CAR_Public/170814.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Monday, August 14, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 159



                            Headlines

ACCOLADE INC: "Hall" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
ACSB, LLC: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
AIPC ENERGY: "Esther" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
ALGREENS BOOTS: Ginkgo Biloba Product Not Effective, Vasic Claims
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: "Syria" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Davis Sues over Debt Collection Practices
AMEDISYS INC: Jury Trial Date in ARcare Suit Set for Sept. 4
AMERICAN FAMILY: Ohio Court Stays "Jammal"
AMERICAN MEIZHOU: Lagunas Sues Over Missed Breaks, Overtime
ANGIE'S LIST: Parshall Sues Over Proposed Acquisition by IAC

APIGEE CORPORATION: Removes Seafarers Suit to N.D. California
ARI NETWORK: "Berg" Suit Balks at True Wind Merger Deal
ARI NETWORK: Faces "Sharkey" Suit Over Merger With True Wind
ASB BANCORP: Parshall Challenges Proposed Sale to First Bancorp
AVALON HOLDINGS: Matusky Sues Over Violation of Minimum Wage Laws

BAE SYSTEMS: Counsel in "Nunez" Directed to Address Deficiencies
BAM-B ENTERPRISES: "Deslandes" Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
BANC CERTIFIED: Family Health Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
BASF CATALYSTS: Court Appoints Special Master in "Williams"
BERRY BROS: "Bass" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay

BLUE ROCK: "Snyder" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
BROKERPRICEOPINION.COM: $1.6MM Deal in "Wornicki" Has Prelim. Nod
CAPROCK HEALTH: "Polk" Suit Seeks to Get Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
CARE CAPITAL: Faces "Douglas" Class Suit Over Merger With Sabra
CBE GROUP: Illegally Calls Cell Phone Subscribers, Osowiecki Says

CENTRAL FAMILY HEALTH: "Oropeza" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage
CENTRAL NEW YORK PET: Asks Court to Dismiss "Cardella" Class Suit
CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay OT, Thompson Alleges
CENTURYLINK INC: "Heiser" Suit Removed to Arizona District Court
CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Removes "Crummie" Suit to N.D. California

CHICAGO, IL: "Potek" Suit Sues over Distracted Driving Ordinances
CHICAGO, IL: Wins Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Impounding Penalties
CLIENT SERVICES: Riley Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CLUB BALL: Misclassifies & Underpays Dancers, Caswell Claims
COLLATERAL RECOVERY: Misclassifies Camera Car Drivers, Suit Says

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Court Approves $75K Atty Fees in "Nyby"
CREDIT ONE: Faces "Gardner" Suit Over Auto-dialed Calls
CUSTOM PROTECTIVE: "Harry" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
ENERNOC INC: Faces "Nelson" Suit Over Tender Offer by Enel Green
ENHANCED RECOVERY: "Brugellis" Disputes Collection Letter

ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC: Faces "Washington" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
EXPERIAN INFO: Peters Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reports
DAL GLOBAL: "Brulee" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code
DEL MONTE FOODS: "Dawson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wage under Labor Code
DHI MORTGAGE: "Ahlstrom" Suit Sues Over Missed Breaks, Overtime

DINAMIC SOUND: "Batres" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Butler Sues Over Collection Letter
DNIB UNWIND: B.E. Capital Files Adversary Class Suit in Delaware
DOTOMBORI INC: "Donovan" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
DRYSHIPS INC: "Silverberg" Suit Sues over Economou Deal

DUPONT FABROS: Faces "Canchola" Suit over Merger Deal
DUPONT FABROS: Faces "Lawrence" Suit over Merger Deal
DUPONT FABROS: Scarantino Sues Over Acquisition by Digital Realty
ELITE GUARD: Santanelli Challenges Failure to Pay OT Under FLSA
ENERNOC INC: Violates Securities Laws Over Merger, Basch Claims

EXPRESS WASTE: Milian Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages and OT Pay
FAIR COLLECTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collections Act, Garner Says
FDS BANK: Faces "Hines" Suit over Robocalls
FIRSTMED AMBULANCE: Tejero Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Code
FLOWERS FOODS: Watts Challenges Misclassification of Distributors

FRANK ROGERS: "Hatcher" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Faces "Hanford" Suit for FDCPA Violations
FUN & FUN: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
GC SERVICES LP: Green Sues Over Ambiguous Collection Letter
GENERAL MOTORS: "Kleszynski" Suit Transferred to E.D. Mich.

GEO GROUP: Florida Court Dismisses "Bryant" Suit
GERBER PRODUCTS: Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Greene" Denied
GIGLIONE ACKERMAN: Misclassifies Agents, "Warren" Suit Alleges
GLADES PARTS: "Barohona" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Illegal Deductions
GODIVA AMERICAN: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA

GOODYEAR TIRE: "Quenga" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
GUARDNOW INC: "Wagnac" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
HABITAT COMPANY: Unpaid Overtime Sought in "Lard" Labor Suit
HABITAT COMPANY: "Snyder" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
HAM FARMS: Lopez Seeks to Recover Wages for Seasonal Workers

HAT WORLD: "Ward" Labor Suit Goes to S.D. Indiana
HEAVEN ENTERTAINMENT: Cruz Seeks Minimum Pay, Overtime & Tips
HINKLIN ENERGY: Pressure Washers Misclassified, Martinez Claims
HOMESIDE FINANCIAL: "Cunningham" Suit Hits Telemarketing Calls
HP INC: "Jackson" Suit Alleges Racial and Age Discrimination

HUMANA MEDICAL: Crosswinds Rehab Suit Hits Withheld Interest
IL FORNAIO: "Trahan" Suit Seeks Unpaid Compensation under FLSA
ILLINOIS: Court Narrows Inmates' Civil Rights Claims in "Lacour"
INSIGHT GLOBAL: Must Reply to Interrogatories in "Barker"
INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS: Shanawaz Sues Over Share Price Drop

INYO COUNTY, CA: Wagner Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
JASHI INC: Anderson Hits No Timekeeping, Seeks Unpaid Overtime
JAVAR CORP: Cruz Seeks Minimum Pay, Unpaid Overtime & Tips
JOHN AGUILAR: Faces "Zurilgen" Class Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Powers" Class Suit over Background Checks

JR JONES: Violates FLSA & Minnesota Wage Laws, "Acker" Suit Says
KS INDUSTRIES: Ct. Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Esparza"
LAKESIDE MEDICAL: "Collins" Sues Over Illegally Faxed Ads
LAURA FISHER: Accused by Caulfield of Misclassifying Agents
LINCARE INC: Court Decertifies Class in "Culley" Labor Suit

LINKUS ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Bid to Stay "Komarnicki" Suit
M11 MOTORS: "Adem" Suit Sues over Wage and Hours Violations
MACY'S RETAIL: Faces "Reyes Orellana" Class Suit
MAGELLAN HEALTH: "Deakin" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Villa" Suit

MARK LINE: Pretrial Conference in "Doering" Suit Set for Aug. 15
MARSHALLS OF CA: $8.5MM "Roberts" Class Deal Has Prelim. OK
MCS PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Rosario" Suit Alleges
MENARD INC: Neal Sues over Missed Breaks & Unpaid Overtime Pay
MERCK & CO: 3d Cir. Reverses Denial of Bid to Dismiss "North"

MERCHANT INDUSTRY: Abante Rooter Sues over TCPA Breach
MISSISSIPPI TITLE: Violates TCPA, "Dixon" Class Suit Alleges
MOBILE CLINIC: "Restrepo" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sued over Herbicide Roundup Defect
MONSANTO COMPANY: Smokey Alley Wants Xtend Products' Sale Halted

MORGREEN SOLAR: Prescott Wants to Recoup Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT
MULLOOLY JEFFERSON: Timoshenko Sues Over Debt Collection
N.H. INC: Underpays Workers, "Cabrera-Flores" Suit Claims
NATIONAL CREDIT: Court Certifies TCPA Class in "Cortes" Suit
NATIONAL INDEMNITY: "Muri" Suit Reassigned to Judge Gerrard

NATIONAL TRACTOR: "Valadez" Suit Sues over Labor Code Violations
NCI INC: Faces "Schwartz" Suit Over Tender Offer by HIG Capital
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Special Masters Attys Fee in "Billieson" Flipped
NEW SUN: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Xie" FLSA Suit
NORTHLAND GROUP: Linis Sues over Debt Collection Practices

NSC ABATEMENT: "Fabian" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
OCWEN LOAN: Western Union Wins Bid to Dismiss FDCPA Suit
OPR PROPERTY: Faces "Rubman" Suit in New York Supreme Court
PANASONIC CORP: Accused by Findlay of Fixing Prices of Switches
PARKWAY INC: "Price" Suit Balks at Canada Pension Plan Merger

PASADENA, CA: Faces "Liu" Suit Over Balance Billing Policies
PATHFINDER INC: Carter Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
PELONS 508: Faces "Lawrence" Suit over Back Pay, Tip Pooling
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING: "Christie" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages
PHOENIX 90 LLC: Accused by "Perez" Suit of Not Paying Overtime

PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Accused by "Sergent" Suit of Violating FDCPA
PHOENIX RISING: "Weigel" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under FLSA
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Pettit"
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces "Fox" Suit over False Advertising
PUERTO MADERO: Borda Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA

RAMISONS INC: "Orellana" Suit Sues over Labor Code Violations
RANGE RESOURCES: "Seagraves" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
REEVES BOOMLAND: Receipts Show Credit Card Number, Coleman Claims
RELIANT REALTY: "Burwell" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims

RESTAURANT ZERO: "Rivera" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
REUNION: "Ramirez" Suits Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & OT
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Pack Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
RUDOLPH INC: Accused by "Wittmann" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
SAN DIEGO, CA: Trip Fees Are Unconstitutional, KSAN Suit Says

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Garafalo Sues Over Auto-dialer Calls
SCHMENGIE CORP: "Anderson" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
SEARS HOLDINGS: Accused by "Catalfamo" Suit of Violating ERISA
SM ENERGY CO: Underpays Oilfield Workers, "Cox" Suit Claims
SNAP INC: "Hsieh" Suit over IPO Removed to C.D. Cal.

SODEXO INC: "Ivey" Suit Removed From Supreme Court to S.D.N.Y.
SOUTH DAKOTA: State Brand Board Faces "Stanko" Suit
SPA CITY STEAKS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, "Thompson" Suit Says
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Sale to Philips
SPINNAKER RESORTS: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Cardenas" TCPA Suit

STATE FARM: Alabama Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Arnold"
STATES RECOVERY: Caldera Sues over Debt Collection Letter
STATEWIDE HARVESTING: Ramirez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
STERLING HOME: Workers Are Entitled to Overtime, Darby Suit Says
STONE MANOR: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Rivera" Suit Claims

STRANDED LLC: Faces "Goebel" Wage-and-Hour Suit
SUTTER EAST BAY: "Hurtubise" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
TABLEAU SOFTWARE: "Scheufele" Suit Sues Over Share Price Drop
TABLEAU SOFTWARE: "Abarrientos" Suit Sues Over Share Price Drop
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Drywalls Are Toxic, "Macon" Suit Claims

TAISHAN GYPSUM: Drywalls Are Toxic, "De Oliveira" Suit Claims
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Drywalls Are Toxic, "Peoples" Suit Claims
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Redden, et al. Sue over Defective Chinese Drywall
TARGET CORP: Securities Suit Against Retailer Store Tossed
TEMPLAR SECURITY: "Malik" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

THUNDERBIRD COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, Stephen Claims
TITLEMAX OF NM: "Romero" Contract Dispute Removed to D.N.M.
TJX COMPANIES: Adam Sues Over Misrepresentation of Thread Counts
TODD BREMER: Bowman Wants to Stop Unlawful Collection of Fees
TOURNEAU LLC: "Dannenfelser" Suit Wants to Recoup Unpaid Wages

TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Simerlein Suit Over Minivans' Faulty Doors
TRUNK CLUB: "Rowser" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
TRUNK CLUB: Dowell Wants to Stop Use of Noncompetition Covenants
TWIN HILL: American Airlines Uniforms Caused Rashes, Catan Claims
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Dulberg" Survives Dismissal Bid

UNITED OF OMAHA: "Insinga" Suit Reassigned to Mag. Judge Nelson
UNITED STATES: Child Offender Cannot Petition Wife for Visa
UNITED STATES: D. Conn. Revises Class Definition Suit vs. DHHS
UNITED STATES: Faces "Jensen" Suit in California Central District
VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Court Partly OKs Limine Bids in "Golan"

VILLAGE SUPER MARKET: Faces "Sung" Wage-and-Hour Class Suit
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Reder Sues Over Diesel Vehicles Price-Fixing
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Former Car Owners Sue over "Defeat Devices"
WAL-MART STORES: Removes "Pitre" FCRA Suit to C.D. California
WAL-MART STORES: 11th Cir. Dismisses "Love" Appeal

WALT DISNEY: Removes "Oliveira" Class Suit to C.D. California
WASHINGTONFIRST BANKSHARES: Faces "Parshall" Suit over Merger
WELLPET LLC: "Zeiger" Suit Wants Toxins in Pet Foods Disclosed
WELLS FARGO: Kerness Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-The-Clock Work
WELLS FARGO: Clamor Wants to Recoup Illegal Overdraft Fees

WEST MARINE: Being Sold for Too Little, Greenberg Claims
WEST MARINE: Monomoy Deal Shortchanged Investors, McNeil Says
WESTLAKE WELLBEING: Credit Card Info Exposed, Edelstein Claims
WHOLE FOODS: Berg Challenges Proposed Acquisition by Amazon.com
WHOLE FOODS: Gieske Wants to Enjoin Acquisition by Amazon.com

XCEL HEALTHCARE: Underpays Home Health Aides, "Marks" Suit Says
ZEBRA TECH: Warren Pension Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop





                            *********


ACCOLADE INC: "Hall" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Gwendolyn Hall, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Accolade, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-03423 (E.D. Pa., August 1, 2017), seeks unpaid wages,
including overtime wages and prejudgment interest, liquidated
damages, litigation costs, expenses, attorney's fees and such
other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant provides health insurance administration services to
insurance companies and self-insured corporate clients. Plaintiff
was employed by Defendant as a home-based Health Assistant from
April 2, 2012 through February 7, 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter Winebrake, Esq.
     R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
     Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
     WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
     715 Twining Road, Suite 211
     Dresher, PA 19025
     Tel: (215) 884-2491

            - and -

     Tiffanie C. Benfer, Esq.
     Jill L. Walsh, Esq.
     HARDWICK BENFER, LLC
     179 North Broad Street
     Doylestown, PA 18901
     Tel: (215) 230-1912


ACSB, LLC: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
BINIDA PEREZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACSB, LLC, a California
limited liability company d/b/a MARINA POINTE HEALTHCARE &
SUBACUTE; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No.
BC670704 (S.D. Fla., Aug 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and penalties under California Business & Professions Code, Labor
Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) from approximately November 16,
2010 until approximately July 9, 2015. During Plaintiff's
employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was not provided all
required meal periods due to Defendants' meal period
policies/practices which fail to provide uninterrupted, duty-free
30-minute meal periods. Specifically, Defendants had a
policy/practice of requiring Plaintiff to remain on-duty while on
meal periods, by requiring Plaintiff to constantly monitor her
patient "call lights" and, if a call light went on, to respond to
the call light and tend to that patient. Moreover, Defendants'
facility where Plaintiff worked was chronically understaffed.
Specifically, on information and belief, Defendants were required
by law to maintain minimum staffing requirements, but there were
occasions during Plaintiffs employment when the ratio of patients
to nursing staff was higher than permitted by law, and at times
significantly higher, than allowed by law. Upon information and
belief, there were instances during Plaintiffs employment when
Defendants only staffed one nursing employee per 20 or more
patients. This chronic and severe understaffing was a further
reason why Plaintiff was constantly on call during meal periods,
and why her meal periods were often interrupted. Although
Defendants' written meal period policy directs employees to
report to their supervisor if they are interrupted for work-
related reasons during their meal periods, when Plaintiff did so,
she was told by her supervisor, "that's the way it is, we're all
busy," or words to that effect. On those occasions when Plaintiff
was not provided with all legally-compliant meal periods to which
she was entitled. Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff with
the required meal period premium for each workday in which she
experienced a meal period violation as mandated by Labor Code.
The Defendants maintained no payroll code or other mechanism for
the payment of meal period premium payments under Labor Code in
the event that a legally compliant meal period was not provided
to their non-exempt employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Avenue
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                  dbrown@haineslawgroup.com


AIPC ENERGY: "Esther" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Brian Esther on behalf of himself individually, and all others
similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. AIPC Energy LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-02300 (S.D. Tex., July 27, 2017) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime as well as other damages, including
damages for unlawful retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Brian Esther worked for AIPC Energy, LLC at its location in San
Antonio, Texas as a Solids Control Consultant. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALGREENS BOOTS: Ginkgo Biloba Product Not Effective, Vasic Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DRAGAN VASIC, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. W ALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No.37-2017-00027800-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 28, 2017), seeks injunctive and monetary relief for
consumers who purchased the Ginkgo Biloba Product.

The Defendant distributes, markets, and sells "Finest Nutrition
Double Strength Ginkgo Biloba 120 mg ("Ginkgo Biloba"), a Ginkgo
biloba-based supplement that purportedly provides a variety of
health benefits centered around supporting mental focus, memory,
and healthy brain activity. Defendant represents that the primary
active ingredient in their Ginkgo Biloba Product is Ginkgo biloba
extract. Through an extensive and uniform nationwide advertising
campaign, Defendant represents that Ginkgo Biloba "supports
memory and mental focus," is for "brain and circulatory health,"
and "naturally supports mental alertness."

However, to the detriment of consumers, all available, reliable,
scientific evidence demonstrates that the Ginkgo Biloba Product
has no efficacy at all, is ineffective in the improvement of
cognitive health, and provides no benefits related to supporting
the memory, concentration, or healthy functioning of consumers'
brains. Numerous scientifically valid studies, performed by
independent researchers and published in reputable medical
journal, have been conducted on Ginkgo biloba, and they have
universally demonstrated that the supplement has absolutely no
scientific value in the improvement of brain function, treatment
or support of memory problems or cognitive health. The Defendant
represents that the active ingredient in the Ginkgo Biloba
Product provides benefits or improvements for many of these
symptoms/functions. The Product labeling states that Ginkgo
Biloba is for "brain & circulatory health" and "supports memory
and mental focus." It further states that Ginkgo Biloba
"naturally supports mental alertness and memory as well as
peripheral circulation."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSONLYNCHSWEET
          KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756 6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carfsonlynch.com


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: "Syria" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dana Syria, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
AllianceOne Receivables Management Inc., EGS Financial Care Inc.,
formerly known as: NCO Financial Systems Inc., and Transworld
Systems Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 15-00002-20861-6-SEA, was
removed on July 28, 2017 from the King County Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
(Seattle). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-
01139-TSZ to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas S. Zilly.

AllianceOne operates as a debt collection agency in the United
States. It offers online payment services.[BN]

Dana Syria, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Adam J Berger, Esq.
          Lindsay Halm, Esq.
          SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
          810 3rd Ave., Ste 500
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 622 8000
          Facsimile: (206) 682 2305
          E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com
                  halm@sgb-law.com

               - and -

          Jason D Anderson, Esq.
          Thomas Tyler Santiago, Esq.
          ANDERSON SANTIAGO, PLLC
          787 Maynard Ave South, Suite B
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 395 2665
          Facsimile: (206) 395 2719
          E-mail: jason@alkc.net
                  tyler@alkc.net

AllianceOne Receivables Management Inc. is represented by:

          Donna M Young, Esq.
          Marc Rosenberg, Esq.
          LEE SMART PS INC.
          701 Pike St. Ste 1800 One Convention Pl
          Seattle, WA 98101-3929
          Telephone: (206) 624 7990
          Facsimile: (206) 624 5944
          E-mail: dmy@leesmart.com
                  mr@leesmart.com

Transworld Systems Inc. is represented by:

          Seann C. Colgan, Esq.
          Emily J. Harris, Esq.
          CORR CRONIN MICHELSON
          BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste 3900
          Seattle, WA 98154-1051
          Telephone: (206) 652 8644
          E-mail: scolgan@corrcronin.com
                  eharris@corrcronin.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Davis Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Sean G. Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Allied Interstate, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company, Case No. 1:17-cv-02398-RLY-DML (S.D. Ind., July 14,
2017), is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and seeks a finding that the
Defendant's debt collection actions violated the FDCPA and the
FCRA and to recover damages.

Allied Interstate, LLC, is a Minnesota limited liability company
that acts as a debt collector, as defined by the FDCPA.  Allied
is licensed as collection agency in Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


AMEDISYS INC: Jury Trial Date in ARcare Suit Set for Sept. 4
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Leon Homes signed an agreed protective order in the case
captioned ARcare, Inc. d/b/a ARcare, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Amedisys, Inc. and Amedisys
Arkansas, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-00351-JLH (E.D. Ark., May 26,
2017), according to a docket entry dated August 9, 2017.

The action arises out of the Defendant's policy and practice of
faxing advertisements without obtaining the Plaintiff's prior
express permission beforehand.

According to the docket, an Initial Scheduling was entered on
July 12, 2017, which states that:

  -- Conference will occur by 9/5/2017
  -- Rule 26(f) Report is due by 9/18/2017
  -- Proposed jury trial date is on the week of 9/4/2018 in
     Little Rock Courtroom # 4D before Judge J. Leon Holmes.

The Defendants own and operate a home health and hospice care
company in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
      Justin Craig, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
      519 West 7th Street
      Little Rock, AR 7220
      Telephone: (501) 312-8500
      Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
      E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
              jcnig@cbplaw.com


AMERICAN FAMILY: Ohio Court Stays "Jammal"
------------------------------------------
District Judge Donald C. Nugent of the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, authorizes the parties to make an interlocutory
appeal and stayed the case entitled, WALID JAMMAL, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE GRP., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:13 CV 437 (N.D. Ohio)

American Family Insurance Company Group is an insurance company
whose business is selling insurance.  American Family took in an
average of $6 billion in premiums over the last five years and,
at least 85% of those premiums were brought in through American
Family agents. American Family also has some employees,
classified as such, who sell insurance and interact with
customers. American Family does not require any specialized
knowledge or expertise to be hired as an American Family agent.
The only requirements for hire are a high school diploma and two
years of general work experience in any field. American Family
prefers to hire agents with no prior experience so they can be
trained in the American Family way and will not have pre-
established attitudes or procedures.

Plaintiffs, Walid Jammal, and Dana LaRiche filed a proposed class
action on February 28, 2013, against American Family Insurance
Company (Group), American Family Mutual Insurance Company,
American Family Life Insurance Company, and American Standard
Insurance Company of Wisconsin. On April 5, 2013, the complaint
was amended, adding American Family Termination Benefits Plan,
Retirement Plan for Employees of American Family Insurance Group,
American Family 401K Plan, Group Life Plan, Group Health Plan,
Group Dental Plan, Long Term Disability Plan, American Family
Insurance Group Master Retirement Trust, 401K Plan Administrative
Committee, and The Committee of Employee and District Manager
Retirement Plan as defendants. The amended complaint also added
named plaintiffs Patricia McClain-Evans, Kathleen Tuersley, Cinda
J. Durachinsky, and John Vincent.

Defendants challenged the first amended complaint through a
motion to dismiss, which was denied by the court on August 9,
2013. On September 27, 2013, the court issued an opinion
postponing class discovery until discovery relating to the named
plaintiffs was complete and dispositive motions relating to those
plaintiffs had been addressed.

On June 30, 2014, the complaint was amended a second time. The
second amended complaint added named plaintiff, Nathan Garrett,
and eliminated Dana LaRiche, Patricia McClain-Evans, and John
Vincent as named plaintiffs. Count One of the complaint seeks
declaratory judgment affirming that plaintiffs and purported
class members are employees for all purposes, including but not
limited to ERISA; declaring that the Termination Benefits Plan is
an employee benefit plan subject to ERISA's vesting and benefit
accrual provisions; declaring that certain plan provisions
violate ERISA; and, declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to
reformation of the contracts and restitution of benefits
allegedly withheld by American Family in violation of ERISA.
Count two seeks injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from
continuing to mis-classify its agents as independent contractors;
prohibiting defendants from implementing benefits plans that do
not comply with ERISA; ordering American Family to comply with
ERISA requirements with regard to the Termination Benefit Plan;
and, ordering defendants to recalculate and pay benefits under
the proper calculation of benefits as provided by ERISA.

Count three is a claim of benefits under ERISA Section
502(a)(1)(B), seeking payments under the Termination Benefit Plan
in accordance with ERISA requirements. Count four seeks
restitution, contract reformation, and actual damages arising
from defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duty arising from
their refusal to recognize that the benefits provided under the
Termination Benefits Plan were vested and non-forfeitable
pursuant to ERISA's requirements, and for failing to follow ERISA
accrual and vesting requirements. Counts five and six seek
damages and injunctive relief based on plaintiffs failure to
provide plaintiffs with health and welfare benefits offered to
other employees, including a retirement plan, 401K plan, group
health plan, group dental plan, group life plan, and long term
disability plan, that are offered to those workers American
Family has classified as employees.

Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the claims of
the named plaintiffs, Mr. Jammal, Ms. Durachinsky, Ms. Tuersley,
and Mr. Garrett. The court held that Ms. Tuersley was barred from
pursuing her claim for breach of fiduciary duty under count four
by the statute of limitations, and otherwise denied all four
motions. Plaintiffs later filed a motion for class certification,
and another motion for partial summary judgment. The court denied
the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, and granted
the motion for class certification. Defendants subsequently twice
sought decertification of the class but were denied.

Prior to trial, the court granted a motion to bifurcate to allow
for a primary determination of the threshold question: Were
Plaintiffs employees or independent contractors under ERISA? On
April 18, 2017, following twelve days of trial, the jury answered
yes to the interrogatory. After the advisory jury returned its
finding, the parties were given a final opportunity to present
their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Judge Nugent authorizes the parties to take an interlocutory
appeal of the order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(a)(1).
The case shall be stayed pending the resolution of any such
appeal. The parties shall notify the court within ten days
whether an appeal was, in fact, filed. Judge Nugent held that
although the retention and exercise of control of the means and
manner of the agents' service was not technically allowed under
the terms of the agency agreement, American Family did expect its
managers to exercise such control whenever necessary to achieve
compliance with Company goals and standards. American Family
trained its managers to exercise control over the means and
manner of agents' sales and service duties when the company
deemed it necessary, and reprimanded managers who did not
exercise such control when the Company deemed it beneficial to do
so. Consequently, at least some managers did, in fact, exercise a
high level of control over some of their agents. The degree of
control managers were encouraged to exercise was inconsistent
with independent contractor status and was more in line with the
level of control a manager would be expected to exert over an
employee. Along with the evidence related to the other factors
set forth, supports a finding that the American Family agents
defined in the class description should have been classified as
employees and not independent contractors. The court finds that
the class plaintiffs in the case were employees of American
Family during the relevant class period.

A copy of Judge Nugent's memorandum opinion dated July 31, 2017,
is available at https://goo.gl/EPXBuP from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Amy E. Keller -- Edward A. Wallace --
eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Kara A. Elgersma --
kae@wexlerwallace.com -- Tania E. Yusaf -- tey@wexlerwallace.com
at Wexler Wallace; Charles J. Crueger -- cjc@cruegerdickinson.com
-- Erin K. Dickinson -- ekd@cruegerdickinson.com -- at Crueger
Dicksonson; Gregory F. Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- at
Law Office of Greg Coleman; Drew T. Legando -- Jack Landskroner -
- at Landskroner Grieco Merriman

Defendants, represented by Gregory V. Mersol --
gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- Gilbert P. Brosky -- gbrosky@bakerlaw.com
-- Jeffrey R. Vlasek -- jvlasek@bakerlaw.com -- Rand L. McClellan
-- rmcclellan@bakerlaw.com -- Rodger L. Eckelberry --
reckelberry@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker & Hostetler; Earl W. Gunn --
bgunn@wwhgd.com -- Kate D. Spinelli -- kspinelli@wwhgd.com --
Matthew T. Gomes -- mgomes@wwhgd.com -- Nancy F. Rigby --
nrigby@wwhgd.com -- Stephen W. Mooney -- smooney@wwhgd.com -- at
Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial


AMERICAN MEIZHOU: Lagunas Sues Over Missed Breaks, Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Lagunas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Meizhou Dongpo Hollywood, Inc.,
American Meizhou Dongpo Arcadia, Inc., American Meizhou Dongpo
Group, Inc., American Meizhou Dongpo Irvine, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. BC669972 (Cal. Super., July 28, 2017), seeks unpaid
wages and interest thereon for failure to pay for all hours
worked and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit
required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit required
rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate
wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages
due upon separation of employment, injunctive relief and other
equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest
under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the
California Business and Professions Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Defendant operates a chain of restaurants where Plaintiff worked
as a dishwasher. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Nourmand, Esq.
      James A. De Sario, Esq
      THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 West Olympic Boulevard
      Beverly Hills, California 90211
      Tel: (310) 553-3600
      Fax: (310) 553-3603


ANGIE'S LIST: Parshall Sues Over Proposed Acquisition by IAC
------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ANGIE'S LIST, INC., THOMAS R. EVANS, GEORGE D. BELL,
MARK BRITTO, SCOTT A. DURCHSLAG, ANGELA R. HICKS BOWMAN, MICHAEL
S. MAURER, DAVID B. MULLEN, MICHAEL D. SANDS, H. ERIC SEMLER,
SUSAN THRONSON, IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, ANGI HOMESERVICES INC., and
CASA MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-02418-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind.,
July 18, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Angie's List will be acquired by IAC/InterActiveCorp, ANGI
Homeservices Inc., and Casa Merger Sub, Inc.

On May 1, 2017, Angie's List's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with IAC.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Angie's List will
be combined Parent's HomeAdvisor business under ANGI, a newly
created publicly traded company.  In particular, the Merger
Agreement provides for the acquisition of Angie's List by ANGI by
way of the merger of Merger Sub with and into Angie's List, with
Angie's List continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of ANGI.

Angie's List is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices in Indianapolis, Indiana.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.
Angie's List operates a national local services consumer review
service and marketplace that seeks to improve the local service
experience for both members and service professionals.

IAC/InterActiveCorp ("Parent") is a Delaware corporation that is
headquartered in New York and is a party to the Merger Agreement.
ANGI Homeservices Inc. is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.
Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary
of ANGI, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Piatt, Esq.
          RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC
          301 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 300
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 633-5270
          Facsimile: (317) 426-3348
          E-mail: jpiatt@rwp-law.com

               - and -

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310

               - and -


          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800


APIGEE CORPORATION: Removes Seafarers Suit to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit titled SEAFARERS OFFICERS &
EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. APIGEE CORPORATION, CHET KAPOOR, TIM WAN,
BOB L. COREY, NEAL DEMPSEY, PROMOD HAQUE, WILLIAM "BJ" JENKINS,
JR., EDMOND MESROBIAN, ROBERT SCHWARTZ and DOES 1-25, inclusive,
Case No. 17CIV02788, was removed on July 20, 2017, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
04106 to the proceeding.

On June 22, 2017, Plaintiff Seafarers Officers & Employees
Pension Plan filed the civil action in the Superior Court.  The
Complaint alleges claims that arise solely under Sections 11 and
15 of the federal Securities Act of 1933.

Apigee Corporation designs and delivers application programming
interface tools and enterprise management products.  The Company
offers API management platform which provides visibility,
protection, and control.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.[BN]

Defendants Apigee Corporation, Chet Kapoor, Tim Wan, Bob L.
Corey, Neal Dempsey, Promod Haque, William "BJ" Jenkins, Jr.,
Edmond Mesrobian, and Robert Schwartz are represented by:

          Steven M. Schatz, Esq.
          Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq.
          Michael R. Petrocelli, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Tolman, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300
          Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
          E-mail: sschatz@wsgr.com
                  isalceda@wsgr.com
                  mpetrocelli@wsgr.com
                  btolman@wsgr.com


ARI NETWORK: "Berg" Suit Balks at True Wind Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Berg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ari Network Services, Inc., William H.
Luden, III, Roy W. Olivier, Chad J. Cooper, William C. Mortimore,
Robert Y. Newell, IV, P. Lee Poseideon, Expedition Holdings LLC,
Expedition Merger Sub, Inc., and True Wind Capital, L.P.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01033 (W.D. Wisc., July 25, 2017),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
acquisition of ARI Network Services by affiliates of True Wind
Capital, 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 ARI will receive $7.10 in cash for each share.
According to the Complaint, 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 ARI is materially in excess of the amount
offered given its financial projections.

ARI offers software tools and marketing services to help dealers,
equipment manufacturers, and distributors in selected vertical
markets, powered by a proprietary data repository of original
equipment and aftermarket electronic content. [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 -

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

             - and -

      John D. Blythin, Esq.
      Guri Ademi, Esq.
      Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
      John D. Blythin, Esq.
      Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
      3620 East Layton Avenue
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Tel: (414) 482-8000
      Fax: (414) 482-8001
      Email: gademi@ademilaw.com
             sademi@ademilaw.com
             jblythin@ademilaw.com
             meldridge@ademilaw.com


ARI NETWORK: Faces "Sharkey" Suit Over Merger With True Wind
------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN SHARKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ARI NETWORK SERVICES, INC., CHAD J. COOPER, WILLIAM
H. LUDEN, WILLIAM C. MORTIMORE, ROBERT Y. NEWELL, ROY W. OLIVIER,
P. LEE POSEIDON, Case No. 2:17-cv-01012-JPS (E.D. Wisc., July 21,
2017), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of ARI for
alleged violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,
arising out of the Defendants' attempt to sell the Company to
affiliates of True Wind Capital Management, LLC.

On June 21, 2017, ARI issued a press release announcing that they
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 20,
pursuant to which True Wind's affiliates, True Wind Capital, L.P.
and Expedition Holdings LLC ("Parent"), through Parent's wholly-
owned subsidiary, Expedition Merger Sub, Inc., would acquire all
of the outstanding shares of ARI in an all-cash transaction.  If
consummated, ARI stockholders will receive $7.10 in cash for each
share of ARI common stock that they own. The Proposed Transaction
has an enterprise value of approximately $140 million.

ARI is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
state of Wisconsin with its executive offices located in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.  ARI is a provider of tools and
marketing services designed to assist merchants and distributors
with increasing productivity and sales.  The Company works with
over 23,500 equipment dealers and 3,360 brands worldwide.

True Wind is a private equity firm managing $560 million located
in San Francisco.  True Wind focuses on investing in technology
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          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) 337-1567
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com


ASB BANCORP: Parshall Challenges Proposed Sale to First Bancorp
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. ASB BANCORP, INC., PATRICIA S. SMITH, JOHN B. GOULD,
SUZANNE S. DEFERIE, JOHN B. DICKSON, LESLIE D. GREEN, KENNETH E.
HORNOWSKI, STEPHEN P. MILLER, LAWRENCE B. SEIDMAN, ALISON J.
SMITH, WYATT S. STEVENS, KENNETH J. WRENCH, and FIRST BANCORP,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00194 (W.D.N.C., July 19, 2017), stems from a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which ASB will be acquired by
First Bancorp.

On May 1, 2017, ASB's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with FBNC.  Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of ASB
generally will be entitled to elect to receive 1.44 shares of
FBNC common stock, $41.90 in cash, or a combination thereof, for
each share of ASB common stock they own.

ASB is a North Carolina corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Asheville, North Carolina.  The Company is a
bank holding company and the parent of Asheville Savings Bank.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

FBNC is a North Carolina corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Southern Pines, North Carolina.  FBNC is a
bank holding company for its subsidiary, First Bank.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet Ward Black, Esq.
          Nancy Meyers, Esq.
          WARD BLACK LAW
          208 West Wendover Avenue
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Telephone: (336) 333-2244
          Facsimile: (336) 379-9415
          E-mail: jwblack@wardblacklaw.com

               - and -

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800


AVALON HOLDINGS: Matusky Sues Over Violation of Minimum Wage Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA MATUSKY, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. AVALON HOLDINGS CORPORATION and THE AVALON RESORT AND
SPA LLC and AVALON GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC. and AVALON COUNTRY
CLUB AT SHARON, INC. and RONALD KLINGLE, Case No. 4:17-cv-01535-
BYP (N.D. Ohio, July 21, 2017), challenges the Defendants'
alleged policies and practices that violated the minimum wage
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the Ohio
and Pennsylvania minimum wage compensation statutes.

Avalon Holdings Corporation is an Ohio for-profit corporation
with its principal place of business in Trumbull County, Ohio.
The Avalon Resort and Spa LLC is an Ohio limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Trumbull County.
Avalon Golf and Country Club, Inc. is an Ohio for-profit
corporation with its principal place of business in Trumbull
County.  Avalon Country Club at Sharon, Inc. is a Pennsylvania
for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in
Mercer County, Pennsylvania.  Ronald Klingle is the President of
Avalon Country Club at Sharon, Inc., and upon information and
belief, a member of the other Defendants.

The Defendants are engaged in a multitude of business endeavors
in the entertainment, recreational, restaurant and hospitality
industries and in the performance of related types of activities,
including a year-round country club, banquet facilities, and an
inn and resort.  Among other business endeavors, the Defendants
operate three golf courses, twelve restaurants, fitness centers,
swimming pools, a tennis academy, indoor and outdoor tennis
courts, banquet facilities and meeting rooms, an indoor golf
center, driving range, golf shops, cigar shop, and a salon and
spa.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 E. Huron Rd., Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (440) 498-9100
          Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagewlawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com


BAE SYSTEMS: Counsel in "Nunez" Directed to Address Deficiencies
----------------------------------------------------------------
In captioned EDUARDO NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BAE SYSTEMS SAN DIEGO SHIP
REPAIR INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-2162 JLS (NLS)(S.D. Cal.),
presently before Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California are several motions
related to the proposed settlement in this case: (i) the Parties'
Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; (ii)
the Class Counsel's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and
Incentive Fees; and (iii) the Parties' Joint Motion for
Substitution of Class Representative in Place of Eduardo Nunez.

The Judge held a Final Fairness Hearing to discuss these matters
on July 27, 2017.  At the hearing, he informed the Parties that
it was not prepared to rule on these motions given a few
procedural deficiencies that must first be addressed.

As part of his review of the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the proposed settlement under Rule 23(e)(2), Judge
Sammartino considered whether there were any proper objections
before the Court.  As will be discussed in more detail in the
Court's Order on the Parties' joint motion for final approval, he
briefly notes that none of the objections are properly before
him.  This includes Mr. Nunez's brief in opposition to the
Parties' joint motion for final approval filed two weeks before
the Final Fairness Hearing, and what appears to be a sur-reply
filed the night before the Final Fairness Hearing, which the
Judge considers late-filed objections.  Accordingly, he overruled
these procedurally deficient objections on this ground alone.

That said, he understands that settlement class actions present
unique due process concerns for absent class members, and the
district court has a fiduciary duty to look after the interests
of those absent class members.  Accordingly, as the fiduciary of
the Class and in order to protect the interests of absent Class
Members, Judge Sammartino exercises its discretion and
nevertheless considers the substance of these objections.  While
he considers the majority of these objections in a later Order,
he addresses two concerns outlined in Nunez's opposition brief
that merit additional procedural safeguards at this point, before
he can hold another Final Fairness Hearing and issue any final
ruling on the proposed Settlement.  These are (i) whether the
Class-wide notice was adequate, and (ii) whether the Class had an
adequate opportunity to oppose the Class Counsel's request for
attorney's fees.

As a fiduciary of the Class overseeing the potential award of
attorney's fees from a common fund, Judge Sammartino allowed the
Class Members another opportunity to timely object to the Class
Counsel's Fee Motion.  Accordingly, as part of the supplemental
notice, the Class Counsel is directed to reasonably notify Class
Members of the existence of their pending Fee Motion and provide
reasonable measures for Class Members to obtain a copy of the Fee
Motion.  The Class Members will have an opportunity to object to
this Fee Motion during the 45-day supplemental notice period.

Given the foregoing, no later than seven days from the date on
which the Order is electronically docketed, the Parties will
submit: (i) a statement confirming or denying their willingness
to bear the costs of re-notifying the Class, and, if the Parties
wish to do so; (ii) a proposed supplemental notice incorporating
his ruling; and (iii) a proposed schedule and procedures for this
supplemental notice, which include a new date for the Final
Fairness Hearing.  Once he receives these documents, Judge
Sammartino will promptly assess the adequacy of the supplemental
notice pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and issue a schedule for
notification and a new date for the Final Fairness Hearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/5aBMcv from Leagle.com.

Eduardo Nunez, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander I. Dychter --
alex@dychterlaw.com.

Eduardo Nunez, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Isaac Dychter,
Dychter Law Offices, APC, Efaon Cobb, Law Office of Hewgill and
Cobb & Justin Greer Hewgill, Law Office of Hewgill and Cobb.

BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair Inc., Defendant, represented by
Mary Dollarhide -- marydollarhide@paulhastings.com -- DLA Piper
LLP & Taylor H. Wemmer -- taylor.wemmer@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper
LLP.


BAM-B ENTERPRISES: "Deslandes" Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leinani Deslandes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bam-B Enterprises of Central Florida,
Inc., Robert Allegroe, Eric Vidler and Donna Miller, Defendants,
Case No. 57011479 (Fla. Cir., May 26, 2017), was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on July
28, 2017, and assigned Case No. 6:17-cv-01393.

Deslandes was an employee of Bam-B Enterprises of Central
Florida, Inc., a franchise McDonald's store located at 3114 South
Semoran Boulevard, Apopka, Florida.

McDonald's Corporation and their franchisees have allegedly
agreed not to recruit or hire each other's employees.

McDonald's is the world's leading global food service retailer
with over 36,000 locations in over 100 countries. More than 80%
of McDonald's restaurants worldwide are franchise businesses that
are independently owned and operated, and are separate and
distinct entities from McDonald's. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason K. Whittemore, Esq.
      WAGNER MCLAUGHLIN, P.A.
      601 Bayshore Blvd., Suite 910
      Tampa, Florida 33606-2786
      Tel: (813) 225-4000
      Fax: (813) 487-1007
      Email: Jason@wagnerlaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Kristyne E. Kennedy, Esq.
      Allison Renae Bekavac, Esq.
      COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA
      1900 Summit Tower Boulevard, Suite 400
      Orlando, FL 32810
      Tel: (321) 972-0028
      Fax: (321) 972-0099
      Email: kristyne.kennedy@csklegal.com
             Allison.Bekavac@csklegal.com


BANC CERTIFIED: Family Health Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
Family Health Chiropractic, Inc., an Ohio corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Banc Certified Merchant Services,
LLC and John Does 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-02433 (N.D.
Ohio, October 4, 2016), is transferred to the United States
District Court of the Southern District of Ohio on July 24, 2017.

Plaintiff seeks statutory and treble damages in violation of the
Junk Fax Prevention Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     George D. Jonson, Esq.
     Matthew W. Stubbs, Esq.
     MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON
     36 E. Seventh Street, Suite 2100
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Tel: (513) 241-4722
     Fax: (513) 241-8775
     Email: gjonson@mrjlaw.com
            mstubbs@mrjlaw.com

            - and -

     Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
     Ross M. Good, Esq.
     Ryan M Kelly, Esq.
     ANDERSON WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Tel: (847) 368-1500
     Fax: (847) 368-1501
     Email: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
            rgood@andersonwanca.com
            rkelly@andersonwanca.com

Defendant is represented by:

     James Roger Leickly, Esq.
     145 E. Rich St., 2nd Floor
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Tel: (614) 329-0133
     Fax: (614) 428-8645
     Email: james@leicklylaw.com


BASF CATALYSTS: Court Appoints Special Master in "Williams"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of New Jersey, issued
an Order modifying its previous Order and appoint a new Special
Master Judge in the case captioned KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.,
Plaintiff, v. BASF CATALYSTS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 11-1754.(D.N.J.).

Plaintiffs allege, among others, that BASF Catalysts LLC and its
attorneys at the firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel conspired to
prevent thousands of litigants that claimed injuries due to
asbestos exposure from attaining fair tort recoveries.
Plaintiffs alleged that BASF's predecessor, Engelhard Corp.
(Engelhard), with the help of its attorneys from Cahill,
destroyed or hid tests and reports that documented the presence
of asbestos in Engelhard's talc.

Count I - Fraudulent Concealment (Spoliation).

Plaintiffs argue that reliance is not an element required under
the tort of fraudulent concealment. First, Plaintiffs assert that
in Williams v. BASF Catalyst, 765 F. 3d at 321-322, the Third
Circuit recognized the difference between requiring Plaintiffs to
show they would have otherwise succeeded on their underlying
claims versus a requirement that they provide a general
explanation of asbestos claim fundamentals (which they satisfied
in the course of their pleadings' allegations.

Plaintiffs aver that the Court of Appeals explained that a
fraudulent concealment does not require reliance on an
adversary's representations.

Defendants, on the other hand, contend that the elements of
fraudulent concealment tort numbers two the evidence was material
to the litigation and five  plaintiff was damaged in the
underlying action by having to rely on an evidential record that
did not contain the evidence defendant concealed require
discovery into the underlying litigation.

Count II - Common Law Fraud claim

Plaintiffs also argue that the claims for fraud against
Defendants do not require proof that the Plaintiffs relied on
Defendants' misrepresentations. Plaintiffs assert that Plaintiffs
fraud claims is predicated upon Defendants' scheme of false
statements, suppression of evidence and threats in advance of,
and during, litigation to gain voluntary dismissals (with and
without nominal token settlement payments) and involuntary
dismissals of asbestos claims.

Defendants contend they are entitled to test the allegations made
against them, and assert that Plaintiffs are required to
establish reasonable reliance and resulting damages" from the
alleged misrepresentations in order to prove their fraud claim.
The scope of discovery will focus on the alleged wrongful conduct
and any alleged harm following from that conduct. In order to
resolve the issues Plaintiffs identified, whether BASF and
Cahill's spoliation of evidence had the capacity to and did
adversely affect and hamper the prosecution of asbestos claims
against BASF, the scope of discovery may include inquiry as to
why Plaintiffs settled or dismissed their claims.

To fully explore this issue, Defendants will be entitled to
discover what Plaintiffs and their counsel knew, and were told,
and whether any knowledge, or lack thereof, contributed to
Plaintiffs' decisions on resolving the case.

This Opinion and Order modifies the Court's previous Order
referring the case to Special Master Judge Brown.  Judge Brown
has declined to serve as a Special Master.  Accordingly, the
Court has determined to appoint Roberto A. Rivera-Soto, former
N.J. Supreme Court Justice, as the Special Master in place of
Judge Brown.  The Order appointing the Special Master will be so
Amended.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available http://tinyurl.com/yctrbjxtfrom
Leagle.com.

ROBERTO A. RIVERA-SOTO, Special Master, represented by ROBERTO A.
RIVERA-SOTO, BALLARD SPAHR -- riverasotor@ballardspahr.com --
KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY MORROW
POLLOCK -- jmpollock@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP,
MICHAEL COREN -- mcoren@cprlaw.com -- Cohen, Placitella & Roth,
P.C., CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL PLACITELLA -- cplacitella@cprlaw.com --
COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, PC & JARED MICHAEL PLACITELLA --
jmplacitella@cpelaw.com -- COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH.

NANCY PEASE, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY MORROW POLLOCK,
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, MICHAEL COREN, Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.
& CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL PLACITELLA, COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, PC.
MARILYN L. HOLLEY, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY MORROW
POLLOCK, FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, MICHAEL COREN, Cohen, Placitella &
Roth, P.C. & CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL PLACITELLA, COHEN, PLACITELLA &
ROTH, PC.

DONNA WARE, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY MORROW POLLOCK, FOX
ROTHSCHILD LLP, MICHAEL COREN, Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C. &
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL PLACITELLA, COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, PC.
DONNETTE WENGERD, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY MORROW
POLLOCK, FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, MICHAEL COREN, Cohen, Placitella &
Roth, P.C. & CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL PLACITELLA, COHEN, PLACITELLA &
ROTH, PC.

ROSANNE CHERNICK, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY MORROW
POLLOCK, FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP.

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, Defendant, represented by JUSTIN TAYLOR
QUINN, ROBINSON MILLER LLC, 1 Newark Ctr Fl 19Newark, NJ 07102-
5235 & MICHAEL F. WILLIAMS - michael.williams@kirkland.com -
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP.

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP, Defendant, represented by ROBERT E.
RYAN -- rryan@connellfoley.com -- CONNELL FOLEY, LLP & CRAIG S.
DEMARESKI -- cdemareski@connellfoley.com -- CONNELL FOLEY LLP.
CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL, Defendant, represented by ROBERT E.
RYAN, CONNELL FOLEY, LLP & JENNIFER C. CRITCHLEY, CONNELL FOLEY,
LLP.
THOMAS D. HALKET, Defendant, represented by ERIC TUNIS, HEROLD
LAW.

ARTHUR A. DORNBUSCH, II, Defendant, represented by JOHN A. BOYLE
- jboyle@khmarino.com - MARINO TORTORELLA & BOYLE PC & KEVIN
HARRY MARINO - kmarino@khmarino.com - MARINO TORTORELLA & BOYLE,
PC.

HOWARD G. SLOANE, Defendant, represented by ROBERT E. RYAN,
CONNELL FOLEY, LLP, CRAIG S. DEMARESKI, CONNELL FOLEY LLP &
JENNIFER C. CRITCHLEY -- jcritchley@connellfoley.com CONNELL
FOLEY, LLP.

IRA J. DEMBROW, Defendant, represented by ROBERT E. RYAN, CONNELL
FOLEY, LLP, CRAIG S. DEMARESKI, CONNELL FOLEY LLP & JENNIFER C.
CRITCHLEY, CONNELL FOLEY, LLP.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., Respondent,
represented by DAVID R. KOTT -- dkott@mccarter.com - MCCARTER &
ENGLISH, LLP, JUDAH SAMUEL WILLIAM SKOFF, MCCARTER & ENGLISH &
ZANE CHRISTIAN RIESTER, MCCARTER & ENGLISH LLP, 4 Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street, Newark, NJ 07102.

THOMAS W. BEVAN, Respondent, represented by BRENDAN E. LITTLE,
LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP & MOSHE MAIMON, LEVY, PHILIPS & KONIGSBERG,
LLP. 101 Grovers Mill Rd, Ste 105, Lawrence Twp, NJ 08648
BEVAN & ASSOCIATES LPA, INC., Respondent, represented by BRENDAN
E. LITTLE, LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP & MOSHE MAIMON, LEVY, PHILIPS &
KONIGSBERG, LLP.

Amicus Curiae Public Justice, P.C., Amicus, represented by ESTHER
EVA BEREZOFSKY - eberezofsky@wcblegal.com - WILLIAMS, CUKER &
BEREZOFSKY, ESQS.

Rothberg Law Firm, Interested Party, represented by LYNNE M.
KIZIS -- lkizis@wilentz.com -- WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PA.
Jeffrey C Schwartz, Interested Party, represented by LYNNE M.
KIZIS, WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PA.

James F. Early, Interested Party, represented by BRENDAN E.
LITTLE, LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP & MOSHE MAIMON, LEVY, PHILIPS &
KONIGSBERG, LLP.

Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen, Interested Party,
represented by BRENDAN E. LITTLE, LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP & MOSHE
MAIMON, LEVY, PHILIPS & KONIGSBERG, LLP.


BERRY BROS: "Bass" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Jason Bass, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Berry Bros. General Contractors, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00947 (W.D. La., July 24, 2017),
seeks all available relief, including overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Berry Bros. is into marine and oilfield construction throughout
the United States.  Plaintiff worked as a Rig Welder.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
      417 W. University Ave.
      P.O. Box 4325
      Lafayette, LA 70502
      Telephone: (337) 235-5294
      Telecopier: (337) 235-1095
      Email: kwdejean@kwdejean.com

             - and -

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


BLUE ROCK: "Snyder" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA SNYDER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, v. BLUE ROCK PARTNERS LLC and REUVEN
ODED, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01289-JEO (N.D. Ala., Aug
1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
attorney fees, pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses and all
other damages that the Plaintiff is entitled to under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a leasing
agent for Blue Rock's predecessor, Landmark, and was employed by
the Defendant from May 28, 2015 through approximately November
20, 2015.  The Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants ceased,
according to the owner of the property, when Blue Rock's contract
was terminated by the owner due to mismanagement, fraud, employee
theft, employee kickbacks and gross negligence. The Plaintiff was
classified as a "non-exempt" employee pursuant to the FLSA and
was paid an hourly rate of $14 per hour. The Defendants had a
strict policy, which was implemented by local management that
leasing agents and other non-exempt employees that worked in the
office were not to work overtime. The employees were instructed,
per Oden's direct communications with local management, that
employees would be fired if they worked overtime. The Plaintiff
worked an average of 60 hours per week but, because she was told
that she was not paid overtime, she would "clock out" and work
"off the clock" after normal office hours, and/or not "clock in"
during hours she came in early and/or when she worked on
weekends. The Defendants knew and/or should have known that the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not able to
complete their work in a "40 hour work week" and that the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were working
early, late and/or on weekends. The Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff for the hours she worked in excess of forty hours per
week.

Blue Rock owns and manages residential real estate properties in
Tampa, Fort Myers, and Orlando, Florida; Atlanta, Georgia; and
Birmingham, Alabama. The company was founded in 2004 and is based
in Tampa, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Harwell, Esq.
          HARWELL LAW FIRM LLC
          109 Foothills Parkway No. 112
          Chelsea, AL 35043
          Telephone: (205) 999 1099


BROKERPRICEOPINION.COM: $1.6MM Deal in "Wornicki" Has Prelim. Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned KATHY WORNICKI and EDWARD LAINE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
BROKERPRICEOPINION.COM, INC., FIRST VALUATION, LLC, FIRST
VALUATION SERVICES, LLC, FIRST VALUATION TECHNOLOGY, LLC, CARTEL
ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, WALTER COATS, and VALUTECH, INC.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 13-cv-03258-PAB-KMT (D. Colo.).

This case arises from allegations that Brokerprice failed to pay
its brokers in a timely fashion.  The Plaintiffs filed a class
action complaint on Dec. 2, 2013.  They originally alleged claims
for breach of contract and unjust enrichment under Colorado law.
On Oct. 15, 2015, they filed a motion for class certification.
Concurrently, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend the second
amended complaint to add Walter Coats, the Brokerprice CEO, as a
Defendant and add Colorado state law claims for negligent
misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement.  The Court granted
the Plaintiffs' motion.

On Sept. 20, 2016, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in part, certifying a class comprised of all
persons and entities who provided broker price opinions (BPOs) on
behalf of the Defendants between Dec. 2, 2007 and the date of
final disposition of the action and who have not been paid for
their services in accordance with the Defendants' terms of
payment.  On Nov. 3, 2016, the Court approved the parties'
proposed notice plan and ordered the parties to disseminate class
notice within 14 days.

The parties held a settlement conference before an arbitrator on
Dec. 6, 2016 where the Defendants insisted that they would be
financially unable to pay a large settlement.  The Plaintiffs, on
the other hand, insisted that Defendants must provide complete
financial information to allow them to assess the Defendants'
financial situation.  The parties did not reach a settlement that
day, but in the wake of the conference, the Defendants produced
financial information that convinced the Plaintiffs that
settlement was in the best interest of the class.

On March 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement.

The proposed settlement defines the settlement class as all
persons preparing BPOs, who on or after Dec. 7, 2007 entered into
agreements with the Defendants for BPOs and who were not paid all
monies owed them by the Defendants under such agreements who do
not request to be excluded from the Settlement.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Defendants agree to
pay a total of $1,567,000 over a roughly four-year period, with
$135,000 paid up front and the remainder paid in installments.
The payments are to be distributed as follows: (i) payments to
settlement class members of $1,020,000, distributed on a pro rata
basis among settlement class members who file timely claims; (ii)
payments to class counsel of up to $500,000 for attorneys' fees
and costs; (iii) costs of administering the settlement, estimated
to be $37,000; and (iv) service awards of $5,000 each to the two
class representatives.

In addition to monetary relief, the settlement provides for
injunctive relief to ensure that brokers are paid within 90 days
for all broker price opinions that brokers complete.  If
Brokerprice misses a payment and fails to cure within 30 days,
the settlement is null and void.  The Defendants are required to
submit bi-annual reports to class counsel describing their
compliance efforts.

Judge Brimmer finds that the presumption of fairness is
sufficient to preliminarily approve the terms of the proposed
partial settlement agreement and is satisfied that the settling
parties' proposed notice is reasonably calculated to apprise the
absent class members of the action.  Accordingly, he (i) granted
the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement; and (ii) approved the parties' notice
plan.

He directed the Class counsel to send the initial class notices
no later than Sept. 1, 2017, which is 30 days from the entry of
the Order.  Judge Brimmer also directed the Class Counsel to
submit a motion for the Class Counsel's attorney's fees and costs
no later than Oct. 2, 2017, which is 61 days from the entry of
the Order.  The class members will have until Oct. 31, 2017,
which is 90 days from the entry of this order, to opt out of this
action, to file a written objection, or to submit a claim.  A
brief in favor of final approval will be submitted no later than
Nov. 27, 2017, which is 117 days from the entry of the order.
Any responses or objections to the brief in favor of final
approval will be submitted no later than 14 days from the entry
of the brief.  Judge Brimmer will issue a separate order setting
the date of the fairness hearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/wpr1Of from Leagle.com.

Kathy Wornicki, Plaintiff, represented by Beth Ellen Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarwill.com -- Terrell Marwill Law Group.

Kathy Wornicki, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Rust Murray --
jmurray@terrellmarwill.com -- Terrell Marwill Law Group, Stefan
L. Coleman, Stefan Coleman, Law Offices of & Jeffrey Allen Berens
-- jeff@jberenslaw.com -- Berens Law LLC.

Edward Laine, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Rust Murray,
Terrell Marwill Law Group & Beth Ellen Terrell, Terrell Marwill
Law Group.

Brokerpriceopinion.com, Inc., Defendant, represented by Glenn W.
Merrick, G.W. Merrick & Associates, LLC & Joseph Taylor
Bernstein, G.W. Merrick & Associates, LLC.

First Valuation, LLC, Defendant, represented by Glenn W. Merrick,
G.W. Merrick & Associates, LLC & Joseph Taylor Bernstein, G.W.
Merrick & Associates, LLC.

First Valuation Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Glenn W.
Merrick, G.W. Merrick & Associates, LLC & Joseph Taylor
Bernstein, G.W. Merrick & Associates, LLC.

First Valuation Technology, LLC, Defendant, represented by Glenn
W. Merrick, G.W. Merrick & Associates, LLC & Joseph Taylor
Bernstein, G.W. Merrick & Associates, LLC.

Cartel Asset Management, Defendant, represented by Glenn W.
Merrick, G.W. Merrick & Associates, LLC & Joseph Taylor
Bernstein, G.W. Merrick & Associates, LLC.

Walter Coats, Defendant, represented by Glenn W. Merrick, G.W.
Merrick & Associates, LLC & Joseph Taylor Bernstein, G.W. Merrick
& Associates, LLC.

ValuTech, Inc., Defendant, represented by Glenn W. Merrick, G.W.
Merrick & Associates, LLC & Joseph Taylor Bernstein, G.W. Merrick
& Associates, LLC.


CAPROCK HEALTH: "Polk" Suit Seeks to Get Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL POLK v. CAPROCK HEALTH CARE, INC. D/B/A ATHENS HEALTHCARE
AND REHABILITATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-00550 (E.D. Tex., July 22,
2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages and overtime wages
that are required to be paid under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Caprock Health Care, Inc., doing business as Athens Healthcare
and Rehabilitation, does business in the state of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
          WHITEHURST & WHITEHURST, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          5380 Old Bullard Road, Suite 600, #363
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903) 593-5588
          Facsimile: (214) 853-9382
          E-mail: whitehurstlawfirm@yahoo.com


CARE CAPITAL: Faces "Douglas" Class Suit Over Merger With Sabra
---------------------------------------------------------------
GARY DOUGLAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CARE CAPITAL PROPERTIES, RAYMOND J. LEWIS, DOUGLAS
CROCKER, JOHN L. WORKMAN, JEFFREY A. MALEHORN, RONALD G. GEARY,
DALE ANNE REISS, JOHN S. GATES, Case No. 1:17-cv-04942 (N.D.
Ill., June 30, 2017), alleges that the Defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties and violated the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in connection with the filing of the registration
statement relating to the Company's merger with Sabra Health Care
REIT, Inc.

On May 7, 2017, Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc., and the Company
announced that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger pursuant to which Sabra will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of CCP in an all-stock transaction.
Simultaneous with the subsequent merger, Care Capital Properties,
LP, a Delaware limited partnership, will be merged with and into
Sabra Health Care Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited
partnership .  If consummated, CCP shareholders will receive
1.123 shares of Sabra common stock for each share of CCP common
stock they own.  The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $7.4 billion.

Care Capital Properties is a healthcare real estate investment
trust with a diversified portfolio of triple-net leased
properties, focused on the post-acute sector.  The Company is a
Delaware corporation and maintains its principal offices in
Chicago, Illinois.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

Sabra, a Maryland corporation, operates as a self-administered,
self-managed real estate investment trust that, through its
subsidiaries, owns and invests in real estate serving the
healthcare industry.  Sabra leases properties to tenants and
operators throughout the United States and Canada.  Sabra, PR
Sub, LLC, is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC
          Telephone: (292) 524-4291
          E-mail: Etripodi@zlk.com

               - and -

          Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
          DITOMMASO LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C.
          17W220 22nd Street, Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-0000
          Facsimile: (630) 333-0333
          E-mail: vdt@ditommasolaw.com


CBE GROUP: Illegally Calls Cell Phone Subscribers, Osowiecki Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY OSOWIECKI v. THE CBE GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-02017-
JFM (D. Md., July 19, 2017), alleges illegal placement of calls
by CBE to hundreds, if not thousands, of cell phone subscribers
using an automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or
prerecorded messages, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

CBE is a foreign corporation doing business in Maryland, with its
principal place of business located in Cedar Falls, Iowa.  CBE is
a debt collector that specializes in collecting outstanding
account balances.

CBE used its automated dialers and systems in an alleged
predatory way to call consumers to collect accounts, the
Plaintiff alleges.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex C. Anderson, Esq.
          REX ANDERSON, PC
          9459 Lapeer Rd., Suite 101
          Davison MI 48423
          Telephone: (810) 653-3300
          E-mail: rex@rexandersonpc.net

               - and -

          Nathan Baney, Esq.
          BANEY LAW, P.C.
          2121 Eisenhower Ave., Suite 200
          Alexandria, VA 22314-4688
          Telephone: (571) 303-9102
          E-mail: nathan@baneylaw.com


CENTRAL FAMILY HEALTH: "Oropeza" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage
--------------------------------------------------------
LUZ OROPEZA, an Individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTH CENTRAL FAMILY HEALTH
CENTER, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC670377 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Aug. 2, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages, including full
restitution from Defendants as a result of Defendants' unlawful,
fraudulent and/or unfair business practices in violations of
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, with regard to Defendants' California
based non-exempt, hourly paid current and former employees
Defendants have established a rounding policy which does not
compensate said employees for the time they actually worked and
as a result Defendants have failed to pay all wages due including
overtime wages for all hours worked and failed to pay the
required minimum wage for all hours worked. Further Defendants
have failed to provide uninterrupted 30 minute meal periods;
failed to provide paid rest periods; failed to timely furnish
accurate itemized wage statements; violated Labor Code section
203; and conducted unfair business practices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
          KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC
          9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone (323) 857 5900


CENTRAL NEW YORK PET: Asks Court to Dismiss "Cardella" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants filed with Court on July 10, 2017, motions to
dismiss the lawsuit captioned CARDELLA, JOHN F.; JOHN W. HO;
JOSEPH v. CENTRAL NEW YORK, P.E.T., LLC, et al., Case No.
1901750/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Onondaga Cty.).

The Plaintiffs are John F. Cardella, John W. Ho, Joseph Scrivani,
and Francis Mangiacapra, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated.

The Defendants are Central New York, P.E.T., LLC; Leonard
Hojnowski, Robert Poster, Hal Cohen, Robert J. Botash, Andrij
Wojowycz, Ernest M. Scalzetti, Amar S. Swamkar, Kimball G. Clark
and David H. Feiglin.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth Bobrycki, Esq.
          MELVIN & MELVIN, PLLC
          217 South Salina Street, 7th Floor
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (315) 422-1311
          Facsimile: (315) 479-7612
          E-mail: kbobrycki@melvinlaw.com


CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay OT, Thompson Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN THOMPSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01745 (D. Colo., July 19, 2017), alleges that the Defendant's
failure to pay overtime compensation to each member of the
Plaintiff's proposed collective class violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

CenturyLink is a global communications and IT services company
focused on connecting its customers to the power of the digital
world.  CenturyLink offers network and data systems management,
big data analytics, managed security services, hosting, cloud,
and IT consulting services. The company provides broadband,
voice, video, advanced data and managed network services over a
robust 265,000-route-mile U.S. fiber network and a 360,000-route-
mile international transport network.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          8201 Mission Rd., Suite 250
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 766-5585
          Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
          E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com

               - and -

          Tracey F. George, Esq.
          DAVIS GEORGE MOOK LLC
          1600 Genessee, Suite 328
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Tel: (816) 569-2629
          Fax: (816) 447-3939
          E-mail: tracey@dgmlawyers.com


CENTURYLINK INC: "Heiser" Suit Removed to Arizona District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit titled HEIDI HEISER, an
individual, for herself and as representative of a class of all
those similarly situated v. CENTURYLINK, INC., a Louisiana
corporation; CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; CENTURYLINK SALES SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; GREEN AND WHITE CORPORATIONS I-X; JOHN AND JANE DOES
I-XX, individuals, Case No. CV2017-008928, was removed on July
14, 2017, from the Maricopa County Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02333-DGC to the proceeding.

Ms. Heiser commenced the civil action on June 14, 2017, in
Maricopa County Superior Court.

CL Sales is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Monroe, Louisiana.  CL Communications' sole member is
CenturyLink, Inc. CenturyLink, Inc. is a Louisiana corporation
with its principal place of business in Monroe, Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William A. Richards, Esq.
          Leslie Ross, Esq.
          Austin J. Miller, Esq.
          BASKIN RICHARDS PLC
          2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 812-7979
          Facsimile: (602) 595-7800
          E-mail: brichards@baskinrichards.com
                  lross@baskinrichards.com
                  amiller@baskinrichards.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Alan Doran, Esq.
          Lori Wright Keffer, Esq.
          Lindsay H. S. Hesketh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES SHERMAN & HOWARD L.L.C.
          7033 East Greenway Parkway, Suite 250
          Scottsdale, AZ  85254
          Telephone: (480) 624-2710
          Facsimile: (480) 624-2029
          E-mail: JDoran@ShermanHoward.com
                  LKeffer@ShermanHoward.com
                  LHesketh@ShermanHoward.com


CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Removes "Crummie" Suit to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Crummie v. CertifiedSafety, Inc., Case No.
RG17857851, was removed on July 10, 2017, from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-03892-CW to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related disputes.

Headquartered in League City, Texas, CertifiedSafety, Inc.,
provides skilled safety personnel in specific areas as requested
by clients to provide a consistent level of safety.  The Company
offers safety managers, planners, and auditors to manage, plan,
build, implement, and audit project safety; and general labor
services in the areas of unit cleanup/housekeeping, water/ice-
management and distribution, waste/trash-management and
segregation forklift operation, traffic control/flagging, and
TWIC escorts.[BN]

Plaintiff Tierre Crummie, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          THE AIWAZIAN LAW FIRM
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com

Defendant CertifiedSafety, Inc., an unknown business entity, is
represented by:

          Sophia Behnia, Esq.
          Michelle B. Heverly, Esq.
          Perry Kim Miska, Jr., Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: sbehnia@littler.com
                  mheverly@littler.com
                  pmiska@littler.com

               - and -

          James Michael Cleary, Jr., Esq.
          MARTIN DISIERE JEFFERSON AND WISDOM LLP
          808 Travis, 20th Floor
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 632-1775
          E-mail: cleary@mdjwlaw.com


CHICAGO, IL: "Potek" Suit Sues over Distracted Driving Ordinances
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RABBI AARON POTEK, ADINA KLEIN, and STEPHEN MICHELINI, as
individuals and on behalf of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2017CH10507 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Aug 1,
2017), seeks an award equal to all fines and other amounts
collected or otherwise received by the City for alleged
violations of the Ordinance that were prosecuted through the
Department of Administrative Hearings from January 1, 2010 to the
present day, including pre- and post-judgment interest, and
further grant an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses,
and costs.

According to the complaint, for years, the City of Chicago has
illegally profited from ticketing alleged distracted drivers and
then denying them their right to a day in court. In 2009, the
96th General Assembly of Illinois enacted a statute that forbade
the use of "electronic communications device[s]" while driving.
Drivers who are convicted of violating the Illinois distracted
driving statute are at risk of losing their driver's license.
That is because every time a driver is convicted of violating the
distracted driving statute, the clerk of the relevant traffic
court is required by State law to report that violation to the
Illinois Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may then
revoke or suspend a driver's license. Because a convicted driver
may lose his or her ability to drive, the Illinois distracted
driving statute has a built-in failsafe: alleged violations must
be tried in a State traffic court, before a judge, according to
the Rules of Procedure and Rules of Evidence adopted by the
Illinois General Assembly. By requiring that distracted driving
offenses be adjudicated in a State court, Illinois law literally
guarantees that individuals accused of distracted driving get
their day in court. More than that, they are entitled to a day in
a court presided over by a sworn judge bound by the Rules of
Evidence and Rules of Procedure. Under the Illinois Constitution,
municipalities like the City have the right to pass their own
distracted driving ordinances. Indeed, the Chicago City Council
passed a distracted driving ordinance in 2005 and continuously
amended it thereafter. However, if a municipality's distracted
driving ordinance is similar to the distracted driving statute,
then any alleged ordinance offense must be prosecuted in State
traffic court in the same manner as an alleged offense of the
Statute. The reason for this requirement is clear: persons who
are accused of distracted driving inside Chicago should have the
same rights to defend themselves as people facing the same
accusation outside of Chicago. Since January 1, 2010, the
Ordinance and the Statute have been substantively similar in
every respect. Therefore, the City was required by Illinois law
to prosecute offenses of the Ordinance in State traffic court.
But the City never followed the law. Instead, it purposefully
circumvented the Illinois statutory scheme for prosecuting
alleged distracted driving offenses and reporting offenders.
Rather than send alleged Ordinance violators to State traffic
court, the City misrouted allegedly distracted drivers to the
City's private "administrative" justice system. The reason was
simple: money. For years, the City of Chicago has operated a
private court system, called the DOAH, that it funds and
controls. In this so-called "administrative" system, a driver's
guilt or innocence is determined by an unelected "administrative
law officer" who is literally on the City's payroll. During these
so-called hearings, the rules of evidence do not apply. Accused
drivers have no right to cross-examine the police officer who, in
almost every case, is the only complaining witness. Incredibly,
under the City's private rules of justice, the ticket itself is
prima facie evidence of guilt, even without any corroborating
video or other evidence. In other words, an accusation of guilt
is proof of guilt even without the testimony of the accuser. With
the deck thus stacked in its favor, the City can't lose.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
          Jacie C. Zolna, Esq.
          Benjamin R. Swetland, Esq.
          Jessica C. Chavin, Esq.
          MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES LLC
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372 2100
          E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com
                  jzolna@cherry-law.com
                  bswetland@cherry-law.com
                  jchavin@cherry-law.com


CHICAGO, IL: Wins Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Impounding Penalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting
the City of Chicago's motion to dismiss the case captioned RITA
LINTZERIS, ZARON JOSSELL, and CLARENCE DANIELS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY
OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants, No. 16 CV 09154 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs bring a putative class action against the City of
Chicago and city officials to challenge the imposition of
administrative penalties on impounded vehicle owners under
Chicago municipal code.

Plaintiffs Rita Lintzeris, Zaron Jossell, and Clarence Daniels
each had their car impounded by the City of Chicago and were
required to pay administrative penalties ranging between $2,000
and $4,000 in order to reclaim their vehicles.

In April 2016, Lintzeris's son borrowed her car, was involved in
an accident, and was arrested by Chicago police offers for
allegedly driving while intoxicated and possessing drugs. The
police seized and impounded Lintzeris's car, pursuant to the
Municipal Code of Chicago Section 2-14-132.

Plaintiffs bring a Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. Sedtion
1983, alleging that every impoundment under MCC Section 2-14-132
constitutes a per se unreasonable seizure and that the ordinance
exceeds the legal authority granted to the City by the state of
Illinois and under the U.S. Constitution.

Defendants seek dismissal of this claim, asserting that
impoundment under the ordinance is not an unreasonable seizure
under the Fourth Amendment and that the plaintiffs cannot base a
Fourth Amendment challenge on an alleged state-law violation.

The plaintiffs' objection to the City's imposition of
administrative penalties is not a Fourth Amendment issue about
whether, at the time of seizure, warrantless seizure of their
vehicles was reasonable, the Court held.  Complaints about the
return of property, lawfully seized, do not implicate the Fourth
Amendment.  The plaintiffs' focus on administrative penalties
relates more to post-seizure proceedings.

Plaintiffs cannot explain how their challenge to the post-seizure
procedure process implicates the Fourth Amendment, as the seizure
in Plaintiffs' case and all others under the Ordinances is
complete when the officer or agent seizes and impounds the
vehicle. The Fourth Amendment "cannot be invoked by the
dispossessed owner to regain his property.

The plaintiffs have failed to state a Fourth Amendment facial
challenge to the impoundment ordinances. Count I is dismissed.

The plaintiffs also bring a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
claim under Section 1983, alleging that the City's administrative
law judges will only hear three limited defenses to the
impoundment ordinance, foreclosing plaintiffs' constitutional and
state-law arguments. Plaintiffs also argue that the ordinance's
notice provision does not meet notice requirements under Illinois
Motor Vehicle Code.

Defendants contend that the ordinance's limit on available
defenses does not violate due process and that the plaintiffs
cannot premise a federal due process claim solely on an alleged
violation of state law.

The plaintiffs' state-law arguments are also misplaced. The
requirement of due process is flexible and calls for such
procedural protections as the particular situation demands.
The plaintiffs have entirely failed to develop any argument that
the procedural safeguards under the City's ordinance (including
the opportunity for judicial review) are insufficient due process
protections for impoundment and any corresponding administrative
penalties.

Instead, the plaintiffs emphasize that the City ordinance
violated Illinois law. Even assuming that the City ordinance
violates Illinois law, that allegation is insufficient to state a
federal due process claim. A unit of state or local government
does not violate the federal Constitution just because it
violates a state or local law.

The plaintiffs have failed to argue or allege how the ordinance
violated federal due process requirements, instead premising
their due process claim on the ordinance's failure to comply with
Illinois law. The plaintiffs have failed to state a due process
claim, and Count II is dismissed.

Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available
http://tinyurl.com/yd788h37from Leagle.com.

Rita Lintzeris, Plaintiff, represented by Charles F. Morrissey,
Morrissey & Donahue, LLC, 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 2905,
Chicago, IL 60603

Rita Lintzeris, Plaintiff, represented by Cassie R.S. Stockert,
Morrissey & Donahue, LLC & Darnell Donahue -
ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com -Morrissey & Donhue LLC.

Zaron Jossell, Plaintiff, represented by Charles F. Morrissey,
Morrissey & Donahue, LLC, Cassie R.S. Stockert, 55 E. Monroe
Street, Suite 2905, Chicago, IL 60603,  Morrissey & Donahue, LLC
& Darnell Donahue, Morrissey & Donhue LLC.

Clarence Daniels, Plaintiff, represented by Charles F. Morrissey,
Morrissey & Donahue, LLC, Cassie R.S. Stockert, Morrissey &
Donahue, LLC & Darnell Donahue, Morrissey & Donhue LLC.

City of Chicago, Defendant, represented by David Michael Baron,
City of Chicago, Department of Law, John Lawrence Hendricks, City
Of Chicago Department Of Law & Tara D. Kennedy, City Of Chicago
Department Of Law.

Commissioner Charles L Williams, Defendant, represented by David
Michael Baron, City of Chicago, Department of Law, John Lawrence
Hendricks, City Of Chicago Department Of Law & Tara D. Kennedy,
City Of Chicago Department Of Law.

Director Patricia Jackowiak, Defendant, represented by David
Michael Baron, City of Chicago, Department of Law, John Lawrence
Hendricks, City Of Chicago Department Of Law & Tara D. Kennedy,
City Of Chicago Department Of Law.

Superintendent Eddie Johnson, Defendant, represented by David
Michael Baron, City of Chicago, Department of Law, John Lawrence
Hendricks, City Of Chicago Department Of Law & Tara D. Kennedy,
City Of Chicago Department Of Law.

City of Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings, Defendant,
represented by David Michael Baron, City of Chicago, Department
of Law, John Lawrence Hendricks, City Of Chicago Department Of
Law & Tara D. Kennedy, City Of Chicago Department Of Law.


CLIENT SERVICES: Riley Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Riley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Client Services, Inc., a
Missouri corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02604-LJM-
DML (S.D. Ind., Aug. 2, 2017), seeks to recover damages under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a citizen of the
State of Indiana, residing in the Southern District of Indiana,
from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer
debt, which he allegedly owed to Capital One Bank. The Defendant
acts as a debt collector, and regularly uses the mails and/or the
telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, delinquent consumer
debts, including delinquent consumer debts in the Southern
District of Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


CLUB BALL: Misclassifies & Underpays Dancers, Caswell Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Caswell and Tara Taylor, Individually and Behalf of
Similarly Situated Employees, Plaintiffs, v. Club Ball, LLC,
d/b/a The Ball Gentlemen's Club, The Ball Gentlemen's Club, LLC,
and The Ball Gentlemen's Club, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-
cv-00316, (E.D. Tenn., July 24, 2017), seeks unpaid wages
including minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Tennessee common law.

Plaintiff is a nude dancer who worked for "The Ball," an adult-
oriented nightclub. Defendants do not pay any wages to Plaintiffs
whom they classify as independent contractors. Plaintiffs earn
only from tips from club patrons of which Defendants also take a
cut. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse D. Nelson, Esq.
      Kayla L. Towe, Esq.
      NELSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
      10263 Kingston Pike
      Knoxville, TN 37922
      Tel; (865) 383-1053
      Email: jesse@NLGattorneys.com
             kayla@NLGattorneys.com


COLLATERAL RECOVERY: Misclassifies Camera Car Drivers, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Contreras, Melissa Mikeska, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Collateral Recovery Team, LLC and John
Moul, Defendants, Case 4:17-cv-02284 (S.D. Tex., July 27, 2017)
seeks unpaid regular and overtime compensation due, additional
equal amounts as liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Collateral Recovery employed Plaintiffs as camera car drivers
tasked to drive and detect cars that are being sought for
repossession by financial institutions and others. Camera car
drivers are improperly classified as independent contractors by
Defendants, thus denying them overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hessam Parzivand, Esq.
     THE PARZIVAND LAW FIRM, PLLC
     10701 Corporate Dr., Suite 185
     Stafford, Texas 77477
     Tel: [713] 533-8171
     Fax: [713] 533-8193
     Email: hp@parzfirm.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Court Approves $75K Atty Fees in "Nyby"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of New Jersey, issued
an Opinion granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of
Proposed Settlement in the case captioned ERIK NYBY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-886
(ES)(MAH)(D.N.J.), and awards of costs and attorney's fees.

The Court certifies the class for purposes of settlement, grants
final approval of the proposed settlement, and awards costs,
attorneys' fees, and an incentive award.

Pending before the Court are the following two motions: (1) a
joint motion for final approval of a settlement between Plaintiff
Erik Nyby (Plaintiff) and Defendant Convergent Outsourcing, Inc.
(Defendant), and (2) Class Counsel's motion seeking an award of
reasonable costs, attorneys' fees, and an incentive award,
Plaintiff alleges that Convergent sent him a collection letter
concerning a certain debt owned by Galaxy Asset Purchasing, LLC.
He alleges, however, that the debt Convergent was trying to
collect was barred by New Jersey's statute of limitation and,
therefore, he had no obligation to pay the debt.

The proposed Settlement Agreement provides a Settlement Fund of
$76,500 to be paid by Convergent as set forth in th[e] Agreement
to Settlement Class Members.  Settlement Class Members are those
persons who are members of the Class, and who do not timely and
validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class.

Here, there are over 3,500 individuals in the Settlement Class.
The Court finds that joinder of so many individuals would be
impracticable and the numerosity requirement is therefore
satisfied.

Here, the common contention is the alleged unlawfulness of a form
debt-collection letter. In other words, the claims at issue are
based on the same Letter and concern the same alleged violations
of the FDCPA. The Court finds that the commonality requirement is
satisfied.

Plaintiff alleges the same claims and injury as the Settlement
Class Members receiving the same Letter that allegedly violates
the FDCPA. Accordingly, typicality is satisfied. Plaintiff's
claims are identical to the class claims. They are predicated on
the same legal and factual circumstances.

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that "the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.  Here,
as noted previously, Plaintiff received the same allegedly
unlawful Letter as Settlement Class Members, and no conflicts
with persons in the Settlement Class are apparent to this Court.

Because every class member's claim proceeds from this factual
nucleus, all claims uniformly turn on the question of whether
FDCPA liability flows from Defendants' letters. This question
predominates over any questions related to individuals, and
satisfies the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement.

The Court finds that the class action route is the superior
method here. Nothing suggests that individuals are more likely to
file individual actions or settle and recover on individual
actions. The Court finds that the class action mechanism is the
superior method for bringing the present class members' claims
because it offers prompt relief and averts the undue costs class
members would incur in prosecuting their claims individually.

Class Counsel submits firm time sheets reflecting work billed on
behalf of Plaintiff and the class showing that 203.35 hours were
expended for litigating this action. This excludes (among other
things) time expended for filing the motions now pending before
the Court relating to final approval.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the agreed-upon $70,000 for
fees and expenses is reasonable.

Here, Class Counsel seeks an incentive award of $4,000 for the
time and effort Plaintiff has personally invested in this Action
separate and apart from the Settlement Fund. The Court approves
this incentive award.

First, Plaintiff has been an active participant in this
litigation by conferring with Class Counsel regularly, reviewing
pleadings and documents, and participating in two in-person
settlement conferences. Further, he was deposed concerning his
individual case and fitness to serve as a class representative.
Second, the requested incentive award aligns with others granted
to plaintiffs in FDCPA class action cases.

The Court certifies the class for purposes of settlement,
approves the proposed settlement, approves the requested
attorney's fees and costs, and approves the class representative
incentive award.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017 Opinion
is available http://tinyurl.com/y8ov33qxfrom Leagle.com.

ERIK NYBY, Plaintiff, represented by SOFIA BALILE, LEMBERG LAW,
LLC. 1100 Summer Street, Stamford, CT 06905

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., Defendant, represented by RONALD A.
GILLER -- griller@grsm.com -- GORDON & REES LLP, JOANNA MARIE
DOHERTY -- jmdoherty@grsm.com -- GORDON & REES LLP & MICHAEL
THOMAS MIANO, GORDON & REES LLP.


CREDIT ONE: Faces "Gardner" Suit Over Auto-dialed Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Gardner, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02470 (E.D. Mich., July 24, 2017), seeks to enjoining
Defendant from calling the Plaintiff on her cellular phone,
treble damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant routinely called Plaintiff using an automatic telephone
dialing system to place non-emergency calls without prior express
consent.

Defendant is a national bank headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Rd, Ste. 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Tel: (561) 826-5477
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
      Austin, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 322-3912
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Andrew Campbell, Esq.
      1000 Beach Street, Suite B West Entrance
      Flint, MI 48502
      Phone: (810) 232-4344
      Email: michiganbk@gmail.com


CUSTOM PROTECTIVE: "Harry" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Treyon Harry, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Custom Protective Services LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 156811/2017 (N.Y. Sup., July 28, 2017),
seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees pursuant to the New York Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Custom Protective Services LLC was engaged in the business of
providing security services. Harry was employed for three years
ending on or about April 27, 2017. He was employed by the
Defendant as a security guard. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Tel: (718) 740-1000
      Fax: (718) 740-2000
      Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


ENERNOC INC: Faces "Nelson" Suit Over Tender Offer by Enel Green
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVE NELSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ENERNOC, INC., TIM HEALY, DAVID BREWSTER, KIRK
ARNOLD, JIM BAUM, ARTHUR W. COVIELLO, JR., TJ GLAUTHIER, and GARY
HAROIAN, Case No. 1:17-cv-11324 (D. Mass., July 18, 2017),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in connection with the tender offer by Enel Green Power
North America, Inc. to purchase all of the issued and outstanding
shares of Enernoc common stock for $7.67 per share.

On July 10, 2017, in order to convince Enernoc shareholders to
tender their shares, the Board of Directors authorized the filing
of a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, according to the complaint.

Enernoc is a Delaware corporation and maintains its headquarters
in Andover, Massachusetts.  The Company is a provider of demand
response solutions and energy intelligence software.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
          MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
          18 Grove Street, Suite 5
          Wellesley, MA 02482
          Telephone: (781) 453-0100
          E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: "Brugellis" Disputes Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------
Antonia Brugellis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04371 (E.D.N.Y., July 24, 2017),
seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Plaintiff has a debt incurred on a PayPal credit account,
underwritten by Comenity Capital Bank and eventually assumed by
Enhanced Recovery. Defendant sent Brugellis a collection letter
that failed to disclose that the outstanding debt may increase
due to interest and fees, the Complaint says. FDCPA requires debt
collectors to notify consumers of their account balance. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 203-7600
      Fax: (516) 706-5055
      Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC: Faces "Washington" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WASHINGTON v. ENVIROSOLUTIONS, INC. D/B/A ESI and BOWIE'S,
INC., Case No. 2017 CA 004997 B (D.C. Super. Ct., July 21, 2017),
alleges that the Defendants' pay practices denied minimum and
overtime wages to the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees.

Envirosolutions, Inc., is a Delaware corporate entity with its
principal place of business located in Manassas, Virginia.
Bowie's, Inc. is a District of Columbia corporate entity with its
principal place of business located in Upper Marlboro, Maryland.
Envirosolutions merged with or purchased Bowie's Inc. on
approximately January 4, 2017.

The Defendants have operated a trash collection business in
Washington, DC, for which the Plaintiff has been a trash
collector since 2012.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Zelikovitz, Esq.
          DCWAGELAW
          519 H Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 803-6083
          Facsimile: (202) 683-6102
          E-mail: justin@dcwagelaw.com


EXPERIAN INFO: Peters Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reports
---------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Anne Peters, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01270 (N.D. Ala.,
July 28, 2017) seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs
and such other relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Defendant sells consumer/credit reports to consumers in Alabama.
Experian allegedly delivered inaccurate credit reports about Ms.
Peters to multiple end users thereby resulting in a negative
impact on her credit standing regarding these transactions. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Micah S. Adkins, Esq.
      THE ADKINS FIRM, P.C.
      2 Perimeter Park South, Suite 405E
      Birmingham, AL 35243
      Telephone: (205) 206-6718
      Facsimile: (205) 208-9632
      Email: MicahAdkins@ItsYourCreditReport.com

             - and -

      James A. Francis, Esq.
      John Soumilas, Esq.
      FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
      Land Title Building
      100 South Broad Street, 19th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Tel: (215) 735-8600
      Fax: (215) 940-8000
      Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
             jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com


DAL GLOBAL: "Brulee" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK BRULEE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DAL GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC671003 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 2, 2017),
seeks to recover minimum wages, equitable relief, interest,
restitution, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant alleging
California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices
stemming from Defendants' failure to provide meal periods,
failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to pay
minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked, failure to
reimburse business expenses, failure to timely pay all wages to
terminated employees, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1820
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 232 3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232 3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com


DEL MONTE FOODS: "Dawson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wage under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY DAWSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
DEL MONTE FOODS, INC.; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No.
17CIV03477 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 1, 2017), seeks to recover
penalties under the California Labor Code.

The action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all other
aggrieved employees of Defendants and/or DOES who: worked a shift
of at least five hours without receiving a meal period; worked
four hours, or a major fraction, without receiving a 10 minute
rest break; were not provided accurate itemized wage statements;
were not paid compensation for all time worked at the straight or
overtime rate; and, were not paid waiting time penalties.
Plaintiff seeks penalties on behalf of himself and all other
aggrieved employees of Defendants and/or DOES - as provided
herein. This Complaint also seeks attorneys' fees and costs under
the PAGA, California Labor Code section overtime wages, double
damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and
severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Del Monte is a North American food production and distribution
company headquartered at 3003 Oak Road, Walnut Creek, California,
USA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jill Vecchi, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          Tony Roberts, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048
          E-mail: bturley@turley1awfirm.com
                  dmara@turleylawfirm.com
                  jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com
                  jserb@turleylawfirm.com
                  troberts@turleylawfirm.com


DHI MORTGAGE: "Ahlstrom" Suit Sues Over Missed Breaks, Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. Ahlstrom, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. DHI Mortgage Company GP, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, D.R. Horton, Inc. and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive,, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-04383 (N.D. Cal., August
2, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon,
redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods,
failure to pay agreed-upon commissions, statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code,
Unfair Competition Law, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
in breach of contract.

Defendants employed Plaintiff as a home-based Loan Officer on
Duty, calling customers to avail of their loan services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      Thomas Segal, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
             thomas@setarehlaw.com


DINAMIC SOUND: "Batres" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Bismark A. Batres and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Dinamic Sound on Wheels Inc. and Alfonso Lazaro, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-22798 (S.D. Fla., July 26, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a glass installer from on or
about July 10, 2015 through on or about July 6, 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Butler Sues Over Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Butler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01296 (N.D. Ala., August 2, 2017), seeks actual
and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
such further relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt from
Butler, which he allegedly owed AT&T Mobility. On December 7,
2015, Mr. Butler and his wife filed a bankruptcy petition due to
Mr. Butler's unemployment.  The debt was discharged in Mr.
Butler's bankruptcy. Despite this, on May 4, 2017, AT&T Mobility
sent Mr. Butler a collection letter, demanding payment of the
AT&T Mobility debt he allegedly owed prior to the bankruptcy.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      Email: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com

             - and -

      Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq.
      BOND, BOTES, SYKSTUS, TANNER & EZZELL, P.C.
      225 Pratt Avenue
      Huntsville, AL 35801
      Tel: (256) 539-9899
      Fax: (256) 713-0237
      Email: Rsykstus@bondnbotes.com


DNIB UNWIND: B.E. Capital Files Adversary Class Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
B.E. Capital Management Fund LP, on Behalf of Itself and a Class
of All Similarly Situated Persons, filed an adversary proceeding
for injunctive and declaratory relief against Geoffrey L. Berman,
in his Capacity as Trustee of the Liquidating Trust of DNIB
Unwind, Inc., formerly known as Bind Therapeutics, Inc.

The lawsuit is styled B.E. Capital Management Fund LP, on Behalf
of Itself and a Class of All Similarly Situated Persons v.
Geoffrey L. Berman, in his Capacity as Trustee of the Liquidating
Trust of DNIB Unwind, Inc. (f/k/a Bind Therapeutics, Inc.), Case
No. 17-50882-BLS (D. Del., July 14, 2017).  The case is assigned
to Judge Brendan Linehan Shannon.

The bankruptcy case is titled as In re DNIB UNWIND, INC. (f/k/a
BIND THERAPEUTICS, INC.), et al., Lead Case No. 16-11084 (BLS)
(Bankr. D. Del., May 1, 2016).[BN]

Plaintiff B.E. Capital Management Fund LP, on Behalf of Itself
and a Class of All Similarly Situated Persons, is represented by:

          Julia Bettina Klein, Esq.
          KLEIN LLC
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 600
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 438-0456
          E-mail: klein@kleinllc.com


DOTOMBORI INC: "Donovan" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUN YE DONOVAN and SEAN KIM, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated v. DOTOMBORI, INC., d/b/a YOKO SUSHI,
KI Y IN and MI H IN, Case No. 1:17-cv-00800-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va.,
July 14, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs under the Federal
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dotombori, Inc. is a corporation formed under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia with a principal office location in
Fairfax County, Virginia.  The Individual Defendants are the
primary owners and sole officers of the Company.  The Defendants
operate the Yoko Sushi Restaurant, where the Plaintiffs
worked.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com


DRYSHIPS INC: "Silverberg" Suit Sues over Economou Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
HERBERT SILVERBERG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DRYSHIPS INC., GEORGE
ECONOMOU, ANTHONY KANDYLIDIS, KALANI INVESTMENTS LIMITED,
MURCHINSON LTD. and MARC BISTRICER, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-04547 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2017), seeks remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the compliant, on October 21, 2015, the Company
entered into a secured revolving credit facility of up to $60
million (including a November 2015 amendment) with Sifnos
Shareholders Inc. The Sifnos credit facility also gave the
Company and Economou certain share conversion rights. On December
29, 2015, the Company announced that it would be holding a
special meeting of the Company's shareholders on February 19,
2016, at DryShips' corporate offices in Athens. The next day, on
December 30, 2015, the DryShips Board of Directors elected to
convert $10 million of the outstanding principal of the loan
under the Sifnos credit facility owned by Economou into 100
million shares of DryShips Series B Preferred Stock. Each share
of Series B Preferred Stock was entitled to five votes and was to
be mandatorily converted into common shares of the Company on a
one-to-one basis no later than March 30, 2016. This maneuver
gave Economou effective voting control over the Company when
combined with his beneficial ownership of DryShips common shares,
providing him with approximately 52.7% of the voting power of the
common shares and the Class B Preferred Stock prior to their
conversion.

In early 2016, as doubts rose about the Company's ability to
continue to operate as a going concern following a market
downturn in the dry bulk segment, the price of DryShips stock
declined to less than the $1 per share minimum necessary to keep
the Company's shares listed on the NASDAQ. On February 19, 2016,
under Economou's influence and control, a special meeting of
shareholders approved a proposal to allow the Company to conduct
reverse stock splits in order to keep DryShips' share price above
the $1 per share minimum. A reverse stock split is a process by
which shares of corporate stock are effectively merged to form a
smaller number of proportionally more valuable shares.

On February 26, 2016, DryShips announced that it would effect a
25-for-1 reverse stock split of the Company's common shares. This
reduced the number of DryShips' outstanding common shares from
approximately 672 million shares to approximately 26.9 million
shares, which began trading on a split-adjusted basis on March
11, 2016.

On March 28, 2016, DryShips announced that it had agreed to
increase the maximum available amount under the Sifnos credit
facility to $70 million, extend the maturity of the facility by
12 months, and to cancel Sifnos' option to convert the loan
principal into DryShips common stock. The Series B Preferred
Stock held by Sifnos, which was to convert to Company common
shares on March 30, 2016, was exchanged with DryShips for an
$8.75 million cash payment by the Company.

On April 5, 2016, the Company sold three of its vessels and
associated bank debt to entities controlled by Economou. The sale
reduced the Company's total outstanding bank debt by $102.1
million to $213.7 million. That same day, the Company also agreed
to sell all of its remaining shares in Ocean Rig UDW Inc. -- an
oil rig and drill ship operator that had been previously spun off
from DryShips -- for $49.9 million, which proceeds were used in
part to reduce the outstanding balance of the Sifnos credit
facility.

DryShips is a dry bulk shipping company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631 367 7100
          Facsimile: 631 367 1173

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 279 5050
          Facsimile: (212) 279 3655


DUPONT FABROS: Faces "Canchola" Suit over Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
Daniel Canchola, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dupont Fabros Technology, Inc.,
Lammott J. Dupont, Michael A. Coke, Thomas D. Eckert, Frederic V.
Malek, John T. Roberts, Jr., John H. Toole, Christopher P.
Eldredge, Mary M. Styer, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01481
(D.C., July 24, 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 proposed merger
between DuPont and affiliates of Digital Realty Trust, Inc.,
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 such further relief under the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934.

Each share of common stock of DuPont will be converted into 0.545
shares of Digital Realty Trust common stock for a transaction
valued at approximately $7.6 billion in enterprise value.
Plaintiff alleges that the merger amount is inadequate in light
of the Company's recent financial performance and prospects for
future growth.

DuPont is a real estate investment trust that owns, acquires,
develops and operates wholesale data centers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, D.C. 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121


DUPONT FABROS: Faces "Lawrence" Suit over Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
William Lawrence, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dupont Fabros Technology, Inc.,
Lammott J. Dupont, Michael A. Coke, Thomas D. Eckert, Frederic V.
Malek, John T. Roberts, Jr., John H. Toole, Christopher P.
Eldredge, Mary M. Styer, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01481
(D.C., July 24, 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 proposed merger
between DuPont and affiliates of Digital Realty Trust, Inc.,
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 such further relief under the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934.

Each share of common stock of DuPont will be converted into 0.545
shares of Digital Realty Trust common stock for a transaction
valued at approximately $7.6 billion in enterprise value.
Plaintiff alleges that the merger amount is inadequate in light
of the Company's recent financial performance and prospects for
future growth.

DuPont is a real estate investment trust that owns, acquires,
develops and operates wholesale data centers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New Yor006B, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, D.C. 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121


DUPONT FABROS: Scarantino Sues Over Acquisition by Digital Realty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. DUPONT FABROS TECHNOLOGY, INC., DUPONT
FABROS TECHNOLOGY, L.P., LAMMOTT J. DUPONT, MICHAEL A. COKE,
THOMAS D. ECKERT, FREDERIC V. MALEK, JOHN T. ROBERTS, JR., JOHN
H. TOOLE, CHRISTOPHER P. ELDREDGE, MARY M. STYER, DIGITAL REALTY
TRUST, INC., DIGITAL REALTY TRUST, L.P., PENGUINS REIT SUB, LLC,
PENGUINS OP SUB, LLC, and PENGUINS OP SUB 2, LLC, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01428 (D.D.C., July 18, 2017), alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a proposed
sale.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 9,
2017, pursuant to which DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc. ("DFT")
and DuPont Fabros Technology, L.P. ("DFT OP") will be acquired by
Digital Realty Trust, Inc. ("Parent") and its direct and indirect
subsidiaries, Penguins REIT Sub, LLC, Digital Realty Trust, L.P.,
Penguins OP Sub 2, LLC, and Penguins OP Sub, LLC.

On June 8, 2017, DuPont's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Digital
Realty.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, (i) each
share of DFT common stock will convert into the right to receive
0.545 shares of Parent common stock and (ii) each share of 6.625%
DFT Series C preferred stock will convert into the right to
receive one share of a newly designated class of preferred stock
of Parent with substantially similar rights, privileges, and
preferences as the DFT Series C preferred stock.

DFT is a Maryland corporation and maintains its principal
executive office in Washington, D.C.  DFT is a real estate
investment trust that owns, acquires, develops and operates
wholesale data centers.  DFT is the sole general partner of DFT
OP, and, as of December 31, 2016, DFT owned 84.9% of the common
economic interest in DFT OP.  DFT OP is a Maryland limited
partnership and maintains its principal executive office in
Washington, D.C.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

Parent is a Maryland corporation and a party to the Merger
Agreement.  Penguins REIT Sub, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent, is a Maryland corporation and a party to the Merger
Agreement.  Digital Realty Trust, L.P., a subsidiary of Parent,
is a Maryland limited partnership and a party to the Merger
Agreement.  Penguins OP Sub 2, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Digital Realty Trust, L.P., is a Maryland limited liability
company and a party to the Merger Agreement.  Penguins OP Sub,
LLC, a subsidiary of Realty Trust, L.P. and Penguins OP Sub 2,
LLC, is a Maryland limited liability company and a party to the
Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
          Washington, D.C. 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 450-2582
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


ELITE GUARD: Santanelli Challenges Failure to Pay OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
COLIN SANTANELLI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ELITE GUARD, INC., a Florida For Profit Corporation,
Case No. 2017-015899-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., June
30, 2017), challenges the Defendant's alleged Fair Labor
Standards Act violations, including its policies and practices of
failing to pay full and proper overtime compensation.

Elite Guard is a Florida Profit Corporation that operates and
conducts business in, among other places, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.  Elite Guard provides security services throughout
Miami-Dade and Broward County to residential, commercial and
industrial properties.  The Company is based in Sunny Isles
Beach, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Celler, Esq.
          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (866) 344-9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: Richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com
                  noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


ENERNOC INC: Violates Securities Laws Over Merger, Basch Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE BASCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ENERNOC INC., KIRK ARNOLD, JAMES BAUM, DAVID
BREWSTER, ARTHUR COVIELLO, TJ GLAUTHIER, GARY HAROIAN, TIMOTHY G.
HEALY, Case No. 1:17-cv-11305 (D. Mass., July 14, 2017), accuses
the Defendants of violating the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 relating to a proposed merger.

On June 22, 2017, EnerNOC issued a press release announcing that
they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June
21, 2017, by which Enel SpA's subsidiary, Enel Green Power North
America, Inc. ("Parent"), through Parent's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Pine Merger Sub, Inc. ("Purchaser," and collectively
with Enel SpA and Parent, "Enel") would commence a tender offer
to acquire all of the outstanding shares of EnerNOC common stock
for $7.67 per share in cash.  The transaction between EnerNOC and
Enel (the "Proposed Transaction") has an enterprise value of over
$300 million.

EnerNOC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Delaware and maintains principal executive offices
in Boston, Massachusetts.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

EnerNOC is a leading provider of energy intelligence software and
demand response solutions to electric power grid operators,
enterprises, and utilities.

Relevant non-party Purchaser is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.  Relevant non-
party Parent is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Delaware and is a subsidiary of Enel Green
Power SpA.  Relevant non-party Enel Green is a corporation
organized as a societa per azioni under the laws of Italy.  Enel
Green is a subsidiary of Enel, which is also a corporation
organized as a societa per azioni under the laws of Italy.

Enel is a manufacturer and distributor of electricity and gas
that operates in approximately 30 countries and has over 60
million customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
          MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
          18 Grove Street, Suite 5
          Wellesley, MA 02482
          Telephone: (781) 453-0100
          E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

               - and -

          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) 337-1567
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com


EXPRESS WASTE: Milian Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages and OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAZARO E. MILIAN and other similarly-situated individuals v.
EXPRESS WASTE OF MIAMI, INC. a/k/a EXPRESS PORTABLE, and JUAN C.
DAPENA, individually, Case No. 1:17-cv-22461-JEM (S.D. Fla., July
1, 2017), is brought to recover from the Defendants minimum wages
and overtime compensation, retaliatory damages, liquidated
damages, and the costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the
provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Express Waste of Miami, Inc., also known as Express Portable, is
a Florida corporation, having a place of business in Miami-Dade
County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked for the Company.
Juan C. Dapena is the owner/president/and manager of Express
Portable.  The Company is a provider for portable toilet
rentals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FAIR COLLECTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collections Act, Garner Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA GARNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FAIR COLLECTIONS & OUTSOURCING, INC., Case
No. 4:17-cv-01994 (E.D. Mo., July 18, 2017), is brought to secure
redress against the Defendants for alleged unlawful collection
practices that violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Fair Collections & Outsourcing, Inc., is a Maryland corporation
with its principal offices in Beltsville, Maryland.  The Company
does business as a debt collector in Missouri, among other
places.  Defendant is registered with the state of Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan D. Sturycz, Esq.
          STURYCZ LAW GROUP
          100 N. Main, Suite 11
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (877) 314-3223
          Facsimile: (314) 667-2733
          E-mail: nathan@sturyczlaw.com


FDS BANK: Faces "Hines" Suit over Robocalls
-------------------------------------------
SHAWN HINES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FDS BANK, and DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL BANK, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02704-ELR (N.D. Ga., July 18, 2017), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
initiating non-emergency telephone calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system to cellular telephone numbers without
the prior express consent of the subscribers of those cellular
telephone numbers.

FDS Bank is a national bank with its headquarters in Mason, Ohio.
Department Stores National Bank is a national bank with its
headquarters in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          2374 Main Street, Suite B
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Telephone: (404) 373-1970
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
          Kris Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          133 Mirramont Lake Drive
          Woodstock, GA 30189
          Telephone: (770) 427-5600
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  krisskaar@aol.com

               - and -

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com


FIRSTMED AMBULANCE: Tejero Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE TEJERO, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIRSTMED
AMBULANCE SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC669704 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Aug. 1, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages owed,
under Labor Code, and an additional hour of pay owed under Labor
Code.

This is a putative class action brought against Defendant for (i)
failing to pay overtime wages at the lawful rate of pay for all
work performed; (ii) failing to provide duty-free meal breaks;
(iii) failing to provide duty-free rest periods; (iv) failing to
pay all owed wages each and every pay period; (v) failing to pay
all owed wages upon termination or resignation of employment;
and, (vi) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements as
mandated under the California Labor Code.

FIRSTMED Ambulance provides basic life support, critical care
transport, and respiratory transport services in the greater Los
Angeles area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander I. Dychter, Esq.
          DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
          1010 Second Ave., Suite 1835
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 487 0777
          Facsimile: (619) 330 1827
          E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com

               - and -

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          Website: www.bamlawca.com
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232


FLOWERS FOODS: Watts Challenges Misclassification of Distributors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN WATTS, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC. and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF TYLER,
LLC, Case No. 6:17-cv-00424 (E.D. Tex., July 21, 2017),
challenges both the classification of distributors as independent
contractors and the Defendants' denial to the Plaintiff and the
Class of the rights, obligations, privileges and benefits owed to
them as employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Flowers Foods, Inc., is a Georgia corporation with its principal
place of business in Thomasville, Georgia.  Flowers Foods is a
corporation whose business consists of distributing bakery and
snack food products to retail customers, using a centralized
network of communication, distribution, and warehousing
facilities integrating Class members into that existing network
of operations.

Flowers Baking Co. of Tyler, LLC, is a Texas limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Tyler, Texas, and
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Flowers Foods, Inc.  One of
Flowers Foods' bakeries and several of its warehouses are
operated by Flowers Baking Co. of Tyler.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
          KENNARD LAW, P.C.
          2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
          E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com


FRANK ROGERS: "Hatcher" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Hatcher, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Frank A. Rogers & Co., Inc. and Edward
Scoggins, Case No. 3:17-cv-00190 (E.D. Ark., July 27, 2017),
seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for failing to pay proper
minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Frank A. Rogers & Co., Inc. provides general contractor services
where Hatcher was employed as a construction worker. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stacy Gibson, Esq.
      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
      Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: stacy@sanfordlawfirm.com
             josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Faces "Hanford" Suit for FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY HANFORD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. FRANKLIN COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., Case No.
4:17-cv-02005 (E.D. Mo., July 18, 2017), seeks to secure redress
against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful collection
practices that violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act
and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

Franklin Collection Service, Inc., is a foreign corporation with
its primary offices located in Tupelo, Mississippi.  The Company
is engaged in the business of a collection agency, using the
mails and telephone to collect consumer debts originally owed to
others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan D. Sturycz, Esq.
          STURYCZ LAW GROUP
          100 N. Main, Suite 11
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (877) 314-3223
          Facsimile: (314) 667-2733
          E-mail: nathan@sturyczlaw.com


FUN & FUN: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO RODRIGUEZ, Individually and Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FUN & FUN TOYS, INC. and
LONG MA, the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02345 (S.D. Tex., Aug 1,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the FLSA by
employing Rodriguez and other similarly situated nonexempt
employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing
to compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of [forty]
hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular
rate at which [they are or were] employed." The Defendants
violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time
and pay records for Rodriguez and other similarly situated
nonexempt employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222 6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222 6739


GC SERVICES LP: Green Sues Over Ambiguous Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kayla Green, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Owners
Resource Group and GC GP Buyer, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-
cv-314, (E.D. Tenn., July 24, 2017), seeks statutory damages,
costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt from
Green, which she allegedly owes from a Synchrony Bank/AEO credit
card account. GC sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff that
allows only a written dispute of the debt in question despite
FDCPA provision on allowing multiple venues for disputing a debt,
the Complaint says.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, Illinois 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      Email: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com

             - and -

      Cynthia T. Lawson, Esq.
      Heather Banks, Esq.
      BOND, BOTES & LAWSON, P.C.
      6704 Watermour Way
      Knoxville, TN 37912
      Tel: (865) 938-0733
      Fax: (865) 938-7931
      Email: cynthialawson@bbllawgroup.com
             heatherbanks@bbllawgroup.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Kleszynski" Suit Transferred to E.D. Mich.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Robert Kleszynski, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. General Motors Company,
Daniel F. Akerson, Mary T. Barra, Daniel Ammann, and Charles K.
Stevens III, Case No. 1:17-cv-03213 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2017),
was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on August 7, 2017, and assigned Case
No. 2:17-cv-12565, according to a docket entry dated August 8,
2017.

The action alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that: (1) the Company installed three
distinct defeat devices in over 700,000 trucks with Duramax
diesel engines from 2011 to 2016 to beat emissions tests in the
U.S.; (2) in turn, these trucks emit up to five times the legal
limit of nitrogen oxide pollutants; and (3) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GEO GROUP: Florida Court Dismisses "Bryant" Suit
------------------------------------------------
Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned ERIK BRYANT,
Plaintiff, v. GEO GROUP INC., MIKE CARROLL, GEORGE ZOLEY, KRISTIN
KANNER, DONALD SAWYER, CHRIS CATRON, WILLIAM PRICE and REBECCA
JACKSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-72-FtM-38CM (M.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff, who is civilly committed at the Florida Civil
Commitment Center ("FCCC") under Florida's Sexual Violent
Predator's Act, Florida Statute Section 394.910-.913 ("SVP Act"),
initiated this action as one of 19 Plaintiffs by filing a 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 sealed Class Action Complaint.  On Jan. 28,
2016, the Court entered an order dismissing the class action,
without prejudice, under section 1915 and declining to certify a
class.  However, the Court allowed each Plaintiff an opportunity
to file an Amended Complaint no later than Feb. 29, 2016.  The
Plaintiff timely filed a motion for an enlargement of time, which
the Court granted.  He then timely filed an Amended Complaint.

Prior to directing him to complete service of process forms, the
Court reviewed his Amended Complaint under section 1915 and
entered an order of partial dismissal.  In particular, the Court
dismissed one of the Named Defendants, Brian Masony, because the
Amended Complaint contained no factual allegations whatsoever as
to Masony, and the First Amendment interference to access to
court claim finding failure to state a claim.

Although far from the model of clarity, the Amended Complaint
generally challenges the SVP Act and argues that the SVP Act is
unconstitutional and suggests ways the Florida legislators could
improve the SVP Act.  The Plaintiff also makes vague and non-
specific allegations regarding the treatment provided to various
"class members" at the FCCC and avers that the Named Defendants
are liable in their individual capacities for adhering to the
unconstitutional statutes.  The Amended Complaint alleges that
Florida's SVP Act is not narrowly tailored.

In a requested relief section, the Plaintiff requests in
pertinent part that substantial changes be made to Florida's sex
offender civil commitment scheme, and $2 million dollars in
punitive and compensatory damages.  The Defendants move to
dismiss arguing that the Amended Complaint violates Rules 8 and
10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  In support, they
point to substantially similar civil actions raising similar
claims.

Judge Chappell explains that the legislature's intent in creating
Florida's SVP Act was to create a civil commitment procedure for
the long-term care and treatment of sexually violent predators.
The SVP Act's primary purpose is to protect the public and treat
sexually violent predators.  These purposes are entirely
rationally related to a legitimate state interest.  Any assertion
that Florida's SVP Act targets the male gender with respect to
anything other than the proclivity of some males to be sexually
violent predators is untenable.  If a woman is determined to be a
sexually violent predator, the clear terms of the Florida's SVP
Act would apply to her as well.  To imply that the Florida
Legislature passed the statutes in order to fulfill a
discriminatory animus it harbors against men is speculative and
implausible.  Furthermore, given the gender neutral language in
Florida's SVP Act, Judge Chappell says the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint rests on a legal conclusion, i.e. the statutes (and the
Defendants) do not apply the same standards to female sex
offenders, but he provides no facts in support thereof.
Therefore, the Plaintiff has not stated an equal protection
claim, and his equal protection claim is dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Accordingly, Judge Chappell granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed for
failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and for
failure to comply with Rules Eight and Ten of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.  With no remaining defendants or claims in
the action, she directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all
pending motions, enter judgment in favor of the Defendants, and
close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/dq30km from Leagle.com.

Erik Bryant, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Donald Sawyer, Defendant, represented by Gregory A. Kummerlen,
Wiederhold, Moses, Kummerlen & Waronicki, PA.

Chris Catron, Defendant, represented by Gregory A. Kummerlen,
Wiederhold, Moses, Kummerlen & Waronicki, PA.

William Price, Defendant, represented by Gregory A. Kummerlen,
Wiederhold, Moses, Kummerlen & Waronicki, PA.

Rebecca Jackson, Defendant, represented by Gregory A. Kummerlen,
Wiederhold, Moses, Kummerlen & Waronicki, PA.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Greene" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JEREMY GREENE and CETARIA WILKERSON, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GERBER PRODUCTS CO., d/b/a Nestle Nutrition,
Nestle Infant Nutrition or Nestle Nutrition North America,
Defendant. WENDY MANEMEIT, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GERBER PRODUCTS CO., d/b/a
Nestle Nutrition, Nestle Infant Nutrition or Nestle Nutrition
North America, Defendant, Nos. 16-CV-1153 (MKB), 17-CV-93 (MKB)(
E.D. N.Y.), Judge Margo K. Brodie of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (i) declined to dismiss or stay
the Greene Complaint pursuant to the primary jurisdiction
doctrine; (ii) granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Greene Plaintiffs' claims under the OCSPA and ODTPA; (iii) denied
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Greene Plaintiffs' claims
under the NCDTPA; (iv) denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the claims brought pursuant to sections 349 and 350 of the GBL;
(v) granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the unjust
enrichment claims; (vi) denied the Defendant's motion to strike
the nationwide class allegations; and (vii) denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the fraudulent concealment,
intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation
claims.

The Greene Plaintiffs commenced a putative class action on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated against the
Defendant on March 8, 2016.  Several months later, on Jan. 6,
2017, Plaintiff Manemeit commenced a nearly identical putative
class action on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and against the same Defendant.  The Greene Plaintiffs
allege violations of (i) the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
("OCSPA"), (ii) the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ODTPA"),
and (iii) the North Carolina Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("NCDTPA").  Manemeit alleges violations of sections 349 and 350
of New York's General Business Law ("GBL").  The Plaintiffs also
bring common-law claims for fraudulent concealment, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and unjust
enrichment, based on the Defendant's advertising and marketing of
its "Good Start" line of the Infant Formula.  They Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendant's advertising and marketing
misrepresent that its Infant Formula reduces the risk that
infants will develop allergies, and also misrepresent that the
Infant Formula is the first and only infant formula that the Food
and Drug Administration endorses to reduce the risk of infants
developing allergies.  The Plaintiffs seek actual, statutory and
punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement, and injunctive
relief.

The Defendant moves to dismiss or stay the Greene action, only,
pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine.  It also moves to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, strike the
nationwide class allegations and dismiss the Greene Complaint and
the Manemeit Complaint pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Court consolidates the
Greene and Manemeit actions for purposes of deciding this motion.

In weighing the factors relevant to the primary jurisdiction
doctrine in Hasemann v. Gerber Prods. Co., Judge Brodie
determined that only the fact that the FDA has discretion to
regulate the Infant Formula weighs in favor of applying the
primary jurisdiction doctrine, and this factor alone is
insufficient to support such an outcome.  Thus, she denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss or stay the Greene action pursuant
to the primary jurisdiction doctrine.

She is not persuaded that consent judgments reflect a court's
determination that an act or practice violated the OCSPA.
Indeed, as the Charvat court noted, a consent judgment typically
is not a judgment on the merits, but a contract between the
parties that the court reduces to a judgment.  Accordingly, the
Judge finds that the consent judgments that the Greene Plaintiffs
rely on as having provided prior notice under the OCSPA do not
satisfy the notice prerequisite.  She therefore dismissed the
Plaintiffs' OCSPA claim.

The Greene Plaintiffs have failed to present persuasive evidence
that the Ohio Supreme Court would consider this issue differently
than the Ohio Court of Appeals, particularly in view of several
Ohio Supreme Court decisions that have recognized the substantial
similarity between the ODTPA and the Lanham Act, Judge Brodie
explains.  Accordingly, she adopts the view of the Ohio Court of
Appeals and the majority of district courts to consider the
issue, and holds that the ODTPA does not confer standing upon
consumers.  She therefore dismissed the Plaintiffs' ODTPA claim.

Judge Brodie finds that the Greene Plaintiffs have identified the
representations that they allege are false and misleading
pursuant to Rule 9(b) and have pled that those representations
were material with requisite particularity.  She therefore denied
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Greene Plaintiffs' NCDTPA
claim.

As to the Manemeit Complaint, the Judge denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the claims brought pursuant to sections 349 and
350 of the GBL.  She says the Defendant cannot obtain safe harbor
under sections 349 or 350 because it has not argued that the FDA
2011 Letter constitutes a "rule" or "regulation" under the safe
harbor provisions and, even if the FDA 2011 Letter did constitute
a "rule" or "regulation," the parties dispute whether Defendant
complied with the FDA 2011 Letter.

As to the Greene and Manemeit Complaints, Judge Brodie finds that
the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief.
Therefore the Defendant's motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment
claims is granted.  She explains that it is not clear that the
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim would survive dismissal of
their other common-law claims, and their arguments fail to
persuade her that the unjust enrichment claim is not duplicative
of those claims.

Because it has not demonstrated that it would be futile to allow
Plaintiffs to conduct discovery or that the Plaintiffs' theory
for class certification is simply foreclosed, Judge Brodie denied
the Defendant's motion to strike the class allegations.  And
lastly, because the Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to
support either the theory that the Defendant made a partial or
ambiguous statement or that the Defendant possessed superior
knowledge, not readily available to the Plaintiffs, and knew that
the Plaintiffs were acting on the basis of mistaken knowledge,
she denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the fraudulent
concealment, intentional misrepresentation and negligent
misrepresentation claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2017 memorandum and order
is available at https://is.gd/alctvh from Leagle.com.

Jeremy Greene, Plaintiff, represented by Brett H. Cebulash --
bcebulash@tcllaw.com -- Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP.

Jeremy Greene, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Lechtzin --
elechtzin@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, PC, George Volney Granade,
II, Reese LLP, John A. Yanchunis, Morgan & Morgan Complex
Litigation Group, Kevin S. Landau -- klandau@tcllaw.com -- Taus,
Cebulash & Landau, LLP, Michael Robert Reese, Reese LLP, Sarah R.
Schalman-Bergen -- sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- Berger & Montague,
pro hac vice, Shanon J. Carson -- carson@bm.net -- Berger &
Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, E. Michelle Drake -- emdrake@bm.net
-- Berger & Montague PC, pro hac vice, Marisa Kendra Glassman,
Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group & Miles Greaves, Taus
Cebulash & Landau LLP.

Cetaria Wilkerson, Plaintiff, represented by Brett H. Cebulash,
Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP, Eric Lechtzin, Berger & Montague,
PC, George Volney Granade, II, Reese LLP, John A. Yanchunis,
Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Kevin S. Landau, Taus,
Cebulash & Landau, LLP, Michael Robert Reese, Reese LLP, Sarah R.
Schalman-Bergen, Berger & Montague, pro hac vice, Shanon J.
Carson, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, E. Michelle Drake,
Berger & Montague PC, pro hac vice, Marisa Kendra Glassman,
Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group & Miles Greaves, Taus
Cebulash & Landau LLP.

Gerber Products Co., Defendant, represented by Geoffrey White
Castello, III -- gcastello@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren
LLP & Jaclyn Marie Metzinger -- jmetzinger@kelleydrye.com --
Kelly Drye & Warren LLP.


GIGLIONE ACKERMAN: Misclassifies Agents, "Warren" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
KURT WARREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE GIGLIONE ACKERMAN AGENCY LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY; ERIC GIGLIONE; and DAVID ACKERMAN, Case No. 17-1979
(Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., June 30, 2017), is brought on
behalf of all similarly situated agents, who provided services
for GAALLC and who were misclassified as independent contractors.

GAALLC is a foreign limited liability company that has offices in
Foxborough and Attleboro, Massachusetts.  The Individual
Defendants are residents of New Jersey, who manage, oversee,
direct, or have authority over the hiring and firing, training,
scheduling, and compensation practices or policies of GAALLC.
GAALLC markets or sells individual life and supplemental health
insurance policies to individuals or families in Massachusetts,
among other locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brook S. Lane, Esq.
          Stephen Churchill, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          E-mail: brook@fairworklaw.com
                  steve@fairworklaw.com


GLADES PARTS: "Barohona" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Illegal Deductions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Barohona, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Glades Parts Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-22764
(S.D. Fla., July 25, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is in the auto-parts business. Barohona was employed at
the Defendant's store at 500 W. 83rd Street, Hialeah, FL 33014.
According to the complaint, Defendant deducted a portion of the
plaintiff's wages as a "loan." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Bouvatte, Jr., Esq.
      CONROY SIMBERG
      3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Second Floor
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Tel: (954) 961-1400
      Fax: (954) 518-1252
      Email: rbouvatte@conroysimberg.com


GODIVA AMERICAN: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM J. REYES JR. and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), the Plaintiff v. GODIVA AMERICAN, CORP., d/b/a
PIACERE NEWS & CAFE and SANTA FE NEWS AND ESPRESSO, ALEJANDRO
SCOLNIK, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22894-MGC
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 1, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for
unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

On March 2012, the Plaintiff began his employment with Godiva
American working as a coffee attendant at Piacere News & Cafe.
Plaintiff worked in this coffee shop approximately until
September 30, 2015, or 3 years plus 6 months. The relevant period
of employment for this period is 63 weeks. While working at
Piacere News & Cafe, Plaintiff worked in low season (May, June
July August, September, and October) 40 hours or less, but during
high season (November, December, January, March, and April)
Plaintiff worked up to 6, and 7 days per week, an average of 75
hours per week. Plaintiff was paid the minimum wage, plus tips.
The Plaintiff was paid 40 hours with paystubs, and the remaining
overtime hours were paid strictly in cash, at his regular rate.
The Plaintiff was required to work many hours over 40 in a
workweek without receiving extra payment for overtime hours at
the rate of time and a half his regular rate, as required by the
FLSA. For this period Plaintiff is owed half-time overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40, during high season, or 24 weeks.

Godiva American is a retail business operating coffee shops and
restaurants. Defendant operates Piacere News & Cafe located at
19575 Biscayne Blvd. Aventura, Florida 33180. The Defendant also
operates Santa Fe News and Espresso located at 9700 Collins
Avenue, Suite No. 243 Bal Harbour, 33154. These coffee shops
offer coffee, breakfast, wine, and beers as well as salads,
sandwiches, desserts, etc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33157
          Telephone: (305) 446 1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446 1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


GOODYEAR TIRE: "Quenga" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP QUENGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff v.
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; and DOES 1-100, the
Defendants, Case No. BC670686 (Cal Super. Ct., Aug. 1, 2017),
seeks to recover penalties, attorneys' fees and costs under
California Labor Code and Private Attorney General Act.

According to the complaint, the action is brought on behalf of
Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees of Defendants
and/or DOES who: worked a shift of at least five hours without
receiving a meal period; worked four hours, or a major fraction,
without receiving ten minute rest break; were not provided
accurate itemized wage statements; were not paid compensation for
all time worked at the straight or overtime rate; and, were not
paid waiting time penalties. The Plaintiff seeks penalties on
behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees of
Defendants.

Goodyear Tire is an American multinational tire manufacturing
company founded in 1898 by Frank Seiberling and based in Akron,
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jill Vecchi, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          Tony Roberts, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: 619 234 2833
          Facsimile: 619 234 4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
                  dmara@turleylawfirm.com
                  jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com
                  jserb@turleylawfirm.com
                  troberts@turleylawfirm.com


GUARDNOW INC: "Wagnac" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
SOFIA WAGNAC, NASER DAYERI, ACTHARUS JOSEPH, LEVY JOLY, LASHYLA
COMMINGS, KEVIN VEGA, FEDELINE LEGROS, on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GUARDNOW, INC,
and MIKE KATOR, the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-01419-PGB-GJK
(M.D. Fla., Aug. 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, and declaratory relief under Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs reported their work
hours by clocking in and out at the job site and filing out a
time log sheet. The Defendants issued paychecks to some of the
Plaintiffs, however, the checks bounced. The Plaintiffs were
harmed numerous ways, including by having to pay fee for the
bounced check. On other occasions, the Defendants never issued
any paychecks to the Plaintiffs for their work.

GuardNow is a full service security guard provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karina Xart McMahon, Esq.
          WILSON MCCOY, P.A.
          711 N. Orlando Ave., Suite 202
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Telephone: (407) 803 5400
          Facsimile: (407) 803 4617
          E-mail: nmcoy@wilsonnmcoylaw.com


HABITAT COMPANY: Unpaid Overtime Sought in "Lard" Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Lard, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. The Habitat Company of Alabama, LLC and
The Habitat Company LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01290 (N.D.
Ala., August 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, attorney fees, prejudgment interest, costs, expenses and
all other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant manages the properties located in Jefferson and Shelby
County, Alabama where Plaintiff worked as a maintenance
supervisor. Said properties were allegedly understaffed and Lard
regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week and not being
paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Harwell, Esq.
      HARWELL LAW FIRM LLC
      109 Foothills Parkway #112
      Chelsea, AL 35043
      Tel: (205) 999-1099
      Email: Scott@HarwellLaw.com


HABITAT COMPANY: "Snyder" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Snyder, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, v. The Habitat Company of Alabama, LLC
And The Habitat Company LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01292-KOB (N.D. Ala., Aug. 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, pre-judgment interest,
costs, expenses and all other damages that the Plaintiff is
entitled to under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant managed several apartment properties in Jefferson
and/or Shelby County, Alabama. The Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees worked at one of the properties located in
Jefferson and/or Shelby County, Alabama.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a leasing
consultant/agent while employed by the Defendants and was paid an
hourly rate as a "non-exempt" employee. The Defendants had a
strict policy that the Defendants' non-exempt office employees
were not to work overtime without approval. The non-exempt
employees were instructed, per management, that employees would
be fired if they worked overtime without going through a process
to have overtime approved. The Defendants knew, through local
managers and the nature of the business, that they were
understaffed and that the Plaintiff and similarly situated non-
exempt "office" employees (leasing consultants, leasing
"managers," assistant "managers," etc.,) had to work "off the
clock" by coming in early, staying late and/or working on
weekends. The employees were advised that they would be fired if
they worked overtime without obtaining authorization and
permission from management. Because the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees' jobs required more than 40 hours to
do properly and to avoid being written up and/or terminated for
not doing their job properly, the Plaintiff and other "office"
employees would consistently and repeatedly work "off the clock"
by coming in early, staying late and working on weekends.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Harwell, Esq.
          HARWELL LAW FIRM LLC
          109 Foothills Parkway No. 112
          Chelsea, AL 35043
          Telephone: (205) 999 1099
          E-mail: Scott@HarwellLaw.com


HAM FARMS: Lopez Seeks to Recover Wages for Seasonal Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
ADAN LOPEZ, FRANCISCO MENDEZ, EZEQUIEL ABURTO-HERNANDEZ, ELENA
RAFAEL-PERALTA, JOSE PABLO SANDOVAL-MONTALVO, and JOSE JIMENEZ-
OLIVAREZ, ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ-MENDEZ, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated persons v. HAM FARMS, LLC f/k/a HAM
FARMS, INC., HAM PRODUCE, LLC f/k/a HAM PRODUCE COMPANY, INC.,
ISMAEL PACHECO, PACHECO CONTRACTORS, INC., HUGO MARTINEZ,
GUTIERREZ HARVESTING, LLC, ROBERTO TORRES-LOPEZ, 5 G HARVESTING,
LLC, RODRIGO GUTIERREZ-TAPIA, SR., and CIRILA GARCIA-PINEDA, Case
No. 5:17-cv-00329-D (E.D.N.C., June 30, 2017), is brought by the
Plaintiffs to pursue claims for alleged promised but unpaid wages
at the overtime and the minimum rate required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Defendants' failure to pay all wages when
due and other related violations of the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the North Carolina Wage
and Hour Act.

Ham Farms, LLC, formerly known as Ham Farms, Inc., is a limited
liability company organized under the laws of the state of North
Carolina.  Ham Produce, LLC, formerly known as Ham Produce, Inc.,
is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the
state of North Carolina.  Produce, LLC operated a sweet potato
packing house in or near Greene County, North Carolina, in which
Produce, LLC employed or jointly employed workers to process and
pack sweet potatoes that had been grown by some person or
business entity other than Produce, LLC and Farms, LLC.

At all times relevant to the action, planting, harvesting, and
packing sweet potatoes was and is an integral part of the
business of growing, marketing, and selling sweet potatoes that
Defendants Farms, LLC and/or Produce, LLC have operated and
continue to operate.

Gutierrez Harvesting, LLC, is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the state of Florida.  5 G
Harvesting, LLC, is a limited liability company organized under
the laws of the state of Florida.  The Individual Defendants are
owners, directors, officers or employees of the Corporate
Defendants.

Pacheco Contractors, Inc., is a corporation organized under the
laws of the state of North Carolina.  Pacheco, Inc. and Ismael
were farm labor contractors, who were paid a fee to furnish and
perform at least one other farm labor contracting activity in
connection with migrant agricultural workers, who performed
"corresponding employment" and other work hand harvesting sweet
potatoes for and in fields owned or controlled by Farms, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Willis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1828
          488 Thompson Street
          Pittsboro, NC 27312
          Telephone: (919) 821-9031
          Facsimile: (919) 821-1763
          E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com


HAT WORLD: "Ward" Labor Suit Goes to S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------
Venue of the case, Matthew Ward, on behalf of himself
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated current or
former employees, Plaintiff, v. Hat World Inc., Case No.
1:172:17-cv-00781 (W.D. Wash., July 12, 2017), was transferred to
the U .S. District Court of the Southern District of Indiana
under Case No. 1:17-cv-02557 on July 31, 2017.

Ward seeks redress for Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marina Visan, Esq.
      Todd W. Wyatt, Esq.
      CARSON & NOEL PLLC
      20 Sixth Avenue Northeast
      Issaquah, WA 98027
      Tel: (425) 837-4717

             - and -

      Scott J. McKay, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT MCKAY
      6523 California Ave. SW
      Seattle, WA 98136
      Tel: (206) 992-5466

Defendant is represented by:

      James Raymond Morrison, Esq.
      Curt Roy Hineline, Esq.
      BAKER HOSTETLER LLP (WA)
      999 3RD AVE., STE 3600
      SEATTLE, WA 98104
      Tel: (206) 332-1380
      Fax: (206) 624-7317


HEAVEN ENTERTAINMENT: Cruz Seeks Minimum Pay, Overtime & Tips
-------------------------------------------------------------
Krystal Cruz and Savonna Crum, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Heaven Entertainment, Inc.,
George Stoupas and any other related entities, Defendants, Case
No. 607568/2017 (N.Y. Sup., July 28, 2017), seeks to recover
compensation, including unpaid wages and tips owed, plus
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate adult entertainment establishments in New
York, including the facility operating under the name Heaven
Entertainment, Inc., Heavens or Club Heaven located at 28-26
Steinway Street, Astoria, NY 11103. Defendants allegedly engaged
in improperly deducting fines, fees and miscellaneous surcharges
from their employees' wages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Laura R. reznick, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550
      Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
             jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com


HINKLIN ENERGY: Pressure Washers Misclassified, Martinez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hinklin Energy Services,
Tsunami Rig Wash, LLC and James Hasty, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00721 (W.D. Tex., August 1, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation due, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Martinez works as a pressure washers by Hinklin Energy at their
Midland/Odessa oilfield areas. He claims to be misclassified as
an independent contractor, thus denied minimum wage, overtime
compensation, family and medical leave and unemployment
insurance. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
      1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
      Southlake, TX 76092-4322
      Tel: (817) 416-5060
      Fax: (817) 416-5062
      Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com


HOMESIDE FINANCIAL: "Cunningham" Suit Hits Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Cunningham, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Homeside Financial, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02088 (D. Md., July 25, 2017), seeks damages and such
other and further relief under the consumer-privacy provisions of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is a provider of mortgage lending services. Homeside
Financial, LLC placed telemarketing calls to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number for the purposes of advertising its services
using an automated dialing system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
      Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
      MURRAY MURPHY MOUL & BASIL LLP
      1114 Dublin Road
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel: (614) 488-0400
      Fax: (614) 488-0401
      Email: murphy@mmmb.com
             misny@mmmb.com

             - and -

      Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
      99 High St., Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (508) 221-1510
      Email: anthony@broderick-law.com

             - and -

      Stephen H. Ring, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN H. RING P.C.
      9901 Belward Campus Drive, Suite 175
      Rockville, Maryland 20850
      Tel: (301) 563-9249
      Fax: (3010 563-9639
      Email: shr@ringlaw.us


HP INC: "Jackson" Suit Alleges Racial and Age Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jackson, Enoh I. Enoh and William Murrell, for and on
behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-04212, (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2017),
seeks back pay, front pay and other monetary relief,
compensatory, nominal, liquidated damages, exemplary and punitive
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and such other and further relief
resulting from intentional discrimination on the basis of race
under the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

Plaintiffs are African-American, above 40 years of age, employees
of HP, Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company who allege
racial discrimination in determining lay-offs and promotions.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee D. Winston, Esq.
      Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
      Winston Cooks, LLC
      505 20th Street North, Suite 815
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 502-0970
      Facsimile: (205) 278-5876
      Email: lwinston@winstoncooks.com
             rcooks@winstoncooks.com

             - and -

      Jay Greene, Esq.
      THE GREENE LAW FIRM
      595 Market Street, Suite 680
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 905-0215
      Email: jay@jaygreenelawfirm.com


HUMANA MEDICAL: Crosswinds Rehab Suit Hits Withheld Interest
------------------------------------------------------------
Crosswinds Rehab Inc., LLC d/b/a Crosswinds Health and
Rehabilitation Center, 1780 Golden, LLC d/b/a Cross Pointe Care
Center, 206 Golden, LLC d/b/a The Crossroads, 1351 Golden, LLC
d/b/a Cross Terrace Rehabilitation Center, Cross Landings Inc,
LLC d/b/a Cross Landings Health and Rehabilitation Center, BGI
Retirement, LLC f/d/b/a Crossbreeze Care Center, 1755 Golden, LLC
d/b/a Crossbreeze Care Center, Cross Gardens Care Center, LLC
f/d/b/a Cross Gardens Care Center, 190 Golden, LLC d/b/a Cross
Gardens Care Center, and Saints 120, LLC d/b/a Cross Care Center,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Humana Medical Plan, Inc., American Eldercare,
Inc., United Healthcare of Florida, Inc., Coventry Healthcare of
Florida, Inc., Molina Healthcare of Florida, Inc., Sunshine State
Health Plan, Inc. and Amerigroup Florida, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-22918 (S.D. Fla., August 2, 2017), is a class action
that challenges Defendants' systematic business practice of
illegally withholding interest owed on overdue payments to
Medicaid providers who have delivered healthcare services to the
Defendants' plan subscribers.

Plaintiffs are Skilled Nursing Facilities that provide healthcare
services to elders and individuals with disabilities, relying on
the prompt payment of Medicaid funds from Defendants for their
healthcare services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
      Gail A. McQuilkin, Esq.
      Michael R. Lorigas, Esq.
      KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
      2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 372-1800
      Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
      Email: amm@kttlaw.com
             gam@kttlaw.com
             mlorigas@kttlaw.com

             - and -

      Allan A. Joseph, Esq.
      Christopher M. David, Esq.
      Michael B. Kornhauser, Esq.
      FUERST ITTLEMAN DAVID & JOSEPH
      1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Suite 3112
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 350-5690
      Facsimile: (305) 371-8989
      Email: ajoseph@fuerstlaw.com
             cdavid@fuerstlaw.com
             mkornhauser@fuerstlaw.com


IL FORNAIO: "Trahan" Suit Seeks Unpaid Compensation under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK TRAHAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) CORPORATION; and DOES 1-100, the Defendant,
Case No. BC670759 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 1, 2017), seeks to
recover penalties under the California Labor Code.

The action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all other
aggrieved employees of Defendants and/or DOES who: worked a shift
of at least five hours without receiving a meal period; worked
four hours, or a major fraction thereof, without receiving a 10
minute rest break; were not provided accurate itemized wage
statements; were not paid compensation for all time worked at the
straight or overtime rate; and, were not paid waiting time
penalties. Plaintiff seeks penalties on behalf of himself and all
other aggrieved employees of Defendants and/or DOES.

Il Fornaio is a chain of 23 Italian-themed fine dining
restaurants operating primarily in California in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jill Vecchi, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          Tony Roberts, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
                  dmara@turleylawfirm.com
                  jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com
                  jserb@turleylawfirm.com
                  troberts@turleylawfirm.com


ILLINOIS: Court Narrows Inmates' Civil Rights Claims in "Lacour"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Southern District of Illinois,
issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and dismissing in
part Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in the case captioned
BUSTER LOUIS LACOUR, #R21786, Plaintiff, v. T. DUCKWORTH, SAM
HENNRICH, D. CRAIN, CHARLES FRICKE, ZACHARY HARVEY, ILLINOIS
DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, MAJOR EBONIE,
and LT. MENDOZA, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00453-NJR (S.D.
Ill.).

According to the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff was beaten by
prison guards at Menard.  The officials allegedly attempted to
cover up their misconduct by charging Plaintiff with numerous
prison rule violations and punishing him with disciplinary
segregation.  He now claims that they conspired to violate his
rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and
Illinois state law.

The Court has reorganized the claims in Plaintiff's pro se First
Amended Complaint into the following enumerated counts:

   * Count 1 -- Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against
Ebonie, Fricke, and Crain for beating Plaintiff.  Plaintiff
alleges that he was beaten by these defendants. He was in
compliance with orders to "cuff up. Count 1 is subject to further
review against Ebonie, Fricke, and Crain. Because no other
defendants are named in connection with this claim, Count 1 shall
be dismissed with prejudice against the other named defendants.

   * Count 2 -- Eighth Amendment claim against Duckworth, Harvey,
and Hennrich for failing to intervene and protect Plaintiff as he
was beaten by prison officials.  Plaintiff alleges that
Duckworth, Harvey, and Hennrich were present while Ebonie,
Fricke, and Crain beat him. They stood by and watched as all
three officers used excessive force against Plaintiff. These
allegations support an Eighth Amendment failure to intervene
claim against Duckworth, Harvey, and Hennrich. Because no other
defendants are named in connection with this claim, Count 2 shall
be dismissed with prejudice against the other named defendants.

   * Count 3 -- Eighth Amendment claim against Ebonie, Fricke,
Crain, Duckworth, Harvey, and Hennrich for failing to ensure that
Plaintiff received medical care for the injuries he sustained.
These allegations, construed liberally in favor of Plaintiff for
screening purposes, satisfy the objective and subjective
components of this claim against all six defendants who were
aware of his injuries and his lack of medical treatment for them.
Accordingly, Count 3 shall receive further review against them.
No other defendants are named in connection with this claim, so
it shall be dismissed with prejudice against Mendoza, the IDOC,
and Menard.

   * Count 4 -- Eighth Amendment claim against Ebonie, Fricke,
Crain, Duckworth, Harvey, and Hennrich for ignoring Plaintiff's
request for a crisis team.  The First Amended Complaint also
suggests that Plaintiff repeatedly requested intervention by the
crisis team during his encounter with Ebonie, Fricke, Crain,
Duckworth, Harvey, and Hennrich. Whether these defendants took
reasonable steps to address Plaintiff's pleas for help remains to
be seen.  At this stage, Count 4 shall receive further review
against all six defendants. This claim shall be dismissed with
prejudice against Mendoza, the IDOC, and Menard.

   * Count 5 -- Claim against Defendants for placing Plaintiff,
who is a seriously mentally ill (SMI) inmate, in segregation for
prolonged periods of time without privileges or access to out-of-
cell time, in violation of the First Amendment.  The First
Amended Complaint offers insufficient allegations to state an
Eighth Amendment claim for unconstitutional conditions of
confinement and does not suggest that any of the defendants
exhibited deliberate indifference to the conditions. Plaintiff
does not even allege that he complained to them about the
conditions. Count 5 shall be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

   * Count 6 -- Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendment claim against
Defendants for removing Plaintiff from SMI status.  The First
Amended Complaint does not indicate who was involved in the
decision to change Plaintiff's SMI status with a hearing where he
was present. Without further development of this claim, including
the names of defendants associated with this decision, Count 6
cannot proceed against anyone. This claim shall be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.

   * Count 7 -- Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for
depriving Plaintiff of a protected liberty interest without due
process of law by punishing him with three months of segregation
for three disciplinary tickets he received.  Absent any
suggestion that Plaintiff was deprived of a protected liberty
interest without due process of law, the Court finds no basis for
a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against the defendants.
Accordingly, Count 7 shall be dismissed without prejudice against
the defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.

   * Count 8 -- First Amendment retaliation claim against
Defendants for harassing Plaintiff, interfering with his personal
mail, interfering with his ability to file an amended complaint,
and shaking down his cell.  Plaintiff fails to name any
defendants in connection with this specific conduct. He also
offers no indication that these allegedly retaliatory acts were
motivated by his decision to exercise his First Amendments
rights. Under the circumstances, the First Amended Complaint
fails to state a claim of retaliation against the defendants and
shall therefore be dismissed without prejudice.

   * Count 9 -- Conspiracy claim against Defendants under 42
U.S.C. Section 1985 or the common law.  In the First Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the Ebonie, Crain, Fricke, Harvey,
Duckworth, and Hennrich all conspired to violate his rights under
the Eighth Amendment and suggests that they worked together to
cover up their misconduct. The common law conspiracy claim shall
receive further review against these defendants.  However, the
common law claim is dismissed without prejudice against Mendoza,
who was not involved in the March 15th incident and whose later
involvement is not described with sufficient detail to implicate
this defendant in the conspiracy. The claim is dismissed with
prejudice against the IDOC and Menard because these defendants
are not persons who are subject to suit under Section 1983.

   * Count 10 -- Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants
for mishandling Plaintiff's grievances, by denying access to
them, disposing of them, ignoring them, and/or denying them.
The mishandling of grievances gives rise to no independent
Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. The Constitution requires
no procedure at all, and the failure of state prison officials to
follow their own procedures does not, of itself, violate the
Constitution.  Count 10 shall therefore be dismissed with
prejudice against all of the defendants for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.

   * Count 11 -- Illinois state law claims against Defendants for
the intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The Court
finds that the allegations support a claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress against Ebonie, Fricke, Crain,
Duckworth, Harvey, and Hennrich, the six defendants who were
involved in the incidents.  Count 10 shall therefore receive
further review against these defendants. However, this claim
shall be dismissed with prejudice against all other defendants
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

   * Count 12 -- Illinois state law claim for indemnification
against the Illinois Department of Corrections and Menard
Correctional Center.  The Eleventh Amendment immunizes the State,
its agencies, and its officials acting in their official
capacities from a suit in federal court for money damages. the
State's decision to indemnify its employees does not transform a
suit against individual defendants into a suit against the
sovereign. Under such circumstances, the doctrine of sovereign
immunity does not bar Plaintiff's claims.  At this early stage,
the indemnification claim against the IDOC shall proceed. This
claim shall be dismissed with prejudice against all other
defendants, including Menard.

The Court ordered that Counts 5, 6, 7, and 8 are dismissed
without prejudice and Court 10 is dismissed with prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

With respect to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11 and 12, the Clerk of
Court is directed to prepare for Defendants DUCKWORTH, HENNRICH,
CRAIN, FRICKE, HARVEY, EBONIE, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, and WARDEN of MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER: (1) Form 5
(Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons),
and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons).

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available http://tinyurl.com/yc4pxuh7
from Leagle.com.

Buster Louis Lacour, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


INSIGHT GLOBAL: Must Reply to Interrogatories in "Barker"
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOHN BARKER, Plaintiff, v. INSIGHT GLOBAL,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-07186-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, denied the
Defendants' motion for relief from a non-dispositive order issued
by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd, which granted the
Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to interrogatories and
requests for production relating to class action allegations.

The Plaintiff was an employee of Insight, a staffing services
company specializing in placing people in IT, accounting, and
finance positions.  Barker was the head of Insight's San
Francisco/San Jose office when Insight terminated him "for cause"
on Oct. 26, 2016.  He then obtained new employment with Beacon
Hill Staffing Group, LLC, an Insight competitor.  In the
complaint, Barker alleges that Insight failed to pay him certain
compensation and seeks a declaration that certain provisions of
his employment agreement with Insight are unlawful and void.
With respect to the latter claim, he seeks class action relief on
behalf of other Insight employees who were subject to the same or
similar agreement provisions.  He filed his class certification
motion on June 20, 2017, set for hearing in November 2017.

Before the Court is the Defendants' motion for relief from
Magistrate Lloyd's Order, granting the Plaintiff's motion to
compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production
relating to class action allegations.

Back in March 2017, Barker propounded to Insight interrogatories
and requests for production of documents, in hopes of obtaining
contact information on the putative class members among other
discovery.  Insight objected to these discovery requests.  On
July 18, 2017, Magistrate Lloyd granted Barker's motion to compel
the class discovery at issue.

In filing this Motion for relief, Insight requests the Court to
modify Magistrate Judge Lloyd's Order in two respects.  First, it
asks that the Order be modified to require an "Opt-Out" notice
prior to the production of personally-identifying information of
putative class members.  Second, it requests the Court to narrow
the scope of information requested by Interrogatories 4 and 5,
and Document Request 71.

With regard to the request for an "Opt-Out" process, Judge
Freeman recognizes that Judge Lloyd did not analyze in detail the
holdings of Belaire-W. Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court, the
Magistrate and the cases that relied on it, as pointed out by
Insight.  However, the Magistrate Judge's decision not to impose
an "Opt-Out" process requirement fell well within his discretion
and was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.  Turning to
Insight's request to narrow the scope of certain discovery
requests that are purportedly overbroad, this argument was not
properly raised before Magistrate Lloyd, and there is no
explanation for why it was not presented to him.  Judge Freeman
needs not, and ordinarily should not address arguments raised for
the first time in a motion for relief from a magistrate judge's
order.  Therefore, she declined to consider the request to narrow
the scope of Interrogatories 4 and 5, and Document Request 71.
Accordingly, Judge Freeman denied the motion for relief from
Magistrate Judge Lloyd's order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/kwwWGL from Leagle.com.

John Barker, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin I. Fink --
bfink@bfvlaw.com -- Berman Fink Van Horn P.C., pro hac vice.

John Barker, Plaintiff, represented by Tyler Mark Paetkau --
tyler.paetkau@procopio.com -- Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves &
Savitch LLP.

Insight Global, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher Carl
Marquardt -- chris.marquardt@alston.com -- Alston Bird LLP, pro
hac vice, Jeremy Matthew Mittman -- jmittman@proskauer.com --
Proskauer Rose LLP & Isabella Pei-Ying Lee --
isabella.lee@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP, pro hac vice.

Insight Global, LLC 2013 Incentive Unit Plan, Defendant,
represented by Christopher Carl Marquardt, Alston Bird LLP,
Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and Bird LLP, Jeremy Matthew
Mittman, Proskauer Rose LLP & Tyler Mark Paetkau, Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP.

Insight Global, LLC, Counter-claimant, represented by Christopher
Carl Marquardt, Alston Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy Matthew
Mittman, Proskauer Rose LLP & Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and
Bird LLP, pro hac vice.

John Barker, Counter-defendant, represented by Benjamin I. Fink,
Berman Fink Van Horn P.C., pro hac vice, Charles John Smith, III,
Law Offices of Charles J. Smith III, Olga Savage, Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP & Tyler Mark Paetkau, Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP.

Insight Global, LLC, Counter-claimant, represented by Christopher
Carl Marquardt, Alston Bird LLP, Jeremy Matthew Mittman,
Proskauer Rose LLP & Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and Bird LLP.

John Barker, Counter-defendant, represented by Benjamin I. Fink,
Berman Fink Van Horn P.C., pro hac vice, Charles John Smith, III,
Law Offices of Charles J. Smith III, Olga Savage, Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP & Tyler Mark Paetkau, Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP.


INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS: Shanawaz Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Shanawaz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Intellipharmaceutics
International Inc., Isa Odidi and Domenic Della Penna,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05761, (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2017),
seeks compensatory damages including interest thereon, reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel
fees and expert fees, extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive
relief and such other and further relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Intellipharmaceutics is a pharmaceutical company specializing in
the research, development and manufacture of novel and generic
controlled-release and targeted-release oral solid dosage drugs.
Its main product is Rexista, an abuse-deterrent oxycodone
hydrochloride extended release tablets. Rexista is prescribed for
severe pain management.

Defendants failed to disclose that it failed to conduct a human
abuse liability study to support the Rexista new drug
application, that did not include abuse-deterrent studies related
to the drug including oral, intra-nasal and intravenous routes.
On this news, the company's share price declined from $2.50 per
share of Intellipharmaceutics stock on July 26, 2017, to close at
$1.36 per share on July 27, 2017, a drop of approximately 45.6%.
[BN]

Plaintiffs is represented by:

     Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
     Adam M. Apton, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (212) 363-7171
     Email: nporritt@zlk.com
            aapton@zlk.com


INYO COUNTY, CA: Wagner Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA WAGNER and HEATHER LIND, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals v. COUNTY OF INYO, Case No. 1:17-
at-00558 (E.D. Cal., July 20, 2017), is brought pursuant to the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover alleged
unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon,
liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees.

County of Inyo is a political subdivision of the state of
California, and employed the Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David E. Mastagni, Esq.
          Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
          Ace T. Tate, Esq.
          Ian B. Sangster, Esq.
          MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1912 "I" Street
          Sacramento, CA 95811
          Telephone: (916) 446-4692
          Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
          E-mail: dmastagni@mastagni.com
                  istevens@mastagni.com
                  atate@mastagni.com
                  isangster@mastagni.com


JASHI INC: Anderson Hits No Timekeeping, Seeks Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Francisco Duran-Gomez, on behalf of himself and all other
Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v.
Jashi, Inc., an Illinois corporation and Nirav C. Patel, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05603 (N.D. Ill., August
1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jashi operates as "Pizza of River Grove," a restaurant located at
8342 Grand Avenue in River Grove, Illinois where Plaintiff worked
as a cook, food preparer and dishwasher.  Plaintiff claims to
have worked more than 40 hours in a workweek and was not paid
overtime compensation. Defendants allegedly do not maintain
accurate payroll records. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
     NOLAN LAW OFFICE
     53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Tel: (312) 322-1100
     Fax: (312) 322-1106
     Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com


JAVAR CORP: Cruz Seeks Minimum Pay, Unpaid Overtime & Tips
----------------------------------------------------------
Krystal Cruz, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Aces NYC, Javar Corp., Dimitri Baylis and any other
related entities, Defendants, Case No. 607567/2017 (N.Y. Sup.,
July 28, 2017), seeks to recover compensation, including unpaid
wages and tips owed, plus liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate adult entertainment establishments in New
York, including the facility operating under the name "Aces NYC"
located at 32-10 37th Ave., Long Island City, NY 11101.
Defendants allegedly engaged in improperly deducting fines, fees
and miscellaneous surcharges from their employees' wages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      Laura R. Reznick, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550
      Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com


JOHN AGUILAR: Faces "Zurilgen" Class Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Zurilgen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. John Aguilar & Company, Inc., dba Vernon
Transportation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2017-0006803 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 30, 2017), arises from issues
relating to employment.

The case is assigned to Judge Elizabeth Humphreys.

The Case Management Conference is set for January 2, 2018, at
8:45 a.m.

John Aguilar & Company, Inc., doing business as Vernon
Transportation, was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Stockton, California.  The Company's line of business includes
providing trucking or transfer services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell St., Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Powers" Class Suit over Background Checks
----------------------------------------------------------------
TINA POWERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-01462-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal., July 19,
2017), alleges that the Defendant willfully violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act when it accessed the contents of the
Plaintiff's credit file.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
is a national banking association incorporated in New York with
its principal place of business in Newark, Delaware.  The
Defendant operates branches in 23 states in the United States.

The Defendant is a "furnisher of information" as described in 15
U.S.C. Section 1681s-2 because it regularly furnishes information
to Equifax Inc. and other consumer reporting agencies about its
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Brittany C. Casola, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                  bcasola@carlsonlynch.com


JR JONES: Violates FLSA & Minnesota Wage Laws, "Acker" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ACKER, JOSEPH APPELDORN, JASON DIEDERICH, TODD GIRODAT, JEFF
HAHN, JOHN HAYES, DEAN PICHE, PHILIP WEBER, and CONSTANTINOS
ZOUMIDES v. J.R. JONES FIXTURE CO., DOUGLAS J. JONES, ERIC JONES,
and BRIAN MANDLER, Case No. 0:17-cv-02896-PJS-FLN (D. Minn., July
14, 2017), is a purported class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Minnesota wage
law and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.

J.R. Jones Fixture Co. is a Minnesota company with its principal
place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  The
Company manufactures and markets wooden fixtures and millwork.
The Company's products include wooden cupboards, cabinets,
shelves, doors, and windows.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Burt Johnson, Esq.
          NORTH CENTRAL STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS
          700 Olive Street
          St. Paul, MN 55130
          Telephone: (651) 379-0202
          Facsimile: (651) 379-0292
          E-mail: bajohnson@ncsrcc.org

               - and -

          Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq.
          Erin F. Medeiros, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 West Wisconsin Ave, Suite 100 MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
          E-mail: nde@previant.com
                  efm@previant.com


KS INDUSTRIES: Ct. Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Esparza"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RICHARD ESPARZA, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. KS INDUSTRIES, L.P., Defendant and Appellant, No. F072597
(Cal. App.), Judge Donald R. Franson, Jr., of the U.S. Court of
Appeals of California for the Fifth District affirmed trial
court's order insofar as it denies arbitration of the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") representative claims
seeking civil penalties that are paid, in whole or in part, to
the Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

In February 2015, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the
Defendant as an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself and other
current and former aggrieved employees.  The complaint stated the
lawsuit was a representative action brought pursuant to the PAGA
for violations of 16 sections of the Labor Code.  The violations
were based on allegations that KS Industries failed to (i) pay
minimum and overtime wages, (ii) provide meal periods and rest
breaks, (iii) pay wages in a timely manner, (iv) provide complete
and accurate wage statements, and (v) reimburse business
expenses.

In March 2015, the Employee filed a first amended complaint,
which is the operative pleading in this lawsuit.  The amended
complaint continued to list the same 16 sections of the Labor
Code, asserted essentially the same failures by KS Industries,
and presented a single cause of action for violation of PAGA.
The amended complaint also alleged written notice of KS
Industries' alleged violations of the Labor Code had been
provided to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency in
February and the 33-day notice period had expired on March 24,
2015, without the Labor and Workforce Development Agency
responding to the notice.

As to damages, the amended complaint alleged that the Plaintiffs
was entitled to recover unpaid wages, civil penalties, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs as well as statutory penalties for each
aggrieved employee calculated on the number of pay periods in
which a violation occurred.  The Employee also alleged the right
to recover an amount sufficient to recover unpaid wages under
Labor Code Section 558 and under Labor Code Section 1197.1.

In July 2015, KS Industries filed a motion to compel arbitration
and stay the proceedings.  In August 2015, the trial court held a
hearing on the motion to compel.  The Oct. 1, 2015, a written
ruling denied the motion to compel, denied the request for a stay
of proceedings, and struck the words "statutory penalties" from
paragraph 30 of the amended complaint "based on Employee's
contention that he only seeks PAGA civil penalties and no
individual damages."  KS Industries then appealed.

The Defendant contends the trial court's failure to order
arbitration of some of the claims violated the Federal
Arbitration Act because those claims sought individualized (i.e.,
victim-specific) relief and were covered by the parties'
arbitration agreement.  It contends the rule adopted in Iskanian
v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles prevents the arbitration of
claims only in representative actions that seek "civil
penalties," a term of art that is limited to monetary relief
allocated 75% to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and
25 to the aggrieved employees.  In its view, "civil penalties" do
not include unpaid wages payable solely to the aggrieved
employee.

Applying the foregoing interpretation of the Iskanian rule and
its term of art, civil penalties, to this litigation, Judge
Franson concludes that some of the claims the Employee is
pursuing are PAGA representative claims that seek civil
penalties.  He explains that under the Iskanian rule, those
claims are not subject to arbitration.  His analysis does not end
with that conclusion because the Employee intended to pursue
private claims for victim-specific relief, such as claims to
recover wages under Labor Code section 558.  The Iskanian rule
does not exempt such claims from arbitration.  This intention was
based on the Employee's misinterpretation of the Federal
Arbitration Act, the PAGA and Iskanian.  Before this litigation
proceeds, the Employee will be required to clearly state whether
he will continue to pursue the claims to recover wages under
Labor Code section 558 that are subject to arbitration.

Judge Franson therefore affirmed the order insofar as it denies
arbitration of the PAGA representative claims seeking civil
penalties that are paid, in whole or in part, to the Labor and
Workforce Development Agency.  He directed the trial court to
conduct further proceedings to determine the Plaintiff's
intention with respect to the pursuit of other claims and, after
his intentions are made clear, to enter an order that is
consistent with the Judge's opinion.  The parties will bear their
own costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/JloqCd from Leagle.com.

Call & Jensen, John T. Egley -- jegley@calljensen.com -- and
Jamin S. Soderstrom -- JSoderstrom@calljensen.com -- for
Defendant and Appellant.

Justice Law Corporation, Douglas Han -- dhan@justicelawcorp.com -
- Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh and Daniel J. Park --
dpark@justicelawcorp.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent.


LAKESIDE MEDICAL: "Collins" Sues Over Illegally Faxed Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
Tim Collins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lakeside Medical LLC and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendant, Case 2:17-cv-05511 (C.D. Cal., July 25,
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.

Lakeside Medical LLC is a marketer of medical billing services.
It sent Plaintiff faxed advertisements to his fax machine without
prior express consent. [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


LAURA FISHER: Accused by Caulfield of Misclassifying Agents
-----------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK CAULFIELD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LAURA FISHER & ASSOCIATES, LLC; LAURA FISHER, Case
No. 17-1983 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., June 30, 2017), is
brought on behalf of all agents, who provided services for LFA
and who were misclassified as independent contractors within the
relevant limitations periods.

LFA is a Massachusetts limited liability company that has offices
in Burlington, Massachusetts.  Laura Fisher manages, oversees,
directs, or has authority over the hiring and firing, training,
scheduling, and compensation practices or policies of LFA.  LFA
markets or sells individual life and supplemental health
insurance policies to individuals or families in Massachusetts,
among other locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brook S. Lane, Esq.
          Stephen Churchill, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          E-mail: brook@fairworklaw.com
                  steve@fairworklaw.com


LINCARE INC: Court Decertifies Class in "Culley" Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHRISTINA CULLEY, Plaintiff, v. LINCARE
INC.; ALPHA RESPIRATORY INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants,
No. 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England,
Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Second Motion for Summary Judgment ("Second MSJ"), granted the
Defendants' Motion to Decertify, and denied the Defendants'
Motion to Exclude and the Motion to Strike.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a Healthcare Specialist
from September 2010 through September 2015.  The Plaintiff worked
as a non-exempt employee and claims she was entitled to overtime
pay and meal and rest breaks.  Defendant Lincare paid her on an
hourly basis, and she received a bonus as additional
compensation.  In addition to eight-hour shifts, she was also
expected to be on-call certain evenings and weekends to handle
customer issues that cropped up outside regular business hours.

The Plaintiff originally initiated this action in state court on
Oct. 21, 2014, alleging various violations of the California
Labor Code, and Defendants subsequently removed the case here.
On Jan. 21, 2016, she Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC") to include her Private Attorney General Act claims.

On Aug. 10, 2016, the Court certified the Plaintiff's two
proposed classes, defined as (an) all individuals who are or
previously were employed by the Defendants as nonexempt employees
during Oct. 21, 2010, to the present, for (i) failure to pay
overtime wages under the UCL and California Labor Code section
510 (the overtime claim), and (ii) failure to put in place a
lawful meal period policy applicable up to the change in policy
occurring in October 2014 under the UCL (the meal period claim),
and (b) a subclass of Healthcare Specialist and Service
Representative employees for failure to pay reporting time wages
under the UCL (the reporting time claim).

Judge England granted the Defendants' Motion to Decertify.  The
suit will proceed on the Plaintiff's remaining claims on an
individual basis only.  He also granted the Defendants' Second
MSJ regarding the Plaintiff's damages model for her meal period
claim.  Their damages model is insufficient to proceed on her
meal period claim on a classwide basis.  The Defendants' Second
MSJ is denied as moot regarding the Plaintiff's overtime claim.
In light of decertification, Judge England does not address the
adequacy of wages paid to employees other than the Plaintiff.  He
granted in part the Defendants' Second MSJ regarding waiting time
penalties.  In light of decertification, Judge England does not
address whether this suit cut off the waiting time penalties
available to the absent class members.  However, he says, the
Plaintiff's filing of the suit in state court on Oct. 21, 2014,
cut off their ability to obtain waiting time penalties for
herself as of that date.  The Defendants' Second MSJ is denied as
premature regarding to the constitutionality of any waiting time
penalties the Plaintiff may be entitled to.

The Judge finds that simply because "simple arithmetic" analysis
of employee time records can constitute helpful expert testimony,
it does not necessary follow that all "simple arithmetic"
analysis of employee time records constitutes expert testimony
subject to the dictates of Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Accordingly, he denied the Defendants' Motion to Strike.

With respect to the Defendants' Motion to Exclude, Judge England
finds the motion premature.  And to the extent Defendants filed
the Motion to Exclude in support of their Second MSJ and Motion
to Decertify, he denied as moot the Defendants' Motion to Exclude
since the challenged opinions have no impact on the Court's
analysis.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2017 memorandum and order
is available at https://is.gd/rCc3JC from Leagle.com.

Christina Culley, Plaintiff, represented by Norman Blumenthal --
norm@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, LLP.

Christina Culley, Plaintiff, represented by Aparajit Bhowmik --
aj@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Ruchira Piya
Mukherjee -- piya@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik & Victoria Bree Rivapalacio -- victoria@bamlawca.com --
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Lincare Inc., Defendant, represented by David Cheng --
dcheng@fordharrison.com -- Ford Harrison LLP, Todd S. Aidman --
taidman@fordharrison.com -- Ford Harrison LLP, pro hac vice,
Alexandria M. Witte -- awitte@fordharrison.com -- Ford Harrison
LLP & Daniel Benjamin Chammas, Ford Harrison LLP.

Alpha Respiratory Inc., Defendant, represented by David Cheng,
Ford Harrison LLP, Todd S. Aidman, Ford Harrison LLP, pro hac
vice, Alexandria M. Witte, Ford Harrison LLP & Daniel Benjamin
Chammas -- dchammas@fordharrison.com -- Ford Harrison LLP.


LINKUS ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Bid to Stay "Komarnicki" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KEITH KOMARNICKI, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LINKUS ENTERPRISES,
LLC; DISH NETWORK SERVICE CO.; DISH NETWORK CALIFORNIA SERVICE
CO.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, No. 1:16-cv-01602-DAD-
SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's
motion for leave to file a first amended complaint and denied
Defendant LinkUs' motion to stay.

Plaintiff Komarnicki filed this putative class action in the
Fresno County Superior Court on Sept. 21, 2016, asserting claims
under California law for: (i) failure to authorize and permit
and/or make available meal and rest periods; (ii) failure to pay
for all hours worked; (iii) failure to pay minimum wage; (iv)
failure to pay overtime wages; (v) failure to provide accurate
wage statements; (vi) waiting time penalties; (vii) unfair
competition; (viii) penalties pursuant to Section 2699(a) of the
California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"); and (ix)
penalties pursuant to Section 2699(e) of PAGA.  On Oct. 21, 2016,
Defendant LinkUs removed the action to this federal court.

On March 17 and 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave
to amend and, thereafter, an amended motion for leave to amend.
No opposition to that motion was filed and on April 11, 2017, the
Plaintiff filed a reply noting the Defendants' non-opposition to
his motion to amend.  On March 20, 2017, Defendant LinkUs filed a
motion to stay this action.  The Plaintiff filed an opposition to
the motion to stay on April 4, 2017 and Defendant LinkUs filed a
reply on April 11, 2017.

The Plaintiff's motion to amend and Defendants' motion to stay
came before the Court for hearing on April 18, 2017.

Defendant LinkUs moves to stay this action pursuant to the
decision in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United
States, arguing that the claims presented here are duplicative or
substantially similar to those presented in the Hilderbrand v.
LinkUs Enterprise, LLC action pending in state court and are
brought on behalf of the same, or substantially the same,
putative class.  It also argues that staying proceedings in this
case pending the state court's disposition of Hilderbrand would
be in the interest of judicial economy because the Hilderbrand
case was filed 16 months before this action and is significantly
further along in the course of the proceedings.

Judge Drozd finds that because not all the issues in the two
actions are the same, there exists a legitimate concern whether
the state court proceedings are adequate to protect the rights of
the litigants in this action.  Consideration of the other
recognized factors also does not weigh in favor of granting the
requested stay.  Finally, while avoiding piecemeal litigation is
certainly a desirable goal, there has been no compelling showing
that it will not be achieved if he proceeds in this action.  In
short, after considering all of the relevant factors, he is not
persuaded that exceptional circumstances and the clearest of
justifications have been established justifying the granting of a
stay.  Accordingly, Judge Drozd (i) denied Defendant LinkUs'
motion to stay this action; and (ii) granted the Plaintiff's
motion and amended motion to amend the complaint.  The matter now
proceeds on the Plaintiff's first amended complaint filed on
April 19, 2017, as the operative pleading.  In light of the
stipulation and order filed July 12, 2017, vacating the
scheduling order previously filed in the action, the matter is
referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for re-scheduling.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/N606nd from Leagle.com.

Keith Komarnicki, Plaintiff, represented by Camille Fundora --
cfundora@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice.

Keith Komarnicki, Plaintiff, represented by Carolyn H. Cottrell -
- ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns, LLP, David Christopher Leimbach, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Nicole Nellessen Coon --
ncoon@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns, LLP & Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Berger & Montague, P.C.,
pro hac vice.

LinkUs Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jared Hague --
jared@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC, Joseph
Vidal Macias -- joseph@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law
Corporation, PC, Justin Nigel Vecchiarelli --
justin@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation & S. Brett
Sutton -- brett@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation,
PC.

Dish Network Service Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Marlene S. Muraco -- mmuraco@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
Neda N. Dal Cielo, Littler Mendelson PC & Jose Macias, Jr. --
jmacias@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Dish Network California Service Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Marlene S. Muraco, Littler Mendelson, Neda N. Dal
Cielo, Littler Mendelson PC & Jose Macias, Jr., Littler
Mendelson, P.C..

Dish Network L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Jose Macias, Jr.,
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Marlene S. Muraco, Littler Mendelson &
Neda N. Dal Cielo, Littler Mendelson PC.


M11 MOTORS: "Adem" Suit Sues over Wage and Hours Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
OMAR ADEM; on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ml1 MOTORS, LLC, D/B/A MERCEDES-BENZ
OF BURLINGTON, and BERNARDO MORENO, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 17-2336 (Mass. Super. Ct., July 26, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and overtime pay under Massachusetts General
Laws.

Mercedes of Burlington employed Mr. Adem as an inside car
salesman in Burlington, Massachusetts, from February 2015 until
July 2017. During the three years preceding the filing date of
this action, Mercedes of Burlington employed 40 or more
individuals, including the Plaintiff, as inside car sales
employees in Massachusetts. Mercedes of Burlington had and/or has
a policy of paying the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
inside car sales employees who it employs based solely on
commissions that they earned from selling vehicles. Mercedes of
Burlington scheduled and/or schedules the Plaintiff, and its
other inside car sales employees, to work more than 40 hours per
week. Specifically, the Plaintiff was scheduled to work 49 hours
per week at the time of his separation. Previously, the Plaintiff
had been scheduled to work 56 hours per week. The company failed
to pay the employees an hourly rate equal to one and one-half
times their regular hourly rate for all of the hours that they
worked in excess of 40 during a pay period. Mercedes of
Burlington has and/or had a company-wide policy to credit
commissions and/or bonuses toward overtime compensation that the
Plaintiffs and other inside car sales employees were entitled to
receive for hours that they worked in excess of 40 during
multiple weeks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James D. Livingston, Esq.
          John P. Reagan, Jr., Esq.
          THE EMPLOYEE RIGHTS GROUP, LLC
          43 Bowdoin Street, Ste. A
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (857) 277 0902
          E-mail: jay@maemployeerights.com
                  jregan@maemployeerights.com


MACY'S RETAIL: Faces "Reyes Orellana" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
The Defendants entered a notice of appearance in the putative
class action lawsuit titled CINTHIA CAROLINA REYES ORELLANA and
SAMYA I. MOFTAH, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated retail customers v. MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a
MACY'S f/k/a MACY'S EAST a/k/a MACY'S, INC.; LAW OFFICES OF
PALMER, REIFLER and ASSOCIATES, P.A., Case No. 17-cv-5192
(S.D.N.Y.).

Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc., doing business as Macy's, formerly
known as Macy's East, also known as Macy's, Inc., is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
New York; with its principal place of business located in New
York City.  Macy's operates hundreds of department stores in 45
states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico, under
the name of 'Macy's' and Bloomingdale's.

The Law Offices of Palmer, Reifler and Associates, P.A., is a law
firm duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of
Florida.  Palmer represents Macy's in certain litigation.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael E. McDonagh, Esq.
          LESTER SCHWAB KATZ & DWYER, LLP
          100 Wall Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 964-6611
          Facsimile: (212) 267-5916
          E-mail: mmcdonagh@lskdnylaw.com


MAGELLAN HEALTH: "Deakin" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Deakin, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Magellan Health, Inc., Magellan Healthcare, Inc., Magellan Health
Services of New Mexico, Inc., Merit Behavioral Care Corporation,
& Magellan HSRC, Inc., Defendants., Case No. 1:17-cv-00773 (D.
N.M., July 27, 2017), seeks all available relief, including
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as health care coordinators,
regularly working over 40 hours per workweek without overtime.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      J. Forester, Esq.
      Travis Gasper, Esq.
      LEE &BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Email: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
             forester@l-b-law.com
             gasper@l-b-law.com

             - and -

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Tel: (214) 790-4454
      Fax: (469) 339-0204
      Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz
      Website: www.4overtimelawyer.com


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Villa" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William A. Fletcher of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed, though on different grounds, the district
court's dismissal of the case captioned MANUELA VILLA, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. MARICOPA COUNTY; MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS; WILLIAM GERARD MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-15460(9th Cir.).

Law enforcement officials in Maricopa County intercepted and
recorded eight conversations between the Plaintiff and her
daughter in 2011 and 2012.  The target phone number over which
Villa's conversations were intercepted belonged to neither Villa
nor her daughter.  The wiretap application was authorized by
Maricopa County Attorney Montgomery, but the application was made
by Deputy County Attorney Jennifer Brockel.  Before making the
application, Brockel personally reviewed a lengthy supporting
affidavit.  Montgomery did not review the affidavit supporting
the application.

After Villa learned that her conversations had been intercepted,
she brought a would-be class action against the Defendants,
alleging that portions of the Arizona wiretapping statute, as
well as the county's practices adopted in reliance on the
statute, were preempted by and violated Title III of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Section
2510 et seq.  She also alleged that her Fourth Amendment rights
had been violated.

The district court concluded that Arizona's wiretapping statute
and practices thereunder were not preempted by, and did not
violate, Title III.  It dismissed Villa's suit in its entirety
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  It did not
discuss Villa's Fourth Amendment claim.  The Plaintiff has
appealed only the court's adverse rulings on her Title III
claims.

Judge Fletcher held that Villa lacks Article III standing to seek
injunctive or declaratory relief on behalf of herself or a
putative class, but that she has standing to pursue individual
damages.  On the merits, he held that Ariz. Rev. Stat. Section
13-3010(A), as applied by Maricopa County officials, is preempted
by Title III, and that Villa's rights under 18 U.S.C. Section
2516(2) were violated because applications for wiretaps were not
made by the principal prosecuting attorney.

He held, further, that Ariz. Rev. Stat. Section 13-3010(H) is not
preempted by Title III if it is construed to require that
recordings of intercepted conversations be submitted to a court
for sealing within 10 days of the termination of the court's
order authorizing a wiretap on each particular target line.
However, Villa's rights under 18 U.S.C. Section 2518(8)(a) were
violated because the recordings of her intercepted conversations
were submitted for sealing more than a month after the
termination of the order authorizing the wiretap on the target
line on which her conversations were intercepted.  Finally, he
held that because the law enforcement officials who violated
Sections 2516(2) and 2518(8)(a) were acting in good faith within
the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Section 2520(d), they are protected from
a damage judgment.  Judge Fletcher therefore affirmed, though on
different grounds, the decision of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/RBF1Sy from Leagle.com.

Cameron A. Morgan -- jlschrumpf@msth.com -- (argued), Scottsdale,
Arizona, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James Kenneth Mangum (argued), Deputy County Attorney; William G.
Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney; Civil Services Division,
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix, Arizona; for
Defendants-Appellees.


MARK LINE: Pretrial Conference in "Doering" Suit Set for Aug. 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
A telephonic Preliminary Pretrial Conference is set for August
15, 2017, at 10:15 a.m., in the case captioned Roger Doering and
Alan Poling, on behalf of themselves and a class of those
similarly situated v. Mark Line Industries, LLC, Mark Line
Industries of Pennsylvania, LLC and Mosaic Capital Group, LLC,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00231 (N.D. Ind., May 26, 2017), according to a
docket entry dated July 11, 2017.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for failure to give
at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination, as
required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company located at
51687 County Road 133 Bristol, Indiana 46507. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William R. Groth, Esq.
      Geoffrey S. Lohman, Esq.
      FILLENWARTH DENNERLINE GROTH & TOWE, LLP
      429 E. Vermont St., Suite 200
      Indianapolis, IN  46202
      Telephone: (317) 353-9363
      Facsimile: (317) 351-7232
      E-mail:  wgroth@fdgtlaborlaw.com
               glohman@fdgtlaborlaw.com


MARSHALLS OF CA: $8.5MM "Roberts" Class Deal Has Prelim. OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of
California, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval in the case captioned KIMBERLY ROBERTS, ET
AL., Plaintiffs, v. MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 13-cv-04731-MEJ (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Kimberly Roberts, Carneisha Forney, and Laurie Mullen
(Plaintiffs) move this Court to preliminarily approve the revised
class action settlement they have reached with Defendants.  The
Court denied the first proposed settlement, finding Plaintiffs
failed to show that the proposed class warranted certification
and that the settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable.

The SAC alleges Defendants violated various provisions of the
California Labor and Business and Professions Code, as well as
California's Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage orders.

The Revised Settlement Class consists of "all current and former
non-exempt employees who worked at a T.J. Maxx, Marshalls or
HomeGoods branded retail store in the State of California.  The
Class Period is defined as October 10, 2009 through and including
August 10, 2016."

Total Settlement Amount is $8.5 million dollars.  This includes
(1) settlement payments to participating Monetary Payment Class
members; (2) up to $2,550,000 in attorneys' fees and up to
$60,000 in litigation costs/expenses to Class Counsel; (3) up to
$75,000 payment to the California Labor & Workforce Development
Agency (LDWA) to account for its portion of the PAGA Award; (4)
up to $250,000 in Settlement Administration Costs; and (5) up to
$40,000 in Service Awards for Plaintiffs. The Net Distribution
Fund represents the Total Settlement Amount less the LDWA, PAGA,
Service, and Class Counsel Awards -- that is, approximately
$5,525,000.

Each Monetary Payment Class member will receive an Individual
Settlement Payment.

Any settlement funds remaining in the Net Distribution Fund after
disbursing payments to the Monetary Payment Class members will be
donated to Legal Aid at Work.

Plaintiffs estimate there are 82,550 potential class members.

The Court finds questions about Defendants' wage statements are
common to the class: whether Defendants' meal period and rest
break policies, bag check policies, vacation pay policies,
timekeeping and compensation policies (including for the
calculation of overtime and employees' regular rate) are
compliant with California law.

Plaintiffs satisfactorily address these concerns in their Motion.
The record shows that Plaintiffs' positions were similar to those
held by the class. Roberts worked at Marshalls as an assistant
store manager.  Plaintiffs have suffered the same injuries as
class members.

Based on these, the Court finds Plaintiffs' claims are typical of
the class: Plaintiffs were subject to the same conduct as other
class members, and Plaintiffs do not pursue unique or
personalized claims. As such, the Court finds Plaintiffs satisfy
Rule 23(a)(3).

Plaintiffs' interests align with those of class members. Like
class members, Plaintiffs held both manager and non-manager
positions. There is no evidence that Plaintiffs or their counsel
have a conflict of interest with the class.  Counsel for
Plaintiffs Marcus Bradley further declares, there is no evidence
of antagonism between Plaintiffs' interests and those of the
Settlement Class. Plaintiffs have litigated this case in good
faith and the interests of Plaintiffs are aligned with those of
the Settlement Class as they both share a common interest in
challenging the legality of Defendants' policies and procedures.

The Court finds Plaintiffs satisfy Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs'
claims are based on the allegations they were subject to the same
practices or policies imposed by Defendants: (1) bag check
policies and opening and closing procedures; (2) meal and rest
break policies; (3) failure to pay waiting time penalties and
accrued vacation benefits; and (4) using noncompliant wage
statements. The Court can more efficiently resolve whether such
practices and policies violate the applicable laws through a
class action than on a case-by-case basis.

Based on this analysis, the Court finds Plaintiffs have met their
burden under Rules 23(b)(2) and (3). Accordingly, for purposes of
preliminary approval, the Court certifies the proposed classes.

The Court grants the Motion for Preliminary Approval.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017 Order is
available http://tinyurl.com/y9bs54pdfrom Leagle.com.

Kimberly Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh -
shaun@setarehlaw.com - Setareh Law Group.

Kimberly Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Marcus Joseph
Bradley- mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com  - Bradley Grombacher,
LLP & Kiley Lynn Grombacher -- kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
-- Bradley Grombacher, LLP.

Carneisha Forney, Plaintiff, represented by Marcus Joseph
Bradley, Bradley Grombacher, LLP, Roger Richard Carter --
rcarter@carterlawfirm.net -- The Carter Law Firm, Samantha Alane
Smith -- samantha@cooper-firm.com -- The Cooper Law Firm, P.C.,
Scott Bradley Cooper -- scott@cooper-firm.com -- The Cooper Law
Firm, P.C., Jessica Lynn Campbell, Aegis Law Firm, 9811 Irvine
Center Dr Ste 100, Irvine, CA 92618, Scott Cole and Associates,
APC, Kashif Haque -- khaque@aegislawfirm.com -- Attorney at Law &
Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Bradley Grombacher, LLP.

Laurie Mullen, Plaintiff, represented by Roger Richard Carter,
The Carter Law Firm, Samantha Alane Smith, The Cooper Law Firm,
P.C., Scott Bradley Cooper, The Cooper Law Firm, P.C., Kiley Lynn
Grombacher, Bradley Grombacher, LLP & Marcus Joseph Bradley,
Bradley Grombacher, LLP.

Marshalls of CA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Emily Erin
O'Connor -- eoconnor@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Joshua J. Cliffe -- jcliffe@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
P.C. & Joshua Daniel Levine -- jdlevine@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson.

Homegoods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Emily Erin O'Connor,
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Joshua J. Cliffe, Littler Mendelson,
P.C. & Joshua Daniel Levine, Littler Mendelson.

TJ MAXX OF CA LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua Daniel
Levine, Littler Mendelson & Emily Erin O'Connor, Littler
Mendelson, P.C.


MCS PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Rosario" Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLAS ROSARIO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MCS PROPERTIES LLC (d/b/a MCS PROPERTIES), 1990 ELLIS
AVENUE CORP. (d/b/a MCS PROPERTIES), YERACHMIEL MOSHE SINGER, and
STUART OPPENHEIMER, Case No. 1:17-cv-05573 (S.D.N.Y., July 21,
2017), alleges that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving the applicable
minimum wage or appropriate compensation for the hours over 40
per week that he worked.

Mr. Rosario brings the action on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New
York Labor Law and the minimum wage, overtime, and spread-of-
hours law and the associated regulations of the New York
Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y.C.R.R., including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Defendants own, operate or control a residential building,
which operates under the name MCS Properties and is located at
1990 Ellis Avenue, in Bronx, New York.  The Individual Defendants
serve or served as owners, managers, principals or agents of the
Defendant Corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd St., Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


MENARD INC: Neal Sues over Missed Breaks & Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lyndsey Neal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Menard, Inc., Defendant., Case No. 3:17-
cv-01614, (N.D. Ohio, August 1, 2017), seeks compensatory damages
in the amount of their unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
costs and attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting this action and
such further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio
overtime compensation statutes.

Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's Distribution Center as a
warehouse staff, frequently worked more than forty hours in a
single workweek without overtime compensation. Neal also claims
working through legitimate meal and rest breaks without
compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MERCK & CO: 3d Cir. Reverses Denial of Bid to Dismiss "North"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NORTH SOUND CAPITAL LLC; NORTH SOUND LEGACY
INTERNATIONAL; NORTH SOUND LEGACY INSTITUTIONAL; UNITED FOOD
COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 1500 PENSION FUND, v. MERCK & CO INC;
MERCK SCHERING PLOUGH PHARMACEUTICALS; MSP DISTRIBUTION SERVICES
(C) LLC; MSP SINGAPORE CO LLC; RICHARD T. CLARK; DEEPAK KHANNA,
Appellants in No. 16-1364. GIC PRIVATE LIMITED, v. MERCK & CO
INC; MERCK SCHERING PLOUGH PHARMACEUTICALS; MSP DISTRIBUTION
SERVICES (C), LLC; MSP SINGAPORE COMPANY, LLC; RICHARD T. CLARK;
DEEPAK KHANNA, Appellants in No.16-1365. GIC PRIVATE LIMITED, v.
MERCK & Co., f/k/a SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION; MERCK SCHERING
PLOUGH PHARMACEUTICALS; MSP DISTRIBUTION SERVICES (C) LLC; MSP
SINGAPORE COMPANY, LLC; FRED HASSAN; CARRIE COX, Appellants in
No. 16-1366.  NORTH SOUND CAPITAL, LLC; NORTH SOUND LEGACY
INTERNATIONAL; NORTH SOUND LEGACY INSTITUTIONAL; UNITED FOOD
COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 1500 PENSION FUND; COLONIAL FIRST STATE
INVESTMENT, LTD.; CFSIL-CFS WHOLESALE INDEXED GLOBAL SHARE FUND;
COMMONWEALTH BANK OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION CORPORATION AS TRUSTEE
FUND OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION FUND WGSSO4; CFSIL-COMMONWEALTH
GLOBAL SHARES FUND 4; COMMONWEALTH BANK OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION
COPORATION AS TRUSTEE FUND OFFICERS SUPPERANNUATION FUND WGSSO2;
COMMONWEALTH BANK OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION CORPORATION AS TRUSTEE
FUND OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION FUND WTRA02; CFSIL-COMMONWEALTH
SPECIALIST FUND 13; CFSIL WHOLESALE GEARED GLOBAL SHARED FUND;
CFSIL ATF CMLA INTERNATIONAL SHARE FUND; CFSIL-COMMONWEALTH
GLOBAL SHARES FUND 6; CFSIL-COMMONWEALTH GLOBAL SHARES FUND 2;
CFSIL-CFS WHOLESALE ACADIAN GLOBAL EQUITY FUND; CFSIL-CFS
WHOLESALE GLOBAL HEALTH & BIOTECHNOLOGY FUND; CFSIL-CFS WHOLESALE
GLOBAL SHARE FUND, v. MERCK & CO, INC., f/k/a SCHERLING-PLOUGH
CORPORATION; MERCK SCHERING PLOUGH PHARMACEUTICALS; MSP
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES (C) LLC; MSP SINGAPORE COMPANY, LLC; FRED
HASSAN; CARRIE S. COX, Appellants in No. 16-1367, Nos. 16-1364,
16-1365, 16-1366, 16-1367(3d Cir.), Judge Morton Ira Greenberg of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the
District Court's order of Aug. 26, 2015, denying the Appellants'
motions to dismiss the Appellees' Exchange Act claims, and
remanded the cases to that Court for it to dismiss the Exchange
Act claims as time-barred, and for further proceedings on the
remaining issues.

In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, the Supreme Court
established a class action tolling rule providing for tolling of
the time for bringing lawsuits by unnamed members of a class in a
putative class action during the time that a district court was
deciding whether to certify the plaintiff class.  In the cases
before Judge Morton Court on the Appellants' consolidated
appeals, he determines whether, in this action that the Appellees
and other Plaintiffs brought under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against appellants, the American Pipe rule can be applied to
toll the time for bringing actions otherwise beyond the time
allowed by statutes of repose.

When the case was before the District Court, the outcome was not
obvious.  But that was before the Supreme Court decided
California Public Employees Retirement System v. ANZ Securities,
Inc.  After the Court decided that case, Judge Morton directed
the parties to inform him by letter with respect to their
positions concerning the impact of that case on the case.  The
Appellees have stated that ANZ made clear that American Pipe
recognized a form of equitable tolling that does not apply to the
federal securities laws' statutes of repose.  Because this is the
precise question at issue in these consolidated appeals, he
believes that the Supreme Court's decision is dispositive of the
issues raised in the Defendants' appeals.  Not surprisingly, the
Appellants have filed a letter taking the same position.

Judge Morton held that it is undisputed that, in the absence of
tolling, the Appellees' actions would be untimely as they
initiated their cases beyond that time.  It is now clear that in
the light of ANZ Securities, that the American Pipe tolling rule
cannot be invoked to toll the running of time under the statutes
of repose at issue in these cases and that the Appellees'
Exchange Act claims therefore were untimely.

Accordingly, Judge Morton reversed the District Court's order
entered on Aug. 26, 2015, denying the Appellants' motions to
dismiss the Appellees' Exchange Act cases; and remanded the cases
to the District Court to dismiss the Appellees' cases insofar as
they assert Exchange Act claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/HO6wE9 from Leagle.com.

Daniel Hume -- dhume@kmllp.com -- (argued), Ira M. Press --
ipress@kmllp.com -- Meghan J. Summers -- msummers@kmllp.com --
Karina Kosharskyy, Kirby McInerney, 825 Third Ave., 16th Floor,
New York, NY 10022, Attorneys for Appellees.

Daniel J. Kramer -- dkramer@dankramerlaw.com -- (argued),
Theodore V. Wells, Jr. -- twells@paulweiss.com -- Charles E.
Davidow -- cdavidow@paulweiss.com -- Daniel J. Leffell --
dleffell@paulweiss.com -- Daniel J. Juceam --
djuceam@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019-6064,
William H. Trousdale -- wtrousdale@tompkinsmcguire.com  -- Brian
M. English -- benglish@tompkinsmcguire.com  -- Tomkins, McGuire,
Wachenfeld & Barry, 3 Becker Farm Road, Fourth Floor, Roseland,
NJ 07065-1726, Attorneys for Appellants.

Scott L. Nelson, Allison M. Zieve, Public Citizen Litigation
Group, 1600 20th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20009, Max W.
Berger -- mwb@blbglaw.com -- Salvatore J. Graziano --
sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman,
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor, New York, NY 10020,
Blair Nicholas, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, 12481 High
Bluff Drive, Suite 300, San Diego, CA 92130, Ira D. Hammerman,
Kevin M. Carroll, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, 1399 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20005,
Jared M. Gerber, Lewis J. Liman -- lliman@cgsh.com -- Clearly
Gottlieb Stein & Hamilton, One Liberty Plaza, New York, NY 10006,
Daniel P. Chiploch, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, 250
Hudson Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10013, Darren Robbins --
darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Joseph D. Daley -- joed@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San
Diego, CA 92501, Tejinder Singh -- tsingh@goldsteinrussell.com --
Thomas C. Goldstein -- tgoldstein@goldsteinrussell.com --
Goldstein & Russell, 7475 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 850, Bethesda,
MD 20814, Attorneys for amici curiae.


MERCHANT INDUSTRY: Abante Rooter Sues over TCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCHANT INDUSTRY,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-04257-JCS (N.D. Cal., July 26, 2017), seeks damages and
any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from
the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly,
and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call
provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff requested for Defendant
to stop calling Plaintiff during one of the initial calls from
Defendant, thus revoking any prior express consent that had
existed and terminating any established business relationship
that had existed. Despite this, Defendant continued to call
Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation
of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA.

Merchant Industry provides software services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MISSISSIPPI TITLE: Violates TCPA, "Dixon" Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
AQUILLUS DIXON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MISSISSIPPI TITLE LOANS, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-
02486-LMM (N.D. Ga., June 30, 2017), alleges violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant negligently or
knowingly and willfully sent text messages to the cellular
telephones of the Plaintiff and putative Class Members for non-
emergency purposes using an automatic telephone-dialing system
without their prior express consent, in violation of the TCPA.

Mississippi Title Loans, Inc., is a Mississippi corporation with
a principal office located in Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia.
Mississippi Title Loans is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, and
offers title loans, payday loans, and installment loans to
consumers from approximately 30 locations throughout the state of
Mississippi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew L. Hagenbush, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
          Telephone: (404) 965-1782
          E-mail: ahagenbush@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222-2434
          E-mail: rsoffin@forthepeople.com
                  jcohen@forthepeople.com
                  jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


MOBILE CLINIC: "Restrepo" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Antonio Restrepo, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Mobile Clinic Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-22842 (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2017), requests double damages
and reasonable attorney fees, jointly and severally, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing.

Restrepo worked for the Defendants as a dispatcher. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Sued over Herbicide Roundup Defect
----------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits were filed against Monsanto Company seeking damages
suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of
the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or
glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and
unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper
warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its
use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of
similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The lawsuits are captioned as:

ESTATE OF JOHN VAN STEENBERG, by and through his representative
Marilyn Van Steenberg, and MARILYN VAN STEENBERG, surviving
spouse of John Van Steenberg on behalf of all legal heirs of John
Van Steenberg, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-04351-VC (D. Colo., Aug 1, 2017); and

GARRY MARCHMAN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04352-VC (D. Colo., Aug 1, 2017).

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Wool, Esq.
          Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq.
          ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, P.C.
          7171 W. Alaska Drive
          Lakewood, CO 80226
          Telephone: (303) 376 6360
          Facsimile: (303) 376 6361
          E-mail: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com
                  david.wool@andruswagstaff.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Smokey Alley Wants Xtend Products' Sale Halted
----------------------------------------------------------------
SMOKEY ALLEY FARM PARTNERSHIP; AMORE FARMS; JTM FARMS; KENNETH
LORETTA GARRETT QUALLS FARM PARTNERSHIP; QUALLS LAND CO.; MICHAEL
BAIONI; and MCLEMORE FARMS LLC v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BASF
CORPORATION, BASF SE, BASF CROP PROTECTION, E.I. DUPONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY, PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL INC., and
DUPONT PIONEER, Case No. 4:17-cv-02031 (E.D. Mo., July 19, 2017),
asks the Court for preliminary and permanent injunctions
providing that Monsanto and DuPont will be enjoined from selling,
marketing, distributing, or otherwise disseminating Xtend
products.

The GMO products at issue are Monsanto's Roundup Ready 2 Xtend
Soybeans and Bollgard II XtendFlex cotton, which are utilized in
conjunction with the Defendants' dicamba herbicides (Monsanto's
XtendiMax(R) Herbicide with VaporGrip(R) Technology, BASF's
Engenia herbicide and DuPont's FeXapanTM herbicide Plus
VaporGrip(R) Technology).

The addition of genetic resistance to dicamba offers a benefit to
farmers struggling with weed control, the Plaintiffs say.  This
benefit, however, comes with a cost: dicamba is known to
volatilize and drift, which results in the damage and death to
neighboring crops and plants not resistant to dicamba, the
Plaintiffs contend.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a global
provider of agricultural products, including seeds, herbicides,
and fertilizers.

BASF Corporation is a company organized and existing under the
laws of Delaware, having a business address in Florham Park, New
Jersey.  BASF is the largest chemical producer in the world.
BASF Corporation is the affiliate, subsidiary, agent, distributor
and North American agent for BASF SE, a German company.  In the
United States, BASF sells its dicamba products through BASF Crop
Protection, which is either a division of, D/B/A or wholly owned
subsidiary of BASF Corporation.

DuPont is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located in Wilmington, Delaware.  Pioneer is an Iowa
corporation with its principal place of business located in Polk
County, in Johnston, Iowa.  DuPont Pioneer is a d/b/a for a joint
venture between DuPont and Pioneer.

BASF and DuPont cooperate and joint venture with Monsanto in
research, development and marketing of herbicides and weed
control products, including dicamba.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE APLC
          818 Lafayette Avenue, Second Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63010
          Telephone: (314) 833-4826
          Telephone: (314) 833-4825
          E-mail: plesko@prwlegal.com
                  bwise@prwlegal.com


MORGREEN SOLAR: Prescott Wants to Recoup Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES PRESCOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MORGREEN SOLAR SOLUTIONS, LLC; DARRIN GREEN; and
VAUGHN INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-00365-FL (E.D.N.C., July
21, 2017), is brought individually and as a collective action for
alleged unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and all related penalties and damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MorGreen Solar Solutions, LLC, is a domestic Limited Liability
Company, registered in the state of North Carolina, with its
principal place of business located in Hickory, North Carolina.
Darrin Green founded MorGreen, and was closely involved in its
hiring, firing, and wage payment decisions during the relevant
period.

Vaughn Industries, LLC, is a nationwide construction contractor
that performs electrical, mechanical (HVAC and Pipefitting), and
plumbing in industrial/commercial sectors, high voltage
substation, high voltage transmission and distribution, and
renewable energy construction.  Vaughn is a Limited Liability
Company, founded in 1985, with its principal place of business
located in Carey, Ohio.  Vaughn is a general contractor, agent,
or principal of MorGreen.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Michael B. Cohen, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  mcohen@gildahernandezlaw.com


MULLOOLY JEFFERSON: Timoshenko Sues Over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------
Oksana Timoshenko on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. Mullooly, Jefferson, Rooney &
Flynn LLP, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04472, (E.D. N.Y., July
28, 2017), seeks redress under the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Mullooly, Jefferson, Rooney & Flynn LLP acted in capacity as a
debt collector attempting to collect a consumer debt from the
Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff appears pro se.


N.H. INC: Underpays Workers, "Cabrera-Flores" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Katlin G. Cabrera-Flores, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. N.H. Inc. a/k/a Meridian Food Market/Money Gram,
Mohammed Hossain, Jasmine Hossain, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
22835 (S.D. Fla., July 27, 2017), requests double damages and
reasonable attorney fees, jointly and severally, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing.

Flores worked for Defendants as a cashier, cafeteria and deli
worker from on or about August 10, 2015 through on or about June
26, 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


NATIONAL CREDIT: Court Certifies TCPA Class in "Cortes" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MIKE CORTES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL CREDIT
ADJUSTERS, L.L.C., Defendant, No. 2:16-cv-00823-MCE-EFB (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification, granted the Plaintiff's Motion
for Default Judgment with respect to TCPA liability, and held in
abeyance the issue of damages until after discovery has been
conducted.

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff Cortes began receiving
autodialed or prerecorded telephone calls from the Defendant via
an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") without ever
having previous contact with the Defendant.  The Plaintiff never
consented, in writing or otherwise, to these "robocalls," as is
required by the TCPA before a debt collector such as the
Defendant may initiate automated telephone solicitations.  He
instructed the Defendant to stop calling him at his cellular
telephone number, but the latter continued to call him.  He
alleges that some calls were even made before 8:00 a.m.  When it
called, the Defendant informed him that it was attempting to
collect a consumer debt.  Cortes asserts that as a result of the
Defendant's violations of the TCPA, he and each member of the
proposed class are entitled to $500 in statutory damages for each
and every call made in violation of the TCPA.  He further claims
that due to the Defendant's willful and/or knowing violations of
the TCPA, he and each member of the proposed class are entitled
to treble damages, as provided by statute, of up to $1,500 for
each and every call that violated the TCPA.

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on April 20, 2016.  The
Defendant has not filed an Answer or otherwise responded to the
Complaint.  By the present motion, the Plaintiff seeks to certify
a class of persons (i) who have received prerecorded or
artificial calls, or calls from an ATDS, on their cellphones from
the Defendant at any point from April 21, 2012, to the date on
which default judgment is entered; and (ii) who are current or
former subscribers of the PrivacyStar, Metro Block-It, Metro
Name-ID, CallWatch, or Call Detector cellphone applications
("CMAs").  Moreover, because the Defendant has failed to answer
his Complaint, the Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default
on June 8, 2016, and default was thereafter entered.  The
Plaintiff now seeks default judgment with respect to the entire
purported class, once the Court certifies that class.

Judge England Court finds that the Plaintiff's proposed class
definition to be adequately defined and sufficiently
ascertainable because it provides the objective criteria needed
to determine the members of the class.  He has shown a reasonable
basis to believe that a class exists and that the class could be
specifically determined via CMA records.

The Judge also considers the policy favoring decisions on the
merits whenever reasonably possible.  The Defendant's failure to
answer the Complaint or otherwise participate in the action makes
a decision on the merits impractical, if not impossible.  Thus,
the seventh Eitel factor does not preclude him from entering
default judgment against the Defendant.

For all the foregoing reasons, Judge England granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and the Plaintiff's
Motion for Default Judgment, with respect to TCPA liability.  He
held in abeyance the issue of damages until after discovery has
been conducted.  The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter
to assess damages and supplement this judgment with the
appropriate damages amount at a later date, upon motion from the
Plaintiff.  He further ordered the Plaintiff to file a status
report every 60 days from the date of electronic filing of the
Order, updating the Court as to the status of the case and the
composition of the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2017 memorandum and order
is available at https://is.gd/ousto3 from Leagle.com.

Mike Cortes, Plaintiff, represented by Yeremey Olegovich
Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.


NATIONAL INDEMNITY: "Muri" Suit Reassigned to Judge Gerrard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Marc J. Muri, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Indemnity Company, Case
No. 8:17-cv-00178-LSC-CRZ (D. Neb., May 26, 2017), was reassigned
to District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition and remains
assigned to Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart for judicial
supervision and processing of all pretrial matters, according to
a docket entry dated June 20, 2017.

The court also granted the parties' joint motion to extend
Defendant's response and briefing deadlines, according to a
docket entry dated June 22, 2017.  Magistrate Judge Cheryl R.
Zwart held that National Indemnity shall answer or otherwise
respond to plaintiff's complaint on or by August 28, 2017. In the
event National Indemnity files a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff
shall have 60 days to file his brief opposing the motion to
dismiss and the defendant shall have 30 days to file its reply
brief.

The lawsuit seeks to recover losses resulting from the
Defendant's breaches of its fiduciary duties pursuant to Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, says the complaint.

This case concerns the Defendant's imprudent management to permit
the National Indemnity Company Employee Retirement Savings Plan
to maintain The Sequoia Fund as an investment option as the Fund
became increasingly concentrated in Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and less diversified in 2015 in violation of prudent retirement
plan management. It also alleges that the Defendant breached its
fiduciary duty of loyalty by permitting the Plan to maintain, and
offer to participants, an investment option plagued by conflicts
of interest.

National Indemnity Company is an insurance company with its
principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian K. Matise, Esq.
      BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE, P.C.
      40 Inverness Drive East
      Englewood, CO 80112
      Telephone: (303) 792-5595
      Facsimile: (303) 708-0527
      E-mail: BMatise@burgsimpson.com

         - and -

      Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq.
      Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
      Edward H. Glenn Jr., Esq.
      Justin Sauerwald, Esq.
      ZAMANSKY LLC
      50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 742-1414
      Facsimile: (212) 742-1177
      E-mail: jake@zamansky.com


NATIONAL TRACTOR: "Valadez" Suit Sues over Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
LENARD VALADEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL TRACTOR SERVICE, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC670643 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 1, 2017), seeks to
recover compensatory damages and punitive damages under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Azusa, Los Angeles County,
California. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid Laborer and Operator from approximately June 2017 to
July 2017 at their location in Baldwin Park, California, and on
various other jobsites throughout Southern California, earning
approximately $13.00 per hour. The Plaintiff typically worked 14
hours per day, five days per week. Plaintiff's job duties as a
Laborer and Operator included, without limitation, performing
manual labor such as moving gravel and dirt, and operating
machinery like sweepers and loaders which did not require a Class
A driver's license. The Defendants' activities, namely
Defendants' company-wide practice and/or policy of net paying
Plaintiff and class members all meal and rest period premium
wages due to them under Labor Code, deprived Plaintiff and class
members of the compensation guarantee and enhanced enforcement
implemented by the Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Srourian, Esq.
          SROURIAN LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (310) 601 3131
          Facsimile: (310) 388 8444
          E-mail: daniel@slfla.com


NCI INC: Faces "Schwartz" Suit Over Tender Offer by HIG Capital
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELLIOTT SCHWARTZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. NCI INC., CHARLES K. NARANG, PAUL A.
DILLAHAY, JAMES P. ALLEN, PAUL V. LOMBARDI, CINDY E. MORAN,
AUSTIN J. YERKS, and DANIEL R. YOUNG, Case No. 1:17-cv-00816-LO-
TCB (E.D. Va., July 19, 2017), is brought as a class action on
behalf of the public holders of the common stock of NCI for the
Defendants' alleged violations the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the tender offer by H.I.G. Capital,
L.L.C., through its affiliates, to purchase all of the issued and
outstanding shares of NCI common stock for $20 per share.

NCI is a Delaware corporation and maintains its headquarters at
in Reston, Virginia.  The Company is a leading provider of
enterprise solutions and services to U.S. defense, intelligence,
health and civilian government agencies.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Simmons, Esq.
          Christopher J. Habenicht, Esq.
          MEYERGOERGEN PC
          1802 Bayberry Court, Suite 200
          Richmond, VA 23226
          Telephone: (804) 288-3600
          Facsimile: (804) 565-1231
          E-mail: simmons@mg-law.com
                  habenicht@mg-law.com

               - and -

          James M. Wilson, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Ave., 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Special Masters Attys Fee in "Billieson" Flipped
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CASEY BILLIESON, ET AL, v. CITY OF NEW
ORLEANS, No. 2016-CA-1143(La. App.), Judge Regina Bartholomew-
Woods of the U.S. Court of Appeal of Louisiana for the Fourth
Circuit reversed the ruling of the trial court granting Special
Master James Williams' motion for payment and remanded the matter
for further proceedings.

The case, originally filed in 1994, concerned children who
suffered from exposure to lead paint in public housing buildings
owned and operated by the Housing Authority of New Orleans.  On
Oct. 27, 1997, a hearing on class certification was conducted,
and the trial court denied the Plaintiffs' request to certify the
class.  However, on March 3, 1999, this Court reversed the trial
court's decision, certified the class, and remanded the matter
for further proceedings.  On Feb. 9, 2000, several attorneys,
including Joseph M. Bruno, were appointed as class counsel for
the Billieson Litigation class action.  The case continued for
another 10 years until multiple settlements with the Defendants
were reached in 2010.

In two separate judgments, both dated Dec. 29, 2011, the trial
court approved the settlements and ordered that 40% of the total
settlement amount be set aside for attorneys' fees.  However, the
class counsel could not agree upon the allocation of said fees.
As a result of the disagreement among class counsel, on May 24,
2014, the trial court ordered that Scott Bickford and Williams be
appointed co-special masters, and charged them to, inter alia,
create or adopt any existing procedure for the fair, equitable
and reasonable allocation and distribution of attorney fees.  The
order provided that the special masters would be compensated at a
rate of $350 per hour, and that attorneys who assist them would
be compensated at a rate of $175 per hour.

On Aug. 6, 2014, Motions to Disqualify and Remove Special Master
Williams were filed by several class counsel.  On Aug. 7, 2014,
Judge Chase recused herself from hearing the Motions to
Disqualify Special Master Williams re-allotted the
disqualification hearing to another division of the trial court.
It was ultimately re-allotted to Judge Julien.  A hearing ensued
on Oct. 24, 2014.  On Oct.27, 2014, Judge Julien issued a
judgment in which she, inter alia, denied the Motions to
Disqualify and Remove Special Master Williams.

On Dec. 8, 2014, Special Master Williams through the Irpino Law
Firm, filed a motion to amend the trial court's May 24, 2013
order, which appointed Bickford and Williams as co-special
masters; in the motion he requested that the special masters be
dismissed from the attorneys' fee division determination portion
of the underlying case.  The trial court granted the motion to
amend on Dec. 15, 2014, and Special Masters Bickford and Williams
were dismissed from the attorneys' fees division determination
portion of the underlying case.  However, the Irpino Law Firm
continued to provide legal services to Special Master Williams
through March of 2015.

Over a year later, on June 23, 2016, Special Master Williams
filed a Motion for Payment, wherein he moved for payment directly
to the Irpino Law Firm in the amount of $223,875 for services
rendered.  On July 5, 2016, Class Counsel/Appellant Joseph M.
Bruno filed a memorandum in opposition to Special Master
Williams' motion for payment.  On the same date, class counsel
Gary J. Gamble and Jennifer N. Willis also filed oppositions to
Special Master Williams' motion for payment.  A hearing on the
motion for payment was held on July 13, 2016.

On Aug. 3, 2016, the trial court issued its written judgment that
the Irpino Law Firm will be paid at a rate of $175 per hour for
its time spent representing Co-Special Master Williams in
connection with the Billieson litigation.  The 497.50 hours spent
by the Irpino Law Firm were justified and reasonable.
Accordingly, it ordered that the CADA will make payment to the
Irpino Law Firm in the amount of $87,062.50 from the
administrative expense account in the Billieson matter.

On Aug. 5, 2016, the Appellant, on behalf of himself and in his
capacity as class counsel, filed a motion and incorporated
memorandum for new trial.  The trial court denied the motion for
new trial on Aug. 9, 2016.  He filed a petition for order of
suspensive appeal on Aug. 12, 2016.  On Aug. 22, 2016, the trial
court granted the petition for suspensive appeal and set a bond
and/or security in the amount of $100,000.  Mr. Bruno then filed
a request for written reasons on Aug. 24, 2016.  On the same
date, he notified the trial court of his intent to seek
supervisory review of the trial court's Aug. 3, 2016 order to
disburse the payment to the Irpino Law Firm and its Aug. 22, 2016
order setting the suspensive appeal bond in the amount of
$100,000.  Mr. Bruno filed a writ application with this Court on
Sept. 8, 2016, asserting that the trial court committed legal
error when it set the suspensive appeal bond in the amount of
$100,000.  This Court granted the writ and remanded to the trial
court to set bond in accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 2124(B)(2).
Bond was accordingly reset in the appropriate amount of $334.50.
Now, the matter comes to this Court on Appeal of the trial
court's award of attorneys' fees.

Judge Bartholomew-Woods explains that La. R.S. 13:2564.3, a
statute declaring a specific public policy as to parish court
judges, does not necessarily permit a special master to avail him
or herself of the benefits of representation by the Attorney
General.  Accordingly, she finds that even to the extent the
trial court sought to reduce the Irpino Law Firm's rate to $175
per hour, the judgment was in error insofar as it relied upon the
Attorney General's fees rate.

Judge Bartholomew-Woods notes that this Court has not conducted a
line-by-line analysis of the final summary bill documenting the
services charged by the Irpino Law Firm to Special Master
Williams.  While her ruling would exclude payment for services
rendered in rebutting the motion to disqualify, she does not
intend to suggest her ruling excludes payment for assisting
Special Master Williams with discharging his duties as ordered by
the court, at a rate of $175 per hour, as contemplated by the
order appointing Special Master Williams.  However, the trial
court will first have to make the determination that such funds
exist in the administrative expense account.

In light of these, Judge Bartholomew-Woods finds that the trial
court erroneously interpreted La. R.S. 13:4165 and abused its
discretion in granting Special Master Williams' motion.  She
revered the judgment of the trial court granting Special Master
Williams' motion for payment, and remanded the matter for further
proceedings not inconsistent with her opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/sOHcIF from Leagle.com.

Joseph M. Bruno, BRUNO & BRUNO LLP, 855 Baronne Street, New
Orleans, LA 70113, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant.

James McClendon Williams -- JMW@CHEHARDY.COM -- CHEHARDY,
SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, LLP, One
Galleria Blvd. Suite 1100, Metairie, LA 70001, Counsel for
Defendant/Appellee.


NEW SUN: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Xie" FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted the Defendants' move for summary
judgment in the case captioned XIN LIN XIE, ROCK XU, QI XING
WANG, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated. Plaintiffs, v. NEW SUN INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL LLC and
WEIRONG MA, Defendants, No. 16-CV-752 (AMD) (ST)(E.D. N.Y.).

The Defendants are a commercial bus company that transports
passengers between several U.S. states, including New York, New
Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Washington
D.C., and Canada.  The Plaintiffs were commercial bus drivers
employed by the Defendants.  The parties agree that Xie worked
for the Defendants between July 6, 2013 and May 23, 2014; Xu
worked between April of 2013 and Oct. 15, 2015; and Wang worked
between Sept. 17, 2014 and Feb. 27, 2015.  During the entire time
that the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants, the federal
minimum wage was $7.25 per hour.

According to the Defendants, they paid the Plaintiffs above
minimum wage at all times.  Citing to the Plaintiffs' paystubs,
they claim that the Plaintiffs received a regular rate of $12 per
hour, and an overtime rate of $18 per hour.  The Plaintiffs, on
the other hand, argue that they were paid not by the hour, but
per route driven, which was below the minimum wage.  They do not
dispute the fact that the paystubs accurately reflect the amount
they were paid each pay period.  However, the Plaintiffs claim
that the hours represented on their paystubs were manufactured
and do not accurately reflect the hours that they worked.
Moreover, they argue that the paystubs are unreliable because
they conflict with the payroll records and because the time
worked falls exactly on the hour, which is unrealistic because
they did not finish each work day at a set time.

The Defendants move for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
unpaid overtime and unpaid minimum wage claims under the FLSA.
They also move to dismiss the state law claims under the NYLL.

Judge Donnelly held that the Plaintiffs have not offered any
evidence of minimum wage violations: they did not submit any
affidavits, deposition testimony, or other evidence in which they
even tried to estimate the hours per week that they worked or
amount that they were underpaid.  The Plaintiffs cannot defeat
summary judgment by relying on mere conclusory allegations that
the Defendants violated the FLSA.  Where, as here, the Plaintiffs
fail to adduce any evidence regarding the hours worked or the
compensation paid, they fail to meet their initial burden, and
summary judgment is appropriate.  He, therefore, granted the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Having granted summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' federal claims
under the FLSA, the only remaining claims are the Plaintiffs'
state law claims under the NYLL.  In the interest of comity, the
Second Circuit instructs that absent exceptional circumstances,
where federal claims can be disposed of pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
or summary judgment grounds, the courts should abstain from
exercising pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims.  Therefore, Judge Donnelly, in his discretion, declined
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state
law claim because it has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2017 memorandum decision
and order is available at https://is.gd/rywfaw from Leagle.com.

Xin Lin Xie, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip Hakyeon Kim --
pkim@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC.

Xin Lin Xie, Plaintiff, represented by Jian Hang --
jhang@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC.

Rock Xu, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip Hakyeon Kim, Hang &
Associates, PLLC & Jian Hang, Hang & Associates, PLLC.

Qi Xing Wang, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip Hakyeon Kim, Hang
& Associates, PLLC & Jian Hang, Hang & Associates, PLLC.

New Sun International Travel LLC, Defendant, represented by
Andrew Justin Urgenson -- andrew@ovedlaw.com -- Oved & Oved LLP &
Jonathan Austin Lynn -- jlynn@ovedlaw.com -- Oved & Oved LLP.

Wei Rong Ma, Defendant, represented by Andrew Justin Urgenson,
Oved & Oved LLP & Jonathan Austin Lynn, Oved & Oved LLP.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Linis Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
JOYCE R LINIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NORTHLAND GROUP, INC. and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No.
2:17-cv-05042-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., July 10, 2017), alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Northland Group, Inc., provides accounts receivable management
and collection services to national credit grantors, debt buyers,
and student loan lenders and servicers.  The Company was founded
in 1982 and is based in Edina, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., 2nd Floor
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


NSC ABATEMENT: "Fabian" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Teobaldo Fabian, Plaintiff, v. NSC Abatement Services, Inc. and
Pablo Berhau and Paul Cardenas individually, Defendants, Case No.
2 7:17-cv-05815 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2017), is civil action
brought by Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers to
recover overtime compensation and illegal wage deductions owed to
them pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law

Fabian worked as an asbestos remover for the Defendants for their
public works projects.

NSC Abatement Services, Inc. is a general construction company
with principal place of business at 122 E Third Street, Mount
Vernon, New York 10550. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
      225 Broadway, Suite 307
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 323-6980
      Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
      Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


OCWEN LOAN: Western Union Wins Bid to Dismiss FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama,
Southern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting
Defendant's Western Union Business Solutions (USA), LLC's Motion
to Dismiss but denying Defendant Ocwen Loan Serviving, LLC's
Motion to Dismiss with respect to Robert Fielder in the case
captioned HAROLD McWHORTER and ROBERT FIELDER, Plaintiff, v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC and WESTERN UNION BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
(USA), LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-01831-MHH (N.D. Ala.),
and deferred its ruling with respect to Harold McWhorter.

In this putative nationwide class action, plaintiffs Harold
McWhorter and Robert Fielder allege that defendants Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC and Western Union Business Solutions (USA), LLC
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15
U.S.C. Section 1692f(1), by charging customers a convenience fee
to make loan payments online and over the telephone.

When Mr. McWhorter and Mr. Fielder made loan payments to Ocwen
online and over the telephone, Ocwen and Western Union charged
convenience fees, or Speedpay fees, to process those payments.
Western Union collected the fees from Mr. McWhorter and Mr.
Fielder and remitted a portion of the fees to Ocwen.

Mr. McWhorter and Mr. Fielder assert that the defendants'
imposition of the Speedpay fees and Western Union's remittance of
a portion of those fees to Ocwen violate the FDCPA.  Mr.
McWhorter and Mr. Fielder seek class certification for their
FDCPA claims, declaratory and injunctive relief, statutory
damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

Mr. McWhorter and Mr. Fielder allege that Ocwen and Western Union
violated the FDCPA by charging them a Speedpay fee to pay their
loans online and over the telephone.

Ocwen and Western Union argue that because the FDCPA applies only
to debt collectors and because neither of them is a debt
collector with respect to the plaintiffs, the Court should
dismiss this action. Ocwen also argues that, even if it is a debt
collector, the Court should dismiss the plaintiffs' claims
because, as a matter of law, Speedpay fees do not violate the
FDCPA.

The plaintiffs' allegations indicate that Western Union provided
a service to Ocwen and the plaintiffs, and Western Union received
payment for that service. As the plaintiffs state in their
amended complaint, the money that Western Union allegedly
collected both on its own behalf and on behalf of  Ocwen was not
debt, but rather an additional payment.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that
Western Union is a debt collector within the meaning of the
FDCPA, and the Court grants Western Union's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint.

Ocwen argues that it is not a debt collector with respect to Mr.
McWhorter because Mr. McWhorter's loan was not in default when
Ocwen acquired servicing rights to it. With respect to Mr.
Fielder, Ocwen argues that it did not act as a debt collector
because a bankruptcy court discharged Mr. Fielder's personal debt
in 2013.

Under the FDCPA, a person who acquires servicing rights to a debt
is not a debt collector for purposes of that debt if the debt was
not in default at the time it was obtained.

Without considering additional documentation related to the trial
loan modification, the Court cannot determine whether the trial
loan modification was a superseding agreement that gave Mr.
McWhorter a fresh start, as in Bailey, or merely a set of
payments that rendered Mr. McWhorter eligible for the permanent
modification but did not affect his status under the original
loan agreement. Accordingly, the Court defers ruling on whether
Ocwen is a debt collector until the Court reviews additional
documents related to the trial modification.

To state a plausible claim under the FDCPA, Mr. Fielder must
allege not only that Ocwen is a debt collector, but also 'that
Ocwen's challenged conduct is related to debt collection.
To determine whether a communication's animating purpose is to
induce payment, the district court stated, courts should look
through the eyes of the least sophisticated consumer.

Viewed through the eyes of the least sophisticated consumer,
Ocwen's Special Notice appears to have been made with an
animating purpose to induce payment by Mr. Fielder. The notice
states the past due amount that Mr. Fielder owed on his mortgage,
describes how Mr. Fielder may pay that amount, and provides
multiple addresses to which Mr. Fielder may send payment.

It is difficult to conceive of any credible reason for Ocwen to
send the notice other than to pressure Mr. Fielder into making
payments on the mortgage debt for which his personal liability
had already been discharged. Ocwen's disclaimer that the notice
was not an attempt to collect debt 'is insufficient to shield
Ocwen as a matter of law from liability at this stage of the
litigation.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Fielder has
plausibly alleged that Ocwen acted as a debt collector and
engaged in conduct related to debt collection with respect to his
discharged debt.

The plaintiffs did not expressly agree to the Speedpay fees in
their contracts with Ocwen, and Ocwen has presented no Alabama
law that authorizes a debt collector to impose convenience fees
and collect a portion of those fees.

The Electronic Transfer Fund Act (EFTA) is not a state statute,
and, moreover, the EFTA merely provides a basic framework
establishing the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of
participants in electronic fund and remittance transfer systems.
The EFTA does not authorize a debt collector to collect an
additional convenience fee in connection with an amount owed on a
principal obligation.

Mr. Fielder has sufficiently alleged that Ocwen violated Section
1692f(1) when it charged him Speedpay fees to make mortgage
payments. If the Court finds that Ocwen is a debt collector with
respect to the Mr. McWhorter then Mr. McWhorter will have stated
a claim under Section 1692f(1).

The Court grants Western Union's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint. The Court denies Ocwen's motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint with respect to Mr.
Fielder With respect to Mr. McWhorter, the Court defers ruling on
Ocwen's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint
pending a period of limited discovery.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available Memorandum Opinion and Order at
http://tinyurl.com/y7fj37lnfrom Leagle.com.

Harold McWhorter, Plaintiff, represented by Courtney L. Stidham -
- ctidham@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP.

Harold McWhorter, Plaintiff, represented by D. Frank Davis --
fdavis@davisnorris.com -- DAVIS & NORRIS LLP, Dargan Maner Ware -
- dware@davisnorris.com -- DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP, John E. Norris --
jnorris@davisnorris.com -- DAVIS & NORRIS LLP, Wesley W. Barnett
-- wbarnett@davisnorris.com -- DAVIS & NORRIS LLP & Kristan
Bruce Rivers - krivers@davisnorris.com -- DAVIS & NORRIS LLP.

Robert Fielder, Plaintiff, represented by Courtney L. Stidham,
Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, D. Frank Davis, DAVIS & NORRIS
LLP, Dargan Maner Ware, DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP, John E. Norris,
DAVIS & NORRIS LLP, Wesley W. Barnett, DAVIS & NORRIS LLP &
Kristan Bruce Rivers, DAVIS & NORRIS LLP.

Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael R.
Pennington -- mpennington@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT
CUMMINGS LLP, Richard Aaron Chastain -- achastain@bradley.com
-- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP & Robert J. Campbell --
rjcampbell@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP.


OPR PROPERTY: Faces "Rubman" Suit in New York Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OPR PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT LLC. The case is captioned as RUBMAN, DAVID, INDIV.
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
OPR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, AND WILLIAM OSUCHOWSKI, the
Defendant, Case No. 1902276/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 26, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Anthony J. Paris.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hoskins, E. David, Esq.
          90 State St., Ste.700
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 935 2672

The Defendant is represented by:

          Burch, David, Esq.
          125 E. Jefferson St.
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (315) 425 2788


PANASONIC CORP: Accused by Findlay of Fixing Prices of Switches
---------------------------------------------------------------
FINDLAY INDUSTRIES, INC. and SARATOGA LANE LLC, individually and
on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v.
PANASONIC CORPORATION, PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA,
MITSUBA CORPORATION, AMERICAN MITSUBA CORPORATION, TOKAI RIKA
CO., LTD., TRAM, INC., TOYO DENSO CO. LTD., WEASTEC, INC. and
OMRON AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Case No. 2:17-cv-12338-
VAR-EAS (E.D. Mich., July 18, 2017), is brought as a proposed
class action against the Defendants and unnamed co-conspirators,
manufacturers and suppliers of switches for engaging in a long-
running conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise,
maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the
market and customers in the United States for Switches.

"Switches" mean switches used in motor vehicles and include one
or more of the following: steering wheel switches, turn switches,
wiper switches, combination switches, door courtesy switches, and
power window switches.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Switches in and into
the United States.  The Defendants and other co-conspirators (as
yet unknown) agreed, combined and conspired to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize prices, and allocate market shares for
Switches, according to the complaint.

Panasonic Corporation is a Japanese company with its original
place of business in Osaka, Japan.  Panasonic Corporation of
North America, a subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation, is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Secaucus, New Jersey.

Mitsuba Corporation is a Japanese company with its principal
place of business in Gunma, Japan.  American Mitsuba Corporation,
a subsidiary of Mitsuba Corporation, is an Illinois corporation
with its principal place of business in Novi, Michigan.

Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. is a Japanese company with its principal
place of business in Toyota, Japan.  TRAM, Inc., doing business
as Tokai Rika U.S.A. Inc. and is a subsidiary of Tokai Rika Co.,
Ltd., is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of
business in Plymouth, Michigan.

Omron Automotive Electronics Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation
with its principal place of business in Komaki. Japan.

Toyo Denso Co. Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its principal
place of business in Tokyo, Japan.  Weastec, Inc. is an Ohio
corporation with its principal place of business in Hillsboro,
Ohio.  Weastec is a subsidiary of and wholly owned or controlled
by its parent Defendant Toyo.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Darryl Bressack, Esq.
          Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
          FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
          38500 Woodward Avenue; Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500
          E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
                  dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com
                  nfink@finkandassociateslaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          Michael S. Smith, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center
          P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112-9546
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000
          E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
                  rweill@preti.com
                  jmermin@preti.com
                  msmith@preti.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                  whoese@kohnswift.com
                  dabrahams@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq.
          Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  wlondon@fklmlaw.com
                  mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: espector@srkattorneys.com
                  bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
                  jjagher@srkattorneys.com
                  jspector@srkattorneys.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Fischer, Esq.
          CARSON FISCHER, P.L.C.
          4111 Andover Road West, Second Floor
          Bloomfield Hills,MI 48302-1924
          Telephone: (248) 644-4840
          E-mail: jfischer@carsonfischer.com

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
          Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
          E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com
                  tbright@gbclaw.com
                  pmarkert@gbcslaw.com


PARKWAY INC: "Price" Suit Balks at Canada Pension Plan Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS PRICE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PARKWAY, INC., JAMES R. HEISTAND,
JAMES A. THOMAS, R. DARY STONE, CRAIG B. JONES, FRANK J. JOHNSON,
JAMES H. HANCE, and AVI BANYASZ, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-
cv-02367 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 2, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with
the shareholder vote on a Proposed Merger or consummating the
Proposed Merger, unless and until the Company discloses the
material information discussed above which has been omitted from
the Proxy.

This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf
of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of
Parkway, Inc. against the Company and the members of the
Company's board of directors for their violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed
merger between Parkway and affiliates of Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board.

According to the complaint, on June 29, 2017, the Board caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger,
pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive
$23.05, $4.00 of which will be paid as a "special dividend," in
cash for each share of Parkway stock they own, which represents a
discount of 12% to the Company's 52-week high of $26.20. On July
27, 2017, in order to convince Parkway shareholders to vote in
favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing of
a materially incomplete and misleading Preliminary Proxy
Statement on a Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. While Defendants are touting the fairness of the
Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy,
they have failed to disclose certain material information that is
necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the
Proposed Merger, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete
and misleading. In particular, the Proxy contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the
financial projections for the Company that were relied upon by
the Board in recommending the Company's shareholders vote in
favor of the merger; and (ii) the valuation analyses performed by
Parkway's financial advisor, HFF Securities L.P., in support of
its fairness opinion.

Parkway is an American real estate company based out of the Bank
of America Center in Orlando, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
          THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
          Houston, TX 77002

               - and -

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


PASADENA, CA: Faces "Liu" Suit Over Balance Billing Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Chih Hua Liu, an individual and on behalf of himself, the general
public and those similarly situated v. City of Pasadena and Does
1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. CAC-D-307 (Cal. Super. Ct., May
26, 2017), arises from the Defendants' illegal practices of
balance billing, specifically by directly charging patients for
the difference between the bill submitted to a patient's health
care service plan and the amount actually paid by the patient's
plan.

City of Pasadena is a city organized in the State of California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mike Arias, Esq.
      Arnold C. Wang, Esq.
      Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
      ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE & TORRIJOS LLP
      6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90045
      Telephone: (310) 844-9696
      Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
      E-mail: mike@asstlawyers.com
              arnold@asstlawyers.com
              alfredo@asstlawyers.com

         - and -

      Ying Xu, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ERIC K. CHEN
      1875 Gale Avenue, Suite 228
      City of Industry, CA 91748
      Telephone: (626) 810-6163
      Facsimile: (626) 810-3732


PATHFINDER INC: Carter Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA CARTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. PATHFINDER, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-00459-
SWW (E.D. Ark., July 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Pathfinder, Inc., is an Arkansas corporation with its principal
place of business located in Jacksonville, Arkansas.  The Company
employed the Plaintiff and similarly situated persons as home
healthcare workers, who provided companionship services for the
elderly, ill or disabled.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve Rauls, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


PELONS 508: Faces "Lawrence" Suit over Back Pay, Tip Pooling
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Mohica, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Pelons 508 - Austin LLC, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00710 (W.D. Tex., July 27, 2017), seeks unpaid back wages due
with liquidated damages, restitution for the portion of the tip
pool that was illegally shared, taxable costs and allowable
expenses of this action, attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief and such
other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates as Pelon's Tex-Mex Restaurant located at 802
Red River Street in Austin, Texas where Mohica worked as a server
and bartender from approximately March, 2016 until May, 2017.
Mohica claims that portion of the tip pool was illegally re-
allocated to non-tipped employees. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Austin Kaplan, Esq.
      KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      2525 Wallingwood Dr., Bldg. 14
      Austin, Texas 78746
      Telephone: (512) 553-9390
      Telecopier: (512) 692-2788
      Email: akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com
      Website: www.kaplanlawatx.com


PETROLEUM ENGINEERING: "Christie" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CHRISTIE, individually on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. PETROLEUM ENGINEERING, INC., Case No. 17-
0830 (Mass. Super. Ct., Norfolk Cty., June 30, 2017), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid wages and overtime compensation.

Petroleum Engineering, Inc., is a company with a place of
business located in Bellingham, Massachusetts.  The Company was
founded in 1989 and its line of business includes the
construction of nonresidential buildings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Trombetta, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. TROMBETTA
          121 North Main Street, Suite 12
          Mansfield, MA 02048
          Telephone: (508) 339-5900
          Facsimile: (508) 339-3111
          E-mail: chris@trombettalaw.com


PHOENIX 90 LLC: Accused by "Perez" Suit of Not Paying Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
YOLANDA G. PEREZ and other similarly-situated individuals v.
PHOENIX 90, LLC, d/b/a JUNGLE JUICE CAFE, LARISA PUSCARENCO,
FABIO BERNARDI, and CHRISTIAN RIGOLLET, individually, Case No.
1:17-cv-22459-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2017), alleges that the
Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and one half her
regular rate, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Phoenix 90, LLC, doing business as Jungle Juice Cafe, is a
Florida corporation, having place of business in Miami-Dade
County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked for the Company.  The
Individual Defendants are the owners/partners/directors and
managers of Jungle Juice Cafe.

Jungle Juice Cafe is a vegetarian/vegan restaurant located at
17100 Collins Avenue, in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Accused by "Sergent" Suit of Violating FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Sergent, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Phoenix Financial Solutions, LLC, Case No.
4:17-cv-00471-ALM-CAN (E.D. Tex., June 30, 2017), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Phoenix Financial Solutions, LLC, is a Limited Liability Company
registered in Colorado.  The Company's principal office is
located in Northglenn, Colorado.[BN]

Plaintiff Renee Sergent, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Seth Parker Crosland, Esq.
          CROSLAND LAW FIRM
          121 West Hickory, Suite 121
          Denton, TX 76201
          Telephone: (972) 591-6919
          Facsimile: (972) 408-0713
          E-mail: seth@croslandlawfirm.com


PHOENIX RISING: "Weigel" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against the Phoenix Rising Football Club
seeks to recover overtime wage and minimum wage under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Arizona Minimum Wage Act.

The case is captioned, Ryan Weigel, Individually, and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Phoenix
Rising FC, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company formerly
named Arizona United Soccer Club, LLC d/b/a Phoenix Rising
Football Club and d/b/a Phoenix Rising FC; Michael McCoy, an
individual; Robert Dulle and Jane Doe Dulle, a married couple;
David Stearns and Jane Doe Stearns, a married couple; Jim Scussel
and Jane Doe Scussel, a married couple; Brett Johnson and Jane
Doe Johnson, a married couple; Mark Leber and Jane Doe Leber, a
married couple; David Rappaport and Jane Doe Rappaport, a married
couple; Tim Riester and Jane Doe Reister, a married couple;
William Kraus and Jane Doe Kraus, a married couple; Christopher
Yeung and Jane Doe Yeung, a married couple; Kevin Kusatsu and
Jane Doe Kusatsu, a married couple; Peter Wentz and Jane Doe
Wentz, a married couple; Brandon McCarthy and Jane Doe McCarthy,
a married couple; Rick Hauser and Jane Doe Hauser, a married
couple, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02565-DGC (D. Ariz.,
Aug. 2, 2017),

According to the complaint, Defendants were required to pay
Plaintiff and the Collective Members the state minimum wage of
$10.00, but failed to do so. Specifically, on the week of
February 27 through March 5 2017, Plaintiff was paid only his
bimonthly salary which is equal to roughly $480.77 per work week
despite working over 50 hours that week. This means that
Plaintiff was paid less than $10.00 an hour in that week.
Plaintiff and the Collective Members regularly did not make
minimum wage.

Phoenix Rising Football is a professional soccer team based in
Phoenix. Founded in 2014 as Arizona United Soccer Club.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy F. Coons, Esq.
          DENTON PETERSON PC
          1930 N. Arboleda Road, Suite 200
          Mesa, AR 85213
          Telephone: (480) 325 9900
          Facsimile: (480) 325 9901
          E-mail: Timothy@DentonPeterson.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Pettit"
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of
California, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned JAMIE PETTIT, Plaintiff, v.
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-02150-RS
(N.D. Cal.).

Defendant Proctor & Gamble Company (P&G) sells Charmin
Freshmates, pre-moistened disposable cloths that can be used for
multiple purposes including personal hygiene and cleaning.
Freshmates are marketed and labeled as flushable.

Plaintiff Jamie Pettit brings this putative class action under
California law, contending that use of the term flushable is
false and misleading under the reasonable consumer standard,
because Freshmates allegedly are not flushable in the sense that
a significant portion of consumers would expect.

Plaintiff alleges that while Freshmates may be flushable in that
they generally will pass through toilets, they actually are not
suitable for disposal through municipal waste systems and may
even cause clogs and damage within consumers' own plumbing
systems.

Numerosity

The proposed class is sufficiently numerous that joinder would be
impracticable, as millions of packages of Freshmates have been
sold in California during the class period. P&G does not argue
otherwise.

Commonality

Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class
members have suffered the same injury and that the class claims
depend on a common contention of such a nature that it is capable
of classwide resolution.

Plaintiff declined to offer any consumer survey evidence, citing
instead to authority that such evidence is not necessarily
required, if the probability of consumers being misled can be
evaluated from other evidence.

While Plaintifft may need to bolster her showing if she hopes to
prevail at trial, for purposes of the present motion she has
adequately established that common proof can answer on a class-
wide basis the critical central question as to whether P&G's
labeling of Freshmates as flushable gives rise to a probability
that a significant portion of the relevant consumers acting
reasonably could be misled.

P&G argues she has not advanced a reliable method for calculating
damages on a class-wide basis. The first of these flaws are that
the statistical analysis of Colin Weir, upon which Pettit relies,
does not include substantially all products that compete with
Freshmates, including prices from Costco and Amazon, does not
differentiate between various "private label brands, and does not
account for all independent variables across the time period.

While these arguments go to the weight of the evidence and may
provide fertile ground for cross-examination at trial, they do
not render the evidence inadmissible nor otherwise support denial
of class certification.

Typicality

Typicality focuses on the class representative's claim but not
the specific facts from which the claim arose and ensures that
the interest of the class representative aligns with the
interests of the class.

Pettit's personal experience with Freshmates, however, is not
crucial to her typicality. Like the class generally, she seeks
restitution for a premium paid for what she alleges was a
falsely-labeled product, and she supports her claim with evidence
of Freshmates' general unsuitability for flushing (in her view),
totally apart for her own experiences flushing Freshmates. This
is sufficient to find her claims typical.

Adequacy

P&G has not indicated why Pettit cannot adequately protect the
interests of the class, other than questioning her standing.
Standing, however, is not a requirement of Rule 23; what matters
is that the class representative satisfies the requirements of
Rule 23 and has standing to bring her claims, not the claims of
every class member.

Regardless of whether the requirement is deemed one of adequacy
or standing, it is clearly satisfied in this case. Plaintiff's
testimony that she does not intend to purchase Freshmates in the
future does not deprive her of standing to seek injunctive
relief. Pettit has a cognizable interest in a market where prices
are not distorted by any misrepresentations.

Predominance

In challenging commonality, P&G also challenges whether questions
of law or fact common to class members predominate. In this
instance, the predominance and commonality issues collapse, and
Pettit has adequately shown that the common issues discussed
above are also sufficiently predominate.

Superiority

The matters pertinent to determining superiority include: (A) the
class members' interests in individually controlling the
prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and
nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun
by or against class members; (C) the desirability or
undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in
the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing
a class action.

These factors all indicate a class action is superior to other
potential methods of litigating the class members' claims, and
P&G advances no argument to the contrary. Superiority is
therefore satisfied.

Plaintiff's motion to certify is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yd3rj43qfrom Leagle.com.

Jamie Pettit, Plaintiff, represented by Seth Adam Safier --
seth@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP.

Jamie Pettit, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gutride --
adam@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Jeremy Tor,
Spanenberg Shibley and Liber LLP, pro hac vice, Kristen
Gelinas Simplicio -- kmgsimplicio@gmail.com -- Gutride Safier
LLP, Lorenzo B. Cellini, Tycko and Zavareei LLP,1828 L Street,
NW - Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036, Marie Ann McCrary -
marie@gutridesafier.com - Gutride Safier LLP, Seth Adam Safier,
Gutride Safier LLP & Stuart E. Scott, Spangenberg Shibley & Liber
LLP, pro hac vice.

Procter & Gamble Company, Defendant, represented by Emily Johnson
Henn -- ehenn@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, Cortlin Hall
Lannin, Covington & Burling LLP, Lindsey Catherine Barnhart --
lbarnhart@cov.com -- Covington Burling LLP & Sonya Diane Winner
swinner@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP.


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces "Fox" Suit over False Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANN FOX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 1-10,
Case No. 2:17-cv-05285 (C.D. Cal., July 18, 2017), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the
Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company is an Ohio Corporation
engaged in the business of selling insurance policies nationwide.
The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PUERTO MADERO: Borda Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALVARO BORDA and other similarly-situated individuals v. PUERTO
MADERO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, d/b/a PM FISH & STEAK HOUSE,
Case No. 1:17-cv-22458-KMM (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2017), seeks to
recover money damages for alleged unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Puerto Madero International, doing business as PM Fish & Steak
House is a Florida corporation.  PM Fish & Steak House is an
Argentinian restaurant located at 1453 S. Miami Avenue, in Miami,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RAMISONS INC: "Orellana" Suit Sues over Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX ORELLANA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RAMISONS, INC. d/b/a THE
PIZZA PRESS, a corporation: and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC670938 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 2, 2017),
seeks injunctive relief to ensure compliance by Defendants with
the Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the itemized wage statements
furnished to Plaintiff and all other employees failed to include
the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer.
Plaintiff and the proposed class have suffered injury from
Defendants' knowing and intentional failure to comply with Labor
Code section 226(a) and are entitled to statutory penalties,
costs and attorney's fees.

Ramison is in the gift shop business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E, Quintilone II, Esq.
          Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
          George A. Aloupas, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
          Telephone: (949) 458 9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458 9679
          E-mail: REO@OuintLaw.com
                  ABL@OuintLaw.com
                  Gaa@OuintLaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew Gutierrez, Esq.
          Amber B. Derham, Esq.
          GUTIERREZ DERHAM LAW FIRM LLP
          26632 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 300
          Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
          Telephone: (949) 420 3767
          E-mail: mg@gutierrezderham.com
                  abd@gutierrezderham.com


RANGE RESOURCES: "Seagraves" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
DARYL SEAGRAVES individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RANGE RESOURCES
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01009-MRH (W.D. Pa.,
Aug. 2, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act (PMWA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other workers
like him were typically scheduled for 12 hour shifts, seven days
a week, for weeks at a time. But these workers never received
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA and
PMWA, Defendant paid these workers a daily rate with no overtime
pay and improperly classified them as independent contractors.

Range Resources is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and
production company headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.[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.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352 1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352 3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  litkin@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


REEVES BOOMLAND: Receipts Show Credit Card Number, Coleman Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Coleman, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Reeves Boomland,
Inc. and Bi-state Southern Oil Company, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00119 (E.D. Miss., July 26, 2017), seeks statutory and
punitive damages, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred
in this action, including expert fees and other and further
relief under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

Reeves and Southern own and operate convenience stores in
Missouri that offers Exxon-branded gasoline. Both stores allow
customers to pay for gasoline at the pump using Exxon's
Speedpass, a contactless payment option that allows a customer to
link a credit card or debit card electronically linked to a
keychain device using a radio frequency identification device
that is read by a tag reader inside the gas pump.

Plaintiff availed of these services to pay for his gasoline.
Coleman was surprised to find out that the receipt printed his
credit card number thereby exposing him to credit card identity
theft. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony LaCroix, Esq.
      LACROIX LAW FIRM, LLC
      406 W 34th St #810,
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Telephone: (816) 399-4380
      Email: Tony@lacroixlawkc.com

             - and -

      James L. Davidson, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com


RELIANT REALTY: "Burwell" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Zachery Burwell, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Reliant Realty Services, LLC,
Reliant Realty Services, Inc. and 690 Gates, L.P., Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-05646 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant
to the New York Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Reliant LLC managed apartment buildings and thousands of
apartment units in New York and other states, including buildings
in which Plaintiff was employed as a maintenance worker. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Tel: (718) 740-1000
      Fax: (718) 740-2000
      Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


RENEWABLE ENERGY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Suarez and Renee Lewis, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly v. Renewable Energy Center, LLC, A1 Solar Power, Inc.,
American Pro Energy, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
BC663172 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 26, 2017), arises out of the
Defendant's policies and practices of denying employees earned
wages, meal and rest breaks period compensation, timely and
accurate wage and hour statements, payment of compensation due to
the Plaintiffs, in a timely manner after termination.

The Defendants own and operate a solar company in Los Angeles
County, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bobby Saadian, Esq.
      Colin M. Jones, Esq.
      Daniel B. Miller, Esq.
      Nicol E. Hajjar, Esq.
      WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
      3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 381-9988
      Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
      E-mail: info@wilshirelawfirm.com


RESTAURANT ZERO: "Rivera" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Byron Rivera, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Restaurant Zero Otto Nove III, LLC,
Roberto Paciullo and "Tony," Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-05638,
(S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Defendants operate a restaurant located at 55 Old Rte. 22,
Armonk, NY 10504 where Rivera worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Jordan El-Hag, Esq.
      EL-HAG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      777 Westchester Ave, Suite 101
      White Plains, NY, 10604
      Tel: (914) 755-1579
      Fax: (914) 206-4176
      Email: Jordan@elhaglaw.com
      Website: www.elhaglaw.com


REUNION: "Ramirez" Suits Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL RAMIREZ, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ELDAD MASHIACH and INNA MASHIACH Individually and
REUNION, Case No. 1:17-cv-04320 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2017), seeks
the recovery of unpaid wages and related damages for alleged
unpaid overtime hours pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

Reunion is a New York Corporation.  Reunion is a restaurant
located at 544 Union Avenue, in Brooklyn, New York.  The
Individual Defendants are owners and operators of Reunion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP PC
          39 Broadway, Suite 1530
          New York, NY 10006 5
          Telephone: (212) 344-9022
          Facsimile: (212) 344-0301
          E-mail: Darren@thekleinlawgroup.com


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Pack Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
LONZO PACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,
INC.., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01483-SJO-JC (C.D. Cal., July
26, 2017), seeks to recover all wages owed, front pay, all
unreimbursed business expenses, all meal and rest break premiums
owed, plus all penalties and compensatory damages, liquidated
damages, statutory penalties, and civil penalties under the
California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission, California
Unfair Competition Law and Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was generally responsible for driving trucks and
delivering freight from one point to another. He was assigned to
a terminal in Mira Loma, California. His work tasks includes,
among others, driving; inspecting, fueling and maintaining
vehicles; hooking up and unhooking trailers; unloading freight;
verifying loads; planning trips; completing daily logs, shipping
documents and other paperwork; and waiting for customers and
dispatch.

According to the complaint, as a result of misclassifying
Plaintiff as an independent contractor, and constructing of pay
packages that did not compensate Plaintiff for all work
performed, Defendants have regularly failed to compensate
Plaintiff for all hours worked in violation of Labor Code.
Defendants paid Plaintiff per the mile. However, Defendants did
not compensate Plaintiff for non-driving duties such as time
spent, among others, inspecting, fueling and maintaining
vehicles; hooking up and unhooking trailers; verifying loads;
unloading freight; planning trips; completing daily logs,
shipping documents and other paperwork; remaining with the truck
in the sleeper berth; and waiting for customers and dispatch.

Defendants are major providers of truckload transportation and
logistics services. Defendants' business model relies upon both
truck drivers that Defendants classify as "employees," and truck
drivers that Defendants classify as "independent contractors" or
"owner operators." Plaintiff was treated as an independent
contractor/owner operator.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
          Thomas A. Rist, Esq.
          HUMPHREY & RIST, LLP
          1216 State Street, 4th Floor
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 618 2924
          Facsimile: (805) 618 2939
          E-mail: christina@humphreyrist.com
                  tom@humphreyrist.com


RUDOLPH INC: Accused by "Wittmann" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELE WITTMANN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RUDOLPH INCORPORATED, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:17-cv-01502-MCE-EFB (E.D.
Cal., July 19, 2017), is brought for damages, injunctive relief,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting
from the alleged illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently,
knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Rudolph Incorporated is debt collection company.  The true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, 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
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com


SAN DIEGO, CA: Trip Fees Are Unconstitutional, KSAN Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
K.S.A.N. L.L.C., and on behalf of all other similarly situated
Persons and Entities v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT
AUTHORITY and DOES 1-3000 inclusive, Case No. 37-2017-00024982-
CU-NP-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., July 10, 2017),
seeks, among other things, a declaration that:

   (1) SDCRAA Ground Transportation trip fees are special taxes
       imposed upon the traveling public without a vote of the
       electorate, and as such are invalid and unconstitutional;
       and

   (2) SDCRAA trip fee rebates and non-remittals to private taxi
       companies violate the prohibition on gifts of public funds
       in Article XVI of the California Constitution, Section 6,
       and as such are invalid and unconstitutional.

All of the Defendants' violations arise from the common nucleus
of the SDCRAA trip tax imposed upon passengers of various SDCRAA
Ground Transportation Modes, and illegal gifting of these public
funds to private companies, the Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff
states that SDCRAA Ground Transportation Modes include Taxicabs,
Vehicles for Hire Shuttles, Limousines, Courtesy Shuttles, SDCRAA
Vehicles, Public Transit, Rental Cars, Private Vehicles, and
since 2015, Transportation Network Companies, such as Uber and
Lyft.

San Diego County Regional Airport Authority ("SDCRAA") is a local
government entity established by the San Diego County Regional
Airport Authority Act (Pub. Util. Code Section 170000, et seq.),
which through its Board of Directors and its Executive Staff,
public employees acting in their official capacities, operate San
Diego International Airport.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kamran Hamidi, Esq.
          P.O. Box 26221
          San Diego, CA 92196
          Telephone: (858) 692-6920
          E-mail: khsd6920@gmail.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Garafalo Sues Over Auto-dialer Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Robin Garafalo, on behalf of herself others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., Defendant, Case No.
6:17-cv-01408 (M.D. Fla., July 28, 2017), seeks compensatory
damages including interest, reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees,
rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and such
equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Telephone
Consumers Protection Act.

Defendant placed its calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number to discuss an automobile loan apparently associated with a
Mr. Whitehurst and Ms. Howard, both former roommates of the
Plaintiff. These calls were made through an automated dialer and
do not have expressed consent from Garafalo. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
      James L. Davidson, Esq.
      Jesse Johnson. Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Rd, Ste. 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Tel: (561) 826-5477
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
             jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
             jjognson@gdrlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
      Austin, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 322-3912
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


SCHMENGIE CORP: "Anderson" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Laura A. Anderson, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Schmengie Corporation, (d/b/a
Grainger's Grille) and Timothy McLarney, Defendants, Case No.
9:17-cv-80900 (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and minimum wages owed under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Grainger's is a company that operates a restaurant known as
Grainger's Grille in Delray Beach, Florida where Plaintiff was
employed as a server. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEARS HOLDINGS: Accused by "Catalfamo" Suit of Violating ERISA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT A. CATALFAMO, individually and on behalf of the Sears
Holdings Savings Plan, and/or on behalf of a class consisting of
similarly situated participants of the Sears Holdings Savings
Plan v. SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, EDWARD S. LAMPERT, SEARS
HOLDINGS CORPORATION INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-20,
Case No. 1:17-cv-05230 (N.D. Ill., July 14, 2017), alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants breached the duties
they owed to the Sears Holdings Savings Plan, to the Plaintiff,
and to the putative class members, who are also Plan participants
and beneficiaries by, inter alia, retaining Sears common stock,
which traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker
"SHLD," as an investment option in the Plan when a reasonable
fiduciary using the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence ...
that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with
such matters would use" would have done otherwise.

Sears Holdings Corporation, a Delaware Corporation with its
principal place of business in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, is the
Plan Sponsor.  Sears operates as an integrated retailer in the
United States.  The Company operates in two segments, Kmart and
Sears Domestic.

Sears Holdings Corporation Investment Committee was a Plan
fiduciary at all times relevant hereto.  The Committee selects
the investment funds offered under the Plan.

Edward S. Lampert has served as Sears's Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive officer since prior to the start of the Class
Period, and has been a fiduciary of the Plan within the meaning
of ERISA.  The John Doe Defendants are Company officers,
directors, and employees, who were fiduciaries of the Plan during
the Class Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce C. Howard, Esq.
          Richard S. Wilson, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: bhoward@siprut.com
                  rwilson@siprut.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          E-mail: mklein@ssbny.com


SM ENERGY CO: Underpays Oilfield Workers, "Cox" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Cox, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. SM Energy Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-01857
(D. Colo., July 31, 2017), seeks overtime, all available relief,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Colorado Wage Claim Act and Colorado Minimum
Wage Act as implemented by the Colorado Minimum Wage Order.

Plaintiff are oilfield workers who worked for SM Energy and were
misclassified as independent contractors. Cox routinely work in
excess of forty hours per workweek.

SM Energy is in the oil and gas industry with operations in four
states, including Colorado, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
     242 Linden Street
     Fort Collins, CO 80524
     Tel: (970) 214-0562
     Email: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com

            - and -

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


SNAP INC: "Hsieh" Suit over IPO Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
Chenghsin D. Hsieh and Wei C. Hsieh, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Snap Inc., Evan
Spiegel, Andrew Vollero, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs
& Co., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,
Barclays Capital Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and
Allen & Company LLC,, Case No. BC669394, (Cal. Super, July 25,
2017), was removed to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on July 27, 2017 under Case No.
2:17-cv-05569.

Plaintiffs bring this action for damages on behalf of persons or
entities who acquired the common stock of Snap in connection with
their March 2, 2017 Initial Public Offering. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented pro se.

Defendant is represented by:

      Boris Feldman, Esq.
      Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq.
      WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
      650 Page Mill Road
      Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
      Telephone: (650) 493-9300
      Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
      Email: boris.feldman@wsgr.com
             isalceda@wsgr.com


SODEXO INC: "Ivey" Suit Removed From Supreme Court to S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Ivey v. Sodexo, Inc., Case No. 58051/2017, was
removed on June 30, 2017, from the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of Westchester, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (White Plains).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:17-cv-04978-CS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related issues.

Sodexo, Inc., designs, manages, and delivers onsite benefits and
rewards, and personal and home services in the United States,
Canada, and Mexico.  The Company provides operations and
maintenance services, which include construction, performance
interiors, interior design, facilities management, energy
management and conservation, and roofing design and management
services; food services, such as culinary services, catering and
nutritional services, health and wellness, vending operations,
and wellness solutions; and facilities management services that
include grounds care/landscaping, security, and front
desk/reception, as well as housekeeping, custodial, and
janitorial services.[BN]

Plaintiff Felicia Ivey, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated is represented by:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          55 John St., 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (516) 625-0105
          Facsimile: (516) 625-0106
          E-mail: louisginsberg@1800lostjob.com

Defendant Sodexo, Inc., is represented by:

          Gina Renee Merrill, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (212) 218-5500
          Facsimile: (212) 218-5526
          E-mail: GMerrill@seyfarth.com


SOUTH DAKOTA: State Brand Board Faces "Stanko" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Rudy Stanko, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated
cattle ranchers on the Pine Ridge Reservation and border towns,
Plaintiff, v. South Dakota State Brand Board, Jake Schofield,
individually and in his official capacity as South Dakota State
Brand Inspector, Phillip Livestock Auction, Thor Roseth,
individually and as owner of the Phillip Livestock Auction,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-05060 (D. S.D., July 28, 2017) seeks
redress for violations of equal rights under 42 U.S. Code Sec.
1981

Plaintiff is represented pro se.


SPA CITY STEAKS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, "Thompson" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHEVON THOMPSON, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. SPA CITY STEAKS, INC., d/b/a COLTON'S STEAK
HOUSE AND GRILL DEFENDANT, Case No. 6:17-cv-06055-SOH (W.D. Ark.,
June 30, 2017), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
similarly situated servers seeking declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and civil
penalties and costs as a result of the Defendant's alleged
failure to pay minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Spa City Steaks, Inc., is an Arkansas for-profit corporation.
The Defendant owns and operates a Colton's Steak House and Grill
restaurant in Garland County, located at 120 Crawford Street, in
Hot Springs, Arkansas.  The Plaintiff was a server at Colton's
Steak House.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve Rauls, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center,
          650 S. Shackleford Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Sale to Philips
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE SPECTRANETICS CORPORATION, R. JOHN FLETCHER,
SCOTT DRAKE, B. KRISTINE JOHNSON, WILLIAM C. JENNINGS, DANIEL
PELAK, JOSEPH M. RUGGIO, MARIA SAINZ, TODD SCHERMERHORN, PHILIPS
HOLDING USA INC., AND HEALTHTECH MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 1:17-
cv-01776-MJW (D. Colo., July 21, 2017), stems from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which The Spectranetics Corporation will
be acquired by Philips Holding USA Inc. ("Parent") and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, HealthTech Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger
Sub").

On June 27, 2017, Spectranetics' Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger.  Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Philips commenced a tender
offer to acquire all of Spectranetics' outstanding common stock
for $38.50 per share in cash.  The Tender Offer is currently set
expire on August 9, 2017.  If a majority of the Company's
stockholders tender their shares into the Tender Offer and the
Tender Offer is successfully completed, Merger Sub will merge
with and into Spectranetics, with Spectranetics continuing as the
surviving corporation and a wholly owned direct subsidiary of
Parent.

Spectranetics is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices in Colorado Springs, Colorado.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.
Spectranetics develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes
medical devices used in minimally invasive procedures within the
cardiovascular system.  The Company's products are available in
over 65 countries and are used to treat arterial blockages in the
heart and legs and in the removal of pacemaker and defibrillator
leads.

Philips Holding USA Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a party to
the Merger Agreement.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger
Agreement.  Philips Holding, through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and markets cardiac care, acute care and home
healthcare, energy efficient lighting solutions, and new lighting
applications.  Philips Holding operates as a subsidiary of
Koninklijke Philips N.V.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Villanueva, Esq.
          JEFFREY M. VILLANUEVA, P.C.
          1755 Blake Street, Suite 225
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 295-7525
          Facsimile: (303) 295-7511
          E-mail: jeff@jmvpclaw.com

               - and -

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800


SPINNAKER RESORTS: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Cardenas" TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of New Jersey, issued
an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction the case captioned HENNA CARDENAS, individually and
on behalf of a putative class, Plaintiffs, v. SPINNAKER RESORTS,
INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-2466 (JLL) (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff Cardenas, on behalf of a proposed class, alleges that
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,
47 U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA) by making unsolicited telephone
calls.

Plaintiff registered her landline phone number on the Do Not Call
Registry.  Plaintiff began receiving multiple calls during the
day on her landline telephone from different New Jersey telephone
numbers2from telemarketers always identifying themselves as
calling from Spinnaker Resorts. Plaintiff estimates that she has
received at least 70 unwanted calls and has received as many as
four calls per day.

Defendant contends that this Court does not have personal
jurisdiction over it because Spinnaker is not at home and lacks
minimum contacts with the forum, either directly or under agency
principles.

Plaintiff argues that the Court can exercise jurisdiction over
Defendant pursuant to an agency theory because the subsidiaries
conduct business in this District on Spinnaker's behalf, there is
common ownership, Spinnaker supports its subsidiaries
financially, and Spinnaker controls its subsidiaries' affairs.

Plaintiff concedes that this Court does not have general
jurisdiction over Spinnaker and/or its subsidiaries thus the
Court will only address specific jurisdiction.

The Court is not satisfied with Plaintiff's argument that agency
exists between the Resort Sales Companies and Defendant and thus
will not impute the former's contacts with New Jersey to the
latter. Even if Plaintiff had satisfactorily established agency,
Plaintiff fails to allege that the Resort Sales Companies made
the unsolicited telephone calls that gave rise to this action.
The Complaint clearly attributes the telephone calls to
Defendant, not to its subsidiaries and Plaintiff has not
attempted to amend it.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that the Resort
Sales Companies made the alleged phone calls. Since Plaintiff's
argument for specific personal jurisdiction is based on the
premise that the Resort Sales Companies made telephone calls to
Plaintiff and other class members.

Plaintiff's failure to show that the Resort Sales Companies made
such calls defeats its jurisdictional argument. Accordingly, even
if the Resort Sales Companies are agents of Defendant, the Court
cannot have specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant without
the requisite minimum contacts with the forum.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7fj37lnfrom Leagle.com.

HENNA CARDENAS, Plaintiff, represented by STEFAN LOUIS COLEMAN,
1309 Jericho Tpke, New Hyde Park, NY 11040-4615

SPINNAKER RESORTS, INC., Defendant, represented by ROBERT A.
ASSUNCAO -- robert.assuncao@ansalaw.com -- ANSA ASSUNCAO, LLP &
STEVEN F. GOOBY -- steven.gooby@ansalaw.com -- ANSA ASSUNCAO,
LLP.


STATE FARM: Alabama Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Arnold"
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama,
Northern Division, issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned ANNIE ARNOLD, etc., Plaintiff, v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No.
17-0148-WS-C (S.D. Ala.).  Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is also
denied.

This action was filed in state court and timely removed by the
defendant.  According to the class action complaint, the
plaintiff's house was insured by the defendant under a policy
providing replacement cost value (RCV) coverage.  The single
claim presented is that the defendant breached its contractual
duty to pay ACV by unlawfully depreciating labor costs.

The defendant argues that the plaintiff lacks standing to pursue
her claim and that the Court thus lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. The defendant further argues that the complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The defendant has presented uncontroverted evidence that, before
this lawsuit was filed, it had paid the plaintiff RCV based on
her undepreciated labor costs. The defendant concludes that,
because no disputed labor depreciation remained unpaid at the
commencement of the action, the plaintiff is unable to satisfy
the second requirement of constitutional standing.

The plaintiff responds that she has not in fact been made whole.
She notes that the defendant did not pay RCV until several years
after paying ACV, and her complaint demands an award of
prejudgment interest to compensate her for the withholding of
labor depreciation during this interval.

The dispute in this case centers on whether the defendant
properly depreciated labor in its calculation of ACV. The Policy
provides that, until actual repair or replacement is completed,
we will pay only the actual cash value at the time of the loss of
the damaged part of the property, capped by the lower of policy
limits or cost to repair or replace. The Policy does not define
actual cash value.

The Court held that, first, a reasonable insured could reasonably
understand that labor does not depreciate. As reflected and
explained in the cited cases, this is a plausible conception for
a wealth of thoughtful, knowledgeable judges, and it is even more
so for lay insureds with no special competence in property or
insurance matters.

Second, and related to the first, a reasonable insured could
reasonably understand that depreciation in its everyday sense
applies only to physical deterioration, and she could reasonably
understand that labor does not sustain such deterioration because
it is not physical.

Third, a reasonable insured in the plaintiff's position could
reasonably understand that the Policy does not call for
depreciation of things that do not depreciate, due to the
inherent logical contradiction of depreciating non-depreciating
things.

It is clear that the plaintiff has standing to pursue her claim.
The defendant has not demonstrated that the Policy unambiguously
provides for depreciation of labor costs. The defendant's motion
to dismiss is denied, and the plaintiff's motion to remand is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017 Order is
available http://tinyurl.com/y8ov33qxfrom Leagle.com.

Annie Arnold, Plaintiff, represented by David P. Martin, The
Martin Law Group, LLC.

Annie Arnold, Plaintiff, represented by Erik D. Mehr, Fairbanks &
Peterson Trial Lawyers, PLLC, pro hac vice, Mendel Austin Mehr,
Mehr, Fairbanks & Peterson Trial Lawyers, PLLC, pro hac vice &
Philip Fairbanks, Mehr, Fairbanks & Peterson, pro hac vice.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by
James B. Newman -- jbn@helmsinglaw.com -- Helmsing, Leach,
Herlong, Joseph Cancila, Jr. -- jcancila@rshc-law.com -- Riley
Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Heidi Dalenberg --
hdalenberg@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro
hac vice, Jacob L. Kahn -- jkahn@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer
Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice & Tal C. Chaiken --
tchaiken@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro
hac vice.


STATES RECOVERY: Caldera Sues over Debt Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------
Armando Caldera, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. States Recovery Systems, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05651 (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2017),
seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies, resulting from violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

States Recovery attempted to collect from Plaintiff a $97.88 debt
to a third party that includes, in its collection letter,
principal balance plus interest and "other charges." Defendant
makes no reference to consumers' and debtors' rights to request
validation or dispute the alleged debts in said letter. [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


STATEWIDE HARVESTING: Ramirez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RAMIREZ, JOEL SANTANA and all those similarly situated v.
STATEWIDE HARVESTING & HAULING, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-01753-MSS-
AEP (M.D. Fla., July 20, 2017), is a collective action to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Statewide Harvesting is a Florida Limited Liability Company,
having its main place of business in Dundee, Florida.  Statewide
Harvesting is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking
company running freight hauling business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
          SORONDO ROSENBERG PA
          1825 Ponce de Leon Blvd., #329
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (786) 708-7550
          E-mail: rer@sorondorosenberg.com


STERLING HOME: Workers Are Entitled to Overtime, Darby Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BEVOLYN DARBY, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. STERLING HOME CARE, INC., STEVEN B. KATZ
and JOHN DOES #1-10, Case No. 1:17-cv-05370 (S.D.N.Y., July 15,
2017), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Plaintiff and proposed class members are entitled to (i) unpaid
wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which they did
not receive overtime premium pay, as required by law, and (ii)
liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA.

Sterling Home Care Inc. is a New York corporation, with its
principal place of business in Rye, New York.  Steven B. Katz is
the President and Founder of the Company.  The Company's line of
business includes home health care services.  The Doe Defendants
represent the officers, directors or managing agents of the
Company, whose identities are unknown at this time.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William C. Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          501 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 286-1425
          Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


STONE MANOR: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Rivera" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rivera, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Stone Manor 101, Sparta Greek Taverna,
Michael Cassarella and Tommy Stratis, Defendants, Case No. 7:17-
cv-05636, (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
labor laws.

Defendants operate a restaurant located at 6 Rockledge Ave,
Ossining, NY 10562 where Rivera worked. Defendants allegedly
failed to keep accurate and sufficient payroll and time records.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Jordan El-Hag, Esq.
      EL-HAG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      777 Westchester Ave, Suite 101
      White Plains, NY, 10604
      Tel: (914) 755-1579
      Fax: (914) 206-4176
      Email: Jordan@elhaglaw.com
      Website: www.elhaglaw.com


STRANDED LLC: Faces "Goebel" Wage-and-Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------
D. Goebel, individually, Plaintiff, v. Stranded LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company, Paula Patton, Deon L. Taylor, Roxanne
Taylor and Does 1 Through 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-at-00758,
(E.D. Cal., July 27, 2017), is a collective action claiming
unpaid wages including minimum and overtime wages, liquidated
damages, post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the California Labor
Code.

Defendants employed Plaintiff as a driver from in or around
August 29, 2016 to in or around September 30, 2016. Goebel claims
to have worked without overtime pay, worked through rest breaks
and did not receive wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan Harris, Esq.
      David Garrett, Esq.
      Min Ji Gal, Esq.
      HARRIS & RUBLE
      655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
      Glendale CA 91203
      Tel: (323) 962-3777
      Fax: (323) 962-3004


SUTTER EAST BAY: "Hurtubise" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Cristy R. Hurtubise, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sutter East Bay Hospitals, a
California corporation and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. RG17868819 (Cal. Super., July 24, 2017), seeks recovery
of straight time and overtime compensation, missed meal break
compensation, pre-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs as well as damages for failure to timely furnish
accurate itemized wage statements pursuant to the California
Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code and
applicable Wage Orders issued by the California Industrial
Welfare Commission.

Plaintiff worked for the defendants as a staff nurse. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
     Gregg Lander, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
     5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
     Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
     Tel: (323) 549-9100
     Fax: (323) 549-0101
     Email: Barnes@kbarnes.com

             - and -

      David Roger Markham, Esq.
      THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
      750 B Street, Suite 1950
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 399-3995
      Email: dmarkham@markham-law.com


TABLEAU SOFTWARE: "Scheufele" Suit Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Scheufele, Jeffrey Scheufele and Nicholas Oram,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Tableau Software, Inc., Christian Chabot and Thomas
Walker, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05753 (S.D.N.Y., July 28,
2017), seeks compensatory damages including interest, reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel
fees and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Tableau is a business analytics software company which produces
interactive data visualization products focused on business
intelligence. Tableau allegedly failed to disclose that product
launches and upgrades by major software competitors were
negatively impacting Tableau's competitive position and
profitability. Tableau's stock price fell $44.53 per share or
54.47%, to close at $37.22 per share on February 8, 2016, wiping
out billions of dollars in market capitalization.

Plaintiffs purchased Tableau common stock during the relevant
time and lost susbstantially. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
      Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, New York 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
      Email: ek@zlk.com
             ckupka@zlk.com

             - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Tel: (203) 992-4523
      Fax: (212) 363-7171
      Email: shopkins@zlk.com


TABLEAU SOFTWARE: "Abarrientos" Suit Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beldevere Abarrientos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tableau Software, Inc.,
Christian Chabot and Thomas Walker, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01175 (W.D. Wash., August 2, 2017), seeks compensatory damages
including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action, including counsel fees and expert fees, rescission
or a rescissory measure of damages and such equitable/injunctive
or other relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Tableau is a business analytics software company which produces
interactive data visualization products focused on business
intelligence. Tableau allegedly failed to disclose that product
launches and upgrades by major software competitors were
negatively impacting Tableau's competitive position and
profitability. Tableau's stock price fell $44.53 per share or
54.47%, to close at $37.22 per share on February 8, 2016, wiping
out billions of dollars in market capitalization.

Plaintiffs purchased Tableau common stock during the relevant
time and lost substantially. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Cliff Cantor, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
     627 208th Ave. SE
     Sammamish, WA 98074
     Tel: (425) 868-7813
     Fax: (425) 732-3752
     Email: cliff.cantor@outlook.com

            - and -

      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

              - and -

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

             - and -

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


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Drywalls Are Toxic, "Macon" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Macon, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., formerly known
as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard
Co., Ltd., Beijing New Building Materials Public Limited Co.,
Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd., China National
Building Material Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01287
(N.D. Ala., August 1, 2017), seeks compensatory, statutory,
and/or punitive damages, pre and post-judgment interest,
injunctive relief, attorney's fees, taxable costs and any and all
such further relief resulting from negligence, breach of express
and/or implied warranty, breach of implied warranty of fitness
and merchantability pursuant to Florida Statutes, private
nuisance, negligent discharge of a corrosive substance, unjust
enrichment and in violation of Louisiana Products Liability Act
and various state Consumer Protection Acts.

Plaintiffs alleges that the Chinese manufactured drywall
designed, manufactured, imported, exported, distributed,
delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed
by the Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it
unfit for residential purposes.

Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing
business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed
and marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it
reacts, breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other
noxious gases including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and
carbon disulfide.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Reeves, Esq.
      REEVES AND MESTAYER PLLC
      160 Main St.
      Biloxi MS 39530
      Tel: (228) 374-5151
      Fax: (228) 374-6630
      Email: jrr@rmlawcall.com


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Drywalls Are Toxic, "De Oliveira" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harry De Oliveira, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd.,
formerly known as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Tai'an
Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd., Beijing New Building Materials
Public Limited Co., Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co.,
Ltd., China National Building Material Co., Ltd., Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-cv-02019 (D. S.C., August 1, 2017), seeks
compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive damages, pre and post-
judgment interest, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, taxable
costs and any and all such further relief resulting from
negligence, breach of express and/or implied warranty, breach of
implied warranty of fitness and merchantability pursuant to
Florida Statutes, private nuisance, negligent discharge of a
corrosive substance, unjust enrichment and in violation of
Louisiana Products Liability Act and various state Consumer
Protection Acts.

Plaintiffs alleges that the Chinese manufactured drywall
designed, manufactured, imported, exported, distributed,
delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed
by the Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it
unfit for residential purposes.

Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing
business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed
and marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it
reacts, breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other
noxious gases including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and
carbon disulfide.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald D. Jowers, Jr., Esq.
      Kenneth M. Suggs, Esq.
      Gerald D. Jowers, Jr., Esq.
      JANET JENNER & SUGGS LLC
      500 Taylor Street, Suite 301
      Columbia, SC 29201
      Phone: (803) 726-0050
      Fax: (803) 727-1059


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Drywalls Are Toxic, "Peoples" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Debra Peoples, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd.,
formerly known as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Tai'an
Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd., Beijing New Building Materials
Public Limited Co., Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co.,
Ltd., China National Building Material Co., Ltd., Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02890 (N.D. Ga., August 1, 2017), seeks
compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive damages, pre and post-
judgment interest, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, taxable
costs and any and all such further relief resulting from
negligence, breach of express and/or implied warranty, breach of
implied warranty of fitness and merchantability pursuant to
Florida Statutes, private nuisance, negligent discharge of a
corrosive substance, unjust enrichment and in violation of
Louisiana Products Liability Act and various state Consumer
Protection Acts.

Plaintiffs alleges that the Chinese manufactured drywall
designed, manufactured, imported, exported, distributed,
delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed
by the Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it
unfit for residential purposes.

Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing
business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed
and marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it
reacts, breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other
noxious gases including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and
carbon disulfide.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrea S. Hirsch, Esq.
      HERMAN GEREL, LLP
      60 Lenox Pointe, Esq.
      Atlanta, GA 30324
      Phone: (404) 880-9500
      Fax: (770) 450-9236
      Tel: ahirsch@hermangerel.com


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Redden, et al. Sue over Defective Chinese Drywall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In two lawsuits filed against Taishan Gypsum Co., the class
representatives sue on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated owners and residents of real property
containing defective Chinese manufactured drywall that was
designed, manufactured, imported, distributed, delivered,
supplied, marketed, inspected, or sold by the Defendants. Each of
the class representatives is pursuing a nationwide class action
against the defendants with respect to the drywall located in
Plaintiffs homes. Each of the Defendants are liable for damages
incurred by Plaintiffs due to their role in the design,
manufacture, importing, distributing, delivery, supply,
marketing, inspecting, installing, or sale of the defective
drywall at issue in this litigation.

The Lawsuits are captioned as:

James and Deloris Redden, et al., individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Taishan Gypsum
Co., Ltd. f/k/a Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd.; Taian Taishan
Plasterboard Co., Ltd.; Beijing New Building Materials Public
Limited Co.; Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd.;
China National Building Material Co., Ltd., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01146 (W.D. Tenn., Aug. 1, 2017); and

Donna Polk., et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. f/k/a Shandong
Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd.; Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd.;
Beijing New Building Materials Public Limited Co.; Beijing New
Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd.; China National Building
Material Co., Ltd., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00216 (S.D.
Miss., Aug. 1, 2017).

Taishan produces and sells gypsum boards and frames. It sells its
products in China, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, India,
and Russia.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          William Given Colvin, Esq.
          William G. Colvin, PLLC
          801 Broad Street Suite 428
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (423) 265 8804
          Facsimile: (423) 267 5915
          E-mail: bcolvin@williamgcolvinlaw.com

               - and -

          Russ M. Herman, Esq.
          HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581 4892
          Facsimile: (504) 561 6024
          E-mail: rherman@hhklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592 1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592 4663
          E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Dawn M. Barrios, Esq.
          BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, LLP
          701 Poydras Street, Suite 3650
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 524 3300
          Facsimile: (504) 524 3313
          E-mail: Barrios@bkc-law.com

               - and -

          Peter Prieto, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          25 Flagler Street, 8th Floor
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 358 2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358 2382
          E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com

               - and -

          Patrick Montoya, Esq.
          COLSON, HICKS, EIDSON
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Cora Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476 7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476 7444
          E-mail: Patrick@colson.com

               - and -

          Hugh P. Lambert, Esq.
          THE LAMBERT FIRM
          701 Magazine Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581 1750
          Facsimile: (504) 529 2931
          E-mail: hlambert@thelambertfirm.com

               - and -

          James Robert Reeves, Esq.
          REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC
          160 Main Street
          Biloxi, MS 39530
          Telephone: (228) 374 5151
          Facsimile: (228) 374 6630
          E-mail: jrr@attorneys4people.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600 5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600 5002
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Bruce William Steckler, Esq.
          STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
          12720 Hillcrest Road, Ste 1045
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Telephone: (972) 387 4040
          Facsimile: (972) 387 4041
          E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com

               - and -

          Ben W. Gordon, Jr., Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL
          Echsner & Proctor, P.A.
          316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435 7000
          Facsimile: (850) 435 7020
          E-mail: bgordon@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          Gerald E. Meunier
          GAINSBURGH, BENJAMIN, DAVID, MEUNIER
          & WARSHAUER, LLC
          2800 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70163-2800
          Telephone: (504) 522 2304
          Facsimile: (504) 528 9973
          E-mail: gmeunier@gainsben.com

               - and -

          Christopher Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS, LLP
          77 Water Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584 0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584 0799
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Serpe, Esq.
          Law Offices of Richard J. Serpe
          Crown Center, Ste. 310
          580 East Main Street
          Norfolk, VA 23510 2322
          Telephone: (757) 233 0009
          Facsimile: (757) 233 0455
          E-mail: rserpe@serpefirm.com

               - and -

          Victor M. Diaz, Jr., Esq.
          V.M. Diaz and Partners, LLC
          119 Washington Ave, Suite 402
          Miami Beach, FL 33139
          Telephone: (305) 704 3200
          Facsimile: (305) 538 4928
          E-mail: victor@diazpartners.com

               - and -

          S. Lewis, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, N.W, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540 7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540 7201
          E-mail: rlewis@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Anthony D. Irpino, Esq.
          IRPINO AVIN HAWKINS LAW FIRM
          2216 Magazine Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525 1500
          Facsimile: (504) 525 1501
          E-mail: airpino@irpinolaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
          Lemmon Law Firm, LLC
          P.O. Box 904
          15058 River Road
          Hahnville, LA 70057
          Telephone: (985) 783 6789
          Facsimile: (985) 7831333
          E-mail: Andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Pete Albanis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          12800 University Drive
          Fort Myers, FL 33907
          Telephone: (239) 433 6880

               - and -

          Daniel Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON MASON
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600 5000


TARGET CORP: Securities Suit Against Retailer Store Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joan N. Ericksen of the District of Minnesota,
granted defendant's motion to dismiss, in the case entitled, In
re Target Corporation Securities Litigation. In re: Target
Corporation ERISA Litigation, Master Nos. 16-CV-1315 (JNE/BRT),
16-CV-2400 (JNE/BRT (D. Minn.).

Target Corporation is a large retailer in the United States with
over 1,800 store locations. In January 2011, Target announced
that it would open stores in Canada starting in 2013. Although
Target already had a refined US supply chain infrastructure in
place when it announced expansion into Canada, the company chose
to use a different, new set of supply chain systems for the
expansion because extending its existing US systems would have
been too complex and taken too much time. Thus, Target purchased
a new, central Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system and
other new systems for its Canadian supply chain infrastructure.

Target Canada incurred significant net operating losses
throughout 2013 and 2014. Shareholders of Target Corporation
stock brought suit against the company and its current and former
agents under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange
Act), codified at 15 U.S.C. Section 78a et seq., and the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), codified in
relevant part at 29 U.S.C. ch. 18, for conduct related to
Target's expansion into Canada during the years 2013 and 2014.
Plaintiffs allege that between March 20, 2013 and August 4, 2014,
certain defendants made a series of false and/or misleading
statements regarding Target Canada's performance and supply
chain. Plaintiffs allege that such defendants represented that
Target Canada was progressing well and facing minor or common
problems, when in reality the supply chain issues were much
larger and success was much less certain or impossible.
Plaintiffs assert causes of action under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule
10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The ERISA action contains allegations similar to those in the
securities action, but related to the Target Corporation 401(k)
Plan and absorbed Target Corporation Ventures 401(k) Plan.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants Plan Investment Committee (PIC)
and its members, Target, and company executives who appointed
individuals to the PIC all breached their duties of prudence and
loyalty when they failed to take steps to protect Plan
participants from drops in Target stock price that resulted from
Target Canada's failure. Plaintiffs allege that defendants had
inside, nonpublic information about Target Canada's systemic
supply chain problems indicating that failure was inevitable,
that such information was not fully public and led to
artificially-inflated stock prices, and that defendants were thus
duty-bound to take actions to protect plan participants from
future price drops. Plaintiffs asserted breach of the duty of
prudence in violation of ERISA Sections 404(a)(1)(B) and 405,
breach of the duty of loyalty in violation of ERISA Sections
404(a)(1)(A) and 405, and failure to adequately monitor other
fiduciaries and provide them with accurate information in
violation of ERISA Section 404.

Target filed motions to dismiss in each action. Plaintiffs
request leave to amend if the court decides to dismiss all or any
part of their claims. Defendants argue that such requests should
be denied because plaintiffs have not moved for leave to amend or
offered any proposed amendments.

Judge Ericksen granted Target's motion to dismiss and denied
plaintiffs' request to amend.

Plaintiffs failed to distinguish their case from one founded on
hindsight. They fail to allege sufficient particular facts
explaining why any of the challenged statements were materially
false or misleading when made. On the other hand, the ERISA
amended complaint (EAC) does not contain any facts showing that a
more thorough review process would have led prudent fiduciaries
to make different decisions about investing in Target stock.
Furthermore, plaintiffs' overarching duty of prudence theory is
not that PIC members were uninformed about Target stock's
detailed performance history, but instead that they failed to act
prudently because they were informed about material, nonpublic
information concerning the company. The rest of the EAC
contradicts the assertion that defendants are at fault for the
complained-of losses due to a deficient review process.

A copy of Judge Ericksen's order dated July 31, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/aqekWU from Leagle.com.

Carpenters' Pension Fund of Illinois and Police Retirement System
of St. Louis, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew L. Schwartz --
aschwartz@rgrdlaw.com -- Evan J. Kaufman -- ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robert D. Gerson -- rgerson@rgrdlaw.com -- Samuel H. Rudman --
SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP;
Carolyn G. Anderson -- carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- June
Pineda Hoidal -- june.hoidal@zimmreed.com -- at Zimmerman Reed,
PLLP; Christopher Joseph Keller -- ckeller@labaton.com -- Eric J.
Belfi -- ebelfi@labaton.com -- Irina Vasilchenko --
ivasilchenko@labaton.com -- James L. Ostaszewski --
jostaszewski@labaton.com -- Jeffrey A. Dubbin --
jdubbin@labaton.com -- Michael W. Stocker -- mstocker@labaton.com
-- Thomas A. Dubbs -- tdubbs@labaton.com -- Thomas G. Hoffman,
Jr. -- thoffman@labaton.com -- at Labaton Sucharow LLP

Salvatore Rizzo, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg M. Fishbein --
gmfishbein@locklaw.com -- Kate M. Baxter-Kauf -- kmbaxter-
kauf@locklaw.com -- at Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP

Target Corporation, John J. Mulligan, and Gregg W. Steinhafel,
Defendants, represented by Jeffrey P. Justman --
jeff.justman@FaegreBD.com -- Staci L. Perdue --
staci.perdue@FaegreBD.com -- Wendy J. Wildung --
staci.perdue@FaegreBD.com -- at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP

Anthony S. Fisher, Defendant, represented by Christopher L. Lynch
-- clynch@btlaw.com -- Lee A. Hutton, III -- Lee.Hutton@btlaw.com
-- Patricia E. Volpe -- Trisha.Volpe@btlaw.com -- Thomas A.
Boardman -- thomas.boardman@btlaw.com -- at Barnes & Thornburg
LLP

Carpenters' Pension Fund of Illinois, Movant, represented by
Andrew L. Schwartz -- aschwartz@rgrdlaw.com -- Evan J. Kaufman --
ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robert D. Gerson -- rgerson@rgrdlaw.com -
- Samuel H. Rudman -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP; Carolyn G. Anderson --
carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- June Pineda Hoidal --
june.hoidal@zimmreed.com -- at Zimmerman Reed, PLLP; Christopher
Joseph Keller -- ckeller@labaton.com -- Eric J. Belfi --
ebelfi@labaton.com -- Irina Vasilchenko --
ivasilchenko@labaton.com -- James L. Ostaszewski --
jostaszewski@labaton.com -- Jeffrey A. Dubbin --
jdubbin@labaton.com -- Michael W. Stocker -- mstocker@labaton.com
-- Thomas A. Dubbs -- tdubbs@labaton.com -- Thomas G. Hoffman,
Jr. -- thoffman@labaton.com -- at Labaton Sucharow LLP


TEMPLAR SECURITY: "Malik" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abdul Malik, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
v. Robert Craig Klimek, Jr., and d/b/a Templar Security, Case No.
4:17-cv-01610 (S.D. Tex., May 26, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Robert Craig Klimek, Jr. owns and operates a security services
company located at 6363 San Felipe St. #311, Houston, Texas
77057. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

         - and -

      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com


THUNDERBIRD COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, Stephen Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Stephen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Thunderbird Collection Specialists, Inc. d/b/a TCS,
Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01955 (D. Nev., July 18, 2017), is brought
for damages resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant
with regard to its attempts to unlawfully and abusively collect a
debt, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
allegedly owed by the Plaintiff, causing him harm.

Thunderbird Collection Specialists, Inc., doing business as TCS,
Inc., is doing business in the state of Nevada as a business
entity operating as a collection agency, and is a "debt
collector."  The Defendant is a corporation that is registered
with the Arizona Corporation Commission, and conducts business in
Clark County, Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Kind, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100
          Las Vegas, NV 89148
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          E-mail: mkind@kazlg.com

               - and -

          David H. Krieger, Esq.
          HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC
          8985 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 350
          Henderson, NV 89123
          Telephone: (702) 880-5554
          E-mail: dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com


TITLEMAX OF NM: "Romero" Contract Dispute Removed to D.N.M.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TitleMax of New Mexico, Inc., TMX Finance
LLC, Tracy Young, Juan Trevizo, Defendants, Case No. D-101-CV-
2017-01694, (First Judicial District Court of New Mexico, June
20, 2017), is removed to the U.S. District Court of the District
of Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Titlemax is a financial management consulting service located in
Albuquerque, NM. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Fuqua, Esq.
      FUQUA LAW & POLICY, P.C.
      P.O. Box 32015
      Santa Fe, NM 87594
      Tel: (505) 982-0961
      Email: scott@fuqualawpolicy.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Douglas A. Baker, Esq.
      Justin D Rodriguez
      ATKINSON, BAKER & RODRIGUEZ, PC
      201 Third Street, NW, Suite 1850
      Albuquerque, NM 87102
      Tel: (505) 764-8111
      Fax: (505) 764-8374
      Email: dbaker@abrfirm.com
             jrodriguez@abrfirm.com


TJX COMPANIES: Adam Sues Over Misrepresentation of Thread Counts
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH ADAM, REBECCA FOLEY, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., AQ TEXTILES
LLC, CREATIVE TEXTILE MILLS PVT. LTD., JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS (1-
100), Case No. 1:17-cv-11260-MLW (D. Mass., July 10, 2017), seeks
to redress the Defendants' alleged deceptive acts and
unconscionable business practices designed to deceive and mislead
consumers and the public into believing that their bedding and
linen products had higher thread counts than they really have and
as such were of better qualify, softer, and more comfortable for
sleeping than products with lesser thread counts.

TJX is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive
offices located in Framingham, Massachusetts.  TJX sells bedding
and linen products bearing several names, including Alex & Zoe,
Amante Home, AQ Textiles, Artisan De Luxe, Artisan NY, Authentic
Kids, BCBGeneration, Bed Tite, Bella Lux and Bentley Home

Creative Textiles is a private limited company organized under
the laws of the Republic of India, with its primary place of
business in Maharashtra, India.  Creative Textiles manufactures
and sells textiles, including the relevant sheets and bedding
products, throughout the United States, through its subsidiary AQ
Textiles.

AQ Textiles is a North Carolina LLC with it principal place of
business and registered offices located in Greensboro, North
Carolina.  AQ Textiles, on behalf of Creative Textiles, imports
and distributes certain of the relevant sheet and bedding
products to TJX.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          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.com

               - 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


TODD BREMER: Bowman Wants to Stop Unlawful Collection of Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
TARA BOWMAN, a consumer residing in Oregon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TODD, BREMER &
LAWSON, INC., a foreign debt collector for Portland State
University, Case No. 3:17-cv-01092-BR (D. Ore., July 14, 2017),
seeks to stop the Defendant from continuing to demand alleged
excessive, unlawful collection fees from former PSU students.

Ms. Bowman also hopes to force TBL Inc. to return potentially
hundreds of thousands of dollars in excessive fees that it has
unlawfully collected from former PSU students over the past year.
She brings the lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Todd, Bremer & Lawson, Inc. is a South Carolina corporation that
collects tuition and student loan debts nationwide, and on behalf
of PSU from consumers in Oregon.  TBL Inc.'s principal place of
business is located in Rock Hill, South Carolina.  TBL Inc. is a
"debt collector" as that term is defined in the FDCPA because it
regularly collects and attempts to collect consumer debts owed
to, and on behalf of, other creditors, such as PSU, using mail,
electronic bank transfers, and the Internet, and the principal
purpose of TBL Inc.'s business is the collection of delinquent
debts owed to original creditors, such as PSU.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Fuller, Esq.
          Rex Daines, Esq.
          OLSEN DAINES PC
          US Bancorp Tower
          111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 201-4570
          E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com
                  rdaines@olsendaines.com

               - and -

          Kelly D. Jones, Esq.
          819 SE Morrison St., Suite 255
          Portland, OR 97214
          Telephone: (503) 847-4329
          E-mail: kellydonovanjones@gmail.com

               - and -

          Robert Le, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT LE
          5895 Jean Road #109
          Lake Oswego, OR 97035
          Telephone: (503) 734-2099
          Facsimile: (888) 527-9501
          E-mail: rl@robertlelaw.com

               - and -

          Bret Knewtson, Esq.
          BRET KNEWTSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          3000 NW Stucki Pl., Suite 230
          Hillsboro, OR 97124
          Telephone: (503) 846-1160
          E-mail: bknewtson@yahoo.com


TOURNEAU LLC: "Dannenfelser" Suit Wants to Recoup Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE DANNENFELSER, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. TOURNEAU, LLC, and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by TOURNEAU, LLC, Case No.
654941/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., July 20, 2017), is
brought pursuant to the New York Labor Law and New York common
law to recover unpaid wages owed to the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated persons, who are presently or were formerly
employed as sales professionals by the Defendant and other
entities affiliated with or controlled by the Defendant, at its
Tourneau stores located in the state of New York.

Tourneau, LLC, is a foreign limited liability company organized
and existing under the laws of Delaware and authorized to do
business under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New
York.  Headquartered in New York City, the Company is engaged in
the business of selling luxury watches and other timepieces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil H. Greenberg, Esq.
          NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          4242 Merrick Road
          Massapequa, NY 11758
          Telephone: (516) 228-5100
          E-mail: nhglaw@nhglaw.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Simerlein Suit Over Minivans' Faulty Doors
--------------------------------------------------------------
NED SIMERLEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA,
INC., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING &
MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR
MANUFACTURING, INDIANA, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-01091-VAB (D.
Conn., June 30, 2017), seeks redress for Toyota's alleged
violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and
materially identical state consumer protection statutes, breach
of express and implied warranties, including under Connecticut
law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment.

On December 23, 2016, as required by the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Toyota issued an interim safety recall
notice for model year 2011 through 2016 Toyota Sienna Minivans
with power sliding doors.  In the Safety Recall Notice, Toyota
admitted there is a dangerous defect in the rear passenger power
sliding doors of the Class Vehicles because the power doors can
unexpectedly and independently open while the vehicle is in
motion.

Mr. Simerlein contends that throughout the relevant period,
Toyota knew there were hundreds, if not thousands, of consumer
complaints about the Defective Doors in its Sienna Minivans,
including that the doors would suddenly fly open while the
vehicle was in motion or would independently close or jam, which,
in many instances, resulted in injury to children sitting in the
rear passenger seats.

Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese corporation located in
Aichi Prefecture, Japan.  TMC is the parent corporation of Toyota
Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.  TMC, through its various entities,
designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and sells Toyota
automobiles in Connecticut, and every other state in the United
States.  Toyota is the world's second largest manufacturer of
automotive vehicles and sells its vehicles across the United
States through a network of over 1,200 dealers, including in
Connecticut.

Toyota Motor North America, Inc., is incorporated in California,
with its primary address in Torrance, California.  TMNA is a
holding company of Toyota Motor Corporation of sales and
manufacturing subsidiaries in the United States.  Toyota Motor
Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is incorporated and headquartered in the
state of California, with its primary address in Torrance.  TMS
is the United States sales and marketing division for Toyota
Motor Corporation, which oversees sales and other operations
across the United States.  TMS distributes Sienna Minivans and
sells them through a network of dealerships that are the agents
of TMS.

Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. is
incorporated in Kentucky and has its headquarters in Erlanger,
Kentucky.  TEMA is responsible for Toyota's engineering design
and development, research and manufacturing activities in the
United States, Mexico, and Canada.  Toyota Motor Manufacturing,
Indiana, Inc. is incorporated in Indiana, and has its primary
address in Princeton, Indiana.  TMMI manufactures Sienna
Minivans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Slossberg, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Nichols, Esq.
          HURWITZ SAGARIN SLOSSBERG & KNUFF, LLC
          147 North Broad Street
          Milford, CT 06460
          Telephone: (203) 877-8000
          Facsimile: (203) 878-9800
          E-mail: dslossberg@hssklaw.com
                  jnichols@hssklaw.com

               - and -

          Demet Basar, Esq.
          Kate McGuire, Esq.
          Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: basar@whafh.com
                  mcguire@whafh.com
                  reynolds@whafh.com


TRUNK CLUB: "Rowser" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
DARIUS ROWSER, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated v. TRUNK CLUB, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-05064-DSF-RAO (C.D. Cal.,
July 10, 2017), seeks for recovery of unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code.

Based in Chicago Illinois, Trunk Club, a subsidiary of Nordstrom,
is nationwide chain of stores, offering personalized styling and
sales of clothing throughout the United States.  According to its
Web site, "[a]s a Nordstrom company, Trunk Club has the service,
selection, and convenience of one of the world's best retailers--
you can even earn Nordstrom rewards."  The Plaintiff does not
know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          David Keledjian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  davidk@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 992-2935
          Facsimile: (818) 975-5525
          E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com


TRUNK CLUB: Dowell Wants to Stop Use of Noncompetition Covenants
----------------------------------------------------------------
MOLLY CHRISTINE DOWELL, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. TRUNK CLUB, INC., Case No. 2017-CH-09876 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., July 20, 2017), seeks to stop the alleged
continued unlawful use, imposition and enforcement of invalid and
unenforceable covenants not to compete by Trunk Club on at-will
employees.

Ms. Molly, on behalf of herself and the Class, seeks a
declaratory judgment that Trunk Club's covenant not to compete is
invalid and unenforceable and a finding that Trunk Club has
violated the Illinois Antitrust Act entitling Molly and the Class
to treble damages, attorney fees and costs.

Trunk Club, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business and corporate headquarters located in Cook
County, in Chicago, Illinois.  Trunk Club is a subsidiary of
Nordstrom, Inc., a Washington corporation with a place of
business in Chicago.

Trunk Club employs personal stylists, including the Plaintiff, to
select high-end men and women's clothing for its customers, which
are sold at its stores located in Chicago, Highland Park, Boston,
Charleston, Dallas, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and New York,
and nationwide through the mail.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony E. Dowell, Esq.
          DOWELL IP
          333 W. North Ave., #341
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Telephone: (773) 687-9886
          E-mail: aedowell@dowellip.com


TWIN HILL: American Airlines Uniforms Caused Rashes, Catan Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THOR ZURBRIGGEN and DENA CATAN on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
TWIN HILL ACQUISITION, INC., a California corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05648 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 2, 2017),
seeks injunctive relief to prevent the further sale of uniforms
to American Airlines employees and to recall those uniforms that
are already being used, and equitable relief in the form of
medical monitoring for purpose of detecting and/or diagnosing any
conditions, symptoms, or injuries resulting from exposure to the
uniforms as the result of Twin Hill's actionable conduct.

According to the complaint, "This matter involves clear and
present -- as well as future -- dangers posed to the health and
well-being of thousands of employees of American Airlines
("American"), including thousands of flight attendants and pilots
as well as others, such as gate agents. These dangers began on or
about September 2016, continue to this day, and will continue to
get worse over time. This matter also concerns the safety of
those whom American Airlines serves -- its passengers."

On September 2016, American Airlines implemented a change of
uniforms for its worldwide workforce, including flight
attendants, pilots and other cockpit crew members and service
agents. Several years in development, these uniforms are
manufactured by Defendant Twin Hill. These uniforms, manufactured
by Defendant Twin Hill, pose an unreasonable risk of physical
harm including current and future serious health problems to
those who wear them and to those who are near to or work in the
close quarters of an airplane with those who are wearing the
uniforms. Since the introduction of these uniforms into the
American Airlines workforce, in just ten months, over 4,000
flight attendants and pilots (with some estimates as high as
7,000) who have either worn or been near those who are wearing
these uniforms, have experienced a cascade of health problems,
including, but not limited to, skin rashes, ear and throat
irritation, headaches, fatigue, vertigo, the triggering of
various auto-immune conditions, and adverse effects on endocrine
as well as liver functions. The full extent of the injuries
caused by these unsafe and unreasonably dangerous uniforms cannot
and will not be determined for years. Among other concerns, a
sizeable percentage of American Airlines flight attendants are
women of child-bearing age. Because of the particular cascade of
symptoms described above caused by Defendant's uniforms, these
women and any children they may bear are at risk for adverse
health consequences. For example, there have been reports of
effects on menstruation including irregular timing, heavier
menstruation and women who have stopped menstruating commencing
to menstruate again. Likewise, there have been reports of women
losing their hair. As a result, medical monitoring of all
American Airlines employees exposed to these uniforms is required
in order to ensure that anyone affected (from those currently
experiencing symptoms to those who may develop problems in the
future) is provided with compensation for any and all medical
examinations that might be required in the future to monitor
their health. The Plaintiffs each assert their own individuals
claim for personal injury damages, and seek injunctive and
equitable relief (including a medical monitoring fund) on behalf
of all American Airlines employees who have worn or been exposed
to Twin Hill's uniforms since September 2016.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          Michael Chang, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          www.siprut.com
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, Illinois 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236 0000
          Facsimile: (312) 754 9616
          E-mail: tmclawhorn@siprut.com
                  sweltman@siprut.com
                  mchang@siprut.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Dulberg" Survives Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of
California denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case
captioned MARTIN DULBERG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
and RASIER, LLC, Defendant, No. C 17-00850 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Martin Dulberg signed up as a driver for UberX in May 2014 and as
a driver for UberSelect in February 2015. Accordingly, under the
driver agreement, he could charge to passengers the fare, Uber's
booking fee, and any applicable tolls, taxes, or fees for each
ride. Uber collected such amounts from passengers on Dulberg's
behalf. Additionally, Dulberg owed to Uber a service fee equal to
20 percent of each UberX ride and 28 percent of each UberSelect
ride, and Uber's booking fee. Uber withheld the fees before
remitting anything to Dulberg.

Dulberg initially brought a putative class action against
defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and its subsidiary Rasier
LLC, for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel in the
alternative and unjust enrichment in the alternative. After Uber
moved to dismiss the complaint, Dulberg filed an amended
complaint, thereby mooting that motion. The amended complaint
states only one claim for relief for breach of contract and is
now challenged on another motion to dismiss. Dulberg contends
that his standardized agreement with Uber entitles him to higher
compensation as a result of Uber's higher rates for passengers.

The amended complaint alleged that that Uber found a way to
charge higher rates to its passengers but refuses to use those
higher rates in calculating compensation for its drivers pursuant
to their percentage-based fee agreement with Uber. Uber contends
it can raise its rates for passengers by instituting a more
aggressive pricing regime while forcing drivers to accept the
same compensation they would have received under the old pricing
regime, keeping the difference for itself. Defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

Judge Alsup denied defendants' motion to dismiss as the amended
complaint plausibly alleged that, after shifting to upfront
pricing, Uber had to calculate Fares for drivers under the driver
agreement using the same aggressively estimated time and distance
amounts that it uses for charging passengers. Uber, however,
continues to use actual time and distance amounts to calculate
fares and shortchange its drivers under the driver agreement,
while retaining more money for itself. Such allegations are
sufficient to survive dismissal.

A copy of Judge Alsup's order dated July 31, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/CDKkzL from Leagle.com.

Martin Dulberg, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer R. Liakos --
jliakos@napolilaw.com -- Andrew Dressel -- adressel@napolilaw.com
-- Paul B. Maslo -- pmaslo@napolilaw.com -- at Napoli Shkolnik
PLLC

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan R.
Bass -- jrb@coblentzlaw.com -- Clifford Eric Yin --
cyin@coblentzlaw.com -- Sean P.J. Coyle -- scoyle@coblentzlaw.com
-- Skye DeLainna Yveth Langs -- slangs@coblentzlaw.com -- Susan
K. Jamison -- skj@coblentzlaw.com -- at Coblentz Patch Duffy &
Bass, LLP

Rasier, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan R. Bass --
jrb@coblentzlaw.com -- Clifford Eric Yin -- cyin@coblentzlaw.com
-- Skye DeLainna Yveth Langs -- slangs@coblentzlaw.com -- Susan
K. Jamison -- skj@coblentzlaw.com -- at Coblentz Patch Duffy &
Bass, LLP


UNITED OF OMAHA: "Insinga" Suit Reassigned to Mag. Judge Nelson
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Philip J. Insinga, on behalf of themselves and
a class of those similarly situated v. United of Omaha Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 8:17-cv-00179 (D. Neb., May 26,
2017), has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson,
according to a docket entry dated July 3, 2017.
The lawsuit seeks monetary and equitable relief as a result of
the Defendant's breach of its duty of loyalty, specifically by
setting the credited interest rate for its own benefit rather
than exclusively for the benefit of the Safe Auto Insurance
Company 401(k) Plan participants, retaining the margin, and
charging excessive fees and collecting excessive compensation for
its services in providing the United of Omaha Guaranteed Account,
says the complaint.

United of Omaha Life Insurance Company operates an insurance
company headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Pamela A. Car, Esq.
      CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C.
      8720 Frederick Street #105
      Omaha, NE 68124
      Telephone: (402) 391-8484
      Facsimile: (402) 391-1103
      E-mail: pacar@cox.net

         - and -

      Todd F. Jackson, Esq.
      Nina Wasow, Esq.
      FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
      383 4th Street, Suite 201
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Telephone: (510) 269-7998
      Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
      E-mail: todd@feinbergjackson.com
              nina@feinbergjackson.com

         - and -

      Kai Richter, Esq.
      Carl Engstrom, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER
      4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th
      St. Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (877) 448-0492
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: krichter@nka.com
              cengstrom@nka.com


UNITED STATES: Child Offender Cannot Petition Wife for Visa
-----------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Ortrie D. Smith of the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment, in the case JOEL BREMER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
JEH JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-1226-CV-W-ODS (WD
Mo.).

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) permits any United
States citizen to petition for a visa on behalf of a foreign-
national spouse or child by filing a form I-130 with the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). 8 U.S.C.
Section 1154(a).

Joel Bremer a United States citizen, had twice filed I-130
petitions with USCIS seeking to classify Ma. Susan Bremer, his
foreign national spouse, as an immediate relative so she could
become a lawful permanent resident. The first petition was filed
in 2009 and the second petition was filed in 2011. Each petition
was rejected because Mr. Bremer was convicted of an AWA
qualifying crime, sexually abusing his eleven-year-old daughter,
in 2001.  USCIS provided a form with which Mr. Bremer could
appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but Mr.
Bremer did not appeal the decision.

Spouses Bremer filed a class action complaint on December 20,
2013, and alleged that defendants improperly denied their visa
petitions pursuant to the AWA in violation of the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) and various Constitutional provisions.
The court certified the action as a class action pursuant to Rule
23. After considering the parties' cross-motions for summary
judgment, the court determined the AWA's statutory language
giving the Secretary sole and unreviewable discretion plainly and
unambiguously creates a discretionary decision or action. The
court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs appealed the Court's determination. The Eighth Circuit
affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the case for
further proceedings. The Eighth Circuit remanded for further
consideration only the question relevant to Count II of
plaintiffs' complaint "whether Mr. Bremer's petition has already
been filed, and if so, whether clause (viii) is inapplicable",
because the question is a predicate legal question over which the
Court has jurisdiction.

Defendants interpret the AWA, specifically 8 U.S.C. Section
1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) as it amended the INA, to require review
of a petitioner's past criminal conviction only after the USCIS
initially accepts an I-130 petition from a United States citizen.
Plaintiffs argue such interpretation as an ultra vires
interpretation inconsistent with the AWA's plain language. Rather
than allow review of a petitioner's past criminal conviction,
plaintiffs argue the I-130 petition is deemed filed when the
USCIS accepts the petition, at which point the AWA no longer
applies, and the petition should only be adjudicated pursuant to
8 U.S.C. Section 1154(b)'s guidance for approval of a visa
application. The parties' filed cross-motions for summary
judgment on the question.

Judge Smith denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and
granted defendants' motion for summary judgment finding
Congress's intent in prohibiting citizens with specified offenses
against a minor from filing a visa petition for an immediate
relative is clear. The court rejects plaintiffs' arguments that
would allow a contrary result. The court also finds the USCIS's
process is not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to
the statute. The process is imminently reasonable, and is
consistent with the AWA's purpose.

A copy of Judge Smith's order dated July 31, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/2EEFjx from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew L. Hoppock --
matthew@hoppocklawfirm.com -- at Hoppock Law Firm, LLC

Defendants, represented by Geoffrey Forney -- at United States
Department of Labor; Hans H. Chen -- Lana L. Vahab -- Sarah
Stevens Wilson -- at United States Department of Justice


UNITED STATES: D. Conn. Revises Class Definition Suit vs. DHHS
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael P. Shea of the District of Connecticut,
granted in part and denied in part, plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and appoints plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel,
in the case, CHRISTINA ALEXANDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS
E. PRICE, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant, No.
3:11-cv-1703 (MPS) (D. Conn.)

On February 8, 2017 the court made a ruling on the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment and the second motion to
dismiss. Plaintiffs moved to certify a class under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). The plaintiffs propose a class of:

All Medicare beneficiaries who, on or after January 1, 2009, have
had or will have had any portion of a stay in a hospital treated
as observation status and therefore not covered under Medicare
Part A.

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services
contests class certification and raises a number of specific
issues regarding the scope of the class definition. The Secretary
argues that such definition is overly broad and instead proposes
a class should any class be certified of:

All Medicare beneficiaries who, on or after January 1, 2009: (1)
have received or will have received observation services during a
hospitalization; and (2) have received or will have received an
initial determination that the observation services are covered
or subject to coverage under Medicare Part B; and (3) have
received or will have received post-hospitalization care in a
skilled nursing facility that was not covered by Medicare because
either (a) the individual received an initial determination
denying coverage or (b) neither the facility or the individual
sought Medicare coverage for such care. Medicare beneficiaries
who meet the requirements of the foregoing sentence but received
a final decision of the Secretary before September 4, 2011 are
excluded from this definition.

Judge Shea granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and appoints plaintiffs' counsel, the
Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc., Justice in Aging, and Wilson,
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, as class counsel in the case. Counsel
have demonstrated their experience and expertise in handling
complex Medicare cases. They have dedicated careful work to the
case over the past five and half years, including a successful
appeal to the Second Circuit. And they have experience in other
cases representing Medicare beneficiaries, including class
actions.

Judge Shea certified a class of:

     All Medicare beneficiaries who, on or after January 1, 2009:
(1) have received or will have received observation services as
an outpatient during a hospitalization; and (2) have received or
will have received an initial determination that the observation
services are covered or subject to coverage under Medicare Part
B. Medicare beneficiaries who meet the requirements of the
foregoing sentence but who pursued an administrative appeal and
received a final decision of the Secretary before September 4,
2011 are excluded from the definition.

A copy of Judge Shea's ruling dated July 31, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/YHVVGs from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Alice Bers, Esq.
Judith A. Stein, Esq.
Toby S. Edelman, Esq.
Gill W. Deford, Esq.
Center for Medicare Advocacy
11 Ledgebrook Dr.
Mansfield Center, CT 06250
Tel: 860-456-7790

     - and -

Anna Rich, Esq.
Eric Matthew Carlson, Esq.
Kevin Edward Prindiville, Esq.
National Senior Citizens Law Center
3701 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: 213-639-0930

     - and -

David J. Berger, Esq.
Dylan G. Savage, Esq.
Jason B. Mollick, Esq.
Luke A. Liss, Esq.
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati - PA
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Tel: 650-493-9300
Fax: 650-493-6811

Intervenor Plaintiffs, represented by:

David J. Berger, Esq.
Dylan G. Savage, Esq.
Jason B. Mollick, Esq.
Luke A. Liss, Esq.
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati - PA
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Tel: 650-493-9300
Fax: 650-493-6811

     - and -

Alice Bers, Esq.
Judith A. Stein, Esq.
Toby S. Edelman, Esq.
Gill W. Deford, Esq.
Center for Medicare Advocacy
11 Ledgebrook Dr.
Mansfield Center, CT 06250
Tel: 860-456-7790

Kathleen Sebelius, Defendant, represented by Carolyn Aiko Ikari -
- at U.S. Attorney's Office; Joel L. McElvain -- at U. S.
Department of Justice-Fed Programs Branch; Justin M. Sandberg --
Eva L. Bitran -- Jennie Leah Kneedler -- Kieran Gavin Gostin --
at U.S. Department of Justice

The American Hospital Association, Amicus, represented by Eric J.
Lobenfeld -- eric.lobenfeld@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells
US LLP


UNITED STATES: Faces "Jensen" Suit in California Central District
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joaquim Hugo Jensen in his individual capacity and as Grantor
Trustee of the Jensen-Nunez Family Trust, Corporator, Relator on
behalf of Taxpayors v. Sylvia Lopez, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-
04856-DSF-JC (C.D. Cal., June 30, 2017), is brought over certain
contract-related disputes.

The Plaintiffs are Sylvia Lopez, E.R.C.S.W. in her individual
capacity and all similarly situated; Sylvia Lopez, E.R.C.S.W. in
her official capacity and all similarly situated; Cindy Cruz, C.
S. W.3 in her individual capacity and all similarly situated;
Cindy Cruz, C.S.W.3 in her official capacity and all similarly
situated; Melissa Pahanaa, S.C.S.W. in her individual capacity
and all similarly situated; Melissa Pahanaa, S.C.S.W. in her
individual capacity and all similarly situated; Elizabeth
Rodriguez, C. S. W.1 in her individual capacity; Elizabeth
Rodriguez, C. S. W.1 in her official capacity; Brandon T.
Nichols, Dept. of Children and Familny Services, As acting
Director; Hilda Solis, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors,
individual capacities; Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors, individual capacities; Sheila Kuehl, Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors, individual capacities;
Janice Hahn, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, individual
capacities; Kathryn Barger, Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors, individual capacities; Will Lightbourne, The
California Department of Social Services CDSS director; Mariella
Ayllon, a resident of Orange County; Cory Jensen, a resident of
Orange County; Jarrod Jensen, a resident of Sacramento County;
Melissa Jensen-Nunez, in her individual capacity; Sara Liebowitz,
in her individual capacity; Maryam Vahabzadeh, in her individual
capacity; Jackie Lacey, in her individual capacity; Rebecca
Siporen, in her individual capacity; Mercedes Akounou, in her
individual capacity; Veronica MacBeth, in her individual
capacity; Karina Betancourt-Nunez, a Honduran National and non-
resident alien of Los Angeles; Yina Ponce-Nunez, a Honduran
National and non-resident alien of Los Angeles; Bryan Correa-
Nunez, a Honduran National and non-resident alien of Los Angeles;
Lakewood Police Department, a municipal corporation agency of Los
Angeles County; Long Beach Police Department, a municipal
corporation agency of Los Angeles County; and Jerry Brown, in his
individual capacity.

The nature of suit is stated as "Contract: Other."

The case is assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer.

Dr. Sylvia Lopez has been Chief Medical Officer of Oklahoma
Health Care Authority since July 2012.

Plaintiff Joaquim Hugo Jensen in his individual capacity and as
Grantor Trustee of the Jensen-Nunez Family Trust, Corporator,
Relator on behalf of Taxpayors, in Long Beach, California,
appears pro se.[BN]


VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Court Partly OKs Limine Bids in "Golan"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RON GOLAN, et al., Plaintiff, v. VERITAS
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants, No. 4:14CV00069 ERW (
E.D. Mo.), Judge E. Richard Webber of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, (a) granted
in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine; and
(b) held in abeyance (i) Defendant James R. Leininger's Motion in
Limine to Preclude Evidence or Argument Regarding His Counsel's
Prior Representation of Other Defendants, (ii) Defendant
Leininger's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or Argument
Regarding His Personal Monetary Wealth, and (iii) denied as moot
Defendant Leininger's Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs'
from Offering Party and Non-Party Document Productions into
Evidence.

In their motion, the Plaintiffs raise 13 motions in limine.

          a. Jury Nullification:  Judge Webber cannot make a
ruling on this motion at this time, because it is too broad.  It
will be held in abeyance to be ruled during trial when the
parties object to specific arguments.

          b. Corporate Shield: The motion will be held in
abeyance until the Judge makes specific rulings pending the
receipt of evidence.

          c. Amount of Damages: The Judge cannot make a
determination on this issue until evidence has developed;
therefore, he held the motion in abeyance.

          d. Plaintiffs' Injuries: The Court has previously
determined the Plaintiffs were harmed.  However, this does not
prohibit questioning of the Plaintiffs as to any experiences
related to the telephone messages.  The Defendants will not argue
the Plaintiffs were not harmed, but will be permitted to inquire
into the Plaintiffs experience with the telemarketing campaign.
Accordingly, Judge Webber be granted in part and denied in part
this motion.

          e. Answering Machine: Judge Webber denied this motion
saying that the Court has already determined the Plaintiffs were
harmed even though they did not answer the telephone call at
issue.  The Defendants will not be permitted to argue the
Plaintiffs were not harmed.  However, they are allowed to present
evidence regarding what the Plaintiffs heard, who answered the
telephone, or any other evidence relating to the latters' receipt
of the telephone call.

          f. Consent: At oral argument on this matter, the
Plaintiffs asked for additional time to research a Federal
Communications Commission decision cited by the Defendants.  The
Judge held this motion in abeyance pending a response from the
Plaintiffs.

          g. Purpose of Calls: The Judge says at this time, he
cannot know what the other Defendants, as well as what Dr.
Leininger, will say in regards to their motivations to conduct
the telemarketing campaign.  He will determine the scope of
evidence permitted as to the other Defendants when raised in
specific objections by the parties.  Hence, he denied this
motion.

          h. Political Nature: As long as the Defendants do not
introduce evidence of the political nature of these telephone
calls to show a purpose other than telemarketing, they will be
permitted to introduce evidence to show a timeline of events and
everything that was occurring surrounding the telephone campaign.
However, they will not be permitted to suggest, in any manner,
this suit is politically motivated or an attack on any political
affiliation or religion.  Judge Webber granted in part and denied
in part this motion.

          i. Intent: This motion is granted in part and denied in
part by the Judge.  The Defendants are not permitted to ask if
Dr. Leininger intended to violate the TCPA.  Evidence of the
latter's knowledge and understanding of how the telephone
campaign was to be conducted is relevant to determining if he is
vicariously liable for violating the TCPA and will be permitted.

          j. Plaintiffs' Litigation History:  The parties agree
not to introduce evidence of the Plaintiffs' litigation history.
Accordingly, Judge Webber granted this motion.

          k. Plaintiffs' Prior Relationship with Counsel: The
Judge granted in part and deniedn in part this motion.  He says
the Defendants will not be permitted to introduce evidence or
argument as to the Plaintiffs' relationship with their counsel.
Explanation of the Plaintiffs' knowledge of the campaign will be
limited to whether they learned of the movie from the telephone
calls.  The defense counsel may inquire as to how the Plaintiffs
learned of the movie but will not be permitted to go any further.

          l. Opt Out Correspondence: He also granted this motion.
He explains that the residual exception, in Federal Rule of
Evidence 807, requires the statement have equivalent
circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, be offered as
evidence of a material fact, and be more probative than any other
evidence the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts.
Judge Webber must also determine its admittance will best serve
the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice.  He
does not find these requirements have been met.

          m. Dr. Leininger's Charitable Contributions Etc.:
Judge Webber held that the Defendants will be permitted to
introduce evidence of Dr. Leininger's profession, time devoted to
his profession, and time spent creating his inventions, but will
not suggest, in any manner, he has saved thousands of lives
through his work.  They will also be permitted to introduce
evidence of his charitable work and work for non-profits which
will be limited to the names of the charities and non-profits and
the time spent devoted to this work.  The Defendants are not
permitted to introduce evidence or argument about the amount of
money Dr. Leininger has donated to these causes.

Dr. Leininger asserts the Court should preclude evidence or
argument about his counsel's prior representation of other
defendants in this matter.  Judge Webber held in abeyance
Defendant Leininger's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or
Argument Regarding His Counsel's Prior Representation of Other
Defendants pending submission of Dr. Leininger's reply.  He also
held in abeyance Dr. Leininger's Motion in Limine to Preclude
Evidence or Argument Regarding His Personal Monetary Wealth
pending notice from the parties as to whether they were able to
agree on a stipulation.  Lastly, Judge Webber denied as moot Dr.
Leininger's Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs' from
Offering Party and Non-Party Document Productions into Evidence
as the matter has been resolved between the parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2017 memorandum and order
is available at https://is.gd/rOo9CE from Leagle.com.

Ron Golan, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Schultz --
rschultz@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P..

Ron Golan, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald J. Eisenberg --
reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.,
Brian A. Abramson, WILLIAMS AND KHERKHER, John G. Simon, THE
SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. & Kevin M. Carnie -- kcarnie@simonlawpc.com
-- SIMON LAW FIRM, PC.

Dorit Golan, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Schultz --
rschultz@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Ronald
J. Eisenberg, SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Brian A. Abramson,
WILLIAMS AND KHERKHER, John G. Simon, THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. &
Kevin M. Carnie, SIMON LAW FIRM, PC.

Veritas Entertainment, LLC, Defendant, Pro Se.

Veritas Marketing Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Fredrick
J. Ludwig, LUDWIG LAW FIRM, LLC.

FreeEats.com, Inc., Defendant, represented by Teresa M. Young --
tyoung@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

AIC Communications, LLC, Defendant, represented by Teresa M.
Young, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Gabriel S. Joseph III, Defendant, represented by Teresa M. Young,
BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Stephen Wayne Griffin, Defendant, represented by Fredrick J.
Ludwig, LUDWIG LAW FIRM, LLC.

Courage 2012, LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric David Block,
SPENCER FANE LLP & Patrick T. McLaughlin, SPENCER FANE LLP.

James R Leininger, Defendant, represented by Ari Nicholas Rothman
-- anrothman@venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, John W. Moticka, STINSON
AND LEONARD LLP, Ronald M. Jacobs -- rmjacobs@venable.com --
VENABLE LLP, Brian L. Schwalb, VENABLE LLP, pro hac vice,
Danielle E. Sunberg -- desunberg@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP,
Jaclyn Niccole -- Warr nicci.warr@stinson.com -- STINSON AND
LEONARD LLP & Justin Blake Nemeroff, VENABLE LLP.


VILLAGE SUPER MARKET: Faces "Sung" Wage-and-Hour Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUNG-HUA SUNG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
Plaintiff v. Village Super Market of NJ, LP, d/b/a/ ShopRite,
Village Super Market Inc., d/b/a ShopRite, Tom "Doe", Harry Wang,
Case No. 2:17-cv-05033-CCC-SCM (D.N.J., July 10, 2017), arises
from the Defendants' alleged various willful and unlawful
employment policies, patterns and practices that violate the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in a
pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including
the Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek, according to the complaint.

Village Super Market Inc., doing business as ShopRite, is a
domestic corporation organized under the laws of the state of New
Jersey with a principal business address in Springfield Township,
New Jersey.  Village Super Market, Inc. is engaged in the retail
sale of food and nonfood products.

Village Super Market of NJ, LP, is a domestic limited partnership
organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey.  Village
Super Market of NJ, LP, is a subsidiary or affiliate of Village
Super Market Inc.

Harry Wang is a manager or supervisor for the Asian food sections
of ShopRite's food departments in its stores in New Jersey.  Tom
"Doe" is the general manager for the food departments of the 29
ShopRite branch stores in New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keli Liu, Esq.
          HANG AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: kliu@hanglaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Reder Sues Over Diesel Vehicles Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glen Reder and Lonny Gold, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Audi AG, Audi of
America, Inc., Audi of America, LLC, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG,
BMW OF North America, LLC, Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC,
DR. ING. H.C.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars of North America, Inc.,
Volkswagen AG, and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-05724 (C.D. Cal., August 1, 2017), seeks treble
damages and injunctive relief resulting from unjust enrichment
and in violation of various state consumer protection, antitrust,
unfair competition laws and unfair trade practice laws and the
Sherman Act.

Defendants are German car manufacturers who allegedly colluded
with each other to fix, maintain and/or stabilize the prices for
diesel vehicles, including their spare parts. Reder purchased a
2015 Mercedes Benz ML 250 BlueTEC 4Matic diesel while Gold leased
a 2015 BMW 535d xDrive diesel. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      Anna Horning Nygren, Esq.
      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel.: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com
             khriebel@locklaw.com
             wjbruckner@locklaw.com
             ralockridge@locklaw.com
             kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

             - and -

      Steven A. Hart, Esq.
      HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC
      121 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1050
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 955-0545
      Facsimile: (312) 971-9243
      Email: shart@hmelegal.com

             - and -

      John R. Malkinson, Esq.
      MALKINSON & HALPERN, P.C.
      33 N. Dearborn Street, Suite 1540
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 427-9600
      Facsimile: (312) 750-1912
      Email: jmalkinson@mhtriallaw.com9

             - and -

      Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
      Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
      Neil J. Swartzberg, Esq.
      Michael H. Pearson, Esq.
      PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
      San Francisco, CA 94104

             - and -

      Allan Steyer, Esq.
      Jill M. Manning, Esq.
      D. Scott Macrae, Esq.
      STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
      One California Street, Third Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 421-3400
      Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
      Email: jmanning@steyerlaw.com
             asteyer@steyerlaw.com
             smacrae@steyerlaw.com

             - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Former Car Owners Sue over "Defeat Devices"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Nemet, Norbert Kahlert, Angela Matt Architect, Inc.,
Eddie Field, Tonya Dreher, Adam Schell, Bryan Sheffield, Darryl
Lecours, Gisbel De La Cruz, Derek Winebaugh, Michael Skena,
Melissa St. Croix, Andrew Olson, John Kubala, Brendan Daly,
Steven Ferdinand, Ken Galluccio, Steven Rawczak, Mark Miller,
Sven Hofmann, Thomas Siehl, III, Bradley Conner, Benjamin Tyler
Dunn, Ingrid Salgado, Michael Bowman, and Jon Mosley, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG,
Audi AG, Audi of America, LLC, Robert Bosch Gmbh, Robert Bosch
LLC, Richard Dorenkamp, Heinz-Jakob Neusser, Jens Hadler, Bernd
Gottweis, Oliver Schmidt, and Jurgen Peter, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-04372-CRB (N.D. Cal., Aug. 2, 2017), seeks to recover
costs, restitution, compensatory damages for economic loss and
out-of-pocket costs, treble damages under Civil RICO, multiple
damages under applicable states' laws, punitive and exemplary
damages under applicable law; and disgorgement, in an amount to
be determined at trial.

According to the complaint, on September 18, 2015, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency announced findings that
Volkswagen had installed software on diesel cars that enabled
them to cheat on emissions tests. These so-called "defeat
devices" reduced nitrogen oxide emissions when the cars
were placed on a test machine but allowed higher emissions and
improved engine performance during normal driving. The EPA was
alerted to the discrepancy in a report from the International
Council on Clean Transportation. Ultimately, the scheme was found
to include Porsche, Audi, component manufacturer Bosch, as well
as numerous individuals at the highest levels of corporate
leadership. The manufacturers installed the cheating emissions
software on more than a half-million diesel cars in the U.S. and
roughly 10.5 million more worldwide. The abhorrent nature of the
scheme lies not only in its massive scale, but also its means --
knowing lies to government regulators and false advertising to
consumers -- and its effect of undermining responsible global
efforts to lower emissions and mitigate the effects of health-
damaging smog and climate change. When Defendants' emissions
cheat was exposed, consumers filed hundreds of lawsuits, and
federal, state, and local governments have initiated civil
actions and criminal investigations.

Most U.S. consumer litigation has been coordinated in federal
Multi-District Litigation entitled In Re: Volkswagen "Clean
Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products settlement
involved affected 2.0 liter models and was given final approval
on October 25, 2016. Order Granting Final Approval of the 2.0-
Liter TDI Consumer and Reseller Dealership Class Action
Settlement, In Re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales
Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The second settlement involved 3.0 liter models and was given
final approval on May 17, 2017. Order Granting Final Approval of
the Consumer and Reseller Dealership 3.0-Liter Class Action
Settlement, In Re: Volkswagen, 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The third settlement resolved all claims for 2.0 and 3.0 vehicles
against Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch LLC. Class Action
Settlement and Release, In Re: Volkswagen, 3:15-md-02672-CRB,
Dkt. 2837. This settlement cross-referenced the 2.0 and 3.0 class
definitions in order to delineate the class with whom Bosch
settled all claims. This settlement was given final approval on
May 17, 2017. Order Granting Final Approval of the Bosch Class
Action Settlement, In Re: Volkswagen, 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

Those MDL settlements and the Department of Justice and Federal
Trade Commission actions provided substantial benefits to many
consumers, including buyback remedies that will relieve current
owners and lessees from being forced to continue to drive the
polluting vehicles. However, the settlements did not compensate
some of the front-line victims of Defendants' scheme -- owners
who credited Defendants' clean-diesel lies, unwittingly drove
hyper-polluting cars for years, but had disposed of the cars
before the scheme imploded on September 18, 2015.

Although those owners might have escaped the additional injury of
lost resale value, they bore the same primary harm as those
compensated by the settlement because they never received the
clean emissions performance Defendants' promised during their
period of ownership -- for some as long as six years. This injury
is tangible, quantifiable, and equally deserving of compensation.
In lauding the 2.0 liter settlement at the final approval
hearing, a lawyer for the Federal Trade Commission observed that
the settlement appropriately compensated owners "for the lost
opportunity to drive a clean car."

But all three consumer settlements excluded tens of thousands of
owners deprived of that same opportunity. And these consumers, as
detailed below, did suffer financial injury when they sold their
car or terminated a lease.

Through the sale and lease of vehicles that purported to -- but
did not -- comply with emissions standards, Defendants unjustly
and fraudulently obtained hundreds of millions of dollars
from these consumers. Defendants obtained this money regardless
of whether consumers sold their vehicles prior to the discovery
of the fraud. Excluded from the current settlements, these
consumers are entitled have this money restored to them. This
lawsuit seeks to hold Defendants accountable to these first
casualties of their massive fraud.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725 3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725 3001
          E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart M. Paynter, Esq.
          THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1200 G Street NW Suite 800
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626 4486
          Facsimile: (866) 734 0622
          E-mail: stuart@paynterlawfirm.com


WAL-MART STORES: Removes "Pitre" FCRA Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., removes the lawsuit styled RANDY PITRE, on
behalf of himself, all others similarly situated v. WAL-MART
STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2017-00927449-CU-OE-CXC, from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Southern Division).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:17-cv-05415 to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that Walmart "acquire[s] consumer,
investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports . . . to
conduct background checks on PLAINTIFF and other prospective,
current and former employees . . . without providing proper
disclosures and obtaining proper authorization" in violation of
the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The Plaintiff seeks,
among other things, statutory damages under the FCRA.

Wal-Mart Stores operates retail stores in various formats
worldwide.  The Company operates discount stores, supermarkets,
supercenters, hypermarkets, warehouse clubs, cash and carry
stores, home improvement stores, specialty electronics stores,
apparel stores, drug stores, convenience stores, and membership-
only warehouse clubs; and retail Websites, such as walmart.com
and samsclub.com, as well as mobile commerce applications. It
offers grocery products, including meat, produce, natural and
organics, deli and bakery, dairy, frozen foods, alcoholic and
nonalcoholic beverages, floral and dry grocery.[BN]

Defendant WAL-MART STORES, INC., is represented by:

          Robert J. Herrington, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          James N. Boudreau, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          2700 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-7833
          Facsimile: (215) 988-7801
          E-mail: boudreauj@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Leanna C. Costantini, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 732-6500
          Facsimile: (949) 732-6501
          E-mail: costantinil@gtlaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: 11th Cir. Dismisses "Love" Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, issued a
Decision dismissing the appeal of the Order dismissing class
claims in the case captioned ZENOVIDA LOVE, et al., Plaintiffs,
PENELOPE MORRIS, KATHLEEN FORBES, LISA O'BRIEN, LOU ANN HAWES,
LINDA RAY, JUDITH DANNEMAN, BRIDGETTE BRAMLEY, EDNA REMINGTON,
Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-15260 (11th Cir.).

In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), the
Supreme Court reversed the certification of a nationwide class of
female Wal-Mart employees claiming gender discrimination.
Thereafter, the unnamed plaintiffs in Dukes filed new actions
seeking certifications of regional classes. The Appellants, a
group of would-be class members of one of these regional class
actions, appeal the district court's dismissal of the class
claims and the denial of the Appellants' motion to intervene.

Before addressing the present appeal, the Eleventh Circuit is met
with Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss it as untimely filed, and the
Appellants' opposition thereto.  The Eleventh Circuit takes up
that issue first because, if Wal-Mart is correct, then the
circuit court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Wal-Mart's argument is that the present appeal is untimely
because it was filed more than 30 days after the stipulated
dismissal, contra the deadline to file an appeal specified in
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.

The Appellants, for their part, contend the stipulated dismissal
filed on October 16 begins the countdown only with respect to any
appeal filed by a named plaintiff who settled with Wal-Mart via
the stipulated dismissal.

Put simply, here the Appellants filed their appeal of the order
dismissing the class claims 34 days after the date of the
judgment or order appealed from. Because the timeliness of an
appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to our review, we must
dismiss the appeal of the order dismissing the class claims for
lack of jurisdiction.

In contrast, the notice of appeal of the November 19 order
denying their motion to intervene was timely; indeed, the
Appellants filed that appeal later the same day the order was
issued.

Nonetheless, because the Appellants sought to intervene only in
order to appeal the order of the district court dismissing
Plaintiffs' class claims, their appeal of the order denying
intervention must be denied as moot.

For these reasons, the appeal of the order dismissing the class
claims and the appeal of the order denying intervention are
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's August 3, 2017
Decision is available at http://tinyurl.com/yd3rj43qfrom
Leagle.com.

Bridget Ann Berry -- berryb@gtlaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.
Hilarie Fran Bass -- bassh@gtlaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.
Theodore Joseph Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Diana L. Martin -- dmartin@cohenmilstein.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Joseph M. Sellers -- jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Christine E. Webber -- cwebber@cohenmilstein.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Mark Andrew Perry -- mperry@gibsondunn.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Jason C. Schwartz -- jschwartz@gibsondunn.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Leslie Kroeger -- lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Catherine A. Conway -- cconway@gibsondunn.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Nikki Simon -- simonn@gtlaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.
Rachel Susan Brass -- rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Amanda C. Machin -- amachin@gibsondunn.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Jenna M. Yott -- jyott@gibsondunn.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Karl G. Nelson -- knelson@gibsondunn.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Michele L. Maryott -- mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.


WALT DISNEY: Removes "Oliveira" Class Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled WILLIAM DE OLIVEIRA, individually and on
behalf of other persons similarly situated v. WALT DISNEY PARKS 7
RESORTS, U.S., INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 30-2017-
00926470-CU-OE-CXC, was removed on July 20, 2017, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-
01241 to the proceeding.

On June 15, 2017, William De Oliveira filed an unverified
proposed class action complaint in the Superior Court.  The
Complaint alleges five purported causes of action against the
Defendant: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) unfair
competition; (3) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (4)
failure to pay all wages owed upon termination; and (5) civil
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

Walt Disney Parks is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the state of Florida with its headquarters located in
Lake Buena Vista, Florida.  The Company owns and operates theme
parks and resorts.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen L. Berry, Esq.
          Blake R. Bertagna, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          695 Town Center Drive, Seventeenth Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1924
          Telephone: (714) 668-6200
          Facsimile: (714) 979-1921
          E-mail: stephenberry@paulhastings.com
                  blakebertagna@paulhastings.com




WASHINGTONFIRST BANKSHARES: Faces "Parshall" Suit over Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Washingtonfirst Bankshares, Inc., Shaza
L. Andersen, Charles Elliott Andrews, Joseph S. Bracewell,
Josephine S. Cooper, Stephen M. Cumbie, John H. Dalton, Richard
D. Horn, Juan A. Mencia, Obiora Menkiti, Caren D. Merrick, Larry
D. Meyers, Mark C. Michael, Madhu K. Mohan, Ken Morrissette,
James P. Muldoon, William C. Oldaker, Jon M. Peterson, Randall S.
Peyton, Joe R. Reeder, William G. Reilly, Gail R. Steckler,
Johnnie E. Wilson, Sandy Spring Bancorp, Inc., And Touchdown
Acquisition, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00877, (E.D. Va.,
August 1, 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
WashingtonFirst Bankshares, Inc. by Sandy Spring Bancorp, Inc.
through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Touchdown Acquisition, Inc.,
recissory 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.

Stockholders of WashingtonFirst will receive 0.8713 shares of
Sandy Spring common stock for each share owned of WashingtonFirst
common stock.

The merger consideration fails to disclose WashingtonFirst's
projections, estimated earnings per share and tangible book value
per share for years 2017 through 2021 as well as any other
projection line items for the company. 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 in support of its fairness
opinion over the deal price.

WashingtonFirst is the parent company of the WashingtonFirst
Bank, a $2 billion dollar bank headquartered in Reston, Virginia.
It provides financial and mortgage banking services to local
businesses and consumers. Individual Defendants are members of
the board of directors of the company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      (302) 295-5310

            - and -

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

            - and -

      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, D.C. 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      Email: etripodi@zlk.com


WELLPET LLC: "Zeiger" Suit Wants Toxins in Pet Foods Disclosed
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ZEIGER, DANZ DOGGIE DAYTRIPS, and AMY FREEBORN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
WELLPET LLC, a Delaware corporation, and BERWIND CORPORATION, a
Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-04056-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
July 19, 2017), asks the Court compel the Defendants to disclose
the presence of dangerous substances in their pet food sold
throughout the United States and to restore monies to the
consumers and businesses, who purchased certain contaminated dog
foods during the time that the Defendants failed to make such
disclosures.

The Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, label, distribute,
and sell Wellness(R) CORE(R) Adult Dry Ocean Whitefish, Herring
Meal and Salmon Meal and Wellness(R) Complete Health Adult Dry
Whitefish and Sweet Potato (the "Contaminated Dog Foods").

The Contaminated Dog Foods contain material and significant
levels of arsenic and lead -- both known dangerous toxins for
both humans and animals, including dogs, the Plaintiffs allege.
They contend that some foods, like rice and sweet potato, have
been determined to absorb arsenic in water during cooking and,
therefore, increase exposure.

The Plaintiffs further argue that the Defendants have wrongfully
advertised and sold the Contaminated Dog Foods without any label
or warning indicating to consumers that these products contain
arsenic or lead, or that these toxins can over time accumulate in
the dog's body to the point where poisoning, injury, and disease
can occur.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          Ashley R. Rifkin, Esq.
          Steven M. McKany, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
                  arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com
                  smckany@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com




WELLS FARGO: Kerness Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-The-Clock Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Kerness, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,, Case
No. 2:17-cv-02516 (D. Ariz., July 27, 2017), seeks compensatory
damages, including all wages and overtime pay owed, liquidated
damages on all wages and overtime compensation due, all costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees incurred prosecuting this claim and
such further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked as a telephone-dedicated employee in the
position of handling credit card customer service telephone calls
at Wells Fargo's call center on Rose Garden Lane in Phoenix,
Arizona. Plaintiff claims unpaid work during booting up
computers, initializing several software programs, reading
company issued emails and instructions at the beginning of their
shifts and completing customer service calls, securing their
workstations, locking their desk drawers, and securing any
customer or proprietary information at the end of their shifts.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James X. Bormes, Esq.
      Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
      8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 201-0575

            - and -

      Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
      35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 726-3400

             - and -

      Michelle R. Matheson, Esq.
      MATHESON & MATHESON, P.L.C.
      15300 North 90th Street, Suite 550
      Scottsdale, AZ 85260
      Tel: (480) 889-8951
      Email: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com


WELLS FARGO: Clamor Wants to Recoup Illegal Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
ANGELO CLAMOR on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WELLS FARGO & CO. and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case
No. 4:17-cv-03782-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 30, 2017), arises from
Wells Fargo's alleged routine practice of charging standard
overdraft fees on one-time debit card transactions, in violation
of its contract with accountholders.

Wells Fargo charged him a $35 overdraft fee when he used his
debit card to pay for a one-time Lyft ride transaction even
though such fees are only authorized by his contract for
"recurring" debit card transactions, Mr. Clamor tells the Court.
Accordingly, he seeks to recoup the fee he paid and to represent
all individuals in the United States, who were charged similar
overdraft fees on one-time debit card transactions in violation
of their Deposit Agreements.

Wells Fargo & Co. is the parent of all Wells Fargo entities.
Wells Fargo is a diversified financial services company providing
banking, insurance, investments, mortgage banking and consumer
finance to individuals, businesses and institutions in all 50
states and internationally.  Wells Fargo & Co. is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Co.
Among other things, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is engaged in the
business of providing retail banking services to consumers,
including Clamor and members of the putative classes, which
includes the issuance of debit cards for use by its customers in
conjunction with their checking accounts.  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
operates banking centers, and thus conducts business, throughout
the state of California and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          483 Ninth St, Suite 200
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com


WEST MARINE: Being Sold for Too Little, Greenberg Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. West Marine, Inc., Matthew L.
Hyde, Barbara L. Rambo, Randolph K. Repass, Alice M. Richter,
Dennis F. Madsen, Christiana Shi, James F. Nordstrom, Jr. and
Robert D. Olsen, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04345, (N.D. Cal.,
July 31, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting
in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing the merger between West Marine and affiliates of Monomoy
Capital Partners, 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.

West Marine shareholders stand to receive $12.97 in cash for each
share of West Marine stock they own. Said amount is deemed
inadequate in light of the Company's recent financial performance
and prospects for future growth. West Marine has experienced
continuous and tremendous growth since fiscal year 2014 with
income growth of 132% and 44% for fiscal years 2015 and 2016,
respectively. Plaintiff owns West Marine stock.

West Marine is a waterlife outfitter for cruisers, sailors,
anglers, and paddlesports enthusiasts. It operates approximately
260 stores located in 40 states, Puerto Rico and Canada. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WEST MARINE: Monomoy Deal Shortchanged Investors, McNeil Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick McNeil, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. West Marine, Inc., Matthew L.
Hyde, Barbara L. Rambo, Randolph K. Repass, Alice M. Richter,
Dennis F. Madsen, Christiana Shi, James F. Nordstrom, Jr. and
Robert D. Olsen, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01036, (D. Del.,
July 27, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting
in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing the merger between West Marine and affiliates of Monomoy
Capital Partners, 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.

West Marine shareholders stand to receive $12.97 in cash for each
share of West Marine stock they own. Said amount is deemed
inadequate in light of the Company's recent financial performance
and prospects for future growth. West Marine has experienced
continuous and tremendous growth since fiscal year 2014 with
income growth of 132% and 44% for fiscal years 2015 and 2016,
respectively. Plaintiff owns West Marine stock.

West Marine is a waterlife outfitter for cruisers, sailors,
anglers, and paddlesports enthusiasts. It operates approximately
260 stores located in 40 states, Puerto Rico and Canada. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New Yor006B, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

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


WESTLAKE WELLBEING: Credit Card Info Exposed, Edelstein Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT EDELSTEIN, STEVEN BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. WESTLAKE
WELLBEING PROPERTIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
FOUR SEASONS HOTELS LIMITED, a Canada corporation, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC669646 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 28, 2017), seeks to recover statutory damages,
punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees as a result of
Defendant willful violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.

According to the complaint, in 2017, Plaintiff Brooks used his
Visa credit card to pay for his hotel stay at Pour Seasons Hotel
Westlake Village. The receipt generated and provided to him by
Defendants contained more than the last five digits of the credit
card account number and the expiration date of his credit card,
in violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1681c(g). The Plaintiffs
allege, for some or all of the time period beginning January 1,
2015, if not earlier, through at least April 2017, Defendants
have provided non-compliant credit and debit card receipts
through machines that were provided to customers at the point of
sale. Despite having more than a decade to become compliant with
FACTA, Defendants have willfully violated this law and failed to
protect Plaintiffs and others similarly situated against identity
theft and credit card fraud by printing more than the last five
digits of the account number and the expiration date on credit
and debit card cardholders' receipts when they transact business
with Defendants.

Westlake Wellbeing Properties is a physical fitness facility
located in Westlake Village, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
          Evan S. Gaines, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101
          Calabasas, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 703-8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703-8984
          E-mail: ken@gaineslawfirm.com
                  daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
                  alex@gaineslawfinn.com
                  evan@gaineslawfirm.com


WHOLE FOODS: Berg Challenges Proposed Acquisition by Amazon.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BERG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., MARY ELLEN COE, SHAHID
HASSAN, KEN HICKS, STEPHANIE KUGELMAN, JOHN MACKEY, JOE MANSUETO,
SHARON MCCOLLAM, SCOTT POWERS, WALTER ROBB, RON SHAICH, JONATHAN
A. SEIFFER, GABRIELLE SULZBERGER, AMAZON.COM, INC., and WALNUT
MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00677 (W.D. Tex., July 14,
2017), stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 16,
2017, pursuant to which Whole Foods will be acquired by
Amazon.com, Inc. ("Parent") and Walnut Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger
Sub").

On June 15, 2017, Whole Foods' Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Amazon.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
shareholders of Whole Foods will receive $42 per share in cash.
On July 7, 2017, the Defendants filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to
the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false
and misleading, the Plaintiff alleges.  He contends that
Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.

Whole Foods is a Texas corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Austin, Texas.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.  Whole Foods is the
leading natural and organic foods supermarket, the first national
"Certified Organic" grocer, and uniquely positioned as America's
Healthiest Grocery Store(TM).

Amazon is Delaware corporation and a party to the Merger
Agreement.  Merger Sub is a Texas corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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

               - and -

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305


WHOLE FOODS: Gieske Wants to Enjoin Acquisition by Amazon.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH M. GIESKE, an Individual, as Executor for the Estate of
ANN MAY MOORE, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., JOHN P. MACKEY, WALTER
ROBB, JONATHAN EIFFER, GABRIELLE SULZBERGER, SHAHID HASSAN,
STEPHANIE A. KUGELMAN, JOE MANSUETO, MARY ELLEN COE, KENNETH C.
HICKS, SHARON L. MCCOLLAM, RONALD M. SHAICH, and SCOTT F. POWERS,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00684 (W.D. Tex., July 18, 2017), is a class
action brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Whole
Foods against the Company and its Board of Directors for their
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and to
enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Whole Foods will be acquired by Amazon.com, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Walnut Merger Sub, Inc.

On June 16, 2017, Whole Foods and Amazon issued a press release
announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated June 15, 2017 to sell Whole Foods to Amazon.  Under
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Amazon will acquire all
outstanding shares of Whole Foods for $42 in cash per Whole Foods
share.  The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $13.7
billion.

Whole Foods is a Texas corporation incorporated in 1978 and
maintains principal executive offices in Austin, Texas.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.
Whole Foods is the leading national natural and organic foods
supermarket, with 440 stores across 42 U.S. states and the
District of Columbia; 12 stores in Canada; and 9 stores in the
United Kingdom, as of April 9, 2017.

Amazon is an American electronic commerce and cloud computing
company that was founded in 1994 with its principal corporate
offices in Seattle, Washington.  Merger Sub is a Texas
corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Amazon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
          THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 227-7720
          Facsimile: (713) 227-9404
          E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
                  mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
                  kkeenan@weisslawllp.com

               - and -

          Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
          E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com


XCEL HEALTHCARE: Underpays Home Health Aides, "Marks" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATOSHA MARKS, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. XCEL HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS INC. and BOBBIE STANICH and
NEIL F. STANICH, Case No. 1:17-cv-01541 (N.D. Ohio, July 21,
2017), challenges the Defendants' alleged policies and practices
that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the
statutes of the state of Ohio.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that the Defendants'
failed to pay overtime compensation to their home care employees,
including the Plaintiff, who was employed from approximately
August 2015 to July 2017 as a home health aide.

Xcel Healthcare is an Ohio corporation with its principal place
of business in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.  The Individual Defendants
are officers and members of Xcel Healthcare.  The Defendants are
home care service providers, providing "services for the elderly,
disabled and mentally [r]etarded by abiding by the laws, rules
and regulations set forth by the State of Ohio."  Xcel operates
out of 1991 Lee Road in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, and has 175
employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 E. Huron Road, Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (440) 498-9100
          Facsimile: (216) 621-1094
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com




ZEBRA TECH: Warren Pension Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------
City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Zebra
Technologies Corporation, Anders Gustafsson and Michael C. Smiley,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04412 (W.D. Wisc., July 25, 2017),
seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Zebra allegedly understated its income taxes through the end of
2015, under-accrued certain 2015 estimates, in particular with
respect to its sales commission plan and overstated the net
realizable value of trade receivables acquired in connection with
the its acquisition of Motorola Enterprise. The price of Zebra
common stock plummeted more than $26 per share to close at $83.80
per share on August 11, 2015 upon corrective disclosure.

Zebra is a publicly traded company based in Lincolnshire, Illinois
that designs, manufactures, and sells a wide range of products
that capture and move data, including, mobile computers, barcode
scanners and imagers, radio frequency identification device
readers, wireless LAN solutions and software and specialty
printers for barcode labeling and personal identification. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Alan I. Ellman, Esq.
      Robert D. Gerson, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             mreich@rgrdlaw.com
             vserra@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
      VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
      79 Alfred Street
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Telephone: (313) 578-1200
      Fax: (313) 578-1201







                             *********


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  * * *