CAR_Public/170810.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Thursday, August 10, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 157



                            Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Sept. 21 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Kao"
ALON USA: Page and Phelps Suits over Delek Merger Dismissed
ANGELS OF THE WORLD: "Tracey" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ARCONIC INC: Shareholders Sue over Fatal London Fire
ARCONIC INC: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Registration Reports

ASHFORD INC: Delaware Court Closes Suit over Remington Purchase
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Stay on TCPA Breach Class Suit Still in Effect
AZUMA LEASING: All-South Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads
BAKER HUGHES: Supplements Disclosure on General Electric Merger
BALTIMORE, MD: Police Sued over Arrests at Arts Festival

BARNES & NOBLE: Still Defends "Hartpence" Suit in Pennsylvania
BARNES & NOBLE: "Brown" Suit over Managers Pay Still Pending
BLUEMERCURY INC: Aug. 11 Deadline to File SAC in "Espinosa"
CABELA'S INC: Files Supplementary Disclosures on Merger Accord
CAPITAL BANK: "Bushansky" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal

CAREFIRST INC: Court Flips Dismissal of "Attias" Data Breach Suit
CENTURYLINK INC: "Carrillo" Sues Over Unjust Service Charges
CHECK-6 INC: Can't Compel Arbitration in "Goodly" Labor Suit
COLE HAAN: "Park" Sues Over Farce Discounting Scheme
COMMAND SECURITY: Final Payment in "Leal" Settlement Due Dec. 31

CONAGRA BRANDS: Awaits Supreme Court's Review on Class Status
CONAGRA BRANDS: Consolidated "Negrete" Class Suit Still Pending
CREATIVE ENERGY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ma" Suit Says
CROWN ASSET: Cal. App. Affirms Arbitration Ruling in "Yenko" Suit
CUSTOM DRYWALL: "Caceres" Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

DIAL CORP: 1st Cir. Denies Leave to Appeal Class Certification
DINER 24: "Isom" Hits Sub-Minimum Wage Rates, Seeks OT Pay
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: $300K "Sullivan" Class Deal Has Final Approval
DOLLAR TREE: "Nakooka" Suit Seeks Expense Reimbursement
DR. PEPPER: Ginger Ale Does Not Contain "Real Ginger," Suit Says

DR. REDDY'S: "Sergeants" Suit over Namenda Still Stayed
DR. REDDY'S: Still Defends Class Suits on Pricing Matters
DRYSHIPS INC: "Hodges" Suit Asserts Stock Manipulation
ECO SCIENCE: Lu Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
ENERNOC INC: Berg Sues Over Sale to Enel Green

EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Workers Directed to File Sur-reply
FACEBOOK INC: Amended Complaint in False Data Suit Due Aug. 14
FELCOR LODGING: "Bagheri" Seeks to Block Sale to RLJ Lodging
FIAT CHRYSLER: Investors Can Amend Emissions-related Claims
FIRST AMERICAN: Court Decertifies Class in "Lewis" Suit

FORD MOTOR: Faces "Leverett" Suit in Oklahoma
FOXSCO INC: "McShane" Suit in NY Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
GAINESVILLE HOSPITAL: Aug. 21 Hearing in Bond Validation Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses "Sloan" Suit with Leave to Amend
GENERAL MOTORS: "Ellis" Class Settlement Has Prelim. Approval

GOLDEN WEST: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages
GRACE AND MERCY: Sued in Miss. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
GREENSPOON MARDER: "Lapan" Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
HAJOCA CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
HANAMI WESTWOOD: Delivery Drivers Declassified in "Yin" FLSA Suit

HEALTHTECH RESOURCES: "Caballero" Suit Transferred to D. Ariz.
HOF'S HUT RESTAURANTS: Mackinnon Sues Over Illegal SMS
HOLISTIC RECOVERY: "Jones" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in "King"
HONDA MOTOR: Still Defends Airbag Inflators Suits in US, Canada

HYATT CORP: Matthews Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
ILLINOIS: Case Management Order Issued in Centralia Inmates' Suit
J.B. HUNT: 9th Cir. Vacates FAAAA Pre-emption Ruling
JAN-PRO FRANCHISHING: Unit Franchisees Directed to Pay $300
JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Ct. Refuses to Review "Carlisle" Dismissal

KBR INC: Maryland Court Dismisses Burn Pit Suits
KELLOGG COMPANY: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
KLEINER PERKINS: Fisker Automotive Investors' Suit Dismissed
KROENKE ARENA: Bid for Protective Order in "Kurlander" Denied
LOVE'S TRAVEL: "Given" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

LTD FINANCIAL: Court Denies Bid for Summary Judgment in "Baez"
MADISON AVE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Says "Kiler" Suit
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Former Employees Can't File SAC
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Employee's Bid for Certification Denied
MAZDA MOTOR: Court Dismisses "Gonzalez" Suit with Leave to Amend

MDL 2724: Taro Pharma Still Defends Generic Drug Antitrust Suits
MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces "Arakelian" Suit Over Defective HVAC System
METRO ONE: "Laing" Suit in NY Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: 6th Cir. Affirms Rulings in "Kline" Suit
NATURAL CROP: "Castaneda" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay

NEW YORK LIFE: Appeals Court Tossed Employer Class-Action Waiver
NIANTIC: Still Defends Property Owners' Suit over Pokemon Game
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Has $49M Deal to Settle Securities Lawsuit
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: Sued for Using Ex-Players' Images
PACIFIC GATEWAY: Cy Pres Recipient of "Hochstetler" Deal Replaced

PATHEON NV: Files Add'l Info to Address Securities Class Actions
PAYPAL INC: "Bond" Disputes Credit Collection Calls
PIONEER CREDIT: Faces "Morgades" Suit Over Inaccurate Reports
QUALCOMM INC: Seeks Dismissal of 3226701 Canada's Revised Suit
QUALCOMM INC: Response to Consolidated Class Suit Due Sept 1

QUALCOMM INC: Plaintiffs File Joint Complaint in Consumer Suit
RICE ENERGY: "Williford" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ROLLING GREEN: "Herrera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
SAZON INC: "Pichardo" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
SEECO INC: 8th Cir. Remands "Smith" Class Suit

SENIOR HOME: Court Approves Settlement in "Balko" FCA Suit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces "Huntsman" Suit in Calif.
SUNRISE SENIOR: Settlement in "Shiferaw" Gets Final Approval
SUNRUN INC: Callfire Must Comply with Subpoena, Says Slovin
SUSHI AJI: "Li" Seeks to Recover Withheld Tips, Overtime Pay

SUSHI MARU: "Dae" Labor Suit Transferred to D.N.J.
TARGET CORPORATION: Aug. 31 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Greenberg"
TARO PHARMA: "Speakes" Putative Shareholder Class Action Pending
TERRAFORM POWER: $14.8-Mil "Chamblee" Suit Settlement Underway
TEX-TRUDE LP: Degarmo Sues Over Illegal Time-Shaving Practices

TEXAS SUGARS: "Nelson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
THRESHOLD PHARMA: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses "Pariso" Suit
TIM RYALS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Dayberry"
TIME WARNER: Summary Judgment Bid in "Mejia" Partly Granted
TJX COMPANIES: Faces "Adam" Class Suit over Linen Thread-Count

TRIBUNE MEDIA: Investors Sue to Block $3.9B Sinclair Merger
TRIBUNE MEDIA: "McEntire" Says Registration Statement Lacks Info
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Disabled-Inaccessible Vehicles
UNITED STATES: DOJ Wants Injunction Reversed in Immigrant Case
UNITED STATES: Interlocutory Review in Suit vs. USMS Denied

VISA INC: Still Faces Interchange MDL Class Actions in the U.S.
VISA INC: Suit on EMV Chip Liability Shift Now in E.D. New York
VISION PRECISION: "Martinez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
WHOLE FOODS: "Riegel" Hits Shady Merger Deal, Seeks Halt on Vote
WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Suits Over Amazon Merger





                            *********


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Sept. 21 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Kao"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of California,
San Francisco Division, issued an Order approving Parties'
Stipulation Modifying Briefing Schedule and Extending Hearing Date
on Defendant' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned CRYSTAL KAO,
individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated; and NINA BARWICK, individually and on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT
LABORATORIES INC., an Illinois corporation d/b/a Abbott Nutrition,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-CV-02790-JST (N.D. Cal.), and Joint
Request to Change Date for Case Management Conference.

Plaintiffs' deadline to file and serve an opposition to the Motion
is August 10, 2017, and Defendant's deadline to file and serve a
reply in support of the Motion is August 22, 2017.

The hearing date for the Motion, which is currently scheduled on
September 12, 2017, is continued to September 21, 2017. The
Initial Case Management Conference, which is currently scheduled
on August 23, 2017, is continued to September 21, 2017 at 2 p.m.

The parties are directed to file a Joint Case Management Statement
by September 14, 2017.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 31, 2017 Order is
available http://tinyurl.com/ya4v6wuefrom Leagle.com.

Crystal Kao, Plaintiff, represented by James Gerard Stranch --
gerards@bsjfirm.com -- IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, PLLC.
Crystal Kao, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan David Weissglass,
- jweissglass@altshulerberzon.com --  Altshuler Berzon LLP,
Benjamin Gastel -beng@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter Stranch &
Jennings, PLLC, pro hac vice, James Gerard Stranch, IV,
Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, pro hac vice & Michael
Isaac Miller -- isaacm@bsifirm.com -- Branstetter, Stranch &
Jennings, PLLC.

Nina Barwick, Plaintiff, represented by James Gerard Stranch, IV,
Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, Jonathan David Weissglass,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Benjamin Gastel, Branstetter Stranch &
Jennings, PLLC, pro hac vice, James Gerard Stranch, IV,
Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, pro hac vice & Michael
Isaac Miller, Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC.

Abbott Laboratories Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L.
Deeley -- elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Gregg LoCascio -- gregg.locascio@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, pro hac vice & Jonathan Patrick Jones --
jonathan.jones@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice.


ALON USA: Page and Phelps Suits over Delek Merger Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard G. Andrews on June 30, 2017, entered an order
granting a stipulation of dismissal of the case, Page v. Alon USA
Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00671 (D. Del.).

Judge Aleta A Trauger on June 29 entered an Order dismissing the
case, Phelps v. Delek US Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-
00910 (M.D. Tenn.).   The Court granted a Stipulation and Order
concerning Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the case.

In June 2017, Alon USA Energy, Inc. filed supplementary
disclosures with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to
the Definitive Proxy Statement in connection to its merger with
Delek US Holdings, Inc., among other entities, in an effort to
avoid the risks that could be brought about by certain merger-
related putative class action lawsuits filed against the Company.
The disclosures are found in the Company's Form 8-K filed on June
19, 2017, with the SEC, a full-text copy of which can be accessed
at https://is.gd/fD5pdE

On January 2, 2017, Alon USA Energy, Inc. ("Alon"), Delek US
Holdings, Inc. ("Delek"), Delek Holdco, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Delek ("HoldCo"), Dione Mergeco, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of HoldCo ("Dione Mergeco") and Astro Mergeco,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of HoldCo ("Astro Mergeco"),
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), as amended by the First Amendment to the Merger
agreement, dated as of February 27, 2017, and the Second Amendment
to the Merger Agreement, dated as of April 21, 2017.  On May 30,
2017, Alon and Delek filed a definitive joint proxy statement (the
"Proxy Statement") with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the solicitation of proxies in connection with special meetings of
Alon's and Delek's stockholders to be held on June 28, 2017 and
June 29, 2017, respectively, to vote upon, among other things,
matters necessary to complete the mergers of HoldCo with and into
Delek, with Delek surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of HoldCo
and Astro Mergeco with and into Alon, with Alon surviving (the
"Mergers").

The merger-related putative class action suits are:

   * Stephen Page v. Alon USA Energy Inc., et al., Case No.
     1:17-cv-00671-RGA (D. Del.) filed on June 2, 2017;

   * David Phelps v. Delek US Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
      3:17-cv-00910 (M.D. Tenn.) filed on June 2, 2017;

   * Joseph Adler v. Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al., Case No.
     1:17-cv-00742-UNA (D. Del.) filed on June 13, 2017; and

   * Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Alon USA Energy, Inc.,
     et al., Case No. 2017-0453 filed on June 15, 2017.

The Company stated, "Alon and the Alon Individual Defendants
believe that the Page Plaintiff's, Phelps Plaintiff's, Adler
Plaintiff's, and Arkansas Plaintiff's claims are without merit.
Alon cannot predict the outcome of or estimate the possible loss
or range of loss from these matters.  It is possible that
additional, similar complaints may be filed or the complaints
described above are amended.  If this occurs, Alon does not intend
to announce the filing of each additional, similar complaint or
any amended complaint unless it contains materially new or
different allegations.

"In order to moot plaintiffs' unmeritorious disclosure claims,
alleviate the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation and provide additional information to its stockholders,
Alon has determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement
as described in this Current Report on Form 8-K.  Nothing in this
Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
disclosures set forth herein.  To the contrary, Alon specifically
denies all allegations in the foregoing complaints, including
without limitation, that any additional disclosure was or is
required."

As of June 30, 2017, the merger was closed and took effect as of
July 1, 2017.

Alon USA Energy, Inc. refines and markets petroleum products
primarily in the South Central, Southwestern, and Western regions
of the United States.  It operates through three segments:
Refining and Marketing, Asphalt, and Retail.  The Company was
founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


ANGELS OF THE WORLD: "Tracey" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Tracey, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Angels of the World, Inc. d/b/a Club Angels; George
Stoupas; and any other related entities, Case No. 607132/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 19, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, illegally retained tips, and improperly withheld wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate adult entertainment establishments in New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laura R. Rizneck, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550
      Facsimile: (516) 747-5024


ARCONIC INC: Shareholders Sue over Fatal London Fire
----------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that citing news articles that attributed the rapid spread of the
fatal London apartment fire to highly flammable aluminum siding,
an investor who owns shares of the manufacturer Arconic brought a
federal class action on July 13, in New York.

The fire that broke out at the 24-story Grenfell Tower apartment
in West London on June 14, 2017, burned for at least 60 hours,
killing 80 and injured at least 70 others.  Ten days later, as
quoted in the complaint, both The New York Times and Reuters
published articles that blamed the rapid spread of the fire on
Reynobond PE cladding panels produced by the American
manufacturing giant Alcoa, which was renamed Arconic last year
after a reorganization.

The Times said Arconic waited more than a week after the fire to
confirm that its polyethylene panels had been used on the
Grenfell's facade.

Reuters meanwhile reported, as described in the complaint, "that
Arconic sales managers were aware that flammable panels would be
distributed for use at Grenfell Tower."

Arconic shareholder Michael Brave is the lead plaintiff behind
Thursday's complaint. He notes that shares in the company fell
14.49 percent on June 27, the day after Arconic announced that it
would discontinue global sales of Reynobond PE for use in high-
rise buildings.

Though Arconic declined to comment on Brave's claims, its June 26
statement shifts blame from its product to lax regulations. "We
sell our products with the expectation that they are used in a
system that complies with local building codes and regulations,"
the company said at the time.

Accusing the company of making false and misleading statements
before the fire about its materials, Brave quotes the Reuters
article as saying that "diagrams in a 2016 Arconic brochure for
its Reynobond panels describe how PE core panels are suitable up
to 10 meters in height."

"Panels with a fire resistant core -- the FR model -- can be used
up to 30 meters, while above that height, panels with the non-
combustible core -- the A2 model -- should be used, the brochure
says," the article continued. "Grenfell Tower is more than 60
meters tall."

Brave blames Arconic's "wrongful acts and omissions" for the
decline in company shares.

The class period the lawsuit is seeking to cover begins on Feb.
28, 2017, when Arconic filed an annual report on Form 10-K with
the Securities and Exchange Commission. Brave is represented by
Pomerantz attorney Jeremy Lieberman.

Representatives of Arconic did not immediately respond to email
and phone inquires seeking comment on the lawsuit.

Though Arconic shares closed at $21.84 on June 27, 2017, the day
of the 14.49 percent drop, they closed at $24.45 on July 13.

The case is captioned MICHAEL BRAVE, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ARCONIC INC., KENNETH
J. GIACOBBE and KLAUS KLEINFELD, Defendants. Case 1:17-cv-05312
(S.D.N.Y, July 13, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

     - and -

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


ARCONIC INC: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Registration Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janet L. Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Arconic Inc., Klaus Kleinfeld, Robert S.
Collins, William F. Oplinger, Arthur D. Collins, Jr., Kathryn S.
Fuller, Judith M. Gueron, Michael G. Morris, E. Stanley O'Neal,
James W. Owens, Patricia F. Russo, Sir Martin Sorrell, Ratan N.
Tata, Ernesto Zedillo, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman,
Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, BNP Paribas Securities
Corp., Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA), Inc., RBC Capital Markets,
LLC and RBS Securities Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-05456 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 18, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with Arconic's September 18, 2014 initial public stock
offering.

Specifically, says the complaint, the statements were inaccurate
statements of material fact because they failed to disclose these
material facts which existed at the time of the Preferred IPO: (a)
that Arconic was knowingly selling Reynobond PE for use in
construction projects where the product was to be used in a manner
that the Company knew was unsafe and presented a fire hazard; (b)
that Arconic's marketing and sales of highly-flammable Reynobond
PE sales for use in high-rise tower projects across the U.K. and
other countries directly conflicted with the purported strong
culture of safety, ethics and legal compliance that the Company
claimed to have and exposed Arconic to hundreds of millions of
dollars in potential civil and criminal liability and reputational
harm; (c) that Arconic's strong assurances of effective global
safety and integrity practices concealed from investors the
immense risk Arconic had assumed through its sales and marketing
practices; and (d) as a result, Defendants' statements about
Arconic's business, operations and financial prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
      16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 490-9550
      Facsimile: (212) 986-0158
      E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com


ASHFORD INC: Delaware Court Closes Suit over Remington Purchase
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery entered a stipulation and order on
July 17, 2017, closing a class action lawsuit related to Ashford
Inc.'s acquisition agreement with Remington Holdings L.P.,
according to Ashford's Form 8-K filed on July 20 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 11, 2015, a purported stockholder class action and
derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware and styled Campbell v. Bennett et al., Case No.
11796, which complaint challenged the acquisition by Ashford Inc.
(the "Company") of all of the general partner interest and 80% of
the limited partner interests in Remington Holdings L.P. (the
"Remington Acquisition").

On March 24, 2017, the Remington Acquisition was terminated and
therefore this action is moot.

On April 13, 2017, the Court of Chancery entered an order
dismissing the action with prejudice as to the named plaintiff,
and without prejudice as to all other members of the class.
Pursuant to the order, the Court of Chancery retained jurisdiction
solely for the purpose of determining the plaintiff's anticipated
application for an award of mootness fees and reimbursement of
expenses.

After negotiations, and to eliminate any risk associated with the
plaintiff's fee petition, the Company agreed to pay fees and
expenses in the amount of US$150,000 within five days of the entry
of an order closing the case.  The Court of Chancery has not and
will not pass any judgment on the fee payment.

On July 17, 2017, the Court of Chancery entered a stipulation and
order closing the case.

Ashford Inc. is a Delaware corporation formed on April 2, 2014,
subsequently reincorporated in Maryland, that provides asset
management and advisory services to Ashford Hospitality Trust,
Inc. ("Ashford Trust") and Ashford Hospitality Prime, Inc.
("Ashford Prime").


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Stay on TCPA Breach Class Suit Still in Effect
----------------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on July 20,
2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a stay is in effect for
the class action complaint regarding alleged Telephone Consumer
Protection Act violations currently pending in Missouri.

On May 21, 2015, a class action petition was filed by St. Louis
Heart Center, Inc. in the State Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri, against athenahealth.  The petition alleges the Company
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Following service, the Company removed the case to federal court
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Case No. 4:15-cv-01215.  After filing its answer in the
case on March 8, 2016, the Company moved for and obtained a stay
of the action pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC, No. 14-
1234, regarding the validity of a regulation promulgated by the
Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, relating to the claims
asserted in the petition.

On March 31, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
issued its decision, invalidating the FCC regulation in question.

On April 7, 2017, the Company filed a motion notifying the federal
court of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's decision
in Bais Yaakov and requesting a status or case management
conference.

On April 25, 2017, the court lifted the stay and issued a case
management order that, among other things, set a conference for
May 23, 2017.

On joint motion of the parties, the federal court on May 9, 2017
reinstated the stay, which remains in effect, pending any further
appellate review of the D.C. Circuit's decision in Bais Yaakov.

athenahealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
network-based medical record, revenue cycle, patient engagement,
care coordination, and population health services for medical
groups and health systems.  It was formerly known as
athenahealth.com, Inc. and changed its name to athenahealth, Inc.
in November 2000.  The company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Watertown, Massachusetts.


AZUMA LEASING: All-South Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads
--------------------------------------------------------
All-South Subcontractors, Inc. on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Azuma Leasing, C.T., L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01215 (N.D. Ala., July 20, 2017),
seeks statutory damages in the amount of $500 per violation,
trebled statutory damages in the amount of $1500 per violation,
actual damages, injunction prohibiting Azuma from further
transmission of unsolicited fax advertisements, and such other
relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

All-South Subcontractors, Inc. received 10 unsolicited facsimile
advertisements from Azuma within the span of three months, says
the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Oscar M. Price, IV, Esq.
      Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq.
      PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC
      2421 2nd Avenue North, Suite 1
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Phone: (205) 208-9588
      Fax: (205) 208-9598
      Email: nick@pricearmstrong.com
             oscar@pricearmstrong.com


BAKER HUGHES: Supplements Disclosure on General Electric Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated has voluntarily amended and supplemented
its definitive proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection to its merger with General
Electric Company, among other entities.  The disclosures are found
in the Company's Form 8-K filed on June 22, 2017, with the SEC, a
full-text copy of which can be accessed at https://is.gd/tIplST

On October 30, 2016, Baker Hughes Incorporated ("Baker Hughes")
entered into a Transaction Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of October 30, 2016, among General Electric Company ("GE"), Baker
Hughes, Bear Newco, Inc. ("New Baker Hughes") and Bear MergerSub,
Inc., which was subsequently amended by the Amendment to
Transaction Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of March 27,
2017, among GE, Baker Hughes, New Baker Hughes, Bear MergerSub,
Inc., BHI Newco, Inc. and Bear MergerSub 2, Inc. (as amended, the
"Transaction Agreement").  The Transaction Agreement provides for,
among other things, the combination of Baker Hughes with the oil
and gas business of GE.

On May 10, 2017, a putative class action complaint challenging the
transactions contemplated by the Transaction Agreement (the
"Transactions") was filed on behalf of purported Baker Hughes
stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas (the "Transaction Litigation").  The complaint is
captioned Booth Family Trust v. Baker Hughes Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 4:17-cv-01457 (S.D. Tex. 2017).  The Transaction
Litigation relates to the Transaction Agreement and the definitive
proxy statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed by Baker Hughes with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC")
on May 30, 2017 in connection with the Transactions.

The Company said, "In connection with the settlement of the
Transaction Litigation, Baker Hughes hereby voluntarily amends and
supplements the Proxy Statement as described in this Current
Report on Form 8-K.  Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K
shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality
under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein."

Baker Hughes is a supplier of oilfield services, products,
technology and systems used in the worldwide oil and natural gas
industry.


BALTIMORE, MD: Police Sued over Arrests at Arts Festival
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel W. Staples, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that protesters arrested after blocking traffic on a highway that
runs through downtown Baltimore last year during an arts festival
filed a class-action lawsuit claiming they were detained on bogus
charges and subjected to atrocious conditions.

Sixty-five protesters were arrested in Baltimore on July 16, 2016
at the "Afromation" protest, which was intended to call attention
to the mistreatment of black residents by police, according to a
lawsuit filed on July 14, in Baltimore City Circuit Court by
activist group Baltimore Bloc.

Several other named plaintiffs are members of Baltimore Bloc,
which is "a grassroots collective of friends, families and
neighborhoods united in their effort to rebuild communities and
organize for justice," the complaint states.

The group helped organize the protest amidst the trials of six
Baltimore police officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray, a
25-year-old black man who died in 2015 after sustaining a spinal
injury while being transported in a police van.

All the officers were ultimately cleared of the charges against
them.

Officer William Porter's case ended in a mistrial after the jury
deadlocked. Officer Edward Nero was acquitted of misdemeanor
charges by Judge Barry Williams following a bench trial.

Lt. Brian Rice and Caesar Goodson were also acquitted last year.
Officer Garrett Miller's charges were dropped last July, ending
the case without a single conviction. Sgt. Alicia White was
awaiting trial when the prosecution abandoned its efforts.

Shortly after violent riots swept through the city following
Gray's death, the U.S. Department of Justice released a scathing
report on its investigation of systematic discrimination and
constitutional rights violations in the Baltimore Police
Department. Alleged abuses included widespread discrimination
against poor black residents, a lack of response to reports of
sexual assaults, use of excessive force and retaliation against
those participating in constitutionally protected activities.

Baltimore Bloc members claim their Afromation protest held last
year ended in mass arrests and detentions in harsh conditions.

The group alleges they were "kettled" at an onramp for Interstate
83 that was closed for the festival. Kettling is a police tactic
that involves the formation of large cordons of officers who then
move to contain a crowd within a limited area, according to the
complaint.

Although only several of the protestors actually blocked traffic
on the highway, all members of the protest on the closed ramp,
including observers and at least 10 juveniles, were arrested, the
lawsuit alleges.

"Defendants detained the individual plaintiffs and the members of
the proposed class for periods ranging from six to 18 hours in
deplorable and substandard conditions," the complaint states. "On
a July day with temperatures above 90 degrees Fahrenheit,
defendants held plaintiffs in hot, cramped police vans for many
hours. The vans were so uncomfortable that one plaintiff vomited
and fainted due to the extreme heat. Plaintiffs had little to no
access to water, food, toilets or necessary medication during the
lengthy and unnecessary detention. Defendants handcuffed
plaintiffs so tightly as to cause injury or loss of feeling in
their hands, arms and shoulders."

The protesters say all charges against them were dismissed days
later.

Their lawsuit asserts 12 counts including false arrest, assault,
false imprisonment, gross negligence, excessive force and
malicious prosecution, among other claims.

In addition to the Baltimore Police Department, the lawsuit also
names as defendants Police Commissioner Kevin Davis, Capt. Charles
Thompson, unnamed officers and the state of Maryland.

The police department declined to comment on the lawsuit.

The proposed class of those arrested at the protest is seeking
more than $75,000 in compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitive
damages.  They also want the Baltimore Police Department to be
required to "issue clear and audible warnings to disperse at
future demonstrations" and "provide individuals with a reasonable
opportunity to comply with these warnings before carrying out
arrests."  In addition, the complaint asks for an order that the
police department be barred from "subjecting individuals that are
arrested for minor offenses during mass political protests to
harsher and longer periods of detention" and be required to
"maintain a written record detailing the period of detention, for
those arrested while engaging in political activism as compared to
other arrestees."

The plaintiffs in the case are represented by Henry Liu and other
attorneys from the Washington, D.C. law firm Covington Burling
LLP, and by Debra Gardner of the Public Justice Center in
Baltimore.

Neither Liu nor Gardner responded to a request for comment on the
lawsuit.


BARNES & NOBLE: Still Defends "Hartpence" Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class
action filed by Christine Hartpence, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filed on June 22, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 29, 2017.

Christine Hartpence, a former cafe manager, filed a complaint
against Barnes & Noble, Inc. (Barnes & Noble) in Philadelphia
County Court of Common Pleas on May 26, 2015 (Case No.:
160503426), alleging that she is entitled to unpaid compensation
for overtime under Pennsylvania law and seeking to represent a
class of allegedly similarly situated employees who performed the
same position (Cafe Manager).

On July 14, 2016, Ms. Hartpence amended her complaint to assert a
purported collective action for alleged unpaid overtime
compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), by
which she sought to act as a class representative for similarly
situated Cafe Managers throughout the United States.

On July 27, 2016, Barnes & Noble removed the case to the U.S.
District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No.:
16-4034).  Ms. Hartpence then voluntarily dismissed her complaint
and subsequently re-filed a similar complaint in the Philadelphia
County Court of Common Pleas (Case No.: 161003213), where it is
currently pending.

The re-filed complaint alleges only claims of unpaid overtime
under Pennsylvania law and alleges class claims under Pennsylvania
law that are limited to current and former Cafe Managers within
Pennsylvania.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. operates as a content and commerce company in
the United States.  It was founded in 1986 and is based in New
York, New York.


BARNES & NOBLE: "Brown" Suit over Managers Pay Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. continues to face a class action filed by
Kelly Brown, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on June
22, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended April 29, 2017.

On September 20, 2016, former cafe manager Kelly Brown filed a
complaint against Barnes & Noble in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (Case No.: 16-7333) in which she
alleges that she is entitled to unpaid compensation under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA and Illinois law.  Ms.
Brown seeks to represent a national class of all similarly
situated Cafe Managers under the FLSA, as well as an Illinois-
based class under Illinois law.

On November 9, 2016, Ms. Brown filed an amended complaint to add
an additional plaintiff named Tiffany Stewart, who is a former
Cafe Manager who also alleges unpaid overtime compensation in
violation of New York law and seeks to represent a class of
similarly situated New York-based Cafe Managers under New York
law.  Since the commencement of the action, eight former Cafe
Managers have filed consent forms to join the action as
plaintiffs.

On May 2, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification, without prejudice.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. operates as a content and commerce company in
the United States.  It was founded in 1986 and is based in New
York, New York.


BLUEMERCURY INC: Aug. 11 Deadline to File SAC in "Espinosa"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of California,
issued an Order granting parties' stipulation extending deadline
to file second amended complaint or stipulated request for
dismissal in the case captioned SANDRA ESPINOSA, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLUEMERCURY,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; MACY'S, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-07202-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Sandra Espinosa and Defendants Bluemercury, Inc. and
Macy's, Inc., through their respective counsel of record,
stipulate that the deadline of July 28, 2017, for Plaintiff to
file a second amended complaint or for the Parties to file a
stipulated request for dismissal may be extended for an additional
two weeks, up to and including August 11, 2017, while the Parties
finalize their settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 31, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y9xkdoxtfrom Leagle.com.

Sandra Espinosa, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh
- shaun@setarehlaw.com --  Setareh Law Group.

Sandra Espinosa, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Scott Leviant --
scott@setarehlaw.com --  Setareh Law Group & Thomas Alistair Segal
-- thomas@setarehlaw.com  -- Setareh Law Group.

Bluemercury, Inc., Defendant, represented by David S. Bradshaw -
BradshawD@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Nathan Wade
Austin -- austinn@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.

Macy's, Inc., Defendant, represented by David S. Bradshaw, Jackson
Lewis P.C. & Nathan Wade Austin, Jackson Lewis P.C.


CABELA'S INC: Files Supplementary Disclosures on Merger Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cabela's Incorporated has voluntarily filed supplementary
disclosures with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to
the Definitive Proxy Statement in connection to its merger with
Bass Pro Group, LLC in an effort to avoid the risks that could be
brought about by certain merger-related class action suits filed
against the Company.  The disclosures are found in the Company's
Form 8-K filed on June 22, 2017, with the SEC, a full-text copy of
which can be accessed at https://is.gd/6AKlpe

On October 3, 2016, Cabela's Incorporated, a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, by
and among the Company, Bass Pro Group, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company ("Parent"), and Prairie Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Sub"), which was amended by the Amendment to Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of April 17, 2017 (and as further amended from
time to time, the "Merger Agreement").  The Merger Agreement
provides for Sub to merge with and into the Company, causing the
Company to become a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the
"Merger").

The merger is valued at over $5 billion, according to reports.

The following complaints have been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware: (i) on June 7, 2017,
a class action lawsuit captioned Adam Klein, Individually And On
Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Cabela's Incorporated,
James W. Cabela, Theodore M. Armstrong, Michael R. McCarthy, John
H. Edmondson, Beth M. Pritchard, Thomas L. Millner, James F.
Wright, Peter S. Swinburn, Dennis Highby, and Donna M. Milrod,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00698-UNA (the "Klein Complaint"); (ii) on June
7, 2017, a class action lawsuit captioned Bernard Garcarz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cabela's, Inc., Theodore M. Armstrong, James W. Cabela, John H.
Edmondson, Dennis Highby, Michael R. McCarthy, Donna M. Milrod,
Thomas L. Millner, Beth M. Pritchard, Peter S. Swinburn, and James
F. Wright, Case No. 1:99-mc-09999 (the "Garcarz Complaint"); (iii)
on June 9, 2017, a class action lawsuit captioned Christopher A.
Brown, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. Cabela's Incorporated, James W. Cabela, Thomas L. Millner,
Theodore M. Armstrong, John H. Edmondson, Dennis Highby, Michael
R. McCarthy, Donna M. Milrod, Beth M. Pritchard, James F. Wright,
and Peter S. Swinburn, Case No. 1:17-cv-00711-UNA (the "Brown
Complaint") and (iv) on June 14, 2017, a class action lawsuit
captioned John Solak, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Cabela's Incorporated, James W. Cabela,
Thomas L. Millner, Michael R. McCarthy, Dennis Highby, Theodore M.
Armstrong, John H. Edmondson, Beth M. Pritchard, Donna M. Milrod,
James F. Wright, and Peter Swinburn, Case No. 1:17-cv-00763 (the
"Solak Complaint" and, together with the Klein Complaint, the
Garcarz Complaint and the Brown Complaint, the "Merger
Litigation").

The Merger Litigation relates to the Merger Agreement and the
definitive proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") on June 5, 2017 (the "Proxy Statement") in
connection with the Merger.

Cabela's Inc. said, "The Company believes that the claims asserted
in the Merger Litigation are without merit and intends to defend
against the Merger Litigation vigorously.  However, in order to
moot the plaintiffs' unmeritorious disclosure claims, alleviate
the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and
provide additional information to its stockholders, the Company
has determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement as
described in this Current Report on Form 8-K.  Nothing in this
Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
disclosures set forth herein.  To the contrary, the Company
specifically denies all allegations in the Merger Litigation that
any additional disclosure was or is required."

Cabela's Incorporated operates as a specialty retailer of hunting,
fishing, camping, shooting sports, and related outdoor merchandise
in the United States and Canada.  The Company operates through
Merchandising and Financial Services segments.  It was founded in
1961 and is headquartered in Sidney, Nebraska.


CAPITAL BANK: "Bushansky" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital Bank Financial Corp., R. Eugene
Taylor, Martha M. Bachman, Richard M. Demartini, Peter N. Foss,
William A. Hodges, Scott B. Kauffman, Oscar A. Keller III, Marc D.
Oken, Robert L. Reid and William G. Ward Sr., Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00422, (W.D.N.C., July 17, 2017), seeks to preliminarily
and permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the sale of Capital Bank to First Horizon National Corporation.
The plaintiff further seeks rescissory damages in case the merger
pushes through, reasonable allowance for Plaintiff's attorneys'
and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

Each holder of Capital Bank common stock will be entitled to
receive cash or stock with a value equivalent to 1.750 First
Horizon shares and $7.90 in cash for each Capital Bank share held.
In the aggregate, Capital Bank stockholders will receive a mix of
approximately 80 percent stock and 20 percent cash. After closing,
Capital Bank stockholders collectively will own approximately 29
percent of First Horizon's common shares and will have received
approximately $411 million in cash. The total transaction value,
at First Horizon's closing stock price on May 3, 2017, is $2.2
billion.

The merger consideration fails to disclose Capital Bank and First
Horizon's financial projections including the background process
leading up to the merger, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Janet Ward Black, Esq.
      Nancy Meyers, Esq.
      WARD BLACK LAW
      208 W. Wendover Ave.
      Greensboro, NC 27401
      Tel: (336) 333-2244
      Fax: (336) 379-9415
      Email: jwblack@wardblacklaw.com

             - and -

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


CAREFIRST INC: Court Flips Dismissal of "Attias" Data Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas B. Griffith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit reversed the district court's
dismissal of the case captioned CHANTAL ATTIAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL., Appellants, v.
CAREFIRST, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS GROUP HOSPITALIZATION AND
MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND,
INC., DOING BUSINESS AS CAREFIRST BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD, DOING
BUSINESS AS CAREFIRST BLUECHOICE, INC., ET AL., Appellees, No. 16-
7108 (D.C. App).

In June 2014, an unknown intruder breached 22 CareFirst computers
and reached a database containing its customers' personal
information.  CareFirst did not discover the breach until April
2015 and only notified its customers in May 2015.  Shortly after
the announcement, seven CareFirst customers brought a class action
against CareFirst and its subsidiaries in the district court.
Their complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act, and raised eleven different state-law causes
of action, including breach of contract, negligence, and violation
of various state consumer-protection statutes.

The parties disagree over what the complaint alleged.  According
to CareFirst, the complaint alleged only the exposure of limited
identifying data, such as customer names, addresses, and
subscriber ID numbers.  According to the Plaintiffs, the complaint
also alleged the theft of customers' social security numbers.
They sought to certify a class consisting of all CareFirst
customers residing in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and
Virginia whose personal information had been hacked.  CareFirst
moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and, in the
alternative, for failure to state a claim.  The district court
agreed that the Plaintiffs lacked standing, holding that they had
alleged neither a present injury nor a high enough likelihood of
future injury.  It dismissed without prejudice the case.  The
court did not decide whether diversity jurisdiction was proper, or
whether the plaintiffs had stated a claim for which relief could
be granted. The Plaintiffs timely appealed.

This case primarily concerns the injury-in-fact requirement, which
serves to ensure that the Plaintiff has a personal stake in the
litigation, Judge Griffith explains.  An injury in fact must be
concrete, particularized, and, most importantly for their
purposes, "actual or imminent" rather than speculative.  Here, an
unauthorized party has already accessed personally identifying
data on CareFirst's servers, and it is much less speculative -- at
the very least, it is plausible -- to infer that this party has
both the intent and the ability to use that data for ill.  No long
sequence of uncertain contingencies involving multiple independent
actors has to occur before the Plaintiffs in this case will suffer
any harm; a substantial risk of harm exists already, simply by
virtue of the hack and the nature of the data that they allege was
taken.  That risk is much more substantial than the risk presented
to the Clapper v. Amnesty International USA Court, and satisfies
the requirement of an injury in fact.

Judge Griffith says CareFirst urges the Court, in the alternative,
to hold that the Plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim for
which relief can be granted.  However, an antecedent question
remains: whether the Plaintiffs properly invoked the district
court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.  The
district court expressly reserved judgment on that issue, and on
the record before the Court, he cannot answer it.  It would thus
be inappropriate for him to reach beyond the standing question.
He concludes that the district court gave the complaint an unduly
narrow reading.  The Plaintiffs have cleared the low bar to
establish their standing at the pleading stage.  Judge Griffith
accordingly reversed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/SuSsBX from Leagle.com.

Jonathan B. Nace -- jnace@paulsonandnace.com -- argued the cause
for appellants. With him on the briefs was Christopher T. Nace --
cnace@paulsonandnace.com.

Marc Rotenberg -- mark.rotenberg@wilmerhale.com -- and Alan Butler
were on the brief for amicus curiae Electronic Privacy Information
Center (EPIC) in support of appellants.

Tracy D. Rezvani was on the brief for amicus curiae National
Consumers League in support of appellants.

Matthew O. Gatewood -- matt.gatewood@sutherland.com -- argued the
cause for appellees. With him on the briefs was Robert D. Owen --
robertowen@eversheds-sutherland.com.

Andrew J. Pincus -- apincus@mayerbrown.com -- Stephen C.N. Lilley
-- slilley@mayerbrown.com -- Kathryn Comerford Todd, Steven P.
Lehotsky, and Warren Postman were on the brief for amicus curiae
The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in support
of appellees.


CENTURYLINK INC: "Carrillo" Sues Over Unjust Service Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco J. Carrillo, Jocelyn Carrillo, Spencer Berggren and
James T. Fowler, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Centurylink, Inc., Centurylink
Communications, LLC, Centurylink Public Communications, Inc.,
Centurylink Sales Solutions, Inc. and Centurylink, Embarq
Minnesota Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
6:17-cv-01309, (M.D. Fla., July 17, 2017), seeks actual,
consequential, statutory and incidental losses and damages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest on all
amounts awarded, costs of suit and such other and further relief
resulting from unjust enrichment and consumer fraud.

Plaintiffs are CenturyLink customers for their internet service.
They claim to be unjustly charged for services that they did not
avail of and/or did not agree to. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark M. O'Mara, Esq.
     Alyssa J. Flood, Esq.
     O'MARA LAW GROUP
     221 NE Ivanhoe Blvd., Suite 200
     Orlando, FL 32804
     Telephone: (407) 898-515l
     Facsimile: (407) 898-2468
     Email: mark@omaralawgroup.com
            alyssa@omaralawgroup.com

            - and -

     Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
     14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
     Scottsdale, AZ 85254
     Telephone: (800) 493-2827
     Email: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

            - and -

     Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
     Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
     GERAGOS & GERAGOS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     Historic Engine Co. No. 28
     644 South Figueroa Street
     Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
     Telephone (213) 625-3900
     Facsimile (213) 232-3255
     Email: Geragos@Geragos.com

            - and -

     Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
     Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
     1100 IDS Center
     80 S 8th Street, Suite 100
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (612) 341-0400
     Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
            carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com


CHECK-6 INC: Can't Compel Arbitration in "Goodly" Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory K. Frizzell of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma denied the Defendant's Motion to
Compel Arbitration in the case captioned JOSEPH GOODLY, on behalf
of himself and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CHECK-6 INC., YAREMA SOS, BRIAN BRURUD, DENNIS ROMANO, S. ERIC
BENSON, LAURA OWEN, and JOHN DILLON, Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-
334-GKF-tlw (N.D. Okla.).

On March 7, 2016 the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  Fourteen months after it was filed, and
over six weeks after the class action opt-in period closed, Check-
6 filed the present motion to compel the Plaintiffs to
individually arbitrate their claims, and to request a stay pending
arbitration.  It states that each Opt-in Plaintiff signed an
agreement that included an arbitration clause.  The Plaintiffs
respond that Check-6 has waived its right to compel arbitration.

The Tenth Circuit has recognized waiver of a party's right to
arbitrate when a party's conduct in litigation forecloses that
right.  It has identified several factors useful in analyzing
waiver, which it summarized in Peterson v. Shearson/American
Express, Inc., supra: (i) whether the party's actions are
inconsistent with the right to arbitrate; (ii) whether the
litigation machinery has been substantially invoked and the
parties were well into preparation of a lawsuit before the party
notified the opposing party of an intent to arbitrate; (iii)
whether a party either requested arbitration enforcement close to
the trial date or delayed for a long period before seeking a stay;
(iv) whether a defendant seeking arbitration filed a counterclaim
without asking for a stay of the proceedings; (v) whether
important intervening steps, e.g., taking advantage of judicial
discovery procedures not available in arbitration had taken place;
and (vi) whether the delay affected, misled, or prejudiced the
opposing party.

Judge Frizzell says that an important consideration in assessing
waiver is whether the party now seeking arbitration is improperly
manipulating the judicial process.  He finds that Check-6's
conduct in this case suggests it considers delay to be to its
advantage.  It has acted to delay the ultimate resolution of the
Plaintiffs' claims by, among other things, failing to issue
discovery requests despite having sought an extension of time to
complete discovery, waiting until after the notice and opt-in
period was complete before demanding arbitration, and interfering
with the notice and opt-in process via the Dec. 15, 2016 letter
sent by two of its directors.

If the court were to grant Check-6's belated request for
arbitration, much of the work done by the parties and the court in
this case will have been unnecessary and Check-6 will have
manipulated the judicial process by using these proceedings as an
instrument of delay.  Upon consideration of the briefs and
materials submitted by the parties, Judge Frizzell concludes
Check-6 has waived its right to demand arbitration.  Therefore, he
denied Check-6's Motion to Compel Arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/HMqJgw from Leagle.com.

Joseph Goodly, Plaintiff, represented by George Brian Recile,
Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP.

Joseph Goodly, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffery A. Taylor, The
Offices at Deep Fork Creek, Barry William Sartin, Jr., Chehardy
Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP, Matthew Arthur
Sherman, Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes
LLP, Patrick R. Follette, Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile
Stakelum & Hayes LLP & Preston Lee Hayes, Chehardy Sherman Ellis
Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP.

John David, Plaintiff, represented by George Brian Recile,
Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP, Jeffery
A. Taylor, The Offices at Deep Fork Creek & Preston Lee Hayes,
Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP.

Joseph Flatley, Plaintiff, represented by George Brian Recile,
Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP, Jeffery
A. Taylor, The Offices at Deep Fork Creek & Preston Lee Hayes,
Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP.

Joseph Powers, Plaintiff, represented by George Brian Recile,
Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP, Jeffery
A. Taylor, The Offices at Deep Fork Creek & Preston Lee Hayes,
Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP.

Keith Proze, Plaintiff, represented by George Brian Recile,
Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP, Jeffery
A. Taylor, The Offices at Deep Fork Creek & Preston Lee Hayes,
Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP.

Edward Swanda, Plaintiff, represented by George Brian Recile,
Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP, Jeffery
A. Taylor, The Offices at Deep Fork Creek & Preston Lee Hayes,
Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP.

Richard Wolfe, Plaintiff, represented by George Brian Recile,
Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP, Jeffery
A. Taylor, The Offices at Deep Fork Creek & Preston Lee Hayes,
Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP.

Gary Daigle, Plaintiff, represented by George Brian Recile,
Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP, Jeffery
A. Taylor, The Offices at Deep Fork Creek & Preston Lee Hayes,
Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP.

David Andrew Fuller, Plaintiff, represented by George Brian
Recile, Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP,
Jeffery A. Taylor, The Offices at Deep Fork Creek & Preston Lee
Hayes, Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray Recile Stakelum & Hayes LLP.

Check-6, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jacob Samuel Crawford --
jcrawford@newtonoconnor.com -- Newton O'Connor Turner & Ketchum PC
& William Kirk Turner -- kturner@newtonoconnor.com -- Newton
O'Connor Turner & Ketchum PC.

Yarema Sos, Defendant, represented by Jacob Samuel Crawford,
Newton O'Connor Turner & Ketchum PC & William Kirk Turner, Newton
O'Connor Turner & Ketchum PC.

Brian Brurud, Defendant, represented by Jacob Samuel Crawford,
Newton O'Connor Turner & Ketchum PC & William Kirk Turner, Newton
O'Connor Turner & Ketchum PC.

Dennis Romano, Defendant, represented by Jacob Samuel Crawford,
Newton O'Connor Turner & Ketchum PC & William Kirk Turner, Newton
O'Connor Turner & Ketchum PC.

S Eric Benson, Defendant, represented by Jacob Samuel Crawford,
Newton O'Connor Turner & Ketchum PC & William Kirk Turner, Newton
O'Connor Turner & Ketchum PC.

Laura Owen, Defendant, represented by Jacob Samuel Crawford,
Newton O'Connor Turner & Ketchum PC & William Kirk Turner, Newton
O'Connor Turner & Ketchum PC.

John Dillon, Defendant, represented by Jacob Samuel Crawford,
Newton O'Connor Turner & Ketchum PC & William Kirk Turner, Newton
O'Connor Turner & Ketchum PC.


COLE HAAN: "Park" Sues Over Farce Discounting Scheme
----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Park, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cole Haan, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company and Apax Partners Worldwide, LLP; a Limited
Liability Partnership, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01422 (S.D.
Cal., July 13, 2017), seeks redress under California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Laws and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

Plaintiff purchased the Grand Crosscourt II shoes, primarily
because it was "discounted" 50% from the original price of $182.
However, he claims that the said item was never sold at the
traditional retail store and never sold at $182.

Defendants operate multiple retail and outlet stores
both throughout the United States and worldwide. Additionally,
Defendants operate an online website where consumers have the
option to purchase items from the outlet. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
      AMARTIN LAW, PC
      600 West Broadway, Suite 700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 308-6880
      Facsimile: (619) 308-6881

             - and -

      Sandra Brennan, Esq.
      Lindsay C. David, Esq.
      BRENNAN & DAVID LAW GROUP
      2173 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
      Carlsbad, CA 92008
      Telephone: (760) 730-9408
      Facsimile: (760) 888-3575


COMMAND SECURITY: Final Payment in "Leal" Settlement Due Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Command Security Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on
June 19, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017 that the second and final
payment of US$725,704 related to the settlement of the "Leal" case
is due by December 31, 2017.

In the case Leal v. Command Security Corporation, on April 29,
2014, the California Superior Court granted a plaintiff's motion
to certify a class consisting of all persons who were employed by
the Company in a non-exempt security officer position within the
State of California at any time since May 2, 2007 through the date
of trial who agreed to and signed an on-duty meal period agreement
at the time of their employment.  The case is a certified class
action involving allegations that the Company violated certain
California state laws relating to on-duty meal and rest breaks.

The parties agreed to a settlement, which was approved by the
Court in November 2016.  The Company's first payment in the amount
of US$725,704 was made on December 13, 2016.  The Company's second
and final payment of the same amount is due no later than December
31, 2017.

The Company disclosed that the US$51,408 increase in the total
settlement amount was recorded in the quarter ended December 31,
2016.

Command Security Corporation provides uniformed security officers
and aviation security services in the United States.  The Company
operates through Security and Aviation Safeguards divisions.  It
was founded in 1980 and is based in Herndon, Virginia.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Awaits Supreme Court's Review on Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. is awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court's review
of a class certification granted to the plaintiffs in lawsuit
related to its Wesson(R) oils, according to the Company's Form
10-K filed on July 21, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended May 28, 2017

The Company stated, "We are party to a number of putative class
action lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the
Company's product labeling.  These matters include Briseno v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., in which it is alleged that the labeling for
Wesson(R) oils as 100% natural is false and misleading because the
oils contain genetically modified plants and organisms.  In
February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to
pursue state law claims.  The Company appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed
class certification in January 2017.  The Company has sought
further review by the United States Supreme Court.  While we
cannot predict with certainty the results of this or any other
legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter to have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations,
or business."

Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as
a food company in North America.  The company operates through
five segments: Grocery & Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen,
International, Foodservice, and Commercial.  It was formerly known
as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and changed its name to Conagra Brands,
Inc. in November 2016.  Conagra Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919
and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Consolidated "Negrete" Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action regarding its wage and hour practices,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on July 21, 2017 with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 28, 2017.

The Company said, "We are party to a number of matters challenging
the Company's wage and hour practices.  These matters include a
number of putative class actions consolidated under the caption
Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, in which
the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California and/or
federal law at several current and former Company manufacturing
facilities across the State of California.  While we cannot
predict with certainty the results of this or any other legal
proceeding, we do not expect this matter to have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations,
or business."

Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as
a food company in North America.  The company operates through
five segments: Grocery & Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen,
International, Foodservice, and Commercial.  It was formerly known
as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and changed its name to Conagra Brands,
Inc. in November 2016.  Conagra Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919
and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CREATIVE ENERGY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ma" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edison Ma, Jin Ying Luo, and Jinbo Li, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Creative Energy Foods, Inc.
and Does 1 through 50, Case No. RG17868229 (Cal. Super. Ct., July
19, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
provide mandated meal periods, as well as compensation resultant
therefrom, failure to pay all wages owed to the Plaintiffs upon
separation, and failure to provide lawful itemized wage
statements.

Creative Energy Foods, Inc. engages in formulating, manufacturing,
packaging, warehousing, and shipping nutritional energy bars. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Haohao Song, Esq.
      William P. Klein, Esq.
      KLEIN LAW GROUP, LLP
      Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3950
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 693-9107
      Facsimile: (415) 693-9222
      E-mail: hsong@sfbizlaw.com


CROWN ASSET: Cal. App. Affirms Arbitration Ruling in "Yenko" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sandra L. Margulies of the U.S. Court of Appeals of
California for the First District, Division One, affirmed the
trial court's order granting the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration in the case captioned TERESITA JOYA YENKO, Plaintiff
and Appellant, v. CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant and
Respondent, No. A148536 (Cal. App.).

In July 2015, the Plaintiff filed a consumer class action
complaint against Crown, alleging it violated the California Fair
Debt Buying Practices Act ("CFDBPA"), Civil Code sections 1788.50-
1788.64.  Her complaint alleges Synchrony, the issuer of her J.C.
Penney credit card, sold her alleged credit card debt to Crown for
collection purposes, and a third party debt collector acting as
Crown's agent sent her a written communication that failed to
contain the notice required by Civil Code section 1788.52,
subdivision (d)(1).

Crown filed an answer raising arbitration as an affirmative
defense and shortly thereafter moved to compel arbitration. In
support of its motion, Crown submitted an affidavit from Martha
Koehler, a manager of litigation support for Synchrony.  Koehler
stated Synchrony sent the Plaintiff a copy of the Credit Card
Account Agreement ("CCAA") governing her account in October 2012,
and attached a copy of the CCAA to her affidavit.  Koehler also
stated Synchrony transferred all of its title, rights, and
interest in the Plaintiff's account to Crown in June 2015 and
attached a copy of the Bill of Sale between Synchrony and Crown to
her affidavit.

The Plaintiff opposed the motion to compel arbitration, arguing,
among other things, that Crown could not show she had agreed to
arbitrate.  She deposed Koehler about the contents of her
affidavit.  When asked about the mailing of the CCAA, Koehler
testified it is Synchrony's practice to mail the cardholder
agreement with the plastic credit card within 7 to 10 days of the
opening of the account.  Koehler also testified she knew the CCAA
attached to her affidavit was the agreement sent to the Plaintiff
because it was the effective agreement for new accounts at the
time plaintiff opened her account.

After several continuances, the trial court determined the class
action waiver in the parties' arbitration agreement was
enforceable, dismissed the class claims, and ordered the Plaintiff
to arbitrate her individual claims, staying the litigation as to
her individual claims pending the completion of arbitration.

The appeal followed.  The Plaintiff contends the trial court erred
because (i) Crown failed to meet its burden to show the existence
of an arbitration agreement, (ii) Crown was not assigned the right
to arbitrate, and (iii) her claim against Crown falls outside the
scope of the arbitration agreement.

Judge Margulies concludes that the Plaintiff's arguments lack
merit. She explains that California and federal cases have held an
assignee "stands in the shoes" of the assignor, and takes all the
rights and remedies of the assignor subject to any defenses the
obligor has against the assignor.  Utah law is in accord.  Because
Synchrony assigned all rights, title, and interest in the
receivables to Crown, Crown steps into its shoes and has the right
to arbitrate under the CCAA.

She says Crown's conduct in attempting to collect its assigned
receivables, i.e., amounts due on the Plaintiff's account,
undeniably falls within the arbitration provision's broad language
covering any dispute "related" to the Plaintiff's account.  In
light of the strong policy favoring arbitration, Judge Margulies
concludes that the Plaintiff's CFDBPA claims against Crown are
subject to arbitration under the terms of the CCAA.  Therefore,
she affirmed the trial court order granting the motion to compel
arbitration, dismissing the Plaintiff's class claims, and ordering
the Plaintiff to arbitrate her individual claims against the
Defendant.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/dUqBfS from Leagle.com.


CUSTOM DRYWALL: "Caceres" Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Gomez Caceres and Oscar Anino, on behalf of themselves and
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Custom Drywall &
Painting LLC and Anthony Martinez, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
06949, (E.D. La., July 20, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Custom Drywall is a full-service contractor that specializes in
the drywall and painting of custom homes and commercial buildings.
Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as painters. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIAL CORP: 1st Cir. Denies Leave to Appeal Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, issued a
judgment denying Defendant-Petitioner's motion for leave to file
appeal on the District Court's grant of class certification in the
case captioned MICHELLE CARTER; JONATHAN CESSNA; ALICIA GENTILE;
SONIA HERRERA; JENNY MARAZZI; MEGAN PETERSON; SVEN P. VOGTLAND;
DAVID WALLS; KRISTINA PEARSON; ERIC TERRELL; ELIZABETH POYNTER;
ERIC CAPDEVILLE Plaintiffs, Respondents, MICHAEL FEUER; MARTIN
HOMMEL; KAMI RALEIGH; BRIDGET BECNEL DELIVORIAS; KAREN FINNEY;
AMANI EL-JANDALI; MARVIN CATALAN, Plaintiffs, v. THE DIAL
CORPORATION, a/k/a, Dial Corporation, a/k/a, The Dial Corporation,
Inc., Defendant, Petitioner, HENKEL CONSUMER GOODS, INC.,
Defendant, No. 17-8009. (1st Cir.).

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), the defendant-petitioner seeks
leave from this court to appeal the district court's grant of
class certification in the multidistrict litigation.

As an initial matter, the defendant-petitioner's motion for leave
to file a reply is granted.  The tendered reply is accepted for
filing and has been considered by the court.  Having carefully
considered the parties' filings and relevant portions of the
record, the First Circuit concludes that the requirements for
interlocutory review have not been met here.

Specifically, the First Circuit concludes that the defendant-
petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the district court's
Rule 23 analysis is sufficiently "questionable" to warrant
immediate review.

Accordingly, the petition for leave to appeal is denied.

A full-text copy of the First Circuit's July 31, 2017 Judgment is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y7oyxxo7from Leagle.com.


DINER 24: "Isom" Hits Sub-Minimum Wage Rates, Seeks OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Keisha Isom and Corey Gaines, individually, and as class
representatives of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Diner
24, Inc., Melissa M. Collado, individually and Kenneth Collado,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01693, (M.D. Fla., July
14, 2017), seeks payment of their earned unpaid wages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Diner 24, Inc. operates a restaurant located at 350 lst Ave.
North, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, where Isom and Gaines worked as
general manager and restaurant staff, respectively. Both claim
overtime pay and allege to be paid below minimum wage rates. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter L. Tragos, Esq.
      TRAGOS, SARTBS & TRAGOS, PLLC
      601 Cleveland Street, Suite 800
      Clearwater, FL 33755
      Tel: (727) 441-9030
      Facsimile: (727) 441-9254
      Email: petertragos@greeklaw.com
             linda@greeklaw.com


DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: $300K "Sullivan" Class Deal Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of California,
issued an Order granting Final Approval of Attorney's fees and
costs in the case captioned JULIE SULLIVAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC, A TENNESSEE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-01617-JD (N.D. Cal.).

This order resolves plaintiffs' unopposed motions for (1) final
approval of a class action settlement, and (2) attorneys' fees and
costs and a named plaintiff incentive award.

The proposed final settlement is consistent with the approved
preliminary agreement.  In key terms, Dollar General will pay
$300,000 into a non-reversionary settlement fund, which will fund
the payments to class members, the costs of notice and settlement
administration, any Court-approved service awards, attorneys'
fees, costs, and litigation expenses, and payment of a PAGA
penalty to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency.

In the order granting preliminary approval, the Court found that
the proposed settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable, and
satisfied the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and (b)(3).

The proposed attorneys' fee award, which amounts to 25% of the
settlement fund and approximately 28% of class counsel's reported
lodestar, is within acceptable boundaries. While the requested
$75,000 fee award is a substantial slice of the $300,000 gross
settlement fund and gives the Court some pause, it is within
acceptable parameters for common fund fee awards.

Class counsel also seeks $11,699.63 in costs and expenses.  The
Court has reviewed the supporting declarations of class counsel
and finds that the costs and expenses for which they seek
reimbursement were reasonably necessary to the prosecution of this
litigation, were the sort of expenses normally billed to paying
clients, and were incurred for the benefit of the class.
Consequently, they are approved.

Class counsel requests a $1,000 incentive award for named
plaintiff Julie Sullivan. The Court has consistently expressed
skepticism about settlements in which named plaintiffs do
appreciably better than rank-and-file class members; these
settlements pose a risk of collusion and conflict within the
plaintiffs' side of the case.

The Court grants final approval of the class action settlement,
grants the requests for attorneys' fees and costs, and denies the
requested incentive award.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 31, 2017 Order is
available http://tinyurl.com/ydbkrvoyfrom Leagle.com.

Julie Sullivan, Plaintiff, represented by Elise Rochelle
Sanguinetti -- elise@asstlawyers.com -- Arias, Sanguinetti, Stahle
& Torrijos, LLP.

Julie Sullivan, Plaintiff, represented by Mickel Montalban --
mike@asstlawyers.com -- Arias Sanguinetti Stahle & Torrijos, LLP &
Mikael Hans Stahle -- mikael@asstlawyers.com -- Arias Sanguinetti
Stahle & Torrijos, LLP.

Dolgen California, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Brian David Fahy --
bfahy@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Joel Steven Allen,
McGuireWoods LLP.


DOLLAR TREE: "Nakooka" Suit Seeks Expense Reimbursement
-------------------------------------------------------
Lovely Nakooka and Elva Reyes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dollar Tree Stores,
Inc., and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-03955
(N.D. Cal., July 13, 2017), seeks reimbursement of business-
related expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest pursuant to
California Labor Code.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. operates retail stores throughout the
United States, including approximately 360 stores in California
where Plaintiffs worked as store staff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
      Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
      Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
      Carey A. James, Esq.
      Brent A. Robinson, Esq.
      7677 Oakport St. Suite 1150
      Oakland, CA 94621
      Tel: (510) 817-2711
      Fax: (510) 562-6830
      Email: ras@asmlawyers.com
             rwlm@asmlawyers.com
             hvr@asmlawyers.com
             caj@asmlawyers.com
             bar@asmlawyers.com


DR. PEPPER: Ginger Ale Does Not Contain "Real Ginger," Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Khan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action claims in Los Angeles that Dr Pepper Snapple
Group's Canada Dry Ginger Ale does not contain "real ginger," as
advertised.

The case is captioned, GEGHAM MARGARYAN, as an individual, on
behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general
public, Plaintiff, vs. DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case
2:17-cv-05234 (C.D. Cal., July 14, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Hovanes Margarian Esq.
     THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM
     801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 210
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Telephone: (818) 553 -1000
     Facsimile: (818) 553 -1005
     E-mail: hovanes@margarianlaw.com


DR. REDDY'S: "Sergeants" Suit over Namenda Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F filed
on June 19, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017 that the purported class
action filed by Sergeants Benevolent Assoc. Health & Welfare Fund
("Sergeants") against the Company related to the Alzheimer's drug
Namenda(R) tablets remain stayed pending resolution of similar
claims in another case in which the Company is not a party.

In August 2015, Sergeants Benevolent Assoc. Health & Welfare Fund
("Sergeants") filed suit against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Sergeants
alleged that certain parties, including the Company, violated
federal antitrust laws as a consequence of having settled patent
litigation related to the Alzheimer's drug Namenda(R) (memantine)
tablets during a period from about 2009 until 2010.  Sergeants
seeks to represent a class of "end-payor" purchasers of Namenda(R)
tablets (i.e., insurers, other third-party payors and consumers).

Sergeants seeks damages based upon an allegation made in the
complaint that the defendants entered into patent settlements
regarding Namenda(R) tablets for the purpose of delaying generic
competition and facilitating the brand innovator's attempt to
shift sales from the original immediate release product to the
more recently introduced extended release product.  The Company
believes that the complaint lacks merit and that the Company's
conduct complied with all applicable laws and regulations.

All defendants, including the Company, moved to dismiss the
claims.  On September 13, 2016, the Court denied these motions.
However, the Sergeants case is stayed pending resolution of
similar claims in another case in which the Company is not a party
(JM Smith Corp. v. Actavis PLC).  The parties in the JM Smith case
have served the Company with subpoenas seeking specified
documents, and the Company has produced documents in response to
the subpoenas.  The parties have also served the Company with
subpoenas seeking deposition testimony.

Four other class action complaints, each containing similar
allegations to the Sergeants complaint, have also been filed in
the Southern District of New York.  However, two of those
complaints were voluntarily dismissed, and the other two do not
name the Company as a defendant.

In addition, the State of New York filed an antitrust case in the
Southern District of New York.  The case brought by the State of
New York contained some (but not all) of the allegations set forth
in the class action complaints, but the Company was not named as a
party.  The case brought by the State of New York was dismissed by
stipulation on November 30, 2015.

Dr. Reddy's said, "The Company believes that the likelihood of any
liability that may arise on account of alleged violation of
federal antitrust laws is not probable.  Accordingly, no provision
has been made in these consolidated financial statements."

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated
pharmaceutical company worldwide.  It operates through three
segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active
Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products.  The Company was
founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Hyderabad, India.


DR. REDDY'S: Still Defends Class Suits on Pricing Matters
---------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited continues to defend itself
against class actions related to its pricing practices in
Pennsylvania, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on June
19, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

On December 30, 2015 and on February 4, 2016, respectively, a
class action complaint and another complaint (not a class action)
were filed against the Company and eighteen other pharmaceutical
defendants in State Court in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  In
these actions, the class action plaintiffs allege that the Company
and other defendants, individually or in some cases in concert
with one another, have engaged in pricing and price reporting
practices in violation of various Pennsylvania state laws.

More specifically, the plaintiffs allege that: (1) the Company
provided false and misleading pricing information to third party
drug compendia companies for the Company's generic drugs, and such
information was relied upon by private third party payers that
reimbursed for drugs sold by the Company in the United States, and
(2) the Company acted in concert with certain other defendants to
unfairly raise the prices of generic divalproex sodium ER (bottle
of 80, 500 mg tablets ER 24H) and generic pravastatin sodium
(bottle of 500, 10 mg tablets).

Dr. Reddy's said, "The Company disputes these allegations and
intends to vigorously defend against these allegations."

Further, on November 17, 2016, certain class action complaints
were filed against the Company and a number of other
pharmaceutical companies as defendants in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  These
complaints allege that the Company and the other named defendants
have engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices and to allocate bids
and customers in the sale of pravastatin sodium tablets and
divalproex sodium extended-release tablets in the United States.

Dr. Reddy's said, "The Company denies any wrongdoing and intends
to vigorously defend against these allegations."

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated
pharmaceutical company worldwide.  It operates through three
segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active
Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products.  The Company was
founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Hyderabad, India.


DRYSHIPS INC: "Hodges" Suit Asserts Stock Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------
Maxime Hodges, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dryships Inc., George Economou and Anthony
Kandylidis, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05368 (S.D. N.Y., July
14, 2017), seeks to recover damages caused by defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

DryShips Inc. owns and operates ocean going cargo vessels
worldwide, offering drybulk and offshore support.

Defendants are allegedly using a systemic stock-manipulation
scheme to artificially inflate DryShips' share price and are said
to be involved in an illegal capital-raising scheme, due in part
to an unregistered underwriter. Since November 2016, DryShips'
share price has fallen approximately 99.9%. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

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


ECO SCIENCE: Lu Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Jiaxin Lu, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Eco Science Solutions Inc., Jeffery Lee
Taylor, Gannon Giguiere and Don Lee Taylor, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-05161 (D.N.J., July 14, 2017), seeks to recover
compensable damages for violation of federal securities laws, and
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Eco Science Solutions is a technology-focused company that
provides solutions for the health and wellness industry. On
December 15, 2016, a report was published alleging that Eco
Science was operating a "pump-and-dump scheme" whereby the company
was paying a third party to promote its stock, inflating the
market price, while its primary products, two mobile apps, were
essentially worthless. On this news, the Company's stock price
fell $0.13 per share, or 4.8%, to close at $2.55 per share on
December 16, 2016, thereby damaging investors including the
Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
      Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
             decklund@carellabyrne.com

             - and -

      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


ENERNOC INC: Berg Sues Over Sale to Enel Green
----------------------------------------------
Robert Berg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Enernoc, Inc., Tim Healy, David Brewster,
Kirk Arnold, Jim Baum, Arthur W. Coviello, Jr., TJ Glauthier, Gary
Haroian, Enel S.P.A., Enel Green Power North America, Inc. and
Pine Merger Sub Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-11331 (D.
Mass., July 18, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing the acquisition of EnerNOC by Enel Green Power North
America, Inc., rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger,
costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Shareholders of EnerNOC will receive $7.67 in cash for each share
of EnerNOC common stock. Defendants locked up the merger by
agreeing to a "no solicitation" provision that prohibits the
solicitation of alternative proposals. Plaintiff also allege that
the intrinsic value of EnerNOC is materially in excess of the
amount offered.

EnerNOC is a provider of energy intelligence software and demand
response solutions to better address utility bill management,
facility analysis and optimization, sustainability and reporting,
project tracking, and demand management. [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
      Tel: (302) 295-531
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
      MATORIN LAWOFFICE, LLC
      18 Grove Street, Suite 5
      Wellesley, MA 02482
      Tel: (781) 453-0100
      Email: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com


EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Workers Directed to File Sur-reply
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of California,
issued an Order affording Plaintiff in the case captioned DAVID
BERLANGA, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC (N.D. Cal.), to file sur-
reply continuing hearing on the Motion to Dismiss and continuing
case management conference.

Before the Court is defendants Equilon Enterprises LLC, CRI U.S.
LP, CRI Catalyst Company LP and Shell Pipeline Company LP
(Defendants) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

In their First Amended Class Action Complaint, plaintiffs allege
they have not been provided with rest breaks in accordance with
California law. In their motion, Shell Defendants argue, inter
alia, that plaintiffs' claims are completely pre-empted by the
Labor Management Relations Act because, according to Shell
Defendants, resolution of those claims will require interpretation
of terms in collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) governing
plaintiffs' employment.

In their reply, however, Shell Defendants identify a dispute as to
the meaning of the contractual term uninterrupted and argue the
dispute as to interpretation of that term must be resolved in
order to determine plaintiffs' claims.

In order to afford plaintiffs an opportunity to respond to the
above-referenced new argument, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file
sur-reply.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 31, 2017 Order is
available http://tinyurl.com/yar5udhpfrom Leagle.com.

David Berlanga, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelia Dai, Hadsell
Stormer & Renick, LLP, 128 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 204, Pasadena,
CA 91103

David Berlanga, Plaintiff, represented by Jay Edward Smith --
js@gslaw.com -- Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation, Randy R.
Renick -- rrr@hadsellstormer.com -- Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP
& Joshua Finley Young -- jyoung@gslaw.org -- Gilbert & Sackman, A
Law Corporation.

Brandon Ehresman, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelia Dai, Hadsell
Stormer & Renick, LLP, Jay Edward Smith, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law
Corporation, Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP &
Joshua Finley Young, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation.

Charles Gaeth, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelia Dai, Hadsell
Stormer & Renick, LLP, Jay Edward Smith, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law
Corporation, Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP &
Joshua Finley Young, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation.

Michael Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelia Dai, Hadsell
Stormer & Renick, LLP, Jay Edward Smith, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law
Corporation, Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP &
Joshua Finley Young, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation.

John Langlitz, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelia Dai, Hadsell
Stormer & Renick, LLP, Jay Edward Smith, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law
Corporation, Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP &
Joshua Finley Young, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation.

Christopher Palacio, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelia Dai,
Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP, Jay Edward Smith, Gilbert &
Sackman, A Law Corporation, Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer &
Renick, LLP & Joshua Finley Young, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law
Corporation.

Equilon Enterprises LLC, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Kim
Kimura -- rkimura@lkclaw.com -- Lafayette & Kumagai LLP & Gary T.
Lafayette -- glafayette@lkclaw.com -- Lafayette & Kumagai LLP.

CRI U.S. LP, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Kim Kimura,
Lafayette & Kumagai LLP & Gary T. Lafayette, Lafayette & Kumagai
LLP.

Shell Pipeline Company LP, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Kim
Kimura, Lafayette & Kumagai LLP & Gary T. Lafayette, Lafayette &
Kumagai LLP.

CRI Catalyst Company LP, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Kim
Kimura, Lafayette & Kumagai LLP & Gary T. Lafayette, Lafayette &
Kumagai LLP.


FACEBOOK INC: Amended Complaint in False Data Suit Due Aug. 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a disclaimer in Facebook's terms of service can't shield it
from a class action accusing it of using false metrics to inflate
the value of its video advertising service, a federal judge in San
Francisco ruled on July 14.

"Facebook's disclaimer is too vague to warn a reasonable consumer
that Facebook may provide advertising metrics without properly
vetting or auditing them for approximately two years," U.S.
District Judge Thelton Henderson wrote in denying in part and
granting in part Facebook's motion to dismiss.

Lead plaintiff Thomas Letizia sued Facebook in October 2016,
claiming it gained an unfair advantage by overstating the average
time viewers watched video ads by 60 to 80 percent. Menlo Park-
based Facebook acknowledged in September 2016 that it had
miscalculated two key metrics by leaving out views that lasted
less than three seconds.

Henderson dismissed unfair competition and injunctive relief
claims against Facebook without prejudice, but refused to dismiss
a breach of implied duty claim. He also threw out a quasi-contract
claim with prejudice.

During a hearing in June, Facebook attorneys argued the company
can't be liable for a "software error" because its terms of
service state that Facebook does "not guarantee" its service "will
always be safe, secure, or error-free."

Its attorney Ashok Ramani said Facebook does not assert the
warning will shield it from all liability, but that in the case of
a software error, the disclaimer should apply.

Henderson found the disclaimer too broad, and that it was not
clear whether the false metrics resulted from a software bug.

"The Court finds it unclear whether the cause of Facebook's
alleged mistake falls within the scope of a 'software error,'"
Henderson wrote in the 24-page ruling.

He refused to dismiss a state law claim of unfair competition on
that basis, but instead dismissed the claim without prejudice for
lack of standing. He found the plaintiff advertisers failed to
adequately allege they relied on false data when purchasing ads.

Turning to a breach of implied duty claim, Henderson rejected
Facebook's argument that it had no contractual or implied duty to
provide viewership data, let alone accurate data.  He also refused
to accept arguments that Facebook provided the performance metrics
as "a free, complimentary service" or gift to advertisers.

"Here, there is no doubt that Facebook had been providing
advertising metrics to plaintiffs as part of its advertising
services," Henderson wrote, as the contract specifically referred
to "use of the self-service advertising interface."

But he denied the advertisers' claim for injunctive relief,
finding they failed to show a "real or immediate" threat of future
injury, since Facebook has corrected the problem that was skewing
its data.  He dismissed a quasi-contract claim, finding "there
cannot be a claim based on quasi contract where there exists
between the parties a valid express contract covering the same
subject matter," citing the 2015 ruling in Smith v. Allmax
Nutrition from the Eastern District of California.

The plaintiffs have until Aug. 14 to file an amended complaint.

Facebook spokeswoman Vanessa Chan said in an email: "We're pleased
with the court's decision to dismiss these claims. The case has no
merit, and we will continue to defend ourselves vigorously."

Facebook, the world's most popular online social network, boasts
of 1.94 billion active users each month, according to its website.
The company, launched in 2004 by Harvard dropout Mark Zuckerberg,
was valued at $435 billion in April, according to Forbes.

Facebook earns more than 95 percent of its revenue from
advertising, according to Letizia's complaint.

Facebook's attorney Ramani and plaintiffs' attorney Gregory Rueb
did not return phone calls seeking comment on July 14 afternoon.

Ramani is with Keker Van Nest & Peters in San Francisco; Rueb with
Rueb & Motta in Concord, California.

The case is captioned, THOMAS LETIZIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FACEBOOK INC., Defendant. Case 3:16-cv-06232-THE (N.D. Cal., July
14, 2017).

FELCOR LODGING: "Bagheri" Seeks to Block Sale to RLJ Lodging
------------------------------------------------------------
Judy G. Bagheri, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Felcor Lodging Trust
Incorporated, Thomas J. Corcoran, Jr., Mark D. Rozells, Glenn A.
Carlin, Robert F. Cotter, Patricia L. Gibson, Dana K. Hamilton,
Christopher J. Hartung, Charles A. Ledsinger, Jr., Robert H. Lutz,
Jr., Steven R. Goldman, Felcor Lodging Limited Partnership, RLJ
Lodging Trust, RLJ Lodging Trust, L.P., Rangers Sub I, LLC, and
Rangers Sub II, LP, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01892 (N.D. Tex.,
July 17, 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
FelCor Lodging Trust Incorporated by RLJ Lodging Trust and its
affiliates, awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants
consummate the merger, reasonable allowance for plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Each outstanding share of common stock of FelCor will be converted
into the right to receive 0.362 common shares of beneficial
interest of RLJ, and each share of $1.95 Series A cumulative
convertible preferred stock of FelCor will be converted into the
right to receive one share of newly created Series A cumulative
convertible preferred shares of RLJ.

The merger consideration represents a value of only $7.20 per
share, a sharp discount to FelCor's $7.32 per share stock price on
April 21, 2017. Also, the merger agreement provides for a
termination fee payable by FelCor to RLJ if its terminates the
deal, thus locking up control in favor of RLJ and precluded other
bidders from making successful competing offers.

FelCor is a Maryland corporation operating as a real estate
investment trust. Its core portfolio consists primarily of upper-
upscale and luxury hotels located in major markets and resort
locations that have dynamic demand generators and high barriers-
to-entry. FelCor sells, acquires, rebrands, and redevelops hotels
to increase its return on invested capital, improve overall
portfolio quality, enhance diversification and improve growth
rates. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
      THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
      8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (214) 239-4568
      Fax: (281) 254-7789 (fax)
      Email: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

             - and -

      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      Christopher Gold, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Fax: (561) 750-3364

             - and -

      David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
      Timothy Z. Lacomb, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-3301
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423


FIAT CHRYSLER: Investors Can Amend Emissions-related Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
case captioned VICTOR PIRNIK, Plaintiff, v. FIAT CHRYSLER
AUTOMOBILES, N.V., et al., Defendants, No. 15-CV-7199 (JMF) (S.D.
N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs in this putative securities fraud class action --
brought pursuant the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 -- are
investors in Defendant FCA NV, a global car company.  They
initially alleged that FCA NV and several officers of its largest
subsidiary, FCA U.S., made false and misleading statements
regarding FCA's substantial compliance with applicable safety
regulations and recall reserve estimates.  In an earlier opinion,
familiarity with which is assumed, the Court granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims regarding the recall
reserve estimates, but allowed the Plaintiffs' claims with respect
to safety regulation compliance to proceed.

A few months after the Court's earlier decision, on Jan. 12, 2017,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the
California Air Resources Board issued Notices of Violation to FCA
for failing to disclose certain engine management software that
could alter the emissions output in light-duty model year 2014,
2015, and 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks with
3.0 liter diesel engines.  On this news, FCA's stock dropped $1.35
per share, closing roughly 12%t below its opening price that day.

Soon thereafter, the Plaintiffs sought and were granted leave to
amend their complaint to incorporate allegations regarding FCA's
purportedly material misrepresentations regarding compliance with
emissions regulations.  The operative complaint now alleges that
throughout the class period -- Oct. 14, 2014, through Feb. 6, 2017
-- FCA NV; Sergio Marchionne, the CEO of FCA NV and US; and other
individual Defendants repeatedly misled investors as to FCA's
compliance with applicable emissions regulations for diesel
vehicles.  The Defendants now move to dismiss those claims,
arguing that the Complaint contains insufficient particularized
facts to support a strong inference that the Defendants acted with
the necessary intent to defraud its investors.

As the Plaintiffs fail to allege that any of the Defendants sold
shares of FCA stock during the class period, the Plaintiffs must
allege either actual intent or conscious recklessness to prevail.
But Judge Furman finds that the Plaintiffs also fail to do so.
Ultimately, aside from the January 2017 Notices of Violations, he
finds no allegations in the Complaint inconsistent with the
alternative inference proffered by FCA: that the company, in good
faith, believed these 104,000 vehicles were in compliance with the
law.  FCA's disclosure of software other than the devices for
which the company is now being prosecuted provides some common
sense support for the Plaintiffs' argument.  But it is no less
(and arguably more) plausible to think that FCA believed itself to
be in compliance given the myriad of harsh consequences, financial
and otherwise, the company knew it would suffer if the devices
were found to be illegal.  Without any allegations that Marchionne
or other FCA officials received contradictory information or knew
that the devices were not in compliance prior to statements made
during the class period, the Plaintiffs' allegations must be
dismissed.

That said, the Court concludes -- with some misgivings -- that the
Plaintiffs should be given a chance to amend their emissions-
related claims.  To the extent the Defendants argue that amendment
would be futile because the initiation of a formal regulatory
investigation does not require disclosure under the relevant
securities laws, the cases it relies on are largely inapposite
because the Plaintiffs allege securities fraud based on
affirmative misrepresentations of compliance, not based on the
failure to disclose ongoing government investigations.
Accordingly, amendment would not necessarily be futile.

For the reasons stated, Judge Furman granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' emissions-related claims but the
Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend those claims; and denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for judicial notice.

Within one week of the date of the Opinion and Order, the
Plaintiffs will inform the Court whether they intend to amend
their emissions-related claims.  They will not be given any
further opportunity to amend the Complaint to address the issues
raised by the instant motion.  If Plaintiffs choose to amend the
Complaint, they must do so within two weeks of the date of the
Opinion and Order.  FCA will have three weeks from the filing of
any amended complaint to answer or file a new motion to dismiss.
In the meantime, the stay with respect to the Plaintiffs' class
certification motion will remain in effect.  If, however, they
decline to amend the Complaint again, then FCA's opposition to the
class certification motion will be due within two weeks of their
letter regarding amendment.  The Clerk of Court is directed to
terminate the corresponding dockets.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/l0pbGw from Leagle.com.

Gary Koopman, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A..

Gary Koopman, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman
-- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Laurence Matthew Rosen
-- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Sara Esther
Fuks -- sfuks@rosenlegal.com -- Milberg LLP & Michael Jonathan
Wernke -- mjwernke@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Timothy Kidd, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim, The
Rosen Law Firm P.A., Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP,
Laurence Matthew Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Sara Esther
Fuks, Milberg LLP & Michael Jonathan Wernke, Pomerantz LLP.

Victor Pirnik, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Jonathan Wernke,
Pomerantz LLP, Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP, Sara
Esther Fuks, Milberg LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Sheila Ross, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by John Brandon
Walker, Bragar, Eagel & Squire P.C. & Todd Harris Henderson,
Bragar, Eagel & Squire P.C..

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Defendant, represented by Anil
Karim Vassanji -- vassanjia@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, Joshua Seth Levy -- levyjo@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Robert Joseph Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com
-- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Victoria Alterman Coyle, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP & William Brian Monahan -- monahanw@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.

Sergio Marchionne, Defendant, represented by Anil Karim Vassanji,
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Joshua Seth Levy, Sullivan & Cromwell,
LLP, Robert Joseph Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Victoria Alterman Coyle, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & William Brian
Monahan, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.

Scott Kunselman, Defendant, represented by Anil Karim Vassanji,
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Joshua Seth Levy, Sullivan & Cromwell,
LLP & Robert Joseph Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP


FIRST AMERICAN: Court Decertifies Class in "Lewis" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Lodge of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Idaho granted the Defendant's Motion to Decertify Class in the
case captioned DEBORAH LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. FIRST AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:06-cv-000478-EJL-LMB (D.
Idaho).

This Class Action Complaint was originally filed by Plaintiff
Lewis against the Defendant on Nov. 28, 2006.  The Plaintiff
brought the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated who she alleges
were overcharged for title insurance when refinancing their homes.
The Plaintiff, an Idaho resident, claims on her own behalf that
the Defendant overcharged her by at least $364 in a mortgage
refinance transaction.

Initially, the Plaintiff sought certification of a five-state
class including residential consumers in Idaho, Washington,
Oregon, New Mexico, and Arizona.  On Feb. 24, 2010, the Court
granted class certification but only for residential customers in
the State of Idaho.  The Court defined the class as all persons in
the state of Idaho who, in connection with a mortgage refinancing
transaction: (i) paid a premium for the purchase of residential
title insurance from the Defendant; (ii) had either an unsatisfied
mortgage from an institutional lender and prior title policy
insurance, or a deed to a bona fide purchaser in the chain of
title within two years of the payment of the premium provided in
the Title Insurance Rate manual in Idaho; and (iii) did not
receive the discount specified in the Manual.

On June 1, 2012, the Defendant filed a Motion to Decertify the
Class, making two primary arguments in support of the motion.
First, Defendant argued there was no common method to identify the
class or adjudicate liability.  Instead, the parties required an
unmanageable, file-by-file analysis.  Second, the Defendant argued
intervening United States Supreme Court authority, Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, made clear that Plaintiff could not rely
upon allegations alone but had to provide evidence to support her
contention that class certification was appropriate.

On Nov. 15, 2012, the magistrate judge issued an order denying the
Motion to Decertify the Class and granting the Plaintiff's Motion
to Compel ("2012 Order").  The 2012 Order also granted the
Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Statement and
stated that the Court reviewed the parties' filings related to the
Plaintiff's proposed class list as background for deciding the
pending motions to compel and decertify.  Ultimately, the 2012
Order concluded that the Idaho Rate Manual's "reasonable proof"
language prevents decertification because it is a factual matter
that cannot be determined at this stage of the litigation.

The Defendant initially filed objections to the 2012 Order on Dec.
3, 2012 consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).
After filing its initial objections and before this Court had
ruled on them, it filed eleven additional notices of supplemental
authority in support of its Motion to Decertify.

On May 22, 2017 the Court issued an order requesting a single,
updated objection to the 2012 Order.  On June 22, 2017, the
Defendant filed Renewed Objections to the Nov. 15, 2012 Report and
Recommendation.  The Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file
an updated response to the objection but elected not to do so and
instead rests on her initial Response to Defendant's Objections to
the Nov. 15, 2012 Order.

Judge Lodge finds that the 2012 Order is clearly erroneous for
three reasons: (i) it incorrectly presumes that decertification is
contingent upon a finding that direct proof of a policy is
required to establish eligibility for the reissue rate; (ii) it
ignores the individual nature of proof required to adjudicate
liability; and (ii) it ignores additional evidence in the record,
including practical limitations on discovery and associated
difficulties in ascertaining the class, that demonstrate this case
is not manageable as a class action.

He explains that by allowing "reasonable proof of a prior policy,"
the Court expanded the world of proof that would be considered in
each of these transactions.  Thus, instead of leading to the
conclusion that decertification was not warranted, this finding
leads to the inevitable conclusion that proof of liability as to
each class member is too highly individualized to sustain
continued class certification.  He also finds the Plaintiff's
difficulties in ascertaining class members to further highlight
the problems with maintaining this action as a class action.  The
post-certification record leads him to the inescapable conclusion
that this case is unmanageable as a class action and
decertification is warranted.

Lastly, Judge Lodge says the common thread in these cases is that
there is no easy proxy or common proof to determine liability in
title insurance refinance cases and no common questions capable of
class-wide determination.  As a result, the trial courts and fact
finders must examine each transaction to determine whether the
individual was entitled to, but did not receive, the reissue rate.
This type of individualized approach is not the appropriate
subject of a class action lawsuit.  In sum, decertification is
warranted.  The record no longer supports the Court's initial
findings of predominance and commonality necessary to maintain
class certification under Rule 23.  Therefore, Judge Lodge granted
the Defendant's Motion to Decertify.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2017 memorandum decision
and order is available at https://is.gd/wEyVKO from Leagle.com.

Deborah Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Andrew
Schwartzman -- bas@aswblaw.com -- Andersen Banducci PLLC.

Deborah Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Paul M. Weiss, COMPLEX
LITIGATION GROUP LLC, Richard J. Burke, COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
LLC, Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarwill.com -- Terrell
Marwill Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice & Jennifer Rust Murray,
Terrell Marwill Daudt & Willie PLLC, pro hac vice.

First American Title Company, Defendant, represented by Charles A.
Newman -- charles.newman@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Elizabeth
A. Ferrick -- elizabeth.ferrick@dentons.com -- SNR Denton US LLP,
Gerald T. Husch -- gth@moffatt.com -- MOFFATT THOMAS BARRETT ROCK
& FIELDS, Michael J. Duvall -- michael.duvall@dentons.com --
Dentons US LLP, pro hac vice & Tyler J. Anderson --
tya@moffatt.com -- MOFFATT THOMAS BARRETT ROCK & FIELDS CHTD.


FORD MOTOR: Faces "Leverett" Suit in Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------
Matthew W. Leverett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Case No.
5:17-cv-00751 (W.D. Okla., July 13, 2017) seeks damages,
preliminary and permanent equitable relief, declaratory and other
equitable relief, an award of attorneys' fees and costs and expert
fees, reimbursement of costs and expenses expended in litigating
this action, and other such further relief for violation of the
Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.

Leverett purchased a "lifted" 2017 Ford F-250 Super Duty Truck
from a Ford dealership located in Elk City, Oklahoma. He claims
that the jacks from its standard tool pack cannot safely be used
on his vehicle.

Ford Motor Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Detroit, Michigan. Ford manufactures and
sells Ford-branded vehicles. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      Joshua D. Wells, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
      Oklahoma City, OK 73120
      Telephone: (405) 235-1560
      Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
      Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
             jdw@federmanlaw.com

             - and -

      Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
      Robert S. Plosky, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 759-4600
      Fax: (212) 486-2093
      Email: pavery@wolfpopper.com
             rplosky@wolfpopper.com


FOXSCO INC: "McShane" Suit in NY Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Loretta McShane and Thomas Giambruno, individually and on behalf
of other persons similarly situated v. Foxsco Inc. d/b/a
Canterbury Ales Oyster Bar and Grill; Mark Fox; Paula Fox; and any
other related entities, Case No. 607129/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July
19, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, minimum wage, spread of
hours compensation, and unlawfully retained gratuities pursuant to
the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 46 Audrey
Avenue, Oyster Bay, New York 11771. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550
      E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com


GAINESVILLE HOSPITAL: Aug. 21 Hearing in Bond Validation Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gainesville Hospital District d/b/a North Texas Medical Center,
will appear before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Plano, Texas, at
10:00 a.m. on August 21, 2017, for a hearing on its adversary
complaint.

Gainesville Hospital filed an Original Complaint/Petition for
Expedited Declaratory Judgment (Ex Parte Adversary No. 17-04072)
on July 28, 2017, pursuant to Chapter 1205 of the Texas Government
Code.  The case is an in rem and class action proceeding brought
by the Hospital District in connection with the restructuring and
refunding of various expenses and liabilities and anticipated
expenses and liabilities to be incurred by the District in an
amount not to exceed $34,750,000.

Gainesville Hospital has notified all Interested Parties and the
Honorable Ken Paxton, in his official capacity as Attorney General
of the Slate of Texas, of their right to appear at the hearing.
At the hearing, they may show cause why the Hospital District's
Original Petition should not be granted by the Court's signing of
a Declaratory Judgment ordering the public securities or the
public security authorizations be validated and confirmed.

The proceeding was instituted in the Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, which the District
concluded has jurisdiction and is a proper venue.

In the proceeding, the Hospital District seeks to obtain a
declaratory judgment to conclusively establish:

     (a) the District's authority to issue its limited tax
         general obligation refunding bonds (the "Bonds"), from
         time to time in one or more series as may be necessary,
         pursuant to Chapter 1207 of the Texas Government Code
         ("Chapter 1207") to restructure and refinance each of
         the District's general or special obligations
         established in the Original Petition without an election
         in connection with the issuance thereof;

     (b) the District's authority to levy ad valorem taxes in an
         amount not to exceed 75 cents on the $100 valuation of
         all taxable property within the physical boundaries of
         the District, in order to provide indigent medical care
         to residents within the District and to pay the Bonds
         (of which not more than 65 cents on the $100 valuation
         may be imposed to pay principal of and interest on the
         Bonds in any given year);

     (c) the District's authority to incur the Obligations in
         order to operate and maintain the North Texas Medical
         Center (the "Hospital") and provide indigent care poor
         to and during its bankruptcy proceeding;

     (d) the validity and legality of the District's liabilities
         for the payment of the Obligations, associated with the
         continued operation and maintenance of the Hospital and
         the provision of indigent care by the District:

     (e) the classification of each such liability amid each such
         related Obligation, in not-to-exceed amounts provided in
         the Original Petition, as "other general or special
         obligations" pursuant to Chapter 1207; and

     (f) the validity and legality of the proposed orders,
         elections, judgments, agreements, certificates and
         contracts described in the Original Petition, including
         the statutory authority of the District to adopt,
         execute or enter into such orders, elections, judgments,
         agreements, certificates and contracts, all of which
         relate to the issuance of the Bonds and the expenditure
         of Bond proceeds for the payment in full of the
         Obligations, for the continued operation and maintenance
         of the Hospital and the provision of indigent care by
         the District.

The Original Petition, which more fully describes the Obligations
the Bonds, and the related agreements, is on file with the court
and is available for review by any person, including those who:

     (1) reside in the territory of the District;

     (2) own property located within the boundaries of the
         District;

     (3) are taxpayers of the District;

     (4) have or claim a right, title, or interest in any
         property or money to be affected by a public security
         authorization or the issuance of the public securities
         by the District, including those who are creditors in
         the captioned bankruptcy proceeding (such persons
         constitute "Interested Parties").

Interested Parties may become a named party to the bond validation
action by filing an answer with the Court at or before the time
set for trial, or by intervening, but only with leave of court,
after the trial date. The Court has ordered this deadline
notwithstanding other deadlines under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or The Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure.

Additional information is available at http://www.ntmconline.net/

The case is before the Hon. Bankruptcy Judge Brenda T. Rhoades.

              About Gainesville Hospital District

Gainesville Hospital District filed a Chapter 9 petition (Bankr.
E. D. Tex. Case No. 17-40101) on January 17, 2017.  The petition
was signed by Ramin Roufeh, chief executive officer.  At the time
of the filing, the Debtor estimated its assets and liabilities at
$10 million to $50 million.

The Debtor is represented by:

     William R. Greendyke, Esq.
     Julie Goodrich Harrison, Esq.
     NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
     1301 McKinney Street, Suite 5100
     Houston, Texas 77010-3095
     Tel: 713-651-5151
     Fax: 713-651-5246

          - and -

     Ryan E. Manns, Esq.
     NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
     2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
     Dallas, TX 75201-7932
     Tel: 214-855-8000
     Fax: 214-855-8200

The U.S. trustee for Region 6 on Feb. 1 appointed five creditors
of Gainesville Hospital District to serve on the official
committee of unsecured creditors.  The Committee consists of
creditors AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp.; Medtronic; Morrison
Management Specialists, Inc.; NorthStar Anesthesia, P.A.; and
Voice Products Service, LLC.   At a meeting held February 7, 2017,
the Committee selected as its counsel:

     Andrew H. Sherman, Esq.
     Boris I. Mankovetskiy, Esq.
     Lucas F. Hammonds, Esq.
     Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.
     The Legal Center
     One Riverfront Plaza
     Newark, NJ 07102
     E-mail: asherman@sillscummis.com
             bmankovetskiy@sillscummis.com
             lhammonds@sillscummis.com

          - and -

     Joseph J. Wielebinski, Esq.
     Kevin M. Lippman, Esq.
     Thomas Berghman, Esq.
     Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C.
     500 North Akard Street, Suite 3800
     Dallas, TX 75201-6659
     Telephone (214) 855-7500
     Facsimile (214) 978-4375
     E-mail: JWielebinski@munsch.com
             KLippman@munsch.com
             TBerghman@munsch.com

The Debtor's DIP Lender is Universal Health Services, Inc.

Susan Goodman has been appointed Patient Care Ombudsman.  She may
be reached at:

     Susan Goodman
     MESCH CLARK ROTHSCHILD
     259 N. Meyer Avenue
     Tucson, AZ 85701-1090
     Tel: 520-624-8886
     Fax: 520-798-1037


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses "Sloan" Suit with Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed, with leave to amend, the case
captioned MONTEVILLE SLOAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-07244-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Generation IV
Vortec 5300 Engine consumes an abnormally and improperly high
quantity of oil that far exceeds industry standards for reasonable
oil consumption.  They allege that the Low-Tension Oil Ring Defect
in the Class Vehicles results in excessive oil consumption,
leading to increased friction and, thus, engine damage.  That
means that each Class Vehicle has suffered and will continue to
suffer, internal component wear.  Potential consequences include
overheating, the engine catching on fire, and the engine shutting
down unexpectedly.  To prevent damage from critically low oil
levels, GM implemented an Oil Life Monitoring System but the
Plaintiffs allege the system fails to advise drivers of
insufficient oil levels in their vehicles.  However, none of the
Plaintiffs allege that their vehicles actually experienced any
excessive oil consumption.  Further, not a single Plaintiff
alleges that his or her vehicle experienced any damage due to
excessive oil consumption from the Low-Tension Oil Rings.

The Plaintiffs also allege that GM knew about the excessive oil
consumption problem caused by the Low-Tension Oil Ring Defect in
the Generation IV Vortec 5300.  Despite this alleged knowledge, GM
has never disclosed the Low-Tension Oil Ring Defect to consumers
and has allowed drivers of the Class Vehicles to continue driving
those vehicles, despite knowing that they are consuming oil at an
abnormally high rate.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs seek relief from their injury, which
they identify as the fact that they paid more for their Class
Vehicles than they would have paid had they known about the defect
that GM failed to disclose, or they would not have purchased or
leased their Class Vehicles at all.  They seek relief under the
following statutes: (i) Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (ii) 32 state
consumer protection and fraud-based statutes such as the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California Unfair
Competition Law; and (iii) 32 breach of implied and express
warranty state statutes.

The Plaintiffs first filed a class action complaint for
declaratory and injunctive relief on Dec. 19, 2016.  On Feb. 27,
2017, they filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC").  On April 10,
2017, GM filed the instant motion to dismiss the FAC, arguing that
the Plaintiffs lack constitutional standing, have failed to
adequately plead consumer protection and fraud claims, breach of
express and implied warranty claims, and unjust enrichment, and
that their claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitation.
In response, the Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss on May 25, 2017.  Then, on June 15, 2017 GM filed a Reply
to the Plaintiff's Opposition.

Judge Chen concludes that the Plaintiffs (i) have sufficiently
alleged an "injury in fact;" (ii) have failed to allege that GM
omitted disclosure of a material fact under California law; (iii)
have not adequately alleged that GM knew of the alleged Low-
Tension Oil Ring defect and have failed to allege that GM engaged
in any fraudulent omission; (iv) have experienced excessive oil
consumption at all; and (v) have not sufficiently alleged GM's
knowledge and concealment of the defect to rise to the level of
plausibility.

For these reasons, Judge Chen granted GM's motion to dismiss in
its entirety and granted the Plaintiffs leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint within 30 days of the filing of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/oNi9Vm from Leagle.com.

Monteville Sloan, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus
-- lori.andrus@andrusanderson.com -- Andrus Anderson LLP.

Monteville Sloan, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt --
alevitt@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew England
Brashier -- andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley Allen, pro
hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia, AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb,
II, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello
Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III --
clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin,
Portis and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon,
Johnson Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren --
jtangren@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mark A.
DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker,
Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III --
dee.miles@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie
Lee Anderson -- jennie@andrusanderson.com -- Andrus Anderson LLP.

Raul Siqueiros, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew
England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia,
AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen, pro hac
vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay
Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles,
P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, pro
hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mark A.
DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker --
TBECKER@JOHNSONBECKER.COM -- Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice,
Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee
Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP.

Joseph Brannan, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew
England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia,
AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley
Allen, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis
and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Marybeth
V. Gibson, The Finley Firm, PC, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker,
Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III,
Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson
LLP.

Donald Ludington, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus,
Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Andrew England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J.
Garcia, AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen,
pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H.
Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and
Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy
J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel
Miles, III, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson,
Andrus Anderson LLP.

Thomas Shorter, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew
England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia,
AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen, pro hac
vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay
Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles,
P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, pro
hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mark A.
DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker,
Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III,
Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson
LLP.

Gabriel Del Valle, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus,
Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Andrew England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J.
Garcia, AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen,
pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H.
Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and
Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy
J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel
Miles, III, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson,
Andrus Anderson LLP.

Gail Lannom, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew
England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia,
AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley
Allen, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis
and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy
J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel
Miles, III, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson,
Andrus Anderson LLP.

Bradley K. Zierke, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus,
Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Andrew England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J.
Garcia, AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Archibald Irwin Grubb, II,
Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt
& Casey LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin,
Portis and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon,
Johnson Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt &
Casey LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice,
Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson
Daniel Miles, III, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee
Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP.

Ross Dahl, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew
England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia,
AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley
Allen, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis
and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy
J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel
Miles, III, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson,
Andrus Anderson LLP.

Drew Peterson, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew
England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia,
AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley
Allen, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis
and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy
J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel
Miles, III, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson,
Andrus Anderson LLP.

General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph John Ybarra -
- Joseph.Ybarra@hysmlaw.com -- Huang Ybarra Singer and May LLP &
Gregory Richard Oxford -- goxford@iccolaw.com -- Isaacs Clouse
Crose & Oxford LLP.


GENERAL MOTORS: "Ellis" Class Settlement Has Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan,
issued an Order for preliminary approval of proposed class action
settlement in the case captioned TIFFANY ELLIS, STEPHEN TYSON,
GAIL BRALEY, DAVID LYALL, LINDA KEMP, SYLVESTER TIBBITS, LUCAS
CRANOR, MARY CRAWFORD, IRENE STAGER, NATASHA CLASS ACTION FORD,
and GARRY WILLET, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. General Motors, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-11747-GCS-APP (E.D. Mich.).

This Court has read and considered the Agreement of Compromise and
Settlement (Agreement) entered into by and among Defendant General
Motors, LLC (Defendant), and Plaintiffs Tiffany Ellis, Stephen
Tyson, Gail Braley, David Lyall, Linda Kemp, Sylvester Tibbits,
Lucas Cranor, Mary Crawford, Irene Stager, Natasha Ford, and Garry
Willet and (Plaintiffs).

The Action is provisionally certified as a class action, for the
purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), which
class is defined as follows:

     ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES WHO PURCHASED OR LEASED
A RETAIL NEW MODEL YEAR 2016 CHEVROLET TRAVERSE, BUICK ENCLAVE OR
GMC ACADIA WITH A WINDOW STICKER DISPLAYING INCORRECT EPA-
ESTIMATED FUEL ECONOMY AND FIVE-YEAR FUEL COSTS FROM AN AUTHORIZED
GM DEALER AND WHO HAVE NOT EXECUTED A RELEASE OF ANY AND ALL
CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE ACTION IN FAVOR OF GM IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE COMPENSATION PROGRAM DESCRIBED BELOW AND WHO HAVE NOT
OTHERWISE RELEASED THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST GM SET FORTH IN THE
ACTION, AND WHO DO NOT SUBMIT TIMELY REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION.

Plaintiffs Tiffany Ellis, Stephen Tyson, Gail Braley, David Lyall,
Linda Kemp, Sylvester Tibbits, Lucas Cranor, Mary Crawford, Irene
Stager, Natasha Ford, and Garry Willet are appointed as
representatives of the proposed Settlement Class.

The Miller Law Firm, P.C., and McCune Wright Arevalo LLP, are
appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) to
represent the interests of the proposed Settlement Class.

A hearing will be held by the Court on November 6, 2017, beginning
at 3:00 p.m., to consider and determine whether the requirements
for certification of the Settlement Class have been met and
whether the proposed settlement of the Action on the terms set
forth in the Agreement should be approved as fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.

Any Settlement Class Member who complies with the requirements of
this section may object to any aspect of the proposed settlement
either on their own or through an attorney hired at his or her
expense. Any Settlement Class Member who intends to object to the
proposed settlement must do so no later than September 11, 2017

Any Class Member may make a request to be excluded from the
Settlement Class, and from participation in the settlement
consideration provided by this Agreement, by mailing or delivering
such request in writing (Request for Exclusion) to the Settlement
Administrator which address will be set forth in the Class Notice.
Any Request for Exclusion must be actually delivered not later
than September 11, 2017.

The Court enjoins all Settlement Class Members from commencing or
prosecuting any action asserting any claims that are the subject
of this Action pending the Final Approval Hearing, unless they
have validly opted out of the settlement described in the
Agreement and the Court has approved such opt outs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 19, 2017 Order is
available http://tinyurl.com/y7hx7xamfrom Leagle.com.

Sean Tolmasoff, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Michael Gonyea --
amg@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

Sean Tolmasoff, Plaintiff, represented by Sharon S. Almonrode --
ssa@miller.law.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C. & E. Powell Miller
-- epm@miller.law.com -- The Miller Law Firm.

Garry Willit, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm.

Natasha Ford, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm.

Tiffany Ellis, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm.

David Lyall, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm.

Irene Stager, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm.

Mary Crawford, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm.

Linda Kemp, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The Miller
Law Firm.

Stephen Tyson, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm.

Lucas Cranor, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm.

Gail Braley, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm.

Sylvester Tibbits, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm.

General Motors, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark A. Stern --
mstern@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller, Robert B. Ellis --
robert.ellis@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis & Robert M. Jackson
-- jackson@gsnh.com -- Honigman, Miller.


GOLDEN WEST: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Golden West Trading, Inc., and Does 1 to 100,
Inclusive, Case No. BC669282 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 19, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Golden West Trading, Inc. operates a food manufacturing company
located at 4401 S Downey Rd, Vernon, CA 90058. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
      Vanessa Kamau, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 432-0000
      Facsimile: (310) 432-0001


GRACE AND MERCY: Sued in Miss. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Webb, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated v.
Grace and Mercy Personal Care and Respite Services, LLC, Case No.
5:17-cv-00097-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss., July 18, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay statutory minimum wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Grace and Mercy Personal Care and Respite Services, LLC operates a
privately owned elderly assistance living company headquartered in
Clinton, Mississippi. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christoper W. Espy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN PLLC
      4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 200
      Jackson, MI 39211
      Telephone: (601) 718-2087
      Facsimile: (601) 718-2102
      E-mail: cespy@forthepeople.com


GREENSPOON MARDER: "Lapan" Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Karena Lapan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Greenspoon Marder P.A., Defendants, Case
No. 5:17-cv-00130 (D. Vt., July 13, 2017), seeks compensatory
damages, award of costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and
such other and further relief for violation of the federal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and the Vermont Consumer Protection
Act.

Greenspoon attempted to collect a debt related to a timeshare
property in Nevada. It sent a proforma "Notice of Default" and
attached a list of debtors. LaPan sues Greenspoon for publishing a
list of debtors in violation of Federal and Vermont law. Said list
contains unredacted personal individual information, thus
revealing their private information. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew B. Delaney, Esq.
      MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      P.O. Box 607
      100 North Main Street, Ste. 2
      Barre, VT 05641
      Tel: (802) 479-0568 ext. 13
      Fax: (802) 479-5414
      Email: andrew@martinassociateslaw.com

             - and -

      Peter A. Holland, Esq.
      THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      P.O. Box 6268
      Annapolis, MD 21401
      Tel: (410) 280-6133
      Fax: (410) 280-8650
      Email: peter@hollandlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Emanwel J. Turnbull, Esq.
      THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      P.O. Box 6268
      Annapolis, MD 21401
      Telephone: (410) 280-6133
      Facsimile: (410) 280-8650
      Email: eturnbull@hollandlawfirm.com


HAJOCA CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Tinoco, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Hajoca Corporation and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. BC669091 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 19, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to comply with California labor
laws governing: (1) the inclusion of bonus pay in overtime rate
calculations, resulting in unpaid overtime wages and failure to
pay all wages due on termination; (2) failure to pay wages,
including overtime, due to timecard rounding practices, also
resulting in failure to pay all wages due on termination; (3)
failure to provide timely meal breaks, and (4) failure to provide
rest breaks.

Hajoca Corporation engages in the distribution of plumbing,
heating, and industrial supplies in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
      KOUL LAW FIRM
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 761-5484
      E-mail: nazo@konllaw.com

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Blvd.
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892


HANAMI WESTWOOD: Delivery Drivers Declassified in "Yin" FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JUN YIN and XINQUAN LIU, and on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HANAMI
WESTWOOD, INC. d/b/a HANAMI RESTAURANT, HANAMI CRESSKILL, INC.
d/b/a HANAMI RESTAURANT, ERIC CHEN and SAM LINDER, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 14-00809 (D. N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez of
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey excluded
delivery drivers from the conditional class.

This matter comes before the Court by way of the parties' letters
regarding the status of the Plaintiffs' conditional class action
certification under the Fair Labor Standard Act ("FLSA") in light
of the Court's Opinion partially granting the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment.  The Court granted summary judgment as to
Plaintiff Yin's FLSA claim and denied summary judgment as to
Plaintiff Liu, but found that the evidence supported a lesser
amount of damages than that sought by Liu.  The Defendants now
contend that conditional class certification is no longer
appropriate.

On Jan. 21, 2016, Judge Cecchi issued an order conditionally
certifying a class of all of those paid, non-managerial employees
of the Defendants, including but not limited to chefs, waiters,
kitchen workers, dishwashers, delivery persons or any other
equivalent employee, who previously worked, or is currently
working at one of Defendants' restaurants during the past three
years and who: (i) worked overtime during that period; (ii) did
not receive minimum wages for all hours worked; or (iii) did not
have their employment period properly recorded.

Thereafter, the Plaintiffs submitted a (i) proposed publication
order, (ii) notice of pendency, and (iii) consent to join form
("Class Documents").  The Court then ruled on the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment before addressing the sufficiency of
the Class Documents.

Judge Vazquez finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient
evidence to maintain conditional certification as to chefs,
servers, kitchen workers, dishwashers, and equivalent employees
who worked at the Defendants' restaurants during the relevant time
period.  Liu's FLSA claim survived summary judgment and remained
intact as to him and those employees similarly situated to him.
The Judge does not make credibility determinations at the
conditional certification stage.  Accordingly, for the same
reasons stated in Judge Cecchi's order, Judge Vazquez maintained
the conditionally certified class as to Liu and all similarly
situated employees.

However, due to the Court granting summary judgment as to Yin's
FLSA claim, Judge Vazquez finds that the Plaintiffs no longer meet
their burden in conditionally certifying a class composed of
delivery drivers.  As explained in the Court's summary judgment
Opinion, Yin presented insufficient proof that the Defendants
violated his rights under the FLSA.  Therefore, there is
insufficient evidence to maintain conditional certification as to
delivery drivers, and delivery drivers are excluded from the
conditional class.

For these reasons, Judge Vazquez ordered that the Plaintiffs
conditional class certification remains intact, except that
delivery drivers are excluded; and ordered 14 days, the Plaintiffs
will re submit to the Court via CM/ECF a revised Class Documents.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/H10jBa from Leagle.com.

JUN YIN, Plaintiff, represented by BENNET DANN ZUROFSKY --
bzurofsky@zurofskylaw.com.

JUN YIN, Plaintiff, represented by JONATHAN DEPERIO HERNANDEZ,
Asian Americans for Equality.

XINQUAN LIU, Plaintiff, represented by BENNET DANN ZUROFSKY &
JONATHAN DEPERIO HERNANDEZ, Asian Americans for Equality.

Jinglin Hao, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

HANAMI WESTWOOD, INC., Defendant, represented by LEONARD Z.
KAUFMANN -- lzk@njlawfirm.com -- COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN
& KNOPF, LLP.

HANAMI CRESSKILL, INC., Defendant, represented by LEONARD Z.
KAUFMANN, COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP.

ERIC CHEN, Defendant, represented by LEONARD Z. KAUFMANN, COHN,
LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP.

SAM LINDER, Defendant, represented by LEONARD Z. KAUFMANN, COHN,
LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP.


HEALTHTECH RESOURCES: "Caballero" Suit Transferred to D. Ariz.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jessica Caballero, individually and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Healthtech
Resources, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01371 (W.D. Penn.,
February 20, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona on July 14, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-cv-
02321.

Caballero seek recovery of overtime pay and all available relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for unpaid overtime.

Caballero worked for Defendant as an IT Consultant providing
information technology support to HealthTECH's client, Heritage
Valley Health System, in Pennsylvania.

HealthTECH provides information technology and educational
services for the healthcare industry across the country.
HealthTECH maintains its corporate headquarters in Phoenix. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
      Camille Fundora, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Email: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             cfundora@bm.net
             elechtzin@bm.net

             - and -

      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      Olena Savytska, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 994-5800
      Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
             osavytska@llrlaw.com

Defendant is represented by:

      Kimberly J. Kisner, Esq.
      Leah K. Sell, Esq.
      KISNER LAW FIRM LLC
      Gulf Tower
      707 Grant St., Ste. 2646
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 904-4865
      Fax: (412) 235-6704


HOF'S HUT RESTAURANTS: Mackinnon Sues Over Illegal SMS
------------------------------------------------------
Steve Mackinnon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hof's Hut Restaurants, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-at-00708, (E.D. Cal., July 13, 2017), seeks
appropriate, monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further
relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Hof's Hut Restaurants operates Lucille's Smokehouse Bar-B-Que. It
secures mobile phone numbers from their patrons, both walk-in and
those with reservations and uses those collected mobile phone
numbers to send patrons updates on the status of their tables as
well as restaurant specials. However, Defendant fails to obtain
the consent of its patrons to send them text messages via an
Automated Telephone Dialer System and fails to make the required
disclosures under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Fraser, Esq.
      THE FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      4120 Douglas Blvd, Suite 306-262
      Granite Bay, CA 95746
      Phone: (888) 557-5115
      Fax: (866) 212-8434
      Email: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net

             - and -

      Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
      KAMBERLAW LLC
      220 N Green St.
      Chicago, IL 60607
      Phone: (212) 920-3072
      Fax: (212) 202-6364
      Email: masch@kamberlaw.com


HOLISTIC RECOVERY: "Jones" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Jones, and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
Holistic Recovery Centers, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-22639
(S.D. Fla., July 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid compensation
for overtime, liquidated damages, costs, attorney's fees and other
fees arising from violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Defendants operate a drug addiction treatment center in North
Miami Beach, Florida where Jones worked. She claims to have been
denied overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of 40 per
workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stanley Kiszkiel, Esq.
      STANLEY KISZKIEL, PA
      9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 100
      PMB 11, Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
      Tel: (954) 862-2288
      Fax: (954) 517-1848


HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in "King"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian S. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Jonesboro Division, denied the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment in the case captioned SAVOIL KING and
DOROTHY KING for themselves and all Arkansas residents similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC. and OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:14-CV-00183 BSM (E.D.
Ark.).

The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and
potential class members.  Since filing this case, Mr. King has
passed away, but Ms. King continues to pursue her claims.  The
Class certification was recently denied.

The Defendants move for summary judgment claiming that King has
been made whole because she has been reimbursed for the cost of
the force place insurance that was placed on her account.  They
also assert that summary judgment is appropriate because Ocwen is
not the entity that purchased Homeward and because legally
distinct corporate entities are not liable for one another's
actions.  King appears to admit that Homeward refunded the charges
for insurance premiums.  Nonetheless, she asserts that she is also
entitled to interest on the money wrongfully charged because a
full refund is not full compensation unless it comes with
compensation for the lost time value of the money.  She is also
seeking punitive damages.

Judge Miller held that even if the facts stated by the Defendants
are true, they do not demonstrate that they are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.  Accordingly, he denied the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/L5Mzl9 from Leagle.com.

Savoil King, Plaintiff, represented by Joe R. Whatley, Jr. --
jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley Kallas, LLP, pro hac vice.

Savoil King, Plaintiff, represented by Joel G. Hargis, Hargis Law
Office, Kathy A. Cruz, Cruz Law Firm, PLC & Scott E. Poynter,
Poynter Law Group.

Dorothy King, Plaintiff, represented by Joe R. Whatley, Jr.,
Whatley Kallas, LLP, pro hac vice, Joel G. Hargis, Hargis Law
Office, Kathy A. Cruz, Cruz Law Firm, PLC & Scott E. Poynter,
Poynter Law Group.

Homeward Residential Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian V.
Otero, Hunton & Williams, pro hac vice, Jamie Marie Huffman Jones
-- jjones@fridayfirm.com -- Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Kevin
A. Crass -- crass@fridayfirm.com -- Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP,
Ryan A. Becker -- rbecker@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams, pro hac
vice, Stephen R. Blacklocks -- sblacklocks@hunton.com -- Hunton &
Williams, pro hac vice & Mary Kathleen McCarroll --
mmccarroll@fridayfirm.com -- Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP.

Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian V.
Otero, Hunton & Williams, pro hac vice, Jamie Marie Huffman Jones,
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Kevin A. Crass, Friday, Eldredge &
Clark, LLP, Ryan A. Becker, Hunton & Williams, pro hac vice,
Stephen R. Blacklocks, Hunton & Williams, pro hac vice & Mary
Kathleen McCarroll, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP.


HONDA MOTOR: Still Defends Airbag Inflators Suits in US, Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. continues to defend itself against various
class actions in Canada and the United States related to airbag
inflators, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on June 22,
2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

The Company said, "Honda has been conducting market-based measures
in relation to airbag inflators.  Honda recognizes a provision for
specific warranty costs when it is probable that an outflow of
resources embodying economic benefits will be required to settle
the obligation, and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount
of the obligation.  There is a possibility that Honda will need to
recognize additional provisions when new evidence related to the
product recalls arise, however, it is not possible for Honda to
reasonably estimate the amount and timing of potential future
losses as of the date of this report.

"In the United States and Canada, various class action lawsuits
and civil lawsuits related to the above mentioned market-based
measures have been filed against Honda.  The plaintiffs have
claimed for properly functioning airbag inflators, compensation of
economic losses including incurred costs and the decline in the
value of vehicles, as well as punitive damages.  Most of the class
action lawsuits in the United States were transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
and consolidated into a multidistrict litigation.

"Honda did not recognize a provision for loss contingencies
because the conditions for a provision have not been met as of the
date of this report.  Therefore, it is not possible for Honda to
reasonably estimate the amount and timing of potential future
losses as of the date of this report because there are some
uncertainty, such as the period when these lawsuits will be
concluded."

Honda Motor Co., Ltd. develops, manufactures, and distributes
motorcycles, automobiles, power products, and other products
worldwide.  The company operates through four segments: Motorcycle
Business, Automobile Business, Financial Services Business, and
Power Product and Other Businesses.  The company sells its
products through independent retail dealers.  Honda Motor Co.,
Ltd. was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.


HYATT CORP: Matthews Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
-----------------------------------------------------
Carla Matthews, and all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. Hyatt Corporation, an Illinois corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00413 (W.D. N.C., July 14, 2017),
seeks liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
incurred, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other
and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

Defendant is a hotel chain who employed Plaintiffs as hourly at-
home call center employees to support its website operation. The
Defendant allegedly failed to compensate Plaintiffs for their pre-
shift time spent booting up their computers, logging into required
computer networks and software applications and reviewing work-
related e-mails and other information prior to the start of their
shift. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Davis, Esq.
      BELL DAVIS PITT, P.A.
      227 W. Trade Street, Suite 1800
      Charlotte, NC 28202
      Tel: (704) 227-0129
      Email: ward.davis@belldavispitt.com

             - and -

      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Tel: (248) 355-0300
      Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
             crash@sommerspc.com


ILLINOIS: Case Management Order Issued in Centralia Inmates' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Southern District of Illinois,
issued an Memorandum and Order for Case Management in the case
captioned COREY TRAINOR, #B-51552, MICHAEL TURNER, #K-51650,
TERRANCE GARRETT, #N-92748, JAMES GROLEAU, #R-52557, DYLAN METZEL,
#B-56652, and KEVEREZ TANZY, #B-76690, Plaintiffs, v. LARRY GEBKE,
ROBERT C. MUELLER, MONICA CHRISTIANSON, and OFFICER ROVENSTEIN,
Defendants, No. 3:17-cv-00627-DRH (S.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Trainor filed the instant action naming himself and five
other individuals as Plaintiffs, all of whom are incarcerated at
Centralia Correctional Center (Centralia). Only Trainor signed the
Complaint, however.  The Complaint alleges that Defendants have
denied each Plaintiff permission to receive certain publications,
in violation of the First Amendment.

Plaintiffs may bring their claims jointly in a single lawsuit if
they so desire. However, the Court must admonish them as to the
consequences of proceeding in this manner including their filing
fee obligations, and give them the opportunity to withdraw from
the case or sever their claims into individual actions.

In reconciling the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act with Rule 20,
the Seventh Circuit determined that joint litigation does not
relieve any prisoner of the duties imposed upon him under the Act,
including the duty to pay the full amount of the filing fees. The
Circuit noted that there are at least two other reasons a prisoner
may wish to avoid group litigation. First, group litigation
creates countervailing costs. Second, a prisoner litigating on his
own behalf takes the risk that one or more of his claims may be
deemed sanctionable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

Because not every prisoner is likely to be aware of the potential
negative consequences of joining group litigation in federal
courts, the Seventh Circuit suggested in Boriboune that district
courts alert prisoners to the individual payment requirement, as
well as the other risks prisoner pro se litigants face in joint
pro se litigation, and give them an opportunity to drop out.
Each of the non-lead Plaintiffs who wishes to continue with this
joint action must sign the Complaint before the action may
proceed. Plaintiffs are warned that future group motions or
pleadings that do not comply with this requirement shall be
stricken pursuant to Rule 11(a).

It is ordered that each non-lead Plaintiff (Turner, Garrett,
Groleau, Metzel, and Tanzy) will advise the Court in writing on or
before August 18, 2017, whether he wishes to continue as a
Plaintiff in this group action

It is further ordered that each non-lead Plaintiff who chooses to
continue as a Plaintiff in this group action must submit a copy of
the Complaint bearing his signature, on or before the August 18,
2017, deadline.

It is further ordered that if any non-lead Plaintiff wants to
pursue his claims individually in a separate lawsuit, he shall so
advise the Court in writing and he must submit a signed Complaint
by the August 18, 2017, deadline.

It is further ordered that each non-lead Plaintiff who chooses to
continue as a Plaintiff either in this action or in a severed
individual case, is hereby Ordered  to pay his filing fee of
$400.00 or file a properly completed motion for leave to proceed
IFP if he has not already done so, on or before August 18, 2017.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 20, 2017 Memorandum
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y74uwtcdfrom
Leagle.com.

Corey Trainor, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Michael Turner, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Terrance Garrett, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

James Groleau, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Dylan Metzel, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Keverez Tanzy, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


J.B. HUNT: 9th Cir. Vacates FAAAA Pre-emption Ruling
----------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued a
Decision vacating the Order of the District declaring that the
Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act pre-empted
Plaintiff's claims in the case captioned GERALDO ORTEGA; MICHAEL
D. PATTON, individually and on behalf of themselves, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. J. B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., an Arkansas corporation, Defendant-
Appellee, No. 14-56034 (9th Cir.).

Appellants Gerardo Ortega and Michael Patton (together, Plaintiffs
filed a class action against Appellee J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.
(J.B. Hunt), alleging that J.B. Hunt's compensation system
violated California's minimum wage, meal break, and rest break
laws.

The district court found that the FAAAA pre-empted Plaintiffs'
claims.  The district court granted J.B. Hunt's motion for
judgment on the pleadings regarding Plaintiffs' meal and rest
break claims, and then granted J.B. Hunt's motion for summary
judgment on Plaintiffs' minimum wage claims.

The district court determined that these laws significantly
impacted J.B. Hunt's prices, routes, and services, and thus were
pre-empted by the FAAAA.

While this case was pending on appeal, the Ninth Circuit decided
Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 769 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2014).
There, the Ninth Circuit found that California's meal and rest
break laws are not related to prices, routes, or services, and
therefore are not as a matter of law pre-empted by the FAAAA.  The
district court did not have the benefit of the Ninth Circuit's
decision in Dilts, and that decision compels the conclusion that
the district court erred in granting J.B. Hunt's motion for
judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiffs' meal and rest break
claims.

The Ninth Circuit finds that the district court similarly erred in
granting summary judgment in J.B. Hunt's favor on Plaintiffs'
minimum wage claims. In Mendonca, the Ninth Circuit held that that
while California's prevailing wage law in a certain sense is
'related to the plaintiff's prices, routes and services the effect
is no more than indirect, remote, and tenuous.

In Dilts, the Ninth Circuit reiterated that the FAAAA does not
pre-empt state wage laws, even if those laws differ from state to
state and motor carriers must take these into account.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's July 31, 2017 Memorandum
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y93avxjnfrom Leagle.com.


JAN-PRO FRANCHISHING: Unit Franchisees Directed to Pay $300
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of California,
issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's
move for cost in the case captioned GLORIA ROMAN, GERARDO VAZQUEZ,
JUAN AGUILAR, Plaintiffs, v. JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL,
INC., Defendant, No. C 16-05961 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

In this wage-and-hour putative class action, defendant moves for
costs after prevailing at summary judgment.

Plaintiffs Gerardo Vazquez, Juan Aguilar, and Gloria Roman were
unit franchisees who sued Jan-Pro for minimum wages and overtime
pay, claiming that they were improperly classified as independent
contractors, rather than employees.

An order granted Jan-Pro's motion for summary judgment as to all
claims. Jan-Pro, as the prevailing party, moved for costs related
to deposing the three named plaintiffs and their expert, Steven
Cumbow. In total, Jan-Pro seeks $3,535.40 approximately $1,200 per
plaintiff.

Plaintiffs filed an objection to the costs and opposed an award of
costs altogether on the grounds that paying these costs would be a
hardship for plaintiffs due to their limited financial resources,
and awarding costs would discourage future meritorious wage-and-
hour suits. Plaintiffs have each submitted a declaration showing
that they are under financial strain, and paying the costs sought
by Jan-Pro would cause them hardship.

Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides
otherwise, costs should be allowed to the prevailing party. A
losing party bears the burden to overcome this presumption, and a
district court generally must award costs unless the prevailing
party is guilty of some fault, misconduct, or default worthy of
punishment.

Plaintiffs argue that given their limited means, and the
substantial resources of the corporate defendant, it would be
unjust to require them to pay the costs Jan-Pro is seeking. Jan-
Pro responds that because it is not guilty of any misconduct, and
the costs are relatively modest (approximately $1,200 per
plaintiff), plaintiffs should be required to pay them.

While the costs at issue are not exorbitant, they pose significant
financial hurdles for our plaintiffs. Two plaintiffs support their
children, and the third cares for his elderly mother. Not one of
the plaintiffs has any surplus income after accounting for basic
living expenses.

Moreover, there is a vast disparity in resources between Jan-Pro
and our plaintiffs, which likewise counsels against taxing costs.2
Though plaintiffs did not prevail, their arguments were not
meritless, and their belief that they could prevail was not
unreasonable.

Plaintiffs' request to be relieved from cost obligations is
granted in part and denied in part.  Plaintiffs are ordered to pay
costs of $100 each, $300 in total to Jan-Pro.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 19, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yccnfyezfrom Leagle.com.

Giovani Depianti, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon E. Lis --
Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Giovani Depianti, Plaintiff, represented by Harold L. Lichten --
hlichten@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Hyun Ki Kim, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon E. Liss-Riordan,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Harold L. Lichten, Lichten & Liss-
Riordan, P.C..

Kyu Jin Roh, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon E. Liss-Riordan,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Harold L. Lichten, Lichten & Liss-
Riordan, P.C..

Gerardo Vazquez, Plaintiff, represented by Harold L. Lichten,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C., Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-
Riordan, P.C. & Matthew David Carlson, Lichten & Liss-Riordan,
P.C..

Gloria Roman, Plaintiff, represented by Harold L. Lichten, Lichten
& Liss-Riordan, P.C., Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-
Riordan, P.C., Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan,
P.C. & Matthew David Carlson, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Juan Aguilar, Plaintiff, represented by Harold L. Lichten, Lichten
& Liss-Riordan, P.C., Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-
Riordan, P.C., Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan,
P.C. & Matthew David Carlson, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Nicole Rhodes, Plaintiff, represented by Harold L. Lichten,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Mateo Garduno, Plaintiff, represented by Harold L. Lichten,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Chiara Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon E. Liss-Riordan,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.

Todor Sinapov, Plaintiff, represented by Harold L. Lichten,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Philip James Smith -- smith@contangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith
& Prophete LLP, Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum --
krollrosenbaum@lconstangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith and
Prophete LLP, Christopher M. Pardo -- cpardo@constangy.com --
Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP, Jeffrey M. Rosin --
jrosin@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP &
Jeffrey M. Rosin, Constangy, Brooks, Smith and Prophete, LLP.


JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Ct. Refuses to Review "Carlisle" Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana,
issued an Order and Reasons denying Plaintiff's motion for
Reconsideration in the case captioned TAYLOR CARLISLE, ET AL., v.
NEWELL NORMAND, ET AL., SECTION: "H"(1), Civil Action No. 16-3767.
(E.D. La.).

In this suit, Plaintiffs challenge the manner in which the
Jefferson Parish Drug Court is conducted.  In the instant Motion,
Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its dismissal of their
class action allegations against Defendants Drug Court
Administrator Kristen Becnel, Program Supervisor Tracy Mussal,
Probation Coordinator Kevin Theriot, and Director of Counseling
Joe McNair.  Defendants Becnel, Mussal, and Theriot oppose this
Motion.

The Court finds the instant Motion perplexing as the Court granted
Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to remedy its
deficiencies. Additionally, Plaintiffs offer no new evidence or
arguments from which the Court could conclude that its earlier
Order should be reversed.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 31, 2017 Order and
Reasons is available http://tinyurl.com/yb3dfyaafrom Leagle.com.

Taylor Carlisle, Plaintiff, represented by Marie Olympia Riccio,
Marie Riccio Wisner, Attorney at Law, 700 Camp StreetNew Orleans,
LA 70130-3702

Emile Heron, Plaintiff, represented by Marie Olympia Riccio, Marie
Riccio Wisner, Attorney at Law.

Tracy Mussal, Defendant, represented by Celeste Brustowicz
- cbrustowicz@burglass.com -- Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C.
Kevin Theriot, Defendant, represented by Celeste Brustowicz
- cbrustowicz@burglass.com -- Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C.
Joe McNair, Defendant, represented by Francis Horatio Brown, III,
McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC. 601 Poydras st., 12th Floorm, New
Orleans, LA 70130

Newell Normand, Defendant, represented by Daniel Rault Martiny,
Martiny & Associates, 131 Airline Hwy., Suite 201. Metairie, LA
70001 & Jeffrey David Martiny, Martiny & Associates. 1 Galleria
Blvd Ste 1100Metairie, LA 70001-7534

Kristen Becnel, Defendant, represented by Celeste Brustowicz,
Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C.

McNair & McNair, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Francis Horatio
Brown, III, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC.

Richard M Tompson, Defendant, represented by Ralph R. Alexis, III
-- ralexis@phjlaw.com -- Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, Brendan
Connick -- bconnick@phjlaw.com -- Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson &
Glenn B. Adams -- gadams@phjlaw.com -- Porteous, Hainkel &
Johnson.

Joseph A Marino, Jr, Defendant, represented by Ralph R. Alexis,
III, Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, Brendan Connick, Porteous,
Hainkel & Johnson & Glenn B. Adams, Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson.


KBR INC: Maryland Court Dismisses Burn Pit Suits
------------------------------------------------
Judge Roger W. Titus has granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
all the complaints under the case captioned In re: KBR, Inc., Burn
Pit Litigation, Case No. 8:09-md-2083-RWT (D. Md.).

Numerous complaints were filed against the military's use of open
burn pits for waste management.  Faced with this avalanche of
litigation in the federal courts asserting the common question of
harm caused by the use of open burn pits, the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation, acting pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
1407, directed that all such cases be transferred to the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland for
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Following the transfer of the cases to the district court, a
series of Case Management Orders was entered and a Consolidated
Amended Complaint was filed.  In it, the plaintiffs alleged that
the defendants wrongfully:

     (1) used open-air burn pits to dispose of waste,
     (2) failed to locate them in a manner that reduced the
         harmful effects on human health,
     (3) failed to bring incinerators online,
     (4) failed to provide recycling services, and
     (5) burned plastics and other items which are known to cause
         cancer.

On January 29, 2010, the defendants filed their first motion to
dismiss all of the complaints on the basis that the actions were
nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine, precluded by
derivative sovereign immunity, and preempted by the "combatant
activities" exception in the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

Judge Titus acknowledged that many of the plaintiffs have been
harmed, at least to some extent, by the use of open burn pits or
by the water they drank in Iraq or Afghanistan.  However, the
judge pointed out that those plaintiffs who claim injury while
serving in the military are not without significant remedies.  The
judge added that bipartisan legislation was recently introduced in
Congress to provide additional remedies to persons affected by the
burn pits.

Judge Titus also found that the allegations made by the plaintiffs
are anything but discrete, and are not specific to a particular
time, date or place, but relate primarily to the use of open burn
pits and the furnishing of water in Iraq and Afghanistan
stretching over a period as long as a decade.  The judge then
explained that, having chosen to assert broad class action claims
that ultimately resulted in the creation of this multi-district
litigation, the plaintiffs must stand on the centrality of their
common issue of fact, i.e., the use of open burn pits.  However,
"the use of open burn pits was a quintessential military decision
made by the military, not KBR, and was a decision driven by the
exigencies of war," the judge explained.

A full-text copy of Judge Titus' July 19, 2017 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/JE0ayR from Leagle.com.

Alan Metzgar, Paul Parker, Joshua Eller, Joanne Ochs, Melissa
Ochs, James Morgan, David Newton, Earl Chavis, Benny Lyle
Reynolds, Albert Paul Bittel, III, Michael Douglas Moore, Randall
L. Robinson, Michael Auw, Cory Casalegno, Richard Ronald
Guilmette, William G. Brister, Jr., Henry J. O'Neill, SMSgt Glen S
Massman, SSgt Wendy L McBreairty, Dean Guy Olson, Robert Cain,
Craig Henry, Francis Jaeger, David McMenomy, Mark Posz, El Kevin
Sar, Dennis Wayne Briggs, Edward Lee Buquo, Wayne E Fabozzi,
Sharlene S Jaggernauth, Floyd James Johnson, Sr, Tamra C Johnson,
Richard Lee Keith, Daniel Santiago Morales, Phillip McQuillan,
Ildebbrando Perez, Luigi Antonio Provenza, Ruth Ann Reece, Eduardo
Saavedra, Sr, Jill R Wilkins, Jermaine Lynell Wright, Benjamin
Boeke, Barry Zabielinski, Pablo Berchini, Brian P. Robinson, David
Green, Nick Daniel Heisler, John Doe, John A. Wester, Jr., Edward
Adams, Kenneth Baldwin, Donna Wu, John Does 1-1000, Jane Does 1-
1000, Kenneth Paul Robbins, Brian Blumline, Robert Bidinger,
Unknown Party(s)(ies), Derrol A Turner, Vincent C Moseley, Alex
Harley, Fred Robert Atkinson, Jr., Robyn Sachs, Jennifer Montijo,
Stephen Flowers, Wallace McNabb, Patrick Cassidy, William Barry
Dutton, Charles Hicks, Sean Alexander Stough, Bill Jack Carlisle,
Jr, Anthony Edward Roles, Anthony Ray Johnson, David Michael
Rohmfeld, Richard McAndrew, Lorenzo Perez, Thomas Kelleck, Dan
Bowlds, Tony Allen Gouckenour, John William Jackson, Deborah Ann
Wheelock, George Lundy, Eunice Ramirez, Marcos Barranco, Joel
Lugo, Shawn Thomas Sheridan, Jayson Williams, Heinz Alex Disch,
James McCollem, Travis Fidell Pugh, Thomas Olson, Brian Paulus,
Paul Michael Wiatr, Lee Warren Jellison, Jr., Jessey Joseph Philip
Baca, Daniel Tijernia, Joshua David Beavers, John and Jane Does 1-
1000, Matthew Joel Fields, Michael Foth, Steven E. Gardner,
Kenneth Harris, Stephen R. Jones, Brett Anthony Mazzara, Kevin
Scott Tewes, Kathy Vines, Anthony Jerome Williams, Hans Nicolas
Yu, Jeffrey Morgan Cox, James Warren Garland, Peter Blumer, Scott
Andrew Chamberlain, Timothy E Dimon, William Philip Krawczyk, Sr.,
Sean Johnson, Plaintiffs, represented by Susan Laura Burke --
sburke@burkepllc.com -- Law Offices of Susan L. Burke, pro hac
vice, Elizabeth C. Elsner -- lward@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice,
Frederick Curtis Baker -- fbaker@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice
LLC, pro hac vice, Kristen M. Hermiz -- khermiz@motleyrice.com --
Motley Rice LLC, Lisa Marie Saltzburg -- lsaltzburg@motleyrice.com
-- Motley Rice LLC, Sara O. Couch -- scouch@motleyrice.com --
Motley Rice LLC, Susan Mohseni Sajadi, Burke PLLC, pro hac vice &
Vincent Ian Parrett -- vparrett@be-law.com -- Motley Rice LLC.

Chris Boggiano, John Pete Troost, Plaintiffs, represented by Susan
Laura Burke, Law Offices of Susan L. Burke, pro hac vice,
Elizabeth C. Elsner, Motley Rice, Frederick Curtis Baker, Motley
Rice LLC, pro hac vice, James W. Ledlie, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac
vice, Kristen M. Hermiz, Motley Rice LLC, Lisa Marie Saltzburg,
Motley Rice LLC, Sara O. Couch, Motley Rice LLC, Susan Mohseni
Sajadi, Burke PLLC, pro hac vice & Vincent Ian Parrett, Motley
Rice LLC.

David U. Lackey, Craig Kervin, Christopher Michael Kozel, DANNY
LAPIERRE, Plaintiffs, represented by Susan Laura Burke, Law
Offices of Susan L. Burke, pro hac vice, Elizabeth C. Elsner,
Motley Rice, Frederick Curtis Baker, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac
vice, Joseph Fred Rice, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Kristen M.
Hermiz, Motley Rice LLC, Lisa Marie Saltzburg, Motley Rice LLC,
Sara O. Couch, Motley Rice LLC, Susan Mohseni Sajadi, Burke PLLC,
pro hac vice & Vincent Ian Parrett, Motley Rice LLC.

Maurice Callue, Michael Donnell Williams, Plaintiffs, represented
by Elizabeth C. Elsner, Motley Rice, Frederick Curtis Baker,
Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Kristen M. Hermiz, Motley Rice LLC,
Lisa Marie Saltzburg, Motley Rice LLC, Sara O. Couch, Motley Rice
LLC, Susan Mohseni Sajadi, Burke PLLC, pro hac vice & Vincent Ian
Parrett, Motley Rice LLC.

David Rounds, Lisa Rounds, David Jobes, Plaintiffs, represented by
Elizabeth C. Elsner, Motley Rice, Frederick Curtis Baker, Motley
Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Kristen M. Hermiz, Motley Rice LLC, Lisa
Marie Saltzburg, Motley Rice LLC, Sara O. Couch, Motley Rice LLC,
Susan Laura Burke, Law Offices of Susan L. Burke, pro hac vice,
Susan Mohseni Sajadi, Burke PLLC, pro hac vice & Vincent Ian
Parrett, Motley Rice LLC.

Albert Johnson, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Carter
Melugin, Fibich Leebron Copelend Briggs and Josephson, pro hac
vice, Elizabeth C. Elsner, Motley Rice, Kristen M. Hermiz, Motley
Rice LLC, Lisa Marie Saltzburg, Motley Rice LLC, Sara O. Couch,
Motley Rice LLC, Susan Laura Burke, Law Offices of Susan L. Burke,
pro hac vice, Susan Mohseni Sajadi, Burke PLLC, pro hac vice &
Vincent Ian Parrett, Motley Rice LLC.

Genne Bishop, Patrick Bishop, Sherry Bishop, Plaintiffs,
represented by Elizabeth C. Elsner, Motley Rice, Kristen M.
Hermiz, Motley Rice LLC, Lisa Marie Saltzburg, Motley Rice LLC,
Mitchell A. Toups, Weller Green Toups and Terrell LLP, pro hac
vice, Sara O. Couch, Motley Rice LLC, Susan Laura Burke, Law
Offices of Susan L. Burke, pro hac vice, Susan Mohseni Sajadi,
Burke PLLC, pro hac vice & Vincent Ian Parrett, Motley Rice LLC.

Gene Matson, Plaintiff, represented by Jon L. Gelman, Jon L.
Gelman LLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth C. Elsner, Motley Rice,
Frederick Curtis Baker, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Kristen M.
Hermiz, Motley Rice LLC, Lisa Marie Saltzburg, Motley Rice LLC,
Sara O. Couch, Motley Rice LLC, Susan Laura Burke, Law Offices of
Susan L. Burke, pro hac vice, Susan Mohseni Sajadi, Burke PLLC,
pro hac vice & Vincent Ian Parrett, Motley Rice LLC.

Gene Leonard Matson, Timothy J. Watson, Plaintiffs, represented by
Elizabeth C. Elsner, Motley Rice, Kristen M. Hermiz, Motley Rice
LLC, Lisa Marie Saltzburg, Motley Rice LLC, Sara O. Couch, Motley
Rice LLC, Susan Laura Burke, Law Offices of Susan L. Burke, pro
hac vice, Susan Mohseni Sajadi, Burke PLLC, pro hac vice & Vincent
Ian Parrett, Motley Rice LLC.

Beth Oshiro Burton, Andrew Mason, Plaintiffs, represented by
Elizabeth C. Elsner, Motley Rice, Kristen M. Hermiz, Motley Rice
LLC, Lisa Marie Saltzburg, Motley Rice LLC, Sara O. Couch, Motley
Rice LLC & Susan Laura Burke, Law Offices of Susan L. Burke, pro
hac vice.

Michelle Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Halter, Doyle
Raizner LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth C. Elsner, Motley Rice,
Kristen M. Hermiz, Motley Rice LLC, Lisa Marie Saltzburg, Motley
Rice LLC, Patrick Mason Dennis, Doyle Raizner LLP, pro hac vice,
Sara O. Couch, Motley Rice LLC & Susan Laura Burke, Law Offices of
Susan L. Burke, pro hac vice.

Jonathan Lynn, Charles Kinney, Michael McClain, Plaintiffs,
represented by Amanda Halter, Doyle Raizner LLP, pro hac vice,
Elizabeth C. Elsner, Motley Rice, Kristen M. Hermiz, Motley Rice
LLC, Lisa Marie Saltzburg, Motley Rice LLC, Michael Patrick Doyle,
Doyle LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick Mason Dennis, Doyle Raizner LLP,
pro hac vice, Sara O. Couch, Motley Rice LLC & Susan Laura Burke,
Law Offices of Susan L. Burke, pro hac vice.

Basil Salem, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth C. Elsner, Motley
Rice, Kristen M. Hermiz, Motley Rice LLC, Lisa Marie Saltzburg,
Motley Rice LLC, Patrick Mason Dennis, Doyle Raizner LLP, pro hac
vice, Sara O. Couch, Motley Rice LLC & Susan Laura Burke, Law
Offices of Susan L. Burke, pro hac vice.

Justin Gonzales, John Finbar Monahan, Stephen Hopper, Plaintiffs,
represented by Elizabeth C. Elsner, Motley Rice, Kristen M.
Hermiz, Motley Rice LLC, Lisa Marie Saltzburg, Motley Rice LLC &
Sara O. Couch, Motley Rice LLC.

Matthew Guthery, Christopher Lippard, David Parr, Plaintiffs,
represented by Patrick Mason Dennis, Doyle Raizner LLP, pro hac
vice, Elizabeth C. Elsner, Motley Rice, Kristen M. Hermiz, Motley
Rice LLC, Lisa Marie Saltzburg, Motley Rice LLC & Sara O. Couch,
Motley Rice LLC.

Amanda Brannon, L. Chandler Brannon, Plaintiffs, represented by
Jere Kyle Bachus, Bachus and Schanker LLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth
C. Elsner, Motley Rice, Kristen M. Hermiz, Motley Rice LLC, Lisa
Marie Saltzburg, Motley Rice LLC & Sara O. Couch, Motley Rice LLC.

Eliyahu Arshadnia, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Lawler, Pilot
Law, PC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth C. Elsner, Motley Rice, Kristen
M. Hermiz, Motley Rice LLC, Lisa Marie Saltzburg, Motley Rice LLC
& Sara O. Couch, Motley Rice LLC.

Simcha Arshadnia, William Simmons, Dawn Lucia, Daniel Meyer,
Harmonie Meyer, Jose Burgos, Bethany Burgos, Plaintiffs,
represented by Elizabeth C. Elsner, Motley Rice, Kristen M.
Hermiz, Motley Rice LLC, Lisa Marie Saltzburg, Motley Rice LLC,
Sara O. Couch, Motley Rice LLC & Brian Lawler, Pilot Law, PC.

Steven C Snee, Vincent Molino, Larry Engle, Raymond Cruz, Antonio
Clark, James Knouse, Jr, Leslie Scott, Scott Hurt, 176-459 James
Jackson, Jeffrey Durham, William Austin Daniel, Joseph Collins,
Rachel Gutierrez, Brandon Shoemake, Stacie Moser, Albert Roberts,
Jeffrey Wilkins, William Eaton, Todd Grimes, Gary Morris, Michael
Genaw, Joshua Kepple, Plaintiffs, represented by Elizabeth C.
Elsner, Motley Rice, Kristen M. Hermiz, Motley Rice LLC, Lisa
Marie Saltzburg, Motley Rice LLC, Michael Patrick Doyle, Doyle
LLP, pro hac vice & Sara O. Couch, Motley Rice LLC.

Willis Rowe, Plaintiff, represented by Susan Laura Burke, Law
Offices of Susan L. Burke, pro hac vice & Kristen M. Hermiz,
Motley Rice LLC.

Justin Acosta, Plaintiff, represented by Susan Laura Burke, Law
Offices of Susan L. Burke, James W. Ledlie, Motley Rice LLC,
Kristen M. Hermiz, Motley Rice LLC & Lisa Marie Saltzburg, Motley
Rice LLC.

Travis Adams, Leon J. Alexander, Michael DeVincent Amicy, Thomas
Andersen, Patti J. Anderson, Phillip A. Anderson, Dominick Thomas
Andrews, Julio A. Apodaca, Rosie Marie Applewhite, Francisco
Araque, Anthony L. Arrington, Tracy L. Asher, Matthew K. Ashworth,
Ryan L. Attar, Dustin Jeffrey Auer, Everette D. Avery, Jr., John
Alan Bacon, Scott D. Bailey, Jesse Baker, Larry Baker, Steven
LeRoy Bakken, Michael Daniel Banks, Angela Vanette Barnes, Charles
J. Barnes, Julie Baron-Mannix, Travis M. Bassett, James R Bates,
Jericho N. Beauchamp, Craig Belanger, Judy-Ann Bellefleur,
Reginald J. Belton, Brandi L. Benson, Theodore J. Bill, Jason R.
Bills, Johnnie F. Bines, Dennis A. Blanchard, Clint Allen
Blankenship, Andrew Michael Booth, Brian K. Bower, Andrew Douglas
Bowers, Sr., Willie Antonio Boykin, Sr., Frank Earl Braxton, Alan
K. Bridgewater, Brandy E. Broadbent, Rachael Brown, David F.
Bryden, Dennis H. Budd, Erik J. Burch, Kenon L. Burns, Thomas W.
Burns, Tee Jay Burr, Robert P. Busse, Michael L. Caldwell, William
G. Cardwell, John Ernest Carlson, Jason L. Carmen, Michael W.
Carr, Robin A. Carr, Andrea M. Caston, Freddie E. Cavazos, Jr.,
Richard D. Celia, Blain L. Chambers, Bruce R. Chaplin, Daniel C.
Chavez, Sr., Leonard Ray Cheek, Gwen Colleen Chiaramonte, Blaine
S. Child, Kenneth Roger Christensen, Sr., Scott Allan Christie,
Marc J. Chubbuck, Sr., Richard Charles Chumbley, Jr., Jeffrey S.
Church, Derrick D. Clark, Richard Michael Clemes, Ryan V.
Collamore, Connie G. Conley, Andrew E. Coussens, Kathleen S. Coy,
Charles Donald Crabbe, Jr., Michael A. Cranfill, Perry A. Cross,
Jr., Craig J. Daniel, Rowena L. Darvin, Jesse N. Davidson,
Brittany J. Davis, Daniel Lee Davis, Malone W. Davis, Ryan Martin
DeLong, David Brian DeLuca, Michael S. Delborrell, Joseph Edward
Devall, Shawn R. Devaney, Frederick A. Devonshire, II, Micky Doto,
Jennifer L. Downes, Bradley Doyle, Robert A. Dreyfus, Nicholas R.
Dudek, Jr., John G. Duerr, Bonnie Dunlop, Brian Earl Easley,
Michael S. Eddy, Thomas S. Edwards, Ronald Eyrl Eisman, Robert
Christopher Elesky, James Corey Ellis, Earnest J. Ellison, Scott
A. Elsenheimer, Amanda J. Engen, Gary Lee Ennis, Trevor G. Ennis,
Cassandra D. Eusery, Terry D. Evans, Justin M. Faircloth, Michael
Leonard Farley, Michael Farmer, Jason D. Farquharson, Kenley
Feazell, Timothy Donald Fendley, Edward Leo Ferguson, John David
Fielder, Michael Ray Fields, Craig D. Fillingane, James Austin
Fisher, Reginald Fleming, Jr., Dale Ford, Ronald Lee Frisby, Brad
L. Fruhling, John R. Fudala, Tommy L. Fullen, Carrie C. Gallagher,
Tom Lee Gallagher, Eric Bradley Gann, Karen M. Gharst, Karl
Malinski Gibbs, Michael P. Gibson, Mitchell P. Gill, Sandi
Christine Golden-Vest, Rigo A. Gonzalez, Leonard Goodson, III,
Michael A. Jr. Griley, Michael A. Grochowski, Michael W. Hafke,
Jarrod C. Hall, Jamar Ham, Bryan Hamilton, Richard P. Hamilton,
Jimmy Lynn Hampton, David F. Happle, Richard Alan Hardison, Mikel
Harper, Jason Paul Hatfield, Larry Haynes, William James Heard,
John L. Henderson, William Myron Henderson, Christopher S.
Henrikson, Allison Mariko Hill, Mark A. Hill, Richard Carl Hogan,
Jr., Clyde Richard Holder, Steven Wayne Holley, Marco Alexander
Horsewood, James Hershel Hudson, III, Aundrea M. Hunt, Matthew
Calvin Hurt, Jr., Ozane Jackson, Wanda N. Jackson, Wade Jacobson,
Eric Jaeger, Lawrence J. Jankowski, Daniel Martin Jasoni, Ralph
Benjamen Jenkins, Anterian D. Johnson, Michelle A. Johnson,
Brandon Christopher Johnston, David Allen Jones, II, Julian K.
Jones, Paul G. Jones, Thomas K. Jones, Paul Anthony Jones, Sami
Juma, Stanley K. Kaina, Jr., Kelly Jean Karl-Forst, Daniel R.
Kearney, Bryan Keith Keese, Edwin Keith, Sr., Stephen Randall
Keith, James Eric Kelley, George Keys, Jr., Michael J. Kidder,
Douglas Hamilton Kinard, Jr., James E. Kirk, David W. Kirkland,
Gerald Kenneth Krein, Robin Kruskol, Michael D. Kusek, Sean M.
Ladd, Philip Lam, Cliburn Lane, Jr., Pierre O'Dell Larkin, Bruce
G. Laureiro, Thaddeus R. Lawrence, Sr., Michael A. LeBlanc,
Christina L. Lee, Michael Charles Lee, Robert Lippolis, Brian
Keith Lloyd, Dempsey Lovett Logue, Sr., Franklin Gerald Lowe,
Michael Lee Lowe, Charles J. Lowery, Juan Lugo, Michael L.
Madigan, Daniel Maestas, William Magee, Jason B. Martin, Donald
Edmundo Martinez, Omowunmi Martins, Jon Harding Mason, Rhonda Sue
Matchett, Michael Lee Maynard, Alan Austin Mays, Frederick D.
McCollum, John Albert McDonald, Cory Orlando McGill, Rahman A.
McKinnon, Murrill L. McLean, Eric B. McLendon, Shawn K. McLeod,
Dennis E. McMullen, Jonathan Medina, Rodney W. Meece, Nathan T.
Meidl, Alexander Menkes, Keith R. Menzer, Jeffrey A. Meo, Mary A.
Mickens, James Cuthbert Midgett, Amanda G. Miller, James Edward
Miller, Lori Lynn Mitchell, Willie J. Mitchell, Patrick C.
Mondragon, David A. Montgomery, Brian David Murphy, Timothy M.
Murray, Fayiz Nalu, Christopher Lynn Nanney, Andrea Michele
Neutzling, Richard J. Nicholls, Samuel Nieves, Hanna P. Nissan,
Michael A. Northup, Laura J. Nowlin, Christopher Sean Nyberg,
Patrick Michael O'Connell, Brenda M. O'Neal, Anthony Brett Ogden,
Thomas K. Oleson, Theta A. Olson, Carl Orlando, Christine Osorio,
Lewis Palmer, Timothy Steven Parke, Gregory D. Parker, Robert
William Paxton, Michele A. Pearce, Audrey S. Perry, Joshua Nathan
Perusse, Debora J. Pfaff, Jody Lee Piercy, Gregory J. Pietz, James
Pollock, Tai Porter, James Preston Potter, Jr., Lauren Carol
Price, Cedric Eugene Price, Sr., Calvin Priest, Tanya Quincy,
Varita V. Quincy, Robert F. Ramos, Jr., George Richard Rapciewicz,
Jr., Ryan C. Rasmussen, Chad Robert Read, Tommy R. Reddick, Bruce
L. Reges, Daniel R. Reyes, Milton M. Reynolds, Richard D. Rice,
Daniel Edward Rice, Jr., Steven S. Richardson, Paul A. Richmond,
Charles Raymond Riippi, Leonard Ritums, Victor M. Rivera, William
O. Roark III, James Robin, Daniel M. Robshaw, Wayne Rodriguez,
Jose C. Roque, Ernest Richard Roth, Carter Charles Ruff, Terry
Salazar, James Robert Sandefur, Johnnie C. Sanders, Jr., Carlos J.
Martir Sandoval, Jeremen Sandoval, Hobart P. Saunders, Daniel B.
Schultz, Roland David Schulz, Ronald Perry Sharp, Christopher R.
Simmons, Marek M. Sipko, Gregory C. Skyles, Howard Leon Slade,
Damian L Smith, David John Smith, Jason William Smith, Kryste
Swanzetta Smith, Ronald Layne Smith, Tracy Lemar Smith, Azariah
Smith, Jr., Franklin O. Snow, Michael L. Songy, Kristin Southwell,
Suzanne M. Speight, David P. Staffa, Napolean L. Stafford, Michael
Christopher Stanco, Edwin Steele, Bryan L. Stevens, Anthony K.
Steward, Scott H. Stradley, Shawn E. Strout, Carl Thomas Sullivan,
Neal Mark Sutherland, David M. Swan, David B. Swaney, Aubrey
Danyelle Tapley, Milan B. Thakkar, Troy Thomas, Christopher T.
Thornhill, Tyrone Anthony Timms, Anthony Trinidad, Michael Adam
Tumlinson, Ricky L. Turner, Nathan P. Turnock, Edwin Todd Turpin,
Erik D. Upham, Stepheny Gupton, Paul R. Vadney, Daniel E.
Valentine, Simon Allen Wade, Robert Wagenaar, Rickey Treymane
Waiters, Ervin L. Walker, Teddric O'Neal Walker, Alberto Joseph
Walrath, Julio Pipino Walton, Gordon Allen Ward, Eric G. Waters,
Sr., Timothy J. Watson, George L. Watson III, Edward B. Weibl,
Kole Welsh, William Westley Westburg, Jr., David B. Whaling, Jacob
Whetstone, Katrina LeAnn White, William Emmett White, Arthur
Whiteside, Clarence William Wickham, Belinda M. Williams, Robert L
Williams, Tony Williams, Antoine Lavanta Williams, Sr., Kori L.
Willis, Rene L. Wilson, Ronnal Womack, Kevin L. Woodrum, Donald P.
Worrell, Tony L. Wright, Sr., Clifford Yarbrough, Shameran
Youkhana, Raphael A. Zamora, Steven C. Zimmerman, Michael E.
Zundle, Terry Ennis Adkins, Issac Aguilar, Francisco Emilio
Alexander, Jr, Meghan Artemis O'Conan, Sevim Aybulut, Lorin Gene
Bannerman, Gregory O. Barnes, Adam M. Barton, Claude N. Benson,
Barry J. Biego, Edward Lee Branch, Yusvf Kenyatta Brantley, Sr.,
Albert Bridgeman, Cassandra Brushwood, Deshunnon Cannady, Claudia
Castillo, James Ray Chandler, III, Richard Corey, Steve Crowston,
David B. Da Silva, Sr., Charles Ray Daniels, Ryan DeWitt Taylor,
William J. Devito, Enrique Diaz, Frank Domeaux, Michael R.
Drummond, Jr., Terry W. Edgerton, Jeff Edwards, Mauro Cesar Faz,
Nathaniel L. Floyd, Jr., Kenneth Neil Francis, Randy R. Garcia,
Daniel R. Gettridge, III, Mark Thomas Gilbert, Taeisha L. Glenn,
Michael P. Greenburg, Daryl Griffin, Jonathan T. Hall, Kenneth
Hall-May, Marlin Brett Halstead, Jason Hamman, Robert Wayne Hardy,
Jr., Thomas William Heppler, Austin L. Hill, Arthur L. Hillard,
Jonathan M. Hinckley, Robert Holding, Zachary Ryan Holmes, Meshell
Tee Horton, Bradley W. Hudson, William M. Hudson, Todd Lee
Hunkins, Kimberly Hunter-Prewitt, Timothy P. Hurley, Robert E.
Jackson, Jr., Cody Carlton Jennings, Junuor Augustus John,
Charonda Levonne Johnson, Nathaniel Joyner, III, Scott T. Kamm,
Douglas L. Kelly, Paul J. Kittle, Jr., Aaron Wayne Kletzing,
Morrow S. Krum, Jr., Kenneth D. Kuykendall, Roger A. Lankford,
James Nolan Law, Jr., Howard Dewitt Linson, Michael D. Lopez, Todd
Jason Marlett, Elsa E. Martinez, Gary Mason, II, Jalmer A.
Mateolopez, Dan Patrick McDonough, Jr., Fredrick McGee, James R.
McPherson, Clarence L. McQueen, Jr., Ryan T. McQuillian, Edward E.
Melvin, Jr., Scott David Miroddi, Francis D. Mollard, III, Anthony
Moore, Brian Edward Moore, Ronnie DeWayne Nantz, Sean M. Nelson,
Eric Jevon Nichols, Markus Lamont Northington, Dawn O'Neal, Jose
S. Ochoa, III, Jan Erik Ohrstrom, Leroy Ontiberos, Leroy Wayne
Osborne, Phillip W. Ossowski, Jonathan M. Owens, Matthew A.
Padgett, Charles W. Pak, Blu J. Pannhoff, Wesley DeWayne Parker,
Vernon Patton, Michael A. Payne, Zachary A. Payne, Scott
Pennington, Matthew E. Peretz, Albert Gordon Plumlee, Jr.,
Charlotte Renee Porch, Aaron M. Price, Daniel Rault, Valiant L.
Rea, Christopher R. Reed, Matthew Riddle, Deshaun A. Ringwood,
Bryce W. Rodgers, William Roessling, William Michael Rose, Jr.,
Joe Sanchez, Sr., Gabriel Scott, Jr., Timothy E. Sheets, Ralph
Calvin Sieg, Kenneth Francis Slach, William Smith, Craig S.
Sotebeer, Jonathan R. Spurkosky, Jay D. Starr, Josh L. Steininger,
Trevor B. Taylor, Jeremy E. Tellez, David J. Texada, Rodney J.
Thurman, Brian P. Tolbert, Leroy Torres, David Tran, Jose J.
Trejo, Rosario Trotsky, Jason S. Vest, Renee E. Villegas, Robert
L. WIlliams, Jr., Roderick W. Walker, Thomas J. Washington, J,
Mark H. Wells, Carl Dean Wiley, Dr. Caroline Williams, James R.
York, Steven J. Zaletel, Sr., Robert D. Ziegelmair, Jonathan Cook,
RWT 16-2880, Plaintiffs, represented by Kristen M. Hermiz, Motley
Rice LLC.

Laura Jones, Keith Jones, James W Savino, III, Julia Savino,
Terrance Sordahl, Plaintiffs, represented by Kristen M. Hermiz,
Motley Rice LLC & Michael Patrick Doyle, Doyle LLP, pro hac vice.

David Montoya, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Donald G.
Bruckner, Jr., Guebert Bruckner PC.

KBR, Inc., Kellogg, Brown & Root LLC, Halliburton Company,
Defendants, represented by Daniel L. Russell, Jr., Covington &
Burling LLP, Raymond B. Biagini, Covington & Burling LLP, Robert
A. Matthews, Covington & Burling LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin J.
Razi, Covington & Burling LLP, Brian W. Castello, Covington and
Burling LLP, John Chase Johnson, Covington and Burling LLP,
Marianne F. Kies, Covington and Burling LLP, Paul W. Schmidt,
Covington and Burling LLP, Shannon Gibson Konn, McKenna Long and
Aldridge LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy K. Halloran, McKenna Long and
Aldridge LLP, pro hac vice.

Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Daniel L. Russell, Jr., Covington & Burling LLP, Robert A.
Matthews, Covington & Burling LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin J. Razi,
Covington & Burling LLP, Brian W. Castello, Covington and Burling
LLP, John Chase Johnson, Covington and Burling LLP, Marianne F.
Kies, Covington and Burling LLP, Paul W. Schmidt, Covington and
Burling LLP, Shannon Gibson Konn, McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP,
pro hac vice & Timothy K. Halloran, McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP,
pro hac vice.

Brown & Root Services, Kellogg Brown & Root Inc, KBR Group
Holdings, LLC, Defendants, represented by Benjamin J. Razi,
Covington & Burling LLP, Brian W. Castello, Covington and Burling
LLP, Daniel L. Russell, Jr., Covington & Burling LLP, John Chase
Johnson, Covington and Burling LLP, Marianne F. Kies, Covington
and Burling LLP & Paul W. Schmidt, Covington and Burling LLP.

DII Industries, LLC, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., KBR
Holdings, LLC, Kellogg, Brown & Root International, Inc., KBR
Technical Services, Inc., Defendants, represented by Daniel L.
Russell, Jr., Covington & Burling LLP, Benjamin J. Razi, Covington
& Burling LLP, Brian W. Castello, Covington and Burling LLP, John
Chase Johnson, Covington and Burling LLP, Marianne F. Kies,
Covington and Burling LLP & Paul W. Schmidt, Covington and Burling
LLP.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Amicus, represented by Matthew P.
Phelps, The United States Attorney's Office & Thomas H. Barnard,
BAKER DONELSON.


KELLOGG COMPANY: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in Brian Smith, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Kellogg Company and
Kellogg Sales Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01914 (D.
Nev., July 13, 2017), seeks all the wages Defendants wrongfully
withheld from him, plus damages under federal law, penalties, and
fees and costs as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Smith has worked for Kellogg as Retail Sales Representative since
approximately August 2014 and regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week without receiving overtime compensation at the rate of
time and one-half his regular rate.

Kellogg Company and its subsidiaries are engaged in the
manufacturing and marketing of ready-to-eat cereal and convenience
foods.

Defendants are represented by:

      Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
      Alex Dumas, Esq.
      GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
      260 Fair St.
      Kingston, NY 12401
      Telephone: (845) 255-9370
      Fax: (845) 255-8649
      Email: msweeney@getmansweeney.com
             adumas@getmansweeney.com

             - and -

      Christian J. Gabroy, Esq.
      GABROY LAW OFFICES
      The District at Green Valley Ranch
      170 S. Green Valley Parkway, Suite 280
      Henderson, NV 89012
      Telephone: (702) 259-7777
      Fax: (702) 259-7704
      Email: Christian@gabroy.com


KLEINER PERKINS: Fisker Automotive Investors' Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer dismissed without prejudice the
complaint filed in the case captioned ORGONE CAPITAL III, LLC,
DAVID BURNIDGE, LINCOLNSHIRE FISKER, LLC, KENNETH A. STEEL, JR.,
and ROBERT F. STEEL, individually and on behalf of a class of all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KEITH DAUBENSPECK, PETER
MCDONNELL, KLEINER PERKINS CAUFIELD & BYERS, RAY LANE, and
JOHNDOERR, Defendants, No. 16 C 10849 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs are investors in Fisker Automotive, a manufacturer of
electric cars.  Plaintiffs claimed that Fisker's controlling
shareholder, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, committed
securities fraud by concealing critical information from investors
in an attempt to shore up the company -- and KP's investment --
with infusions of outside funding.  To achieve that goal,
Plaintiffs alleged, Kleiner Perkins and two of its principal
partners, Ray Lane and John Doerr (jointly, "Kleiner Perkins
Defendants") exercised Kleiner Perkins' control of Fisker's board
to retain the Chicago-based investment banking firm Advanced
Equities Inc. (AEI) to market Fisker's stock to AEI's customer
base.  Plaintiffs claimed that the Kleiner Perkins Defendants,
through AEI, issued misleading information about the state of the
company to prospective investors, failing to disclose that the
company was facing a liquidity crisis after the federal government
froze further draw-downs of a crucial Department of Energy loan.
Plaintiffs purported to represent a class of investors who
purchased Fisker's securities through AEI, and who lost their
investments when the company essentially shuttered operations in
2012.

The Kleiner Perkins Defendants, none of whom are residents of
Illinois, have moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction and because the statute of limitations on Plaintiffs'
claims has run.  The Kleiner Perkins Defendants object that the
complaint alleges primarily that AEI, not they, had contacts with
Illinois.  The only direct contact that any Kleiner Perkins
Defendant had with the state, according to the complaint, is that
Lane travelled to Illinois for "roadshow" activities.  Plaintiffs
did not allege that they attended Lane's roadshows, or that they
relied on material representations made by him there.  The KP
Defendants further argued that even if the court has personal
jurisdiction over them, Plaintiffs' common-law claims are barred
by the three-year statute of limitations in the Illinois
Securities Law (ISL), which extends to all claims for which the
ISL provides relief.

The two other defendants in the case, AEI principals Keith
Daubenspeck and Peter McDonnell, joined the statute of limitations
theory.

Judge Pallmeyer found that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient
facts to assert personal jurisdiction over Kleiner Perkins and
Lane, but not Doerr, and that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the
ISL statute of limitations.

Judge Pallmeyer found that Plaintiffs' allegations strongly
support the theory that Lane engineered his own presence in the
state: he is a principal of Kleiner Perkins, and, together, he and
Doerr devised the strategy to procure outside funding and retained
AEI to accomplish that goal.  The judge found that Lane's presence
in the state to further his own strategy properly renders him
subject to the court's jurisdiction here.  The judge was also
satisfied that Lane's actions can be attributed to Kleiner Perkins
as his principal.  However, without further analysis from the
Plaintiff, the judge cannot conclude that Lane's conduct supports
jurisdiction over Doerr, and he was dismissed as a defendant
without prejudice.

The Defendants, however, urged that the three-year statute of
limitations of the ISL applies.  With respect to Plaintiffs'
pending claims, Defendants argued that the statute of limitations
began to run, at the latest, on April 17, 2013 when the PrivCo
Report was released.  Public congressional hearings regarding the
DoE loans began on April 24, 2013.  On September 17, 2013,
Fisker's former CFO's qui tam complaint was unsealed.  This action
was filed on October 14, 2016.

Judge Pallmeyer found that Plaintiffs' complaint establishes that
Plaintiffs had knowledge of their claims in April 2013, or at
least some time before October 14, 2013 (three years before filing
this case).  Though Plaintiffs do not expressly admit that they
had knowledge of the PrivCo report, the congressional hearings, or
the qui tamcomplaint, they explained in the complaint that these
well-publicized incidents "revealed fraud and breach of fiduciary
duties."  The judge therefore concluded that it is implausible
that this six-month episode, the opening act of the "largest
venture[-]capital-backed debacle in U.S. history," as Plaintiffs
describe it, did not put the Plaintiffs on notice that Fisker
investors had been seriously misled.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss was granted.

A full-text copy of Judge Pallmeyer's July 20, 2017 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/zMXp1O from
Leagle.com.

Orgone Capital III, LLC, Lincolnshire Fisker, LLC, Kenneth A.
Steel, Robert F. Steel, David Burnidge, Plaintiffs, represented by
Adam Michael Prom -- ap@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP,
Barbara A. Podell -- bpodell@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C.,
Bethany R. Turke -- brt@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace Llp,
Fran Lisa Rudich, Klafter Olsen & Lesser Llp, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey A. Klafter, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice,
Kenneth A. Wexler -- kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP,
Kurt B. Olsen, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice, Mark
Richard Miller -- mrm@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP,
Norman M. Monhait -- nmonhait@rmgglaw.com -- Rosenthal, Monhait &
Goddess, P.A., P. Bradford Deleeuw -- bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com --
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. & Todd Collins, Berger &
Montaque, P.C..

Keith Daubenspeck, Defendant, represented by M. Duncan Grant --
grantm@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice,
Christopher B. Chuff -- chuffc@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton
LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey A. Rossman -- jrossman@freeborn.com --
Freeborn & Peters LLP & Julian Clifford Wierenga --
jwierenga@freeborn.com -- Freeborn & Peters, LLP.

Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Defendant, represented by Eric
Houghton MacMichael, Keker Van Nest & Peters, Corey B. Rubenstein,
Loeb & Loeb LLP, Joseph J. Duffy, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Laurie Carr
Mims, Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, pro hac vice, Michael David
Celio, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas Samuel
Goldberg, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, pro hac vice & Sean
Michael Arenson, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, pro hac vice.

Ray Lane, Defendant, represented by Eric Houghton MacMichael,
Keker Van Nest & Peters, pro hac vice, Corey B. Rubenstein, Loeb &
Loeb LLP, Joseph J. Duffy, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Laurie Carr Mims,
Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, pro hac vice, Michael David Celio,
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas Samuel
Goldberg, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, pro hac vice & Sean
Michael Arenson, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, pro hac vice.

John Doerr, Defendant, represented by Eric Houghton MacMichael,
Keker Van Nest & Peters, pro hac vice, Corey B. Rubenstein, Loeb &
Loeb LLP, Joseph J. Duffy, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Laurie Carr Mims,
Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, pro hac vice, Michael David Celio,
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, pro hac vice & Nicholas Samuel
Goldberg, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, pro hac vice.


KROENKE ARENA: Bid for Protective Order in "Kurlander" Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KIRSTIN KURLANDER, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KROENKE ARENA COMPANY,
LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-cv-02754-WYD-NYW (D. Colo.),
Judge Nina Y. Wang denied the motion for protective order and to
quash subpoena duces tecum that was filed by Kroenke Arena
Company, LLC (KAC) on May 22, 2017.

On November 10, 2016, Plaintiff Kirstin Kurlander initiated a
Class Action Complaint against Kroenke Sports and Entertainment,
LLC, alleging that the entity's failure to provide audio content
captioning during events held at the Pepsi Center, and failure to
otherwise provide effective communication for patrons who are deaf
or hard of hearing, amounts to violations of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Colorado Anti-
Discrimination Act (CADA).  Ms. Kurlander amended the Complaint on
January 13, 2017 to substitute KAC for the original defendant, and
again on March 20, 2017, to eliminate the claim arising under
CADA.

As part of the litigation, KAC retained Kari Knutson as a non-
testifying expert "to advise Defendant and its counsel on Deaf
culture and provide opinions on the same," regarding services
available at the Pepsi Center.  Counsel for KAC drafted questions
for Ms. Knutson to use during interviews with members of the Deaf
community ("Survey Questions").  Counsel also drafted introductory
remarks to be used with the interviews ("Script").  Counsel for
KAC authorized the non-testifying expert to conduct such
interviews over Skype, FaceTime or relay, "with the work product
drafted by [KAC's] counsel to be her script."  Although counsel
for KAC did not authorize Ms. Knutson to use electronic mail to
conduct the interviews, Ms. Knutson nonetheless contacted four
individuals in writing and sent three of the four the Survey
Questions inquiring into their views on the modes of communication
offered at the Pepsi Center.  Two of these individuals
(collectively, "Declarants") had already submitted declarations in
support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and did not
substantively respond to Ms. Knutson's communication.  Two other
individuals ("Putative Class Members") responded to the Survey
Questions in writing.  The substance of the email correspondence
with each of the individuals is different, but three of the four
emails contain the Script.

Plaintiff learned of KAC's non-testifying expert and the emails,
including the Script, because one of the Declarants, Jaclyn
Tyrcha, voluntarily forwarded her chain of email communication
with the non-testifying expert to Plaintiff's counsel.  That
communication identified Ms. Knutson as Defendant's non-testifying
expert and included the Script.  The Parties met and conferred and
agreed to exchange copies of the electronic correspondence,
subject to an agreement that neither Party was conceding either
discoverability or admissibility.  Following the exchange of
electronic correspondence, Plaintiff's counsel contacted the
Putative Class Members who had responded to Ms. Knutson and asked
that they forward their responses to her.  The Putative Class
Members then forwarded their answers to the Survey Questions to
Plaintiff's counsel.

On May 16, 2017, the Parties appeared before this court for an
informal discovery dispute conference regarding this issue, and
submitted the electronic correspondence for the court's in camera
review.  The following questions were presented:

     (1) are the emails protected as work product under Rule
         26(b)(3);

     (2) if so, did disclosure of the emails to putative class
         members result in waiver of the privilege;

     (3) are the emails protected as work of the non-testifying
         expert under Rule 26(b)(4)(D);

     (4) if so, did the non-testifying expert's correspondence
         with putative class members result in waiver of Rule
         26(b)(4)(D) protection; and

     (5) regardless of whether at one time the emails enjoyed
         protection as either work product or under Rule 26(b)(4)
         (D), has Plaintiff shown substantial need or exceptional
         circumstances necessary to justify disclosure of the
         emails.

Having considered the parties' briefing and the applicable case
law, Judge Wang found that no work product privilege attached to
the Script or the emails.  The judge further found that even if
work product protection attached, Defendant expressly waived it
with regard to the Script.

In addition, Judge Wang found that neither the work product
doctrine nor Rule 26(b)(4)(D) protects Ms. Tyrcha's voluntary
disclosure to Plaintiff's counsel of the identity of Ms. Knutson
as Defendant's non-testifying expert, or the substance of the
communication between Ms. Knutson and the two Declarants.

As to the identities of the third parties whom Ms. Knutson
contacted and the substance of the communication exchanged with
the Putative Class Members that was revealed only through
operation of the agreement between counsel, Judge Wang found that
such information is covered by Rule 26(b)(4)(D), but that
Plaintiff has carried her heavy burden of showing exceptional
circumstances exist to warrant disclosure.

A full-text copy of Judge Wang's July 20, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/uiAnaH from Leagle.com.

Kirstin Kurlander, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Farr Robertson --
arobertson@creeclaw.org -- Civil Rights Education and Enforcement
Center.

Kroenke Arena Company, LLC,, Defendant, represented by Laura J.
Hazen -- lhazen@hklawllc.com -- H & K Law, LLC & Susan Penniman
Klopman -- sklopman@hklawllc.com -- H & K Law, LLC.


LOVE'S TRAVEL: "Given" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Given, Kristopher Lawson, Vincent Mccleery and Sean
McMurran, Individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores,
Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01266, (M.D. Pa., July 18, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation including reasonable
attorneys' fees and experts' fees and other costs and
disbursements and such other relief under the under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant Love's Travel Stops does business under the name "Love's
Travel Stops & Country Stores" and operates over 420 retail
locations throughout 40 states. Plaintiffs were employed by Love's
Travel Stops as Operations Managers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Senoff, Esq.
      ANAPOLWEISS
      One Logan Square
      130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 735-1130
      Email: dsenoff@anapolweiss.com

             - and -

      Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
      Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
      David A. Roth, Esq.
      Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
      HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
      192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545~1199
      Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
      E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
              cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
              droth@hgrlawyers.com
              rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com

            - and -

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Alan Quiles, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 S. Federal Highway
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831


LTD FINANCIAL: Court Denies Bid for Summary Judgment in "Baez"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul G. Byron of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Orlando Division, denied the Defendant's
Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law in the case
captioned LIZNELIA BAEZ, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:15-cv-1043-Orl-40TBS (M.D. Fla.).

Plaintiff Baez initiated this class action against the Defendant,
to vindicate her rights and the rights of other similarly situated
consumers under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").
She states that she and approximately 34,000 other consumers
received dunning letters from LTD which sought partial payment on
debts that are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Baez claims that these dunning letters violated the FDCPA by
failing to disclose that a partial payment made on a time-barred
debt would "revive" the debt under Florida law, thus subjecting
the consumer to liability anew should the consumer subsequently
default.  She concludes that this failure misrepresents the true
character and legal status of the debts LTD sought to collect in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e, and otherwise constitutes a
misleading and unfair means to collect or attempt to collect a
debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f.

On June 8, 2016, the Court certified this lawsuit as a class
action and, on May 11, 2017, a jury returned a verdict in favor of
Baez and the class on all claims.  On June 30, 2017, LTD now
renews its motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b).  On July 12, 2017, the
Plaintiff responded in opposition.

First, LTD moves for judgment as a matter of law on the ground
that Baez failed to adduce sufficient evidence at trial
demonstrating that the obligation referenced in LTD's dunning
letter was a "debt" within the meaning of the FDCPA.  However,
Baez produced a list of the approximately 34,000 class members in
this case who received LTD's dunning letter, and every name on
that list is the name of a natural person, as opposed to a
business.  Judge Byron says this evidence is sufficient to allow a
reasonable jury to conclude by a preponderance of the evidence
that the obligations referenced in LTD's dunning letters to Baez
and the class were consumer debts within the meaning of the FDCPA.

Second, the Defendant moves for judgment as a matter of law on the
ground that Baez failed to adduce sufficient evidence at trial
demonstrating that the debts at issue in the dunning letters were
barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  Judge Byron says
Baez did not need to prove which statute of limitations applied to
each debt in order to prove that the debts were time-barred.
Rather, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence in the record
to allow a reasonable jury to reach that conclusion.

Third, it moves for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that
the theory of liability Baez pursued in this case and through
trial was legally incorrect, contending that a time-barred debt
cannot be revived under Florida law in the way Baez claims.  Judge
Byron rejected LTD's argument on this point previously and does so
again now.  Baez's theory of liability in this case is accurate
under controlling law.

Fourth, LTD moves for judgment as a matter of law on the ground
that two federal agencies previously found the language used by
LTD in its dunning letters to be acceptable.  To the extent LTD
suggests that this Court is bound to accept prior settlement
agreements between the FTC, CFPB, and other non-parties as legally
conclusive on the issue of whether LTD's dunning letter in this
case is misleading, deceptive, unfair, or unconscionable under the
FDCPA, LTD is mistaken, the Judge notes.

Lastly, LTD moves for judgment as a matter of law on the ground
that the FDCPA does not require debt collectors like LTD to
provide legal advice to consumers about the statute of
limitations.  However, Judge Byron finds that nothing in the
jury's verdict or the judgment against LTD requires LTD to provide
legal advice to consumers, and LTD does not otherwise challenge
the sufficiency of the evidence produced at trial.  LTD's argument
therefore falls outside the scope of review under Rule 50(b).

For these, Judge Byron denied the Defendant's Renewed Motion for
Judgment as a Matter of Law and denied as moot its Unopposed
Motion for Leave to Exceed the Court's Twenty-Five Page Limit for
Defendant's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/hs2llq from Leagle.com.

Liznelia Baez, Plaintiff, represented by Brian W. Warwick --
bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell & Warwick, PA.

Liznelia Baez, Plaintiff, represented by David K. Lietz, Varnell &
Warwick, PA, pro hac vice, Janet R. Varnell --
jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell & Warwick, PA & Michael
Tierney -- michael@tierneylaw.us -- Michael Tierney, PA.

LTD Financial Services, L.P., Defendant, represented by Dale
Thomas Golden -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com -- Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC &
Joseph C. Proulx -- Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC.


MADISON AVE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Says "Kiler" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marion Kiler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Madison Avenue Eye Care Ltd., Defendant,
Case No. 156385/2017 (N.Y. Sup., July 14, 2017), seeks
compensatory damages including all applicable statutory damages
and fines, for violations of New York State Human Rights Law and
City Law, reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs of suit,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further
relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Madison Avenue Eye Care Ltd. Operates an eye clinic located at 405
Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017. To complement its good and
services, it operates a website for scheduling.

Kiler is a legally blind individual and cannot use a computer
without the assistance of screen reader software. She attempted to
make an appointment on Eyecare-midtown.com but could not book an
appointment due to the inaccessibility of the said site. [BN]

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


MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Former Employees Can't File SAC
------------------------------------------------------
Judge William P. Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico denied the Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion
Seeking Leave to File Second Amended Complaint in the case
captioned MARISELA AGUILAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MANAGEMENT &
TRAINING CORPORATION d/b/a MTC, Defendant, Civil No. 16-00050
WJ/GJF (D. N.M.).

This is a collective/class action lawsuit filed by a group of over
20 current or former employees of the Defendant ("MTC") who claim
they were not paid for some of their hours worked on assignment
for MTC at the Otero County Prison Facility near Chaparral, New
Mexico.  The lawsuit asserts claims for unpaid wages and overtime,
as well as other statutory damages and the recovery of attorneys'
fees, under the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-
219 and/or the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, N.M.S.A. Sections 50-
4-1 to 50-4-33.

As described by the Plaintiffs, the proposed Second Amended
Complaint withdraws claims for unpaid compensation related to
hospital duty time because they have learned that this claim is
infrequent and of nominal value.  The proposed complaint also
clarifies that their claims for improper automatic deductions for
meal breaks are in fact, part of the unpaid time at issue when
Transport Officers are escorting prisoners to and from that
appointments outside the prison.  A small number of the Detention
Officers are assigned at any given time to work as Transport
Officers, who have the same primary duties and rate of pay as
Transport Officers when assigned this task.

The proposed Second Amended Complaint also makes some minor non-
substantive corrections sand clarifications, such as: (i)
eliminating he specific number of named plaintiffs and updating
some non-substantive matters, such as the fact Defendant was
already served or correcting a typographical error; (ii) using the
name "detention officer" instead of "guards"; (iii) clarifying
facts related to the Plaintiffs' pre- and post-shift claims; and
(iv) adding one sentence to the rounding allegation in the
proposed complaint.

In sum, Judge Johnson finds and concludes that the Plaintiffs'
motion to amend could have been filed at least months earlier, and
the he finds it a poor excuse to lay the blame for the delay on
the defense counsel's refusal to consider these claims already
asserted in the current complaint.

He makes no finding on whether granting the motion would be
prejudicial to the Defendant because it is not clear without
further inquiry whether further discovery would be necessary if
the Plaintiffs were allowed to amend the complaint.  He does make
a finding, however, that the Defendant would be prejudiced by re-
opening discovery at this point in the case.

Finally, Judge Johnson finds that the amendment would be futile.
The proposed amendment states that the Plaintiffs lost
compensation due to auto-deducted and unpaid meal break times that
were in fact worked by the Detention Officers serving on Transport
Duty.  This claim would be subject to dismissal because based on
statements made by Plaintiffs Escobar and Rodarte, MTC corrected
any overtime shortages which it became aware after time adjustment
forms were submitted.

Therefore, Judge Johnson denied the Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion
Seeking Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/ek0mvy from Leagle.com.

Marisela Aguilar, Plaintiff, represented by David L. Kern --
par@kernlawfirm.com -- Kern Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Marisela Aguilar, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Blumenfeld,
Mendel Blumenfeld, PLLC.

Miguel Blanco, Plaintiff, represented by David L. Kern, Kern Law
Firm, pro hac vice & Robert Blumenfeld, Mendel Blumenfeld, PLLC.

Francisco J Carranza, Plaintiff, represented by David L. Kern,
Kern Law Firm, pro hac vice & Robert Blumenfeld, Mendel
Blumenfeld, PLLC.

Rafael Gallegos, Plaintiff, represented by David L. Kern, Kern Law
Firm, pro hac vice & Robert Blumenfeld, Mendel Blumenfeld, PLLC.

Benjamin Guerrero, Plaintiff, represented by David L. Kern, Kern
Law Firm, pro hac vice & Robert Blumenfeld, Mendel Blumenfeld,
PLLC.

Ivan Eloy Gurrola, Plaintiff, represented by David L. Kern, Kern
Law Firm, pro hac vice & Robert Blumenfeld, Mendel Blumenfeld,
PLLC.

Vaughn D Hayes, Plaintiff, represented by David L. Kern, Kern Law
Firm, pro hac vice & Robert Blumenfeld, Mendel Blumenfeld, PLLC.

Jose R Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by David L. Kern, Kern
Law Firm, pro hac vice & Robert Blumenfeld, Mendel Blumenfeld,
PLLC.

Rogelio Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by David L. Kern, Kern
Law Firm, pro hac vice & Robert Blumenfeld, Mendel Blumenfeld,
PLLC.

Management & Training Corporation, Defendant, represented by Aaron
C. Viets -- aviets@rodey.com -- Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin &
Robb, P.A., Charles J. Vigil -- cvigil@rodey.com -- Rodey Dickson
Sloan Akin & Robb, P.A. & Krystle A. Thomas -- kthomas@rodey.com -
- Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Employee's Bid for Certification Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Columbia, issued a
Memorandum Opinion denying Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned ROSA ARIAS, Plaintiff, v.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-1258
(GK), (D.D.C.).

Plaintiff Rosa Arias (Plaintiff) brings this action against
Defendant, Marriott International, Inc. (Marriott), for herself
and others similarly situated.

Plaintiff Rosa Arias began working in the Housekeeping Department
at Defendant's Washington Marriott at Metro Center. In fulfilling
her housekeeping duties, Ms. Arias regularly used hazardous
chemicals without the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
Ms. Arias asserts that as a result of working with these chemicals
without PPE, she suffered severe eye irritation, headaches,
respiratory illness and chest pain.

The Court dismissed Ms. Arias' racial discrimination claim,
wrongful termination claim, and aggravated assault claim. As a
result, three of Ms. Arias' claims have survived: (1) retaliation
under Title VII, (2) breach of contract, and (3) breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

While this Court has no views about the merits of this case, it is
certainly possible that there could be much merit to Ms. Arias'
case. Consequently, the Court has asked a prominent District of
Columbia law firm, which does a great deal of work on complex
class action cases, to examine the ECF record in this case to
determine whether it would be interested in taking a major role in
furthering Ms. Arias' position. The Court hopes that the firm's
preliminary examination can be completed by August 15, 2017. In
any event, on or before September 1, when this Judge will be
retiring, the case will be assigned to another Judge.

For these reasons, the Court is denying without prejudice
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Court will advise
all Parties before September 1, 2017, as to what, if any, decision
has been made by the firm to which the case was sent for
examination.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 19, 2017 Memorandum
Opinion is available http://tinyurl.com/yccnfyezfrom Leagle.com.

ROSA ARIAS, Plaintiff, represented by Harry Truman Spikes.

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, represented by Kara M.
Maciel -- kmaciel@connmaciel.com -- CONN MACIEL CAREY LLP &
Lindsay A. DiSalvo -- ldisalvo@connmaciel.com -- CONN MACIEL
CAREY, LLP.


MAZDA MOTOR: Court Dismisses "Gonzalez" Suit with Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted with leave to amend
Mazda's motion to dismiss the case captioned IRIS GONZALEZ, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 16-cv-02087-MMC (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action on behalf of
themselves and other current and former Mazda vehicle owners,
alleging Model Year 2010-15 Mazda 3 vehicles incorporating 5-speed
and 6-speed manual transmissions contain clutch-related defects
that cause premature wear to the vehicle's manual transmission and
related components, and, ultimately, premature clutch system or
transmission failure requiring expensive and extensive repairs.
They allege Mazda has known of the defect for almost a decade, yet
actively conceals such defect from prospective customers and from
Mazda owners who bring their cars in for routine maintenance.

Based thereon, the Plaintiffs, who purchased their vehicles in
nine different states, assert, under various state laws and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, thirteen causes of action.  By orders
filed Jan. 5, 2017, and Feb. 9, 2017, the Court dismissed the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC") and granted them leave
to amend certain of their claims.  On March 15, 2017, they filed
their Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which, in addition to
correcting the deficiencies previously identified by the Court,
added, with leave of Court, two named Plaintiffs, specifically,
Heather Weeter and Gregory Schaaf, along with new claims under
North Carolina law.  By the instant motion, Mazda seeks dismissal
of certain of the claims brought by the two new Plaintiffs.

As Mazda points out, the Court previously dismissed the same
claims, as alleged in the Plaintiffs' prior FAC, to the extent
they were brought by any Plaintiff who had not purchased his/her
Mazda vehicle in California, on the ground that each such
Plaintiff's consumer protection claim should be governed by the
consumer protection laws of the jurisdiction in which the
transaction took place.  The Plaintiffs, in their opposition,
acknowledge the Court's prior ruling as to non-California
Plaintiffs and offer no argument as to why such ruling would not
apply equally to Weeter and Schaaf.  Accordingly, to the extent
the FAC and SAC are brought on behalf of Weeter and Schaaf, such
claims will be dismissed without leave to amend, Judge Chesney
explains.

In the Fifth Cause of Action, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of Weeter
and those similarly situated, allege Mazda violated Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), by willfully
failing to disclose and actively concealing the dangerous risk of
the deffect.  The Plaintiffs' conclusory allegation that Mazda
sells its vehicles through a network of dealerships that are its
agents is not, without factual support, sufficient to allege an
agency relationship by which Mazda would be liable for the acts of
Gunther Mazda.  Accordingly, Judge Chesney dismissed the Fifth
Cause of Action, with leave to amend to allege facts to support a
basis for tolling of the statute of limitations.

In the Tenth Cause of Action, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of Schaaf
and those similarly situated, allege Mazda violated North
Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("NCUDTPA"),
by willfully failing to disclose and actively concealing the
defect.  Irrespective of whether such allegations would suffice to
plead egregious or aggravating circumstances, the conduct
comprising those circumstances is ascribed to Sport Durst Mazda,
which is not a defendant in this case, and the Plaintiffs have not
alleged facts sufficient to show Sport Durst Mazda's conduct may
be imputed to Mazda.  Accordingly, Judge Chesney dismissed the
Fifth Cause of Action, with leave to amend to allege substantial
aggravating circumstances to support a NCUDTPA claim against
Mazda.

In the Twelfth Cause of Action, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of
Weeter, Schaaf, and those similarly situated, allege Mazda
provided such them with an implied warranty that their vehicles
and any parts thereof are merchantable and fit for the ordinary
purposes for which they are sold, which implied warranty, they
allege, was breached because the vehicles suffered from the defect
at the time of sale that causes the vehicles' clutch to fail
prematurely.  Judge Chesney finds the SAC lacks allegations
sufficient to show the contracts between Mazda and its dealers
were entered into for the direct, and not incidental, benefit of
the Plaintiffs and other Mazda consumers.  Accordingly, the
Twelfth Cause of Action, as alleged by Schaaf, is dismissed, with
leave to amend, by Judge Chesney, to allege facts sufficient to
support a basis for tolling of the statute of limitations.

For the reasons stated, Judge Chesney granted with leave to amend
Mazda's motion to dismiss.  Should Plaintiffs wish to file an
amended pleading for purposes of curing the identified
deficiencies, they will file, no later than Aug. 16, 2017, a Third
Amended Complaint.  In light of such dismissal, the Case
Management Conference previously vacated by the Court is reset for
Sept. 1, 2017.  A Joint Case Management Statement will be filed no
later than Aug. 25, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/zChfZX from Leagle.com.

IRIS GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Clobes --
bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice.

IRIS GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Oswaldo Herrera --
dherrera@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether Sprengel
LLP, pro hac vice, David Christopher Wright --
dcw@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP & Richard D.
McCune, Jr.-- rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

CHARLES BUNCH, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty
Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Oswaldo
Herrera, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice,
David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP & Richard D.
McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

ANNE STOM, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty
Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Oswaldo
Herrera, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice,
David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP & Richard D.
McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

GREG THOMASON, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty
Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Oswaldo
Herrera, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice,
David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP & Richard D.
McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

LISA MASSA, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty
Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Oswaldo
Herrera, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice,
David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP & Richard D.
McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

DAN CARNEY, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty
Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Oswaldo
Herrera, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice,
David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP & Richard D.
McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

MEGAN HUMPHREY, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Clobes,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel
Oswaldo Herrera, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether Sprengel LLP, pro hac
vice, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP &
Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

LORIE BENDER, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty
Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Oswaldo
Herrera, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice,
David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP & Richard D.
McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

LINDA FOLEY, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty
Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Oswaldo
Herrera, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice,
David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP & Richard D.
McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by Michael
Lawrence Mallow -- MMALLOW@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP &
Darlene Mi-Hyung Cho -- DCHO@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.

MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, represented by Darlene
Mi-Hyung Cho, Sidley Austin LLP & Michael Lawrence Mallow, Sidley
Austin LLP.


MDL 2724: Taro Pharma Still Defends Generic Drug Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and its unit Taro
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. still defend themselves against
numerous putative class action lawsuits related to generic drug
pricing antitrust matters, according to the Company's Form 20-F
filed on June 21, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

Taro Pharmaceutical stated, "The Company and Taro U.S.A. have been
named as defendants in numerous putative class action lawsuits
brought by purchasers and payors of generic Clobetasol, Desonide,
Fluocinonide, Econazole, and Clomipramine alleging that the
Company and/or Taro U.S.A. have conspired with competitors to fix
prices, rig bids or allocate customers in these markets.  Each of
these cases has been transferred to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated
proceedings under the caption In re: Generic Drug Pricing
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724."

Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., a science-based
pharmaceutical company, engages in the development, manufacture,
and marketing of pharmaceutical products in the United States,
Canada, Israel, and internationally.  It sells and distributes its
products principally to drug industry wholesalers, drug store
chains, mass merchandisers, healthcare institutions, and private
pharmacies.  The Company was founded in 1959 and is based in
Haifa, Israel.  Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a
subsidiary of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces "Arakelian" Suit Over Defective HVAC System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Arakelian, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. BC668976 (Cal. Super.
Ct., July 18, 2017), is brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or leased in California certain vehicles equipped with
uniform and uniformly defective heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning systems (HVAC) designed, manufactured, distributed,
warranted, marketed, and sold or leased by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of motor vehicles and related equipment and services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com

METRO ONE: "Laing" Suit in NY Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Laing, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group
(Guard Division NY), and related or affiliated entities, Case No.
156476/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 19, 2017), seeks to recover for
unlawful deductions, unlawful charges, unlawful kickback of wages,
unpaid uniform maintenance costs, and unpaid spread of hours and
overtime compensation pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

Headquartered at 900 South Avenue, Suite 200, 2nd Floor, Staten
Island, New York 10314, Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group
provides loss prevention services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
      Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: 6th Cir. Affirms Rulings in "Kline" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EUGENE KLINE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-3932 (6th. Cir.), Judge Bernice Bouie
Donald of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed
(i) the district court's grant of summary judgment to all the
Defendants; (ii) the district court's denial of Kline's Rule 60(b)
motion for relief from judgment; (iii) the district court's grant
of Defendants' joint motion to strike; and (iv) the district
court's denial of Kline's motion for leave to amend.

On Nov. 10, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
suit against the Defendants, many of whom are no longer parties to
this litigation, arising out of the fees and costs Defendants
charged them when they paid off their loans.  Kline filed an
amended complaint on April 14, 2010, alleging that (i) Reimer
Firm, Lerner Firm, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc. ("MERS") violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"); (ii) MERS, Barclays, Wells Fargo, and WMC violated the
Truth in Lending Act; (iii) all the Defendants violated section
1345.01 of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act; (iv) all the
Defendants were unjustly enriched in violation of Ohio law; and
(v) all the Defendants breached a contract in violation of Ohio
law.
Judge Donald resolves only those claims preserved for appellate
review.

On March 27, 2015, Reimer, Lerner, Wells Fargo, Barclays, and MERS
moved for summary judgment.  After Kline filed memoranda in
opposition to the motions, on Dec. 23, 2015, the district court
granted the Defendants' motions for summary judgment.  Kline was
required to file a motion for class certification by June 9, 2015,
but again missed the deadline.  Accordingly, the Defendants filed
a joint motion to strike and dismiss Kline's class allegations for
failure to file a class certification brief. Kline responded,
insisting that his April 10, 2015 and May 7, 2015 letters
constituted requests for extensions.  In a decision dated Sept.
25, 2015, the district court construed these letters as requests
to reopen discovery and denied the requests, concluding that Kline
failed to justify additional discovery.  Then, it granted the
Defendants' motion to strike, concluding that Kline disregarded
the district court's admonitions regarding the deadline to file
the class certification motion and that there was not good cause
for the delay.

Next, on Dec. 21, 2015, Kline moved for leave to file a second
amended complaint, seeking to add RICO and fraud claims based on
"new evidence" that the Defendants made misrepresentations during
the foreclosure actions and during the instant litigation.  On
Dec. 23, 2015, the district court, observing that Kline alleged
facts to support these additional claims in his original
complaint, denied Kline's motion, citing undue delay and futility
of amendment as reasons.

Finally, on Jan. 20, 2016, and Jan. 28, 2016, respectively, Kline
moved for reconsideration of the district court's rulings on the
Defendants' motions for summary judgment and Kline's motion to
amend and moved for relief from the district court's orders
granting summary judgment to the Defendants, denying his motion to
amend, and striking class allegations from the complaint.  On July
18, 2016, the district court denied Kline's post-judgment motions.
On Aug. 12, 2016, Kline filed a timely notice of appeal.

Judge Donald held that regarding all of the alleged
misrepresentations against the Defendants, the district court
concluded that Kline had not demonstrated that any
misrepresentations were not known to him prior to the entry of
judgment, so he could not form the basis for relief under Rule 60.
This fact is undisputed on appeal.  Accordingly, she affirmed the
district court's denial of Rule 60 relief.

Judge Donald finds that Kline failed to establish a reasonable
excuse for his failure to timely file for class certification
after the district court's repeated emphasis on the necessity of
complying with this deadline.  In light of this, she concludes,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a just
order striking his class allegations when he failed to adhere to
its deadline set seven years after the initiation of this
litigation.

Kline alleges that he sought leave to amend his complaint to add
fraud and RICO claims based on facts uncovered since February
2015, namely, as relevant here, allegations that Defendants had
concealed that Kline was improperly charged fees in connection
with the foreclosures on his home and falsely represented the
owner of the notes.  Judge Donald says the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend based on these
allegations.  His failure to file for leave to amend until now
suggests bad faith.  Furthermore, Kline's complaint already
alleges a laundry list of claims against multiple defendants;
adding claims and the Plaintiffs nearly a decade after the
original complaint was filed and significant progress towards
resolution of the claims had been made would have prejudiced
Defendants.  Accordingly, she concludes that the district court
did not err in denying Kline leave to amend.

For these reasons, Judge Donald affirmed the district court
judgment in all aspects.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/LNCWq9 from Leagle.com.


NATURAL CROP: "Castaneda" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Castaneda, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Natural Crop Inc., Mariano Diaz and
Sabrina L. Diaz, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04258 (E.D. N.Y.,
July 18, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid spread of hours premium, liquidated damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and the New
York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Plaintiff worked as a kitchen worker/food preparer for Defendants'
juicery/restaurant known as Grass Roots Juicery, located at 336A
Graham Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, from September 2013 through
December 27, 2016. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel. (212) 209-3933
      Fax. (212) 209-7102
      Email: info@jcpclaw.com


NEW YORK LIFE: Appeals Court Tossed Employer Class-Action Waiver
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class of insurance agents cannot be forced to arbitrate
their overtime claims, a divided New York appeals court ruled on
July 18, because the class-action waiver in their employment
contracts violates the National Labor Relations Act.

The case is, Avraham Gold, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v New
York Life Insurance Co., et al., Defendants-Respondents, 653923/12
2430.

The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division's decision concurs
with the Seventh and Ninth Circuit's rulings, but conflicts with a
Fifth Circuit ruling on the same issue.

All three of those cases are now before the U.S. Supreme Court,
which agreed in January to provide guidance on the circuit split.

In the New York case, former insurance agents for New York Life
Insurance Company brought a class action seeking recovery for
allegedly illegal wage deductions and violations of overtime laws.

However, the agents' contracts contained a clause waiving any
right to a jury trial or right to bring a class action.

"We find the Seventh Circuit's reasoning in [Epic Systems Corp.
v.] Lewis more persuasive -- far more than that of the Fifth
Circuit," Justice Karla Moskowitz said, writing for the appeals
court's 3-2 majority.

The National Labor Relations Board has consistently maintained
that such arbitration clauses conflict with labor laws giving
workers the right to organize to complain about workplace
conditions.

"We disagree with the Fifth Circuit's reasoning for two reasons,"
Moskowitz said. "First, the court's reasoning begs the question,
essentially asserting the circular argument that individual
arbitration, not collective litigation, should be the norm because
any other policy would impede arbitration. The court determined
there to be no Congressional command that the NLRA should override
the [Federal Arbitration Act, or FAA], but we can divine no reason
that the FAA policy favoring arbitration should trump the NLRA
policy prohibiting employers from preventing collective action by
employees."

Justice Richard Andrias dissented, joined by Justice David
Friedman.

"Prohibiting class arbitration waivers would discourage
arbitration in general, to an extent that is impermissible under
the FAA," Andrias wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the matter will require it to
consider the interplay between the FAA and NLRA, and whether to
expand its 5-4 ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which held
that the FAA preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from
disallowing class-wide arbitration.

If the court's conservative majority unites to expand Concepcion,
an opinion authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, it will
deliver a major blow to the NLRA's guarantee of a right for
employees to pursue "concerted activities."

The nation's high court has not yet scheduled oral arguments in
the case.


NIANTIC: Still Defends Property Owners' Suit over Pokemon Game
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that property owners have dropped their class action against
Pokemon, abandoning claims that the Pokemon Go game encouraged
players to trespass on private property; only Niantic remains as a
defendant.

Lead plaintiff Jeffery Marder of New Jersey sued Niantic, Nintendo
and Pokemon Co. in Federal Court one year ago. Marder said five
people knocked on his door in the first week of the game's debut
in July 2016, asking for permission to "catch" Pokemon in his
backyard.  He claimed the game makers unfairly profited from the
unauthorized use of people's private property by plopping virtual
characters in their real-world yards and homes without permission.

The augmented reality game, a reincarnation of Nintendo's popular
1990s Gameboy franchise, uses GPS and camera functions to let
players achieve goals by "catching" virtual characters in the real
world.

Marder and other plaintiffs filed a stipulation of voluntary
dismissal Wednesday, typically a sign that the suit has been
settled out of court. In April, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed claims against Nintendo.

Attorneys for Marder and Niantic did not return phone calls
seeking comment Wednesday.

Marder alleged claims of nuisance and unjust enrichment against
Niantic and the other defendants.

After the game's debut, several media reports surfaced about
people playing Pokemon Go in inappropriate places, including an
Alabama cemetery and the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington,
D.C.

The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Poland last year banned
people from playing "Pokemon Go" there, calling the behavior
"disrespectful" at a site memorializing the murder of more than 1
million Jews by Nazis during World War II.

In a brief filed in January, Niantic argued that the plaintiffs
could not sue it for "virtually trespassing" on private property
because trespass "requires unauthorized entry of a tangible
object." It said it could not be sued for "inducing" people to
trespass because it did not intentionally cause trespassing, and
no significant harm resulted from the alleged trespassing.

Niantic made nearly $1 billion from the Pokemon Go game in 2016,
according to Forbes. The game had 65 million monthly active users
as of April this year, according to the gaming publication IGN.

In February, the mobile app marketing firm SensorTower estimated
that Pokemon Go makes $1.5 to $2.5 million per day, down from its
peak of $18 million per day at the height of its popularity in
2016, according to TechCrunch.

Niantic is represented by Jeffrey Gutkin with Cooley LLP in San
Francisco. Marder by Jeremy Lieberman with the Pomerantz firm in
New York.

Niantic did not return an email seeking comment.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Has $49M Deal to Settle Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation has reached in principle to settle a
securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, according to the Company's Form 8-K
filed on July 20, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The class action, captioned In re Ocwen Financial Corporation
Securities Litigation, involved allegations in connection with the
restatements of the Company's 2013 and first quarter 2014
financial statements and its December 2014 consent order with the
New York Department of Financial Services, among other matters.

On July 19, 2017, following a mediated settlement process
resulting in all parties' acceptance of the mediator's
recommendation for settlement, the parties advised the Court of
the settlement in principle.  The parties have filed a joint
motion requesting that the Court adjourn further proceedings in
the matter pending approval of the final settlement.

Subject to documentation of a definitive settlement and final
approval by the Court, the settlement will include an aggregate
cash payment by the Company to the plaintiffs of US$49 million (of
which the Company expects to recover US$12 million to US$14
million from insurance proceeds), and an issuance to the
plaintiffs of an aggregate of 2,500,000 shares of the Company's
common stock.  Under certain circumstances related to the price of
the Company's common stock over the five trading days prior to
Court approval of the settlement, the amount of shares issuable
could be increased so that the aggregate number of shares issued
has a total value of US$7 million.  However, in no event will the
Company be required to issue more than 4% of the number of shares
of the Company's common stock outstanding as of the date of Court
approval.  Further, in lieu of issuing shares, the Company may
elect to pay the plaintiffs US$7 million in cash.  Attorneys' fees
for the plaintiffs will be paid from the amounts described.

The Company estimates the net pre-tax expense impact of the
settlement in the quarter ending June 30, 2017 to be between
US$(34) million and US$(36) million.

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

"There can be no assurance that the settlement in principle will
be finalized and approved by the Court.  In the event the
settlement in principle is not ultimately finalized and approved,
the litigation would continue and we would vigorously defend the
allegations made against Ocwen.  If our efforts to defend against
such claims were not successful, our business, financial
condition, liquidity and results of operations could be materially
and adversely affected."

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
engages in the servicing and origination of mortgage loans in the
United States.  It was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in
West Palm Beach, Florida.


OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: Sued for Using Ex-Players' Images
--------------------------------------------------------
Emily Zantow, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
former Ohio State University football player filed a class action
in Columbus, Ohio, accusing the school of using former players'
images and likenesses without permission or compensation.

The class-action complaint was filed on July 14, by Chris Spielman
in Columbus federal court on behalf of current and former Ohio
State football players.

The defendants are IMG College LLC, Ohio State University and
unknown persons and companies.

"Defendants OSU and IMG/WME and their co-conspirators . . . have
committed per se violations of the federal antitrust laws by
engaging in a price-fixing conspiracy and a group boycott /
refusal to deal that has unlawfully foreclosed class members from
receiving compensation in connection with the commercial
exploitation of their images following their cessation of
intercollegiate athletic competition," the lawsuit states.

OSU is one of the largest universities in the nation with over
60,000 students at its Columbus campus, according to the
complaint.

Spielman is an Ohio resident who played linebacker for the OSU
Buckeyes from 1984 to 1987. He still holds the team record for
most total tackles in a game, according to the complaint, and is
the university's all-time leader in solo tackles.  He is also a
three-time All-Big Ten choice, two-time All-American and Lombardi
Award winner.

Spielman went on to play in the National Football League for 12
years and ended his career in 1999 with the Cleveland Browns. He
is currently an officer of the College Football Players Club.  He
claims in his class-action lawsuit that OSU entered into licensing
partnerships that unlawfully utilized his image and those of the
proposed class members.

"The related available content featuring likeness of former
student-athletes in the Class, such as DVDs, photos, and banners,
and merchandise, continues to grow in both availability and
popularity, and the growth will continue to explode as merchandise
continues to be made available in new delivery formats as
developing technology and ingenuity permits, as exemplified by the
substantial library of 'on demand' internet content now available
for sale for OSU games as well as jerseys on OSU's website," the
complaint states.

Banner and vintage-jersey licensing programs are at the center of
the dispute.

OSU and IMG allegedly organized a banner program with nonparty
Honda featuring notable former OSU football players, including
their last names and photographs.

"Plaintiff was one of the sixty-four individuals depicted on said
banners, despite the fact that plaintiff did not provide consent,
and plaintiff was not compensated for said Honda Banner Program,"
Spielman's lawsuit states.

IMG and OSU also organized a "Legends of the Scarlet and Gray"
vintage-jersey licensing program with nonparty Nike that violated
former players' publicity rights, according to the complaint.

Spielman's attorney Brian Duncan said in a phone call that OSU is
cutting former players out of deals involving them.

"Not only is the university and the entities that are named in the
complaint seeking to use the unauthorized images of and named
likeness of these players as for-profit ventures, but they're also
seeking to preclude these individuals from participating in the
ability to financially benefit from the sale of their own name,
image and likeness, in the form of jerseys," Duncan said. "Over
the last 10 years, the university and Nike have sought to preclude
former Ohio State football players from selling jerseys or
replicate jerseys that would have their names and number on them
as for-profit ventures while continuing to sell the same to the
open market for the benefit of Nike and/or the university."

Spielman alleges OSU and IMG are engaging in unreasonable
restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act. He also says
the defendants violated the Lanham Act because class members did
not consent to the use of their names, images and likenesses.

The former Buckeye linebacker wants a judge to order a permanent
injunction prohibiting the commercial marketing, sale and use of
current and former OSU football players' names and likenesses with
corporate sponsors. He also wants the "offending products" --
including banners, jerseys, pictures and other marketing materials
-- confiscated and destroyed.

In addition, the lawsuit seeks attorney fees and an accounting of
the transactions at issue to calculate the total damages.

"Evidently, defendants are attempting to persuade Ohio Stadium
visitors to purchase certain products and/or supplies because said
products and/or supplies perform at a high level, just like
plaintiff and class members did while they were participating in
sporting events while attending OSU," the complaint states.

OSU and IMG did not immediately respond on July 17, to email
requests for comment.

Duncan, of BKD Legal in Sunbury, Ohio, said the goal of the class
action "is to come to an agreement with the university as well as
these corporations to form the joint ventures and partnerships by
and along all parties so that everybody can continue to benefit
accordingly."

The case is captioned, Charles C. Spielman Aka Chris Spielman,
Individually (And/Or As An Officer, Shareholder And/Or Affiliate
Of Profectus Group, Inc., D/B/A The College Football Players Club)
On Behalf Of Himself And All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiffs,
-Vs- IMG College, Llc, [IMG Worldwide, Inc., WME Entertainment
("WME"), Dba IMG, dba International Management Group dba Ohio
State Img Sports Marketing](Collectively Referred to as "IMG");
and the Ohio State University (Aka "OSU"), John Does 1-10, ABC
Company's 1-10, Defendants.  Case: 2:17-cv-00612-MHW-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio, July 14, 2017).

Trial Counsel for Plaintiffs:

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


PACIFIC GATEWAY: Cy Pres Recipient of "Hochstetler" Deal Replaced
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California ordered that Consumers Union be
replaced by Legal Assistance for Seniors as the cy pres recipient
in the parties' Settlement Agreement in the case captioned RACHEL
HOCHSTETLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC GATEWAY CONCESSIONS
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-04748-TEH (N.D. Cal.).

On June 7, 2016, the Court granted the parties' motions for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement, for Award of Attorney's Fees
and Costs, and for Incentive Payments.  In granting the motions,
the Court ordered that if any residual funds from the Settlement
Fund remain after payments are made to the settlement Class
members through the distribution of the Pacific Gateway Concession
("PGC") Gift Cards, any and all such residual funds will be
distributed to Consumers Union of the United States.  The parties'
Joint Settlement Agreement clarifies that all residual funds are
to be paid in the form of PGC Gift Cards.  Pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, seven gift cards were distributed to class
members with valid claims and Consumers Union received a cy pres
distribution of $793,000 in the form of 7,993 gift cards worth
$100 each.

In March 2017, the Court received the first of several letters
from Consumers Union reporting that most stores would not accept
the gift cards.  Consequently, the Court issued orders directing
PGC to resolve the problem.  Despite PGS' efforts, the problem was
not remedied.  Shortly thereafter, Consumers Union stated that it
could not participate in the cy pres award in its current form
while conceding it lacked standing in the case.  The Court
scheduled a status conference for July 24, 2017, asking the
parties to come prepared to address how the Court can properly
enforce the Settlement Agreement's cy pres award and what changes
to the cy pres award, if any, are needed.  At the status
conference, the Parties proposed substituting Legal Assistance for
Seniors in the place of Consumers Union as the cy pres recipient.
However, in light of a potential solution proposed by PGC's
counsel involving the redemption of the gift cards at PGC's
warehouse, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to
attempt to resolve their dispute regarding the cy pres award.

At the most recent status conference on July 31, 2017, Consumers
Union unambiguously conveyed it did not want any part of the cy
pres award in its current form of gift cards, but would like to
receive a cash award instead.  While the Court is cognizant of the
downsides to gift card settlements, especially for an organization
like Consumers Union, the Court has no authority to rewrite the
parties' Settlement Agreement.  It is left with no choice but to
adopt the parties' agreement to substitute Legal Assistance for
Seniors as the cy pres recipient.  Accordingly, Judge Henderson
ordered that Consumers Union be replaced by Legal Assistance for
Seniors as the cy pres recipient in the parties' Settlement
Agreement.  He instructed PGC to coordinate with Consumers Union
to obtain the gift cards and to deliver them to Legal Assistance
for Seniors no later than Aug. 15, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/FUekCl from Leagle.com.

Rachel Hochstetler, Plaintiff, represented by Chant Yedalian,
Chant & Company.

Cirena Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Chant Yedalian, Chant &
Company.

Pacific Gateway Concessions LLC, Defendant, represented by Mara
Elizabeth Rosales -- mara@rosaleslawpartners.com -- Rosales Law

Partners LLP & Robert Durston Sanford --
dusty@rosaleslawpartners.com -- Rosales Law Partners LLP.

Pacific Gateway Concessions LLC, Cross-claimant, represented by
Mara Elizabeth Rosales, Rosales Law Partners LLP & Robert Durston

Sanford, Rosales Law Partners LLP.

Point Solutions, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Robert A.
Huddleston, Huddleston & Sipos Law Group LLP.

Pacific Gateway Concessions LLC, Cross-claimant, represented by
Mara Elizabeth Rosales, Rosales Law Partners LLP & Robert Durston
Sanford, Rosales Law Partners LLP.

Point Solutions, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Robert A.
Huddleston, Huddleston & Sipos Law Group LLP.

Pacific Gateway Concessions LLC, Cross-claimant, represented by
Mara Elizabeth Rosales, Rosales Law Partners LLP & Robert Durston
Sanford, Rosales Law Partners LLP.

Point Solutions, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Robert A.
Huddleston, Huddleston & Sipos Law Group LLP.


PATHEON NV: Files Add'l Info to Address Securities Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patheon N.V. voluntarily filed supplements to disclosures
contained in the Company's Definitive Proxy Statement dated June
26, 2017 in an effort to alleviate the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and provide additional
information to its shareholders.  The additional disclosures are
available in the Company's Form 8-K filed on July 20, 2017 with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, a full-text copy of
which is accessible at https://is.gd/kOntIP

The Company said, "The following disclosures supplement the
disclosures contained in the Definitive Proxy Statement dated June
26, 2017 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement"), initially mailed to
shareholders on or about June 26, 2017, by Patheon N.V. (the
"Company," "Patheon" or "we"), for an extraordinary general
meeting (the "Extraordinary General Meeting") of shareholders of
the Company to be held on August 2, 2017 at Hilton Amsterdam
Airport Schiphol, Schiphol Boulevard 701, 1118 BN Schiphol
(Haarlemmermeer), The Netherlands, at 9:00 a.m., local time.

"As previously disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement, three
putative class action complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

"On June 30, 2017, a fourth putative class action complaint was
filed by a purported shareholder of Patheon in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Ma
v. Patheon N.V. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-04979 (the "Ma
Complaint"), alleging substantially the same claims as the
previously disclosed Phillips Complaint, Sciabacucchi Complaint
and Bushansky Complaint (collectively, the "Offer Litigation").

"Patheon believes that the claims asserted in the Offer Litigation
are without merit.  However, in order to alleviate the costs,
risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and provide
additional information to its shareholders, Patheon has determined
to voluntarily supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement as
described in this Current Report on Form 8-K.  Nothing in this
Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
disclosures set forth herein.  To the contrary, Patheon
specifically denies all allegations in the Offer Litigation that
any additional disclosure was or is required.  These supplemental
disclosures will not affect the Offer Consideration to be paid to
shareholders of Patheon in connection with the Offer or the timing
of the Extraordinary General Meeting."

Patheon N.V. provides outsourced pharmaceutical development and
manufacturing services in the Netherlands.  The Company operates
through three segments: Drug Product Services, Pharmaceutical
Development Services, and Drug Substance Services.  The Company
was formerly known as Patheon Holdings Cooperatief U.A. and
changed its names to Patheon N.V. in June 2016.  Patheon N.V. was
incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in Durham, North
Carolina.


PAYPAL INC: "Bond" Disputes Credit Collection Calls
---------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bond, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Paypal, Inc. and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-at-00729
(E.D. Cal., July 20, 2017) seeks actual damages, statutory damages
for willful and negligent violations, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees, and such other and further relief under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is an online payment facilitation service. Paypal
allegedly contacted Plaintiff on the cellular telephone in an
attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt incurred by someone
else using an automatic telephone dialing system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, 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 91367
     Phone: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            twheeler@toddflaw.com


PIONEER CREDIT: Faces "Morgades" Suit Over Inaccurate Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Morgades, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., Case No. BC668984 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 18, 2017), seeks to put an end to the Defendant's
practice of negligently and willfully furnishing information to
the credit reporting agencies it knew or should have known was
inaccurate.

Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. is engaged in the business of
collecting on third party debts whose principal place of business
is located in New York and whose state of incorporation is located
in Delaware. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN; P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St.; Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


QUALCOMM INC: Seeks Dismissal of 3226701 Canada's Revised Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated's motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint filed in a securities class action case in California is
still pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July
19, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 25, 2017.

The case, 3226701 Canada, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated et al, was
filed on November 30, 2015 against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California.

On April 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On
January 27, 2017, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its
entirety, granting leave to amend.

On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
alleging that the Company and certain of its current and former
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business outlook and product
development between November 19, 2014 and July 22, 2015.  The
second amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs.

On May 8, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, which motion is pending.

QUALCOMM said, "The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are
without merit."

QUALCOMM Incorporated develops, designs, manufactures, and markets
digital communications products and services in China, South
Korea, Taiwan, the United States, and internationally.  The
Company operates through three segments: Qualcomm CDMA
Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology Licensing (QTL); and
Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI).  QUALCOMM Incorporated was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


QUALCOMM INC: Response to Consolidated Class Suit Due Sept 1
------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated has until September 1, 2017 to file its
response to the consolidated amended complaint related to the
securities class action lawsuits filed earlier this year in
California for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 19,
2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 25, 2017.

On January 23, 2017 and January 26, 2017, respectively, two
securities class action complaints were filed by purported
stockholders of the Company in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading
statements and omissions of material fact in connection with
certain allegations that the Company is or was engaged in
anticompetitive conduct.  The complaints sought unspecified
damages, interest, fees and costs.

On May 4, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs.

On July 3, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting the same basic theories of liability and
requesting the same basic relief.  The defendants' response to the
consolidated amended complaint is due on September 1, 2017.

QUALCOMM said, "The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are
without merit."

QUALCOMM Incorporated develops, designs, manufactures, and markets
digital communications products and services in China, South
Korea, Taiwan, the United States, and internationally.  The
Company operates through three segments: Qualcomm CDMA
Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology Licensing (QTL); and
Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI).  QUALCOMM Incorporated was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


QUALCOMM INC: Plaintiffs File Joint Complaint in Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on July 19,
2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 25, 2017, that the plaintiffs in
consumer class action lawsuits in California filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint on July 11, 2017 alleging violations of
antitrust and unfair competition laws.

Since January 18, 2017, more than 30 consumer class action
complaints have been filed against the Company in the United
States District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of
California, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
cellular phones and other cellular devices.

In April 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the cases that had been filed in the Southern District
of California to the Northern District of California.

On May 15, 2017, the court entered an order appointing the
plaintiffs' co-lead counsel, and on May 25, 2017, set a trial date
of April 29, 2019.

On July 11, 2017, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint alleging that the Company violated California and
federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by, among other
things, refusing to license standard-essential patents to its
competitors, conditioning the supply of certain of its baseband
chipsets on the purchaser first agreeing to license the Company's
entire patent portfolio, entering into exclusive deals with
companies including Apple Inc., and charging unreasonably high
royalties that do not comply with the Company's commitments to
standard setting organizations.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages and disgorgement and/or restitution, as well as an order
that the Company be enjoined from further unlawful conduct.

QUALCOMM said, "The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are
without merit."

QUALCOMM Incorporated develops, designs, manufactures, and markets
digital communications products and services in China, South
Korea, Taiwan, the United States, and internationally.  The
Company operates through three segments: Qualcomm CDMA
Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology Licensing (QTL); and
Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI).  QUALCOMM Incorporated was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


RICE ENERGY: "Williford" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Burton Williford, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Rice Energy, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00945-
MPK (W.D. Penn., July 18, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rice Energy, Inc. operates an oil and natural gas company
operating primarily in Pennsylvania and Ohio in the Marcellus,
Utica, and Upper Devonian Shales. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412)766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

         - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 352-1100
      Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
      E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
              adunlap@mybackwages.com

         - and -

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


ROLLING GREEN: "Herrera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Hector Ayala Herrera and Ovidio Menendez Perez, individually and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Rolling Green Landscape and Design, Inc. and Dominic J. Varallo,
Jr. Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03176 (E.D. Pa., July 17, 2017),
seeks back pay damages including unpaid overtime compensation and
unpaid wages and prejudgment interest, liquidated and statutory
damages, litigation costs, expenses and attorneys' fees and such
other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.

Rolling Green provides landscaping and hardscaping services to
residential and commercial clients in southeastern Pennsylvania
and southern New Jersey. Plaintiffs work for the Defendant as
manual laborers. They said they have been denied overtime pay for
pre and post shift work. They also allege Varallo subjected them
to racial discrimination and sexual harassment. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Liz Maria Chacko, Esq.
      FRIENDS OF FARMWORKERS, INC.
      699 Ranstead Street, 4th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 733-0878
      Email: lchacko@friendsfw.org

             - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Camille Fundora, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, RC.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      Email: scarson@bm.net
             sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             cfundora@bm.net

             - and -

      Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
      WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
      1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 656-3600
      Facsimile: (215) 567-2310
      Email: rhancock@wwdlaw.com


SAZON INC: "Pichardo" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Domingo Cabrera Pichardo and Hurbino Garcia Rivera, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sazon
Inc., Riverbank Restaurant LLC, Genaro Morales, Angela Terranova,
Evelyn Rivera and Eric Tevrow, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05512,
(S.D. N.Y., July 20, 2017), seeks to recover minimum and overtime
wages and liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control two Puerto Rican
restaurants in New York City where Plaintiffs were employed as
dishwashers, porters, maintenance workers, barbacks, food runners
and fryers. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week, without appropriate minimum wage or overtime
compensation for the hours per week that they worked. Defendants
allegedly failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked, and failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of
hours" pay for any day in which they worked over 10 hours. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Phone: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620


SEECO INC: 8th Cir. Remands "Smith" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Connie Jean Smith, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Jeannie Vanette Hill Thomas Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
SEECO, Inc., Now known as SWN Production (Arkansas), LLC; Desoto
Gathering Company, LLC; Southwestern Energy Services Company;
Southwestern Energy Company, Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-2798
(8th Cir.), Jeannie Vanette Hill Thomas appeals the district
court's denial of her motion to intervene in Connie Jean Smith's
class action against SEECO, Inc., Desoto Gathering Company, LLC,
Southwestern Energy Services Company, and Southwestern Energy
Company.

Thomas moved to intervene based on her interest in adequacy of
representation by the class representative and class counsel.

The Eighth Circuit concludes that the district court's
determination on this question was final, and that the district
court's rationale for denying the motion was inadequate.  The
Eighth Circuit therefore remands the motion for further
consideration.  Thomas also moved to intervene based on her
interest in the adequacy of notice and opt-out procedures for the
class.  The district court's determination on this issue was not
final, so the Eighth Circuit dismiss this aspect of the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's July 31, 2017 Decision is
available http://tinyurl.com/yc3pnt3xfrom Leagle.com.

Thomas A. Daily -- tdaily@dailywoods.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.  Rex M. Terry -- terry@hardinlaw.com  -- for Defendant-
Appellee.  Jess Askew, III -- Jess.Askew@KutalRock.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

B. Michael Easley, Edwardsville, Illinois  62025, Tel. 618-307-
7100 for Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellant.

Elliott Dion Wilson, 423 Rightor StreetHelena, AR 72342 for
Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellant.

Edward Allen Gordon, 105 S Moose St., Morrilton, AR 72110-3425 for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marc S. Tabolsky, 909 Fannin St., Houston, TX 77010-1011, for
Defendant-Appellee.

Andrew King,  212 N Elizabeth St, Lima, Ohio 45801 for Defendant-
Appellee.

Michael Vance Powell -- mpowell@lockelord.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Brad E. Seidel, 205 Linda Drive,P.O. Box 679,Daingerfield, TX  --
75638-2107

U.S.A. for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Frederick H. Davis -- Frederick.Davis@KutakRock.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Timothy R. Holton, 296 Washington Ave.Memphis, TN 38103,
for Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellant.

R. Paul Yetter -- pyetter@yettercoleman.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Sean M. Handler -- shandler@ktmc.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ben H. Caruth, 105 S Moose St; Morrilton, Arkansas 72110, for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Erik P. Danielson -- Danielson@DanielsonLawFirm.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brian Cramer -- brian@mroklaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jack A. Mattingly, Jr. -- jackjr@mroklaw.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Tanner W. Hicks, 13190 N MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73142,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Matthew K. Hansen -- mkhansen@lockelord.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Robert K. Ellis -- rellis@yettercoleman.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee


SENIOR HOME: Court Approves Settlement in "Balko" FCA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, adopted Magistrate
Judge Thomas B. Mccoun, III's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") to
approve the settlement agreement in the case captioned UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA ex rel., SUZANNE BALKO, Relator, v. SENIOR HOME
CARE, INC., Case No. 8:13-cv-03072-EAK-TBM (M.D. Fla.).

The Relator commenced this case by filing a qui tam action under
the False Claims Act ("FCA"), against the Defendant ("SHC") on
Dec. 5, 2013.  On Oct. 23, 2014, the United States filed a Notice
of Election to Decline Intervention and the file was unsealed.
This Court, having reviewed the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and
the Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition, denied the Defendant's
motion on March 6, 2015.

In February 2016, the Relater, a registered nurse field clinician
for SHC, filed an Amended Complaint, alleging that the SHC
defrauded the United States by presenting false claims for payment
of wound care treatment through a scheme that fraudulently
identified all surgical wounds less than three days old as "not
healing."  On June 27, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Notice of
Settlement stating that the parties had reached a settlement in
principle and notified the United States of the same.  The
Settlement also asked that the action be stayed or
administratively closed for sixty days pending approval of a
written settlement agreement.

On that basis, the Court entered an order directing administrative
closure.  On Sept. 16, 2016, the United States sought leave to
intervene and filed a Notice of Settlement.  Over the Relator's
objections, the Court granted the Motion to intervene for purposes
of settlement.  After reviewing the proposed settlement and the
docket, Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Mccoun, III determined that the
proposed settlement agreement should be adopted.  As of the entry
of the Order, the Defendant has not responded to R&R or the
Supplement or objected to any of its findings.

Judge Kovachevich, having reviewed the R&R, Supplement, and the
record, including the oral and written arguments of the parties,
concludes that the United States has advanced a reasonable basis
for concluding that the proposed settlement furthers its best
interests without unfairly reducing Relaters' qui tam recovery.
It is thus fair, adequate, and reasonable.  Accordingly, she
approved the settlement agreement.

Judge Kovachevich explains that as the United States, et al. v.
Everglades College, Inc. panel noted, the Government's decision to
settle can be based on several factors including the desire to
avoid expending further resources.  This case is similar in that
the Government seeks the certainty of the settlement over the
potential defense verdict at trial.  Therefore, the $325,000 sum,
a figure originally agreed to by the Relator, does not unfairly
reduce the relator's potential qui tam recovery.  Accordingly,
Judge Kovachevich ordered that the R&R, as amended by the
Supplement, is adopted and incorporated by reference.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/bkWH3s from Leagle.com.

Suzanne Balko, Plaintiff, represented by Donald J. Schutz, Schutz
& Schutz.

Senior Home Care, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mamie Wise --
mwise@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, Marcos E. Hasbun --
mhasbun@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, Michael Kenneth,
US Attorney's Office & Jack E. Fernandez, Jr. --
jfernandez@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP.

USA, Movant, represented by Michael Kenneth, US Attorney's Office.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces "Huntsman" Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------
Jayson Huntsman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Southwest Airlines Co., Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-03972 (N.D. Cal., July 14, 2017) seeks to recover
mandatory contributions to their defined contribution retirement
accounts, accrued paid sick leaves, compensation for the loss of
benefits, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such
other and further relief pursuant to the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.

Southwest has not made the proper retirement contributions for
pilots who take short term periods of leave from Southwest to
serve in the Armed Forces nor has Southwest provided accrued paid
sick leave to pilots who engaged in short term military leave,
says the complaint.

Huntsman is and has been employed as a pilot by Southwest since
February 2012. Huntsman has routinely taken short term military
leave to serve in the Air Force Reserves. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: (415) 638-8800
     Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
     E-Mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

             - and -

     Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS JARRARD PLLC
     1020 N. Washington Dt.
     Spokane, WA 99201
     Telephone: (425) 239-7290
     Facsimile: (509) 326-2932
     Email: Tjarrard@att.net

            - and -

     Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     601 Massachusetts Avenue NW
     Second Floor West Suite
     Washington, DC 20001
     Telephone: (202) 847-4400
     Facsimile: (202) 847-4410
     Email: prf@outtengolden.com

            - and -

     Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq.
     CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC
     905 W. Riverside Ave, Suite 409
     Spokane, WA 99201
     Telephone: (509) 850-7011
     Email: matt@crottyandson.com


SUNRISE SENIOR: Settlement in "Shiferaw" Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Kronstadt of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California entered his judgment in accordance with the
Parties' class action Settlement Agreement in the case captioned
BETELHEM SHIFERAW, an individual, on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING
MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants. RENEE TAMEIFUNA,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee, Plaintiff, v.
SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, INC., et al., Defendants, Lead Case No.
2:13-cv-02171-JAK-PLA, Consolidated with. 2:13-cv-06294-JAK-PLA
(C.D. Cal.).

Judge Kronstadt ordered the Parties to effectuate the Settlement
Agreement according to its terms and according to the terms of the
Court's prior orders.  He also dismissed with prejudice the
Released Claims of the Plaintiff Class Representatives and all
members of the Settlement Class in their entirety pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement.

Consistent with the definition provided in the Settlement
Agreement, the Settlement Class consists of all persons who were
employed in non-exempt positions at Sunrise's California
communities at any time during the period from Feb. 25, 2009 to
July 1, 2016.

Without affecting the finality of the Judgment, the Court will
retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the captioned
action and the parties, including all Class Members, for purposes
of enforcing the terms of the Judgment entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/aZ47FG from Leagle.com.

Betelhem Shiferaw, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew John Matern,
Matern Law Group, PC.

Betelhem Shiferaw, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Grant --
Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Launa
Adolph, Matern Law Group, PC & Raul Perez --
Raul.Perez@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Renee Tameifuna, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Arnab Banerjee -
- Arnab.Banerjee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Lawyers APC,
Glenn A. Danas -- Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law
APC, Melissa Grant -- Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez -- Raul.Perez@CapstoneLawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC & Ryan H. Wu -- Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC.

Sunrise Senior Living Management Inc, Defendant, represented by
Michele L. Maryott -- mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and
Crutcher LLP, Ashley L. Allyn -- aallyn@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson
Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Jason C. Schwartz --
jschwartz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, pro hac
vice & Joseph A. Gorman -- jgorman@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn
and Crutcher LLP.

Sunrise Senior Living Inc, Consol Defendant, represented by Ashley
L. Allyn, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Michele L. Maryott, Gibson
Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Jason C. Schwartz, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
LLP & Joseph A. Gorman, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP.

Sunrise Senior Living Services Inc, Consol Defendant, represented
by Ashley L. Allyn, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Michele L.
Maryott, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Jason C. Schwartz, Gibson
Dunn and Crutcher LLP & Joseph A. Gorman, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
LLP.


SUNRUN INC: Callfire Must Comply with Subpoena, Says Slovin
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Lynn Slovin, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Movants, v. Callfire, Inc.,
Respondent, Case No. 2:17-mc-00091 (C.D. Cal., July 13, 2017),
Plaintiff moves to compel CallFire, Inc. to comply with subpoenas,
and seeks other relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.

Plaintiffs have brought a class action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act against Defendants Sunrun, Inc. and Clean
Energy Experts, LLC, all of which are CallFire's customers and
used CallFire's services to make telemarketing calls during the
relevant period.

The subpoena seeks call records, CallFire's contracts with
Defendants and CallFire's billing and/or account communications
with Defendants concerning their0020Interactive Voice Response
software. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Parisi, Esq.
      Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
      PARISI & HAVENS LLP
      212 Marine Street, Suite 100
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (818) 990-1299
      Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
      Email: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
             shavens@parisihavens.com

             - and -

      Yitzchak H. Lieberman, Esq.
      PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW
      7400 Hollywood Blvd, #505
      Los Angeles, CA 90046
      Telephone: (917) 657-6857
      Facsimile: (877) 501-3346
      Email: ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com

             - and -

      Ethan Preston, Esq.
      PRESTON LAW OFFICES
      4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Telephone: (972) 564-8340
      Facsimile: (866) 509-1197
      Email: ep@eplaw.us


SUSHI AJI: "Li" Seeks to Recover Withheld Tips, Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Li Cheng, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sushi Aji, Inc., Jianwei Cao and Qiong
Cao, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01732, (D. Colo., July 18,
2017), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest and costs, including reasonable attorney's
fees as a result of Defendants' willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Colorado Wage Act and Colorado Minimum Wage
Order.

Sushi Aji is a restaurant where Plaintiffs worked as servers. They
claim to have received sub-minimum wage rates, had their tips
withheld and denied overtime. Defendants allegedly did not
maintain time-keeping facilities and did not issue wage
statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, L.L.C.
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Phone: (877) 561-0000
      Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


SUSHI MARU: "Dae" Labor Suit Transferred to D.N.J.
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Dae Sub Choi, for himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sushi Maru Express Corp., Sushi
Nara, Komolo, Inc., Kevin Kim, Hak Jae Lim, ABC Companies 1-50 and
John Does 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00191, (S.D. N.Y.,
January 11, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on July 18, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-
cv-05230.

Plaintiff worked as a chef for Sushi Maru Express, a food service
business specializing in Japanese sushi products. Dae sustained
wage and overtime losses in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael S. Kimm, Esq.
     Adam Garcia, Esq.
     KIMM LAW FIRM
     333 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 106
     Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
     Tel: (201) 569-2880


TARGET CORPORATION: Aug. 31 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Greenberg"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of California,
issued an Order granting Parties' Stipulation Regarding Hearing on
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned TODD
GREENBERG, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01862-LB-RS (N.D. Cal.).

Having read and considered the Joint Stipulation Regarding Hearing
on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the Court grants the parties'
joint stipulation.  The hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
will be held on August 31, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 31, 2017 Order is
available http://tinyurl.com/y7kh9ovjfrom Leagle.com.

Todd Greenberg, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie Ann Laliberte --
claliberte@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman Balint, pro hac
vice.

Todd Greenberg, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine A. Ryan --
eryan@mcguirewoods.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint,
P.C, pro hac vice, Michael Matthew Chang -- mchang@siprut.com --
Siprut PC, pro hac vice, Stewart M. Weltman -- sweltman@siprut.com
-- Siprut PC, pro hac vice & Patricia Nicole Syverson --
psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn et al.

Target Corporation, Defendant, represented by Carol Renee Brophy,
-- carol.brophy@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP & Weissenberger
Emily, -- emily.weissenberger@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP.


TARO PHARMA: "Speakes" Putative Shareholder Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. remains a defendant in the
"Speakes" putative shareholder class action pending in New York,
according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on June 21, 2017 with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2017.

Taro Pharmaceutical said, "The Company and two of its former
officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class
action entitled Speakes v. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.,
No. 16-CV-08318, filed October 25, 2016, which is now pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The Company has not yet responded to the Complaint in the
Speakes action."

On May 22, 2017, an amended complaint was filed by the City of
Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund against Michael Kalb,
Kalyanasundaram Subramanian, Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
with jury demand.

Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., a science-based
pharmaceutical company, engages in the development, manufacture,
and marketing of pharmaceutical products in the United States,
Canada, Israel, and internationally.  It sells and distributes its
products principally to drug industry wholesalers, drug store
chains, mass merchandisers, healthcare institutions, and private
pharmacies.  The Company was founded in 1959 and is based in
Haifa, Israel.  Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a
subsidiary of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.


TERRAFORM POWER: $14.8-Mil "Chamblee" Suit Settlement Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
TerraForm Power, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on July 21,
2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 that the parties in "Chamblee"
securities class action have agreed in principle to a settlement
of US$14.8 million conditioned on, among other things, funding of
the settlement by the Company's directors' and officers' liability
insurance providers to the satisfaction of the Company.

On April 4, 2016, a securities class action under federal
securities laws (Chamblee v. TerraForm Power, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-00981-JFM) (the "Chamblee Class Action") was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
against the Company and two of its former officers (one of which
was also a director of the Company) asserting claims under Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC
Rule 10b-5 on behalf of a putative class.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies, including with respect to
disclosures regarding SunEdison's internal controls and the
Company's reliance on SunEdison.

An amended complaint was filed on September 26, 2016 and a former
officer and director of the Company were added as defendants.

On October 4, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred this matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (SDNY) for consolidated or
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

On December 19, 2016, an initial case management conference was
held in the multidistrict litigation proceedings in the SDNY.  The
Court entered an order requiring all parties to the multidistrict
litigation to mediate and entered a partial stay of all
proceedings through March 31, 2017.

On March 24, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding three additional directors and officers of the Company as
defendants, as well as additional factual allegations.

On June 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case.

After mediation, the parties agreed in principle to a settlement
of US$14.8 million conditioned on, among other things, funding of
the settlement by the Company's directors' and officers' liability
insurance providers to the satisfaction of the Company.

TerraForm Power stated, "The Company believes that the settlement
is likely to be consummated and that a substantial majority of the
settlement will be paid by insurance, but, as of the time of this
writing, there can be no assurance that this will be the case.
The Company's present intention is not to proceed with the
settlement in the event (which the Company believes is unlikely)
that the Company itself would be required to contribute an
uninsured amount towards the settlement which would be material to
the Company's consolidated results of operations."

TerraForm Power, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns and
operates clean power generation assets serving utility and
commercial customers.  The Company was formerly known as SunEdison
Yieldco, Inc. and changed its name to TerraForm Power, Inc. in May
2014.  It was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Bethesda,
Maryland.


TEX-TRUDE LP: Degarmo Sues Over Illegal Time-Shaving Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Degarmo, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tex-Trude, L.P., Tex-Trude Holdings, Inc.,
and Charles Nettles, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-02233 (S.D.
Tex., July 20, 2017), seeks to recover damages resulting from
Defendants' failure to comply with the minimum wage and overtime
requirements of the the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff worked as a printing press operator for Tex-Trude from
approximately September 2015 through May 2017. Degarmo alleges the
Defendants round hourly employees' time to the 15-minute
increments that results in the least number of hours worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TEXAS SUGARS: "Nelson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the case captioned Casey Nelson and Maylene
Velasco, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Texas Sugars, Inc. and Cindy
Khorshidpanah, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-02171 (S.D. Tex., July
13, 2017), seeks all the wages wrongfully withheld from them, plus
damages under federal law, penalties, and fees and costs as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs work as entertainers/bartenders at "Moments Cabaret"
adult entertainment club operated by the defendants. Both claim to
be misclassified as independent contractors thus denied basic
employee benefits such as overtime.

Defendants are represented by:

      Kelly E. Cook, Esq.
      Warren A. Berlanga, Esq.
      WYLY AND COOK LLC
      4101 Washington Ave., 2nd Floor
      Houston TX
      Tel: (713) 236-8330
      Fax: (713) 863-8502
      Email: kcook@wylycooklaw.com
             wberlanga@wylycooklaw.com

             - and -

      Christian J. Gabroy, Esq.
      GABROY LAW OFFICES
      The District at Green Valley Ranch
      170 S. Green Valley Parkway, Suite 280
      Henderson, NV 89012
      Telephone: (702) 259-7777
      Fax: (702) 259-7704
      Email: Christian@gabroy.com


THRESHOLD PHARMA: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses "Pariso" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K filed on
July 20, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
that Victor Pariso has voluntarily dismissed its putative class
action against the Company and its board of directors.

On June 20, 2017, Victor Pariso ("Plaintiff"), a purported
stockholder of Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Threshold"),
filed a putative class action complaint against Threshold and
members of its Board of Directors (the "Board") in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California (the
"Court").  This case is captioned Pariso v. Threshold
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-03557-WHA (the
"Action").

The complaint alleges that (1) Threshold and the members of the
Board violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, by filing a Registration Statement on Form S-4 (File
No. 333-217993), including a prospectus/proxy
statement/information statement therein (the "Form S-4"), which
allegedly fails to disclose and/or misrepresents material
information about Threshold's proposed merger with Molecular
Templates, Inc., and (2) the members of the Board, as control
persons of Threshold, violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
in connection with the filing of the allegedly materially
deficient prospectus/proxy statement/information statement.

On June 27, 2017, Threshold filed an amendment to the Form S-4
with the SEC containing certain supplemental disclosures (the
"Supplemental Disclosures").  After the SEC declared the Form S-4
effective on June 30, 2017, Threshold filed with the SEC a final
prospectus/proxy statement/information statement also containing
the Supplemental Disclosures pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3)
promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

On July 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a stipulation to voluntarily
dismiss the Action with prejudice as to himself because he
believes the Supplemental Disclosures mooted the claims set forth
in the complaint.  In voluntarily dismissing the Action, Plaintiff
asked the Court to retain jurisdiction for the sole purpose of
determining any potential application for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses.

Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, discovers and develops therapeutic and
diagnostic agents that target tumor cells for the treatment of
cancer patients in the United States.  It was founded in 2001 and
is headquartered in South San Francisco, California.


TIM RYALS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Dayberry"
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas,
Western Division, issued an Order adopting the recommendations of
the Magistrate Judge, which denied class action certification in
the case captioned JUSTIN DAYBERRY, et al., ADC# 660638,
Plaintiff, v. TIM RYALS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-
00221 BSM (W.D. Ark.).

The proposed findings and recommendations submitted by United
States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney have been received. No
objections have been filed. After careful consideration, the
proposed findings and recommendations are adopted in their
entirety.

Accordingly, plaintiff Justin Dayberry's motion for class action
certification is denied without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 19, 2017 and Order
is available http://tinyurl.com/y7bmy8htfrom Leagle.com.

Justin Dayberry, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Tim Ryals, Defendant, represented by Kaylen Suzanne Lewis,
Rainwater, Holt & Sexton P.A. 801 Technology Drive, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72223

Gary Andrews, Defendant, represented by Kaylen Suzanne Lewis,
Rainwater, Holt & Sexton P.A.

C Reedmiller, Defendant, represented by Kaylen Suzanne Lewis,
Rainwater, Holt & Sexton P.A.


TIME WARNER: Summary Judgment Bid in "Mejia" Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RAQUEL S. MEJIA, LEONA HUNTER, and ANNE
MARIE VILLA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. TIME WARNER CABLE INC., Defendant. ALLAN
JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. TIME WARNER CABLE INC., Defendant, Nos. 15-
CV-6445 (JPO), 15-CV-6518 (JPO)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
(a) in the Mejia action: (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment; (ii) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment; (iii) denied the
Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings; and (iv) denied
the Fontes plaintiffs' motion to intervene and stay; and (b) in
the Johnson action, denied the Defendant's motion for judgment on
the pleadings.

The Plaintiffs in the Mejia filed this action on Aug. 14, 2015,
alleging that Time Warner conducted wide scale telemarketing
campaigns and repeatedly made unsolicited calls to consumers'
telephones without consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").  In particular, they allege that Time
Warner made one or more unauthorized calls to their cell phones
using an ATDS or pre-recorded voice.  They Plaintiffs also claim
that Time Warner failed to maintain adequate do-not-call policies
under the TCPA's implementing regulations.

The Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 on behalf of themselves and four classes of consumers
who received calls from Time Warner.  They seek damages, statutory
penalties, and injunctive relief for recovery of economic injury
on behalf of the putative classes.

An amended complaint was filed on March 28, 2016, removing Mejia
and adding as Plaintiffs Leona Hunter and Anne Marie Villa.
Plaintiffs Hunter and Villa bring their claims on the basis of
several dozen phone calls made to them by Time Warner.  The
following facts, describing these calls, are based on undisputed
facts in the parties' Rule 56.1 statements of material facts,
unless otherwise noted.

There are several motions currently before the Court: a motion to
intervene and a motion to stay filed by Plaintiffs-Intervenors
John Fontes, Daymon Byrd, and Gregory Montegna; the Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment; Time Warner's motion for
judgment on the pleadings; and Time Warner's motion for summary
judgment.  Also, before the Court is a motion for judgment on the
pleadings filed by Time Warner in Johnson v. Time Warner Cable
Inc. ("Johnson action").  This motion raises substantially the
same issues raised in Time Warner's other motion for judgment on
the pleadings.

For the Plaintiffs' move for partial summary judgment, Judge
Petken finds that, especially in light of the limited discovery in
this action, the Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to
justify summary judgment on this issue at this juncture.

In considering Time Warner's motion for summary judgment, Judge
Oetken is mindful that the Plaintiffs have not yet had the benefit
of class discovery, as the Court has stayed such discovery pending
resolution of the pending motions.  Accordingly, where the
Plaintiffs can show that the failure of their opposition is the
result of their inability to discover essential facts, he declined
to grant summary judgment in Time Warner's favor.

With respect to Time Warner's motion for judgment on the pleadings
in both the Mejia action and the Johnson action, it challenges the
constitutionality of Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA under
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing
that it draws distinctions that are content based and fails strict
scrutiny.  Judge Oetken explains that because Section
227(b)(1)(A)(iii) imposes a content-based restriction on speech,
it must be struck down unless it survives strict scrutiny.  No
appellate court has considered the constitutionality of Section
227(b)(1)(A)(iii) since the 2015 amendment and the Supreme Court's
decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert.  However, at least two recent
district court decisions have addressed the issue, focusing on the
debt-collection exemption.  Both held that the debt-collection
exemption rendered Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) content based under
Reed, and both concluded that the TCPA withstands strict scrutiny.
Accordingly, Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) satisfies strict scrutiny
and is thus constitutional.

Given the differences in the actions, the divergent discovery
demands, and the current stay in the Fontes action, Judge Oetken
sees little reason to delay progress in this action, which has
already been prolonged by the bifurcation of individual and class-
wide discovery pending disposition of Time Warner's motion for
summary judgment and motion for judgment on the pleadings.

In the Mejia action, Judge Oetken denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment; granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment; denied the Defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings; and denied the Fontes
plaintiffs' motion to intervene and stay.  In the Johnson action,
he denied the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Within 21 days of the date of the Opinion and Order, the parties
are directed to file a letter with the Court proposing a timeline
for further discovery.  The Clerk of Court is directed to close
the following motions in 15-CV-6445: Docket Numbers 63, 75, 82,
and 105; and to close the motion at Docket Number 52 in 15-CV-
6518.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 1, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/TtNb6m from Leagle.com.

Raquel S. Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by Jarrett Lee Ellzey --
jarrett@hughesellzey.com -- Hughes Ellzey, LLP, pro hac vice.

Raquel S. Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua David Arisohn --
jarisohn@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher P.A., Mason Adams Barney,
Siri & Glimstad LLP & Aaron Siri -- aaron@sirillp.com -- Siri &
Glimstad LLP.

Leona Hunter, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Siri, Siri &
Glimstad LLP, Deola Taofik-Adekanmb Ali, Deola T.A. Ali, Esq.,
Joshua David Arisohn, Bursor & Fisher P.A. & Jarrett Lee Ellzey,
Hughes Ellzey, LLP.

Anne Marie Villa, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Siri, Siri &
Glimstad LLP, Deola Taofik-Adekanmb Ali, Deola T.A. Ali, Esq.,
Joshua David Arisohn, Bursor & Fisher P.A., Mason Adams Barney,
Siri & Glimstad LLP & Jarrett Lee Ellzey, Hughes Ellzey, LLP.

John Fontes, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica R.K. Dorman, Hyde &
Swigart, Sergei Lemberg, Lemberg Law, LLC & Stephen F. Taylor,
Lemberg Law, LLC.

Damon Byrd, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica R.K. Dorman, Hyde &
Swigart, Sergei Lemberg, Lemberg Law, LLC & Stephen F. Taylor,
Lemberg Law, LLC.

Gregory Montegna, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica R.K. Dorman,
Hyde & Swigart, Sergei Lemberg, Lemberg Law, LLC & Stephen F.
Taylor, Lemberg Law, LLC.

Time Warner Cable Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew A. Brill
-- matthew.brill@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Peter Lee Winik -
- peter.winik@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice &
Andrew D. Prins -- andrew.prins@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
pro hac vice.

United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Michael James
Byars, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY.


TJX COMPANIES: Faces "Adam" Class Suit over Linen Thread-Count
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that T.J. Maxx consumers claim in
a federal class action in Boston, that they paid a premium for
linens whose thread counts were roughly triple inflated based on
the counting of the plies making up the threads rather than the
threads themselves.

Named as defendants to the complaint are the TJX Companies Inc.;
AQ Textiles LLC and Creative Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.

The case is captioned ELIZABETH ADAM, REBECCA FOLEY, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE
TJX COMPANIES, INC., AQ TEXTILES LLC, CREATIVE TEXTILE MILLS PVT.
LTD., JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS (1-100) Defendants. Case 1:17-cv-
11260-MLW (D. Mass., July 10, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Erica Mirabella, Esq.
MIRABELLA LAW LLC
132 Boylston St. 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (855) 505-5342
E-mail: erica@mirabellallc.com

     - and -

Charles LaDuca, Esq.
Jennifer E. Kelly, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202)789-3960
Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
        jkelly@cuneolaw.com

     - and -

Matthew Prewitt, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
16 Court Street
Suite 1012
Brooklyn, NY 11241
Telephone: (202)789-3960
Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
E-mail: mprewitt@cuneolaw.co

     - and -

Michael McShane, Esq.
AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
771 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 568-2555
Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com

     - and -

Charles Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (877) 882-1011
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com


TRIBUNE MEDIA: Investors Sue to Block $3.9B Sinclair Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lowell Neumann Nickey, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported that asking a federal judge in Wilmington, Del., to block
Tribune Media Co.'s planned $3.9 billion sale to Sinclair
Broadcast Group, a class of shareholders says the deal is
fundamentally unfair.

Lead plaintiff Scott Duffy says the sale process was flawed among
others by conflicting interests and confidentiality agreements
that might have scared off other offers.

"Moreover, the merger consideration represents a paltry 8% premium
over Tribune's closing share price on May 5, 2017," the complaint
states, filed on July 7 in Delaware, where Chicago-based Tribune
is incorporated.

Announced on May 8, on the heels of regulatory changes that
removed a 39 percent market-share cap on ultra-high frequency
broadcasters like Tribune, the deal calls for each outstanding
share of Tribune common stock to be exchanged for $35 cash and
0.23 Sinclair shares.

Sinclair shares rose by more than 7 percent as the market opened
the Monday after the announcement. Prior to a 2014 spinoff,
Tribune was the nation's second-largest newspaper publisher,
behind the Gannet Co.

Duffy says Tribune's board filed a materially incomplete and
misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 30, 2017, to push them merger through.

Alleging a failure to provide all material information that
shareholders need to assess the fairness of the deal, Duffy says
"the S-4 fails to disclose: (1) certain material information
regarding Tribune's financial projections, including a
reconciliation of the non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting
principles) projections to the most directly comparable GAAP
measures and the line items used to calculate the non-GAAP
measures."

The SEC has been cracking down on non-GAAP projections as they can
be "inherently misleading," according to the complaint.

One of the SEC's new rules as of May 2016 "explicitly requires
companies to provide any reconciling metrics that are available
without unreasonable efforts," the complaint states.

Duffy says Tribune even "acknowledged the materially incomplete
and misleading nature of said non-GAAP measures by disclosing:
'These non-GAAP financial measures should not be considered a
substitute for, or superior to, financial measures determined or
calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP.'"

"Despite disclosing the misleading and materially incomplete
nature of non-GAAP financial measures, defendants fail to
reconcile the non-GAAP measures disclosed in the S-4," the
complaint continues.

Duffy also complains about a dearth of information about how
Tribune's financial advisers, Moelis & Co. and Guggenheim
Securities LLC, have earned from Tribune and Sinclair.

Seeking an injunction or damages if the merger goes through, the
class is suing on two counts of Exchange Act. Duffy is represented
by Faruqi and Faruqi attorney Michael Van Gorder. Neither he nor
representatives from Sinclair and Tribune have responded to calls
requesting comment.

The case is captioned, SCOTT DUFFY, Individually And On Behalf Of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TRIBUNE MEDIA
COMPANY, BRUCE ALLEN KARSH, PETER M. KERN, PETER E. MURPHY, CRAIG
A. JACOBSON, ROSS B. LEVINSOHN, and LAURA R. WALKER, Defendants.
Case 1:99-mc-09999 (D. Del., July 7, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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

          - and -

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


TRIBUNE MEDIA: "McEntire" Says Registration Statement Lacks Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean McEntire, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tribune Media Company, Bruce Karsh, Craig
A. Jacobson, Peter Kern, Ross Levinsohn, Peter Murphy and Laura R.
Walker, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05179 (N.D. Ill., July 13,
2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants
and their counsel, agents, employees and all persons acting under,
in concert with, or for them, from proceeding with, consummating,
or closing the sale of Tribune to Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
To the extent the sale is consummated prior to the Court's entry
of a final judgment, the Plaintiff seeks an award of rescissory
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and expenses, extraordinary, equitable and/or
injunctive relief and other such further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Sinclair, through a newly-created wholly owned subsidiary, will
acquire all of the outstanding shares of Tribune in a cash and
stock transaction in which Tribune's stockholders will receive
$35.00 in cash and 0.23 shares of Sinclair Class A common stock
for each share of Tribune common stock. Based on the closing price
of Sinclair common stock as of the announcement, this represented
a total value of $43.50 per share of Tribune common stock. The
total transaction value is approximately $3.9 billion and is
expected to close as soon as the calendar fourth quarter of 2017.

The Plaintiff contends that the Registration Statement for the
merger only provides projections of the Tribune's financial future
for revenue, adjusted EBITDA, EBIT, cash distributions and the
unlevered free cash flows. It fails to provide the required line
item metrics used to calculate the projections for quantitative
reconciliation of forward-looking information.

Tribune holds a portfolio of television and digital properties,
including 42 owned or operated local television stations reaching
approximately 50 million households and the cable network WGN
America. Tribune also owns and manages a large number of real
estate properties across the United States and a significant
interest in a variety of strategic investments, including
CareerBuilder and Food Network. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
      Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
      Andrew C. Murphy, Esq.
      DITOMMASO LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C.
      17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410
      Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
      Tel: (630) 333-0000
      Email: vdt@ditommasolaw.com
             psl@ditommasolaw.com
             acm@ditommasolaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Disabled-Inaccessible Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brooklyn Center for Independence for the Disabled, a nonprofit
corporation; Taxis For All Campaign, Disabled in Action of
Metropolitan New York, a nonprofit organization, Valerie Joseph,
an individual; and Gabriela Amari, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies,
Inc. and Sarfraz Maredia, Case No. 156434/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
July 18, 2017), is brought on behalf of all people with mobility
disabilities who are residents in or visitors to New York City,
who require wheelchair accessible vehicles for vehicular
transportation, and who want to but have been deterred from
signing up for Uber's transportation network because it does not
provide equal service to people who require wheelchair-accessible
vehicles.

Uber Technologies, Inc. operates a for-profit corporation that
provides for-hire transportation in New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michelle Caiola, Esq.
      Rebecca Serbin, Esq.
      Maia Goodell, Esq.
      Sidney Wolinsky, Esq.
      DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
      675 Third Avenue, Suite 2216
      New York, NY 10117
      Telephone: (212) 644-8644
      Facsimile: (212) 644-8636
      E-mail: frontdesk@dralegal.org


UNITED STATES: DOJ Wants Injunction Reversed in Immigrant Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Justice Department on July 11, asked the Ninth Circuit to
reverse a preliminary injunction in a class action involving
asylum-seekers and undocumented immigrants who do not pose a
flight risk but were detained because they could not afford bail.

At a Ninth Circuit hearing at the Richard H. Chambers Courthouse
in Pasadena, California, the Justice Department's Sherease Pratt
said U.S. District Judge Jesus Bernal should not have entered the
classwide injunction because federal immigration judges have the
discretion to rule on the ability of immigrants to pay a bond,
without the need for judicial review.

"There is no presumption of release from detention during the
removal period. A bond is completely discretionary with a caveat
that if it is set, it must be a minimum of $1,500," Pratt told the
Ninth Circuit panel at the July hearing.

She argued immigration officials already weigh evidence of ability
to pay at hearings, but that the burden is on undocumented
immigrants and asylum-seekers to bring it up.

In a lawsuit filed in April 2016, the ACLU Foundation of Southern
California sued the government to create standards similar to
criminal proceedings involving citizen defendants that would
require the government to consider financial circumstances when
setting bail.  The ACLU said that as a matter of routine, the
Department of Homeland Security and immigration judges frequently
fail to consider the poverty or financial resources of an
immigrant or asylum-seeker when ruling.

In court records, the civil rights group said Cesar Matias, a
Honduran seeking asylum, was detained for more than four years in
a Santa Ana immigration jail because he could not afford the
$3,000 bond.

ACLU staff attorney Michael Kaufman told the Ninth Circuit the
Constitution requires immigration judges and officials to consider
whether a detainee can pay.

"The Department of Justice itself has recognized that a bail
system that lacks consideration of these factors violates the
equal protection and due process clause of the Constitution,"
Kaufman said. "All that plaintiffs seek here is the federal
government's compliance with these fundamental requirements to
ensure that no other person is incarcerated for years merely
because he is poor."

Kaufman told the panel the class would suffer irreparable harm if
the panel reversed the injunction, which the federal court has
stayed, and the public interest also "tips sharply" in its favor.
He cited a case in which a man called Pedro was separated from his
seven children after Immigration and Customs Enforcement swept him
up and he was held for more than a year on a $5,000 bond. Another
woman was forced to miss her mother's funeral after officials
detained her when she could not afford her bond.

"These are just a handful of examples of the hundreds of families
who have been separated and torn apart by the government's
existing bond procedures," Kaufman said.

During rebuttal, Pratt cast doubt on the ACLU's civil rights
claims by arguing there is "no fundamental right to liberty" at an
initial bond hearing because there is no prolonged detention
involved.

Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt disputed that, pointing to
evidence in the record of Matias' four years in detention. But
Pratt said Matias had a right to appeal and chose not to.

Kaufman had argued, however, that officials keep detainees in
"prison-like" conditions that make it hard for them to litigate
their cases and gain access to an attorney. He said the "vast
majority" of detainees go without legal representation.

Reinhardt also wondered why the government was objecting to
putting in place a procedure for asking immigrants if they have
the ability to pay the bond.

"What is your objection to asking and considering what his
resources are?" Reinhardt said. "Doesn't that sound perfectly sane
to you?"

Pratt replied, "The government's position is that it usurps the
immigration judge's discretion. They can already consider any
evidence that the alien puts forth."

Circuit Judges Ferdinand Fernandez and Kim Wardlaw joined
Reinhardt on the panel. They took the case under submission.


UNITED STATES: Interlocutory Review in Suit vs. USMS Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
granted the motion filed by four current and former deputy U.S.
Marshals to intervene, but declined the petition for review filed
in the case captioned IN RE: HERMAN BREWER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF A CLASS OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Petitioner. KEITH HARRINGTON, ET AL., Appellants, v. JEFF
SESSIONS, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Appellee, Nos. 15-8009, 16-5285,
Consolidated with No. 16-5286 (D.C.).

In October 2008 deputy U.S. Marshal David Grogan filed a putative
class action against the United States Marshals Service (USMS) on
behalf of himself and similarly situated current and former
African-American deputy U.S. Marshals, alleging racial
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964.

The putative class originally advanced five types of claims,
relating to pay awards, training, internal investigations,
assignments, and promotions, only the last two of which survive in
the current litigation.  In 2010 Grogan, the original and then-
sole named plaintiff, moved to amend the class complaint to add
Herman Brewer and Fayette Reid as class representatives for claims
relating to awards, training, assignments, and promotions.  The
district court granted the motion in relevant part.  In 2013
Grogan filed a stipulation of dismissal of his individual claims
and dropped out of the action.

Before Grogan exited the litigation, the Government had moved for
summary judgment on all claims. Later in 2013 the district court
granted the motion in part, eliminating the claims relating to
awards, training, and investigations.  This effectively eliminated
Reid as class representative for her now-dismissed claims relating
to awards, training, and assignments.  As a result, by October
2013, Brewer was the sole named plaintiff representing only the
assignments and promotions claims.

In September 2015 the district court denied class certification on
the ground that Brewer did not satisfy the adequacy and typicality
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) because, as
a former USMS employee, he lacked standing to pursue class-wide
injunctive relief.

Brewer timely petitioned the Court of Appeals for interlocutory
review of the denial of class certification pursuant to Rule 23(f)
but, while his petition was pending, he settled his individual
claims with the Government, and the parties stipulated to the
dismissal of the action in district court pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).  That rule allows the parties
voluntarily to dismiss a suit without a court order by filing a
jointly signed stipulation with the court.

Upon notice of the stipulation, four current and former deputy
U.S. Marshals moved to intervene in this court in order to pursue
the petition Brewer had filed to review the district court's
denial of class certification.

The appellate court found that the intervenors satisfied all the
requirements of Rule 24(a)(2), and thus granted the motion for
intervention.  The appellate court, however, denied the petition
for interlocutory review upon failing to find manifest error on
the part of the district court and finding that none of the
rationales comes close to meeting any of its criteria for review.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 21, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/HScnU9 from Leagle.com.

Thomas J. Henderson -- thenderson@sanfordheisler.com -- argued the
cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was David W. Sanford
-- dsanford@sanfordheisler.com

Joshua M. Salzman, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued
the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Benjamin C.
Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Marleigh
D. Dover, Attorney.


VISA INC: Still Faces Interchange MDL Class Actions in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. continues to face putative class actions related to
Interchange Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in the U.S., according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 20, 2017 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

The Company stated, "On November 23, 2016, class plaintiffs that
signed the 2012 Settlement Agreement filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the
Second Circuit's decision that vacated the district court's
certification of the merchant class and reversed the approval of
the settlement.  The Supreme Court denied the petition on March
27, 2017.

"On November 30, 2016, the district court entered an order
appointing interim counsel for two putative classes of plaintiffs,
a "Damages Class" and an "Injunctive Relief Class." Following the
district court's order, on February 8, 2017, plaintiffs purporting
to act on behalf of the putative Damages Class sought leave to
file an amended complaint and plaintiffs purporting to act on
behalf of the putative Injunctive Relief Class filed a new class
complaint, as described below.

"The plaintiffs that signed the 2012 Settlement Agreement, acting
on behalf of the putative Damages Class, filed a motion requesting
leave to file a Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.
The complaint seeks money damages alleged to range in the tens of
billions of dollars (subject to trebling), as well as attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief, and names as defendants Visa Inc.,
Visa U.S.A., Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated and
MasterCard International Incorporated, and certain U.S. financial
institutions.  The plaintiffs assert that the proposed complaint
updates, among other things, claims for damages and accounts for
industry developments.  Defendants opposed the Damages Class
plaintiffs' motion on March 10, 2017.

"A new group of purported class plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
the putative Injunctive Relief Class, filed a class action
complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
attorneys' fees.  That complaint seeks, among other things, an
injunction against: the setting of default interchange rates;
certain Visa Rules relating to merchants, including the honor-all-
cards rule; and various transaction fees, including the fixed
acquirer network fee.  The complaint names as defendants Visa
Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated and
MasterCard International Incorporated, and certain U.S. financial
institutions.

"Individual Merchant Actions. On February 8, 2017, the same day
that the putative Damages Class plaintiffs sought leave to file an
amended complaint and the putative Injunctive Relief Class
plaintiffs filed a new class action complaint, certain other
individual merchants filed motions in existing actions in MDL 1720
requesting leave to amend their complaints.  Merchants requesting
leave to amend assert, among other things, that their proposed
complaints add claims for injunctive relief and update claims for
damages.  Defendants opposed the various merchants' motions on
March 10, 2017.  In addition, on February 8 and May 19, 2017,
certain individual merchants filed new actions in federal court
which were subsequently included in MDL 1720.

"A number of individual merchant actions previously filed have
been settled and remain settled, but the settlement agreement with
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. automatically terminated upon the exhaustion
of appeals concerning the reversal of approval of the 2012
Settlement Agreement.  The termination results in a decrease of
the "settled" percentage of Visa-branded payment card sales volume
of merchants who opted out of the 2012 Settlement Agreement.
Consequently, as of the filing date, Visa has reached settlement
agreements with individual merchants representing approximately
34% of the Visa-branded payment card sales volume of merchants who
opted out of the 2012 Settlement Agreement.  On June 7, 2017, Wal-
Mart filed a motion requesting leave to amend its complaint
against Visa in a manner similar to the amendments requested by
other merchants.

"Unlike the matters above, all of which were filed in federal
court or are pending in MDL 1720, one merchant filed a case on
February 17, 2017, in Texas state court.  The Texas merchant
generally pursues claims on allegations similar to those raised in
MDL 1720.  Based on currently available information, the Company
believes this matter may be covered by the U.S. retrospective
responsibility plan.  In April 2017, the case was removed from
Texas state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, after which the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint and a motion seeking to remand the case to state court.
Subsequently, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order conditionally transferring the case to MDL 1720,
which the plaintiff moved to vacate."

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide.
The Company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities.  It has a
strategic partnership agreement with Oman Arab Bank to convert the
bank's current electron cards to chip-and-PIN debit cards.  Visa
Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


VISA INC: Suit on EMV Chip Liability Shift Now in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The legal action against Visa Inc. involving EMV chip liability
shift is currently ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on July 20, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "On March 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification.  On May 4, 2017, the district
court granted a motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York."

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide.
The Company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities.  It has a
strategic partnership agreement with Oman Arab Bank to convert the
bank's current electron cards to chip-and-PIN debit cards.  Visa
Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


VISION PRECISION: "Martinez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
---------------------------------------------------------------
Odelis Martinez, and others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v.
Vision Precision Holdings LLC d/b/a My Eyelab, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, Stanton Optical Florida, LLC d/b/a My Eyelab, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, Daniel Stanton, individually
and Massimo Musa, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22648
(S.D. Fla., July 14, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for
willful violations of overtime pay provisions under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Vision and Stanton deal in eye-glass frames, contact lenses and
optical measurement and optometry equipment. Both operate a joint
venture under the name "My Eyelab." Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendant as a retail store employee. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     2847 Hollywood Blvd.
     Hollywood, FL 33020
     Tel: (305) 308 - 5619
     Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

            - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     MAMANE LAW LLC
     1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Telephone (305) 773 - 6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


WHOLE FOODS: "Riegel" Hits Shady Merger Deal, Seeks Halt on Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Riegel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., John P. Mackey,
Walter Robb, Jonathan Seiffer, Gabrielle Sulzberger, Shahid
Hassan, Stephanie Kugelman, Joe Mansueto, Mary Ellen Coe, Kenneth
C. Hicks, Sharon L. Mccollam, Ronald M. Shaich, Scott F. Powers,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00674 (W.D. Tex., July 13, 2017),
seeks to enjoin Defendants from conducting the stockholder vote on
the sale of Whole Foods to Amazon unless and until material
information is disclosed to Whole Foods' stockholders or, in the
event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from violations of the Exchange Act.

Whole Foods is a natural and organic foods retailer operating 440
stores in 42 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, 12 stores
in Canada and 9 stores in the United Kingdom.

Amazon, an online retailer, through its wholly owned subsidiary,
Walnut Merger Sub, Inc., will acquire all of the outstanding
shares of Whole Foods for $42.00 per share in cash. The Proposed
Transaction is valued at approximately $14 billion.

Plaintiff alleges potential conflicts of interest within Whole
Foods with certain Whole Foods' executive officers to be retained
by Amazon. Merger documents also lack substantial valuation
analyses in connection with the deal, he adds. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Joe Kendall, Esq.
      Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
      KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
      McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Tel: (214) 744-3000
      Fax: (214) 744-3015 (fax)
      Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
             jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com


WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Suits Over Amazon Merger
-------------------------------------------------
Ryan Kocian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
pair of class-action lawsuits in Austin, Texas claim a financial
statement issued by Whole Foods to its stockholders did not
disclose potential conflicts of interest and other relevant
information about its proposed merger with Amazon.

Robert Riegel and Robert Berg sued Whole Foods Market and its
board of directors in Austin federal court for alleged securities
violations in separate lawsuits filed on July 13 and 14,
respectively.

Berg's lawsuit also names Amazon.com and Walnut Merger Sub as
defendants.

The Whole Foods directors named as defendants are: John Mackey,
Walter Robb, Jonathan Seiffer, Gabrielle Sulzberger, Shahid
Hassan, Stephanie Kugelman, Joe Mansueto, Mary Ellen Coe, Kenneth
Hicks, Sharon McCollam, Ronald Shaich and Scott Powers.

Both Riegel and Berg are suing on behalf of a proposed class of
public stockholders of Whole Foods Market over its proposed merger
with Amazon. They say the class could include thousands of members
given that, as of July 2, there were more than 335 million
outstanding shares of common stock.

A joint press release issued June 16 announced that Amazon was
acquiring Whole Foods for $42 per share in a transaction valued at
about $13.7 billion.

"This partnership presents an opportunity to maximize value for
Whole Foods Market's shareholders, while at the same time
extending our mission and bringing the highest quality,
experience, convenience and innovation to our customers," Whole
Foods co-founder and CEO John Mackey said at the time.

But Whole Foods' July 7 proxy statement that was filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the proposed deal omitted
material information about the merger transaction, according to
Riegel and Berg's lawsuits.

Berg claims the missing information includes financial projections
and analyses performed by Whole Foods' financial advisor, Evercore
Group.

He alleges the proxy statement fails to disclose projections about
earnings; interest expense; investment and other income; income
taxes; depreciation and amortization; net cash provided by
operating activities; capital expenditures; changes in net working
capital; and earnings per share.

"The disclosure of projected financial information is material
because it provides stockholders with a basis to project the
future financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders
to better understand the financial analyses performed by the
company's financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion,"
his lawsuit states.

Riegel similarly notes the alleged omissions about Evercore's
financial analyses and fairness opinion.  Without that
information, he says, "Whole Foods public stockholders are unable
to fully understand these analyses and, thus, are unable to
determine what weight, if any, to place on Evercore's fairness
opinion in determining whether to vote in favor of the proposed
transaction."

Riegel and Berg also allege that the proxy statement does not
disclose possible conflicts of interest of Whole Foods' officers
and directors with respect to the merger with Amazon.

"The proxy statement states that, in connection with negotiating
the merger agreement, Amazon had preliminary discussions with
certain Whole Foods' executive officers regarding Amazon's desire
to retain such officers following the closing," Riegel's complaint
states. "However, the proxy statement fails to disclose the timing
and nature of all communications regarding future employment
and/or benefits relating to Whole Foods management, including who
participated in such communications and when Amazon first
expressed its interest in retaining members of Whole Foods
management following the merger."

Riegel claims the omission is "particularly troubling" given that
the June 16 press release indicates that Mackey will stay on as
CEO of Whole Foods after the merger.  He says information about
those communications is needed because it "provides illumination
concerning motivations that would prevent fiduciaries from acting
solely in the best interests of the company's stockholders."

Berg further claims that information about Evercore's potential
conflicts of interest was also not fully disclosed.

"The proxy statement fails to disclose the amount of the retainer
fees and the 'certain fees in connection with potential
acquisition proposals [Evercore] may receive and other strategic
shareholder advisory matters' to be paid to Evercore by the
company," his complaint states.

Berg asserts that full disclosure of "investment banker
compensation and all potential conflicts is required due to the
central role played by investment banks in the evaluation,
exploration, selection, and implementation of strategic
alternatives."

Both lawsuits claim the Whole Foods proxy statement's alleged
omissions render it false and misleading in violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act, depriving shareholders of their right
to cast a properly informed vote on the merger.

Neither Whole Foods nor Amazon responded on July 17, to email
requests for comment.

Riegel and Berg seek injunctive relief preventing the closing of
the proposed merger, or rescission in the event that it is
completed.

Joe Kendall of Dallas is lead attorney in both lawsuits.

The case is captioned, ROBERT RIEGEL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WHOLE FOODS
MARKET, INC., JOHN P. MACKEY, WALTER ROBB, JONATHAN SEIFFER,
GABRIELLE SULZBERGER, SHAHID HASSAN, STEPHANIE KUGELMAN, JOE
MANSUETO, MARY ELLEN COE, KENNETH C. HICKS, SHARON L. MCCOLLAM,
RONALD M. SHAICH, SCOTT F. POWERS, Defendants. Case 1:17-cv-00674-
LY (W.D. Tex. July 13, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     Donald J. Enright
     Elizabeth K. Tripodi
     1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Tel: (202) 524-4290

          - and -

     Joe Kendall, Esq.
     Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
     KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
     3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
     Dallas, TX 75204
     Telephone: (214) 744-3000
     Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
     E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
             jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com







                             *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *