAND, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. I.C. SYSTEM,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01054-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed
class in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as its
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=csNjID10

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


IDEAL TAX: "Meyer" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MELISSA MEYER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. IDEAL TAX
SOLUTIONS, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01617-JLS-DFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on September 22, 2017,
for an order to:

   a. certify a TCPA Class consisting of:

      "all persons within the United States who had or have a
      number assigned to a cellular telephone service, who
      received at least one text message from Defendant or its
      agent between September 1, 2012 and September 1, 2016, with
      their prior express consent";

   b. certify a TCPA Sub-Class consisting of:

      "all persons within the United States who had or have a
      number assigned to a cellular telephone service, who
      received at least one text message from Defendant or its
      agent between September 1, 2012 and September 1, 2016, with
      their prior express consent and called the number in the
      text message"; and

   c. appoint Plaintiff as Class Representatives, and appoint
      Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sd8dQwIM

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com

IPLAY INC: Spearman Sues over Teethers' "BPA Free" Label
--------------------------------------------------------
DUSTY SPEARMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. IPLAY, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-at-00757 (E.D. Cal., July 27, 2017), seeks injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and restitution of any
ill-gotten gains due to Defendant's acts and practices.

This is a class action on behalf of purchasers of Green Sprouts
Cooling Teethers (the "Teethers") in the United States.  The
Defendant markets the Teethers for the purpose of "sooth[ing] gums
and promot[ing] oral development" for infants "3+ months" that are
actively growing teeth.  Defendant represents on the front of the
product packaging that the Teethers are "BPA free":
Contrary to Defendant's representation, however, laboratory
testing has shown that the Teethers do in fact contain BPA.
Laboratory testing commissioned by Plaintiff's counsel detected
and extracted 702 nanograms of BPA from a Teether. The presence of
BPA in a product used in infants' mouths is a health concern,
especially in products designed for oral use by teething infants.
For example, by analogy, California law prohibits the sale of "any
bottle or cup that contains bisphenol A, at a detectable level
above 0.1 parts per billion (ppb), if the bottle or cup is
designed or intended to be filled with any liquid, food, or
beverage intended primarily for consumption from that bottle or
cup by children three years of age or younger." Cal. Health &
Safety Code section 108940. While the Teethers are not
specifically addressed by this statute, it is notable that they
contain 702 times as much BPA as allowed by law for infants'
bottles and cups. And BPA in teethers is more dangerous than in
bottles and cups because they are designed to be sucked and chewed
on by infants for hours each day during teething, when babies
often experience inflamed and swollen gums.

I play designs, manufactures, and sells natural baby products. It
offers feeding products that include bottles and sippys, food
preparation products, and dishes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300 4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407 2700
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Fraser, Esq.
          THE FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4120 Douglas Blvd., No. 306-262
          Granite Bay, CA 95746
          Telephone: (888) 557 5115
          Facsimile: (866) 212 8434
          E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net


ISOHAMA JAPANESE RESTAURANT: "Gil" Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abel Gil and Ismael Juarez, on behalf of themselves and FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, v. Isohama Japanese Restaurant
(NY), Inc. d/b/a Isohama and Choi Lan Chang, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-04676 (S.D. N.Y., June 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, compensation for off-the-clock work, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to New York Labor Law and the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiffs worked as delivery persons for Defendants' Japanese
restaurant, "Isohama" located at 1666 3rd Avenue, New York, NY
10028. Defendant allegedly failed provide proper notice to
employees of their tipped credit minimum wage rate and the proper
overtime rate, maintain records of tips earned by employees,
maintain a proper tip pool and provide proper wage statements
showing deductions for tip credit allowance as required under New
York State Law. [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
     Tel: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181


J & M PREMIER: "Santos" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN JOSE MIRANDA SANTOS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. J & M PREMIER SERVICES, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-22822-RNS (S.D. Fla., July 27,
2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendant knowingly violated the law by engaging in a uniform
practice where it failed to pay their employees for overtime
hours, the Complaint says.  The Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees are entitled to be paid time and one-half of their
regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per
work week.  The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from
approximately September 2017 through June 1, 2017. While employed
by the Defendants, Plaintiff worked an average of 50 hours each
week. At the time of his termination, Defendant paid Plaintiff an
hourly wage of $19.00, regardless of the number of hours the
Plaintiff worked.

J & M Premier provides transportation services available to the
oil and gas industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan S. Minick, Esq.
          JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A.
          1850 SW 8th Street, Suite 307
          Miami, FL 33135
          Telephone: (786) 441 8909
          Facsimile: (786) 523 0610
          E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Vague Collection Notice Disputed by "Hunt"
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Donald Hunt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association,
Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61230 (S.D. Fla., June 21, 2017),
seeks statutory damages, actual damages, attorney's fees, costs
and expenses incurred in this action, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest and any other relief under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

On January 28, 2013, Defendant sent a Notice of Intent to
Foreclose in connection with Plaintiff's consumer loan that went
into default starting with Hunt's payment due in December 1, 2012.
Defendant declared the full amount payable under the Note and
Mortgage to be due and payable, thereby accelerating the mortgage
and maturing all future monthly payments into one lump sum plus
interest immediately due, thus making monthly payments no longer
an option or a requirement applicable to Plaintiff despite
Defendant's language that Plaintiff pay the "Total Monthly
Payments" as indicated by their Notice which makes it
contradictory.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Kline, Esq.
      JONATHAN KLINE, P.A.
      2761 Executive Park Dr.
      Weston, FL 33331
      Telephone: (954) 888-4646
      Facsimile: (954) 888-4647
      E-mail: emailservice@jklawfl.com


K N M CONSTRUCTIONS: "Trujillo" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR M. TRUJILLO and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, v. K N M CONSTRUCTIONS CORP.,
HECTOR GRANADOS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22834-RNS (S.D.
Fla., July 27, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages, double
damages and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked an average of 58 hours a week for Defendant
and was paid an average of $18.00 but was never paid the full
extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40 hours in a week
as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff claims the half-time
overtime rate for each hour worked above 40 in a week. The
Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's
overtime wages as required by the FLSA as Defendants knew of the
overtime requirements of the FLSA and recklessly failed to
investigate whether Defendants' payroll practices were in
accordance with the FLSA.

KNM is a full service general contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Fights Liability Over Account Ease Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reports that Kohl's Department
Stores Inc. on July 27 urged a Pennsylvania federal judge to find
it could not be held liable in a putative class action over an
allegedly worthless program allowing forgiveness of certain debt
on credit cards issued by the retailer.

Ballard Spahr LLP attorney Martin Bryce Jr. told U.S. District
Judge Wendy Beetlestone during oral arguments in Philadelphia that
the so-called Kohl's Account Ease program was part of a contract
between cardholders and lenders Chase Bank NA and, later, Capital
One Financial Corp. and that the retailer could not be held liable
merely as an agent.

"Where KAE is concerned, there is no underlying contract between
Kohl's and any named plaintiff," he said as he pushed for summary
judgment in the case. "By its express terms, it does not define
Kohl's as being a party."

Kohl's is fighting a 2015 lawsuit alleging that it breached an
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by charging for
the KAE program despite the fact that many customers -- including
those who were disabled, retired, unemployed, self-employed or
employed part-time -- were ineligible to benefit from it.

Even if customers were eligible for benefits, the lawsuit said,
Kohl's customers are unlikely to file a claim because the
companies "failed to meaningfully apprise those class members of
the program."

The Kohl's credit card program was originally offered through
Chase Bank NA before being taken over by Capital One, also a
defendant in the case, in April 2011, according to court records.

In addition to arguing that Kohl's was not a party to the
cardmember agreement, Bryce also said the claim was time-barred
because the lead plaintiff, Valerie Tantlinger, first signed up
for KAE and was charged for the program all the way back in March
2007.

"There's no dispute about when Ms. Tantinger opened her accounts
and enrolled in KAE and was charged for KAE," he said.

Lee Shalov, an attorney with McLaughlin & Stern LLP representing
the plaintiffs, countered that the statute of limitations did
not begin to run when Tantlinger first signed up for the product
because Capital One failed to get authorization for the KAE
charges both after it took over Chase's portfolio and as it
continued to make changes to the program.

"The conduct that they engaged in, which forms a critical element
of our claim, occurred in 2012 and onwards in the sense that they
began undertaking efforts to change terms in the KAE rider," he
said.

He also argued that Kohl's should be considered a party to the
cardmember agreement based on the fact that the retailer
benefitted financially from the contract and was a party in
negotiating its terms and conditions.

"It supports the idea that either Kohl's is a party or, even if
it's a nonparty, that there's at the very least a question of fact
as to whether or not it should be bound by the cardmember
agreement," Shalov said.

The judge took the matter under advisement.

Kohl's and Capital One are represented by Martin Bryce Jr., Daniel
McKenna and Michael Kunz of Ballard Spahr LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lee Shalov and Wade Wilkinson of
McLaughlin & Stern LLP, Patrick Howard of Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett
& Bendesky PC, and the Law Office of Angela M. Edwards.

The case is Jennifer Gordon et al. v. Kohl's Department Stores
Inc. et al., case number 2:15-cv-00730, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. [GN]


LAKE VIEW: Faces "Suts" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Ohio Min. Wage Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE SUTS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE LAKE VIEW CEMETARY FOUNDATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01477 (N.D. Ohio, July 13, 2017),
alleges that Lake View was aware that its Memorial Advisors
performed Off The Clock Work and worked in excess of forty (40)
hours per week, but provided them with "comp time" for this work
instead of paying overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The case also raises claims for violation of the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Lake View owns and operates the Lake View Cemetery.  Suts was
first hired by Lake View as a Memorial Advisor in or around July
of 2015. The Memorial Advisor position is primarily an inside
sales position.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris P. Wido, Esq.
     THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
     25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
     Beachwood, OH 44122
     Phone: (216) 291-4744
     Fax: (216) 291-5744
     Email: chris.widow@spitzlawfirm.com


LG CHEM: Eligible Claimants Can File for Class Settlement Money
---------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Seiger, writing for WPXI reports that if you bought a
cellphone, laptop, tablet computer or power tool anytime between
2000 and 2011, you might be entitled to part of a $45 million
class action settlement.

Three manufacturers of lithium-ion cylindrical batteries have
settled a class action lawsuit that claimed they fixed battery
prices for more than 10 years, according to the Columbus Ledger-
Enquirer.

LG Chem, Hitachi Maxell and NEC Corporation agreed to pay out
$44.95 million to consumers who bought electronics that use
lithium-ion cylindrical batteries between Jan. 1, 2000, and May
31, 2011. Laptops, cellphones, tablets, camcorders, cordless power
tools and replacement batteries are among the items that use the
batteries.

Eligible claimants lived in the United States between 2000 and
2011 and bought the electronics either for themselves or for
businesses. People who bought electronics to resell them are not
eligible for settlement money.

Consumers can file claims online until Nov. 29. No receipt is
needed to prove the purchase was made, WXIX reported.

The amount each claimant gets from the settlement will be
determined after Nov. 29 and depends on how many claims are made
and court approval. [GN]


M.A.C. COSMETICS: Kobbervig Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
JILL KOBBERVIG and KELLIANN KAHOLOKULA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. M.A.C.
COSMETICS, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC670041 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 27, 2017),
seeks to recover compensatory damages for lost wages and benefits,
fines, penalties, disgorgement, punitive damages, prejudgment
interest, and their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and all other nonexempt
employees were not given rest breaks as required by law, not paid
time-and-a-half for all work in excess of eight hours per day or
40 hours per week, not paid their full wages owed at each regular
pay period, not given accurate wage statements, not paid all wages
upon the end of their employment, subject to a hostile work
environment based on disability and gender, and otherwise not
treated in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bill H. Seki, Esq.
          Andrew C. Pongracz, Esq.
          Ashlee P. Clark, Esq.
          SEKI, NISHIMURA & WATASE, LLP
          600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213)481 2869
          Facsimile: (213)481 2871
          E-mail: aporigracz@snw-law.com


MATTRESS FIRM: Court Certifies Class of Drivers in "Blair" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jay C. Zainey grants the motion to certify class
submitted in the lawsuit captioned PERRY BLAIR, On Behalf of
Himself and Other Persons Similarly Situated v. MATTRESS FIRM,
INC. and LARRY R. PACK ENTERPRISES, INC., and LARRY PACK, Case No.
2:16-cv-14119-JCZ-MBN (E.D. La.).

The Motion to Certify Class is granted as the parties have
stipulated to conditionally certify the case as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the order.

After considering the Parties' Joint Stipulation Regarding Notice
to Potential Class Members, the Court conditionally certifies a
class of:

     All individuals who worked or are working as a driver or
     driver's helper for Larry R. Pack Enterprises, Inc. and who
     provided services to Mattress Firm, Inc. from September 2013
     to the present.

Judge Zainey approves the Notice and Consent Form attached as
"Exhibit A" to the Joint Stipulation.  Judge Zainey notes that
this Order is being issued with reservation of and without
prejudice to the rights, claims, defenses and objections of the
parties, and with the right of the Defendants to file a Motion to
Decertify the Class.

Within 15 days of this Order, Defendants shall provide to
Plaintiff's counsel the following information: (a) the names of
the Class Members and the dates they performed services for
Defendants; and (b) each Class Member's current/last known mailing
address.  Within 30 days of this Order, Plaintiff's counsel will
mail the agreed Notice and Consent Form to all persons on the
Class List.

The Class Members will have 60 days from the date of the initial
mailing of the Notice to file their Consent opting into this
lawsuit as plaintiffs.  In the event an Opt-in Plaintiff later
withdraws his or her consent, Plaintiff agrees to immediately file
the withdrawal notice with the Court.  Plaintiffs, who file their
Consents after the deadline, may join this case only by consent of
all parties or by court order upon good cause shown.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PA3ekOha


MDL 2555: Aug. 18 Hearing on Bid to Certify Consumer Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit re: COCA-COLA PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION (No. II), Case No. 4:14-md-02555-JSW (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on August 18, 2017, at
9:00 a.m., for an order to:

   a. certify a class within each of the States of California,
      Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Florida:

      "all persons who purchased Coca-Cola's Coke product that:
      (1) lists phosphoric acid on the ingredients list but does
      not state that the product contains artificial flavoring
      and/or chemical preservatives; (2) includes the label
      statement "no artificial flavors. no preservatives added.
      since 1886."; and/or (3) includes the label statement
      "original formula".

      The following persons are expressly excluded from the
      classes:

      1. Defendants and its subsidiaries and affiliates;

      2. all persons who make a timely election to be excluded
         from the proposed Class;

      3. governmental entities, and

      4. the Court to which the cases is assigned and its staff.

   b. appoint Plaintiffs George Engurasoff, Joshua Ogden, Paul
      Merritt, Thomas Woods, Michelle Marino, Ronald Sowizrol,
      Yocheved Lazaroff, and Rachel Dube as class
      representatives;

   c. appoint the firms of Barrett Law Group, P.A. and Fleischman
      Law Firm, PLLC and as class counsel for all MDL purposes;
      and Pratt and Associates as local class counsel for all MDL
      purposes.

   d. order the parties to meet and confer and present to this
      Court, within 30 days of an order granting
      certification, proposed notice to the certified class.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=I7efSqzN

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Keith M. Fleischman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Glatter, Esq.
          June Park, Esq.
          FLEISCHMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          565 Fifth Avenue, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 880 9571
          Facsimile: (917) 591 5245
          E-mail: keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com
                  jglatter@fleischmanlawfirm.com
                  jpark@fleischmanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          John W. ("Don") Barrett, Esq.
          Richard Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834 2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834 2628
          E-mail: Dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  rrb@rrblawfirm.net


MEDICAL BUSINESS: "Garrett" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled DERRICK GARRETT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DAVID
M. BLASKOVICH, P.C., DAVID M. BLASKOVICH, and MEDICAL BUSINESS
BUREAU, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00087 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiff moves for class certification of:

   "all persons similarly situated in the State of Illinois from
   whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent medical
   debt, upon which Defendants sent a letter within one year of
   the filing of this Complaint to 28 days after, which failed to
   indicate the current creditor to whom a debt is owed, or
   attempted to collect interest, or threatened to assess
   attorney fees, or included any notice of a person's right to
   dispute a debt without disclosing that a written dispute is
   required in order to trigger Defendants' obligation to send
   verification of a debt".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4zJJaIgN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Wood, Esq.
          Celetha C. Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757 1880
          Facsimile: (312) 265 3227
          E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com


MEDSOLUTIONS INC: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DR. ROBERT GERBER, on behalf of plaintiff
and the class members, the Plaintiffs, v. MEDSOLUTIONS, INC., and
CARECORE NATIONAL, LLC both doing business as EVICORE HEALTHCARE,
and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:17-cv-05553 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to certify classes as follows:

For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act:

   "class consisting of (a) all persons with fax numbers (b)
   who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this
   action (28 U.S.C. par. 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on
   behalf of defendants, promoting their goods or services (d)
   with respect to which defendants do not have evidence of
   consent or an established business relationship prior to
   sending the fax";

For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act:

   "class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers
   (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of
   this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of
   defendants, promoting their goods or services (d) with respect
   to which defendants do not have evidence of consent or an
   established business relationship prior to sending the fax.

For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, and Count IV,
alleging trespass to chattels:

   "class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers
   (b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of
   this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of
   defendants, promoting their goods or services (d) with respect
   to which defendants do not have evidence of consent or an
   established business relationship prior to sending the fax".

The Plaintiff further asks that it be appointed class
representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
be appointed counsel for the class.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=prTu1Plh

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Julie Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


MENS WEARHOUSE: Court Grants Class Certification Bid in "Oliver"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ANTHONY OLIVER, the Plaintiff, v. THE MENS
WEARHOUSE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01100-TJH-AS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr., entered an order
to vacate Plaintiff's motion to certify class, pursuant to the
joint report filed on February 27, 2017.

The Plaintiff will file a renewed motion for class certification
no later than January 11, 2018.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kpB5gI4h


MERCK & CO: Smith Seeks to Certify Sales Representative Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KELLI SMITH, KANDICE BROSS, RACHEL MOUNTIS,
and KATE WHITMER, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated female employees, the Plaintiffs, v. MERCK &
CO., INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME, CORP., and INTERVET, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:13-cv-02970-MAS-LHG (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of:

   "female Sales Representative employed by Merck & Co., Inc.,
   Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and/or Intervet, Inc., in "M"
   grades M05 through M09 or in "S" grades S1 or S2 in the United
   States for at least one day on or after September 28, 2009".

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deborah K. Marcuse, Esq.
          FEISTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          Pittsburg, PA 15219-1639
          Telephone: (412) 281 8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281 1007
          E-mail: dmarcuse@fdpklaw.com
                  lmiller@fdpklaw.com

               - and -

          David Sanford, Esq.
          Aimee Krause Stewart, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          1666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          Telephone: (202) 499 5201
          Facsimile: (202) 499 5199
          E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com
                  astewart@sanfordheisler.com


MICRO MATIC: Doritty Sues Over Age Discrimination in Employment
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE DORITTY, JOSEPHINE FLETCHER, KAREN CARR, DEBRA SLATON and
BRYAN SLATON, on their own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MICRO MATIC USA, INC., a
Foreign Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01679-EAK-AEP
(M.D. Fla., July 13, 2017), was filed on behalf of Plaintiff and
other similarly situated former employees over the age of 40 who
were terminated because of their age.

Defendant is accused of engaging in a pattern of age
discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act and Florida Civil Rights Act.

Defendant, Micro Matic USA, Inc., manufactures and supplies beer
keg valves and dispensing equipment in over 120 countries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
     Jason M. Melton, Esq.
     WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
     One Progress Plaza
     200 Central Avenue, #400
     St. Petersburg, FL 33701
     Phone: (727) 822-1111
     Fax: (727) 898-2001
     Email: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
            lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
            sonia@theFLlawfirm.com


MIDDLESEX CORPORATION: "Myrick" Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MARSHALL MYRICK, on behalf of himself and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE
MIDDLESEX CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00261-JDW-
MAP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to:

   1. certify a subclass of:

      "all natural persons residing in the United States, who
      applied for an employment position with Defendant or any of
      its subsidiaries, and as part of this application process
      were the subject of a consumer report obtained by Defendant
      to whom Defendant did not provide a copy of the consumer
      report as stated at 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) at
      least five business days before the date the employment
      decision is first noted in Defendant's records, and to whom
      Defendant did not provide a written summary of Fair Credit
      Reporting Act rights as stated at 15 U.S.C. section
      1681b(b)(3)(A)(ii) at least five business days before the
      date the employment decision is first noted in Defendant's
      records;

   2. appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative; and

   3. appoint counsel as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=74MgZst0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com
                  twells@wfclaw.com
                  mk@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric R. Thompson, Esq.
          Robin Taylor Symons, Esq.
          GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 3900
          Miami, FL 33131


MIDLAND CREDIT: Judge Denies Class Certification in FDCPA Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Bauer, writing for Inside Arm, reports that on July 24 a
federal judge in Illinois denied a request to certify a Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case against Midland Credit
Management, In. (Midland) as a class action. The case is Hernandez
v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. (Case No 15-cv-11179, U.S.D.C.
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division).

Background

On September 30, 2015, Midland served Daniel Hernandez with a
summons and a copy of a complaint filed in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois. Six days later, on October 5, 2015,
defendant sent him a letter (the October 5 letter), which began:

"We have been notified that you have been served with a copy of a
lawsuit commenced against you on the account referenced above. We
are contacting you in an effort to resolve the matter voluntarily.
If we are not able to resolve the matter voluntarily, we intend to
seek a judgment against you, which may then be enforced in
accordance with applicable state law.

Charges may continue to accrue on this account until the account
is satisfied, and we may have incurred additional costs in
connection with the lawsuit. Thus, the amount we may be willing to
accept in settlement of the lawsuit may be greater than the total
present balance. We are not obligated to renew this or any other
settlement offer.

Please contact us at toll-free (866) 300-8750 to obtain an exact
payoff amount or to discuss resolution of your account. Depending
on your circumstances, we can provide a reasonable payment plan or
other accommodations as appropriate, but we need to hear from you
or the lawsuit will proceed."

On December 11, 2015 plaintiff filed this putative class action
lawsuit against Midland. The lawsuit alleged that that the October
5 letter ran afoul of several FDCPA prohibitions, including 15
U.S.C. 1692e, which declares that "[a] debt collector may not use
any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of any debt."

Plaintiff brought a motion for class certification.  In his
motion, plaintiff emphasizes one of his FDCPA theories: under
Illinois law, statutory court costs are not available before
defendant obtains a judgment, so the October 5 letter falsely and
misleadingly implied (or perhaps even more than implied, according
to plaintiff) that defendant had a right to collect court costs
when it sent the letter.

Plaintiff asked the court to certify a single class defined as:

     All persons in the State of Illinois to whom, during the one
year prior to the filing of Plaintiff's Complaint and continuing
through the resolution of this matter, Defendant sent one or more
letters or other communications similarly [sic] in the form of the
October 5th Letter in an attempt to collect a non-business debt,
which letter was not returned as undeliverable by the Postal
Service.

The court denied the motion to certify the class. The motion was
heard and decided by the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall, United
States District Court Judge. The memorandum and order is a mere 9
pages.

Judge Gottschall wrote:

"To certify a class, this court "must find that each requirement
of Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy
of representation) is satisfied as well as one subsection of Rule
23(b)." Because he is the party seeking certification, Plaintiff
bears the burden to persuade the court by a preponderance of the
evidence that his proposed class meets Rule 23's certification
requirements.

"Rule 23 has long been interpreted as implicitly requiring a class
to be defined "clearly and based on objective criteria." Courts
sometimes use the shorthand term "ascertainability" to refer to
this requirement.

As written, the class definition includes an amorphous group of
people who received communications "similarly in the form of the
October 5th Letter," including, potentially, phone communications.
Indeed, as defendant points out, plaintiff adverts to the
possibility of false and misleading telephone conversations in his
motion for class certification.

The class definition plaintiff proposes has an additional
ascertainability problem: its only time limitation is the
conclusion of this litigation.

Rule 23(c)(1) gives the court discretion to alter a class
definition, but the court should not shift to itself the
plaintiff's burden to define the class objectively. The court
therefore leaves to plaintiff the task, if he wishes, of
attempting to redefine the class in an ascertainable fashion.

Because plaintiff has failed to show that the proposed class's
composition is ascertainable using objective criteria, the court
ends its Rule 23 analysis and denies plaintiff's motion to
certify. (Emphasis added by insideARM.)

insideARM Perspective

This case may be far from over. It appears that the court has left
open the possibility that the plaintiff could suggest an
alternative class definition.

Going back to the letter sent by Midland that is the genesis of
this litigation -- insideARM is curious as to what purpose the
October 5 letter served and why it was sent in the first place. A
collection lawsuit was already filed (Judge Gottschall's
memorandum and order indicated that the collection litigation was
filed on November 4, 2014 -- 11 months prior to the October 5
letter). Clearly the lawsuit had already sent the message to the
consumer that Midland would like the account resolved. In
retrospect, it seems the letter only created exposure by including
language that the plaintiff's attorneys felt ran afoul of the
FDCPA. In this instance, the old expression -- "Less is More"
might apply. [GN]


MIDLAND FUNDING: Janetos' Cert. Class Bid Hrng. Cont'd to Sept. 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on July 25, 2017, in the case styled
Mary Janetos, et al. v. Midland Funding, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-04490 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Joan B. Gottschall.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification is
      entered and continued to September 8, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.;
      and

   -- Motion hearing set for July 28, 2017, is stricken; no
      appearance required.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=d7pRmOOZ


MISSOURI: Court Granted Class Cert. in Postawko, et al. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL POSTAWKO, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-04219-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette K.
Laughrey entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of:

   "all those individuals in the custody of MDOC, now or in the
   future, who have been, or will be, diagnosed with chronic
   HCV,2 as that term is defined medically, but who are not
   provided treatment with direct acting antiviral drugs.

The Court said, "Defendants' remaining arguments, some of which
are mischaracterized as demonstrating that the class is
"overbroad," are again merits arguments not relevant to class
certification: that Plaintiffs have not established that everyone
with HCV actually "needs" DAA drug treatment or that all patients
diagnosed with HCV have suffered an injury due to Defendants'
policies. These are not the issues presented at the class
certification stage. The cases that Defendants cite relate
to summary judgment motions or cases in which the courts reached
the merits of the plaintiffs' claims -- whether the defendants
were deliberately indifferent to an inmate's particular medical
needs and whether certain treatments were warranted. Again,
Plaintiffs are not challenging individualized treatment decisions
related to their own unique characteristics or contraindications.
Rather, they are challenging Defendants' systemwide policies of
denying consideration for DAA drug treatment based on allegedly
arbitrary and/or nonmedical reasons, and these policies apply
generally to all members of the class. Plaintiffs are not merely
disagreeing with a doctor's course of treatment or medical
decision as to a particular person. They are attacking the
constitutionality of Defendants' MDOC-wide policies and procedures
applicable to all inmates with chronic HCV. Regardless, such
arguments are premature. "In determining the propriety of a class
action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs
have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but
rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met." Eisen v.
Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974). Arguments about
the appropriateness of certain treatments or how these policies
are, in fact, applied to class members may be relevant to a future
motion for summary judgment or at trial. But, these arguments have
no impact on the availability of class certification, as they do
not go to the Rule 23(b)(2) inquiry or establish that the class is
somehow overbroad. For the previous reasons, the putative class is
appropriate for certification under Rule 23(b)(2)".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=746X2QSr


MONSANTO CO: Brown Seeks to Recover Roundup(R)-Related Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BROWN, Sr., Individually v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a
Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00632 (W.D. Mich., July 12, 2017),
is an action for damages allegedly 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.

Mr. Brown maintains that Roundup(R) and glyphosate is defective,
dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and
sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to
the dangers associated with its use.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and is the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brion B. Doyle, Esq.
          VARNUM LLP
          Bridgewater Place, P.O. Box 352
          Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352
          Telephone: (616) 336-6000
          Facsimile: (616) 336-7000
          E-mail: bbdoyle@varnumlaw.com


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Trottier Sues over Federal Securities Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK TROTTIER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MRV COMMUNICATIONS, INC., KENNETH
TRAUG, ROBERT PONS, MARK J. BONNEY, JEANNIE H. DIEFENDERFER, BRIAN
BELLINGER, JEFFREY TUDER, ADVA OPTICAL NETWORKING, ADVA NA
HOLDINGS, INC., and GOLDEN ACQUISITION CORPORATION, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-05581 (C.D. Cal., July 27, 2017), seeks to enjoin
a tender offer and proposed transaction or, in the event the
proposed transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting
from the Individual Defendants' violations of these laws.

The Plaintiff brings this action as a public stockholder of MRV
Communications, Inc. against the members of MRVC's Board of
Directors for their violations of Federal Securities Laws. On July
2, 2017, the Company announced that it had entered into a
definitive agreement by which ADVA NA Holdings, Inc. and Golden
Acquisition Corporation, would acquire the Company through a
tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of MRVC for
$10.00 per share in cash (Proposed Transaction). The Proposed
Transaction is valued at approximately $69 million. On July 17,
2017, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer, set to expire on
August 11, 2017, and filed a Schedule TO-T with the SEC. That same
day, Defendants filed a Schedule 14D-9 Recommendation Statement
(Recommendation Statement) with the SEC in connection with the
Tender Offer and Proposed Transaction. The Recommendation
Statement is materially deficient and misleading because, inter
alia, it fails to disclose material information about the
background of the merger. Without all material information, MRVC
stockholders cannot make an informed decision regarding the
exchange of their shares in the Tender Offer. The failure to
adequately disclose such material information constitutes a
violation of Sections 14(d)(4) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as stockholders need such
information in order to make a fully-informed decision regarding
tendering their shares in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

MRV is a communications equipment and services company based in
Chatsworth, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 291 2420
          Facsimile: (415) 484 1294
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Certification Bid in "Zaklit" Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ALFRED ZAKLIT ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-02190-
CAS-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina A. Snyder entered an
order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

   "all individuals who, from October 23, 2014 to May 2016, while
   physically present in California and using a cellular device
   with a California area code, participated for the first time
   in an outbound telephone conversation with a representative of
   Defendant or their agents who were recording the conversation
   without first informing the individual that the conversation
   was being recorded".

The Court denies as moot Nationstar's motion to exclude Borlin's
testimony, declaration, and opinions.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8SqFNrTN

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adrian Bacon, Esq.
          Asaf Asaganov, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 S Beverly Blvd., Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric Kemp, Esq.
          SEVERSON & WERSON
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398 3344
          Facsimile: (415) 956 0439
          E-mail: ek@severson.com


NEXT LEVEL: Faces "Scott" Suit Over Use of ATDS to Get Clients
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAN SCOTT, an individual on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NEXT LEVEL FUNDING, LLC, dba Bizfi, a
Delaware limited liability company; MERCHANT CASH AND CAPITAL,
LLC, dba Bizfi, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00119-DBP (D. Utah, July 14, 2017), alleges that
Defendant willfully violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, by causing unsolicited calls to be made to Plaintiff and
other class members' telephones through the use of an auto-dialer
and/or artificial, pre-recorded or artificial voice message.

Defendants made or caused to be made unauthorized calls to
Plaintiff's telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system
or pre-recorded voice for the purpose of soliciting business from
Plaintiff.

In response to Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff seeks an
injunction requiring Defendants to cease all calls using ATDS to
cellular telephones without express written authorization, and to
cease all calls to individuals that have asked to be placed on
Defendants' internal do-not-call list.

Defendant Next Level is a company that provides alternative and
traditional financing for small to medium sized businesses in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Heather M. Sneddon, Esq.
     John A. Bluth, Esq.
     Kassidy J. Wallin, Esq.
     ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
     50 West Broadway, Suite 700
     Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2035
     Phone: (801) 534-1700
     Fax: (801) 364-7697
     Email: hsneddon@aklawfirm.com
            jbluth@aklawfirm.com
            kwallin@aklawfirm.com


NIANTIC: Gamer Files Class Action Over Failed Pokemon Go Festival
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS reported that a gamer who traveled to Chicago for the failed
Pokemon GO Festival is now suing organizers.

The California man filed a class-action lawsuit, claiming the
festival did not deliver on promises.

The event at Grant Park was plagued by numerous issues, including
long lines and glitches with the app.

The maker of Pokemon GO and sponsor of the festival, Niantic, has
apologized and offered refunds. But the lawsuit seeks
reimbursement of travel expenses for people who came from out of
state, or out of the country, for the event.

Pokemon GO is an "augmented reality" game that people play using
their smart phone. [GN]


NICHOLAS CTY, WV: Certification of Class Sought in "Bragg" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Robert Bragg v. Jonathan
Sweeney, Prosecuting Attorney for Nicholas County, William Nunley,
Sheriff of Nicholas County, B.J. Holdren, Deputy Sheriff for
Nicholas County, Case No. 2:17-cv-03693(S.D.W.V.), seeks
certification of a class of similarly situated persons, being
those State of West Virginia persons that have had their property
seized by virtue of the West Virginia Contraband Forfeiture Act.

Mr. Bragg tells the Court that he has the assistance of an inmate
legal clerk in preparing the action.  He contends that the class
is based on the fact that the West Virginia Contraband Forfeiture
Act is unconstitutional in violation of the 4th, 5th and 14th
Amendments to the United States Constitution.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ws6CfYZG

The Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Huttonsville
Correctional Center, in Huttonsville, West Virginia, appears pro
se.


NOODLES & COMPANY: Court Tosses Data Breach Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Edward McAndrew, David Stauss and Gregory Szewczyk of Ballard
Spahr LLP, in an article for JD Supra, wrote that the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado recently dismissed a
proposed class action lawsuit filed by financial institutions
relating to a 2016 data breach that involved hundreds of Noodles &
Company (Noodles) restaurants. The court's decision addresses two
important issues in data breach class actions: choice of law and
the economic loss doctrine.

In 2016, Noodles was the victim of a cyberattack that targeted
customers' credit and debit card information. Four credit unions
that had customer financial data possibly compromised by the data
breach filed putative class actions against Noodles that were
subsequently consolidated in the District of Colorado. The
plaintiffs alleged that as a result of the data breach, they had
to cancel and reissue bank cards, close and reopen customer
accounts, respond to customer inquiries about the breach, monitor
accounts for and investigate any fraudulent activity, and refund
unauthorized charges. The plaintiffs asserted causes of action for
negligence, negligence per se, and declaratory relief.

In January 2017, Noodles moved to dismiss the class actions for
failure to state a claim. They argued that the economic loss
doctrine barred the plaintiffs' negligence-based claims and that
the corollary declaratory judgment claim could not stand alone.
Last week, the Colorado district court agreed.

The court first had to decide which state's tort law to apply.
Looking to the plaintiffs' home states (Colorado, Oregon, Ohio,
Indiana, and Iowa), they applied Colorado law because each state
had adopted the economic loss doctrine and there was no "outcome
determinative conflict between the potentially applicable bodies
of law."

The court then concluded that the plaintiffs' negligence claims
were barred under the economic loss doctrine, which "generally
forbids recovery in tort for pure financial losses caused by a
defendant's negligence in its performance of a contractual duty."
Those claims were barred in this instance, the court held, even
though there was no bilateral contract between Noodles and the
plaintiffs. Instead, Noodles' contractual duties and the
plaintiffs' remedies were contained in the "series of contracts
governing plaintiffs' payment-card networks."

When a customer swipes a credit or debit card at Noodles, the
payment request is routed through a payment-card network governed
by a "bank-card association"--the largest of which are Visa and
MasterCard. The transaction is then sent electronically to the
customer's "issuing bank," which is the financial institution that
issued the credit or debit card to the customer. After the issuing
bank authorizes the transaction, Noodles notifies its "acquiring
bank," which processes credit and debit payments for Noodles. The
acquiring bank forwards funds to Noodles to satisfy the
transaction, and it is then reimbursed by the customer's issuing
bank.

Bank-card associations have sets of rules that directly regulate
issuing and acquiring banks, which are passed on through issuing
banks' agreements with cardholders and acquiring banks' agreements
with merchants. However, merchants and issuing banks typically do
not have any direct bilateral contracts. The bank-card
associations' rules require merchants like Noodles to abide by
certain procedures in handling cardholders' financial information,
including the requirement that Noodles comply with the Payment
Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS). This set of
standards includes a list of 12 "best practices" incorporating
dozens of specific directions on how to maintain secure payment-
card processing systems and protect cardholder data.

The court explained that the duties allegedly breached--namely,
the secure handling of cardholders' financial information--were
contained in this network of interrelated contracts, including the
requirement that Noodles comply with PCI DSS. The court made clear
that "[it] makes no difference that Noodles & Company's
contractual duties arise from a web of interrelated agreements
coordinated by Visa and MasterCard rather than bilateral contracts
between the merchant and plaintiffs." The court also noted that
the plaintiffs could have voluntarily entered into contracts with
Noodles to allocate the risk of payment-card fraud, but did not do
so.

The court's opinion emphasizes the importance of thoroughly
understanding how agreements with and between vendors and
processors address rights and obligations in the event of a data
breach. Indeed, companies should fully understand how interrelated
agreements may impact their ability to recover losses incurred as
a result of a third party's data breach. Companies then should
take the necessary steps to insulate themselves from losses,
whether through additional indemnity agreements or cyber insurance
coverage. [GN]


OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: "Cox" Labor Suit Alleges Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT COX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, and DOES
1-10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-at-00537 (E.D. Cal.,
July 13, 2017), alleges that Defendant has misclassified its Well
Site Managers as independent contractors and did not pay them any
statutorily required overtime compensation pursuant to both
Federal and California law.  The case alleges violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, California
Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code,
and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

Occidental Petroleum Corporation is an international oil and gas
exploration and production company with operations in the United
States, the Middle East and Latin America.  Plaintiff Robert Cox
was employed as a non-exempt Well Site Manager at Occidental
Petroleum Corporation's Elk Hills operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
     Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
     Brian G. Lee, Esq.
     YOON LAW, APC
     One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213) 612-0988
     Fax: (213) 947-1211

        - and -

     Clif Alexander, Esq.
     Lauren Braddy, Esq.
     ANDERSON2X, PLLC
     819 North Upper Broadway
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Phone: (361) 452-1279
     Fax: (361) 452-1284
     Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
            lauren@a2xlaw.com


OHIO: Families of People with Disabilities OK'd to Join Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Rita Price, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that dozens
of Ohio families now have a voice in the court battle between the
state and a legal advocacy group for people with disabilities.

Chief U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. granted motions on
behalf of more than 100 guardians who have asked in recent months
to intervene in the case, seeking a seat at the table in what
could be a years-long argument over where Ohioans with
developmental disabilities live and work.

"This litigation is complex and important," Sargus wrote.
"Excluding individuals with disabilities who will be directly
impacted is not the appropriate way to make this case less
complex."

The legal advocacy group Disability Rights Ohio sued the state
last year, saying it violates the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act by leaving thousands of people stuck in
institutions -- or puts them at risk of moving to one -- because
they can't get the support they need to live and work in their
communities.

Disability Rights filed the lawsuit on behalf of six named
plaintiffs, but wants it to proceed as a class action.

Guardians opposing the lawsuit fear that their family members
could be harmed by sweeping decisions that ultimately reduce or
cut funding to so-called intermediate care facilities, or
residential centers with eight or more residents. Many people with
severe disabilities, they say, cannot have their complex medical
and behavioral needs met in community houses and apartments.

"There is a long fight ahead, but he's given us a position in the
fight so that we can protect our loved ones," parent Caroline
Lahrmann said of the judge's decision. "We are grateful for that."

Lahrmann's 17-year-old twins, Henry and Elizabeth, were born with
profound disabilities and function at less than a 1-year-old's
level. She said it's unfair to endanger their home at the
Heinzerling Foundation in Columbus, where they do well, living
safely and comfortably.

Sargus also granted a motion by the Ohio Association of County
Boards of Developmental Disabilities to intervene as a defendant.
Although the lawsuit was filed against the state, Sargus agreed
that any change will affect local boards.

The association is pleased to have "a seat at the negotiating
table in this important lawsuit," Bridget Gargan, the
association's executive director, said in an emailed statement.
"As the primary funders and managers of services to people with
developmental disabilities in Ohio, county boards will offer
valuable perspectives to the court as it considers the issues
raised by both plaintiffs and defendants."

In an emailed statement, Disability Rights said plaintiffs filed
the lawsuit "to uphold the rights of Ohioans with developmental
disabilities to have the opportunity to live and work in their
communities with the supports they need."

At least 2,500 people who now live in institutions have asked for
community services, many others don't know their options, and
thousands more are on waiting lists for services. "This problem is
what the lawsuit seeks to correct," Disability Rights said. [GN]


OHIO PIZZA: Mullins Seeks to Certify Delivery Drivers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Paul Mullins, On behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Southern Ohio Pizza,
Inc., et al, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00426-SJD (S.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to:

   1. conditionally certify a collective action consisting of:

      "all non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked
      for Defendants at any Southern Ohio Pizza, Inc. Domino's
      Pizza location from August 1, 2014 to present";

   2. approve the Plaintiffs' proposed notice of the action;

   3. order Defendants to provide name and contact information
      for all potential Collective members;

   4. authorize Plaintiffs to send the notices via first class
      mail, email, and text message;

   5. require Defendants to post the notice in their work
      locations; and

   6. authorize putative Collective members to opt in by using an
      electronic signature.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v3VKLwl9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          119 East Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com


ONEBEACON INSURANCE: Berg Files Suit Over Sale to Intact Fin'l.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Berg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Onebeacon Insurance Group, Ltd., Lowndes
A. Smith, T. Michael Miller, Reid T. Campbell, Morgan W. Davis,
Lois W. Grady, Ira H. Malis, G. Manning Rountree, Patrick A.
Thiele, Kent D. Urness, Intact Financial Corporation and Intact
Bermuda Holdings Ltd., Intact Acquisition Co. Ltd., Defendants,
Case No. 0:17-cv-02155, (D. Minn., June 21, 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 OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. by
Intact Financial Corporation, Intact Bermuda Holdings Ltd. and
Intact Acquisition Co. Ltd.; and rescinding it and setting it
aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants
consummate the acquisition.  The Plaintiff further seeks costs of
this action including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief for violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. will be acquired by Intact
Financial Corporation and Intact Acquisition Co. Ltd. where
shareholders of OneBeacon will receive $18.10 per share in cash.

Defendants have allegedly locked up the deal and have precluded
other bidders from making successful competing offers for the
company.  Moreover, the 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, says the complaint.

OneBeacon offers a range of specialty insurance products sold
through independent agencies, regional and national brokers,
wholesalers and managing general agencies. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      (302) 295-5310

            - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800

            - and -

      Adam Altman, Esq.
      Douglas B. Altman, Esq.
      ALTMAN & IZEK
      901 North Third Street, Suite 140
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 335-3700
      E-mail: adam@altmanizek.com


OVERTON RUSSELL: Carpenter Moves for Cert.; Hearing on Sept. 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting certification of
the class defined in the amended complaint of the lawsuit titled
JARED CARPENTER and MARISA MULTARI, on Behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. OVERTON, RUSSELL, DOERR &
DONOVAN, LLP, Case No. 1:17-cv-00180-DJS (N.D.N.Y.).

The Court will commence a hearing on September 7, 2017, at 9:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert L. Arleo, Esq.
          ROBERT L. ARLEO, ESQ. P.C.
          380 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 551-1115
          Facsimile: (518) 751-1801
          E-mail: robertarleo@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul G. Ferrara, Esq.
          COSTELLO, COONEY & FEARON, PLLC
          500 Plum Street, Suite 300
          Syracuse, NY 13204-1401
          Telephone: (315) 422-1152
          Facsimile: (315) 422-1139
          E-mail: pgf@ccf-law.com


PACIFIC BELL: Larson's Bid to Certify Tossed Due to Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vince Chhabria terminates the motion for conditional
certification in the lawsuit captioned KEITH LARSON, et al. v.
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Case No. 3:16-cv-04858-VC (N.D.
Cal.).

"The motion for conditional certification is terminated in light
of the parties' agreement to vacate the hearing on conditional
certification and address issues of Fair Labor Standards Act
notice with cross-motions for Rule 23 class certification and Fair
Labor Standards Act collective decertification," according to the
order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0231gBuK


PARAMOUNT CARE: "Brown" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LANIECE BROWN on behalf of herself
individually, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs,
v. PARAMOUNT CARE SERVICES and GAIL ANN CHAMPAGNE, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00620 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to approve a notice to the class of "similarly situated" aggrieved
employees.

Laniece Brown filed this collective action lawsuit under the Fair
Labor Standards Act seeking to recover unpaid wages that were
wrongfully denied to her and similarly situated Caregivers.  Two
other current and former employees of Defendants joined this
lawsuit. Plaintiff now moves for conditional certification and
seeks authorization to mail a Court-approved notice to the
potential class members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=muORE6wN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
          THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
          3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (832) 778 8182
          Facsimile: (832) 778 8353
          E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


PAUL E WALSH: Faces "Dreasher" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN DREASHER, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. PAUL E. WALSH TRUCKING, INC., a Florida
Corporation, and PAUL WALSH, individually, Defendants, Case No.
6:17-cv-01288-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla., July 13, 2017), alleges that
Defendants failed to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act
because Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, performed
services for Defendants for which no provisions were made by
Defendants to properly pay Plaintiff, and those similarly
situated, for all overtime hours worked.

During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff and those
similarly situated, were allegedly not paid time and one-half the
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40)
per work week during one or more work weeks.

Defendant is a delivery company.  Plaintiff worked as a piece rate
truck driver.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mathew R. Gunter, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A
     20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
     P.O Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Phone: (407) 420-1414
     Fax: (407) 867-4791
     Email: mgunter@forthepeople.com


PREMIUM ASSET: "Navarroli" Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled NICHOLAS NAVARROLI, on behalf of plaintiff
and the class members described below, and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS ex rel. NICHOLAS NAVARROLI, the Plaintiffs, v. PREMIUM
ASSET SERVICES LLC, and SCOTT CASS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-05483 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a
class of:

   "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) from whom
   Premium Asset Services, LLC, attempted to collect a debt, (c)
   on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action
   and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of this
   action".

The Plaintiffs further ask that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin be appointed counsel for the class.

According to the complaint, Defendants have been attempting to
collect from Plaintiff a debt consisting of a First Savings Credit
Card obtained and used for personal, family or household purposes
and not for business purposes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SxRg5agF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          Michelle A. Alyea, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com


PUBLIC STORAGE: Faces "Fox" Suit Over Illegal Debits
----------------------------------------------------
ANN FOX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. PUBLIC STORAGE and DOES 1-10,
Defendant(s), Case No. 2:17-cv-05187 (C.D. Cal., July 13, 2017),
allegedly results from the illegal actions of Defendants debiting
Plaintiff's and also the putative Class members' bank accounts on
a recurring basis without obtaining a written authorization signed
or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund
transfers from Plaintiffs.  Additionally, Defendant failed to
properly disclose the price changes, thereby violating California
Business & Professional Code.

The case alleges violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act,
and the California Automatic Purchase Renewal Statute California
Business & Professional Code.

Defendant is engaged in the business of selling storage
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780,
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: 877-206-4741
     Fax: 866-633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com
            twheeler@toddflaw.com


QUINCY PROPERTY: Brasher Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned APRIL R. BRASHER AND RICHARD M. ORENCIA
CHAD O. LEBOW, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated as collective representative under and/or as members of
the Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Plaintiffs, v. Quincy Property, LLC, doing business as
"Welcome Inn" and Welcome Inn Hotel Management, Inc.
And Vandiver Motel, doing Business as Welcome Inn Columbia,
Welcome Inn Columbia, Jefferson Property, doing business as
Extended Stay by Welcome Inn County Line Properties I LLC, doing
business as Welcome Inn American Motels LLC, doing business as
Welcome Inn B&W Investment Properties LLC, doing business as
Holiday Apartments Springfield Welcome Inn, and BRETT BURGE,
KENNETH LOGAN, QUENTIN KEARNEY, JOE WIMBERLY, as individuals under
FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
03022-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to:

   1. certify the Fair Labor Standards Act Collective and allow
      an opt-in period of 90 days;

   2. order all Defendants to produce the full names, aliases,
      addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and last date(s)
      of performance of all potential putative class members who
      worked for Defendants, and the last known work and home
      physical and email addresses and phone numbers of all
      salaried employees who worked for Defendant from January
      28, 2014 to the present, no later than two weeks after the
      date of the entry of the Order;

   3. approve a notice based on a form to be submitted by the
      parties; and

   4. approve transmittal of the Notice to members of the class
      via US Mail, email, and text message.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Gg60vJCv

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin ILL 60177
          Telephone: (630) 464 9675
          Facsimile: (630) 206 0889
          E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com
          attorneyireland@gmail.com


R GUERRERO'S CONSTRUCTION: "Lira" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Lira, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. R. Guerrero's Construction, LLC and
Roberto Guerrero, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00114, (N.D. Tex.,
June 21, 2017), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for
failure to pay for overtime 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, claims of illegal tip
pooling, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs and interest pursuant to the California
labor Code, the Unfair Business Practices provision of the
California Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Defendants, a Texas construction company, employed Plaintiff and
Class Members as framers who are paid a base hourly rate.
Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek
without overtime premium.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      Collin Wynne, Esq.
      Tim Newsom, Esq.
      YOUNG & NEWSOM, PC
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Tel: (806) 331-1800
      Fax: (806) 398-9095
      Email: jyoung@youngfirm.com
             collin@youngfirm.com
             tim@youngfirm.com


RUSK INDUSTRIES: "Lindsey" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Marion Lindsey, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Rusk Industries (d/b/a Everdry
Waterproofing), Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03719 (N.D. Ohio, June
21, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation as well as for
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Ohio labor laws.

Defendant is a waterproofing company that provides basement
waterproofing services to residential customers throughout Ohio.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant in their Bucyrus, Ohio location
from February 2016 to May 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCOTTS COMPANY: Lawn Technicians Class Certified in "Vasquez" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Darrin P. Gayles grants in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary class certification and to permit court supervised
notice to employees of their opt-in rights pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act in the lawsuit entitled RICARDO VASQUEZ and
ANTONIO ERVIN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v. THE SCOTTS COMPANY LLC,
et al., Case No. 0:17-cv-60344-DPG (S.D. Fla.).

The Court conditionally certified this class:

     All current and former "lawn care technicians" (a.k.a.
     "territory service representatives") employed by The Scotts
     Company, LLC; EG Systems, Inc.; TruGreen, Inc.; and TruGreen
     Limited Partnership and all other current and former
     employees of The Scotts Company, LLC; EG Sys-tems, Inc.;
     TruGreen, Inc.; and TruGreen Limited Partnership performing
     substantially similar duties to lawn care technicians who
     worked more than forty hours in one or more workweeks of
     their employment and who were paid one-half of their regular
     hourly rate for hours worked in excess of forty hours in
     those workweeks during the period of January 17, 2014,
     through [DATE OF ORDER] at any of The Scotts Company, LLC;
     EG Systems, Inc.; TruGreen, Inc.; and TruGreen Limited
     Partnership's locations in the United States.

Judge Gayles rules that within 14 days of the date of this Order,
(i) the parties shall meet and confer and shall file a joint
proposed Notice of Lawsuit which conforms to the above-defined
class, as well as a joint proposed Consent to Join Form which
contains an area for the opt-ins to write in their job title, the
location where they worked, and their start and end dates, and
(ii) the Defendants shall produce to the Plaintiffs a computer
readable data file containing the names, addresses, telephone
numbers, and e-mail addresses of all members of the conditional
collective action.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bllx2eIP


SEARS ROEBUCK: "Greene" Suit Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled NINA GREENE and GERALD GREENE, the
Plaintiffs, v. SEARS PROTECTION COMPANY, SEARS, ROEBUCK and Co.
and SEARS HOLDINGS Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02546 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for certification
of two classes.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          Benjamin M. Mather, Esq.
          Andrew J. Belli, Esq.
          KAUFMAN, COREN & RESS, P.C.
          Two Commerce Square, Suite 3900
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735 8700
          E-mail: dgross@kcr-law.com
                  bmather@kcr-law.com
                  abelli@kcr-law.com

               - and -

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
          Kathleen E. Boychuck, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332 3400
          E-mail: MMiller@millerlawllc.com
                  LFanning@millerlawllc.com
                  KBoychuck@millerlawllc.com


SERVIS ONE: "Kolenko" Says Policies Undermine Duty to Homeowners
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN KOLENKO and JACKIE BARHAM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SERVIS ONE, INC. d/b/a
BSI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00183-
AJS (W.D. Pa., July 10, 2017), alleges that Defendant has fallen
far short of meeting its obligation to accurately communicate and
fairly interact with homeowners, and has instituted policies and
practices that actively undermine Defendant's duty to homeowners.

For one, says the complaint, Defendant has a quota system for its
employees that prioritizes contacting as many borrowers as
possible instead of taking the time necessary to determine what is
right for a specific borrower.  Defendant's scripts, allegedly,
prevent its employees from trying to work on flexible solutions
for borrowers or fixing any inaccuracies with borrower accounts.
Furthermore, Defendant did not incentivize Defendant's employees
to help homeowners make their payments or figure out inaccuracies
associated with borrower accounts, the Plaintiffs assert.

Defendant Servis One, Inc. d/b/a BSI Financial Services, Inc. is a
mortgage servicer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
     Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
     Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 322-9243
     Fax: (412) 231-0246
     Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
            bsweet@carlsonlynch.com
            kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com

        - and -

     Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
     THE KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
     Two Penn Center Plaza
     1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Phone: (215) 792-6676
     Email: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com


SPECIALIZED LOAN: "Mason" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MARCUS MASON, on behalf of plaintiff and a
class, the Plaintiff, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05607 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to certify a class of:

   "(a) all individuals (b) who obtained bankruptcy discharges
   (c) and were then sent by Specialized Loan Servicing (d) a
   letter to the Complaint, (e) which letter was sent at any time
   during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this
   action and ending 21 days after the filing of this action".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Pz3XOZ88

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com


STRONGHEALTH NETWORK: "Castillo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
SULEIDY CASTILLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. STRONGHEALTH NETWORK, PLLC and MANUAL A.
GONZALEZ, M.D., individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22615-
MGC (S.D. Fla., July 13, 2017), alleges that Defendants knowingly
and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees at time and one half of their regular rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

STRONGHEALTH NETWORK, PLLC is a health care provider. Plaintiff
performed non-exempt duties as a medical technician.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan S. Minick, Esq.
     JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A.
     1850 SW 8th Street, Suite 307
     Miami, FL 33135
     Phone: (786) 441-8909
     Fax: (786) 523-0610
     E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com


TALBOTS INC: "Fliegelman" Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Lynette Fliegelman, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Talbots, Inc.
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 56-2017-
00496659 (Cal. Super., May 17, 2017), was removed to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
June 21, 2017, and assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-04576.

Complaint purports to bring claims under the Unfair Competition
Law and False Advertising Law under California's Business and
Professions Code and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under the
California Civil Code arising from a discounting scheme in
Defendant's retail outlet in Camarillo, California. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented pro se.

Defendant is represented by:

      Stephanie A. Sheridan, Esq.
      Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq.
      Meegan B. Brooks, Esq.
      SEDGWICK LLP
      333 Bush Street, 30th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104-2834
      Telephone: (415) 781-7900
      Facsimile: (415) 781-2635
      Email: stephanie.sheridan@sedgwicklaw.com
             anthony.anscombe@sedgwicklaw.com
             meegan.brooks@sedgwicklaw.com


TARPON TURTLE: Faces "Rish" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRITT RISH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. TARPON TURTLE GRILL & MARINA, LLC, and ERIC WEBBER,
Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01688-JDW-AEP (M.D. Fla., July 14,
2017), alleges that Defendants failed to comply with the Fair
Labor Standards Act because Plaintiff was regularly required to
work in excess of forty (40) hours a workweek but was not paid
overtime compensation as required by the FLSA.  Defendants also
allegedly failed to keep accurate time records as required by the
FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
     Jason M. Melton, Esq.
     WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
     One Progress Plaza
     200 Central Avenue, #400
     St. Petersburg, FL 33701
     Phone: (727) 822-1111
     Fax: (727) 898-2001
     Email: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
            lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
            kmoran@theFLlawfirm.com


TIRRENIO INC: "Recarte" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
SANTOS RECARTE, on behalf of himself, FLSA COLLECTIVE PLAINTIFFS,
and THE CLASS, Plaintiffs, v. TIRRENIO, INC., d/b/a/ SCARAMELLA'S
RISTORANTE, NILDE SCARAMELLA, and VINCENZO SCARAMELLA, Defendants,
Case No. 7:17-cv-05351-CS (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2017), alleges that
Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff's rights by paying him on
a salary basis, in violation of the New York Labor Law.  Also,
Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of forty (40) hours per
workweek during his employment by Defendants, but Defendants never
paid him overtime premium for hours that he worked in excess of
forty (40), as required under Fair Labor Standards Act and the
NYLL.

Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant doing business
under the trade name "Scaramella's Ristorante."  Plaintiff, SANTOS
RECARTE, was hired by Defendants to work as a cook for Defendants'
"Scaramella's Ristorante" restaurant.

The case was filed on behalf of all non-exempt employees,
including but not limited to waiters, busboys, runners, servers,
food preparers, cooks, line-cooks, porters, dishwashers,
bartenders and barbacks.[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
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Ferris Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RICHARD FERRIS, on behalf of himself and
a class, the Plaintiff, v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., and CONVERGENT
OUTSOURCING INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03703 (N.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining
that a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action may proceed as a
class action against defendants on behalf of a class and a
subclass.

The class includes (a) all individuals (b) who were sent a letter
by Convergent (c) seeking to collect a student loan allegedly held
by a "National Collegiate Trust" (d) which disclosed that the
"current creditor" was "Chase" (e) and whose letter were sent at
any time between the period beginning March 28, 2015, and ending
April 18, 2016.

The subclass includes all class members who received such a
disclosure in the first communication they received from
Convergent. Defendant Convergent represents that the class
consists of 62,206 persons.

The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Morgan Ian Marcus, Esq.
          James Kevin Schultz, Esq.
          Daniel W. Pissani, Esq.
          James Kevin Schultz, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL
          1545 Hotel Cir S Ste 150
          San Diego, CA 92108-3426
          Telephone: (619) 296 2018
          Facsimile: (619) 296 2013
          E-mail: mmarcus@sessions.legal
                  jschultz@sessions.legal
                  dpisani@sessions.legal
                  jschultz@sessions.legal

               - and -

          Charity A. Olson, Esq.
          CHARITY A. OLSON, PC
          2723 S State St. No. 150
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222 517
          E-mail: colson@olsonlawpc.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Asks Judge to Toss Drivers' Ride Pricing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports an attorney for Uber
asked a California federal judge on July 27 to toss a putative
class action alleging its upfront pricing model breaches its
contract with drivers, saying their employment agreement clearly
describes the payment plan and that it frequently benefits drivers
who'd otherwise make less off promotional pricing.

Lead plaintiff Martin Dulberg claims Uber Technologies Inc.'s
pricing model -- which charges passengers a fare before their ride
even begins based on projections, but pays drivers based on the
distance and time actually driven -- cuts into drivers' earnings
and violates the terms of their employment contract. But Uber
attorney Jonathan R. Bass of Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP told
U.S. District Judge William Alsup that the pricing arrangement is
what's laid out in the contract, and that it often benefits
drivers.

He said, for example, that when Uber offers promotional discounts
meant to entice new riders, the driver still makes what he
otherwise would have based on fare and distance calculations.
Similarly, when a rider requests an Uber Pool -- a service in
which passengers going in the same direction share a ride for a
reduced rate -- can't find additional riders, the driver doesn't
suffer by only making the discounted rate from one customer.

"His complaint and his theory that we breached that contract is
that he didn't get anything additional to what the contract
promises, because sometimes the preset fare turns out to be higher
than the distance and time calculation," Bass said. "While I
appreciate counsel's consulting about how we can best run our
business, our concern is how we can best attract and retain
riders."

Dulberg's complaint, filed in February, alleges that under that
upfront pricing model, the ride-hailing giant charges passengers a
fare before their ride even begins, but Uber bases that fare on an
aggressive and often inflated projection of the distance and time
involved in a particular ride. The driver is entitled to a set
percentage of the fare as laid out in the driver agreements, but
Uber pays based on a calculation of the distance and time actually
driven, which can often be less than what the customer actually
paid, allowing Uber to pocket the difference, according to
Dulberg's complaint.

On July 27, Dulberg's attorney, Andrew Dressel of Napoli Shkolnik
PLLC, told the judge the contract doesn't allow Uber to charge
riders one fare and calculate a different fare for drivers, even
when the difference between the two fares benefits the drivers.

"Uber's business model is very simple. It takes a booking fee
service fee, that's been their model until last year, when they
switched to this upfront billing model," he said. "What's really
at issue here is fare -- established fare and actual fare that is
charged the drivers. They have to be paid based on fare offered
the riders."

Dulberg's attorney declined to comment. Representatives for Uber
did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Uber is represented by Jonathan R. Bass, Esq. --
jbass@coblentzlaw.com -- Susan K. Jamison, Esq. --
sjamison@coblentzlaw.com -- Clifford E. Yin, Esq. --
cyin@coblentzlaw.com -- and Sean P.J. Coyle, Esq. --
scoyle@coblentzlaw.com -- of Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP.

Dulberg is represented by Paul B. Maslo, Esq. --
pmaslo@napolilaw.com -- and Andrew Dressel, Esq. --
adressel@napolilaw.com -- of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC.

The case is Dulberg v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., case number
3:17-cv-00850, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. [GN]


UNITED INSURANCE: Sued Over Life Insurance Benefits
---------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
woman has filed a class action lawsuit against United Insurance
Company of America and its subsidiary, Kemper Corporation, for
alleged breach of contract.

Sarah Armstrong filed the complaint on June 22 in Cook County
Circuit Court, alleging the defendants failed to pay her life
insurance benefits after her father died.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges the failure to
pay is the result of a decades-long practice at the company, which
has resulted in underpayment of benefits to potentially thousands
of other policyholders.

The plaintiff seeks all benefits due, including unpaid benefits,
interest, court costs and any further relief this court grants.
She is represented by Harvey J. Barnett, Esq. --
hbarnett@sperling-law.com -- Eamon P. Kelly, Esq. --
ekelly@sperling-law.com -- and Nathan A. Shev, Esq. --
nshev@sperling-law.com -- of Sperling & Slater P.C. in Chicago.

Cook County Circuit Court case number 2017CH08670 [GN]


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Doe" Suit Over Reimbursement Penalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, on her own behalf, on behalf of her husband, JOHN DOE,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE CO., OXFORD
HEALTH PLANS, LLC, OXFORD HEALTH PLANS (NY), INC., and OXFORD
HEALTH INSURANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04160
(E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2017), alleges that Defendants are violating
legal duties they owe to health insurance plan participants and
beneficiaries by improperly discriminating against them and their
providers.

Specifically, Defendants have imposed and continue to impose
arbitrary reimbursement penalties on psychotherapy rendered by
psychologists and master's level counselors (and thus on the
lion's share of psychotherapy and office-based mental health
treatment). These penalties are neither equally imposed on office-
based medical/surgical care nor grounded in actual provider
quality/expertise. The policies violate federal and state mental
health parity laws and provider anti-discrimination statutes and
are inconsistent with the terms of the relevant insurance plans
administered by Defendants, says the complaint.

Defendant operates health insurance companies throughout the
country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
     Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
     Anant Kumar, Esq.
     ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
     399 Park Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: 212.704.9600
     Fax: 212.704.4256
     Email: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
            jcowart@zuckerman.com
            akumar@zuckerman.com

        - and -

     Carlos Angulo, Esq.
     ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
     1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20036
     Phone: 202.778.1800
     Fax: 202-822-8106
     Email: cangulo@zuckerman.com

        - and -

     Meiram Bendat, Esq.
     PSYCH-APPEAL, INC.
     8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
     West Hollywood, CA 90069
     Phone: 310.598.3690 Ext: 101
     Fax: 888.975.1957
     Email: mbendat@psych-appeal.com

        - and -

     John W. Leardi, Esq.
     Vincent N. Buttaci, Esq.
     Paul D. Werner, Esq.
     BUTTACI LEARDI&WERNER LLC
     103 Carnegie Center, Suite 323
     Princeton, NJ 08540
     Phone: 609-799-5150
     Fax: 609-799-5180
     Email: jwleardi@buttacilaw.com
            vnbuttaci@buttacilaw.com
            pdwerner@buttacilaw.com


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Settles Suit With Payments, Vouchers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emi Nakahara, writing for Daily Bruin, reports that the University
of California announced a settlement to a class action lawsuit on
July 24 that would provide payments and vouchers to certain
customers who purchased items from UCLA on-campus stores and
medical center cafeterias.

A lawsuit filed in March alleged that customers who bought
products at Associated Students UCLA stores or cafeterias in
Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center or UCLA Medical Center in Santa
Monica received receipts that displayed more than the last five
digits of their credit or debit card numbers, which violates the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

The UC Regents, who disputes the validity of the allegations,
agreed to pay $400,000 in settlement funds, as well as settlement
certificates worth up to $450,000 to certain customers with
receipts that display more than the last five digits of their
credit or debit card number.

UCLA officials said in a statement that both parties have agreed
to the resolution to the matter, subject to the approval of the
court.

Customers with receipts dating from Aug. 1, 2015 to Oct. 10, 2016
known as Subclass A, can receive a one-time payment of up to $50.
Customers with receipts dating from Feb. 10, 2012 to July 25, 2016
known as Subclass B, can receive a settlement certificate worth up
to $20 that can be used to purchase items in on-campus stores.

Individuals must submit a form online or through mail to the
settlement administrator by Sept. 7 in order to receive the
payment. [GN]


USAA CASUALTY: 8th Cir. Reverses Sanctions for Re-Filing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander M. Smith, Esq., at Jenner & Block LLP, in an article for
Lexology, wrote that the Eighth Circuit reversed an order by the
Western District of Arkansas (Holmes, J.) imposing sanctions on
counsel who voluntarily dismissed a putative class action
immediately before they re-filed the action and sought approval of
a class settlement in Arkansas state court. Although the district
court concluded that counsel for the putative class stipulated to
the dismissal for the "improper purpose of seeking a more
favorable forum" and used "properly attached federal jurisdiction
as a mid-litigation bargaining chip," the Eighth Circuit found
that counsel's conduct was proper because "a reasonable lawyer
would have had a colorable legal argument that a stipulation of
voluntary dismissal . . . is permissible in a case in which the
class has not yet been certified."

The Eighth Circuit began its discussion by analyzing whether a
stipulated dismissal of a putative class action for the purpose of
re-filing in state court violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a), which governs voluntary dismissals of actions. The court
held that Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows a plaintiff to
dismiss an action without court approval pursuant to "a
stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared,"
authorized the plaintiffs' counsel to dismiss the federal lawsuit
even when the dismissal was entered "for the specific purpose of
refiling in another court." Relying primarily on a Second Circuit
case, Wolters Kluwer Financial Services, Inc. v. Sciadvantage, 564
F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009), the court concluded that the plaintiffs'
counsel had the "unfettered right" to dismiss the action pursuant
to a stipulation and that "[t]he reason for the dismissal is
irrelevant under Rule 41(a)(1)."

The Eighth Circuit then considered whether Rule 23(e), which
requires court approval in order to dismiss or settle the claims
of a certified class, barred counsel for the putative class from
dismissing the lawsuit for the purpose of re-filing and seeking
settlement approval in state court. Although the court expressly
declined to hold that Rule 23(e) applies only to class actions
that had already been certified, it held that there was a
colorable legal argument that Rule 23(e) only applies to certified
class actions and accordingly did not serve as a basis for
sanctions. While the court acknowledged earlier Eighth Circuit
precedent holding that Rule 23(e) applies "even if a class has not
yet been certified," the court nonetheless noted that the 2003
amendments to Rule 23 arguably limited its scope to encompass only
those cases where a class had been certified. In so doing, the
court also rejected the proposition that the Class Action Fairness
Act ("CAFA") barred a stipulation of dismissal for the purpose of
re-filing an un-certified class action in state court. Whether or
not CAFA was intended "to prevent state court abuse of absent
class members," the court reasoned, "nothing in CAFA altered the
2003 amendment to Rule 23(e)."

Adams v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., --- F.3d ---- (8th Cir.
2017) [GN]


VALLEY COLLECTION: Faces "O'Toole" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAMERON O'TOOLE, Plaintiff, v. VALLEY COLLECTION SERVICE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02332-ESW (D. Ariz., July 14, 2017),
was filed on behalf of Plaintiff, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated who allegedly received a debt collection letter
from Defendant that violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The language of the letter allegedly overshadowed, weakened, and
failed to comply with, the notice required by the FDCPA because it
attempted to limit the rights available to Plaintiff in a manner
that creates a contradiction that would confuse the least
sophisticated consumer into disregarding his or her rights
pursuant to the validation notice required in the FDCPA.

Valley Collection Service, LLC offers debt collection
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART
     2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460
     Phoenix, AZ 85016
     Phone: (602) 265-3332
     Fax: (602) 230-4482
     Email: david@westcoastlitigation.com

        - and -

     Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
     Phoenix, AZ 85016
     Phone: (800) 400-6808
     Fax: (800) 520-5523
     Email: ryan@kazlg.com


VIZIO: Loses Another Round in Privacy Battle
--------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Media Post, reports that handing another
defeat to smart TV company Vizio, a judge on July 25 refused to
dismiss class-action allegations that the company violated the
federal wiretap law by sharing information about consumers with
ad-tech companies and data brokers.

"Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Vizio intercepts the 'content'
of electronic communications by using its automatic content
recognition software to gather samples of the programs consumers
watch," U.S. District Court Judge Josephine Staton in Santa Ana,
California wrote.

The battle centers on allegations that Vizio tracks TV viewers by
default, and then shares data with companies that send targeted
ads to people's phones, tablets and other devices. The first video
privacy lawsuit against the company was filed in late 2015, less
than one week after ProPublica published a report about the
company.

Staton also rejected Vizio's argument that the matter shouldn't
proceed as a class action. The company argued that starting in
late 2015, smart TV purchasers agreed to mandatory arbitration of
disputes.

But Staton ruled that Vizio's argument was premature, given that
there were still unanswered questions about the arbitration
agreements. "No discovery has taken place about has taken place
about the how these agreements were presented to Smart TV
purchasers, whether Vizio's arbitration agreements differed over
time, and what fraction of class members may be bound," she wrote.

Earlier this year, Staton refused to dismiss claims that Vizio
also violated the federal Video Privacy Protection Act -- a 1988
law that prohibits video providers from disclosing personally
identifiable information about people's video-viewing history.
Vizio has asked Staton for permission to immediately appeal that
ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That request is backed
by the Data and Marketing, which says in court papers that the
case will "have a direct impact on DMA and its members."
Staton has not yet ruled on that request.

The Federal Trade Commission recently brought a separate
enforcement action against Vizio for allegedly engaging in an
unfair practice by tracking consumers. The FTC also alleged that
Vizio deceived consumers by failing to adequately explain its data
practices. The company agreed to settle the charges by paying $2.2
million to the FTC and the state of New Jersey, which filed a
complaint about the company. [GN]


WINN-DIXIE MONTGOMERY: Managers Class Certified in "Chaves" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jay C. Zainey grants the motion to proceed as a
collective action, for court-authorized notice, and for court-
ordered disclosure of names and addresses filed in the lawsuit
titled KATHY CHAVES v. WINN-DIXIE MONTGOMERY, LLC, Case No. 2:16-
cv-01933-JCZ-DEK (E.D. La.).

The class of potential opt-in plaintiffs entitled to notice is
defined as:

     all individuals who worked or are working for defendant,
     Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC, in its retail supermarket
     operations as mid-level managers from March 7, 2013, until
     the date of the resolution of the present action, and who
     are or were eligible for overtime pursuant to the FLSA.

Judge Zainey orders that the proposed revised "FLSA Notice"
attached as an exhibit to the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification will be amended to reflect the correct Defendant
"Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC."

Judge Zainey also rules that no later than 30 days after the date
of this Order, the Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff's Counsel
a complete list of the names, current addresses, dates of
employment, and dates of termination of all workers employed by
the Defendants from March 7, 2013 to the present who fall within
the class definition.

The time period within which potential opt-in plaintiffs may opt-
in is 90 days, Judge Zainey rules.  The 90-day opt-in period
will begin to run on the date that the Defendant provides a
complete list of the names, addresses, and dates of employment and
termination of potential class members.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qcP5yIvD


WOLF APPLIANCE: "Garfinkle" Seeks Warranty on Oven Chipping
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barry Garfinkle, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wolf Appliance, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03753 (E.D. N.Y., June 21, 2017), seeks an award
of statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, to enjoin
Defendant from marketing and selling the concerned defective ovens
while corrective measures are undertaken, disgorgement of
illegally obtained profits, restitution, reasonable costs and
expenses including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and
further relief for breach of express and implied warranties,
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, negligent
misrepresentation and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Wolf manufactures and markets household cooking appliances under
the Wolf brand name, including ovens, electric cooktops, outdoor
grills, warming drawers, electric chimneys, steamers, fryers and
accessories.

In May 2012, Plaintiff first purchased a Wolf 30-inch E Series
double oven, model number DO30-2FS-TH, from Kieffer's Appliances
in Lansdale, Pennsylvania. Within a little over a year of
operating the oven under normal household conditions, the blue
porcelain interior finish of one of the oven cavities began to
chip after utilizing the self-clean function and shortly chipping
occurred in the other oven cavity.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mark S. Reich, Esq.
      Vincent M. Serra, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             mreich@rgrdlaw.com
             vserra@rgrdlaw.com


WTRMLN WTR: Faces Class Action Suit Over False Representation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Cabellero, writing for Bevnet Live, reports that cold-
pressed juice company WTRMLN WTR is facing a proposed class action
lawsuit alleging that the brand is deceiving consumers by
overstating the amount of watermelon juice in its core product and
claiming that its products are not pasteurized or heated.

In a complaint filed against parent company World Waters LLC and
World Waters Holdings, LLC, in U.S. District Court in the Eastern
District of New York on July 8, attorneys for lead plaintiff
Michael Pizzirusso argue that WTRMLN WTR's product labels, in
describing the liquid with the words "cold pressed juiced
watermelon," falsely represent that it consists of only watermelon
juice.  The proposed suit alleges violations of New York consumer
protection laws, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud.

WTRMLN WTR's flagship product is a high pressure processed blend
of watermelon juice and organic lemon juice. The brand currently
has five SKUs: original, Cherry, Ginger, Lemon and Lime.

By separately listing "watermelon flesh" and "watermelon rind" as
ingredients, rather than using just "watermelon" or "watermelon
juice," the complaint posits that the company aims to deceptively
"crowd out" the non-watermelon ingredients and "evoke a stronger
connection to the fruit than other watermelon-based products."

The complaint also cites issues related to WTRMLN WTR's use of the
terms "cold pressed" and "cold pressured" to describe some of its
products. WTRMLN WTR's original and Cherry varieties, for example,
are referred to as "cold pressed," while the Ginger, Lime and
Lemon flavors are "cold pressured." The two terms, attorneys say,
are confusingly similar in appearance, sound, and the manner in
which they are presented on packaging, and as such the two
processes could be reasonably interpreted as being indistinct from
each other.

By not explicitly stating that the product has been high pressure
processed, as on similar juice products cited in examples, the
complaint asserts that WTRMLN WTR implies that the juice is just
cold-pressed and undergoes no further treatment.

The complaint argues that "Because cold pressed juice is the name
established by common usage for juice sold after only being cold
pressed, "Cold Pressed Juice[d]" and "Cold Pressure Juice[d]" are
false, deceptive and misleading names and descriptions for the
Products."

Finally, the plaintiff's attorneys affirm that WTRMLN WTR misleads
its customers by stating on its website that its products are not
pasteurized or heated, when in fact the contents of the bottles
increase in temperature during high pressure processing.

In response to the query "Is WTRMLN WTR pasteurized?" in the
"Frequently Asked Questions" section of its website, the response
reads: "No. WTRMLN WTR is never heated. It is produced using a
High Pressure Process (HPP) that protects the enzymes and
nutrients, but eliminates the micro-organisms."

The complaint noted that the definition of pasteurization has
evolved over time to include both thermal and nonthermal processes
by which food safety is achieved, but that reasonable consumers,
including the plaintiff, are not aware that pasteurization can be
achieved without heat.

The document reads, "Defendants' failure to accurately and non-
deceptively label the Products is misleading in its own right and
when considered in light of comparably manufactured products which
are not labeled deceptively."

The plaintiff is seeking class certification, injunctive relief,
damages, attorney's fees and further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper. The class is defined as all consumers who
purchased any WTRMLN WTR products at any time during the period
within the applicable statute of limitations.

Representatives for WTRMLN WTR did not respond to a request for
comment on this story. [GN]


ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces the filing of
a class action lawsuit against Zebra Technologies Corporation
("Zebra Technologies" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: ZBRA) concerning
possible violations of federal securities laws between March 17,
2015 and May 9, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period
should contact the firm prior to the September 25, 2017 lead
plaintiff motion deadline.

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

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

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Zebra
Technologies issued materially false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: that it understated its income taxes
through the end of 2015, under accrued certain 2015 estimates, in
particular with respect to its sales commission plan, and
overstated the net realizable value of trade receivables acquired
in connection with its acquisition of Motorola's Enterprise
division. Zebra Technologies also failed to disclose the impact of
material weaknesses identified in its internal controls and
procedures over financial reporting and disclosure, which caused
the misstatements and rendered the Company's financial guidance
for 2015 and the first and second quarters of 2016 materially
false and misleading.

On May 10, 2016, Zebra Technologies announced disappointing
financial results for its first quarter of 2016, stating that
"first quarter results [were] below . . . expectations, with lower
sales and earnings reflecting the continuation of a cautious
enterprise spending environment." On the same day, the Company
filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the first quarter of 2016, which confirmed
that Zebra Technologies found defects in its internal controls in
2015 that had impaired its ability to accurately forecast its
pretax income and deferred taxes. Upon release of this news,
shares of Zebra Technologies fell in value materially, which
caused investors harm according to the Complaint.

Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, Esquire, a securities
litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding
shareholders' rights.

Contacts
Lundin Law PC
Brian Lundin, Esq.
Telephone: 888-713-1033
Facsimile: 888-713-1125
brian@lundinlawpc.com
http://lundinlawpc.com/[GN]


* Chancellor Urges Del. High Ct. to Change Derivative Suits Test
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, wrote that Corporate
defendants are not going to like this. Not one bit.

Chancellor Andre Bouchard of Delaware Chancery Court is proposing
a change in Delaware law that will allow shareholders to maintain
derivative suits against corporate board members even if a
previous suit raising the same allegations has been dismissed in a
different jurisdiction. If the Delaware Supreme Court adopts
Chancellor Bouchard's proposal -- which he advanced in a highly
unusual decision in long-running derivative litigation against
Wal-Mart board members - defendants won't be able to stamp out
multi-jurisdictional breach of duty litigation just by winning in
one court.

Before plaintiffs' lawyers get too excited about the prospect of
filing serial derivative suits to force settlements from
litigation-weary board members, they'd better be prepared for a
fight over Chancellor Bouchard's proposal. Defendants are going to
lobby the Delaware Supreme Court to stick with precedent holding
that Delaware derivative suits are precluded when other courts
have already tossed parallel claims by different shareholders. If
the state justices side with Chancellor Bouchard, you can expect
defendants to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that
Delaware is at odds with two federal circuits on a matter of
constitutional law.

The writer stated, "You're probably wondering why I keep referring
to Chancellor Bouchard's opinion as a "proposal." It's because his
Wal-Mart decision, issued on July 24, is actually styled as a
recommendation that the Delaware Supreme Court adopt a new rule
that, according to the chancellor, will both protect the
constitutional due process rights of shareholders with derivative
claims and advance Delaware's policy of discouraging plaintiffs
from racing to the courthouse with underdeveloped claims.

"The chancellor made his recommendation in response to a remand
order from the Delaware Supreme Court last January in the Wal-Mart
case, which alleges that board members breached their duty to
shareholders in their response to allegations of bribery by
corporate executives in Mexico. As you may recall, Bouchard had
dismissed the Delaware derivative suit in May 2016, holding that
under Delaware Supreme Court precedent from 2013's Pyott v.
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, the case
was precluded by the previous dismissal of parallel claims by
shareholders who sued Wal-Mart directors in federal court in
Arkansas.

"In the January remand order, the state justices instructed
Chancellor Bouchard to reconsider the constitutional due process
rights of the Delaware Wal-Mart plaintiffs in light of the U.S.
Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in Smith v. Bayer, which held that
plaintiffs in a consumer class action were not precluded from
attempting to certify a class in state court after a federal judge
had already denied class certification in a case brought by a
different plaintiff.

Specifically, the Delaware justices posed this question to
Bouchard: "In a situation where dismissal by the federal court in
Arkansas of a stockholder plaintiff's derivative action for
failure to plead demand futility is held by the Delaware Court of
Chancery to preclude subsequent stockholders from pursuing
derivative litigation, have the subsequent stockholders' due
process rights been violated?"

That question was prompted by a theory advanced by Vice-Chancellor
Travis Laster in dicta in In re EZCorp, a January 2016 decision.
Laster hypothesized that shareholders with derivative claims are
like the class action plaintiffs in the Supreme Court's Smith
case: They're not bound by previous rulings unless they were
parties to those rulings. In the class action context, Laster
said, the bright line for preclusion is class certification,
because certification makes all class members parties to the case.
Derivative litigation, of course, isn't a class action. But it is
representative litigation, since shareholder plaintiffs seek the
right to stand in the shoes of the corporation to bring claims
against board members. So the analog in derivative litigation to
class certification, according to Vice-Chancellor Laster, is when
a shareholder obtains authorization to proceed on behalf of the
corporation. That permission can come from a court denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss the suit or from the board itself
when directors either authorize the litigation or decline to
defend it.

Chancellor Bouchard viewed his assignment in the Wal-Mart remand
as an instruction to decide whether the Delaware Supreme Court
should adopt Laster's EZCorp test. The chancellor said it should,
based on the similarities between class actions and derivative
suits, the "realities of derivative litigation," and Delaware
policy priorities.

The chancellor acknowledged that no other court has found
shareholders have a due process right to relitigate derivative
claims when parallel claims by a different shareholder have
already been dismissed. In fact, the chancellor discussed
decisions by the 1st and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals that
held precisely the opposite. (The 9th Circuit's decision is
Arduini v. Hart, in 2014; the 1st Circuit's is 2007's In re
Sonus.) Bouchard also examined the U.S. Supreme Court's 2008
opinion in Taylor v. Sturgell, which addressed preclusion and the
due process rights of non-party plaintiffs.

All of those decisions, Bouchard said, focused their due process
analysis on whether plaintiffs in the second litigation were
adequately represented in the case that resulted in the preclusive
judgment. But he said that in derivative litigation, unlike class
actions, courts don't rigorously probe the adequacy of
representation until it may be too late.

"As a practical matter, the first time a court may evaluate the
adequacy of a named plaintiff's representation in a derivative
action is when it applies the issue preclusion test in a
subsequent case," wrote Bouchard (who, remember, was a practicing
lawyer until he was named chancellor in 2014). "What is lost in
this back-end form of adequacy review is the ability for courts to
compare the qualities of competing representatives and to choose
the best representative for the corporation and stockholders up-
front, on a clean slate."

Wal-Mart's lawyers at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher had argued that
derivative suits and class actions are so substantially different
that it's wrong to attempt to apply the Smith v. Bayer class
certification test. Chancellor Bouchard said that he sees
"significant similarities between class and derivative actions."

He also cited a 2008 opinion by Delaware Chief Justice Leo Strine,
then a vice-chancellor, in which Strine said that derivative
actions "should be seen for what they are, a form of class
action." (Strine, for what it's worth, is recused from the
Delaware Supreme Court's consideration of the Wal-Mart case
because he presided over the Chancery Court proceedings until he
was elevated to the high court.)

Wal-Mart also argued that the EZCorp test would subject defendants
to an endless series of derivative claims by different
shareholders. Under the EZCorp analysis, Wal-Mart said, new
plaintiffs could keep filing derivative suits even if defendants
won dismissal after dismissal. Bouchard agreed that judicial
efficiency and resources are a policy consideration. But he said
the principles of comity and stare decisis would still ward off
repeat derivative litigation.

"The experience of this court suggests that when one stockholder
fails to establish demand futility, rarely does another
stockholder file a substantially similar complaint simply to try
again," the chancellor wrote. "What can and does happen is that a
second stockholder plaintiff will file a more refined complaint
with more particularized allegations or more tailored legal
theories after doing additional homework, such as obtaining
corporate books and records through a Section 220 proceeding. In
these cases, the second court presumably would be understandably
cautious about following earlier rulings in cases brought by less
prepared stockholders."

In the end, Chancellor Bouchard didn't really answer the question
of whether the due process rights of the Wal-Mart shareholders who
sued in Delaware were violated by his original decision to dismiss
their suit as precluded. He said the Delaware Supreme Court must
first decide whether to accept his recommendation and adopt the
EZCorp test. If the state justices agree with him, Bouchard said,
the high court must remand the Wal-Mart case again so he can
decide dismissal on the merits.

So what's next? Wal-Mart said in a statement that it is looking
forward to the next round of proceedings. It seems as though that
means briefing at the Delaware Supreme Court, where I expect a lot
of amicus action. This is a big deal for both sides of the
shareholder bar.

The Delaware Wal-Mart plaintiffs are represented by Stuart Grant
of Grant & Eisenhofer. He didn't respond to my email request for
comment. [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  * * *