CAR_Public/170815.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, August 15, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 160



                            Headlines

ACCESA MEDICAL: North Shore Suit Tossed; May Be Refiled Jan. 30
ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: Smith Moves for FLSA Class Certification
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Appeals "Syria" Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
ALLIED CONCRETE: Faces "Kozikowski" Defamation Suit in Nassau, NY
ALOHA TENT: Fails to Pay Overtime & Wages, "Sanchez" Suit Claims

AMERICAN FAMILY: Judge Affirms Verdict in Former Agents' Case
AMERICAN FAMILY: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Nelson" Suit
AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT: Alan Presswood Suit Removed to E.D. Mo.
AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Appeals Ruling in "Sanchez" Suit to 9th Circuit
AMERIGAS PROPANE: Wins Initial OK of $800,000 "Jarrell" Suit Deal

APLINGTON KAUFMAN: Martorano Moves for Certification of Classes
APLINGTON KAUFMAN: Martorano's Class Certification Bid Continued
APOLLO GLOBAL: Faces "McEvoy" Suit in Middle District of Florida
APPLE INC: Averts Class Action Over Stealthy Address Book Uploads
ARCONIC INC: Trinko Law Firm Files Class Action

ARIZONA: Ex-Sheriff Arpaio Contempt Verdict Justice for Motorist
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Bid to Dismiss "Rolan" Suit Granted in Part
AURORA CLEANING: Faces "Asiatico" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
AUTO INSURANCE: "Humphreys" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
AVEO: Class Action Mulled Over "Unconscionable Contracts"

BEBE STORES: Settles Class Action Over Unwanted Spam Texts
BEHR PROCESS: Sued by Gober Over Defective DeckOver Resurfacer
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Gonzalez" Suit
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Casillas" Suit
BJ INSPECTIONS: Russo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

BLACKBERRY: April 2018 Hearing Set in Employees' Class Action
BLUE STAR: Martinez Seeks to Certify Class of Migrant Workers
BMW: Among Defendants in Antitrust Class Action in California
BMW AG: Faces "Kaufman" Antitrust Suit Over German Luxury Cars
BRAN HOSPITALITY: Fails to Properly Pay Housekeepers, Harp Claims

BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Cotto Seeks Reimbursements & Overtime Pay
BROADBAND INSTALLATIONS: Oxford Seeks to Certify Technician Class
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Rejuso Says
C.TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Mizrahi" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
CAPITAL BANK: Faces "McNamara" Suit Over Sale to First Horizon

CARDONE TRAINING: Faces "Ceglarek" Suit Over Scientology Refusal
CAREFIRST INC: Appeals Court Reinstates Data Breach Class Action
CARLTON CTY, MN: Larson, Green Files Class Action
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Class Certification Sought in "Ottman" Suit
CEDAR FAIR: "Del-Orden" Suit Sues Over Website Inaccessibility

CF ENTERTAINMENT: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Pauley" Suit
CHAD STEUR: Navarroli's Bid to Certify Class Remains Pending
CHAD STEUR LAW: Hearing in "Navarroli" Suit Set for September 27
CHALK MOUNTAIN: "Orosco" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over Distracted-Driving Law

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Scott Appeals Denial of Class Certification
CINDELL CONSTRUCTION: "Vargas" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
CITIGROUP INC: Reneges on Orders in FX Market, Alpari Suit Claims
CLEAN ENERGY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, De Jesus Alleges
COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Order in St. Lucie Suit to 5th Cir.

COLUMBIA COUNTY, AR: Court Denies Rasberry's Bid for Class Cert.
COMCAST: Class Action Over Hidden Fees Can Proceed
COMMERCE LOGISTIC: "Giron" Suit Hits Hot Workplace, Missed Breaks
CONNECTICUT, USA: "Robles" Class Suit Removed to Federal Court
CRYPTSY: Judge Orders $30MM in Bitcoin Returned in Class Action

CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Faces Class Action Over Vague COBRA Notice
CVS RX SERVICES: Cabrera Alleges No Time-keeping, Break Time
DARK STAR: Class of Field Employees Certified in "Rosas" Suit
DCS INVESTMENTS: CS Business Seeks to Certify Lot Owners Class
DEUTSCHE BANK: Royal Park Claims Trust Illegally Used

DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Shabotinsky's Bid to Certify Under Advisement
DIAL CORP: Courts Must Address Ascertainability Issue
DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE: Sued by Margaryan Over Gingerless Ginger Ale
DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE: "Margaryan" Suit Moved to N.D. of Calif.
DOHATSUTEN INC: Accused by "Sanchez" Suit of Not Paying All Wages

DRYSHIPS INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
EL PASO TAQUERIA: Faces "Ramirez" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
ENERNOC INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Libby" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Espinal" Suit in New Jersey

EVO PAYMENTS: Webb, Klase Files Two Overbilling Class Actions
FARMERS RESTAURANT: Stephens Moves for FLSA Class Certification
FCI LENDER: Faces "Tabick" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
FIAT CHRYSLER: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claims
FIELD & TECHNICAL: "Close" Parties File Joint Bid for Class Cert.

FIRST POTOMAC: Schwartz Seeks to Halt Shareholder Vote on Merger
FIRST STUDENT: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Humes" Class Suit
FLINT, MI: Sept. 29 Hearing Scheduled for Water Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Suit by All Care Transport in California
FORD MOTOR: Wants Bulk of Throttle Defect Claims Dismissed

FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: Faces "Postle" Suit in M.D. of Florida
FOUNDATION MEDICINE: Sept. 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
FRANKLIN FIRST: Faces "Mey" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
GARDEN OF EDEN: Faces "Sahin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
GAULT AUTO: Accused by "Malave" Suit of Violating Labor Laws

GC SERVICES: Certification of Class Sought in "Gajewski" Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Averts Engine Defect Class Action
GEORGIA, USA: 11th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Dingler" Suit
GINNIE MAE: "Lovess" Suit Moved to District of MD
GLOBAL ELITE: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages

GLOBAL FITNESS: Pulliam Appeals Decision in "Gascho" Class Suit
GOOSEBUMPS INC: Accused by Jackson of Misclassifying Dancers
GORDON CHEN'S: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of Order in "Valle" Suit
GRADE A CONSTRUCTION: Wants Classes in "De Leon" Suit Decertified
GRAYHAWK HOMES: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Sizemore Claims

GREAT MOBILITY: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, "Romero" Suit Says
GREEN TREE: Foster Moves to Certify FCCPA Class & FDCPA Subclass
GREEN TREE: Court Grants Class Certification Bid in "Grubb" Suit
GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Workers Under FLSA, Norris Says
H-MART LOGISTICS: Cruz-Gomez Alleges No Time-keeping, Break Time

HABITAT COMPANY: Ogletree Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
HABITAT COMPANY: Violates FLSA Overtime Provision, Rutledge Says
HANEY TRUCK: Faces "Brennan" Suit in W.D. of Wash.
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Saltzberg" Suit in C.D. Cal.
HOME DEPOT: Removes "Wezel-Peterson" Suit to C.D. California

HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL: Court Denies King's Bid to Certify Class
HSBC BANK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Schwartz" Suit
IBM CORP: Watts Challenges Policies on Earned Vacation Wages
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Williams" Suit Says
INTERNATIONAL HEALTH: "McIntyre" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

INTRUST BANK: Sued by Locicero for Violating Truth in Lending Act
JONES LANG: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Haynes Says
JR ASIAN: Liang Wants to Recover Unpaid Wages and OT Under FLSA
KILOO APS: Faces "Subway Surfers" Privacy Breach Class Action
KIND LLC: Fights Bid to Lift Stay on "All Natural" Class Action

KOTOBUKI RESTAURANT: "Yu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Sought in "Spengler" Suit
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Plumbers Seeks Certification in "Luna" Suit
MAXIM HEALTH: Faces "Crandall" Suit in C.D. of Calf.
MDL 2668: Ninth Inning Files Appeal in Sunday Ticket Case

MERCHANDISING SOLUTIONS: Misclassifies Merchandisers, Suit Says
MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT: Faces "Dematteis" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Averts Debt Collection Class Action
MINNESOTA, USA: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Jensen" Suit
MISSOURI: Corrections Department Sued Over Parole Process

MONOGRAM RESIDENTIAL: "Klein" Suit Balks at Merger Deal
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Allia Wants to Enjoin ADVA NA's Tender Offer
MULTNOMAH COUNTY: "Percy" Suit Alleges Racial Discrimination
MUSICIANS PENSION FUND: Violates ERISA, "Snitzer" Suit Alleges
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Kelsey Appeals Ruling in Cheerleaders Suit

NATIONAL MILK: Sweeney Appeals "Edwards" Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: McNamee Seeks Certification of Four Classes
NBC UNIVERSAL: Marcial Sues Over Missed Breaks, No Pay Stubs
NBEO INC: Faces "Liang" Suit Over Data Breach on Exam-Takers Info
NCI INC: "Nichols" Suit Challenges Proposed Sale to HIG Capital

PACIFIC COAST: Molina Seeks Pay for Overtime & Missed Breaks
PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL: Fischer Sues Over Acquisition by Pamplona
PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Manning" Suit Over Pamplona Merger
PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL: Scarantino Sues Over Pamplona Acquisition
PERFECT DELIVERY: "Prince" Suit Seeks to Recover Drivers' Wages

PETCO HOLDINGS: "Vargas" Suit Moved From N.J. to S.D. California
PHOENIX LIFE: Class Certification Sought in "Shevlin" Suit
PILGRIM INSURANCE: Deamelio Seeks to Recover Unlawful Charges
PITTSBURGH, PA: Faces Class Action Over Property Tax Increase
POINTER TELOCATION: Faces Class Action in Israel

POMEROYIT SOLUTIONS: Faces "Mateo-Hernandez" Suit in M.D. of Fla.
PREFERRED STAFFING: Accused by "Sanford" Suit of Denying OT Wages
PRET A MANGER: Faces Class Action Over Sandwich Pack "Slack Fill"
PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT: Court Denies Wood's Bid to Certify Class
PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: AG Urged to Help Speed Up Oil Spill Case

PURDUE PHARMA: New Hampshire Files Deceptive Marketing Suit
PURDUE PHARMA: Two People Unhappy with OxyContin Settlement
RANGE RESOURCES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
RECKITT BENCKISER: Nurofen Settlement May Yield Small Payments
ROSS STORES: Cass Certification Bid in "Jacobo" Suit Tossed

RTG FURNITURE: Hankinson Wins Initial OK of Class Settlement
SALES STAFF: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Sales Reps, Flores Says
SAUL CHEVROLET: Rivera's Bid for FLSA Class Certification Denied
SCI DIRECT: Court Certifies 2 Classes Under TCPA in "Allard" Suit
SCRANTON, PA: Resident Wants More People to Join Garbage Fee Case

SEECO INC: Charter Land Appeals Order in "Smith" Suit to 8th Cir.
SEECO INC: Wyborny Appeals Order in "Smith" Suit to 8th Circuit
SENTINEL OFFENDER: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
SERVICE KING: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Morales" Suit
SHINE INC: Faces "Chambers" Suit in M.D. of Fla.

SIRTEX MEDICAL: Maurice Blackburn Proposes Class Action
SIRTEX MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over 37% Share Price Drop
SMG HOLDINGS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Urbano" Class Suit
SOUTH CAROLINA: "McCray" Suit Moved to District Court of SC
SOUTH CAROLINA, USA: Stogsdill Appeals Ruling to Fourth Circuit

SPANGLES INC: Yanes Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
SPANGLES INC: Yanes Seeks to Certify Class over State Law Claims
SPOTIFY USA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Ingalls" Suit
STATE FARM: Burk Appeals Arizona Court Decision to Ninth Circuit
SUNPOWER CORP: "Morris" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: McKinsty Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: McMahon Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
TALLAHASSEE DODGE: Masson Sues Over Junk Text Messages
TECHNIPFMC PLC: Faces "Prause" Securities Suit in S.D. Texas
TEMPLE TERRACE, FL: Lea Seeks to Certify Rental Housing Class

TOWNE PROPERTIES: Duggan Seeks to Certify Two Classes Under ERISA
TYSON FOODS: Settles Former Employees' Class Action for $5.8MM
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Pricing Class Action Can Proceed
UNIFUND CCR: Certification of Class Sought in "Livermore" Suit
UNIFUND CCR: Seeks Initial Approval of "Kramer" Suit Settlement

UNITED FOOD: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Ohlendorf" Class Suit
UNITED INDUSTRIES: Faces "Parker" Class Suit in S.D. New York
UNITED KINGDOM: Post Office Sued Over Faulty Computer System
UNITED STATES: Faces "P.K." Suit in D.C.
UNITED STATES: Alexander's Medicare Beneficiaries Class Certified

UNITED STATES: Medical Care Suit Obtains Class Action Status
UNITED STATES: Customs & Border Protection Sued by Asylum Seekers
US NONWOVENS CORP: Court Approves Class Notice in "Mendez" Suit
US XPRESS: Court Certifies Class of Truck Drivers in "Ayala" Suit
UTILITY SERVICE: Wins Initial OK of "Komoroski" Suit Settlement

VALET PARKING: Sossaman Sues Over Misclassification of Operators
VITAL RECOVERY: Franco Files Suit in E.D.N.Y.
VITAMIN SHOPPE: 9th Circuit Revives Mislabeling Class Action
WALGREENS BOOTS: de Leon Sues over Sweetened Beverage Tax
WALT DISNEY: Violates Kids' Online Privacy, Rushing Claims

WAWA INC: Accused by "Papp" Class Suit of Failing to Pay Overtime
WEITZ HEAVY: Followell Wants to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
WELLS FARGO: Nat'l General Insurance Named in Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Patti's Pitas Sues Over Excessive Credit Card Fees
WEYERHAEUSER CO: "Smith" Suit Sues Over Toxic Joists

WILMINGTON TRUST: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Order in Brundle Suit
WOODGRAIN MILLWORK: Opposes Henderson's Class Certification Bid

* Class Actions More Beneficial to Consumers Than Arbitration
* Kilpatrick Highlights Key Provisions in CFPB's Arbitration Rule
* Objector Ted Frank Helps Limit Frivolous Merger Suits
* Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Provides Class Action Litigation Update





                            *********


ACCESA MEDICAL: North Shore Suit Tossed; May Be Refiled Jan. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 4, 2017, in the case styled
North Shore Physical Wellness, Ltd. v. Accesa Medical, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-03521 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- The action is dismissed without prejudice with leave to
      reinstate by January 30, 2018;

   -- Status hearing set to August 7, 2017, is stricken;

   -- All pending motions are stricken; and

   -- Civil case terminated.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LUZ8bNn2


ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: Smith Moves for FLSA Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled RALPH SMITH and IGNATIUS
HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and STROM ENGINEERING
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-00911-RCM (W.D. Pa.), move the Court
to enter an order conditionally certifying an Fair Labor Standards
Act collective composed of, and facilitating the sending of
written notices, to:

     All hourly employees who were provided by Strom Engineering
     Corporation ("Strom") as a replacement labor force and who
     performed work at any Allegheny Technologies, Inc. ("ATI")
     facility in the United States during the August 15, 2015 to
     March 4, 2016 lockout and labor dispute between ATI and the
     United Steel, Paper, and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing
     Energy Allied Industrial and Service Workers International
     Union, AFL-CIO, CLC ("USW") (the "FLSA Collective" or
     "Replacement Workers").

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court for expedited treatment of the
Motion, as prompt judicial notice will provide the Replacement
Workers the opportunity to participate in this action while they
still have claims that are not time-barred, or which fall into the
third year of the FLSA's limitations period.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ntr3Uh5f

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Michaela Wallin, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3053
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  mwallin@bm.net

               - and -

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

Defendant Strom Engineering Corporation is represented by:

          Theodore A. Schroeder, Esq.
          Joshua Vaughn, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          EQT Plaza
          625 Liberty Avenue, 26th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 201-7600
          Facsimile: (412) 456-2377
          E-mail: tschroeder@littler.com
                  jvaughn@littler.com


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Appeals "Syria" Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Dana Syria v.
AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01139-
TSZ, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle.

The appellate case is captioned as Dana Syria v. AllianceOne
Receivables Management, Inc., Case No. 17-80152, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Answering Brief by Respondent Dana Syria is due on
      September 13, 2017;

   -- A briefing schedule has not been set;

   -- Streamlined requests are limited to Briefs only; and

   -- If Respondent wishes to request a time extension Respondent
      must file a motion.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent DANA SYRIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Adam Jared Berger, Esq.
          Lindsay L. Halm, Esq.
          SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
          810 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104-1614
          Telephone: (206) 622-8000
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2305
          E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com
                  halm@sgb-law.com

               - and -

          Jason Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON LAW OF KING COUNTY
          787 Maynard Ave. S.
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 395-2665

Defendant-Petitioner ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., is
represented by:

          Marc Rosenberg, Esq.
          LEE SMART, P.S., INC.
          1800 One Convention Place
          701 Pike Street
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 262-8308
          Facsimile: (206) 624-5944
          E-mail: mr@leesmart.com


ALLIED CONCRETE: Faces "Kozikowski" Defamation Suit in Nassau, NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES C. KOZIKOWSKI, JR. v. ALLIED CONCRETE INDUSTRIES, INC.;
CONCRETE STRUCTURES, INC.; AJG CAPITAL GROUP ASSOCIATES, INC.; AJG
CAPITAL RESOURCES, INC.; AJG EQUITIES, LLC; AJG PARKVIEW CORP.;
EB-JWJ MANAGEMENT, LLC (d/b/a THE ENGEL-BURMAN GROUP); AMERICO
MAGALHAES; ANTHONY GALEOTAFIORE; ERIK ANDERSON; JAN BURMAN; SCOTT
BURMAN; DAVID BURMAN; SYDNEY ENGEL; STEVEN KREIGER; MICHAEL WEISS;
and JONATHAN WEISS, Case No. 607787/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau
Cty., August 3, 2017), asserts causes of action, including breach
of contract, defamation and tortious interference.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, demand judgment against the Defendants, and preliminary
and permanent injunctions against the Defendants and their
officers, owners or employees from engaging in their alleged
unlawful practices, policies, customs, and usages.

Allied Concrete Industries, Inc. is incorporated in the State of
New York with a principal place of business located in Ronkonkoma,
New York.  Allied Concrete is an affiliate of Defendants Americo
Magalhaes and Anthony Galeotafiore.

AJG Capital Group Associates, Inc. is incorporated in the State of
New York with a principal place of business in Bethpage, New York.
AJG Capital Resources Inc. is incorporated in the State of New
York with a principal place of business in Bethpage.  AJG
Equities, LLC is a New York domestic limited liability company
with a principal place of business in Bethpage.  Ajg Parkview
Corp. is incorporated in the State of New York with a principal
place of business in Bethpage.  AJG Capital, AJG Resources, AJG
Equities and AJG Parkview are affiliates of Defendant Anthony
Galeotafiore.

Concrete Structures, Inc. is a construction sub-contractor of EBG.
Concrete Structures is incorporated in the State of New York with
a principal place of business located in Ronkonkoma, New York.
Concrete Structures is an affiliate of Defendants Americo
Magalhaes and Anthony Galeotafiore.

EB-JWJ Management, LLC, is a corporate and residential real estate
development company that constructs, owns, develops and manages
residential real estate properties nationwide, including
throughout Long Island and the tri-state area.  EBG is
incorporated in the State of New York as a domestic limited
liability company with a principal place of business located in
Garden City, New York.

Defendants Americo Magalhaes and Anthony Galeotafiore are
principals of Concrete Structures.  The other Individual
Defendants are principals or employees of EBG.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew L. Berman, Esq.
          Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
          VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
          600 Old Country Road
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7180
          Facsimile: (516) 706-0248
          E-mail: mberman@vkvlawyers.com
                  rvalli@vkvlawyers.com


ALOHA TENT: Fails to Pay Overtime & Wages, "Sanchez" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Aloha Tent, Inc., Metro Staff, Inc., and James John
Gallagher, individually, Case No. 1:17-cv-05412 (N.D. Ill., July
24, 2017), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act by virtue of the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek,
and failure to pay all earned wages for all time worked at the
rates agreed upon by the parties.

Partytime, Inc., was a corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Illinois.  On June 5, 2017, Partytime changed its name to
Aloha Tent, Inc.

Metrostaff, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Illinois.  Metrostaff is a staffing agency that
contracted the Plaintiff out to Defendant Aloha.  James J.
Gallagher is an officer and principal shareholder of Aloha.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
          Baldemar Lopez, Esq.
          LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 420-6784
          E-mail: jsanchez@lopezsanchezlaw.com
                  blopez@lopezsanchezlaw.com


AMERICAN FAMILY: Judge Affirms Verdict in Former Agents' Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Newman, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that a
federal judge in Ohio has affirmed an advisory jury's verdict that
thousands of American Family Insurance agents are, in fact,
employees of the Madison company and not independent contractors
as the company defines their role -- a ruling that could cost
American Family as much as $1 billion in retirement benefits,
attorneys for the plaintiffs say.

But the judge allowed an immediate appeal of his ruling, noting it
could be overturned by federal appellate judges.

In a 44-page ruling on Aug. 1 in U.S. District Court in Cleveland,
Judge Donald Nugent said American Family treats agents as
employees by imposing such rules as not letting them sell
insurance from other companies except those with financial ties to
American Family; requiring agents to sign a one-year non-compete
agreement when they leave; referring to agents as "employees" in
training manuals; requiring agents to file daily reports; and
giving managers authority over agents' business plans and vacation
times.

"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," Judge Nugent wrote.  That degree of control "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."

Attorney Charles Crueger, of the Crueger Dickinson law firm in
Milwaukee, the lead law firm representing the plaintiffs, called
it a "landmark" decision.  "As far as I'm aware, we have the first
case that has ever gone to a full-blown trial on this issue and
then prevailed," Mr. Crueger said.

"This is a great day for the agents who had the courage to
challenge the practices of a large corporation and fight for years
to protect their rights as employees," attorney Erin Dickinson
said.

The case was filed in 2013 by four former American Family agents.
In 2016, the judge certified the suit as a class action, adding
about 7,000 current and former agents as unnamed plaintiffs.

In a second ruling on Aug. 1, Judge Nugent turned down a request
by American Family to decertify the class action.  The company
said some agents are satisfied with their current treatment.  The
judge said, though, only one current agent testified during the
two-week trial in April that she is happy with the arrangement.

Judge Nugent did allow American Family to appeal the decisions
immediately and hold off on the process of determining how to
restructure the company's retirement program until the appeal was
resolved.  There was evidence supporting both sides in the case,
previous court cases have had the opposite outcome, and
"repercussions of this finding are so far-reaching," Judge Nugent
wrote.

American Family said it will appeal.  "We are disappointed in the
judge's ruling but pleased the court took the unusual step of
granting an immediate appeal, citing in part the prior case law
that supports the classification of agents as independent
contractors," spokesman Ken Muth said.

American Family chief legal officer Mark Afable said the company
is "confident we will prevail" in the appeals.

"American Family agents operate with tremendous independence that
justifies classification as independent contractors.  The
classification has been previously affirmed by five federal court
decisions and the Internal Revenue Service," he said.

Mr. Crueger estimated the agents could be in line for a combined
$1 billion in retirement benefits, but Mr. Muth disputed that.

"The estimate floated by the plaintiffs' attorneys is grossly
overstated and premature, particularly in light of the court's
granting of an immediate appeal," Mr. Muth said.

American Family Insurance Group is the nation's 13th-largest
property and casualty insurer, with more than 10 million policies
and $8.7 billion in revenue in 2016. [GN]


AMERICAN FAMILY: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Nelson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Charles P. Nelson and Darlene F. Nelson filed an appeal
from a court order dated June 26, 2017, and judgment dated June
28, 2017, entered in their lawsuit titled Charles P. Nelson, et
al. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 0:13-cv-
00607-SRN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota - Minneapolis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs stated that they have maintained a "Gold Star"
insurance policy through Defendant on their home since 2004.
Initially, the Nelsons alleged, as part of a proposed class
action, that Defendant overcharged Gold Star policyholders on
their premiums because it used exaggerated replacement cost
assessments to justify excessive insurance coverage on properties.
They now maintain that Defendant failed to adjust its insurance
coverage amount for some policies even after learning that the
properties' replacement costs were lower, resulting in
policyholders paying inflated premiums for the excessive coverage.

The appellate case is captioned as Charles P. Nelson, et al. v.
American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 17-2665, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on or before September 11, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on September 20, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellants Charles P. Nelson and Darlene F. Nelson
      is due on September 20, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the Court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Charles P. Nelson and Darlene F. Nelson, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Bert Black, Esq.
          Lawrence P. Schaefer, Esq.
          SCHAEFER HALLEEN LLC
          412 Fourth Street, S., Suite 1050
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 294-2600
          E-mail: BBlack@SchaeferHalleen.com
                  LSchaefer@SchaeferHalleen.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Fuller, Esq.
          Grain Exchange Building
          400 S. Fourth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55415-0000
          Telephone: (612) 315-2251

               - and -

          Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: erodette@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

Defendant-Appellee American Family Mutual Insurance Company is
represented by:

          Deborah Ann Ellingboe, Esq.
          Larry E. LaTarte, Esq.
          Cicely R. Miltich, Esq.
          Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 S. Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          E-mail: deborah.ellingboe@FaegreBD.com
                  larry.latarte@FaegreBD.com
                  cicely.miltich@FaegreBD.com
                  aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com


AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT: Alan Presswood Suit Removed to E.D. Mo.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Alan Presswood, D.C., P.C. v. American
HomePatient, Inc., et al., Case No. 17SL-CC02259, was removed on
July 14, 2017, from the Circuit Court of the St. Louis County to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St.
Louis).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-01977-
SNLJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

American HomePatient, Inc., a home healthcare provider, supplies
home medical products and services to patients in the United
States.  The Company offers products and services for sleep apnea,
such as CPAP/Bi-level devices, masks, cushions, headgears,
tubings, filters, humidifier chambers, and other accessories; and
respiratory disorder including liquid and gaseous oxygen products,
concentrators, conserving devices, and travel oxygen.[BN]

Plaintiff Alan Presswood, D.C., P.C., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 536-7022
          Facsimile: (636) 536-6652
          E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com

               - and -

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

Defendant American HomePatient, Inc., is represented by:

          Heather A. Bub, Esq.
          SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC
          120 S. Central Ave., Suite 700
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 719-3706
          Facsimile: (314) 719-3707
          E-mail: hbub@salawus.com


AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Appeals Ruling in "Sanchez" Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Ameriflight, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling
relating to the lawsuit titled David Sanchez v. Ameriflight, LLC,
Case No. 3:16-cv-02733-MMA-BGS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ameriflight
also filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That
appellate case is titled David Sanchez v. Ameriflight, LLC, Case
No. 17-80023.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The appellate case is captioned as David Sanchez v. Ameriflight,
LLC, Case No. 17-56089, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant Ameriflight, LLC's opening brief was due
      August 10, 2017; and

   -- Appellee David Sanchez's answering brief was due
      August 10, 2017.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee DAVID SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Alisa Ann Martin, Esq.
          AMARTIN LAW
          600 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 308-6880
          Facsimile: (619) 308-6881
          E-mail: alisa@pattersonlawgroup.com

Defendant-Appellant AMERIFLIGHT, LLC, is represented by:

          Timothy L. Johnson, Esq.
          Jonathan Liu, Esq.
          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
          E-mail: tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com
                  jonathan.liu@ogletreedeakins.com
                  spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com


AMERIGAS PROPANE: Wins Initial OK of $800,000 "Jarrell" Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jon S. Tigar grants the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement and certification
of settlement class in the lawsuit entitled JIMMIE JARRELL v.
AMERIGAS PROPANE, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-01481-JST (N.D. Cal.).

The settlement class is defined as:

     [A]ll persons employed by AmeriGas as a Service Technician
     (a non-exempt or hourly position) in California from
     February 16, 2012, through the date of preliminary approval.

The putative wage and hour class action against AmeriGas Propane,
Inc., is brought by Jimmie Jarrell on behalf of "himself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public."  The Plaintiff
filed his initial complaint in the Superior Court for the State of
California, Alameda County, on February 16, 2016.  The Defendant
removed the case to this Court based on the presence of a federal
question with respect to Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act
claims.

After the exchange of discovery and mediation, the parties reached
a proposed class action settlement valued at $800,000 for
approximately 231 class members.

Judge Tigar approves the proposed notice procedure, and the
content of the notices.  Judge Tigar also appoints Jimmie Jarell
as class representative; Shaun Setareh, Esq., and H. Scott
Leviant, Esq., of the Setareh Law Group as class counsel; and Rust
Consulting, Inc., as the claims administrator.

The Court sets the final approval hearing for January 11, 2018.
Within 30 days of the date of the Order, the Defendant will
provide the claims administrator the names and contact information
of class members.  Class members will have 60 days from the date
of this mailing to file a claim form, request exclusion, or object
to the settlement.  The Plaintiff shall file his motion for final
approval of the settlement, and application for attorneys' fees,
costs, expenses, and service awards no later than December 1,
2017.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0UAtCKgC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com


APLINGTON KAUFMAN: Martorano Moves for Certification of Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order determining that
the action captioned BENEDICT P. MARTORANO, and LAURA LOCH,
formerly known as LAURA MARTORANO, on behalf of plaintiffs and a
class v. APLINGTON, KAUFMAN, MCCLINTOCK, STEELE & BARRY, LTD.;
ROBERT B. STEELE, and COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS, INC., Case No.
1:17-cv-05573 (N.D. Ill.), alleging violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, may proceed as a class action against
the Defendants.

With respect to their Count I claim, alleging the filing of
collection suits on time barred debts, the Plaintiffs seek to
certify two classes and two subclasses:

   (1) Class A consists of (a) all individuals in Illinois, (b)
       against whom Aplington, Kaufman, McClintock, Steele &
       Barry, Ltd. filed a collection lawsuit (c) on a debt for
       nonelective health care services (d) where the last
       service or payment was more than five years prior to the
       filing of the collection lawsuit (e) which lawsuit was
       filed on or after a date 1 year prior to the filing of
       this action, and prior to a date 21 days after this
       action.

       Subclass A includes class members sued on a contract which
       they did not sign; and

   (2) Class B consists of (a) all individuals in Illinois, (b)
       against whom Collection Professionals, Inc., filed a
       collection lawsuit (c) on a debt for non-elective health
       care services (d) where the last service or payment was
       more than five years prior to the filing of the collection
       lawsuit (e) which lawsuit was filed on or after a date 1
       year prior to the filing of this action, and prior to a
       date 21 days after this action.

       Subclass B includes class members sued on a contract which
       they did not sign.

With respect to Count II, alleging the filing of collection
lawsuits in improper venues, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1692i, the Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes:

   (1) Class A consists of (a) all individuals in Illinois, (b)
       against whom Aplington, Kaufman, McClintock, Steele &
       Barry, Ltd. filed a collection lawsuit (c) not based on a
       contract signed by the consumer (d) where the lawsuit was
       filed in a county other than the one in which the consumer
       resided when the lawsuit was filed (e) which lawsuit was
       filed on or after a date 1 year prior to the filing of
       this action, and prior to a date 21 days after this
       action; and

   (2) Class B consists of (a) all individuals in Illinois, (b)
       against whom Collection Professionals, Inc., filed a
       collection lawsuit (c) not based on a contract signed by
       the consumer (d) where the lawsuit was filed in a county
       other than the one in which the consumer resided when the
       lawsuit was filed (e) which lawsuit was filed on or after
       a date 1 year prior to the filing of this action, and
       prior to a date 21 days after this action.

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RtpHQ9Ya

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Patricia N. Jjemba, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  fgreene@edcombs.com
                  pjjemba@edcombs.com


APLINGTON KAUFMAN: Martorano's Class Certification Bid Continued
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Edmond E. Chang granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
continue certification motion in the lawsuit titled Benedict P.
Martorano, et al. v. Aplington, Kaufman, McClintock, Steele &
Barry, Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-05573 (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiffs' motion to continue certification motion is granted
in light of the certification motion's prematurity, according to
the Court's Notification of Docket Entry.

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


APOLLO GLOBAL: Faces "McEvoy" Suit in Middle District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apollo Global
Management, LLC.  The case is styled as Michael McEvoy, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Apollo
Global Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Gareth Turner, individually, Mark Beith, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00891-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla., August 3, 2017).

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a Delaware corporation
headquartered at 9 West 57th Street, New York, New York 10019.
Apollo owns and operates an equity firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John D. Webb, Esq.
   John D. Webb P.A.
   6320 St. Augustine Road, Suite 7B
   Jacksonville, FL 32217
   Tel: (904) 803-4686
   Email: jwebb@jackwebblaw.com


APPLE INC: Averts Class Action Over Stealthy Address Book Uploads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that siding with
Apple, a federal judge has shut down a false advertising class
action brought by iPhone and iPad users who say they were duped
into believing that phones would protect their privacy.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar in
San Francisco, still allows individual users to proceed against
Apple.  But as a practical matter, the cost of doing so often is
prohibitively expensive.

The decision is the latest development in long-running litigation
over allegations that app developers secretly uploaded iPhone
users' address books.  The battle dates to 2012, when researchers
revealed that mobile social network Path (now Kong Technologies)
and Hipster (later acquired and shut down by AOL) accessed and
stored users' address books without their knowledge.

Security researchers subsequently reported that other developers -
- including Foodspotting, Foursquare Labs, Gowalla, Instagram, Kik
Interactive, Twitter and Yelp -- also had uploaded users' address
books.  Unlike Path, those other developers reportedly asked
people for permission to access their address books, in order to
help them connect with friends who also used the service.  But
Foodspotting, Yelp, Twitter and the others allegedly didn't say
they would keep the data in their servers.

iPhone user Marc Opperman, along with other consumers, sued Apple
and more than a dozen developers for allegedly violating users'
privacy.  The app developers recently agreed to resolve the
allegations.

The claims against Apple include accusations that the company
misled users with ads touting security features that were supposed
to protect users' data.  The consumers asked Tigar to authorize a
class-action on behalf of everyone who purchased an iPhone, iPad
or iPod Touch before 2012.

Apple opposed that request for several reasons, including that the
consumers had not proven that all purchasers saw "uniform"
privacy-related ad promises from Apple.

Judge Tigar agreed with Apple, writing that the consumers "failed
to demonstrate that Apple's privacy-related marketing was
sufficiently extensive to support an inference of class-wide
exposure."

He said in the ruling that some of Apple's ads "may have touched
on the question of iDevice privacy."  But, he added, the consumers
hadn't shown that proposed class members relied on Apple's
statements about the specific security features that may have been
relevant to the address-book uploads. [GN]


ARCONIC INC: Trinko Law Firm Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko on Aug. 2 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Arconic Inc.
("Arconic") (NYSE:ARNC) preferred stock pursuant or traceable to
the IPO of September 18, 2014.  This action was filed in the
Southern District of New York and is captioned Sullivan v. Arconic
Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-05456.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 13, 2017.  If you wish to discuss
this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Curtis V.
Trinko.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding
Arconic's business and operations, including that, contrary to
defendants' representations that Reynobond PE was "a fully tested
product, with building-code approvals throughout the world,"
Arconic was knowingly selling Reynobond PE for use in construction
projects where the product was to be used in a manner that the
Company knew was unsafe and presented a fire hazard, and that
Arconic's marketing and sales of highly flammable Reynobond PE for
use in high-rise tower projects across the United Kingdom and
other countries directly conflicted with the purported strong
culture of safety, ethics and legal compliance that the Company
claimed to have, and exposed Arconic to hundreds of millions of
dollars in potential civil and criminal liability and reputational
harm.  As a result of these false statements and/or omissions,
Arconic preferred stock traded at artificially inflated prices.

On June 14, 2017, a fire engulfed Grenfell Tower, a 24-story, 220-
foot high residential tower block of public housing flats in North
Kensington, West London.  The Grenfell Tower fire resulted in at
least 80 fatalities and over 70 injuries.  On June 24, 2017,
Reuters reported that Arconic employees knew Reynobond PE panels
were being used on the Grenfell Tower, despite the warnings in
Arconic's own sales brochures that such use was inappropriate and
a fire hazard. In response to the Reuters article, the price of
Arconic preferred stock declined precipitously.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Arconic preferred stock pursuant or traceable to the Preferred
Initial Public Offering of September 18, 2014. [GN]


ARIZONA: Ex-Sheriff Arpaio Contempt Verdict Justice for Motorist
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blakely McHugh, writing for Cronkite News, reports that the driver
who was at the heart of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's contempt of
court case said the sheriff's guilty verdict shows "justice is
being served," but he is still affected by the encounter seven
years ago.

"It was quite humiliating and traumatic for me as well as it was
for my wife," Daniel Magos said.  On Dec. 4, 2009, the day
Mr. Magos was driving to his new job.  A Maricopa County Sheriff's
deputy driving behind him turned on his lights.  Mr. Magos thought
nothing of it, believing the deputy was headed toward a call.

Then, the deputy indicated he wanted Mr. Magos to pull over.

"I told my wife, 'he's coming after us.' She said, 'why?' and I
said, 'I don't know,'" Mr. Magos said.

Mr. Magos wasn't the only one whose life changed course that day.
Arpaio, whose office had been ordered by a judge to stop pulling
over motorists just to check immigration status, was ultimately
headed down a path that could lead to prison.  He was found guilty
of criminal contempt of court on July 31.

A body search and class action lawsuit

During the traffic stop, the deputy demanded Mr. Magos and his
wife, Eva, show their driver licenses, registration and insurance.

"It was nothing but yelling, shouting and screaming, the whole
time with his right hand on his gun," Mr. Magos said.

Bad as that was, the body search was worse.

"Before he did the search I told him, 'I already told you I didn't
have any drugs and the only weapon I have is the one I gave you.'
I said, ' so if you're going to do a search, you're going to do it
against my consent,'" Mr. Magos said.

Once he was done, the deputy said he pulled Mr. Magos over because
his license plate wasn't visible, not because of racial profiling.

Mr. Magos responded, "I'm glad you're the one that mentioned it
because that's exactly what it is."

Humiliated and angry, Mr. Magos filed a complaint with the
American Civil Liberties Union.  He became a plaintiff in a class
action lawsuit accusing the sheriff's office of systemic racial
profiling.

'Toughest sheriff' in the country

Arpaio, who billed himself as "America's toughest sheriff" and
proudly said his office was taking a tough stance against illegal
immigration, denies claims his office targeted Latinos.

But federal court judges said Arpaio's office continued to stop
Latinos who weren't suspected of a crime and turning them over to
federal immigration officials, even though local law enforcement
has no jurisdiction over immigration laws.

And the sheriff continued the practice even after a federal court
judge leveled civil contempt findings, according to a court
ruling.  Arpaio, who served more than two decades as sheriff
before voters ousted him in November, was found guilty of criminal
contempt on July 31. U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton said
Arpaio "willfully violated" a court order.

Arpaio faces up to six months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled
for Oct. 5, but his legal team said he will appeal.

"Joe Arpaio is in this for the long haul, and he will continue his
fight to vindicate himself, to prove his innocence and to protect
the public," his legal team said in a statement.

"Police generally stop someone for criminal violations. That's
exactly what the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office was doing,"
defense attorney Dennis Wilenchik said after the verdict.

'Give me a sign'

"Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio being found guilty by a federal judge
means that he is a criminal, which is vindicating for a lot of
people," ACLU spokesman Steve Kilar said.

Still, Mr. Kilar said, Arpaio left lasting damage.

"What we face is still a culture that he created within MCSO that
is incredibly problematic, that is filled with bias," Mr. Kilar
said. (MCSO, now led by Paul Penzone, said in a statement it would
follow the law and reach out to members of the communities it
serves.)

Mr. Magos has been waiting for justice in the case. His wife died
1 1/2 years ago of cancer.  He still writes to her everyday,
telling her about his day and sometimes asking for a sign.

Days before the judge's verdict, he said his wife's favorite
flowers bloomed. [GN]


ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Bid to Dismiss "Rolan" Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Theresa L. Springmann entered an opinion and order in the
lawsuit styled LERITHEA ROLAN and LAMOTTCA BROOKS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATLANTIC
RICHFIELD COMPANY, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, and THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, Case No. 1:16-cv-00357-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.):

   (1) denying the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as to the
       Plaintiffs' Comprehensive Environmental Response
       Compensation and Liability Act Section 107(a) Claim for
       Cost Recovery;

   (2) granting Defendant Atlantic Richfield Company's Motion to
       Dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' nuisance and negligence
       claims against it;

   (3) granting Defendants E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
       and the Chemours Company's Amended Motion to Dismiss as to
       the Plaintiffs' nuisance claim against them; and

   (4) denying Defendants E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
       and the Chemours Company's Amended Motion to Dismiss as to
       the Plaintiffs' negligence claim against them.

The complaint involves remediation efforts at the USS Lead
Superfund Site in East Chicago, Indiana, and the effect of those
efforts on local residents.  The Plaintiffs are Indiana citizens,
who have resided within the West Calumet Public Housing Complex
(West Calumet) in East Chicago.  They have children living with
them.  The West Calumet Public Housing Complex is owned and
operated by the East Chicago Housing Authority.

The Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have incurred
and continue to incur "response" costs within the meaning of
CERCLA, including preliminary investigations of the contamination
of their properties, and temporary housing and relocation costs.

With regard to their Motion to Certify Class, the Plaintiffs'
proposed class consists of:

     All persons who currently, or, since being told in July 2016
     by EPA of the lead and arsenic levels in their neighborhood,
     reside(d), on property that has been impacted, or a threat
     exists that it will be impacted, by lead and arsenic from
     Defendants' properties in and adjacent to the Class Area.

The Class Area is defined generally as bordered: (1) on the north
by the northern boundary of the Carrie Gosch Elementary School and
a line extending eastward from that boundary to the eastern edge
of a north/south utility right of way that runs parallel to McCook
Avenue north of East 149th Place; (2) on the east by: (i) the
eastern-most edge of a north/south utility right of way that runs
parallel to McCook Avenue until East 149th Place, and (ii) McCook
Avenue between East 149th Place and 151st Street; (3) on the south
by East 151st Street; and (4) on the west by the Indiana Harbor
Canal.

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


AURORA CLEANING: Faces "Asiatico" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aurora Cleaning Inc.
The case is styled as Pascuala Saldana Asiatico, as assignee of,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Aurora Cleaning Inc., as assignee of d/b/a Merry Maids and
Deyanira Haverly, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04557 (E.D.N.Y.,
August 3, 2017).

Aurora Cleaning Inc. provides cleaning services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AUTO INSURANCE: "Humphreys" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Humphreys, Individually and on behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Auto Insurance Specialists, LLC, Case No.
3:17-cv-01498-DMS-JMA (S.D. Cal., July 25, 2017), accuses the
Defendant of negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the
Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading her privacy.

Auto Insurance Specialists, LLC, is a Limited Liability Company,
registered in the state of California, headquartered in Cerritos,
California, and doing business throughout California and numerous
other states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          Kevin Lemieux, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  kevin@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

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


AVEO: Class Action Mulled Over "Unconscionable Contracts"
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosanne Barrett, writing for The Australian, reports that
allegations one of Australia's biggest retirement village
operators, Aveo, devised "unconscionable" contracts with its
clients are expected to be lodged in the federal court this week,
in a looming class action against the aged care company.

The children of a former Aveo resident was on Aug. 2 set to join
with high-profile lawyer Stewart Levitt, from Levitt Robinson
Solicitors, to announce the "imminent commencement" of a class
action in the Federal Court.

It follows weeks of negative publicity about Aveo's fees and
contracts that sparked a share price plunge of 30 per cent, and an
announcement by the competition watchdog, the ACCC, that it would
investigate its pricing structures.

Mr Levitt said Aveo had misrepresented to clients the property
they were buying in a way that was "premeditated and calculated".

"The main issue is the method by which Aveo converts people's
freehold into leasehold by a method which we say is
unconscionable," he said.

"They use the estate of the residents in a way that was never
accepted or agreed by them.

"Effectively it's a scheme . . . they think they're buying
freehold but there is a whole scheme underlying the Aveo contract
which effectively converts what they think is freehold into
something which is less than freehold."

The lead applicants, who were set to front the media on Aug. 2,
are the children of a former Aveo resident in a southeast
Queensland facility.

Aveo has 13,000 residents across its 89 Australian sites and is
rolling out 500 new units a year, the strongest growth in the
industry.  Company representatives on Aug. 1 declined to comment
on the Aug. 2 announcement but have previously defended their fee
and contract practices, following last month's investigation by
Four Corners and Fairfax.

Aveo said its return on retirement assets, at 6.3 per cent, was
"not reflective of super profits".

It is also converting residents to what it describes as a simpler
contract, following its acquisition of a chain of aged care
facilities.

Law firm Levitt Robinson has claimed many Aveo residents had been
"ripped off" by the company.  Mr Levitt said about 400 people had
already registered with the firm.

"We imagine there will be quite a level of interest once there is
something to sign up to," he said.

Peak industry body, the Retirement Living Council, has defended
the industry in the wake of the damaging allegations, saying most
residents believe their fees are reasonable. [GN]


BEBE STORES: Settles Class Action Over Unwanted Spam Texts
----------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Burstein, Esq. -- jburstein@reedsmith.com -- and Jason
Gordon, Esq. -- jgordon@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP, in an
article for Lexology, wrote that in June, women's fashion retailer
Bebe Stores, Inc., agreed to settle a proposed class action over
purported violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), which alleged that the retailer sent unwanted spam texts
through an automatic telephone dialing system.  According to court
records, Bebe's financial condition was a substantial factor in
the parties' considerations to settle the matter, as Bebe recently
closed all of its physical stores and terminated the vast majority
of its employees in an effort to avoid bankruptcy.  If approved,
the deal could provide more than $772,000 to shoppers, amounting
to a payout of $20 to each class member who provided a mobile
telephone number at the point of sale and subsequently received a
text from the retailer.

Takeaway: Advertisers should carefully structure text message
marketing programs in order to comply with the TCPA.  This case
serves as a reminder that the class action bar is very active with
regard to text message programs. [GN]


BEHR PROCESS: Sued by Gober Over Defective DeckOver Resurfacer
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANNE GOBER, DAVID WORMWOOD, AARON CORNEAIL, CHARLES WEYGANT,
DEBORAH DURDA, JOEL DARBY, AND BRYON ZABLOTNY individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEHR PROCESS CORP.;
BEHR PAINT CORP.; MASCO CORP.; THE HOME DEPOT, INC.; and HOME
DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-01282 (C.D. Cal., July 25,
2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act in connection with the sale and marketing of
Behr's Premium DeckOver, a line of deck resurfacers manufactured
by Behr.

In 2013, Behr, through a national marketing campaign, released a
new patio and deck product exclusively through Home Depot, branded
as DeckOver.  Behr and Home Depot represented to homeowners that
DeckOver was worth its premium price (3-5 times more expensive
than ordinary paints and stains) because it was a more durable
coating (5 times thicker) and it could repair decks by filling in
cracks and stopping splinters.

The Plaintiffs allege that the DeckOver is not durable or long-
lasting.  Instead, they contend, within mere months of
application, DeckOver begins to flake, peel, and separate from
deck and concrete surfaces.  They add that Behr manufactured and
distributed DeckOver and authorized and marketed its sale to the
public even though DeckOver is not a durable resurfacer and is not
capable of providing long-lasting protection for wood and concrete
surfaces, but is instead prone to promptly peeling, chipping,
bubbling, and degrading within months of application.

Behr Process Corporation and Behr Paint Corporation are California
corporations, with their principal place of business in Santa Ana,
California.

Masco Corporation is a Delaware corporation, with its principal
place of business in Taylor, Michigan.  Masco acquired Behr
Process Corporation in 1999.  Masco conducts Behr-oriented
marketing and sales operations in Santa Ana.

The Home Depot, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its principal
place of business in Georgia.  The Home Depot, Inc. is the parent
company of Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and describes itself in annual
reports filed with the Securities Exchange Commission as the
world's largest home improvement retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com
                  klaukaitis@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
          211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  isalam@litedepalma.com


BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Gonzalez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adela Gonzalez filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
titled Adela Gonzalez v. Cypress Insurance Company, et al., Case
No. 2:16-cv-02690-AG-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Adela
Gonzalez has asked the Court for an order granting her motion for
class certification.

The appellate case is captioned as Adela Gonzalez v. Cypress
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 17-56071, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 25, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 24, 2017;

   -- Appellant Adela Gonzalez's opening brief is due on
      January 2, 2018;

   -- Appellees Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company,
      Cypress Insurance Company, Oliver Glover, HQ Sign-up
      Services, Inc., William Reynolds and Zenith Insurance
      Company's answering brief is due on February 1, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ADELA GONZALEZ, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: rsg@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor
          Long Beach, CA 90804
          Telephone: (562) 391-2487
          E-mail: jrn@classcounsel.com

Defendants-Appellees CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, a California
Corporation, and BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
are represented by:

          JoAnne S. Jennings, Esq.
          Deborah Lynn Stein, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 407-7500
          Facsimile: (310) 407-7502
          E-mail: JoAnne.Jennings@stblaw.com
                  dstein@stblaw.com

Defendant-Appellee ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, a California
Corporation, is represented by:

          Lary Alan Rappaport, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
          Telephone: (310) 557-2900
          Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
          E-mail: lrappaport@proskauer.com

Defendant-Appellee OLIVER GLOVER is represented by:

          Dennis Bruce Kass, Esq.
          MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
          801 S. Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 624-6900
          Facsimile: (213) 624-6999
          E-mail: dbk@mmker.com

Defendant-Appellee WILLIAM REYNOLDS is represented by:

          Stephen Caine, Esq.
          THOMPSON COE & O'MEARA, LLP
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 954-2352
          Facsimile: (310) 954-2345
          E-mail: scaine@thompsoncoe.com


BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Casillas" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Hector Casillas filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Hector Casillas, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Berkshire Hathaway Homestate
Companies, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04763-AG-JEM, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to hack into privileged and
confidential litigation files of thousands of individuals
litigating worker's compensation cases against them.

The appellate case is captioned as Hector Casillas v. Cypress
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 17-56065, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 25, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 24, 2017;

   -- Appellant Hector Casillas' opening brief is due on
      January 2, 2018;

   -- Appellees Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company,
      Cypress Insurance Company, Oliver Glover, HQ Sign-up
      Services, Inc., William Reynolds and Zenith Insurance
      Company's answering brief is due on February 1, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant HECTOR CASILLAS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: rsg@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor
          Long Beach, CA 90804
          Telephone: (562) 391-2487
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: jrn@classcounsel.com

Defendants-Appellees CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, a California
Corporation, and BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
are represented by:

          JoAnne S. Jennings, Esq.
          Deborah Lynn Stein, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 407-7500
          Facsimile: (310) 407-7502
          E-mail: JoAnne.Jennings@stblaw.com
                  dstein@stblaw.com

Defendant-Appellee ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, a California
Corporation, is represented by:

          Lary Alan Rappaport, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
          Telephone: (310) 557-2900
          Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
          E-mail: lrappaport@proskauer.com

Defendant-Appellee OLIVER GLOVER is represented by:

          Dennis Bruce Kass, Esq.
          MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
          801 S. Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 624-6900
          Facsimile: (213) 624-6999
          E-mail: dbk@mmker.com

Defendant-Appellee WILLIAM REYNOLDS is represented by:

          Stephen Caine, Esq.
          THOMPSON COE & O'MEARA, LLP
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 954-2352
          Facsimile: (310) 954-2345
          E-mail: scaine@thompsoncoe.com


BJ INSPECTIONS: Russo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK RUSSO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BJ INSPECTIONS, INC., Case No. 6:17-cv-00959 (W.D.
La., July 26, 2017), is brought to recover alleged unpaid overtime
wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

BJ Inspections, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation doing business
throughout the United States.  BJ Inspections is an oilfield
service company offering inspection and managerial services to the
oil and natural gas industry throughout the United States,
including in Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  mparmet@brucknerburch.com


BLACKBERRY: April 2018 Hearing Set in Employees' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to determine whether a lawsuit launched by employees of
BlackBerry Ltd. in February can proceed as a class action is
scheduled for April 4-6, 2018, in Ottawa.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Michel Charbonneau on July 11
endorsed the timetable for hearings and the delivery of documents
leading up to the certification motion next spring.

The lawsuit, filed by Ottawa law firm Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP,
alleges that BlackBerry's arrangement to transfer more than 300
employees to Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd. as part of a
strategic partnership amounts to a termination, and was structured
in a way that the company could avoid paying statutory, common law
and/or contractual entitlements to the workers.  At the same time,
the employees' years of service weren't recognized, since both
BlackBerry and Ford contend that the transfer is not a sale of
business and that the workers resigned, the claim states.

"I think the issue that ultimately the court is going to have to
decide at the end of the day is was this a resignation or was this
a termination.  That's really going to be the key legal issue in
this case," said Andrew Reinholdt, who, along with Janice Payne
and Karine Dion, represents the plaintiffs.

Mr. Reinholdt said in an interview that the employees claim
BlackBerry "intentionally tried to structure this as a mass
resignation, so that the employees are basically resigning en
masse to accept employment with Ford, as opposed to BlackBerry
terminating these employees and offering them alternate employment
with Ford, or transferring these employees so that their years of
service transfer over."

"They structured it in such a way to try to be able to say this is
neither a termination nor is it a sale of business.  It's a mass
resignation."

He noted that "there's a pretty broad spectrum of cases out there
that are dealing with what constitutes a termination. . . .
There's constructive dismissal case law out there where an
employer puts an employee in a position where they've effectively
terminated their employment, even though they haven't handed them
a termination letter.  And there's other case law out there that
actually does deal with somewhat similar situations to this, where
the employer's actions taken as a whole show an intention to
terminate the employee's employment.  And that's the law we're
going to be relying on."

The lawsuit requests damages for wrongful dismissal, which
encompass minimum provincial statutory entitlements, including
termination, severance and vacation pay pursuant to the Employment
Standards Act; contractual entitlements; or common law
entitlements. It also requests damages for breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing and/or punitive damages of $20
million, or an appropriate amount determined by the court.

None of the allegations has been proven in court.

Arlen Sternberg -- asternberg@torys.com -- of Torys LLP, who's
acting for BlackBerry with Ryan Lax, said in an e-mail that the
company "will vigorously defend against this claim.  Other than
that, BlackBerry does not comment on any aspect of active
litigation."

The firm has not yet issued a statement of defence, which
customarily isn't filed in class action proceedings until after
the certification motion is heard.

The action against the pioneering smartphone maker was brought by
David Parker, who joined BlackBerry in 2004.  Mr. Reinholdt
estimates that anywhere from 200 to 300 employees -- who worked
for BlackBerry in Ottawa, Waterloo, Ont., and elsewhere in Canada,
and who now all work for Ford -- will be part of the lawsuit.

They belonged to a group at BlackBerry called the Silver Team,
which was set up last October as part of a deal with Ford to
develop automobile software.  Employees who had worked on hardware
technologies and software in the handheld business unit were
transitioned over to the Silver Team, and were told "that their
work would involve engineering services exclusively for Ford,"
according to the statement of claim.

The move came soon after BlackBerry CEO John Chen announced the
company would be cutting expenses by doing away with inventory,
and reducing staff and equipment costs, as part of its shift from
hardware to software.  Between 2011 and 2013, the company laid off
about 11,500 employees in response to its lagging financial
performance.

The employee transfer arrangement between BlackBerry and Ford
isn't "common," Mr. Reinholdt said.  "I certainly haven't seen a
transfer like this that's been structured this way.

"Usually what happens is when a company is either selling its
entire business or components of its business, they do it in such
a way that it's a share sale or an asset sale, so all the assets
or contracts of employees go over.  And they say it's a sale of
business, so there are actually legal mechanisms that transfer the
employees' years of service . . . which provides them with
protections if they're ever terminated," he said.  "Both Ford and
BlackBerry here have said that no, this is not a sale of
business."

The statement of claim alleges that BlackBerry "provided the
Silver Team employees' human resources and other personal
information to Ford" without their permission.  "BlackBerry
management discussed the employees' employment information with
Ford, without first consulting with the affected employees."

It also says that based on correspondence with HR representatives
at BlackBerry and comments from Chen that the company would
evaluate internal opportunities "as much as possible" for those
employees who declined an offer from Ford, the plaintiff, Parker,
"understood Chen's message to mean that it was unlikely he would
have a role with BlackBerry if he turned down employment with
Ford."

Parker received an offer from Ford on Jan. 18, 2017, and accepted
it five days later.  "He believed he had no other practical
choice; his decision was not voluntary," the lawsuit says,
alleging that a "clear and unequivocal date of termination" was
set for March 1, 2017, when the employees would start working at
Ford.

In early February, after Parker and other employees had accepted
Ford's offer, they received an e-mail from a BlackBerry HR
representative informing them that they were required to give
"formal notice" of their resignations from the company, according
to the statement of claim. The e-mail said they were required to
sign attached documents that included a template resignation
letter.

Parker responded that BlackBerry had terminated his employment
"based on its communications with him and other employees . . . as
well as BlackBerry's lack of clarity as to whether there would be
a position for him within the company should he refuse Ford's
offer of employment. He stated that he believed he was entitled to
his contractual entitlements on termination" and did not sign the
resignation letter.

The representative "responded that BlackBerry was not terminating
his employment; rather, Parker had accepted new employment and
therefore had resigned his position," the statement of claim says.

After he asked the representative whether the transfer of the
Silver Team employees was being treated as a sale of business, he
was told that it was not and that employees' years of service
would not move with them to Ford, the lawsuit alleges. The
information was repeated by a Ford HR representative.

On Feb. 23, after Parker had filed a notice of action, BlackBerry
sent all employees an e-mail answering questions it had received.
Responding to a question on whether comparable roles are
available, the company wrote: "We have already placed several
employees in comparable roles (in the same job position) who have
chosen to remain at BlackBerry. We will work with you to find a
suitable and comparable role if you choose to stay and continue
your employment at BlackBerry.

"In the event we cannot find a comparable role on another team and
determine that we must subsequently terminate your employment, you
would then be eligible for separation pay per the terms of your
employment agreement."

The e-mail went on to say that if employees "choose not to submit
a [resignation] letter, we will nonetheless recognize your
acceptance of employment by Ford and accept it as a resignation
from BlackBerry."

Mr. Reinholdt said courts "have always recognized the huge power
imbalance between an employer and an employee," and noted that
"class actions can be a powerful vehicle to deal with that
imbalance.  The cost of an individual bringing an action is pretty
significant, but allowing 200 to 300 to bring it collectively
really helps to undo that power imbalance." A hearing to determine
whether a lawsuit launched by employees of BlackBerry Ltd. in
February can proceed as a class action is scheduled for April 4-6,
2018, in Ottawa. [GN]


BLUE STAR: Martinez Seeks to Certify Class of Migrant Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled RICARDO MARTINEZ, et al. v.
BLUE STAR FARMS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00681-RJJ-PJG
(W.D. Mich.), move the Court to certify the case as a class action
and appoint class counsel.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act.  The proposed class
is defined as:

     All migrant and seasonal agricultural workers employed at
     Blue Star Farms to harvest blueberries in 2011, 2012, or
     2013.

The Plaintiffs inform the Court that they do not seek to certify
AWPA claims arising from conduct after the end of the blueberry
harvest in 2013.  The Plaintiffs say that they intend to file a
proposed second amended complaint that narrows the class
definition to the 2011 to 2013 harvests.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=R0pAFKoq

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marni Willenson, Esq.
          WILLENSON LAW, LLC
          542 S. Dearborn St., Suite 610
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 546-4910
          E-mail: marni@willensonlaw.com

               - and -

          Teresa Hendricks, Esq.
          Mariza Gamez-Garcia, Esq.
          Benjamin O'Hearn, Esq.
          MIGRANT LEGAL AID
          1104 Fuller Ave., NE
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 454-5055
          E-mail: thendricks@migrantlegalaid.com
                  mgamezgarcia@migrantlegalaid.com
                  bohearn@migrantlegalaid.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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


BMW: Among Defendants in Antitrust Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
On July 28, 2017, a group of plaintiffs filed a putative class
action in the Northern District of California against BMW,
Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, Daimler, and Mercedes-Benz, as well as
auto-parts manufacturer Robert Bosch. The suit alleges that,
extending as far back as 1996, these five German car manufacturers
colluded to suppress competition by agreeing to limit
technological advancement, selecting favored suppliers, and
exchanging confidential business information. The class-action
suit follows recent publications reporting that European Union
antitrust officials and the German Cartel Office are investigating
allegations of a cartel among these manufacturers.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that BMW, Volkswagen,
Audi, Porsche, Daimler, and Mercedes-Benz referred to themselves
as the "FĂ…nfer-Kreise," or Circle of Five, and used working groups
within the Verband der Automobilindustrie (German Automobile
Association) to facilitate data sharing and collusion. One major
area of alleged collusion was an agreement to limit the size of
diesel exhaust fluid tanks, which hold a fluid used to reduce the
concentration of nitrous oxide in the exhaust of diesel engines.
The complaint further alleges that "these agreements to restrict
tank size . . . were the impetus for the creation of the 'defeat
device' that was the subject matter" of the "Dieselgate"
litigation, a separate action (In re: Volskwagen "Clean Diesel"
Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation, (Case
No. 3:15-md-02672 (N.D. Cal.)) that alleged certain car companies
(including Audi, Porsche, and Volkswagen) took steps to cheat
emissions tests.  The "defeat devices" allegedly allowed the
vehicles to use less fluid (resulting in higher emissions),
allowing them to last longer on the single--smaller--tank. The
complaint adds that it is "a testament to the power of the cartel"
that none of the members resolved the "emissions compliance
dilemma by introducing a larger . . . tank."

The complaint also alleges a variety of other agreements to limit
technological advances in German automobiles through various
"Arbeitskreise," or working groups, of the German Automobile
Association. These included agreements not to develop a
convertible top that could be lowered at speeds higher than 50
kilometers per hour, an agreement to standardize when the parking
lock should be activated, and other agreements to standardize
elements of brake controls and seat systems. These standards
precluded competition and advancement in these areas among the
Circle of Five. The Arbeitskreise also allegedly shared
competitively sensitive information, including information about
suppliers, allowing the Circle of Five to cut prices paid to
suppliers and limiting the ability of new suppliers to enter the
market.

The complaint asserts causes of action for conspiracy under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, state law claims under California
and Oregon's antitrust statutes, and a state law claim for
violations of California's unfair competition law. One question
that will be very important is how the relevant market is defined.
The plaintiffs contend that the relevant market is limited to
German automobiles; it alleges that German automobiles are "a
differentiated market" and points to the defendants' advertising
touting the superiority of "German engineering." The defendants
will likely argue that the relevant market includes automobiles
made by all manufacturers, and that the competition between
automobiles manufactured by companies from Germany, Japan, the
U.S., and other countries was vigorous.

A similar suit was also filed in the District of New Jersey.  We
will keep an eye on both actions as they progress. [GN]


BMW AG: Faces "Kaufman" Antitrust Suit Over German Luxury Cars
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH KAUFMAN, EDNA PARKER, and CARROLL GIBBS v. BMW AG, BMW
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, VOLKSWAGEN AG, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,
INC., AUDI AG, AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC, DR.
ING. H.C.F. PORSCHE AG, PORSCHE CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
BENTLEY MOTORS LIMITED, DAIMLER AG, MERCEDESBENZ USA, MERCEDES-
BENZ VANS, LLC, and MERCEDES-BENZ US INTERNATIONAL, Case No. 2:17-
cv-05440 (D.N.J., July 25, 2017), is brought for damages,
injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to federal antitrust
laws and state antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection,
and unjust enrichment laws.

The lawsuit involves a massive two decade-long conspiracy among
German automotive manufacturers to unlawfully increase the prices
of German Luxury Vehicles -- Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Audi, BMW,
and Bentley.  The putative class action is brought against the
Defendants and named and unnamed co-conspirators for agreeing to
share commercially-sensitive information and reach unlawful
agreements regarding German Luxury Vehicle technology, costs,
suppliers, market, emissions equipment and other competitive
attributes, thereby, causing injury to the Plaintiffs and the
Classes, the Plaintiffs contend.

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG ("BMW AG") is a German holding company
and vehicle manufacturer.  BMW AG is headquartered in Germany.
BMW AG, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures,
and sells cars and motorcycles worldwide.  BMW North America, LLC
is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal
place of business in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  BMW of North
America is the United States importer of BMW vehicles.

Volkswagen AG is a German corporation with its principal place of
business in Wolfsburg, Germany.  Volkswagen AG is the parent
company of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, Porsche AG,
and Bentley.  In 2016, Volkswagen AG was the largest auto
manufacturer in the world.  Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is
incorporated in New Jersey, and does business in all 50 states and
the District of Columbia, with its principal place of business in
Herndon, Virginia.  Volkswagen Group advertises, markets, and
sells Volkswagen vehicles through the United States.

Audi AG is a German corporation with its principal place of
business in Ingolstadt, Germany.  Audi AG is the parent company of
Audi of America, Inc. and Audi of America, LLC and also is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG.  Audi AG designs,
develops, manufactures, and sells the German Luxury Vehicles at
issue that were purchased throughout the United States.  Audi of
America, Inc. is incorporated in New Jersey, and does business in
all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with its principal
place of business in Herndon, Virginia.  Audi of America, LLC is
incorporated in Delaware, and does business in all 50 states and
the District of Columbia, with its principal place of business in
Herndon.

Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG is a German corporation with its
principal place of business located in Stuttgart, Germany.
Porsche AG is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG.  Porsche
AG designs, develops, manufactures, and sells the German Luxury
Vehicles at issue.  Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is
incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in
Georgia.  Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is a wholly-owned U.S.
subsidiary of Porsche AG and advertises, markets, and sells German
Luxury Vehicles in all 50 states.  Porsche Cars North America,
Inc. maintains a network of 189 dealers throughout the United
States.

Bentley Motors Limited Company is organized under the laws of the
United Kingdom.  Bentley has been a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG
since 1998.  In 2012, Bentley moved its U.S. headquarters to the
offices of Volkswagen Group of America in Herndon, Virginia.
Prior to this change, Bentley was headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.

Daimler Aktiengesellschaft is a foreign corporation headquartered
in Stuttgart, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany.  Daimler AG designs,
engineers, manufactures, tests, markets, supplies, sells and
distributes the German Luxury Vehicles at issue that were
purchased throughout the United States.  Daimler AG is the parent
company of Mercedez-Benz USA, LLC and controls this subsidiary,
which acts as the sole distributor for Mercedes-Benz vehicles in
the United States.  Daimler AG owns 100% of the capital share in
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC.

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation
with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.
Mercedes-Benz USA LLC operates a regional sales office, a parts
distribution center, and a customer service center in New Jersey.
Mercedes designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and sells the
German Luxury Vehicles at issue that were purchased throughout the
United States.

Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of Alabama, with its principal place
of business in Vance, Alabama.  Mercedes-Benz U.S. International,
Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Daimler AG.  Mercedes-Benz
Vans, LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its
principal place of business in Ladson, South Carolina.  Mercedes-
Benz Vans, LLC is a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of Daimler
AG.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, PC
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: JCecchi@CarellaByrne.com

               - and -

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          Robyn R. English, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
                  KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com
                  REnglish@RobinsKaplan.com


BRAN HOSPITALITY: Fails to Properly Pay Housekeepers, Harp Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRAMINE C. HARP, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated to himself v. BRAN HOSPITALITY, INC. D/B/A HAMPTON INN,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00285-LJA (M.D. Ga., July 25, 2017), alleges that
the Defendant fails to pay minimum wage to the Plaintiff and
similarly situated current and former housekeepers, who are/were
employed by the Defendant.

Mr. Harp tells the Court that he was terminated from employment
after complaining of Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage
violations.

Bran Hospitality, Inc., is a domestic for-profit corporation doing
business as Hampton Inn in various locations throughout
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. McCabe, Esq.
          THE MCCABE LAW FIRM, LLC
          3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 250-3233
          Facsimile: (404) 400-1724
          E-mail: jim@mccabe-lawfirm.com


BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Cotto Seeks Reimbursements & Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Cotto, an individual, on behalf of himself, and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bridgestone Retail
Operations LLC, Defendant, Case No. BC670806 (Cal. Super., August
3, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon,
redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods,
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, reimbursement for business-related expenses,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code
and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Defendant operate as "Firestone Complete Autocare" in Walnut, Los
Angeles where Cotto worked as a technician. [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: Bames@kbarnes.com

             - and -

     Raphael A. Katri, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A. KATRI
     8549 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3104
     Tel: (310) 940-2034
     Fax: (310) 733-5644
     Email: RKatri@socallaborlawyers.com


BROADBAND INSTALLATIONS: Oxford Seeks to Certify Technician Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled SCOTT OXFORD, CHRISTOPHER
COLEMAN, JONATHAN GUY, and TIFFANY GOTSIS individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. BROADBAND
INSTALLATIONS OF IOWA, LLC, and MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS CORP.,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00178-SMR-RAW (S.D. Iowa), move the Court for an
order conditionally certifying and allowing judicial notice of the
action to be sent to potential opt-in plaintiffs informing them of
their right to opt-in to this case under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of
this class:

     All Technicians who were classified as independent
     contractors while performing installation and repair work
     for Broadband Installations of Iowa, Inc. on behalf of
     Mediacom in the United States from May 19, 2014 to the
     present.

The case challenges the alleged uniform misclassification policy
of two large companies, which utilize hundreds of individuals
across several states who perform cable TV, internet and phone
installation and repair, and misclassify them as independent
contractors even though they work full-time for Defendants who
control nearly every aspect of their work, provide cable
installations services that are integral to Defendants' business,
and are wholly reliant on Defendants for their income.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Weber, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  bweber@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Nate Willems, Esq.
          RUSH & NICHOLSON, P.L.C.
          P.O. Box 637
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52406
          Telephone: (319) 363-5209
          Facsimile: (319) 363-6664
          E-mail: nate@rushnicholson.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Camille Fundora, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  cfundora@bm.net


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Rejuso Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NINA REJUSO individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated and aggrieved v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES,
INC. a Delaware corporation; BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC. a
Delaware corporation; BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC. a
Delaware corporation; BKD PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-05227-DMG-RAO (C.D. Cal., July 14,
2017), accuses the Defendants of failure to pay overtime, minimum
and split shift wages, among other failures.

BSLC, BSL, BLC and BKD are foreign corporations formed and
existing under the laws of the state of Delaware.  The Plaintiff
does not know true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.
The Defendants operate senior living communities in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          Roy K. Suh, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, INC.
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suit 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: nmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  jboxer@maternlawgroup.com
                  rsuh@maternlawgroup.com


C.TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Mizrahi" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C.tech Collections,
Inc.  The case is styled as Rena Mizrahi, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C.tech Collections,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04565 (E.D.N.Y., August 3,
2017).

C.tech Collections is engaged in the collection of debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CAPITAL BANK: Faces "McNamara" Suit Over Sale to First Horizon
--------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE MCNAMARA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CAPITAL BANK FINANCIAL CORP., R. EUGENE
TAYLOR, MARTHA M. BACHMAN, RICHARD M. DEMARTINI, PETER N. FOSS,
WILLIAM A. HODGES, SCOTT B. KAUFFMAN, OSCAR A. KELLER III, MARC D.
OKEN, ROBERT L. REID, and WILLIAM G. WARD, SR., Case No. 3:17-cv-
00439 (W.D.N.C., July 25, 2017), arises out of the Defendants'
alleged attempt to sell the Company to First Horizon National
Corporation.

On May 4, 2017, First Horizon and the Company announced they had
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, by which First
Horizon, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Firestone Sub, Inc.,
will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Capital Bank in a
cash and stock transaction in which Capital Bank stockholders will
receive approximately 1.750 shares of First Horizon common stock
and $7.90 in cash for each share of Capital Bank common stock,
subject to proration and election allocation.

The Proposed Transaction has a total transaction value of
approximately $2.2 billion as of May 3, 2017, and is expected to
close in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Capital Bank is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware and maintains principal executive
offices at in Charlotte, North Carolina.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Capital Bank was incorporated in Delaware in 2009 to serve as the
bank holding company for Capital Bank Corporation.  The Bank is a
North Carolina state-chartered bank, wholly owned by Capital Bank.
The Bank currently has 192 branches providing consumer and
financial banking services, located throughout the Southeast,
including locations in Florida, Tennessee, Virginia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina.

Relevant non-party First Horizon is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of Tennessee and maintains its corporate
headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee.  Relevant non-party Merger Sub
is a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of First
Horizon that was created for the purposes of effectuating the
Proposed Transaction.[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) 510-2104
          Facsimile: (336) 510-2181
          E-mail: jwblack@wardblacklaw.com
                  nmeyers@wardblacklaw.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


CARDONE TRAINING: Faces "Ceglarek" Suit Over Scientology Refusal
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE CEGLAREK, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. CARDONE TRAINING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A Foreign Profit
Corporation, Case No. 2017-016647-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade
Cty., July 12, 2017), alleges that the Defendant treated the
Plaintiff, and others in the Class, in a disparate manner, based
on her/their refusal to attend Scientology training and education
during her/their employment.

Cardone Training Technologies, Inc., is a corporation that
operates and conducts business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and
maintains its principal business address in Miami-Dade County.
The Company operates, among others, a company that "primarily
develops visual and audio products geared towards enhancing
individuals and corporations production through sales."

The Defendant's Principal, Grant Cardone, is a devout
Scientologist, and requires/insists that employees, who work for
the Defendant, adhere to, and attend, Scientology training and
education as a term and condition of their employment with the
Defendant, according to the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAREFIRST INC: Appeals Court Reinstates Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
federal appeals court has reinstated a putative class action
lawsuit filed by health insurer CareFirst Inc. customers in
connection with a 2014 data breach, holding their potential risk
of injury from the breach is "substantial."

In June 2014, an unknown intruder breached 22 of Baltimore-based
CareFirst's computers and accessed a database containing its
customers' personal information, according to the Aug. 1 ruling by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
Chantal Attias et al. v. CareFirst Inc. et al.

CareFirst did not discover the breach until April 2015 and
notified its customers the following month. Shortly after the
announcement, seven CareFirst customers filed a putative class
action against CareFirst and its subsidiaries in U.S. District
Court in Washington, D.C.

The District Court dismissed the case on the grounds plaintiffs
had not alleged either a present injury "nor a high enough
likelihood of future injury."

On appeal, a unanimous three-judge panel reinstated the case.

"Nobody doubts that identity theft, should it befall one of these
plaintiffs, would constitute a concrete and particularized
injury," said the ruling.  "The remaining question, then, keeping
in mind the light burden of proof the plaintiffs bear at the
pleading stage, is whether the complaint plausibly alleges that
the plaintiffs now face a substantial risk of identity theft as a
result of CareFirst's alleged negligence in the data breach."

Medical identity theft leads to inaccurate entries in victims'
medical records and can cause them "to receive improper medical
care, have their insurance depleted, become ineligible for health
or life insurance or become disqualified for some jobs," said the
ruling, quoting an earlier decision.

"These portions of the complaint would make up, at the very least,
a plausible allegation that plaintiffs face a substantial risk of
identity fraud even if their Social Security numbers were never
exposed to the data thief," said the ruling.

"No long sequence of uncertain contingencies involving multiple
independent actors has to occur before the plaintiffs in this case
will suffer any harm; a substantial risk of harm exists already,
simply by virtue of the hack and the nature of the data that the
plaintiffs allege was taken," said the ruling, in reversing the
lower court ruling and remanding the case for further proceedings.
[GN]


CARLTON CTY, MN: Larson, Green Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carlton County
Sheriff Kelly Lake.  The case is styled as Hollis J. Larson and
Guy I. Greene, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Carlton Cty Sheriff Kelly Lake sued in their individual and
official capacities, Carlton County Jail, Paul Coughlin sued in
their individual and official capacities, Brian Belich sued in
their individual and official capacities, Dave Kamunen
sued in their individual and official capacities, Jason Wilmes
sued in their individual and official capacities, Cammi Werner
sued in their individual and official capacities, Travis Warnygora
sued in their individual and official capacities, John Does, an
unknown number, sued in their individual and official capacities,
Jane Does, an unknown number, sued in their individual and
official capacities, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-03551-SRN-KMM (D.
Minn., August 3, 2017).

Carlton County Sheriff's Office is to provide for the Peace and
Public Safety of the public while dealing with everyone in a fair
and impartial basis.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear in PRO SE.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Class Certification Sought in "Ottman" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Ottman moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled MORGAN OTTMAN, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CAVALRY
PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01053-JPS (E.D. Wisc.),
and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiff says it is obligated to move for class certification
to protect the interests of the putative class. The Plaintiff
contends more than one defendant has already attempted the scheme
contemplated in Campbell-Ewald.  See Severns v. Eastern Account
Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).  Judge Randa denied the
defendant's request to deposit funds on grounds that a class
certification motion was pending.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Dfqb4lBT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CEDAR FAIR: "Del-Orden" Suit Sues Over Website Inaccessibility
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Del-Orden, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cedar Fair Entertainment Company,
Defendant, Case No. 156962/2017 (N.Y. Sup., August 3, 2017), seeks
compensatory damages including all applicable statutory damages
and fines, for violations of New York State Human Rights Law and
City Law, reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs of suit,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further
relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Cedar Fair -- https://www.cedarfair.com/ -- operates 13 amusement
parks all over the country.  Del-Orden is a legally blind
individual and cannot use a computer without the assistance of
screen reader software. Plaintiff browsed and intended to buy an
admission ticket on Dorneypark.com for tickets to Dorney Park
Wildwater Kingdom in Allentown PA but could not book an
appointment due to the inaccessibility of the said site. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181


CF ENTERTAINMENT: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Pauley" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Thomas Clark and Bernadette Pauley filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Bernadette Pauley, et al. v.
CF Entertainment, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-08011-R-CW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Bernadette Pauley, et al. v. CF
Entertainment, et al., Case No. 17-56099, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 28, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 24, 2017;

   -- Appellants Thomas Clark and Bernadette Pauley's opening
      brief is due on January 4, 2018;

   -- Appellees CF Entertainment, Comics Unleashed Productions,
      Inc., Entertainment Studios, Inc. and Byron Allen Folks'
      answering brief is due on February 5, 2018;

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants BERNADETTE PAULEY, an individual, and THOMAS
CLARK, an individual on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Tagore Olivier Subramaniam, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  tagore@maternlawgroup.com

Defendants-Appellees CF ENTERTAINMENT, a California corporation;
COMICS UNLEASHED PRODUCTIONS, INC., a California corporation;
ENTERTAINMENT STUDIOS, INC., a California corporation; and BYRON
ALLEN FOLKS, an individual, are represented by:

          Ivy K. Bierman, Esq.
          Saul D. Brenner, Esq.
          LOEB & LOEB LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 282-2327
          Facsimile: (310) 919-3952
          E-mail: ibierman@loeb.com
                  sbrenner@loeb.com

Defendant SCREEN ACTORS GUILD-AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TELEVISION
AND RADIO ARTISTS, a California corporation, is represented by:

          Robert Alan Bush, Esq.
          BUSH GOTTLIEB SINGER LOPEZ KOHANSKI ADELSTEIN
          & DICKINSON
          500 North Central Avenue
          Glendale, CA 91203-3345
          Telephone: (818) 973-3205
          E-mail: rbush@bushgottlieb.com

               - and -

          Ira L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          BUSH GOTTLIEB SINGER LOPEZ KOHANSKI ADELSTEIN
          & DICKINSON
          801 N. Brand Boulevard
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 973-3200
          E-mail: igottlieb@bushgottlieb.com

               - and -

          Jason Wojciechowski, Esq.
          SEIU LOCAL 121RN
          1040 Lincoln Ave.
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (626) 639-6168
          E-mail: WojciechowskiJ@seiu121rn.org

                           *     *     *

Plaintiffs Thomas Clark and Bernadette Pauley filed another appeal
from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit titled Bernadette
Pauley, et al. v. CF Entertainment, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-
08011-R-CW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Los Angeles.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Bernadette Pauley, et al. v.
Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio
Artists, et al., Case No. 17-56100, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 28, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 24, 2017;

   -- Appellants Thomas Clark and Bernadette Pauley's opening
      brief is due on January 4, 2018;

   -- Appellee Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of
      Television and Radio Artists' answering brief is due on
      February 5, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants BERNADETTE PAULEY, an individual, and THOMAS
CLARK, an individual on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Tagore Olivier Subramaniam, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  tagore@maternlawgroup.com

Defendant-Appellee SCREEN ACTORS GUILD-AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
TELEVISION AND RADIO ARTISTS, a California corporation, is
represented by:

          Robert Alan Bush, Esq.
          BUSH GOTTLIEB SINGER LOPEZ KOHANSKI ADELSTEIN
          & DICKINSON
          500 North Central Avenue
          Glendale, CA 91203-3345
          Telephone: (818) 973-3205
          E-mail: rbush@bushgottlieb.com

               - and -

          Ira L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          BUSH GOTTLIEB SINGER LOPEZ KOHANSKI ADELSTEIN
          & DICKINSON
          801 N. Brand Boulevard
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 973-3200
          E-mail: igottlieb@bushgottlieb.com

               - and -

          Jason Wojciechowski, Esq.
          SEIU LOCAL 121RN
          1040 Lincoln Ave.
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (626) 639-6168
          E-mail: WojciechowskiJ@seiu121rn.org

Defendants CF ENTERTAINMENT, a California corporation; COMICS
UNLEASHED PRODUCTIONS, INC., a California corporation;
ENTERTAINMENT STUDIOS, INC., a California corporation; and BYRON
ALLEN FOLKS, an individual, are represented by:

          Ivy K. Bierman, Esq.
          Saul D. Brenner, Esq.
          LOEB & LOEB LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 282-2327
          Facsimile: (310) 919-3952
          E-mail: ibierman@loeb.com
                  sbrenner@loeb.com

The case previously reached the Ninth Circuit in 2014 after Pauley
et al. appealed the district court's dismissal of their claims.
In February 2016 decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, in part,
and vacated, in part, the lower court's ruling.

The Ninth Circuit held that a September 2014 settlement agreement
in the case does not moot Plaintiffs' statutory claims against CF
Entertainment.

While the 2014 appeal was pending, the Plaintiffs' union, SAG-
AFTRA, and CF Entertainment purported to settle all of Plaintiffs'
claims pursuant to their authority under the collective bargaining
agreement to resolve employee grievances.

In the 2016 decision, the Ninth Circuit held that under California
law, an arbitration clause does not encompass statutory claims
unless the agreement clearly and unmistakably states otherwise,
citing Hoover v. Am. Income Life Ins. Co., 206 Cal. App. 4th 1193,
1208 (2012).  The Ninth Circuit explained that the arbitration
provision in the parties' collective bargaining agreement does not
expressly cover statutory claims. The union and CF Entertainment
had no authority, therefore, to settle Plaintiffs' statutory
claims.

The Ninth Circuit also held that the Plaintiffs' claim for a
breach of the duty of fair representation against SAGAFTRA is also
not moot. Post-complaint conduct cannot moot a claim for punitive
or monetary damages, as the Court may still grant effective relief
for prior misconduct, if proven on the merits.

The Ninth Circuit also said the union cannot moot a claim that it
failed to protect its members' interests by later initiating a
grievance and securing a settlement only after the aggrieved
members turn to the courts for relief.

The Appeals Court, however, said the Court may not grant relief
for Plaintiffs' contract and tort claims against CF Entertainment,
as these claims were legally settled and released by the
settlement agreement. The arbitration provision of the parties'
collective bargaining agreement permits the union and CF
Entertainment to arbitrate and settle claims for breach of
contract and any tort claims "rooted" in the contractual
relationship between the parties, the Ninth Circuit said, citing
Buckhorn v. St. Jude Heritage Med. Grp., 121 Cal. App. 4th 1401,
1407 (2004).  Plaintiffs' three tort claims concern CF
Entertainment's business and employment conduct. These tort claims
are rooted in the contractual relationship between the parties.
They fall within the scope of the arbitration provision and are
moot as a result of the settlement agreement. The dismissal of
those claims is affirmed.

A copy of the 2016 decision is available at https://is.gd/w73IDy


CHAD STEUR: Navarroli's Bid to Certify Class Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the action titled NICHOLAS NAVARROLI, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CHAD STEUR LAW, LLC; and FEDERAL
PACIFIC CREDIT COMPANY, Case No. 1:17-cv-05517 (N.D. Ill.),
alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, may
proceed as a class action against the Defendants.

Mr. Navarroli seeks to certify a class of (a) all individuals with
Illinois addresses, (b) to whom a letter was sent by or on behalf
of either defendant to collect a debt, (c) which debt was a credit
card on which the last payment had been made more than 5 years
prior to the letter, (d) which letter offered settlement or a
payment plan (e) and did not state that any payment may restart
the statute of limitations, (f) which letter was sent on or after
a date one year prior to the filing of this action and on or
before a date 21 days after the filing of this action.  He also
asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed
counsel for the class.

                          *     *     *

The Honorable Ronald A. Guzman granted the Plaintiff's motion to
enter and continue his motion for class certification.  The
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
continued until the Court sets an initial status hearing.  Motion
hearing set for August 8, 2017, is stricken and no appearance is
required.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pgi555hc

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Patricia N. Jjemba, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  fgreene@edcombs.com
                  pjjemba@edcombs.com


CHAD STEUR LAW: Hearing in "Navarroli" Suit Set for September 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on July 31, 2017, in the case titled
Nicholas Navarroli v. Chad Steur Law, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-
cv-05517 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Ronald A. Guzman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- The Court orders the parties to appear for an initial
      status hearing;

   -- All parties shall refer to and comply with Judge Guzman's
      requirements for the initial appearance as outlined in
      Judge Guzman's case management procedures;

   -- Initial status hearing is set for September 27, 2017, at
      9:30 a.m.; and

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
      continued to September 27, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vlo4CaHX


CHALK MOUNTAIN: "Orosco" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
TROY OROSCO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHALK MOUNTAIN SERVICES OF TEXAS, LLC, Case No. 5:17-
cv-00682 (W.D. Tex., July 24, 2017), is brought to recover
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Chalk Mountain Services of Texas, LLC, is a Texas limited
liability company.  Chalk Mountain is a leader in the oilfield
services industry and specializes in the transportation management
of fluids and proppant -- a solid material designed to keep an
induced hydraulic fracture open during (or after) a fracturing
treatment.  Chalk Mountain's primary service is the coordination
of drilling sand and other materials into the oil fields of Texas
and New Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com


CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over Distracted-Driving Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
under Chicago's distracted-driving statute, drivers can rack up
cash penalties and even lose their license for using electronic
devices like cellphones behind the wheel, but the law's opponents
complain they can't fight violations in a regular court.

Instead, three drivers allege in a class-action lawsuit, the
process goes through an unaccountable administrative system where
a ticket is proof of guilt and police never have to take the
witness stand.

Rabbi Aaron Potek and two other named drivers -- Adina Klein and
Stephen Michelini -- challenged the 7-year-old system in Cook
County Circuit Court on Aug. 1.

"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," the 19-page
lawsuit states.

"During these so-called hearings, the rules of evidence do not
apply," it continues.

The drivers estimate that they represent "many tens of thousands"
of people allegedly forced to forfeit their presumption of
innocence and their right to confront their accusers.

"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," the lawsuit states.  "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."

Mr. Potek and his named co-plaintiffs said they had to pay $90 to
$100 fines, and Klein had to tack on a $20 administration fee.

Illinois first enacted its distracted-driving statute in 2009,
which originally gave drivers an opportunity to fight tickets in
state court.

Chicago's law dates back four years earlier, but the challenged
statute comes from an amended version in effect since Jan. 1,
2010.

"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 complaint
states. "The reason was simple: money."

The drivers' attorney, Jacie Zolna -- jzolna@cherry-law.com --
from the Chicago-based firm Myron M. Cherry & Associates LLC,
demands a class award equal to all funds the city collected, an
amount that he projected would add up to tens of millions of
dollars.

"Lying and stealing from citizens is not a way to make up for your
financial shortfalls," he said in a phone interview.

Ms. Zolna does not deny that distracted driving is a serious
problem in the Windy City.

The Chicago Tribune reported last year that traffic fatalities
nationwide had been on pace to reach 40,000, their highest total
since 2007.

But, according to Ms. Zolna, Chicago's response aggravated the
problem by breeding cynicism.

"What they're doing here undermines every purpose of that law," he
said.  "It undermines safety. It undermines the protections that
accused individuals are afforded, and it undermines the confidence
that the city will do what's right."

The City of Chicago Law Department did not answer repeated
telephone calls to their main office on Aug. 1. [GN]


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Scott Appeals Denial of Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jay Francis Ensor, Christina Jewel Gateley, Stacy
Higgs, Eufemia Jimenez, Matthew A. Medina, Krystal Parker and
Maxcimo Scott filed an appeal from the District Court's order
denying their motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled
Maxcimo Scott, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Chipotle
Services, LLC, Case No. 12-cv-8333, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs filed an appeal from a District Court memorandum and
order entered in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is entitled as
Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Case No. 17-1047.

Chipotle has previously defeated certification of separate classes
involving allegations that the job position of "Apprentice" was
misclassified as exempt for purposes of paying overtime wages.
The case was brought by seven individuals, who had worked as
Apprentices in various Chipotle stores.

The appellate case is captioned as Maxcimo Scott, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Chipotle
Mexican Grill, Inc., Chipotle Services, LLC, Case No. 17-2208, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]


CINDELL CONSTRUCTION: "Vargas" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rodolfo Rojas-Vargas, Luis Garcia-Millan and Jorge Chica-Marquez,
each on behalf of himself and other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Cindell Construction Company, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01216 (D. Md., August 4, 2017), seeks an
injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in future
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage
provisions, damages for all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, reasonable counsel fees and costs of this lawsuit and
such further and appropriate relief.

Cindell is a drywall contractor servicing commercial and
residential properties in Maryland, Virginia and the District of
Columbia. Barber is a contractor providing labor to Cindell under
which Plaintiffs worked as carpenters. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto N. Allen, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN, LLC
     3915 National Dr., Ste. 320
     Burtonsville, MD 20866
     Tel: (301) 861-0202
     Fax: (301) 861-4354
     Email: rallen@robertoallenlaw.com


CITIGROUP INC: Reneges on Orders in FX Market, Alpari Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALPARI (US), LLC, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. CITIGROUP, INC. and CITIBANK, N.A., Case No. 1:17-cv-
05269 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2017), is brought to recover the damages
the Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated participants in
the foreign exchange market suffered as a result of the
Defendants' alleged practice of reneging on orders that Citi
matched and accepted through its own and third-party electronic
trading platforms.

Citigroup, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New
York City.  Citibank, N.A., is a federally-chartered national
banking association headquartered in New York City and is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Citigroup.

Citigroup is one of the largest currency dealers in the FX market
and is a well-known "Liquidity Provider" or "Market Maker."  As a
Liquidity Provider, it acts as both a buyer and seller of
currencies through its own proprietary electronic trading
platforms and through third-party electronic communications
networks by streaming prices to buy or sell a stated amount of a
currency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          Robert E. Litan, Esq.
          Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY LLC
          205 North Michigan Plaza, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 641-9750
          Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
                  rlitan@koreintillery.com
                  rewing@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          Robert L. King, Esq.
          Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
          Steven M. Berezney, Esq.
          Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY LLC
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
          E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com
                  rking@koreintillery.com
                  azigler@koreintillery.com
                  sberezney@koreintillery.com
                  mklenov@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          Kate Lv, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
                  wnoss@scott-scott.com
                  klv@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          Kristen M. Anderson, Esq.
          Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
          Sylvia Sokol, Esq.
          Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com
                  kanderson@scott-scott.com
                  pbarile@scott-scott.com
                  ssokol@scott-scott.com
                  tboardman@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Reena A. Gambhir, Esq.
          Timothy S. Kearns, Esq.
          Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
          HAUSFELD, LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
                  rgambhir@hausfeldllp.com
                  tkearns@hausfeldllp.com
                  jkenney@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          HAUSFELD, LLP
          600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com
                  mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com


CLEAN ENERGY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, De Jesus Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDY CRISTIAN DEJESUS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CLEAN ENERGY FUELS CORP., a Corporation; and
DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. BC669412 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., July 26, 2017), accuses the Defendants of failing to
provide meal and rest breaks, to pay minimum and overtime wages,
and to pay all earned wages upon separation of employment.

Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is a large natural-gas-for-transportation
provider with over 570 natural gas fueling stations throughout the
United States and in Canada.  The Company is a Delaware
corporation with its main office located in Newport Beach,
California.  The Plaintiff is unaware and ignorant of the true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          KJT LAW GROUP LLP
          230 N. Maryland Ave., Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Telephone: (818) 507-8525
          E-mail: vache@kjtlawgroup.com
                  caspar@kjtlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
          ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
          4740 Calle Carga
          Camarillo, CA 93012
          Telephone: (818) 425-1437
          E-mail: ca@AdamsEmploymentCounsel.com


COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Order in St. Lucie Suit to 5th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Joseph H. Bryant, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled St. Lucie County Fire District, et
al. v. Joseph Bryant, et al., Case No. 4:14-CV-3428, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston.

The Defendants-Appellants are ACM, Limited, Mr. Joseph H. Bryant,
Capital One Southcoast, Incorporated, Carlyle Group, Citigroup
Global Markets, Incorporated, Cobalt International Energy,
Incorporated, Mr. Peter R. Coneway, Mr. Henry Cornell, Credit
Suisse Securities (USA), L.L.C., Deutsche Bank Securities,
Incorporated, FRC Founders Corporation, Mr. James W. Farnsworth,
Mr. Michael G. France, Mr. Jack E. Golden, Goldman Sachs &
Company, Goldman Sachs Group, Incorporated, Howard Weil,
Incorporated, JP Morgan Securities, L.L.C., Mr. N. John Lancaster,
Lazard Capital Markets, L.L.C., Mr. Scott L. Lebovitz, Mr. Jon A.
Marshall, Mr. Kenneth W. Moore, Morgan Stanley & Company, L.L.C.,
Mr. J. Hardy Murchison, Mr. Kenneth A. Pontarelli, RBC Capital
Markets, L.L.C., Riverstone Holdings, L.L.C., Mr. Myles W.
Scoggins, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Tudor,
Pickering, Holt & Company Securities, Incorporated, UBS
Securities, L.L.C., Mr. William P. Utt, Mr. D. Jeff Van
Steenbergen, Mr. John P. Wilkirson and Mr. Martin H. Young, Jr.

The appellate case is captioned as St. Lucie County Fire District,
et al. v. Joseph Bryant, et al., Case No. 17-20503, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 10, 2017, the
Defendants previously filed an appeal in the lawsuit.  That
appellate case is captioned as St. Lucie County Fire District, et
al. v. Joseph Bryant, et al., Case No. 17-90024.

The Plaintiffs filed a securities class action lawsuit and on
March 15, 2017, they filed their second amended complaint.  The
Plaintiffs assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Fee is due on August 18, 2017, for Appellants Joseph H.
      Bryant, et al.; and

   -- Transcript order is due on August 21, 2017, for the
      Appellants.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ST. LUCIE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT FIREFIGHTERS'
PENSION TRUST FUND; FIRE AND POLICE RETIREE HEALTH CARE FUND, SAN
ANTONIO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; UNIVERSAL INVESTMENT GESELLSCHAFT M.B.H.; SJUNDE AP-
FONDEN; GAMCO GLOBAL GOLD, NATURAL RESOURCES & INCOME TRUST, lead
plaintiff; GAMCO NATURAL RESOURCES, GOLD & INCOME TRUST; and are
represented by:

          Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq.
          AJAMIE, L.L.P.
          711 Louisiana Street
          Pennzoil Place S. Tower
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 860-1600
          E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com

               - and -

          Gerald T. Drought, Esq.
          MARTIN & DROUGHT, P.C.
          300 Convent Street
          Bank of America Plaza
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 227-7591
          E-mail: gdrought@mdtlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          299 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10171-0000
          Telephone: (212) 894-7288
          E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew C. Matheny, Esq.
          PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          490 Park Street
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Telephone: (409) 838-8826
          Facsimile: (409) 838-8888
          E-mail: mmatheny@provostumphrey.com

               - and -

          Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE, L.L.C.
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          E-mail: cmoriarty@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          David R. Stickney, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive
          San Diego, CA 92130-0000
          Telephone: (858) 7963-0070
          Facsimile: (858) 793-0323
          E-mail: davids@blbglaw.com
                  jonathanu@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr., Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, L.L.P.
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: jwhitman@ktmc.com

Defendants-Appellants JOSEPH H. BRYANT, JAMES W. FARNSWORTH, JOHN
P. WILKIRSON, PETER R. CONEWAY, HENRY CORNELL, JACK E. GOLDEN, N.
JOHN LANCASTER, JON A. MARSHALL, KENNETH W. MOORE, J. HARDY
MURCHISON, MICHAEL G. FRANCE, KENNETH A. PONTARELLI, SCOTT L.
LEBOVITZ, MYLES W. SCOGGINS, D. JEFF VAN STEENBERGEN, MARTIN H.
YOUNG, JR., WILLIAM P. UTT, COBALT INTERNATIONAL ENERGY,
INCORPORATED, GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INCORPORATED, GOLDMAN SACHS &
COMPANY, MORGAN STANLEY & COMPANY, L.L.C., CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA), L.L.C., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INCORPORATED,
JP MORGAN SECURITIES, L.L.C., TUDOR, PICKERING, HOLT & COMPANY
SECURITIES, INCORPORATED, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INCORPORATED,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, L.L.C., UBS SECURITIES, L.L.C., HOWARD WEIL,
INCORPORATED, STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, CAPITAL
ONE SOUTHCOAST, INCORPORATED, LAZARD CAPITAL MARKETS, L.L.C., FRC
FOUNDERS CORPORATION, and ACM, LIMITED, are represented by:

          Karl S. Stern, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
          711 Louisiana Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 221-7000
          E-mail: karlstern@quinnemanuel.com

Defendants-Appellants JAMES W. FARNSWORTH, JOHN P. WILKIRSON,
PETER R. CONEWAY, HENRY CORNELL, JACK E. GOLDEN, N. JOHN
LANCASTER, JON A. MARSHALL, KENNETH W. MOORE, J. HARDY MURCHISON,
MICHAEL G. FRANCE, KENNETH A. PONTARELLI, SCOTT L. LEBOVITZ, MYLES
W. SCOGGINS, D. JEFF VAN STEENBERGEN, MARTIN H. YOUNG, JR.,
WILLIAM P. UTT, COBALT INTERNATIONAL ENERGY, INCORPORATED, GOLDMAN
SACHS GROUP, INCORPORATED, RIVERSTONE HOLDINGS, L.L.C., CARLYLE
GROUP, GOLDMAN SACHS & COMPANY, MORGAN STANLEY & COMPANY, L.L.C.,
CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA), L.L.C., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS,
INCORPORATED, JP MORGAN SECURITIES, L.L.C., TUDOR, PICKERING, HOLT
& COMPANY SECURITIES, INCORPORATED, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES,
INCORPORATED, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, L.L.C., UBS SECURITIES, L.L.C.,
HOWARD WEIL, INCORPORATED, STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY,
INCORPORATED, CAPITAL ONE SOUTHCOAST, INCORPORATED, LAZARD CAPITAL
MARKETS, L.L.C., FRC FOUNDERS CORPORATION, and ACM, LIMITED, are
represented by:

          David Dykeman Sterling, Esq.
          Aaron Michael Streett, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P.
          910 Louisiana Street
          1 Shell Plaza
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 229-1946
          E-mail: david.sterling@bakerbotts.com
                  aaron.streett@bakerbotts.com

Defendants-Appellants GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INCORPORATED,
RIVERSTONE HOLDINGS, L.L.C., CARLYLE GROUP, GOLDMAN SACHS &
COMPANY, MORGAN STANLEY & COMPANY, L.L.C., CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA), L.L.C., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INCORPORATED,
JP MORGAN SECURITIES, L.L.C., TUDOR, PICKERING, HOLT & COMPANY
SECURITIES, INCORPORATED, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INCORPORATED,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, L.L.C., UBS SECURITIES, L.L.C., HOWARD WEIL,
INCORPORATED, STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, CAPITAL
ONE SOUTHCOAST, INCORPORATED, LAZARD CAPITAL MARKETS, L.L.C., FRC
FOUNDERS CORPORATION, and ACM, LIMITED,

          George T. Conway, III, Esq.
          WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
          51 W. 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 403-1260
          E-mail: GTConway@wlrk.com

               - and -

          Ronald Leslie Oran, Esq.
          STRASBURGER & PRICE, L.L.P.
          909 Fannin Street
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 951-5676
          E-mail: ron.oran@strasburger.com

Defendants-Appellants CARLYLE GROUP, GOLDMAN SACHS & COMPANY,
MORGAN STANLEY & COMPANY, L.L.C., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA),
L.L.C., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INCORPORATED, JP MORGAN
SECURITIES, L.L.C., TUDOR, PICKERING, HOLT & COMPANY SECURITIES,
INCORPORATED, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INCORPORATED, RBC CAPITAL
MARKETS, L.L.C., UBS SECURITIES, L.L.C., HOWARD WEIL,
INCORPORATED, STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, CAPITAL
ONE SOUTHCOAST, INCORPORATED, LAZARD CAPITAL MARKETS, L.L.C., FRC
FOUNDERS CORPORATION, and ACM, LIMITED, are represented by:

          Robert A. Van Kirk, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, L.L.P.
          725 12th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5163
          E-mail: rvankirk@wc.com

Defendants-Appellants GOLDMAN SACHS & COMPANY, MORGAN STANLEY &
COMPANY, L.L.C., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA), L.L.C., CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS, INCORPORATED, JP MORGAN SECURITIES, L.L.C., TUDOR,
PICKERING, HOLT & COMPANY SECURITIES, INCORPORATED, DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES, INCORPORATED, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, L.L.C., UBS
SECURITIES, L.L.C., HOWARD WEIL, INCORPORATED, STIFEL, NICOLAUS &
COMPANY, INCORPORATED, CAPITAL ONE SOUTHCOAST, INCORPORATED,
LAZARD CAPITAL MARKETS, L.L.C., FRC FOUNDERS CORPORATION, and ACM,
LIMITED, are represented by:

          Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, L.L.P.
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-6522
          Telephone: (212) 735-2628
          E-mail: jay.kasner@skadden.com

               - and -

          Noelle M. Reed, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, L.L.P.
          1000 Louisiana Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 655-5122
          E-mail: noelle.reed@skadden.com


COLUMBIA COUNTY, AR: Court Denies Rasberry's Bid for Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Susan O. Hickey denied the Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23
class certification in the lawsuit styled MICHELLE RASBERRY,
individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY, ARKANSAS, Case No. 1:16-cv-01074-SOH (W.D. Ark.).

Having concluded that the Plaintiff failed to meet the
predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that Plaintiff's
Motion should be denied, according to the order.

In her complaint, filed on August 4, 2016, the Plaintiff seeks
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.  She claims that the Defendant failed to pay
her, and others similarly situated, overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 171 hours in a 28 consecutive day work
period.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wE1Z1ah5


COMCAST: Class Action Over Hidden Fees Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------
Jon Brodkin, writing for Ars Technica, reports that a class-action
complaint against Comcast can move forward after a federal judge
rejected a Comcast motion to dismiss it.

The lawsuit, filed in October 2016 in US District Court in
Northern California, accuses Comcast of falsely advertising low
prices and then using poorly disclosed fees to increase the amount
paid by cable TV customers.  Those fees are the "Broadcast TV
Fee," which had increased from $1.50 a month to $6.50 since 2014,
and the "Regional Sports Fee" that rose from $1 to $4.50 since
2015.

These fees are not included in the advertised prices, so customers
end up paying higher prices than the ones they are led to believe
they will pay, the lawsuit said.  When customers question Comcast
reps about the fees, "Comcast staff and agents explicitly lie by
stating that the Broadcast TV Fee and the Regional Sports Fee are
government-related fees or taxes over which Comcast has no
control," the complaint said.

Comcast filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that its order
submission process could not have created a contract and that
customers agreed to pay the fees in the "Subscriber Agreement" and
"Minimum Term Agreement."  But US District Court Judge Vince
Chhabria disputed Comcast's reasoning and wrote that the class-
action plaintiffs have made plausible claims.

Judge Chhabria wrote on Aug. 2 in his order:

     The motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim is denied.
The plaintiffs have alleged the existence of a valid contract,
which was created when [Comcast customers Dan] Adkins and
[Christopher] Robertson submitted their order for Comcast services
through Comcast's website.  It is plausible to infer from the
complaint that, by clicking "Submit Your Order," Adkins and
Robertson agreed to pay Comcast's advertised price, plus taxes and
government-related fees, in exchange for the services Comcast
offered them.  It is also plausible to infer from the complaint
that Comcast breached its agreements with the plaintiffs when it
sent them bills charging them Broadcast TV and/or Regional Sports
Fees (alleged to be neither taxes nor government-related fees) in
excess of the agreed-upon price, and when it subsequently sought
to raise the amount of the fees.

Agreement did not mention specific fees

Judge Chhabria disputed Comcast's claim that customers agreed to
the fees in the Subscriber Agreement.  The agreement refers only
to "permitted fees and cost recovery charges" and not specifically
to the Broadcast TV and Sports fees, he wrote.

"As to the Minimum Term Agreement, the plaintiffs plausibly allege
that they never saw this agreement at the time they submitted
their order for services and have never consented to it," the
judge wrote.  "Whether the plaintiffs had access to this agreement
at the time they submitted their orders for services, or whether
they subsequently consented to it, are disputed factual questions
more appropriate for summary judgment."

Comcast argued that the order submission doesn't create a contract
"because of the integration clause contained in Comcast's
Subscriber Agreement," the judge wrote.  This integration clause
says that the Subscriber Agreement and other documents "constitute
the entire agreement."

"While the Subscriber Agreement discusses a subscriber's agreement
to pay the cost of services generally, it does not appear to
contain any terms pertaining to any particular price the
plaintiffs allege they agreed to pay for the services they
ordered.  It is therefore questionable whether the alleged order-
submission contract and the Subscriber Agreement pertain to the
same subject matter," the judge wrote.

The plaintiffs also "adequately alleged that a reasonable consumer
would be misled" about the price of service when going through
Comcast's ordering process, Judge Chhabria wrote.

Judge Chhabria gave Comcast a partial victory in the Aug. 2 order,
dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for breach of implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. This was "dismissed because the
theory of breach the plaintiffs allege is the same as the breach
of contract theory. The claim is therefore superfluous."

The judge's decision allows plaintiffs to continue pursuing
attorneys' fees and punitive damages.  But the judge warned
plaintiffs that they likely will have to file a separate state
court action in order to seek injunctive relief that would force
Comcast to change its practices.

"The judge previously removed six out-of-state named plaintiffs
from the suit, finding the court lacked jurisdiction to resolve
their claims," Courthouse News Service wrote.

Judge Chhabria in April granted one of Comcast's previous motions
to dismiss the case, but he allowed the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint.  The class representatives filed the amended
complaint on May 16.  Comcast then filed a motion to dismiss it,
leading to the Aug. 2 ruling.

Comcast has repeatedly raised the Broadcast TV and Regional Sports
fees even for customers who signed multi-year contracts for fixed
monthly rates, the plaintiffs say.  "By increasing these fees in
the middle of the contract term, Comcast has found a way to
secretly and repeatedly increase the monthly price it charges for
its channel packages despite its promise to charge a flat rate for
one or two years," the original complaint said. [GN]


COMMERCE LOGISTIC: "Giron" Suit Hits Hot Workplace, Missed Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erika Giron and Belinda Martinez, on behalf of themselves, all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Commerce Logistic
Center, LLC, World Karma, LLC, Center Distribution, LLC and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC671085 (Cal.
Super., August 3, 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
and failure to provide a reasonably comfortable work area,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code
and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Defendants operate warehouses in Los Angeles County and provide
warehouse and distribution services to customers. Giron and
Martinez were employed by the Defendants as warehouse staff.
Plaintiffs claim that the temperature inside the warehouse during
the summer months ranged from 90-100 degrees Fahrenheit, rendering
them susceptible to heat exhaustion. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rick Hicks, Esq.
      Eugenia Hicks, Esq.
      HICKS & HICKS
      9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 274-2974
      Facsimile: (877) 493-0974
      Email: rickhicksnavyseal@hickslaw.net
             eugenia.hicks@hickslaw.net

             - and -

      Michael Malk, Esq.
      MICHAEL MALK, ESQ., APC
      1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 302
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (310) 203-0016
      Facsimile: (310)499-5210
      Email: mm@malklawfirm.com


CONNECTICUT, USA: "Robles" Class Suit Removed to Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff removes on July 12, 2017, the lawsuit styled Robles
v. United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, Case
No. HHB-CV17-5018445-S, from the Connecticut Superior Court, New
Britain JD, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut (New Haven).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:17-cv-01160-AWT to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act.

Plaintiff Rolando Robles, an individual, on behalf of himself, the
general public and those similarly situated, appears pro se.

Deirdre M. Daly serves as the United States Attorney for the
District of Connecticut.  As the principal litigator for the
United States of America in the District of Connecticut, the
United States Attorney prosecutes all criminal and civil cases
brought by the Federal government and defends the United States
when it is a party in a civil case.[BN]


CRYPTSY: Judge Orders $30MM in Bitcoin Returned in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Morris, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
federal judge has ordered the return of 11,000 bitcoins worth
about $30 million in a decision considered the first of its kind.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida stems from a
class action in which plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had
stolen their money and fled to China.

In today's cryptocurrency world, however, the legal victory might
only be worth the paper it's printed on.

"I'm unaware of any other federal court, in a federal court order,
transferring the ownership of a bitcoin from one person to
another," said David Silver, one of the lawyers for the plaintiff
class in Leidel v. Project Investors Inc.

Judge Marra issued a default judgment against Paul Vernon, former
CEO of Project Investors Inc., which did business as Cryptsy, an
exchange for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.  The court ruled
that Mr. Vernon is liable to the class plaintiffs for $8.2
million, plus pre- and post-judgment interest.  The court declared
that just over 11,325 bitcoins -- each worth more than $2,700 in
today's market -- were stolen from Cryptsy customers in July 2014.

Mr. Vernon never answered the lawsuit and doesn't have a lawyer.
Mr. Silver said the judgment highlights a fatal flaw in using
cryptocurrencies.  He explained that the decentralized nature of
bitcoin, with no person or authority in charge, makes it nearly
impossible for the winning plaintiffs to get their stolen bitcoin
back.  The judgment listed the alphanumeric public keys of 12
cryptocurrency wallets that are storing the stolen bitcoin.  But
the plaintiffs also need "private keys" to transfer the bitcoin
out of those wallets.

Normally, a winning plaintiff with a court order could go to a
financial institution for the return of funds or call upon law
enforcement for the return of tangible property.  There's no such
central authority in charge of bitcoin who can force the transfer
of the stolen bitcoin back to Silver's clients.

"I have $30 million that has been stolen from my clients that they
would very much like back, and if you believe a bitcoin is real
and can be a replacement for money, then someone has to be
responsible for it," he said. "I believe we are going to keep
tracking down the users and tr ace the bitcoin through the
blockchain, and when someone tries to move some of it, we will
hopefully locate the person."

In the class action, the plaintiffs claimed they noticed
intermittent problems with Cryptsy's website in October 2015 and
got a notice from the company the following month that software
problems required it to pause all electronic wallets.  By December
2015, they claimed Mr. Vernon had ceased operations, shut down
Cryptsy's offices and stopped responding to inquiries after
informing users of an alleged phishing scam targeting the site.

The plaintiffs sued for conversion, negligence, unjust enrichment,
civil conspiracy, fraudulent conveyance and other charges.
Cryptsy and Mr. Vernon didn't answer the lawsuit and a federal
judge in Florida certified the matter as a class action in August
2016.  The court appointed a receiver for Project Investors Inc.
after Vernon allegedly shredded company files.
The receiver launched a forensic analysis of Cryptsy's digital
records and reported that Vernon liquidated company accounts in
2015 to purchase a $1.4 million mansion, a $100,000 diamond ring
and a luxury car.  The receiver also tracked digital currency.
Patrick Rengstl, the lawyer for court-appointed receiver
James Sallah, didn't return a call seeking comment.

Mr. Silver said the stolen bitcoins will eventually get back to
their rightful owners, even if it takes years.  The government is
already scrutinizing the cryptocurrency world, and regulation is
coming, he said. Eventually, more courts will issue bigger and
bigger judgments in cryptocurrency cases.

"I'm just a little guy and if I'm knocking at this door, someone
eventually will knock louder and get more results, and eventually
we will reach a tipping point.  A tipping point is coming--U.S.
courts and federal court judges believe they have power to enforce
their orders, and in the United States of America, that's a true
fact," Mr. Silver said. [GN]


CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Faces Class Action Over Vague COBRA Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gwen Cofield, writing for Compensation.BLR.com, reports that
in addition to making sure Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act (COBRA) election notices are sent to qualified
beneficiaries on a timely basis, employers and plan administrators
should ensure that the notices' content satisfies the COBRA
regulations.  They should consider using the model COBRA election
notice published by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), which
considers use of that model notice to be good-faith compliance
with COBRA's notice requirements.

CobraAn employer/plan administrator is facing a class-action
lawsuit regarding three COBRA claims alleging that its election
notice (1) was not specific enough about the date that COBRA
coverage is to end, (2) did not specifically state where to send
premium payments, and (3) could not be understood by the average
plan participant.

The employer was only able to get the last claim dismissed because
a federal district court in Florida found that a 68-year-old who
"cannot read English very well" is not an average plan
participant.  However, the other claims continue because the
qualified beneficiary raised plausible arguments about the alleged
notice deficiencies.  The case is Valdivieso v. Cushman &
Wakefield, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75574 (M.D. Fla. May 18,
2017).

Facts of the Case

Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. terminated Luis Valdivieso's employment
and provided Mr. Valdivieso with a COBRA election notice.
Mr. Valdivieso, who can read English but speaks Spanish as a
native language, filed a class-action lawsuit for COBRA notice
claims contending deficiencies existed in how the notice was
generally written and how it described the length of the COBRA
coverage period and the premium remittal process. Cushman &
Wakefield sought to have the claims dismissed.

Understanding by the Average Plan Participant

Mr. Valdivieso alleged that Cushman & Wakefield violated the
regulatory requirement that a COBRA notice be written in a manner
calculated to be understood by the average plan participant. Here,
Mr. Valdivieso alleged that Cushman & Wakefield failed to take
into consideration the fact that these particular qualified
beneficiaries -- Mr. Valdivieso and his spouse -- are 68 and 61
years old before providing a notice typed in one of the smallest
font sizes available in a second language.

The court noted that although Mr. Valdivieso might not have
understood the notice, the complaint suggested that he -- a
68-year old who cannot read English very well -- is not an average
plan participant.  As such, insufficient facts supported the
conclusory statement that an "average" plan participant cannot
understand the notice, the court held in rejecting
Mr. Valdivieso's claim.

Understanding When Coverage Ends

Mr. Valdivieso also alleged that Cushman & Wakefield violated the
regulatory requirement of explaining the maximum period for which
continuation coverage will be available as well as the
continuation coverage termination date.

Specifically, Mr. Valdivieso argued that (1) Cushman & Wakefield
failed to include in the notice the specific date coverage will
end, and (2) Mr. Valdivieso cannot determine whether this monthly
coverage would end at the beginning or the end of the 18th month
and whether it would end on the day that was exactly 18 months in
the future.  The notice stated that coverage may generally last
for up to 18 months, and Cushman & Wakefield contended that the
notice need not specify the day on which coverage ends.

The court noted that Mr. Valdivieso stated a plausible claim
because the regulation's inclusion of the phrase "termination
date" suggests that the employer must identify the day on which
coverage ends.  Cushman & Wakefield cited Scott v. Suncoast
Beverage Sales, Ltd., 295 F.3d 1223(11th Cir. 2002), in suggesting
that it made a good-faith attempt to comply with COBRA's notice
requirements, and in doing so, its COBRA obligation was met
because the notice enabled Mr. Valdivieso to make an informed
decision whether to elect coverage.  The court rejected that
reasoning because the good-faith defense predated DOL's 2004 COBRA
notice regulations.

Understanding Where Payment Is Sent

Finally, Mr. Valdivieso alleged that the notice failed to mention
the address to which he must send payment. Rather, the notice
stated that monthly invoices will provide a remittance address and
"[a]dditional information about payment will be provided to you
after the election form is received."

Cushman & Wakefield argued that its notice complies with DOL's
model notice.  Cushman & Wakefield's notice states:

If you choose to elect COBRA coverage, you do not have to send any
premium payment(s) with the COBRA Coverage Election Form.
Additional information about payment will be provided to you after
you make your election.
The court noted that although DOL's model notice does include that
language, it also includes the following:

Your first payment and all periodic payments for continuation
coverage should be sent to:
[enter appropriate payment address]

That language was not in Cushman & Wakefield's notice; therefore
the court held that Mr. Valdivieso stated a plausible claim.

Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Cushman & Wakefield requested dismissal because Mr. Valdivieso
purportedly failed to exhaust administrative remedies or failed to
prove that exhaustion would be futile.  A plaintiff who sues under
ERISA must exhaust an administrative remedy unless the remedy is
futile or inadequate.

However, Mr. Valdivieso alleged that "[n]o administrative remedies
exist as a prerequisite to Plaintiff's claim on behalf of the
putative class."  The court held that although the evidence might
reveal that Mr. Valdivieso failed to exhaust an administrative
remedy, the complaint stated a plausible claim.

Implications

COBRA provides that a termination of employment or reduction in
hours that results in a loss of coverage is a qualifying event
entitling a qualified beneficiary to up to 18 months of COBRA
coverage.  An employer has up to 30 days to notify a plan
administrator of a qualifying event.  In turn, the plan
administrator has 14 days from the date of that notice to send a
COBRA election notice.

As the court noted, COBRA's notice requirements do not require
that the employer or plan administrator ensure that the qualified
beneficiary actually receives the notice.  Instead, good-faith
efforts must be made to provide the notice.  Often, courts will
review an employer's COBRA procedures to ensure that good-faith
efforts have been made to provide the notices. Here, the court
determined that the method of providing the COBRA election notice
(that is, first-class mail to the last known address) was
adequate.

As shown in the box below, DOL's COBRA regulations provide a
detailed list of information that should be included in COBRA
election notices. A plan administrator that fails to meet COBRA's
notice requirements may be subject to statutory penalties of up to
$110 per day.

DOL's model COBRA notices can be found on its website.  Employers
and plan administrators should consider using the model notices
because the DOL considers using them to be good-faith compliance
with COBRA's notice content requirements. [GN]


CVS RX SERVICES: Cabrera Alleges No Time-keeping, Break Time
------------------------------------------------------------
Sigfredo Cabrera, an individual, on behalf of himself, and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CVS RX Services,
Inc., a NewYork corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a Rhode Island
corporation, Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, a California limited
liability company and Does 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 17870184
(Cal. Super., August 3, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages and
interest thereon, redress for failure to authorize or permit
required meal 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, failure to maintain time-
keeping records, reimbursement for business-related expenses,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code
and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

CVS companies are engaged in the business of pharmacy and retail
stores that sell pharmaceuticals and general merchandise
throughout the United States and the State of California. Garfield
Beach operates as a subsidiary of CVS Health Corporation that is
engaged in the business of operating drug and proprietary stores
throughout the State of California.

Sigfredo Cabrera employed by CVS from January 2016 to January 2017
as a pharmacy service associate and pharmacy technician, working
multiple CVS pharmacy locations in Oakland, San Leandro and Palo
Alto, California. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Craig Clark, Esq.
      Dawn M. Berry, Esq.
      Monique R. Rodriguez, Esq.
      CLARK LAW GROUP
      205 West Date Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-1321
      Facsimile: (888) 273-4554
      Email: cclark@clarklawyers.com
             dberry@clarklawyers.com
             mrodnguez@clarklawyers.com

            - and -

     Walter Haines, Esq.
     UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
     5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
     Huntington Beach, CA 92649
     Tel: (562) 256-1047
     Fax: (562) 256-1006
     Email: walter@whaines.com


DARK STAR: Class of Field Employees Certified in "Rosas" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Hilda Tagle grants the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act in the lawsuit
titled MATTHEW ROSAS, et al. v. DARK STAR PRODUCTION TESTING,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00140 (S.D. Tex.).

The Plaintiffs define the proposed class as:

     All current and former Field Employees who worked for Dark
     Star Production Testing, Inc. d/b/a Liberty Production
     Testing, Inc. and Sheldon Kasper, at any time during the
     past three years and were paid a day rate and no overtime.

Judge Tagle approves the Plaintiffs' proposed notice and consent
forms.  Within 14 days after the entry of this order, Judge Tagle
rules that the Defendants must produce a list of all Field
Employees it employed at any time during the past three years.
The notices and consent forms are to be sent by regular and
electronic mail within seven days after the Plaintiffs receive the
list.

Within seven days after producing the list, the Defendants must
post a copy of the approved notice and consent forms at each job
site where Field Employees work, the Court also orders.  These
copies of the notice and consent forms must remain posted until
the opt-in period ends.  The opt-in period runs for 60 days from
the date on which notices are sent.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DCS INVESTMENTS: CS Business Seeks to Certify Lot Owners Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CS BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC., a
foreign for-profit corporation, JAMES L. SHELTON AND VIRGINIA L.
SHELTON, husband and wife, BRAD HECKENBERG AND LANA C. HECKENBERG,
husband and wife, PJS RENTAL, LLC, a foreign limited liability
company, and WON Y. SHIN TRUST, WON Y. SHIN TRUSTEE v. DWIGHT C.
SCHAR, PAUL E. SIMONSON, DCS INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS GP, LLC, DCS
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Virginia and Florida Limited
Liability Company, DCS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, DCS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS I, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, DCS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS II,
LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company DCS REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENTS III, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company DCS REAL
ESTATE INVESTMENTS IV, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company
DCS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS IV-A, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company DCS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS V, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company BELLA COLLINA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC., INC.,
DAVID BURMAN, AEGIS COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., a
Florida for-profit corporation, RANDALL F. GREENE, KEITH CLARKE,
PAUL LEBREUX, RICHARD C. ARRIGHI, JAMES D. RYAN, MICHAEL J. RYAN,
THE RYAN LAW GROUP, LLC, CULLEN D'AMBROSIO, ROCKING RED H, LLC,
RICKY L. SCHARICH, BELLA COLLINA TOWERS, LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00086-PGB-PRL (M.D. Fla.), seek to certify the proceeding as a
class action.

The proposed classes are defined as:

(1) Class I -- Bella Collina lot owners during the period of
     June 27, 2012 to the present who were deprived of control of
     their POA by Defendants and subject to the illegal actions
     described in the Complaint. In particular, lawsuits and
     special assessments implemented subsequent to illegal
     amendments passed by the developer-controlled POA without
     notice or other authorization from its members.

     Approximately 350-400 individuals and entities are eligible
     for this proposed class.

     Excluded from this Class are developers Ginn-LA Pine Island,
     Ltd. LLLP and DCS Real Estate Investments, LLC; all
     employees, subsidiaries and parent companies of Ginn-LA Pine
     Island, Ltd. LLLP and DCS Real Estate Investments, LLC; all
     employees, subsidiaries and parent companies of named
     preferred builders for homes within the Bella Collina
     Community; and any other developer lot owners.

     Plaintiffs seek class-wide declaratory, injunctive and
     incidental monetary relief on behalf of the proposed class.

(2) Class II -- All current Bella Collina lot owners who were
     deprived of control of their POA by Defendants and subject
     to the illegal actions described in the Complaint.  In
     particular, lawsuits and special assessments implemented
     subsequent to illegal amendments passed by the developer-
     controlled POA without holding a vote or receiving other
     authorization from its members.

     Approximately 95 individuals and entities are eligible for
     this proposed class.

     Excluded from this Class are developers Ginn-LA Pine Island,
     Ltd. LLLP and DCS Real Estate Investments, LLC; all
     employees, subsidiaries and parent companies of Ginn-LA Pine
     Island, Ltd. LLLP and DCS Real Estate Investments, LLC; all
     employees, subsidiaries and parent companies of named
     preferred builders for homes within the Bella Collina
     Community; and any other developer lot owners.

     Plaintiffs seek class-wide declaratory, injunctive and
     incidental monetary relief on behalf of the proposed class.

Plaintiffs James L. Shelton, Brad Heckenberg and Michael Choo as
managing member of CS Business Systems, Inc., also move to be
appointed representatives of the Class.  They also move for the
appointment of these firms as Class Counsel: Widerman Malek, PL,
and E. Timothy McCullough Attorney at Law.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Y71RpEPY

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Timothy McCullough, Esq.
          7463 Conroy Windermere Rd., Suite A
          Orlando, FL 32835
          Telephone: (407) 601-6941
          Facsimile: (407) 601-5982
          E-mail: timlaw81@aol.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Royal Park Claims Trust Illegally Used
-----------------------------------------------------
Royal Park Investments SA/NV, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company, as Trustee, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05916
(S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2017), seeks to compelling Deutsche Bank to
provide an accounting of the legal fees and costs it has sought
and/or received from the covered trusts, declaratory relief,
damages and/or equitable relief, interest thereon, disgorgement of
any benefits or profits received as a result of Deutsche Bank's
breach of its duty of loyalty, unjust enrichment and breaches of
its contractual and common law duties, punitive damages,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including
counsel and expert fees and such other relief in breach of
contract.

Deutsche Bank has allegedly been reimbursing its legal fees and
costs incurred in its defense in another litigation with the
Plaintiff directly from the residential mortgage-backed securities
owned by the Plaintiff for which it serves as trustee. [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

             - and -

      Arthur C. Leahy, Esq.
      Steven W. Pepich, Esq.
      Lucas F. Olts, Esq.
      Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: 619/231-1058
      619/231-7423 (fax)
      Email: artl@rgrdlaw.com
             stevep@rgrdlaw.com
             lolts@rgrdlaw.com
             dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2203
      Fax: (615) 252-3798
      Email: cwood@rgrdlaw.com


DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Shabotinsky's Bid to Certify Under Advisement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo has taken under advisement the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification submitted in the
lawsuit titled David Shabotinsky v. Deutsche Lufthansa, A.G., Case
No. 1:16-cv-04865 (N.D. Ill.).

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Qfguhg6k


DIAL CORP: Courts Must Address Ascertainability Issue
-----------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal appeals court judge called on his colleagues on
July 31 to step into a growing class action debate that has
reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

On a 2-1 vote the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
declined to take up an interlocutory appeal to overturn class
certification in a class action brought over the labeling of Dial
Corp.'s antibacterial soap.  But in a dissent, Judge William
Kayatta warned his colleagues that the court's recent precedent
over how class members could be identified was destined to result
in "further mischief" that could challenge the constitutional
rights of defendants.  The dispute, referred to in the class
action bar as "ascertainability," is particularly important in a
growing number of cases involving cheap goods for which most
consumers don't have receipts -- such as Dial's antibacterial
soap.

"Sooner or later, this court will have to wrestle with the issues
raised by the district court's approach," which was based on the
First Circuit's 2015 decision In re Nexium Antitrust Litigation,
from which Judge Kayatta also dissented.  In that ruling, the
majority concluded that individual affidavits were adequate to
identify class members at the certification stage.  But such "say-
so" affidavits, Judge Kayatta wrote in July 31 decision, "will
eventually eliminate requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) and turn courts
into claims administrators who pay no heed to the guarantees of
the Seventh Amendment."

Paul Clement -- paul.clement@kirkland.com -- a partner at Kirkland
& Ellis in Washington, D.C., who represents Dial, did not
immediately respond to a request seeking comment.

Lucy Karl, a shareholder at Shaheen & Gordon in Concord, New
Hampshire, an attorney for the plaintiffs, declined to comment.
The ruling is the latest to delve into the ascertainability
dispute.  The Third, Second, Fourth and Eleventh circuits have
imposed a high hurdle in concluding that plaintiffs had to come up
with an administratively feasible plan to identify class members,
striking fear in the plaintiffs bar over the survival of class
actions involving consumer goods.

Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit, joining with the Sixth and
Seventh circuits, took a more lenient approach when it ruled in
Briseno v. ConAgra Foods that plaintiffs could use affidavits in
which class members could attest to their harm from the purchase.
The Ninth Circuit case alleged that the "100% Natural" labels on
Wesson cooking oils were false and misleading.

On April 10, ConAgra petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the
Ninth Circuit's decision.  In a June 16 response, plaintiffs cited
U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe's certification decision in
the Dial litigation.

On March 27, Judge McAuliffe, a New Hampshire federal judge,
certified subclasses of consumers in six states who purchased
bottles of Dial Complete Foaming Antibacterial Hand Wash during
the past 16 years that had labels making claims such as "Kills
99.99% of Germs."

"Here, the method of proof on which plaintiffs intend to rely --
after-the-fact consumer affidavits asking people to recall which
hand soap and what quantity they bought going back 16 years -- was
inherently unreliable and far from administratively feasible
absent myriad mini-trials," Mr. Clement wrote in his petition for
interlocutory appeal of Judge McAuliffe's order.  "Yet the
district court brushed aside Dial's objections based on an
unsupportable interpretation of this court's decision in Nexium."

But Nexium, he wrote, involved affidavits about whether consumers
would have bought a generic product that hadn't been available.
The Dial cases, in contrast, pertain to products they actually
purchased, he wrote.

Ms. Karl, the plaintiffs' attorney, countered that Dial was
attempting to interject a higher standard on ascertainability set
forth in the First Circuit's Nexium decision.

"Dial's demand -- that it be able to ask claimants whether they
really purchased Dial Complete before receiving their share of any
recovery prior to a class determination of liability and aggregate
damages -- turns the entire purpose of class litigation on its
head and was expressly rejected by this circuit in Nexium." [GN]


DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE: Sued by Margaryan Over Gingerless Ginger Ale
----------------------------------------------------------------
GEGHAM MARGARYAN, as an individual, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. DR. PEPPER
SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-05234-CBM-PLA (C.D. Cal., July 14,
2017), is brought on behalf of persons residing in California and
the United States, who purchased Canada Dry Ginger Ale sold by the
Defendants.

Dr. Pepper has sold a beverage named "Canada Dry Ginger Ale,"
which represents to consumers that this beverage is ginger ale,
i.e. a soft drink containing ginger.  Dr. Pepper also uses the
phrase "Made from Real Ginger" in labeling and marketing Canada
Dry Ginger Ale, further representing that the beverage contains
ginger.  However, Mr. Margaryan contends, despite its name, Canada
Dry Ginger Ale does not contain any ginger.  He adds that
independent laboratory testing has confirmed this fact.

Dr. Pepper is a Delaware Corporation, which is licensed to do
business, and is doing business throughout the United States, with
its principal place of business located in Plano, Texas.  The
Plaintiff is unaware of the true names of the Doe Defendants.

Dr. Pepper develops, distributes, markets, advertises and sells
the beverage Canada Dry Ginger Ale in the United States.  Dr.
Pepper has a system of distribution throughout the United States,
through which it distributes, markets, advertises, and sells Dr.
Pepper branded goods, including Canada Dry Ginger Ale.  Canada Dry
Ginger Ale is a staple product sold in many supermarkets, grocery
stores, and bars.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE: "Margaryan" Suit Moved to N.D. of Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gegham Margaryan, as an
individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-05234, filed on July 14, 2017, was removed from the
District of California Central, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (San Jose) on August 4,
2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-04435 to
the proceeding.

Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
manufactures and distributes flavored carbonated soft drinks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Hovanes Margarian, Esq.
   Law Offices of Hovanes Margarian
   13425 Ventura Blvd. #303
   Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
   Tel: (818) 990-0418
   Fax: (818) 990-1418
   Email: hovanes@margarianlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Jonathan A Shapiro, Esq.
   Baker Botts L.L.P.
   101 California Street, Suite 3600
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 291-6204
   Fax: (415) 291-6304
   Email: Jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com


DOHATSUTEN INC: Accused by "Sanchez" Suit of Not Paying All Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNY SANCHEZ AND CARLOS RIVERA AKA ALEX RIVERA v. DOHATSUTEN,
INC. AND SEIKO H ALBA INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA DOHATSUTEN, Case No.
5:17-cv-03940-HRL (N.D. Cal., July 12, 2017), accuses the
Defendants of failure to pay all wages under federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Dohatsuten, Inc., is a domestic corporation doing business and
headquartered in the County of Santa Clara under the name
Dohatsuten.  Seiko H. Alba is a resident of the County of Santa
Clara and does business as Dohatsuten.  The Defendants operate a
restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Dal Bon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON
          606 N. 1st Street
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 466-5845
          Facsimile: jdb@wagedefenders.com


DRYSHIPS INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on Aug. 2
disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of
purchasers of DryShips Inc. ("DryShips") common stock during the
period between June 8, 2016 and July 14, 2017 (the "Class
Period"). This action was filed in the Eastern District of
New York and is captioned Silverberg v. DryShips Inc. No. 17-cv-
04547.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 14, 2017.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld or David C. Walton of Robbins Geller at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at davew@rgrdlaw.com.
If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/dryships/. Any
member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges DryShips, certain of its officers and/or
directors and Kalani Investments Limited ("Kalani") and certain of
its related entities with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  DryShips is a dry bulk shipping company that
primarily owns and operates drybulk carriers and offshore support
vessels.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose adverse information regarding the Company's business and
operations, including that defendants had engaged in a series of
manipulative share issuance/sales transactions with Kalani and
related entities to artificially inflate DryShips' share price, in
which the Company's CEO and Chairman, George Economou, caused
DryShips to sell shares to Kalani at a discount and to file a
registration statement so that Kalani could resell the shares into
the market.  When Kalani's sales of DryShips stock caused the
price of the stock to decline, DryShips would reverse split the
stock, thereby raising the price of DryShips stock.  Then,
DryShips would again sell stock to Kalani and the same pattern of
transactions would ensue.

On July 13, 2017, The Wall Street Journal published an article
that described in detail how defendants' scheme had wreaked
"carnage" on the Company's investors.  The article also quoted
legal experts who stated that Kalani appeared to be acting as an
unregistered underwriter in violation of securities laws.  Then on
July 14, 2017, DryShips filed a report on Form 6-K disclosing that
it had sold over 34 million shares to Kalani between April 3, 2017
and July 14, 2017 for over $151 million in gross proceeds.  By the
next trading day, July 17, 2017, as a result of defendants'
dilutive and manipulative conduct, the price of DryShips common
stock had declined to close at $0.89 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
DryShips common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international investors in securities litigation and portfolio
monitoring. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has
obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in
history. [GN]


EL PASO TAQUERIA: Faces "Ramirez" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against El Paso Taqueria
Corp.  The case is styled as Jilmar Daniel Ramirez, individually,
Antony Odias Mejia Sapon, individually, Omar Morales,
individually, Alfredo Garcia-Daniel, on behalf of other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. El Paso Taqueria Corp., doing business as:
El Paso, El Paso Taqueria 1643 Corp., doing business as: El Paso,
David Garnelo, Rodrigo Abrajam, Angel Garnelo also known as: Angel
Tepos, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05917 (S.D.N.Y., August 4,
2017).

El Paso Taqueria Corp. is engaged in restaurant industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE.


ENERNOC INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 2 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of current stockholders of
EnerNOC Inc. ("EnerNOC" or the "Company") in connection with the
planned acquisition of the company by Enel SpA.

On June 22, 2017, EnerNOC announced it had entered into an
agreement in which Enel SpA, through its subsidiary, Enel Green
Power North America, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Pine
Merger Sub, Inc., would acquire all outstanding shares of EnerNOC
common stock for $7.67 per share.  The lawsuit, entitled Basch v.
EnerNOC, et al. (Case No. 1:17-cv-11305), alleges that defendants
solicit the tendering of stockholder shares in connection with the
sale of the Company to Enel through a Recommendation Statement
that omits material facts necessary to make the statements therein
not false or misleading.  Stockholders require this material
information to make an informed decision on whether to tender
their shares.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 2, 2017.  If you wish to discuss this action or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Joseph E. Levi, at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, (212) 363-7500, or via
e-mail at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.  Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.

A CLASS HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http:/www.zlk.com -- is a national firm with
offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.
The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience
representing investors in securities litigation, and have
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders. [GN]


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Libby" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC.  The case is styled as Kelly M Libby, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enhanced
Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04540 (E.D.
N.Y., August 2, 2017).

Enhanced Recovery provides business process outsourcing services
that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Espinal" Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC.  The case is styled as Gladys Espinal, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enhanced
Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05641-JMV-SCM
(D.N.J., August 2, 2017).

Enhanced Recovery provides business process outsourcing services
that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
   17 SYLVAN STREET, Suite 102B
   Rutherford, NJ 07070
   Tel: (201) 507-6300
   Email: lh@hershlegal.com


EVO PAYMENTS: Webb, Klase Files Two Overbilling Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta-based law firm Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC on Aug. 2
disclosed that it has filed two class action lawsuits against
payment processing giants EVO Payments International and EVO
Merchant Services (collectively, "EVO") alleging they maintain a
policy of overbilling merchants.  EVO is the world's largest
privately-owned payment processor, with over 500,000 merchant
customers.  The suits allege that EVO represents to merchants that
it will only charge the payment processing fees and rates
prominently disclosed in the Merchant Application but that, after
merchants sign up and the parties begin to do business, EVO
imposes new fees and increases the agreed-upon rates.  The suits
allege that these overcharges are effectively hidden in monthly
statements.

According to the complaint, EVO has allegedly advertised low
payment processing fees despite knowing that the actual fees would
be much higher, concealing important portions of the contract from
merchants, and imposing fees that were much higher than those
disclosed.  Several specific fees, such as "PCI" fees and "IRS
Reporting" fees, are alleged to be imposed by EVO in an automated
fashion, without regard to the agreed-upon rate structure.

The plaintiffs seek the return of all amounts they paid EVO that
exceed the rate schedules set forth in their merchant
applications.

The cases, styled New Beginnings v. EVO Payments International,
LLC, et al. and Central Florida Liquidation and Sales v. EVO
Payments International, LLC, et al., are pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and
have been assigned case numbers 17-cv-3650 and 17-cv-4507,
respectively.

If you wish to discuss these actions or have any questions
concerning this press release, please contact Webb, Klase &
Lemond, LLC at (770) 444-9325 or contact(at)WebbLLC.com.  You may
visit the firm website at http://www.WebbLLC.com.[GN]


FARMERS RESTAURANT: Stephens Moves for FLSA Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled SHAYN STEPHENS, et al. v.
FARMERS RESTAURANT GROUP, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01087-RMC
(D.D.C.), moves for conditional certification of a collective
action and for notice to putative plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act and
the D.C. Sick Leave Act.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to authorize their counsel to notify
all individuals, who are or were employed by Farmers Restaurant
Group, Daniel Simons, and Michael Vucurevich as servers, wait
staff, or bartenders in any of the defendants' five restaurants in
the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia at any time since
June 7, 2014, which is three years prior to the filing of the
original Complaint in this action.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
          Molly Elkin, Esq.
          T. Reid Coploff, Esq.
          WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          E-mail: gkm@wmlaborlaw.com
                  mae@wmlaborlaw.com
                  trc@wmlaborlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Meredith S. Campbell, Esq.
          Joy C. Einstein, Esq.
          SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER, P.A.
          12505 Park Potomac Ave., Sixth Floor
          Potomac, MD 20854
          Telephone: (301) 255-0550
          E-mail: mcampbell@shulmanrogers.com
                  jeinstein@shulmanrogers.com


FCI LENDER: Faces "Tabick" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCI Lender Services,
Inc.  The case is styled as Christopher Tabick, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
FCI Lender Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04577
(E.D.N.Y., August 4, 2017).

Headquartered at 8180 E Kaiser Blvd, Anaheim, CA 92808, FCI Lender
Services, Inc. operates a loan servicing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
B. Colby Hamilton, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
plaintiffs in an ongoing securities fraud class action suit
against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles over emissions violations faced
a setback on Aug. 1.  U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the
Southern District of New York granted defendants' motion to
dismiss new allegations of fraud by the international automotive
company.

The latest theory offered in the suit seeking class status was
sunk by "general claims," "vague statements" and "unremarkable
fact[s]" that didn't hold up under a conscious recklessness
standard, Judge Furman found.

The securities suit, initiated by plaintiff Victor Pirnik, was
first filed in September 2015 after the FCA recalled over a
million vehicles over safety concerns.  In the expanded allegation
in the plaintiffs' third amended complaint, defendants, including
FCA's CEO Sergio Marchionne, are alleged to have misled investors
after California and federal environmental regulators issued a
violation notice in January 2017 for failing to disclose software
that could alter emissions outputs in recent diesel versions of
Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks.

Furman agreed with defendants' argument that the allegations
didn't make a strong enough case of scienter, while failing to
show either actual intent or a conscious recklessness that comes
close.  "Conspicuously absent," Judge Furman wrote, is any hard
evidence that FCA officials, including the CEO, were made aware of
emissions noncompliance in the 100,000 or so vehicles prior to
January, nor has any "regulatory body . . . definitively found"
they were using an illegal "defeat device" to rig emission
results.

"That dooms plaintiffs' case for scienter here," he said.
Other than the January violations notice, the remaining
allegations were explained through the good faith arguments made
by the plaintiffs.

"[I]t is . . . plausible to think that FCA believed itself to be
in compliance -- as it consistently represented -- given the
myriad of harsh consequences, financial and otherwise, the company
knew it would suffer if the devices were found to be illegal,"
Judge Furman wrote.  "Without any allegations that Marchionne or
other FCA officials received contradictory information or knew
that the devices were not in compliance prior to statements made
during the class period, plaintiffs' allegations must be
dismissed."

In a statement, Sullivan & Cromwell partner Robert Giuffra Jr. --
giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- lead counsel for the defendants, praised
Judge Furman's decision that "rejected plaintiff's attempt to
inject emissions issues into this unrelated case."

While granting the motion to dismiss, Judge Furman said he would,
"with some misgivings," allow plaintiffs to yet again amend the
complaint.  He specifically pointed to a recent report, based on
disclosed internal emails, that suggested FCA officials may have
been alerted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concerns over
possible "defeat device" software years before the January notice.

Substantiated allegations of this nature "would be much like those
that the court found sufficient with respect to plaintiff's
allegations regarding compliance with safety-related regulations,"
Judge Furman wrote.

Pomerantz co-managing partner Jeremy Lieberman said that the end
result left he and his plaintiff clients "not at all discouraged."

"We believe that buttressing the record with the additional facts
that have emerged regarding Fiat's improper conduct will result in
the Court's sustaining these allegations," he said.

Judge Furman said plaintiffs would have two weeks to refile the
complaint, if they so chose to. The motion to certify class in the
suit is currently stayed pending resolution of the emissions
claims in the complaint. [GN]


FIELD & TECHNICAL: "Close" Parties File Joint Bid for Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit entitled JOHNNY CLOSE, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. FIELD &
TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00556-MRH (W.D. Pa.),
file with the Court their joint motion for conditional
certification.

After conferring with the Court, the Parties have agreed to submit
a proposed order, whereby the Court would grant conditional
certification as set forth therein and approve an agreed upon form
of Notice to be sent to potential members of the collective by
Plaintiff's counsel.

The Parties agree that FTS's joinder in the Motion will not be
construed as a waiver of any of the defenses to certification
asserted in its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, or Response in
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification.
All of those defenses are expressly reserved and preserved without
prejudice and can be asserted by FTS in opposition to any motion
for final certification of the collective.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lf5UfNIA

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Grounds, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          E-mail: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark Fischer, Esq.
          YUKEVICH, MARCHETTI, FISCHER & ZANGRILLI, P.C.
          11 Stanwix Street, Suite 1024
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 261-6782
          E-mail: mfischer@ymfzpc.com


FIRST POTOMAC: Schwartz Seeks to Halt Shareholder Vote on Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Schwartz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. First Potomac Realty Trust,
Robert Milkovich, James P. Hoffmann, Terry L. Stevens, Robert H.
Arnold, Thomas E. Robinson and Kati M. Penney, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02214 (D. Md., August 4, 2017), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from holding the shareholder vote the merger of First
Potomac with Government Properties Income Trust, rescissory
damages in case the merger pushes through, reasonable allowance
for Plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

Company shareholders stand to receive $11.15 in cash for each
share of First Potomac common stock they own representing $1.4
billion in total value. Plaintiff, a First Potomac stockholder,
claims that merger amount, a mere 3% discount from the Company's
52-week high of $11.45 per share, is inadequate in light of the
company's recent financial performance and prospects for future
growth.

First Potomac Realty Trust is a self-managed real estate
investment trust that invests in, develops and operates
multifamily communities offering location and lifestyle amenities
in Washington, D.C., Maryland, North and South Virginia. [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
      Email: denright@zlk.com


FIRST STUDENT: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Humes" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Delores Humes filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Delores Humes v. First Student, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-01861-BAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Fresno.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 24,
2017, Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe denied the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

The Plaintiff was formerly employed by First Student as a bus
driver out of its Fresno Yard.  She is currently employed by First
Student as a bus driver out of its Fresno Yard.  The Plaintiff
contends that during her employment, First Student failed to pay
its bus drivers for all time worked, including all time that the
drivers were subject to First Student's control.

The appellate case is captioned as Delores Humes v. First Student,
Inc., Case No. 17-80150, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner DELORES HUMES, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael Hagop Boyamian, Esq.
          Thomas Falvey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
          301 N. Lake Avenue
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-0205
          Facsimile: (818) 500-9307
          E-mail: mike.falveylaw@gmail.com
                  thomaswfalvey@gmail.com

               - and -

          Armand Raffi Kizirian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
          550 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5200
          Facsimile: (818) 500-9307
          E-mail: armand.falveylaw@gmail.com

Defendant-Respondent FIRST STUDENT, INC., is represented by:

          David J. Dow, Esq.
          O. Mishell P. Taylor, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          501 W. Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101-3577
          Telephone: (619) 515-1802
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
          E-mail: ddow@littler.com
                  mtaylor@littler.com

               - and -

          Heather L. Shook, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4300
          E-mail: hshook@littler.com


FLINT, MI: Sept. 29 Hearing Scheduled for Water Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Conat, writing for WJRT, reports that thousands of people in
Flint have joined a class action lawsuit that is trying to
compensate them for the pain and suffering that have endured
because of high levels of lead in their water.

One of the law firms involved in the class action lawsuit
involving the Flint water emergency, Goodman and Hurwitz, is based
in Detroit.  They, along with the other firms, recently won a
major victory.

The U-S Sixth District Court of Appeals has ruled that two class
action lawsuits can proceed.  Federal judge Judith Levy has
scheduled a hearing for September 29.

"She wants to make sure that this case is resolved as soon as
possible so the people of Flint can get on with their lives," said
attorney Michael Pitt.

Attorneys involved in the case met on Aug. 1 in Detroit for a
strategy session. Their goal is to see that everyone who was
exposed to the high lead levels in Flint water is compensated.

"Everybody who has suffered from what happened in Flint will have
the right to step up and assert a claim," said attorney Julie
Hurwitz.

Many in Flint think Governor Rick Snyder should take some of the
blame for the water emergency. The attorneys say the lawsuit
includes him.

"He already is part of the civil suit and the 6th circuit court of
appeals has just ruled that absolutely he is in it," said Hurwitz.

The attorneys say their clients feel morally betrayed and
violated.  The lawsuit calls for the city of Flint, the state and
the federal government to help people recover financially.

"The children are worried what their future is going to be like
and of course the parents feel guilty that they were not able to
protect their children from this," said attorney Cynthia Lindsey.

Although 20,000 Flint residents are part of this class action
lawsuit, the attorney here say it's not too late for others to
join. [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Suit by All Care Transport in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
All Care Transport, LLC and Jose Pena, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, Case No.
5:17-cv-01390-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal., July 12, 2017), asserts fraud-
related claims.

The case is assigned to Judge Jesus G. Bernal and referred to
Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato.

Headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, Ford Motor Company designs,
manufactures, and services cars and trucks.  The Company also
provides vehicle-related financing, leasing, and insurance through
its subsidiary.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Annika K. Martin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: akmartin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP
          150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 1650
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          Facsimile: (615) 313-9965
          E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com

               - and -

          Jasper Dudley Ward, IV, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          1205 E Washington St., Suite 111
          Louisville, KY 40206
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com

               - and -

          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY AND MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: mgodino@glancylaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Wants Bulk of Throttle Defect Claims Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Graf, writing for Law360, reports that Ford Motor Co. on
July 31 urged a California federal court to toss the bulk of the
allegations in a proposed class action accusing the automaker of
covering up a defect with some vehicles' electronic throttle
bodies, saying the affected drivers who filed the suit have all
received repairs.

Ford argued that the suing drivers don't specify which of the
company's promotional materials were allegedly inaccurate, were
unharmed by the purported defect and failed to prove Ford had a
duty to disclose the alleged defect.  Ford also claims that its
warranty didn't guarantee that the vehicles would be free of
defects, and asked the court to dismiss all the drivers' claims
except a couple of implied warranty and unjust enrichment
allegations by specific drivers.

"Even among a hand-picked group of named plaintiffs for a class
action, every named plaintiff either has had no problem with their
ETB, or has sought and received a successful repair," Ford said in
the filing.

The drivers filed the proposed class action in May alleging Ford
knowingly sold vehicles with a faulty Delphi Sixth Generation
electronic throttle body control system that would purportedly
cause "sudden and unexpected deceleration, thus exposing drivers
and passengers to significant risks of injury, including death."

But Ford argued on July 31 the drivers haven't cited specific
content within allegedly incomplete promotional materials needed
to support their fraudulent omission and consumer-protection
claims. The court will consequently be unable to assess whether
the materials were in fact inaccurate, according to the filing.

Additionally, each of the named plaintiffs either experienced no
defect or received a repair that addressed their problems, Ford
contended.

"According to their own complaint allegations, all of these named
plaintiffs have received exactly what they believed they were
buying: a vehicle with a functioning ETB," Ford said in the
filing.  "Therefore, they cannot have been harmed by any alleged
omission, concealment, or deceptive act."

Ford also argued that these fraudulent concealment and omission
claims should be dismissed because the drivers didn't demonstrate
that the automaker had a responsibility to disclose the alleged
defect.

Additionally, the warranty Ford provided the drivers explicitly
says it "does not mean that each Ford vehicle is defect free,"
according to the filing. Consumers would be inundated with
disclosures if Ford warned of every possible defect, thereby
"completely undermining the intent of requiring the disclosure in
the first place," the automaker said.

Counsel for the parties didn't respond on Aug. 1 to requests for
comment.

The drivers are represented by Roland Tellis, Mark Pifko and David
Fernandes of Baron & Budd PC, Paul J. Geller, Mark J. Dearman --
mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- Stuart A. Davidson and Jason H. Alperstein
-- jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
and David S. Stellings and Jason L. Lichtman of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, among others.

Ford is represented by Derek H. Swanson --
dswanson@mcguirewoods.com -- Joan S. Dinsmore --
jdinsmore@mcguirewoods.com -- and Laura G. Brys --
lbrys@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods LLP.

The case is Janis Benkle et al v. Ford Motor Company, Case No.
8:16-cv-01569 (C.D. Cal.).   The case is assigned to Judge David
O. Carter.   The case was filed August 24, 2016. [GN]


FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: Faces "Postle" Suit in M.D. of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fortegra Financial
Corporation.  The case is styled as Reid Postle, individually and
on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. Fortegra Financial Corporation, a Delaware corporation and
Ensurety Ventures, LLC, doing business as: Omega Auto Care,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00889-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla., August 2,
2017).

Fortegra Financial Corporation operates as a specialized insurance
and insurance services company in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
   Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann& Bernstein, LLP
   29th Floor
   275 Battery Street
   San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
   Tel: (415) 956-1000
   Fax: (415) 956-1008

      - and -

   James Joseph Boyle, Esq.
   Boyle&Galnor, P.A.
   50 N. Laura Street Suite 2500
   Jacksonville, FL 32202
   Tel: (914) 516-5507
   Email: james@boyleandgalnor.com

      - and -

   Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
   Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann& Bernstein, LLP
   8th Floor
   250 Hudson St.
   New York, NY 10013
   Tel: (212) 355-9500
   Fax: (212) 355-9592

      - and -

   Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
   David P. Meyer & Associates Co., LPA
   1320 Dublin Rd, Suite 100
   Columbus, OH 43215
   Tel: (614) 224-6000
   Fax: (614) 224-6066
   Email: mwilson@dmlaws.com


FOUNDATION MEDICINE: Sept. 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on Aug. 1 announced the
filing of a class action lawsuit against Foundation Medicine, Inc.
("Foundation" or the "Company") concerning possible violations of
federal securities laws between February 26, 2014 and November 3,
2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact
the firm prior to the September 26, 2017 lead plaintiff motion
deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian
Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or you can e-
mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

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

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period,
Foundation made false and misleading statements, and/or failed to
disclose, material information to investors.  On July 29, 2015,
the Company disclosed that it was not making the strides obtaining
coverage it claimed to have been making during the Class Period,
and that Foundation would receive no Medicare payments in 2015 for
its tumor profiling tests due to a delay in receiving a local
coverage determination from its regional Medicare Administrative
Contractor.  As a result of the delay, the Company cut its 2015
financial guidance, which was based on an assumption that Medicare
approval was going to be obtained in 2015. Following this news,
Foundation's stock price dropped significantly.  On November 3,
2015, the Company revealed a further revision to the already
reduced number of clinical tests it expected to report for 2015.
Upon release of this information, shares of Foundation decreased
in value materially, causing investors harm according to the
Complaint.

Lundin Law PC -- http://lundinlawpc.com-- was founded by Brian
Lundin, Esquire, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles
dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights. [GN]


FRANKLIN FIRST: Faces "Mey" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Franklin First
Financial, Ltd.  The case is styled as Diana Mey, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Franklin
First Financial, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04575
(E.D.N.Y., August 3, 2017).

Franklin First Financial offers a variety of home loans, refinance
loans, and reverse mortgages.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


GARDEN OF EDEN: Faces "Sahin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
BILAL SAHIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. GARDEN OF EDEN ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-
05609 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2017), seeks to remedy the alleged
illegal labor practices of the Defendant concerning its failure to
compensate the Plaintiff for all hours worked, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Garden of Eden Enterprises, Inc., is a New York corporation.
Garden of Eden is a network of full service grocery stores with
six locations in New York and New Jersey doing business for over
20 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Hymowitz, Esq.
          HYMOWITZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1629 Sheepshead Bay Road
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 807-9900
          E-mail: daniel@hymowitzlaw.com


GAULT AUTO: Accused by "Malave" Suit of Violating Labor Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
IVELISSE MALAVE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GAULT AUTO MALL, INC.; GAULT CHEVROLET INC.; and
ROBERT GAULT and CONNIE GAULT, individually and in their
capacities as owners and/or officers of GAULT AUTO MALL, INC.
and/or GAULT CHEVROLET INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-00816-LEK-DEP
(N.D.N.Y., July 25, 2017), alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Gault Auto Mall, Inc., and Gault Chevrolet Inc. are New York
corporations with principal offices in the County of Broome, in
the state of New York.  Gault Auto Mall and Gault Chevrolet Inc.
own and operate automobile dealerships in New York.  The
Individual Defendants are owners or officers of the Defendant
Corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Mullin, Esq.
          FERR & MULLIN, P.C.
          7635 Main Street Fishers
          Po Box 440
          Fishers, NY 14453-0440
          Telephone: (585) 869-0210
          Facsimile: (585) 869-0223
          E-mail: rlmullin@FerrMullinLaw.com


GC SERVICES: Certification of Class Sought in "Gajewski" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Gajewski moves the Court to certify the class described
in the complaint of the lawsuit captioned JENNIFER GAJEWSKI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GC
SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 2:17-cv-01049-DEJ (E.D.
Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiff says it is obligated to move for class certification
to protect the interests of the putative class.  The Plaintiff
contends that more than one defendant has already attempted the
scheme contemplated in Campbell-Ewald.  See Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).  Judge Randa
denied the defendant's request to deposit funds on grounds that a
class certification motion was pending.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Vh52kJkr

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Averts Engine Defect Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that a proposed class of
General Motors customers have not demonstrated their vehicles were
actually damaged by an alleged defect that causes "abnormally and
improperly high" oil consumption, nor have they shown the
automaker knew about the possible problem, a California federal
judge said on Aug. 1 as he dismissed the case.

The drivers claimed the Generation IV Vortec 5300 engine used in
General Motors LLC's 2010-2013 model year vehicles included
defective low-tension oil rings that were designed to reduce
friction in an effort to improve fuel economy, horsepower and
torque, but instead allowed engine oil to enter the combustion
chamber, where it either burned with fuel or hardened and
accumulated in the engine. Potential consequences include
overheating, engine fires and unexpected engine shutdowns, the
drivers said.

But U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen found that none of the
drivers had shown they experienced any excessive oil consumption
or related damage, or that GM actually knew about the alleged
defect.  He also ruled that the automaker didn't have a duty to
tell consumers about the alleged defect and gave the drivers 30
days to amend their complaint a second time.

Defendants only have a duty to disclose material facts, and while
GM argued that such a fact must involve a safety concern, the
drivers said an important fact was anything a reasonable customer
would find important at the time of purchase.  Judge Chen sided
with GM, citing Ninth Circuit precedent.

The drivers pointed out that the California Court of Appeals
recently said that requiring a safety concern for a fact to be
deemed material is a "misreading of California law," but the judge
said the Ninth Circuit has continued to follow its own case law
and that he isn't free to depart from those rulings, even in the
face of a contrary state ruling.

The vehicles also have an oil pressure indicator that warns
drivers of low oil levels, meaning that there's no risk of a
sudden or surprising engine failure due to insufficient
lubrication, which might give rise to a serious safety concern,
Judge Chen said.

"In this sense, there is no more of a safety concern than where,
e.g., a car gets less gas mileage than advertised," he said.
"While the more rapid consumption of gas might lead to a driver
running out of fuel on a freeway or other dangerous location, the
driver has a fuel gauge to warn him or her of low fuel."

The drivers argued that GM knew about the alleged defect because
it abandoned the oil ring design when it redesigned the engines,
because 81 customer complaints were submitted to online forums and
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and because GM
issued a technical service bulletin addressing oil loss in
vehicles with the allegedly defective engines.

Judge Chen shot down each of these arguments in turn, finding that
GM redesigned the entire engine, not just the oil rings; that none
of the consumer complaints explicitly name the alleged defect as
the cause of excessive oil consumption; and that GM's bulletin
neither suggests the company knew all the engines were inherently
defective nor mentions the oil rings.

He also said the Ninth Circuit has held that consumer complaints
are only able to show a company knew about a problem if there's an
unusual amount of complaints, but the drivers haven't said that 81
complaints filed over seven years was an unusually high number.

Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@dlcfirm.com -- of DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, a lawyer for the drivers, told Law360 on Aug. 2 that he and
his clients plan to amend their claims.

"While dismissals are always disappointing, Judge Chen gave us a
clear roadmap as to what he's looking for in order to sustain the
amended complaint," Mr. Levitt said.  "We look forward to hitting
that mark and continuing to prosecute these important claims
against GM."

GM could not be reached for comment on Aug. 2.

GM is represented by Joseph J. Ybarra --
Joseph.Ybarra@hysmlaw.com -- of Huang Ybarra Singer & May LLP and
Gregory R. Oxford -- goxford@iccolaw.com -- of Isaacs Clouse Crose
& Oxford LLP.

The drivers are represented by DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Beasley
Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC, Andrus Anderson LLP, Pendley
Baudin & Coffin LLP, Robles Rael & Anaya PC, AG Law, Johnson
Becker PLLC, The Finley Firm PC and Atterbury Kammer & Haag SC.

The case is Monteville Sloan, et al., v. General Motors LLC, Case
No. 3:16-cv-07244 (N.D. Cal.).  The case is assigned to Judge
Edward M. Chen.  The case was filed December 19, 2016. [GN]


GEORGIA, USA: 11th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Dingler" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joseph Dingler filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Joseph Dingler v. State of Georgia, et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02194-AT, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 3,
2017, the lawsuit was filed on June 14, 2017, and is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Dingler v. State of
Georgia, et al., Case No. 17-13253, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before August 28, 2017;
      and

   -- The appendix is due no later than seven days from the
      filing of the appellant's brief.

Plaintiff Joseph Dingler, in Atlanta, Georgia, appears pro se.

The Defendants-Appellees are STATE OF GEORGIA, GA DIVISION OF
FAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES, BOBBY CAGLE, DFCS, CATHELENE TINA
ROBERSON, Clerk, and FULTON COUNTY GEORGIA, FAMILY COURT.[BN]


GINNIE MAE: "Lovess" Suit Moved to District of MD
-------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cimon Lovess, individually and on
behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Government Nat'l Mortg. Association also known as: Ginnie Mae,
Defendant, Case No. 03-C-17-00347-OC was removed from the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland (Baltimore) on August 3, 2017. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-02210-JKB to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to Judge James K. Bredar.

The Government National Mortgage Association, or Ginnie Mae, was
established in the United States in 1968 to promote home
ownership.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

The Defendant is represented by:

   Allen F Loucks, Esq.
   Office of the United States Attorney
   36 S Charles St Fourth Fl
   Baltimore, MD 21201
   Tel: (410) 209-4800
   Fax: (410) 962-0693
   Email: allen.loucks@usdoj.gov


GLOBAL ELITE: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. GLOBAL ELITE GROUP, INC., a California corporation;
GLOBAL AVIATION MANAGEMENT GROUP, CORP., a California corporation;
and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC670100 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., July 26, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
wages and interest thereon for unpaid wages for all hours worked
at minimum and overtime rates.

Global Elite Group, Inc., and Global Aviation Management Group,
Corp., are California corporations that operate in Los Angeles
County and employed the Plaintiff and other putative class members
in Los Angeles County at their business locations.  The Doe
Defendants are individuals unknown to the Plaintiff.

Global Elite is a New York-based aviation security company
offering protection for individuals, businesses, events, and
properties around the world.  Global Aviation Management Services
provide solutions for commercial aircraft maintenance, technical
management and aircraft lease maintenance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
          Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
          Alfredo Nava, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, PC
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 650
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 496-4818
          Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
          E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
                  zach@crosnerlegal.com
                  alfredo@crosnerlegal.com


GLOBAL FITNESS: Pulliam Appeals Decision in "Gascho" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interested party Tomi Anne Pulliam filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Amber Gascho, et al. v. Global
Fitness Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-00436, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.

The appellate case is captioned as Amber Gascho, et al. v. Global
Fitness Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-3804, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Interested
Party Doctor Laurence E. Paul also filed an appeal from a court
ruling in lawsuit.  That appellate case is entitled as Amber
Gascho, et al. v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No.
17-3577.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Amber Gascho, Ashley Buckenmeyer, Michael J
Hogan, Julia Cay, fka Julia Snyder, Anthony Meyer, Terry E.
Troutman, Rita Rose, Edward Lundberg, Albert Tartaglia, Michael
Bell, Matt Volkerding and Patrick Cary, on Behalf of Themselves
and all Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:

          Thomas N. McCormick, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP
          P.O. Box 1008
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 464-6400
          E-mail: wgporter@vorys.com

Interested Party-Appellant TOMI ANNE PULLIAM is represented by:

          Christopher J. Hogan, Esq.
          ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE LLP
          41 S. High Street, Suite 3500
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 365-9900
          Facsimile: (614) 365-7900
          E-mail: hogan@litohio.com


GOOSEBUMPS INC: Accused by Jackson of Misclassifying Dancers
------------------------------------------------------------
EBONY JACKSON, AND ALITHA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a
collective action v. GOOSEBUMPS, INC., BRUCE DOBBS, GEORGE KELLY
AND MARK STEPHENS, Sr., Case No. 1:17-cv-02669-SCJ (N.D. Ga., July
17, 2017), is a wage and hour case alleging that the Defendants
misclassified the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated dancers
and entertainers as independent contractors.

Goosebumps, Inc., is a domestic profit corporation organized under
the laws of the state of Georgia.  The Individual Defendants are
officers, managers or employees of the Company.  The Defendants
own and operate an adult nightclub in Atlanta under the trade name
"Goosebumps" whose principal place of business is located at 134
Baker Street, in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
          Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq.
          DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC
          3100 Centennial Tower
          101 Marietta Street
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 979-3171
          Facsimile: (404) 979-3170
          E-mail: charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com
                  kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com


GORDON CHEN'S: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of Order in "Valle" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Kazutoshi Gaeda, Gordon Chen's Kitchen LLC, Mac-War
Rest. Corp., Sol Orbuch and Allan Wartski filed an appeal from a
District Court order dated July 25, 2017, entered in the lawsuit
Valle, et al. v. Gordon Chen's Kitchen LLC, et al., Case No. 15-
cv-2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Valle v. Gordon Chen's Kitchen
LLC, Case No. 17-2332, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Alejandro Valle and Edgar Cid, Individually;
on behalf of others similarly situated, AKA Daniel Lopez, are
represented by:

          Shawn Raymond Clark, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: sclark@faillacelaw.com

Defendants-Appellants Gordon Chen's Kitchen LLC, DBA Hakata Grill;
Mac-War Rest. Corp., DBA Hakata Grill; Sol Orbuch; Kazutoshi Gaeda
and Allan Wartski are represented by:

          Andrew Sal Hoffmann, Esq.
          HOFFMANN & ASSOCIATES
          450 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 679-0400
          Facsimile: (212) 686-4766
          E-mail: Ashlegal@aol.com


GRADE A CONSTRUCTION: Wants Classes in "De Leon" Suit Decertified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the lawsuit titled GABRIEL DE LEON, RAMON PENA,
and JOSE LUIS RAMIREZ, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. GRADE A CONSTRUCTION, INC., Case No. 3:16-
cv-00348-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), asks the Court to decertify the two
classes conditionally certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act
on May 11, 2017.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0dHjo3Rx

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph S. Goode, Esq.
          Mark M. Leitner, Esq.
          Allison E. Laffey, Esq.
          LAFFEY, LEITNER & GOODE LLC
          325 E. Chicago Street, Suite 200
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 312-7003
          Facsimile: (414) 755-7089
          E-mail: jgoode@llgmke.com
                  mleitner@llgmke.com
                  alaffey@llgmke.com


GRAYHAWK HOMES: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Sizemore Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CAMERON SIZEMORE, JAMES ELLIS BURDITT, JR., MARC EUGENE
HOEFERT, JAMES SAMUEL MITCHELL, RANDY CARL ROGERS, AND AARON
MATTHEW SOVERN, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly
situated v. GRAYHAWK HOMES, INC. AND DAVID B. ERICKSON, Case No.
4:17-cv-00161-CDL (M.D. Ga., August 3, 2017), alleges that during
the Plaintiffs' employment, they and other workers similarly
situated to them regularly worked overtime hours, but the
Defendants did not pay them overtime compensation as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Grayhawk is a Georgia corporation that has maintained offices and
conducted substantial business in Georgia.  David B. Erickson is
the founder of Grayhawk, and at all relevant times, he has been
its President and Chief Executive Officer.  The Defendants are
residential homebuilders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jerry A. Buchanan, Esq.
          Benjamin Land, Esq.
          BUCHANAN & LAND, LLP
          1425 Wynnton Road
          P.O. Box 2848
          Columbus, GA 31902
          Telephone: (706) 323-2848
          Facsimile: (706) 323-4242
          E-mail: jab@buchananland.com
                  benland@buchananland.com

               - and -

          Dustin Marlowe, Esq.
          Brad Valentine, Esq.
          JOHNSON MARLOWE LLP
          455 Epps Bridge Pkwy, Ste. 101
          Athens, GA 30606
          Telephone: (706) 425-8740
          Facsimile: (706) 850-6400
          E-mail: dustin@johnsonmarlowe.com
                  brad@johnsonmarlowe.com


GREAT MOBILITY: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, "Romero" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON ROMERO and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. GREAT MOBILITY, INC., d/b/a GREAT MOBILITY, IRENE BRITO,
Case No. 1:17-cv-22743-JEM (S.D. Fla., July 24, 2017), alleges
that the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act as Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA.

Great Mobility, Inc., doing business as Great Mobility, is a
corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County.
Irene Brito is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the
Company.  The Company provides transportation for individuals to
and from Doctor Appointments, Lab Work, Dialysis, Physical
Therapy, Chemo Therapy, Rehabilitation and more.  The Company owns
and operates a fleet of over 50 transportation vehicles;
specializing in performing and coordinating ambulatory, wheelchair
and stretcher van transports.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREEN TREE: Foster Moves to Certify FCCPA Class & FDCPA Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Tracy and Cornell Foster move for entry of an order
certifying the case titled TRACY FOSTER, et al. v. GREEN TREE
SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-01878-JDW-MAP (M.D. Fla.), as a
class action.

The lawsuit was filed against Green Tree asserting claims for
violation of (1) the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act,
and (2) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  These allegations
arise from Green Tree's practice of directly contacting consumers
to attempt to collect mortgage debts after it is on notice the
consumer is represented by counsel.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of these FCCPA class and FDCPA
subclass:

     FCCPA Class: All individuals in Hillsborough County,
     Florida: (1) who had a mortgage loan serviced by Green Tree
     that was incurred primarily for personal, family, or
     household purposes, (2) who were represented by counsel
     regarding the mortgage debt, (3) and whom Green Tree
     contacted directly in an attempt to collect the mortgage
     debt after it was notified they were represented by counsel,
     (4) on or after August 12, 2013.

     FDCPA Subclass: All individuals in Hillsborough County,
     Florida: (1) who had a mortgage loan serviced by Green Tree
     that was incurred primarily for personal, family, or
     household purposes, (2) that Green Tree acquired after it
     was in default, (3) who were represented by counsel
     regarding the mortgage debt, (4) and whom Green Tree
     contacted directly in an attempt to collect the mortgage
     debt after it was notified they were represented by counsel,
     (5) on or after August 12, 2014.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate them as class
representatives and their counsel as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ok3LMBWm

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
          KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A.
          Post Office Box 3396
          Tampa, FL 33601-3396
          Telephone: (813) 229-1118
          Facsimile: (813) 221-6750
          E-mail: kyanes@kmf-law.com

               - and -

          Gus M. Centrone, Esq.
          Brian L. Shrader, Esq.
          CENTRONE & SHRADER, LLC
          612 W. Bay Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 360-1529
          E-mail: gcentrone@centroneshrader.com
                  bshrader@centroneshrader.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Hurtes, Esq.
          Laura E. Vendzules, Esq.
          BLANK ROME, LLP
          Broward Financial Centre
          500 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 2100
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 512-1813
          Facsimile: (954) 512-1783
          E-mail: dhurtes@blankrome.com
                  lvendzules@blankrome.com


GREEN TREE: Court Grants Class Certification Bid in "Grubb" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Freda L. Wolfson entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned CAROL GRUBB, on behalf of herself, and all others
similarly situated v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-
25, Case No. 3:13-cv-07421-FLW-TJB (D.N.J.):

   -- denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and

   -- granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES WOLF & KAPASI LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

Defendant Green Tree Servicing, LLC, is represented by:

          Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL, L.L.P.
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-8238
          Facsimile: (215) 864-9511
          E-mail: Bryce@ballardspahr.com


GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Workers Under FLSA, Norris Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON NORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P., Case No. 3:17-cv-
01956-K (N.D. Tex., July 24, 2017), alleges that the Defendant
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay its
workers for all hours of work at the rates required by the FLSA.

Greystar Management Services, L.P., is a limited partnership
authorized to do business and that does business in the state of
Texas.  Greystar is a property management company that does
business in Texas and elsewhere.[BN]

The 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
          Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                  forester@l-b-law.com
                  gasper@l-b-law.com

               - and -

          Jill J. Weinberg, Esq.
          WEINBERG LAW FIRM, PLLC
          6425 Willow Creek Drive
          Plano, TX 75093
          Telephone: (972) 403-3330
          Facsimile: (972) 398-8846
          E-mail: jillwlfirm@gmail.com


H-MART LOGISTICS: Cruz-Gomez Alleges No Time-keeping, Break Time
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Cruz-Gomez, an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. H-Mart Logistics, Inc. and H-
Mart Companies, Inc., California corporations and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC670822 (Cal. Super., August
3, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon,
redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal 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 and failure to maintain time-keeping
records, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code
and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

H Mart Logistics is a freight-forwarding service under the
umbrella of H Mart Companies, Inc. -- https://nj.hmart.com/ -- an
Asian grocery store chain based in New Jersey. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Dalia R. Khalili, Esq.
      Irina A. Kirnosova, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
      Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
             dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com
             ikirnosova@maternlawgroup.com


HABITAT COMPANY: Ogletree Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Torando Ogletree, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees v. The Habitat Company of Alabama, LLC And The Habitat
Company LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01304-TMP (N.D. Ala., August 3,
2017), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act 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 FLSA.

The Habitat Company of Alabama, LLC, is an Illinois Limited
Liability Company that was/is registered to do business in
Alabama.  The Defendants managed several apartment properties in
Jefferson and/or Shelby County, Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HABITAT COMPANY: Violates FLSA Overtime Provision, Rutledge Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Rutledge, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees v. The Habitat Company of Alabama, LLC And The Habitat
Company LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01305-AKK (N.D. Ala., August 3,
2017), alleges that the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
worked in excess of 40 hours per week and were not paid overtime
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Habitat Company of Alabama, LLC, is an Illinois Limited
Liability Company that was/is registered to do business in
Alabama.  The Habitat Company LLC is the sole owner/member and/or
manager of Habitat AL.  The Defendants managed several apartment
properties in Jefferson and/or Shelby County, Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HANEY TRUCK: Faces "Brennan" Suit in W.D. of Wash.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haney Truck Line,
LLC.  The case is styled as Charles Brennan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Haney Truck
Line, LLC, an Oregon Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
05612 (W.D. Wash., August 4, 2017).

Haney Truck Line is a trucking company dedicated to
professionalizing the heavy haul trucking industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Saltzberg" Suit in C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Depot, U.S.A.,
Inc.  The case is styled as Katherine Saltzberg, individually, on
behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., a Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05798 (C.D.
Cal., August 4, 2017).

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. owns and operates The Home Depot retail
stores throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HOME DEPOT: Removes "Wezel-Peterson" Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Andreas Wezel-Peterson v. Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc., et al., Case No. BC662135, was removed on July 14, 2017,
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-05199-MWF-JC to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from civil rights-related issues.[BN]

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., doing business as The Home Depot, owns
and operates home improvement retail stores. The company offers
building materials, home improvement, lawn and garden, and
kitchen, lighting, storage, and flooring design products.  The
Company was incorporated in 1989 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. operates as a subsidiary of The Home
Depot, Inc.

Plaintiff Andreas Wezel-Peterson, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David P. Myers, Esq.
          Ann Hendrix, Esq.
          Jason T. Hatcher, Esq.
          MYERS LAW GROUP APC
          9327 Fairway View Place, Suite 100
          Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
          Telephone: (909) 919-2027
          Facsimile: (888) 375-2102
          E-mail: dmyers@myerslawgroup.com
                  ahendrix@myerslawgroup.com
                  jhatcher@myerslawgroup.com

Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware Corporation

          John R. Lawless, Jr., Esq.
          KING AND SPALDING LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
          E-mail: jlawless@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth D. Adler, Esq.
          Sidney Stewart Haskins, Esq.
          KING AND SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: eadler@kslaw.com
                  shaskins@kslaw.com


HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL: Court Denies King's Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Brian S. Miller denied the motion to certify class filed
in the lawsuit titled SAVOIL KING and DOROTHY KING, for themselves
and all Arkansas residents similarly situated v. HOMEWARD
RESIDENTIAL, INC. and OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00183-BSM (E.D. Ark.).

The Motion is denied because the proposed class definition does
not satisfy Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge
Miller wrote in the order.

Plaintiffs Dorothy and Savoil King first filed the class action
complaint on July 28, 2014, asserting claims under the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment.  On May 9,
2017, notice of Savoil King's death was filed, and so Plaintiff
Dorothy King is henceforth referred to in the singular.  Ms. King
claims she purchased a home in 1994, her mortgage was serviced by
Homeward and Ocwen and the mortgage contract expressly gave her
servicer the right to purchase insurance for her home and charge
her  for ("force place") it if she allowed the insurance on the
home to lapse or become inadequate.

Ms. King claims that, despite having insurance coverage on her
home, the Defendants wrongfully force placed insurance on her home
twice, once for a period of approximately two years.

The proposed class includes all citizens of Arkansas who a) had a
mortgage or deed of trust securing a loan on real estate within
the state of Arkansas, b) where the loan was serviced by Homeward,
c) where Homeward force placed insurance on such property and
demanded the premiums be paid to it, and d) who, from June 5,
2009, through the date of entry of an order certifying the class,
paid or who still owe premiums for the force place insurance
secured by Homeward.

According to the Order, Ms. King has also moved for leave to
reveal confidential Rule 408 negotiations to demonstrate that she
is an adequate representative because she is not susceptible to
accepting a "low dollar settlement offer" and "to provide a full
explanation of the issues involving the unjust enrichment claim
and the mid-August 2014 premium return."

"That motion [Doc. No. 141] is denied because the points King
seeks to prove by revealing confidential negotiations are not
relevant to the decision rendered in this order denying
certification," Judge Miller rules.  "King's request that a ruling
on the defendants' motion for summary judgment be deferred until
after the close of discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56(d), see Doc. No. 133, is denied as moot because the
discovery deadline was June 16, 2017," Judge Miller adds.

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


HSBC BANK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Schwartz" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Schwartz v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 14-cv-
9525, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant has violated, and continues to violate,
certain provisions of the Truth in Lending Act and its
implementing regulation.  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendant (i) improperly imposed a late fee and finance charge
on Plaintiff's timely payment, and failed to disclose the penalty
annual percentage rate (APR) applicable to the Plaintiff's
account.

The appellate case is captioned as Schwartz v. HSBC Bank USA,
N.A., Case No. 17-2309, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Bruce Schwartz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Brian Lewis Bromberg, Esq.
          BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          26 Broadway
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 248-7906
          Facsimile: (212) 248-7908
          E-mail: brian@bromberglawoffice.com

               - and -

          Harley Schnall, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HARLEY J. SCHNALL
          711 West End Avenue
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 678-6546
          Facsimile: (212) 678-0322
          E-mail: hschnall@hotmail.com

Defendant-Appellant HSBC Bank USA, N.A., is represented by:

          Louis Smith, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          500 Campus Drive
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 360-7915
          E-mail: smithlo@gtlaw.com


IBM CORP: Watts Challenges Policies on Earned Vacation Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS WATTS, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
a New York Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-05531 (C.D. Cal., July
26, 2017), sues over alleged systemic illegal employment practices
resulting in violations of the California Labor Code, Business and
Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage
orders against employees of IBM.

As a result of its illegal policies, practices and customs,
Plaintiff alleges that, among other things, he and similarly
situated employees were not paid all legally earned and accrued
and unused vacation wages and personal choice holiday wages during
or upon the termination of employment, but instead had such wages
forfeited.

International Business Machines Corporation is a New York
corporation registered with the California Secretary of State and
doing business in the state of California.  The Company provides
information technology products and services worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          Peter Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
          12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-0109
          Facsimile: (509) 561-6441
          E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Williams" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMIELOU WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.,
an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. RG17870167 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., August 3,
2017), accuses the Defendants of failure to pay overtime and to
provide legally required meal periods, among other failures.

Impax Laboratories, Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that develops, manufactures, and markets bioequivalent
pharmaceutical products.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com


INTERNATIONAL HEALTH: "McIntyre" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Camilla McIntyre, Individually and on behalf of all other
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. International Health
Care Consultants, Inc. and Lois E. Peters, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-02201 (D. Md., August 4, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law.

Defendants operate hospice facilities in Mt. Airy, Burtonsville,
and Columbia MD. These facilities provide care for sick and
elderly people. Plaintiff worked as live-in home health aides,
bathing the residents, cooking, checking the residents' vital
signs, cleaning, doing laundry and occasionally administering
medication to the residents. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan Lescht, Esq.
      Susan Kruger, Esq.
      Rani Rolston, Esq.
      ALAN LESCHT AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1050 17th Street, N.W., Suite 400
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Tel: (202) 463-6036
      Fax: (202) 463-6067
      Email: alan.lescht@leschtlaw.com
             susan.kruger@leschtlaw.com
             rani.rolston@leschtlaw.com


INTRUST BANK: Sued by Locicero for Violating Truth in Lending Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCA D. LOCICERO, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. INTRUST BANK, N.A., a national
banking association, and GREENSKY, LLC, a Georgia limited
liability company, Case No. 0:17-cv-61484-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 25,
2017), is an action for violation of the Truth in Lending Act and
the regulations promulgated thereunder, seeking damages, interest,
costs and attorney's fees.

Ms. Locicero alleges, among other things, that INTRUST violated
TILA and Regulation Z with respect to the finance agreements
represented by the Locicero Loan Agreement she and the other
members of the class entered into by failing to properly deliver
all "material disclosures" as required by TILA and Regulation Z
prior to consummation of the finance transaction.

INTRUST Bank is a banking corporation organized in the State of
Kansas.  INTRUST is in the business of extending credit to
consumers for personal and household purposes.

GreenSky, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company doing
business in the State of Florida.  GreenSky operates as a third
party service provider and program administrator for federally
insured, federal, and state chartered banks that provide consumer
loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW FIRM
          1212 S.E. 2nd Avenue
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763-8660
          Facsimile: (954) 763-8607
          E-mail: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com


JONES LANG: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Haynes Says
---------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS HAYNES, Individually v. JLL a/k/a JONES LANG LASALLE
AMERICAS, INC. d/b/a THE GALLERIA AT FORT LAUDERDALE, an Illinois
for profit corporation, Case No. 0:17-cv-61393-FAM (S.D. Fla.,
July 12, 2017), alleges that certain features of the Defendant's
Web site -- http://www.galleriamall-fl.com/-- are inaccessible to
the visually impaired, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

JLL, also known as JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC., and doing
business as The Galleria at Fort Lauderdale, is an Illinois for
profit corporation.  JLL owns, operates, leases or leases a
regional mall with specialty stores and eateries, in the state of
Florida, and Broward County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathy L. Houston, Esq.
          THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
          15321 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 205
          Miami, FL 33157
          Telephone: (305) 420-6609
          Facsimile: (786) 441-4416
          E-mail: courtdocs@houstonlawfl.com

               - and -

          Thomas B. Bacon, Esq.
          THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
          644 North Mc Donald St.
          Mt. Dora, FL 32757
          Telephone: (954) 478-7811
          E-mail: tbb@thomasbaconlaw.com


JR ASIAN: Liang Wants to Recover Unpaid Wages and OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zhaolin Liang, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. JR Asian Fusion, Inc. d/b/a JR Asian Fusion,
Yanyu Chen, Jiaohao "Doe," Case No. 2:17-cv-04367 (E.D.N.Y., July
24, 2017), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Plaintiff and proposed class members are entitled to: (i)
compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum
wage; (ii) unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for
which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by
law; and (iii) liquidated damages.

JR Asian Fusion is a New York corporation with a principal place
of business at in Long Beach, New York.  The Individual Defendants
are owners or part owners and principals of JR Asian Fusion.  The
Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com


KILOO APS: Faces "Subway Surfers" Privacy Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser on Aug. 1 disclosed that parents in California and
New York have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves
and their children alleging that the popular mobile app game
Subway Surfers violates privacy protection laws by exporting their
children's personal information to advertising networks without
obtaining required parental consent.

The suit is brought against the two Danish companies, Kiloo ApS
and Sybo ApS, that developed Subways Surfers, a game directed to
children under 13 years of age, which, with more than a billion
downloads, is one of the most played games worldwide.

The suit also alleges that certain other Kiloo or Sybo game apps
also violate privacy laws.  The other games referenced in the
complaint are Frisbee Forever, Frisbee Forever 2, Spellbinders,
Smash Champs, Tesla Tubes, Storm Blades, and Blades of Brim.

Also named as defendants in the suit are the companies that
embedded software in Subway Surfers to collect and export the
children's personal information.  These defendant ad tech
companies are AdColony, Chartboost, Flurry, Inc. and Altaba Inc.,
InMobi Inc. and InMobi Pte. Ltd, Ironsource Ltd. and Ironsource
USA, Inc., Tapjoy, Inc. and Vungle, Inc.  Plaintiffs allege that
Kiloo and Sybo allowed ad tech companies to embed their tracking
software into their gaming apps to collect, use, and disclose
their children's personal data in order to target them with
advertisements.

In 1999, Congress enacted the Children's Online Privacy Protection
Act ("COPPA") to protect the safety and privacy of children
online, and the autonomy of their parents, by providing parents
the means to halt developers and third-party advertisers from
snooping on and profiting from their children.

Many parents do not know that countless web and smartphone apps,
including those created for children, are engineered to unlawfully
exploit and commercialize underage users' activity through hidden
tracking technologies.  As alleged in the complaint, these
technologies unlawfully and surreptitiously collect and send data,
including the users' personal information, from the mobile device
or tablet to third-parties.  App developers and other third-
parties then reap millions of dollars in profit from this personal
information through lucrative targeted advertising.

The parents of the minor children brought the lawsuit seeking an
injunction to force the defendants to cease tracking the personal
information of children without obtaining parental consent and to
bring defendants in compliance with the principles of COPPA and as
required by state law.  The parents also seek damages as may be
permitted under some state laws.

Notice to Parents on Child Privacy Violations in Games and Apps

If your child uses an internet-connected game device and you
suspect your child's personal information may have been improperly
acquired or used, you may contact us about your potential case.
Our no-obligation review is free, and the information you provide
will help us hold companies accountable for COPPA privacy
violations or any other data improprieties that have occurred.

                    About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser is committed to helping parents protect their
children, their privacy, and their children's information in a
world where electronic toys and games and digital devices with
inherent security vulnerabilities are growing more and more
pervasive.  Its lawyers possess extensive experience and the
requisite technological background to successfully assess and
litigate all manner of privacy claims.  It represents individuals
in precedent-setting cases impacting hundreds of millions of
Americans against prominent technology, social media, and
entertainment corporations for alleged violations of digital
privacy rights, data overreaching, and the failure to protect
critically-sensitive information.

            About Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC

Carney Bates & Pulliam is a law firm based in Little Rock,
Arkansas that specializes in class action litigation. [GN]


KIND LLC: Fights Bid to Lift Stay on "All Natural" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
J. R. Pegg, writing for IEG Policy, reports that Kind LLC has
asked a federal judge not to lift a stay on a complaint that
alleges the company has deceived consumers by using "all natural"
on its snack food product labels, disputing the plaintiffs'
assertion that FDA's attempt to define "natural" has stalled under
the Trump administration. [GN]


KOTOBUKI RESTAURANT: "Yu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
SHENG WEI YU and AIMEE LACADEN, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. KOTOBUKI RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a Kotobuki
d/b/a Kotobuki-Hauppauge, KOTOBUKI ROSLYN, INC. d/b/a Kotobuki,
d/b/a Kotobuki-Roslyn, KOTOBUKI BABYLON, INC. d/b/a Kotobuki,
d/b/a Kotobuki-Babylon, KOTOBUKI MANHATTAN, INC. d/b/a Kotobuki
d/b/a Kotobuki-Manhattan, KOTOBUKI MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a
Kotobuki, and YOSHIHIRO NARITA, Case No. 2:17-cv-04202-ADS-AYS
(E.D.N.Y, July 14, 2017), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiffs are
entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wage,
(2) unpaid overtime wages, (3) liquidated damages, (4) prejudgment
and post-judgment interest; and (5) attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants operate a group of Japanese restaurants doing
business as "Kotobuki."

Kotobuki Restaurant, Inc., doing business as Kotobuki, doing
business as Kotobuki-Hauppauge, is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the state of New York with a principal
address at 377 Nesconset Highway, in Hauppauge, New York.
Kotobuki Roslyn, Inc., doing business as Kotobuki, doing business
as Kotobuki-Roslyn, is a domestic business corporation organized
under the laws of the state of New York with a principal address
at 1530 Old Northern Boulevard, in Roslyn, New York.

Kotobuki Babylon, Inc., doing business as Kotobuki, doing business
as Kotobuki-Babylon, is a domestic business corporation organized
under the laws of the state of New York with a principal address
at 86 Deer Park Avenue, in Babylon, New York.  Kotobuki Manhattan,
Inc., doing business as Kotobuki, doing business as Kotobuki-
Manhattan, is a domestic business corporation organized under the
laws of the state of New York with a principal address at 56 Third
Avenue, in New York City.

Kotobuki Management, Inc., doing business as Kotobuki, is a
domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the
state of New York with a principal address at 3 Russell Road, in
Garden City, New York.  Yoshihiro Narita is an officer, director,
manager, majority shareholder or owner of the Corporate
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Sought in "Spengler" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits entitled Michael R. Spengler, et
al. v. Los Angeles County Jail, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-06509-
DOC-SP, 2:16-cv-06880-DOC-SP and 2:17-cv-01809-DOC-SP (C.D. Cal.),
moves for class certification.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of inmates in Los Angeles,
California, for violations of the First Amendment rights,
retaliation and other issues.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to assign a counsel to represent
them.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M3b3Ig7P


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Plumbers Seeks Certification in "Luna" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, one of the
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DANIEL LUNA, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY
GROUP, LTD., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-05447-WHA (N.D. Cal.), seeks
certification of the case as a class action on behalf of a class
consisting of:

     All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
     the common stock of Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.
     ("Marvell" or the "Company") during the period from
     November 20, 2014 through December 7, 2015, inclusive (the
     "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby.  Excluded from
     the Class are Defendants, present or former executive
     officers of Marvell and their immediate family members (as
     defined in 17 C.F.R. Section 229.404, Instructions
     (1)(a)(iii) and (1)(b)(ii)).

The Fund also asks the Court to appoint it as Class
Representative, and to appoint Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as
Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 9, 2017, at 8:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6fjMazwj

Plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund is
represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          Nadim G. Hegazi, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
                  nhegazi@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Jonah H. Goldstein, Esq.
          Scott H. Saham, Esq.
          Matthew I. Alpert, Esq.
          Carissa J. Dolan, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: jonahg@rgrdlaw.com
                  scotts@rgrdlaw.com
                  malpert@rgrdlaw.com
                  cdolan@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Louis P. Malone, Esq.
          O'DONOGHUE & O'DONOGHUE LLP
          4748 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 362-0041
          Facsimile: (202) 362-2640
          E-mail: lmalone@odonoghuelaw.com

Defendant Marvell Technology Group LTD is represented by:

          Harry Arthur Olivar, Jr., Esq.
          Jason Frank Lake, Esq.
          Valerie Suzanne Roddy, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 S Figueroa St., 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 443-3176
          Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
          E-mail: harryolivar@quinnemanuel.com
                  jasonlake@quinnemanuel.com
                  valerieroddy@quinneemanuel.com


MAXIM HEALTH: Faces "Crandall" Suit in C.D. of Calf.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maxim Health Care
Services, Inc.  The case is styled as Dilcia Crandall,
individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Maxim Health Care Services, Inc, a
corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 8:17-cv-01344 (C.D. Cal., August 2, 2017).

Maxim Healthcare Services is a privately held medical staffing
company headquartered in Columbia, Maryland.[BN]

Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MDL 2668: Ninth Inning Files Appeal in Sunday Ticket Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ninth Inning, Inc., 1465 Third Avenue Restaurant Corp.,
Robert Gary Lippincott, Jr. and Michael Holinko filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the multidistrict litigation titled In re:
National Football League's "Sunday Ticket" Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 2:15-ml-02668-BRO-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Ninth Inning, Inc., et al. v.
DIRECTV, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-56119, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 19,
2017, Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell dismissed the lawsuit, which
claims that the NFL's exclusive DirecTV package violated antitrust
law, saying that the Court saw no evidence of conspiracy,
collusion or significant harm to football fans or bars showing the
games.

The Plaintiffs in the consolidated multidistrict litigation were
the bars and restaurants that ponied up thousands of dollars each
year for DirecTV's "Sunday Ticket" package, which allows their
customers to see not only the games airing on local broadcast
television, but also the out-of-market ones.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 28, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 27, 2017;

   -- Appellants 1465 Third Avenue Restaurant Corp., Michael
      Holinko, Robert Gary Lippincott Jr. and Ninth Inning,
      Inc.'s opening brief is due on January 4, 2018;

   -- Appellees Arizona Cardinals, Inc., Atlanta Falcons Football
      Club LLC, Baltimore Ravens, LP, Buccaneers, LP, Buffalo
      Bills, Inc., Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc., Cincinnati
      Bengals, Inc., Cleveland Browns, LLC, DIRECTV Holdings,
      LLC, DIRECTV, LLC, Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd.,
      Denver Broncos Football Club, Detroit Lions, Inc., Football
      Northwest LLC, Green Bay Packers, Inc., Houston NFL
      Holdings, LP, Indianapolis Colts, Inc., Jacksonville
      Jaguars, Ltd., Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc.,
      Miami Dolphins, Ltd., Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC,
      NFL Enterprises, LLC, National Football League, Inc., New
      England Patriots, LP, New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC,
      New York Football Giants, Inc., New York Jets Football
      Club, Inc., Oakland Raiders, LP, Panthers Football, LLC,
      Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, Inc., Pittsburgh
      Steelers Sports, Inc., San Diego Chargers Football Co., San
      Francisco Forty Niners, Ltd., Tennessee Football, Inc., The
      Rams Football Company, LLC and Washington Football, Inc.'s
      answering brief is due on February 5, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants NINTH INNING, INC., DBA The Mucky Duck; 1465
THIRD AVENUE RESTAURANT CORP., DBA Gael Pub; ROBERT GARY
LIPPINCOTT, Jr.; and MICHAEL HOLINKO, an individual, for himself
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          William C. Carmody, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-8334
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6039
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: clebsock@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  bsweeney@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Peter E. Leckman, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          E-mail: pleckman@altshulerberzon.com

Defendants-Appellees DIRECTV, LLC, and DIRECTV HOLDINGS, LLC, are
represented by:

          Robyn Eileen Bladow, Esq.
          Melissa Dawn Ingalls, Esq.
          Tammy Tsoumas, Esq.
          Michael E. Baumann, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: robyn.bladow@kirkland.com
                  mingalls@kirkland.com
                  ttsoumas@kirkland.com
                  mbaumann@kirkland.com

Defendants-Appellees NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC.; NFL
ENTERPRISES, LLC; ARIZONA CARDINALS, INC.; ATLANTA FALCONS
FOOTBALL CLUB LLC; BALTIMORE RAVENS, LP; BUFFALO BILLS, INC.;
PANTHERS FOOTBALL, LLC; CHICAGO BEARS FOOTBALL CLUB, INC.;
CINCINNATI BENGALS, INC.; CLEVELAND BROWNS, LLC; DALLAS COWBOYS
FOOTBALL CLUB, LTD.; DETROIT LIONS, INC.; GREEN BAY PACKERS, INC.;
HOUSTON NFL HOLDINGS, LP; INDIANAPOLIS COLTS, INC.; JACKSONVILLE
JAGUARS, LTD.; KANSAS CITY CHIEFS FOOTBALL CLUB, INC.; MIAMI
DOLPHINS, LTD.; MINNESOTA VIKINGS FOOTBALL CLUB, LLC; NEW ENGLAND
PATRIOTS, LP; NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA SAINTS, LLC; NEW YORK FOOTBALL
GIANTS, INC.; NEW YORK JETS FOOTBALL CLUB, INC.; OAKLAND RAIDERS,
LP; PHILADELPHIA EAGLES FOOTBALL CLUB, INC.; PITTSBURGH STEELERS
SPORTS, INC.; SAN DIEGO CHARGERS FOOTBALL CO.; SAN FRANCISCO FORTY
NINERS, LTD.; THE RAMS FOOTBALL COMPANY, LLC; BUCCANEERS, LP;
TENNESSEE FOOTBALL, INC.; WASHINGTON FOOTBALL, INC.; FOOTBALL
NORTHWEST LLC; and DENVER BRONCOS FOOTBALL CLUB are represented
by:

          Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq.
          WILKINSON WALSH & ESKOVITZ
          1900 M Street N.W., 8th Floor
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 847-4010
          Facsimile: (202) 867-4005
          E-mail: bwilkinson@wilkinsonwalsh.com

               - and -

          Sean Eskovitz, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-9178
          Facsimile: (213) 683-5178
          E-mail: sean.eskovitz@mto.com

               - and -

          Derek Ludwin, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          850 Tenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001-4956
          Telephone: (202) 662-5429
          E-mail: dludwin@cov.com


MERCHANDISING SOLUTIONS: Misclassifies Merchandisers, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Lewallen, an individual, on behalf of himself, and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Merchandising
Solutions Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17870211 (Cal. Super.,
August 3, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon,
redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal 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, failure to maintain time-keeping
records, failure to provide one day-off per week, injunctive
relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and interest under California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Wage Orders.

Merchandising Solutions Group supports manufacturers in
merchandising retail environments in the areas of product
appearance and brand name improvement throughout the United States
and Canada, specifically cycle visits, new store roll-outs,
remodels or resets, direct store delivery pull-up service, fixture
installations, graphic installations, in-store promotional events,
store audits, project management and assembly.

Plaintiff worked as a merchandiser for the Defendants. She claims
to have been misclassified as an independent contractor. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
      BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP
      2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (805)212-5124
      Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
      E-Mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
              kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com


MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT: Faces "Dematteis" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchants & Medical
Credit Corporation.  The case is styled as George Dematteis and
Lilyan Dematteis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Merchants & Medical Credit
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04566 (E.D.N.Y., August
3, 2017).

Merchants & Medical is a collection agency which provides
adjustment and collection services for insurance and financial
sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Averts Debt Collection Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Angela Underwood, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago federal judge has turned aside, for now, an attempt to
turn a dispute over a debt collection into a class action, saying
the evidence supplied by plaintiffs in the case -- a collection
letter which allegedly violated federal law -- is not enough to
justify the request to expand the lawsuit to include others who
may have received similar letters.

In a July 24 ruling, U.S. District Judge Joan B. Gottschallcourt
denied plaintiff Daniel Hernandez's attempt to certify his case
under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case as a
class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, saying
"going beyond the limited inquiry required and addressing the
merits before class certification puts the cart before the horse
because a motion to certify a class asks the court to decide at
the earliest preliminary stage."

In 2015, defendant Midland Credit Management served Hernandez a
letter on Oct. 5 through the Circuit Court of Cook County after
sending him a summons for a debt collection lawsuit.  The letter
claimed that if he was unable to resolve the financial matter by
exact payoff or by a reasonable payment plan, Hernandez would face
judgment, as charges would continue to incur.

However, Mr. Hernandez alleged the debt form letter "ran afoul of
several FDCPA prohibitions," noting "[a] debt collector may not
use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of any debt."

Mr. Hernandez argued for a class certification, emphasizing "under
Illinois law, statutory court costs are not available before
defendant obtains a judgment, so the October 5 letter falsely and
misleadingly implied that defendant had a right to collect court
costs when it sent the letter."

Citing the 2011 decision Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v Dukes, Judge
Gottschall said in her opinion, since Hernandez is the party
seeking certification, he "bears the burden to persuade the court
by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed class meets
Rule 23's certification requirements."

Judge Gottschall added "as written, the class definition includes
an amorphous group of people who received communications
'similarly in the form of the October 5th Letter.'"

"Nevertheless, the proposed class definition supplies no objective
way to decide whether a communication is substantially similar to
the October 5 letter, which can be found in its entirety in this
record," Judge Gottschall said.  "Because plaintiff has failed to
show that the proposed class's composition is ascertainable using
objective criteria, the court . . . denies plaintiff's motion to
certify."

A status conference regarding the case was scheduled for Aug. 2.

Mr. Hernandez is represented in the action by the Zamparo Law
Group, of Hoffman Estates, and Francis & Mailman, of Philadelphia.

Midland is defended by the firm of Dykema Gossett, of Chicago.
[GN]


MINNESOTA, USA: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Jensen" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al., filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled James Jensen,
et al. v. MN Dept. of Human Services, et al., Case No. 0:09-cv-
01775-DWF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota - Minneapolis.

The Defendants-Appellants are Minnesota Department of Human
Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Director, Minnesota
Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department
of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Clinical
Director, the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of
the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State
of Minnesota; Douglas Bratvold, individually, and as Director of
the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a progam of the
Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of
Minnesota; Scott TenNapel, individually, and as Clinicial Director
of the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the
Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of
Minnesota; and State of Minnesota.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 11,
2017, Judge Donovan W. Frank overruled the Defendants' objection
to the Court's continuing jurisdiction over the case.

The case began nearly eight years ago, on July 10, 2009, when the
Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants asserting
multiple violations of federal and state law arising out of
allegations of "abusive, inhumane, cruel and improper use of
seclusion and mechanical restraints routinely imposed upon
patients of the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options program
(METO).  Following extensive negotiations, the parties entered
into a Stipulated Class Action Settlement Agreement.

The Agreement provides for the closure of the METO facility,
establishes requirements regarding restraint and seclusion at
successor facilities, and establishes requirements for the
Department of Human Services (DHS) to internally and externally
monitor restraint use.  The Agreement also provides that the State
shall exercise "best efforts" for appropriate discharge of
residents to the most integrated setting through transition
planning.  In addition, the Agreement imposes requirements
relating to other practices at METO and its successor facilities
such as staff training.

The appellate case is captioned as James Jensen, et al. v. MN
Dept. of Human Services, et al., Case No. 17-2653, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees James Jensen; Lorie Jensen, as parents,
guardians and next friends of Bradley J. Jensen and others
similarly situated; James Brinker; Darren Allen, as parents,
guardians and next friends of Thomas M. Allbrink and others
similarly situated; and Elizabeth Jacobs, as parent, guardian and
next friend of Jason R. Jacobs and others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Mark R. Azman, Esq.
          Shamus P. O'Meara, Esq.
          O'MEARA LEER WAGNER & KOHL, PA
          7401 Metro Boulevard, Suite 600
          Minneapolis, MN 55439-3034
          Telephone: (952) 831-6544
          E-mail: mrazman@olwklaw.com
                  spomeara@olwklaw.com

Defendants-Appellants Minnesota Department of Human Services, an
agency of the State of Minnesota and State of Minnesota are
represented by:

          Anthony R. Noss, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          Bremer Tower
          445 Minnesota Street
          Saint Paul, MN 55101-2127
          Telephone: (651) 296-9412
          E-mail: anthony.noss@ag.state.mn.us

Defendants-Appellants Minnesota Department of Human Services, an
agency of the State of Minnesota; Director, Minnesota Extended
Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human
Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Clinical Director,
the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the
Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of
Minnesota; Douglas Bratvold, individually, and as Director of the
Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a progam of the Minnesota
Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota;
Scott TenNapel, individually, and as Clinicial Director of the
Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota
Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota;
and State of Minnesota are represented by:

          Scott Hiromi Ikeda, Esq.
          Aaron Edward Winter, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          Bremer Tower
          445 Minnesota Street
          Saint Paul, MN 55101-2127
          Telephone: (651) 296-9412
          E-mail: scott.ikeda@ag.state.mn.us
                  aaron.winter@ag.state.mn.us

Defendant-Appellant Scott TenNapel, individually, and as Clinical
Director of the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of
the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State
of Minnesota, is represented by:

          Scott Hiromi Ikeda, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          Bremer Tower
          445 Minnesota Street
          Saint Paul, MN 55101-2127
          Telephone: (651) 296-9412
          E-mail: scott.ikeda@ag.state.mn.us

               - and -

          Samuel Orbovich, Esq.
          Christopher A. Stafford, Esq.
          FREDRIKSON & BYRON, PA
          200 S. Sixth Street, Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425
          Telephone: (612) 492-7000
          E-mail: sorbovich@fredlaw.com
                  cstafford@fredlaw.com


MISSOURI: Corrections Department Sued Over Parole Process
---------------------------------------------------------
Dave D'Marko, writing for Fox 4 News, reports that a 2016 U.S.
Supreme Court ruling looked like it would give juveniles serving
life sentences without parole a chance at freedom.  But now the
Missouri Department of Corrections is facing a class action
lawsuit alleging the state's parole process isn't giving those
inmates a fair shot at being released.

The family of Johnathan Collier, 43, was one of more than 80
Missouri families hoping the Supreme Court ruling would lead to
their loved one's release.

The adult who Mr. Collier says shot into a Raytown home and killed
a man was out of prison after 15 years. Mr. Collier, 17 at the
time, was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for
the 1990 murder.

But in the 2012 ruling "Miller vs Alabama" the U.S. Supreme Court
called sentences like Collier's unconstitutional.  In 2016 it
ruled all such sentences prior to 2012 should be reviewed.

Kansas City attorney Kent Gipson represents nine Missouri inmates
affected by the Supreme Court ruling.

"I thought it was clear they were illegally sentenced and the
obvious remedy would just be to send them back to be re-sentenced.
Boy was I wrong!" Mr. Gipson exclaimed.

"We couldn't believe it, how could this happen?" Mr. Collier's
grandmother Lily Booker said of the parole board's decision to
deny her grandson parole.

"The Supreme Court announcing they were going to change the ruling
for anyone 18 and under reverse it and then not go through with
their word?"

The issue is Missouri's interpretation of the Supreme Court
ruling.  Unlike many states, juvenile offenders aren't getting new
sentences, instead they can get parole hearings after 25 years.
But Gipson says the hearings without witnesses or legal counsel
appear to be just for show.

"None of these men who have been up for parole have gotten out,"
Mr. Gipson said.

The MacArthur Justice Center says only three of the 23 who have
had parole hearings were given parole dates in the future.  The
St. Louis-based group is suing the Missouri Department of
Corrections for what it calls "the blatant disregard of the
constitutional rights of youthful offenders.

"This has really turned into a big mess.  We're going to be
litigating these cases for the rest of my lifetime.  I just told
one of my client, I hope it's not for the rest of their lifetime,"
Mr. Gipson said.

Mr. Collier's family says he works as a pastor at South Central
Correctional Center teaching young inmates.

"I pray that I will live long enough to see him be free,"
Ms. Booker said.

"The older I get the more I need him to be home to help me," said
his mother Joann McCray, who suffers from cerebral palsy.

Mr. Collier can ask for another parole hearing in five years. His
attorney plans to file an appeal with the court this month.

The Missouri Department of Corrections did not return calls
seeking comment on the class action lawsuit. [GN]


MONOGRAM RESIDENTIAL: "Klein" Suit Balks at Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Monogram Residential Trust, Inc., Mark T.
Alfieri, E. Alan Patton, W. Benjamin Moreland, Tammy K. Jones,
David D. Fitch, Jonathan L. Kempner And Timothy J. Pire,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02211 (D. Md., August 4, 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 Monogram by Greystar Real Estate
Partners, rescissory damages in case the merger pushes through,
reasonable allowance for Plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.

Company shareholders stand to receive $12.00 in cash for each
share of Monogram stock they own representing $3.0 billion in
total value. Plaintiff, a Monogram stockholder, claims that merger
amount is inadequate in light of the company's recent financial
performance and prospects for future growth.

Monogram is a self-managed real estate investment trust that
invests in, develops and operates multifamily communities offering
location and lifestyle amenities. [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
      Email: denright@zlk.com


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Allia Wants to Enjoin ADVA NA's Tender Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER ALLIA, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. MRV COMMUNICATIONS, INC., KEN TRAUB, ROBERT PONS, MARK
J. BONNEY, JEANNIE H. DIEFENDERFER, BRIAN BELLINGER, JEFFREY
TUDER, ADVA NA HOLDINGS, INC., and GOLDEN ACQUISITION CORPORATION,
Case No. 2:17-cv-05434 (C.D. Cal., July 24, 2017), seeks to enjoin
a tender offer currently scheduled to expire at 12:00 midnight,
Eastern time, at the end of the day on August 11, 2017.

Upon the successful completion of the Tender Offer, ADVA NA shall
acquire each outstanding share of MRVC common stock for $10 per
share in cash.

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a July
3, 2017 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form
8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger.
Notably, the Plaintiff says, the terms of the Merger Agreement
require that stockholders tender only one share more than 50% of
the sum of the total number of shares of MRVC stock then
outstanding at the time of the expiration of the Offer.

Mr. Allia contends that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders by agreeing to a transaction
that undervalues MRVC and is the result of a flawed sales process.
Post-closure, MRVC stockholders will be frozen out of seeing the
return on their investment of any and all future profitability of
MRVC, he argues.

MRVC is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Chatsworth, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  MRVC,
incorporated on March 9, 1992, is a supplier of communications
solutions to telecommunications service providers, enterprises and
governments throughout the world.  The Company's products enable
customers to provide high-bandwidth data, and video services and
mobile communications services.

ADVA NA holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation and a party to
the Merger Agreement.  Golden Acquisition Corporation is a
Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a
party to the Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com


MULTNOMAH COUNTY: "Percy" Suit Alleges Racial Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Albert E. Percy and Carl evans individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Complaining Parties and Class
Plaintiffs, v. Multnomah County Oregon, Deborah Kafoury as
Chairman of the Board of Multnomah County and Jane Doe and John
Doe, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01216 (D. Or., August 4, 2017),
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under the Civil Rights Act
of 1964.

Plaintiffs are on-the-job applicants for positions in the County's
construction contracts for the building of public works
facilities. They claim racial discrimination in the selection
process. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shawn Morgan, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF SHAWN MORGAN
     6510 SE Foster Rd. Ste. D
     Portland OR 97206
     Telephone: (503) 498-8528
     Email: Shawn@morganlawpdx.com

            - and -

     James M. Kernan, Esq.
     KERNAN PROFESSIONAL GROUP, LLP
     26 Broadway, 19th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Telephone: (212)986-3196
     Facsimile: (212)656-1213
     Email: jkernan@kernanllp.com


MUSICIANS PENSION FUND: Violates ERISA, "Snitzer" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW SNITZER and PAUL LIVANT, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on
behalf of the American Federation of Musicians and Employers'
Pension Plan v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF MUSICIANS AND EMPLOYERS' PENSION FUND, THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE
OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS
AND EMPLOYERS' PENSION FUND, RAYMOND M. HAIR, JR., AUGUSTINO
GAGLIARDI, GARY MATTS, WILLIAM MORIARITY, BRIAN F. ROOD, LAURA
ROSS, VINCE TROMBETTA, PHILLIP E. YAO, CHRISTOPHER J.G BROCKMEYER,
MICHAEL DEMARTINI, ANDREA FINKELSTEIN, ELLIOT H. GREENE, ROBERT W.
JOHNSON, ALAN H. RAPHAEL, JEFFREY RUTHIZER, BILL THOMAS, MAUREEN
B. KILKELLY, and DOES NO. 1-6, WHOSE NAMES ARE CURRENTLY UNKNOWN,
Case No. 1:17-cv-05361-VEC (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2017), is brought
on behalf of a class of Plan participants and beneficiaries
against the Plan fiduciaries for their alleged breach of fiduciary
duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The Plan is a defined benefit, non-contributory, multi-employer
pension plan maintained in accordance with thousands of collective
bargaining agreements between unions and employers in the music
industry.  The collective bargaining agreements are negotiated by
The American Federation of Musicians of the United States and
Canada, or one of its 145 local unions.  The Plan is funded by the
American Federation of Musicians and Employers' Pension Fund under
the Agreement and Declaration of Trust establishing the Fund.  The
Plan is funded by employer contributions and investment returns.

The Plan sponsor is the Board of Trustees, and the Plan and Fund
are administered and operated by the Board of Trustees from its
headquarters, which is located at Penn Plaza, in New York City.
The Investment Committee of the Board of Trustees, includes
Defendants Hair, Gagliardi, Brockmeyer, Yao, and at least six
other members of the Board of Trustees, named as Does 1-6.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                  lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1100
          P.O. Box 1035
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 656-2500
          Facsimile: (302) 656-9053
          E-mail: RobertKriner@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & THCELLIS LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Kelsey Appeals Ruling in Cheerleaders Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kelsey K. filed an appeal from a court ruling in her
lawsuit titled Kelsey K. v. NFL Enterprises, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00496-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 3,
2017, The National Football League has defeated an antitrust class
action claiming it conspired with 27 teams to suppress
cheerleaders' wages and restrict their mobility.

In a ruling, U.S. District Judge William Alsup refused to let
plaintiff Kelsely K., who cheered for the San Francisco 49ers in
2013, file an amended complaint.  Judge Alsup found her proposed
amendments failed to plausibly allege an antitrust conspiracy,
just as he found in a ruling dismissing the lawsuit in May.

The judge found the proposed complaint failed to cite actual
evidence for allegations that NFL teams colluded to keep
cheerleaders' wages low.

The appellate case is captioned as Kelsey K. v. NFL Enterprises,
LLC, et al., Case No. 17-16508, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 24, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on September 25, 2017;

   -- Appellant Kelsey K.'s opening brief is due on November 2,
      2017;

   -- Appellees Atlanta Falcons Football Club LLC, Baltimore
      Ravens, Inc., Buccaneers Limited Partnership dba Tampa Bay
      Buccaneers, Buffalo Bills, LLC, Chargers Football Company
      LLC, Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., Forty Niners Football
      Company LLC, Houston Texans, Inc., Indianapolis Colts,
      Inc., Jacksonville Jaguars LLC, Kansas City Chiefs Football
      Club, Inc., Miami Dolphins LTD, Minnesota Vikings Football
      LLC, NFL Enterprises, LLC, New England Patriots LLC, New
      Orleans Louisiana Sants Limited Partnership, New York Jets,
      LLC, PDB Sports Ltd., Panthers Football, LLC, Philadelphia
      Eagles LLC, Pro-Football, Inc., Seattle Seahawks Inc.,
      Tennessee Football, Inc., The Arizona Cardinals Football
      Club LLC, The Dallas Cowboys Football Club Ltd., The
      Detroit Lions, Inc., The Los Angeles Rams LLC and The
      Oakland Raiders Limited Partnership's answering brief is
      due on December 4, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant KELSEY K., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Drexel Andrew Bradshaw, Esq.
          BRADSHAW & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          44 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-4800
          E-mail: drexel@bradshawassociates.com

Defendants-Appellees NFL ENTERPRISES, LLC, FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL
COMPANY LLC, THE OAKLAND RAIDERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, CHARGERS
FOOTBALL COMPANY LLC, THE LOS ANGELES RAMS LLC, THE ARIZONA
CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB LLC, ATLANTA FALCONS FOOTBALL CLUB LLC,
BALTIMORE RAVENS, INC., BUFFALO BILLS, LLC, PANTHERS FOOTBALL,
LLC, CINCINNATI BENGALS, INC., THE DALLAS COWBOYS FOOTBALL CLUB
LTD., PDB SPORTS LTD., DBA Denver Broncos, THE DETROIT LIONS,
INC., HOUSTON TEXANS, INC., INDIANAPOLIS COLTS, INC., JACKSONVILLE
JAGUARS LLC, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS FOOTBALL CLUB, INC., MIAMI
DOLPHINS LTD, MINNESOTA VIKINGS FOOTBALL LLC, NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS
LLC, NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA SANTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, NEW YORK
JETS, LLC, PHILADELPHIA EAGLES LLC, SEATTLE SEAHAWKS INC.,
BUCCANEERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP DBA TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS, TENNESSEE
FOOTBALL, INC., and PRO-FOOTBALL, INC., DBA Washington Redskins,
are represented by:

          Derek Ludwin, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          850 Tenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001-4956
          Telephone: (202) 662-5429
          E-mail: dludwin@cov.com

               - and -

          Sonya D. Winner, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-6000
          E-mail: swinner@cov.com


NATIONAL MILK: Sweeney Appeals "Edwards" Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Pamela Sweeney filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from a court ruling relating to the
lawsuit styled Matthew Edwards, et al. v. National Milk Producers
Federation, et al., Case Nos. 4:11-cv-04766-JSW, 4:11-cv-04791-JSW
and 4:11-cv-05253-JSW, pending before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, other
objectors have also filed appeals.

Lead Plaintiff Matthew Edwards sued a cadre of dairy giants,
including Land O' Lakes, the National Milk Producers Federation,
Dairy Farmers of America and Agri-Mark, in Federal Court in
September 2011.  The dairy producers were accused of conspiring to
prematurely slaughter more than 500,000 cows between 2003 and 2010
to limit the production of raw milk and drive up prices for
yogurt, sour cream and other dairy products.

The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Edwards, et al. v.
National Milk Producers Federation, et al., Case No. 17-16541, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 28, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on September 26, 2017;

   -- Appellant Pamela Sweeney's opening brief is due on
      November 6, 2017;

   -- Appellees Agrimark, Inc., Mary Anderson, Boys and Girls
      Club of the East Valley, Jennifer Clites, Scott Cook, Lori
      Curtis, Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Dairylea
      Cooperative Inc., Kathleen Davis, Matthew Edwards, Julie
      Ewald, Sheila Jackson, Land O'Lakes, Inc., John Murray,
      National Milk Producers Federation, Kory Pentland, John
      Peychal, Jonathan Rizzo, Jeffrey Robb, Brandon Steele, Paul
      Thacker, Danell Tomasella and Scott Weber's answering brief
      is due on December 6, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Objector-Appellant Pamela Sweeney appears pro se.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees MATTHEW EDWARDS, DANELL TOMASELLA, JEFFREY
ROBB, BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE EAST VALLEY, SCOTT COOK, KORY
PENTLAND, MARY ANDERSON, JULIE EWALD, SCOTT WEBER, JENNIFER
CLITES, JOHN MURRAY, JONATHAN RIZZO, PAUL THACKER, LORI CURTIS,
SHEILA JACKSON, JOHN PEYCHAL, KATHLEEN DAVIS and BRANDON STEELE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Steven Nathan Berk, Esq.
          BERK LAW PLLC
          2002 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 232-7550
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: steven@berklawdc.com

               - and -

          Steve Berman, Esq.
          Craig R. Spiegel, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  craigs@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Ave.
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Scott Kilene, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: jkilene@gustafsongluek.com

Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, AKA
Cooperatives Working Together, is represented by:

          Kenneth P. Ewing, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 492-6264
          Facsimile: (202) 429-3902
          E-mail: kewing@steptoe.com

               - and -

          Dylan Ruga, Esq.
          STALWART LAW GROUP
          11620 Wilshire Boulevard, 9th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 954-2000
          E-mail: dylan@stalwartlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC., is represented
by:

          Steven Ross Kuney, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5843
          Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
          E-mail: skuney@wc.com

               - and -

          William Todd Miller, Esq.
          BAKER & MILLER PLLC
          2401 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 663-7820
          Facsimile: (202) 663-7849
          E-mail: tmiller@bakerandmiller.com

Defendant-Appellee DAIRYLEA COOPERATIVE INC. is represented by:

          Edward R. Conan, Esq.
          BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
          One Lincoln Center
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (315) 218-8313
          Facsimile: (315) 218-8100
          E-mail: econan@bsk.com

               - and -

          William Farmer, Esq.
          FARMER BROWNSTEIN JAEGER LLP
          235 Pine Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 962-2877
          Facsimile: (415) 520-5678
          E-mail: wfarmer@fbj-law.com

Defendant-Appellee LAND O'LAKES, INC., is represented by:

          Nathan P. Eimer, Esq.
          EIMER STAHL, LLP
          224 South Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 660-7600
          Facsimile: (312) 692-1718
          E-mail: neimer@eimerstahl.com

               - and -

          Matthew Stewart Kahn, Esq.
          George Arnold Nicoud, III, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 393-8212
          Facsimile: (415) 986-5309
          E-mail: MKahn@gibsondunn.com
                  tnicoud@gibsondunn.com

Defendant-Appellee AGRIMARK, INC., is represented by:

          Jill M. O'Toole, Esq.
          SHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP
          One Constitution Plaza
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 251-5901
          Facsimile: (860) 251-5218
          E-mail: jotoole@goodwin.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: McNamee Seeks Certification of Four Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles D. McNamee, one of the Plaintiffs of the lawsuit entitled
CHARLES D. MCNAMEE, et al. v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No.
2:14-cv-01948-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), moves for certification of four
classes -- two nationwide classes as to the issues of liability
and statutory damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, and two classes for U.S. Bankruptcy Court cases filed in the
Southern District of Ohio as to the issue of contempt for
Nationstar's violations of the Discharge Injunction.

The proposed classes are:

     CLASS 1 (Nationwide): as to the Issues of FDCPA Liability
     and Statutory Damages:

     Any person who (i) who received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
     discharge in a bankruptcy case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy
     Courts on or after January 1, 2012 and on or before
     January 31, 2015; (ii) who filed and served a Statement of
     Intention therein pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 521(a)(2)(A)
     stating an intention to surrender residential real property
     that was/is security for a debt serviced by Nationstar; and
     (iii) who, after vacating the real property, were mailed by
     Nationstar, one or more Mortgage Loan Statements of the type
     exemplified by the attached Exemplar Exhibit A;

     CLASS 2 (Nationwide): as to the Issues of FDCPA Liability
     and Statutory Damages:

     Any person who (i) received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge
     in a bankruptcy case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts on
     or after January 1, 2012 and the present; (ii) who filed and
     served a Statement of Intention pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
     Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender
     residential real property that was/is security for a debt
     serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after vacating the
     real property, were mailed by Nationstar, at least one
     Force-Placed Insurance letter of the type exemplified by the
     attached Exemplar Exhibits B and C;

     CLASS 3 (S.D. Ohio): as to the Issue of Whether Nationstar
     Violated 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a):

     Any person who (i) who received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
     discharge in a bankruptcy case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy
     Courts for the S.D. Ohio on or after January 1, 2012 and on
     or before January 31, 2015; (ii) who filed and served a
     Statement of Intention therein pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
     Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender
     residential real property that was/is security for a debt
     serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after vacating the
     real property, were mailed by Nationstar, one or more
     Mortgage Loan Statements of the type exemplified by the
     attached Exemplar Exhibit A; and

     CLASS 4 (S.D. Ohio): as to the Issue of Whether Nationstar
     Violated 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a):

     Any person who (i) received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge
     in a bankruptcy case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts for
     the S.D. Ohio on or after January 1, 2012 and the present;
     (ii) who filed and served a Statement of Intention pursuant
     to 11 U.S.C. Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to
     surrender residential real property that was/is security for
     a debt serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after vacating
     the real property, were mailed by Nationstar, at least one
     Force-Placed Insurance letter of the type exemplified by the
     attached Exemplar Exhibits B and C;

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint him as the class
representative for each of the four Classes, and to appoint his
counsel as Class counsel for each of the four Classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9DTCno0G

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Nobile, Esq.
          NOBILE & THOMPSON CO., LPA
          4876 Cemetery Road
          Hilliard, OH 43026
          Telephone: (614) 529-8600
          Facsimile: (614) 629-8656
          E-mail: jenobile@ntlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          D. Kyle Deak, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1900
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 835-4100
          Facsimile: (919) 835-4101
          E-mail: kyle.deak@troutmansanders.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Weigand, Esq.
          FARUKI IRELAND COX RHINEHART & DUSING PLL
          201 E. Fifth St., Suite 1420
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 632-0306
          E-mail: sweigand@ficlaw.com


NBC UNIVERSAL: Marcial Sues Over Missed Breaks, No Pay Stubs
------------------------------------------------------------
Venus Marcial, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. NBC Universal Media, LLC and Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. BC671533 (Cal. Super., August 4, 2017), seeks
unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress for failure to
authorize or permit required meal periods and statutory penalties
for failure to provide accurate wage statements, injunctive relief
and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest under the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial
Wage Orders.

Defendants operates theme parks in Orlando and Hollywood all with
multiple restaurants. Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a
park cook assigned to various restaurants in their Hollywood
facilities.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NBEO INC: Faces "Liang" Suit Over Data Breach on Exam-Takers Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA LIANG, O.D., JESSICA OLENDORFF, O.D., KRISTINE FERGASON,
O.D., JULIE WOLF, O.D., CAMILLA DUNN, O.D., MARK GARIN, O.D.,
NATALIE WEST, ANDREA ROBINSON, O.D., PRISCILLA PAPPAS-WALKER,
O.D., and LAUREN NELSON, O.D., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN
OPTOMETRY, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-01964-JKB (D. Md., July 14,
2017), alleges that the NBEO, or a party within its control,
suffered a data breach involving the Personal Information of exam-
takers and other individuals, the full extent of which is still
unknown.

The Plaintiffs are individuals, who submitted their names, birth
dates, Social Security numbers, addresses, and credit card
information ("Personal Information") to the NBEO as part of the
exam-administration process and whose Personal Information has
been compromised as a result of the NBEO's failure to maintain
reasonable and adequate security measures to safeguard their
Personal Information, according to the complaint.  The Plaintiffs
are seeking damages, restitution, and injunctive relief requiring
NBEO to notify affected individuals of the breach of its data and
to implement and maintain reasonable and effective security
practices.

The National Board of Examiners in Optometry, Inc., is a
privately-held not-for-profit corporation.  The NBEO is
incorporated in Maryland with its principal office located in
Baltimore, Maryland.  Established in 1951, the NBEO is the testing
organization in the field of optometry in the United States of
America (including Puerto Rico).  The organization creates and
administers various credentialing exams in the optometry
profession, and passing its exams is necessary for an optometrist
to be licensed to practice.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L. Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0910
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
          J. Austin Moore
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  vahle@stuevesiegel.com
                  moore@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Michael Liskow, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN AND HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: liskow@whafh.com

               - and -

          Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN AND HERZ LLC
          One South Dearborn St., Suite 2122
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 212-4401
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com


NCI INC: "Nichols" Suit Challenges Proposed Sale to HIG Capital
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH A. NICHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NCI, INC., CHARLES K. NARANG, PAUL A. DILLAHAY, DANIEL
R. YOUNG, PAUL LOMBARDI, JAMES P. ALLEN, CINDY E. MORAN, and
AUSTIN J. YERKS, Case No. 1:17-cv-00839-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., July 25,
2017), challenges the proposed sale of the Company to affiliates
of H.I.G. Capital, L.L.C.

The Defendants solicit the tendering of stockholder shares in
connection with the sale of the Company to affiliates of H.I.G.
Capital, L.L.C., through a recommendation statement that omits
material facts necessary to make the statements therein not false
or misleading, the Plaintiff asserts.

On July 3, 2017, the Company announced that it had entered into an
agreement and plan of merger, by which HIG would commence a tender
offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of NCI at a
purchase price of $20 per share in cash.  The Tender Offer is set
to expire at 12:00 a.m. midnight, New York City time, at the end
of the day on August 11, 2017.

NCI, a Delaware corporation, is a provider of enterprise solutions
and services to U.S. defense, intelligence, health and civilian
government agencies.  Headquartered in Reston, Virginia, NCI has
approximately 2,000 employees operating at more than 100 locations
worldwide.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.

Relevant non-party H.I.G. Capital, LLC, is an American global
private equity and alternative assets investment firm with
approximately $22 billion of equity capital under management.

Relevant non-party Cloud Intermediate Holdings, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, is beneficially owned by affiliates of
H.I.G. Capital, LLC.  Relevant non-party Cloud Merger Sub, Inc.,
is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Cloud
Intermediate Holdings, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com


PACIFIC COAST: Molina Seeks Pay for Overtime & Missed Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------
Victorio Molina, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Pacific Coast Sightseeing Tours &
Charters, Inc., Megabus West, LLC, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC671102 (Cal. Super., August 4,
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 and applicable Industrial
Wage Orders.

Defendants is a bus company offering chartered tours and transport
services where Plaintiff worked as a driver. Molina claims to be
paid on a per trip or piece-rate basis only. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
      Haik Hacopian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ZORIK MOORADIAN
      5023 N. Parkway Calabasas
      Calabasas, CA 91302
      Telephone: (818) 876-9627
      Facsimile: (888) 783-1030
      Email: zorik@mooradia.nlaw.com
             haik.hacopian@gmail.com


PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL: Fischer Sues Over Acquisition by Pamplona
----------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE FISCHER, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, A. DANA
CALLOW, JR., PATRICK J. FORTUNE, MAYKIN HO, EDUARD E. HOLDENER,
CHRISTOPHER J. LINDOP, RICHARD J. LOVE, JOSEF H. VON RICKENBACH,
and ELLEN M. ZANE, Case No. 1:17-cv-11364 (D. Mass., July 25,
2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed acquisition of
PAREXEL by Pamplona Capital Management, LLP.

On June 20, 2017, PAREXEL and Pamplona jointly announced they had
entered into a definitive agreement under which Pamplona will
acquire all of the outstanding shares of PAREXEL for $88.10 per
share in cash.  Upon completion of the Proposed Transaction,
PAREXEL will become a privately-held company and its common stock
will no longer be listed on any public market.  According to the
joint press release, the Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $5 billion, including PAREXEL's net debt.  The
Proposed Transaction is subject, among other things, to the
approval of a majority of PAREXEL shareholders. According to
Defendants, the deal is expected to close early in the fourth
quarter of 2017.

PAREXEL is a Massachusetts corporation, with its principal place
of business in Waltham, Massachusetts.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.  PAREXEL describes
itself as a leading biopharmaceutical outsourcing services
company, providing a broad range of expertise in clinical
research, clinical logistics, medical communications, consulting,
commercialization and advanced technology products and services to
the worldwide pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device
industries.  The Company has offices in 86 locations in 51
countries around the world.

Non-party Pamplona is a London, New York, and Boston-based,
privately-owned specialist investment manager that provides an
alternative investment platform across private equity, and single-
manager hedge fund investments.  Pamplona manages over $10 billion
in assets across a number of funds for a variety of clients
including public pension funds, international wealth managers,
multinational corporations, family offices, and funds of hedge
funds.

Non-party West Street Parent, LLC ("Parent"), a Delaware limited
liability company, was formed on June 19, 2017, by an affiliate of
Pamplona solely for the purpose of entering into the Merger
Agreement and related agreements and completing the merger and
other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.  Upon
completion of the merger, PAREXEL will be a subsidiary of Parent.

Non-party West Street Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a
Massachusetts corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent,
was formed on June 19, 2017, by an affiliate of Pamplona solely
for the purpose of engaging in the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP
          110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
          Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
          Telephone: (781) 207-1717
          Facsimile: (781) 431-8726
          E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

               - and -

          Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          E-mail: kuznicki@browerpiven.com


PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Manning" Suit Over Pamplona Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER MANNING, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, JOSEF H. VON
RICKENBACH, MAYKIN HO, A. DANA CALLOW, JR., PATRICK J. FORTUNE,
ELLEN M. ZANE, CHRISTOPHER J. LINDOP, RICHARD L. LOVE, and EDUARD
E. HOLDENER, Case No. 1:17-cv-11376 (D. Mass., July 26, 2017), is
brought on behalf public holders of the common stock of PAREXEL
for their alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, in connection with the proposed merger between PAREXEL and
Pamplona Capital Management LLP.

On June 19, 2017, the Company's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to
which each share of common stock of PAREXEL will automatically be
cancelled and will cease to exist, and will thereafter represent
the right to receive $88.10 in cash.  The approximate value of the
transaction is $5 billion, including PAREXEL's net debt.

PAREXEL is incorporated in Massachusetts and maintains its
principal place of business in Waltham, Massachusetts.  Founded in
1983, the Company supports the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and
medical device industries by providing clinical research, medical
communications, consulting, commercialization and informatics, and
technology services.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of PAREXEL.[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
          Facsimile: (888) 628-6746
          E-mail: mjm@matorinlaw.com

               - and -

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


PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL: Scarantino Sues Over Pamplona Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, A. DANA
CALLOW, JR., PATRICK J. FORTUNE, MAYKIN HO, EDUARD E. HOLDENER,
CHRISTOPHER J. LINDOP, RICHARD L. LOVE, JOSEF H. VON RICKENBACH,
ELLEN M. ZANE, PAMPLONA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLP, WEST STREET
PARENT, LLC, and WEST STREET MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-
11360 (D. Mass., July 24, 2017), stems from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which PAREXEL will be acquired by West
Street Parent, LLC and West Street Merger Sub, Inc., affiliates of
Pamplona Capital Management, LLP.

On June 19, 2017, PAREXEL's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger.  Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of PAREXEL will
receive $88.10 per share in cash.

On July 14, 2017, the Defendants filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.  The
Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading.

PAREXEL is a Massachusetts corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Waltham, Massachusetts.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

PAREXEL is a global biopharmaceutical services company, providing
a broad range of expertise-based clinical research, consulting,
medical communications, and technology solutions and services to
the worldwide pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device
industries.

Pamplona Capital Management, LLP, is an investment manager that
provides an alternative investment platform across private equity
and single manager hedge fund investments.  Defendant Parent is
Delaware limited liability company and a party to the Merger
Agreement.  Defendant Merger Sub is a Massachusetts corporation, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger
Agreement.[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: mjm@matorinlaw.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@rigrodskylong.com
                  gs@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

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


PERFECT DELIVERY: "Prince" Suit Seeks to Recover Drivers' Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM PRINCE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. PERFECT DELIVERY, INC. and PERFECT DELIVERY NORTH
AMERICA, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-01950-BHH (D.S.C., July 24, 2017),
is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages owed to the Plaintiff
and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by the Defendants
at their Papa John's stores.

Perfect Delivery, Inc., and Perfect Delivery North American, Inc.,
are South Carolina corporations, which together have operated Papa
John's stores in South Carolina and North Carolina.  The
Defendants together operate approximately 21 Papa John's franchise
stores.  They employ delivery drivers, who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Mann, Jr., Esq.
          MANN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          512 East North Street
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (864) 243-8358
          E-mail: jpm@mannlaw.org

               - and -

          Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984-8100
          Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
          E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com

               - and -

          Mark Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com


PETCO HOLDINGS: "Vargas" Suit Moved From N.J. to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Vargas v. Petco Holdings, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02320, was transferred on August 3, 2017,
from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego).  The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-01561-WQH-BLM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all Assistant Managers and
other employees holding comparable positions with different titles
employed by Defendants at their stores within New Jersey seeking
all available relief under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated New Jersey law by
failing to pay AMs for all hours worked, failing to pay AMs
overtime on a timely basis, and failing to pay AMs the legally
required amount of overtime compensation required by law for all
hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Petco Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in San Diego, California.  Petco Animal
Supplies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located in San Diego. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. is a
privately held company with more than 1,150 specialty retail
stores nationwide, selling pet food, live animals, pet supplies
and related goods and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth Richard Lesser, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Michael Hayden Reed, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 997-2444
          E-mail: SLesser@klafterolsen.com
                  Fran.Rudich@klafterolsen.com
                  michael.reed@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen A. Fuchs, Esq.
          Tyler Allan Sims, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          One Newark Center
          1085 Raymond Boulevard, 8th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 848-4700
          Facsimile: (973) 643-5626
          E-mail: sfuchs@littler.com
                  tsims@littler.com


PHOENIX LIFE: Class Certification Sought in "Shevlin" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned BRIAN S. SHEVLIN, KEITH P.
SHEVLIN, AND ERIN R. TAYLOR, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THOSE
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. THE PHOENIX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND
PHOENIX COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 3:09-cv-06323-MAS-TJB (D.N.J.),
move for entry of an order certifying the case as a class action,
appointing the Plaintiffs to serve as class representatives, and
appointing Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, P.C. and Levy
Konigsberg LLP as class counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tAa5tIAU

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arnold C. Lakind, Esq.
          SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, P.C.
          101 Grovers Mill Rd., Suite 200
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (609) 275-0400
          Facsimile: (609) 275-4511
          E-mail: alakind@szaferman.com

               - and -

          Danielle Disporto, Esq.
          LEVY PHILLIPS & KONIGSBERG, LLP
          101 Grovers Mill Rd., Suite 200
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (212) 605-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 605-6290
          E-mail: ddisporto@lpklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron Gould, Esq.
          CONNELL FOLEY LLP
          One Newark Center
          1085 Raymond Blvd., 19th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 436-5800
          Facsimile: (973) 436-5801
          E-mail: agould@connellfoley.com


PILGRIM INSURANCE: Deamelio Seeks to Recover Unlawful Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
PETER DEAMELIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PILGRIM INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 17-2206 (Mass.
Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., July 12, 2017), seeks to recover damages
arising from Pilgrim's alleged practice of unlawfully charging its
insured for a portion of the vehicle storage charges, which
Pilgrim previously paid to a third-party for the storage of the
insured's vehicle.

Pilgrim is an automobile insurance company, with a principal
office and registered agent located in Boston, Massachusetts.
Pilgrim provides personal automobile insurance to individual
consumers throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Yasi, Esq.
          Robert E. Mazow, Esq.
          Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
          FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (617) 231-7829
          E-mail: jyasi@forrestlamothe.com
                  rmazow@forrestlamothe.com
                  mforrest@forrestlamothe.com


PITTSBURGH, PA: Faces Class Action Over Property Tax Increase
-------------------------------------------------------------
WPXI.com reports that several new homeowners in Pittsburgh are
suing the city over property taxes, according to a lawsuit filed.

The homeowners filing the class-action lawsuit said that the city
and Pittsburgh Public Schools are trying to reassess their homes
"unfairly" and raise property taxes.

The suit claims that when someone bought a house, their property
was reassessed.  Attorneys for the plaintiffs said that violates
not only the rules of the Board of Assessment, but also the
Allegheny County Administrative Code.

Plaintiffs said the issue is that the taxes were only raised for
some people -- new homeowners.

One attorney representing a plaintiff said the city should not
target a "category" based on price.  He said it is not fair to
give a new homeowner a spot assessment.

Pittsburgh Public Schools released the following statement in
regard to the lawsuit: "The practices of the school district in
its management of tax assessment appeal fully complies with state
law."

Allegheny County responded by saying they do not file appeals, but
rather they help homeowners who want to appeal.

The County Solicitor said, "Holding the line on property taxes has
been a fundamental tenet of this administration."

The City of Pittsburgh declined to comment on any pending
litigation.

If your think you may be eligible to be part of the class action
suit, contact:

Friedman and Friedman, P.C. Attention: Edward B. Friedman
EBF@friedman-law.com

900 Fifth Avenue, 2nd Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Tel: 412-261-5834 [GN]


POINTER TELOCATION: Faces Class Action in Israel
------------------------------------------------
Pointer Telocation Ltd., a developer and operator of Fleet and
Mobile Resource Management (MRM) solutions, on Aug. 2 disclosed
that an application to recognize a claim as a class action has
been filed, in the Central District Court, Israel, against the
company on July 27, 2017.

The company has not yet been duly served with a copy of the
application and the application is subject to the court's
approval.

In the application, the applicant claims that the basis for the
claim is misleading some of the company customers, claiming that
during the last seven years the company is charging them for a
superior system while installing an inferior system.

The claimed amount, if the claim is certified as a class action,
is estimated by the applicant to be NIS 1,332 per client and NIS
50,000,000 in the aggregate.

At this early stage the company cannot estimate the chances of
this claim. [GN]


POMEROYIT SOLUTIONS: Faces "Mateo-Hernandez" Suit in M.D. of Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pomeroyit Solutions
Sales Company, Inc.  The case is styled as Wilvin Mateo-Hernandez,
on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Pomeroyit Solutions Sales Company, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01835-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla., August 2,
2017).

Pomeroy It Solutions Sales Company, Inc. is a privately held
company in Nashville, TN, categorized under computer
installation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, PA, Suite 400
   600 N Pine Island Rd
   Plantation, FL 33324
   Tel: (954) 318-0268
   Fax: (954) 333-3515
   Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com

      - and -

   C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, PA
   P.O. Box 4979
   Orlando, FL 33802
   Tel: (407) 420-1414
   Fax: (407) 245-3401
   Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

      - and -

   Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, Tampa P.A.
   201 N Franklin Street, #700
   Tampa, FL 33602-5157
   Tel: (813) 223-5505
   Fax: (813) 257-0572
   Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


PREFERRED STAFFING: Accused by "Sanford" Suit of Denying OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN SANFORD and BRYANT DILL Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PREFERRED STAFFING, INC., STAFFWORKS,
INC., and KLEEN TEST PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-01071-
JPS (E.D. Wisc., August 3, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiffs are
or were employed by the Defendants and were denied wages,
including overtime, under illegal pay policies and practices in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin
wage and hour laws.

Preferred Staffing, Inc. and Staffworks, Inc., are domestic
corporations incorporated in the state of Wisconsin, with their
principal office located in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.  Both
Companies are joint employers operating out of the same location
and are staffing agencies that create and enforce policy and
control over the same employees.

Kleen Test Products Corporation is a domestic corporation
incorporated in the state of Wisconsin, with its principal office
located in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.  According to its Web
site, Kleen Test is a "leading, full-service contract
manufacturer" that "discreetly develops, manufactures and packages
wet wipes, dryer sheets, liquids, pads, lotions, soaps,
confectionery products and more."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam M. Kent, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ADAM M. KENT
          7670 N. Port Washington Rd., Suite 105
          Milwaukee, WI 53217
          Telephone: (414) 446-5331
          E-mail: Attorney@adamkentlegal.com

               - and -

          Steven Lubar, Esq.
          LUBAR & LANNING, LLC
          7670 N. Port Washington Rd., Suite 105
          Milwaukee, WI 53217
          Telephone: (414) 375-4795
          E-mail: Steven@lubarlanning.com


PRET A MANGER: Faces Class Action Over Sandwich Pack "Slack Fill"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that for
one patron of one of Manhattan's many Pret A Manger sandwich
shops, a few inches of empty space in the packaging for the
chain's wraps may be worth millions.

On July 31, the disappointed diner, Yee Ting Lau, filed a class
action suit in the Southern District against the chain over the
amount of space between the two halves of a wrap she purchased in
June and joined a growing list of plaintiffs seeking damages for
the air content, or "slack fill," in their food packaging.

According to her suit, on June 12, Ms. Lau went to the Pret A
Manger at East 39th Street and Madison Avenue and plunked down
$7.49 for a Chakalaka Wrap "on the reasonable assumption that
[the] wrap fully occupied the package."

"But a significant portion of the package was not occupied by the
sandwich," the suit states.  Instead, she found a full inch of
slack fill between the two halves of her wrap, hidden behind a
cardboard "shroud."

Ms. Lau had been tricked into "paying for air," she alleges in her
complaint, and the deception doesn't stop with her particular menu
item: every wrap on the menu, from the Bang Bang Chicken to the
Green Goddess Turkey & Avocado contains anywhere from one to two
and a half inches of separation in the center.
Lau alleges that Pret A Manger is liable for violations of New
York's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and false
advertising law, as well as common-law fraud.  She says the amount
in controversy exceeds $5.5 million, excluding interest and costs.

Ms. Lau is represented by C.K. Lee and Anne Seelig of Lee
Litigation Group, a firm with some experience with slack fill
litigation.

Neither Lee nor Pret A Manger's press office did not respond to a
message requesting comment.

The suit is the latest in a growing flood of food class action
suits, which include slack fill cases but more commonly are suits
filed by plaintiffs who say their food is deceptively labeled as
"natural" or "preservative free."

According to a report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's
Institute for Legal Reform released in February, there were 10
slack fill suits filed in 2013 and 2014. In 2015 and 2016, that
number ballooned to 65.

The report states that the Northern District of California is the
most popular venue for food class actions, but that New York's
Eastern and Southern Districts are seeing a surge in filings.
According to Mondelez International, a snack conglomerate that has
faced off in the courtroom with Lee Litigation in slack fill
suits, the firm has filed at least 14 slack fill class actions.

Last year, Southern District Judge Colleen McMahon tossed out a
suit that Lee Litigation filed against Mondelez on behalf of
plaintiffs who argued that packages of Sour Patch Watermelon Candy
can hold 44 percent more candy than they do.

Judge McMahon brushed off Mondelez's argument that, because it
accurately lists the quantity and weight of the product on the
packaging, it is immune from suit, but dismissed the complaint
because the plaintiffs failed to show injury. [GN]


PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT: Court Denies Wood's Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant entered a memorandum of decision
denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the
lawsuit styled LEONARD WOOD II and MAYA SHAW, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. PRUDENTIAL
RETIREMENT INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY, Case No. 3:15-cv-01785-
VLB (D. Conn.).

Maya Shaw, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, brings the action against Prudential
Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1973.  The
Plaintiff seeks certification of this class:

     All ERISA-covered employee benefit plans whose plan assets
     were invested in Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity
     Company's Guaranteed Income Fund ("GIF") and/or Principal
     Preservation Separate Account ("PPSA") on or after
     December 3, 2009.

In her Memorandum of Decision, Judge Bryant opines that the
Plaintiff has failed to show that her claims or defenses are
typical of those of the proposed class.

"Because she is unable to seek prospective injunctive relief and
has not persuaded the Court that injunctive relief would never
advance the interests of any class member or subclass, the
Plaintiff cannot adequately represent the interests of current
plan participants," Judge Bryant states.

A copy of the Memorandum of Decision is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6ayTEgbD


PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: AG Urged to Help Speed Up Oil Spill Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jewel Topsfield, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
one of Indonesia's most senior ministers has called on Attorney-
General George Brandis to help speed up a class action on behalf
of thousands of seaweed farmers who claim their crops were
devastated by a 2009 oil spill.

More than 13,000 seaweed farmers from East Nusa Tenggara, one of
the poorest regions in Indonesia, launched a $200 million class
action against PTTEP Australasia in the Federal Court in Sydney
last August.

Maritime Coordinating Minister Luhut Pandjaitan told reporters he
understood the class action, which is being run by Maurice
Blackburn Lawyers, was taking place right now in Sydney.

"I just tried to reach George Brandis to ask their support in
order to speed up this process," he said.  "It's been . . . nearly
eight years.  It's too long."

Following an explosion on August 21, 2009, the Montara rig spewed
oil and gas into the Timor Sea in Australian waters 250 kilometres
from Rote Island in Indonesia for more than 70 days.

Farmers and fishermen say the spill destroyed seaweed -- a
lucrative crop exported for use in agar, a cooking ingredient --
and killed fish supplies.

The Indonesian government will also launch a $US2 billion ($2.5
billion) lawsuit against PTTEP Australasia, which is based in
Perth, its parent company Thai state-owned oil company PTTEP and
another subsidiary in the Central Jakarta District Court on August
23.

Lawyers will ask the court to freeze the assets of the three
companies and seek 27 trillion rupiah in compensation for
environmental damage and restoration of hundreds of hectares of
mangroves, seagrass meadows and coral reefs.

Mr Pandjaitan said he was yet to receive a response from
Australia. "We'll see soon, I think," he said.  "I think we are
going to take very firm action on this because the victims in the
Montara case are the people of Indonesia."

Fairfax Media is seeking a response from Senator Brandis.  However
it is unclear what Senator Brandis could do given a politician has
no influence in Australian Federal Court proceedings.

Mr Pandjaitan said he had just sent a team to East Nusa Tenggara.
"We saw the damage in the area because of the accident," he said.

Maurice Blackburn class action principal Ben Slade called on the
oil rig operator, PTTEP Australasia, to expedite a "fair and
compensatory" resolution for the 15,000 seaweed farmers affected
by the oil spill.

"The company has caused long term suffering and needs to do the
responsible thing and remedy this," he said.

In a hearing, Maurice Blackburn applied for an extension of the
statute of limitation period, which sets a maximum time after an
event within which legal proceedings may be initiated.

Mr Slade said Daniel Sanda -- a 58-year-old seaweed farmer from
West Timor representing thousands of seaweed farmers who don't
speak English -- didn't know who dumped the oil on their shores
that killed their crops.

The farmers also didn't know they had rights under Australian law.

"[Mr Sanda] has asked a Federal Court judge to let him have his
day in court to hold the oil company accountable."

The judge has reserved his decision.

The judge has the discretionary powers to extend the limitation
period if it is deemed the delay in commencing proceedings was not
unreasonable given the lack of knowledge Mr Sanda had about the
spill until much later and how quickly action was taken once he
did.

Maurice Blackburn cited several precedents where extensions to the
limitation period had been granted.

These included the case of Bruce Allan Trevorrow, an Aboriginal
man who sued the state of South Australia over his suffering as a
result of being removed from his family when he was 13 months old.

In 2007 the Supreme Court of South Australia granted him an
extension to the limitation period and ruled that he should be
awarded damages. [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: New Hampshire Files Deceptive Marketing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Holly Ramer, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
attorney general's office sued Purdue Pharma, alleging that the
drug manufacturer has continued its deceptive marketing of
OxyContin in a state that has been called the "ground zero" of the
opioid epidemic.

In a civil complaint, the state alleges that Purdue Pharma has
downplayed the drug's risk of addiction, overstated its
effectiveness, claimed it is nearly impossible to abuse and failed
to report suspicious prescribers.  It's the latest in a string of
lawsuits by state, county and local governments accusing
prescription opioid manufacturers of fraud and deceptive
marketing.

The attorney general's office in New Hampshire has been
investigating half a dozen drug companies and their marketing
practices for two years.  During that time, the opioid problem has
continued to grow.  Nearly 500 people died of overdoses in 2016 --
a nearly ten-fold increase since 2000.  In October, the deputy
administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration called
the state "ground zero" for the crisis.

"To defeat the epidemic, we must stop creating new users, and part
of that is making sure these highly addictive and dangerous drugs
are marketed truthfully and without deception and in such a way as
not to minimize addiction risks or overstate benefits to
patients," said Deputy Attorney General Ann Rice.

A spokesman for Cranbury, New Jersey-based Purdue Pharma said the
company vigorously denies the allegations, though it shares New
Hampshire's concerns about the opioid crisis and is committed to
finding solutions.

"OxyContin accounts for less than 2% of the opioid analgesic
prescription market nationally, but we are an industry leader in
the development of abuse-deterrent technology, advocating for the
use of prescription drug monitoring programs and supporting access
to Naloxone -- all important components for combating the opioid
crisis," said Robert Josephson.

In 2007, Purdue and three of its executives pleaded guilty to
criminal charges for deceptive conduct, but the New Hampshire
lawsuit alleges that it has continued the same practices.  While
the company has touted its coordination with law enforcement, in
New Hampshire it provided a list of suspicious providers only when
asked specifically by the state's board of medicine, the lawsuit
states. And the names all came from the board's investigations or
media reports, not from Purdue's sales data or information about
its marketing visits.

According to the lawsuit, Purdue had four to six sales
representatives who saw six or seven prescribers a day in New
Hampshire from 2013 to 2015.  One prescriber told prosecutors the
message she received was that opioids were "safe, safe, safe,
safe."

Purdue also told prescribers that patients who seemed to be
misusing opioids were experiencing "pseudoaddiction," the lawsuit
alleges.  The company's marketing materials suggested that
"illicit drug use and deception" might reflect untreated pain
rather than addiction, thus encouraging physicians with
potentially addicted patients to respond by prescribing more
opioids, the state argues.

Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan lashed out at opioid drugmakers on
Aug. 8.

"The role that drug makers have played in contributing to the
heroin, fentanyl, and opioid crisis that is devastating
communities in New Hampshire and states across the country is
abundantly clear," she said in a statement.  "Through improper
marketing of prescription opioids, drug makers have long been
running a campaign of deception to mask how addictive these
products really are."

Sen. Hassan said even though companies are fined "these issues
continue to persist, and it is time for real change to reverse the
tide of this horrific epidemic that stems in large part from the
misuse and abuse of prescription opioids."

The New Hampshire case comes less than two months after Missouri's
attorney general sued Purdue and two other pharmaceutical
companies.  Ohio's attorney general filed a similar lawsuit
against five companies in May, and three district attorneys and
the guardians of a baby born dependent on drugs filed a lawsuit in
June against three companies in Tennessee.


PURDUE PHARMA: Two People Unhappy with OxyContin Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blair Rhodes, writing for CBC News, reports that a Nova Scotia
judge has approved a settlement in the class-action lawsuit
related to OxyContin, even as two people affected by addiction to
the painkiller told the court on Aug. 1 they were unhappy with the
deal struck with the drug manufacturer.

The approval means Nova Scotia has become the second of four
Canadian jurisdictions to agree to the settlement.  The class
action against Purdue Pharma (Canada) relates to allegations
surrounding how it marketed and sold OxyContin and OxyNEO.

The settlement only applies to people who became addicted after
they were prescribed the painkillers by a doctor.  It does not
cover those who are part of the larger opioid crisis in Canada.

The settlement is worth $20 million, $2 million of which will go
to provincial health departments.  The remainder will be split
among claimants, less about $4.5 million in legal fees.

In agreeing to the settlement, Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice
John Murphy said, "There's no way that a monetary settlement can
make parties whole again."

Justice Murphy also noted it was somewhat unusual that the lead
lawyer for the plaintiffs, Ray Wagner, outlined the challenges
they would have faced had the class action proceeded to trial.

Those included a vigorous defence by Purdue, which manufactured
both OxyContin and OxyNEO.  Mr. Wagner said litigation would have
delayed any settlement for people who suffered from exposure to
the drugs, as the case likely would have taken years to make its
way through the court.

Lawyers for Purdue were in court, but offered no comment during
the hearing.  Purdue has said it does not admit any liability.

An Ontario judge has already signed off on the settlement. Courts
in Quebec and Saskatchewan will consider the matter later this
month.  Those four hearings will cover claimants across the
country.  If either of the two courts yet to hear the case reject
the settlement, it is dead.

Mr. Wagner estimated between 1,500 and 3,000 Canadians could claim
a share of the settlement, once it's approved nationwide.  Each
would be entitled to anywhere from $13,000 to $17,000, on average,
Wagner said.  However, he acknowledged some payouts could be much
lower.

Mr. Wagner told the judge there are several factors that will
determine the size of any compensation.  They include whether the
claimant suffered an overdose, whether they lost employment for
more than six months, lost custody of their children, lost a
professional licence, had a criminal conviction, were homeless for
more than a week or declared bankruptcy as a result of their
addiction.

Mr. Wagner said each factor will be assigned points to help
calculate any payout.  Mr. Wagner said if the final two
jurisdictions approve the settlement, the process for disbursing
funds could begin next month.

Opposition to settlement

Two people travelled from New Brunswick to Halifax to voice their
opposition to the settlement on Aug. 1.

Adam Spencer said he became addicted OxyContin after he was
prescribed the painkiller to cope with a workplace injury.

"These pills take your soul away, take your heart away,"
Mr. Spencer told the court.

He said he's lost his job, his wife, his home and his kids as a
result of his addiction. He said he only took the painkiller
because of assurances it wasn't addictive.

"If I would have been told that these pills were addictive, I
would have never, ever put it in my mouth," he said.

Spencer said he wants enough money to go to a treatment facility
to help wean him off the drug.  He said the addiction treatment
he's received in New Brunswick has been inadequate.

'It was like living with a different person'

Jayne Turner made the trip from Grand Manan, N.B., to protest the
fact Purdue has not admitted liability nor offered an apology for
what its products have done.

She said her husband, John Turner, was part of a back pain study
run by Purdue and he changed when he started taking OxyContin.

"It was like living with a different person," she said.  "He was
much more argumentative."

She said one of the changes brought on by the painkiller was that
he would often fall asleep.  John Turner died when he apparently
fell asleep and fell overboard from his fishing boat.

His wife told court that while the cause of death was listed as
drowning, the medical examiner also found fatal levels of
oxycodone in his blood.

"I think the thing that bothers me most is that there doesn't have
to be any admission of guilt," she said of the settlement. [GN]


RANGE RESOURCES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bradwell, writing for Observer-Reporter, reports that a
former independent contractor for Range Resources has filed suit
in federal court seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages for
himself and others under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

In a suit filed on Aug. 2, Daryl Seagraves states he and other
workers like him were typically scheduled for 12-hour shifts,
seven days a week, for weeks at a time.  Ms. Seagraves claims
these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a single work week, and instead of paying overtime
as required by FLSA and PMWA, the company paid the workers a daily
rate and improperly classified them as independent contractors.

According to documents submitted by attorneys representing
Seagraves, the suit seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and
other damages, including liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.

The filing, which does not enumerate or estimate the number of
workers who are potential plaintiffs, said the suit covers all
current and former oilfield employees who worked for, or on behalf
of, Range in the past three years and were classified as
independent contractors and paid a day rate with no overtime
compensation.

Range is a leading U.S. independent oil and natural gas producer
with operations focused in the Appalachian Basin and northern
Louisiana, with about 1 million acres of leasehold across
Pennsylvania.

The suit states Seagraves worked for Range for nearly a year as an
independent contractor, performing routine manual and technical
labor duties largely dictated by the company.

According to the documents, Range's policy of failing to pay its
independent contractors overtime violates several statutes of both
the FLSA and PMWA because "these workers are, for all purposes,
employees performing non-exempt job duties" who "are maintaining
and working with oilfield machinery, performing manual labor, and
working long hours out in the field."

The suit, which seeks a jury trial, further states that because
the plaintiff was misclassified as an independent contractor by
Range, he should receive overtime for all hours that he worked in
excess of 40 hours in each work week.

"We value the contributions of employees and independent
contractors to our business and strive to diligently classify
these individuals," said Range spokesman Mark Windle.  "We haven't
had the opportunity to review the details of the complaint at this
time." [GN]


RECKITT BENCKISER: Nurofen Settlement May Yield Small Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calla Wahlquist, writing for The Guardian, reports that a $3.5m
class action over Nurofen tablets that falsely claimed they could
target specific types of pain could yield very small payments for
individual claimants, if everyone who bought the products steps
forward.

The painkiller's manufacturer, Reckitt Benckiser, settled the
class action over its specific pain range at the federal court in
Sydney last month.

According to the terms of that settlement, which was reached on
behalf of claimants by law firm Bannister Law, each person who
claimed to have bought the relevant painkillers between 2011 and
2015 would receive a set amount in compensation per packet.

If the settlement is under-subscribed; that is, if the total
amount claimed at the end of the settlement period is less than
whatever funds remain once the third-party settlement
administrator has been paid, then the leftover funds are returned
to Reckitt Benckiser.

But if there are too many claimants for everyone to be paid the
set fee, the funds paid to individual claimants will be adjusted
at a pro rata rate.

"Say only $2m is claimed out of the $3.5m, and it's $500,000 for
the administrator and there is still $1m there, that money will go
back to the respondent," Bannister Law lawyer Diane Chapman --
diane@bannisterlaw.com.au -- who conducted the class action, told
Guardian Australia.

"But if there are 10 million Australians who applied for the funds
it may only be a one-off payment of not a very large amount."

Ms. Chapman said that scenario was "not out of the question".

Any person who bought one of the designated products between 2011
and 2015 is eligible to join the class action by applying online
and then filling out a statutory declaration, which will be
emailed out.

No proof of purchase is required, but those who claim to have
spent more than $200 on the painkillers may be audited to
determine both the veracity of their claim and the size of their
settlement.

As of 31 July, the date the settlement was agreed, the class
action had 1,700 members.  A spokesman for Bannister Law said that
number was "growing daily".

The final number of members will not be determined until four
months after the settlement hearing, which will be before the
federal court in Sydney on 20 September.

Reckitt Benckiser was fined $1.7m by the federal court in 2016 for
misleading customers about its range of specific pain products,
which were variously packaged as targeting migraines, tension
headaches, period pain and back pain.  The fine was later
increased on appeal to $6m, the highest-ever penalty for
misleading conduct under Australian consumer law.

Nurofen conceded to the court that all products contained exactly
the same active ingredient, 342mg of ibuprofen lysine, and none
were more or less effective than any of the others at alleviating
a specific source of pain.

The products were more expensive than standard Nurofen products,
which used a different ibuprofen formula.

Mr. Chapman said some consumers, particularly those with chronic
pain issues, had spent several thousand dollars on the products.

"There is a real social justice issue in this case," Mr. Chapman
said.  "There's a lot of people out there that would like to know
that Reckitt Benckiser has done the wrong thing and consumers have
got some recompense."

Reckitt Benckiser did not respond to a request for comment. [GN]


ROSS STORES: Cass Certification Bid in "Jacobo" Suit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication
filed in the lawsuit styled Jose Jacobo, et al. v. Ross Stores,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04701-MWF-AGR (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied as moot.

"Plaintiffs never relied on Ross' Comparable Value price tags, and
thus lack standing under California law to pursue any claims
stemming from Ross' use of that phrase.  Plaintiffs may have met
the minimal burden under California law to show that a reasonable
consumer would have been deceived by Ross' use of the term
'Compare At' on its price tags," Judge Fitzgerald states.  "But
even so, Plaintiffs fail to show that they suffered economic harm
as a result, and their claim for injunctive relief is mooted by
Ross' adoption of the Comparable Value tags," Judge Fitzgerald
adds.

Because the Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence that would
permit a jury to rule in their favor on the issue of economic
harm, the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, Judge Fitzgerald
opines.

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


RTG FURNITURE: Hankinson Wins Initial OK of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James I. Cohn grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to
conditionally certify class, preliminarily approve settlement,
approve class notice, and set final fairness hearing in the
lawsuit captioned BENJAMIN HANKINSON, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. R.T.G. Furniture Corp.,
d/b/a Rooms To Go, et al., Case No. 9:15-cv-81139-JIC (S.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiffs filed the action asserting various claims based on
RTG's sale and fulfillment of ForceField fabric and leather
protection plans.  The Plaintiffs allege that RTG has breached
contracts, engaged in deceptive trade practices and been unjustly
enriched in conjunction with these protection plans.

Solely for purposes of settlement, the Court certifies the
Settlement Class:

     All Persons who purchased one or more ForceField Fabric or
     Leather Protection Plans from RTG (including all affiliates)
     in stores or online in the United States during the Class
     Period, excluding any ForceField Fabric or Leather
     Protection Plans that sold for $8.00 or less.

The Court finds, solely for purpose of settlement, that named
plaintiffs Benjamin Hankinson, James Guerra, Jeanette Gandolfo,
Lisa Palmer, Donald Anderson, and Lisa Prihoda are adequate to
serve as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class and that
their attorneys are adequate to serve as Class Counsel.

The Court approves the proposed Settlement notices.  The parties
propose that KCC LLC serve as the Settlement Administrator for
purposes of notifying the Settlement Class and administering the
claims process.  The Settlement Administrator shall commence
sending the Class Notice within 45 days of entry of this Order.

The Court directs the Settlement Administrator to establish a
Settlement Web site, making available copies of this Order, the
Settlement Agreement, information about the Settlement Class
Members' rights and options, a toll-free hotline, and any other
information agreed upon by the parties.  The Court also sets
certain schedule:

   -- The request for exclusion must be postmarked no later than
      the Opt-Out Deadline, which is November 17, 2017;

   -- Any objection must be postmarked or deposited with the
      overnight delivery service or hand delivered by the
      Objection Deadline, which is November 17, 2017;

   -- Any motions by Settlement Class Members to intervene in
      this action shall be filed by November 17, 2017;

   -- No later than October 18, 2017, Class Counsel shall file
      any motion for an award of attorney fees and expenses or
      for an incentive award to the Class Representatives; and

   -- The Court will hold a final approval hearing on
      December 15, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dQPLQ0ZG

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq.
          Diana L. Martin, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400
          E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
                  lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com
                  dmartin@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
          Eric A. Kafka, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          East Tower, 5th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
                  ekafka@cohenmilstein.com


SALES STAFF: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Sales Reps, Flores Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evonne Flores, Frankie Salinas, and Gail Bradford, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Sales Staff
LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company, David Balzen and Jane Doe
Balzen, a married couple, Bryan Brorsen and Jane Doe Brorsen, a
married couple, Case No. 2:17-cv-02474-DGC (D. Ariz., July 25,
2017), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all similarly-
situated Inside Sales Representatives of the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay them
minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Headquartered in Stafford, Texas, The Sales Staff LLC is a Texas
corporation, authorized to do business in the state of Arizona.
Sales Staff is a business-to-business ("B2B") marketing company
whose primary marketplace offering is contracting with their
customers, who are other businesses, to perform the inside sales
functions of those businesses.  The Individual Defendants are the
owners of Sales Staff.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                  chris@bendaulaw.com


SAUL CHEVROLET: Rivera's Bid for FLSA Class Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lucy H. Koh denied the Plaintiff's motion to
conditionally certify a FLSA collective action and send notice to
the class in the lawsuit titled MARCOS RIVERA v. SAUL CHEVROLET,
INC., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-05966-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff says that he is a former employee of the Defendants,
who worked at "Defendants' Corona, California [automobile]
dealership as a non-exempt parts and service counter salesperson."
On October 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant class action
and Fair Labor Standards Act collective action suit against the
Defendants.  He alleges nine causes of action, including failure
to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA.

Judge Koh opined that the Plaintiff does not provide any evidence
that any putative collective action member other than him worked
overtime and was not paid for it.  Accordingly, because the Court
finds that he is not similarly situated with all of the putative
collective action members, the Court denies the Motion.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DOq36Pdv


SCI DIRECT: Court Certifies 2 Classes Under TCPA in "Allard" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Gershwin A. Drain grants the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled LINDA ALLARD, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. SCI DIRECT, INC.
d/b/a NEPTUNE SOCIETY, Case No. 3:16-cv-01033 (M.D. Tenn.).

The Court certifies two Classes, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, consisting of:

   (1) Prerecord Class: Since October 16, 2013, Plaintiff and all
       persons within the United States to whose telephone number
       Defendant SCI Direct, Inc. placed a telemarketing
       telephone call using CallFire, Inc.'s calling platform
       when that call was dispositioned as "Answering Machine,"
       "Live Answer," or "Do Not Call."

   (2) DNC Class: From May 27, 2012 to May 27, 2016, Plaintiff
       and all persons within the United States to whose
       telephone number Defendant SCI Direct, Inc. placed (or had
       placed on its behalf) two or more telephone calls for
       telemarketing purposes in a 12-month period.

Plaintiff Linda Allard is appointed as class representative for
the Prerecord Class and the DNC Class.  Jeremy M. Glapion and the
Glapion Law Firm LLC are appointed as class counsel pursuant to
Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Drain ordered that, within 30 days of the date of this
Order, Class Counsel shall file a proposed class notification form
which complies with Rule 23(c), together with a statement
describing the method by which the notice will be provided to
class members and a list of persons or entities to whom the notice
will be sent.

Linda Allard filed the instant action against the Defendant on May
27, 2016, asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=x9JpO6Ln

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
          GLAPION LAW FIRM LLC
          1704 Maxwell Drive
          Wall, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 455-9737
          Facsimile: (732) 709-5150
          E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com


SCRANTON, PA: Resident Wants More People to Join Garbage Fee Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for The Times-Tribune, reports
that a Scranton man suing the city over garbage fees thinks other
residents should be allowed to join his lawsuit because that would
be the most efficient way to resolve the dispute.

Adam Guiffrida seeks a court order that could potentially add
thousands of city residents to a lawsuit he filed in December that
challenges the city's spending of trash fees on anything that is
not related directly to trash collections.

The suit argues the $300 annual fee is excessive and the city
profited $935,498 in 2013; $1.26 million in 2014, $1.82 million in
2015, and a projected $1.54 million in 2016.  If a judge rules in
Mr. Guiffrida's favor, residents who paid the fee would be
entitled to a pro-rated refund.

Mr. Guiffrida's attorneys filed a motion on June 30, seeking to
certify the lawsuit as a class action.  On Aug. 1, they filed a
legal brief in support of the suit.

By law a plaintiff seeking to certify a case as a class action
suit must meet certain legal standards, including showing that the
dispute in question involves a common question that affects all
potential class members and that the number of people affected is
so large that it would be impractical for each person to file
individual suits.

In court papers, Simon B. Paris of Philadelphia, the lead attorney
for Mr. Guiffrida, says the case clearly meets those standards.

The dispute involves an interpretation of the city's trash
collection ordinance, which says the fee is to be used solely for
"costs incurred directly for the disposal of refuse." Mr.
Guiffrida maintains that means the fees cannot be used for other
purposes.  The city disagrees.

"The answer to this common question applies to every class member
equally," Mr. Paris says.

Paris says the case also meets the second standard. Documents
attorneys obtained indicate more than 18,000 people are potential
class members.  The class is so large that Mr. Guiffrida is
seeking to have the case certified as an "opt-in" class action,
which means residents would have to specifically request to be
added as a plaintiff.

Lackawanna County Judge James Gibbons directed the city to reply
to the filing by Aug. 21.  He scheduled a hearing on the matter
for Sept. 1. [GN]


SEECO INC: Charter Land Appeals Order in "Smith" Suit to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Movant Charter Land Co., LLC filed an appeal from an order and
judgment both dated June 23, 2017, in the lawsuit styled CONNIE
JEAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SEECO, INC. n/k/a SWN Production (Arkansas), LLC, et
al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00435-BSM, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, several
movants have also filed appeals in the lawsuit.

Testimony in the lawsuit began on June 6 with two hours of
questions for an educator from Nashville, Tenn., who sued
Southwestern Energy Co. and three subsidiaries, alleging
underpayment for the use of her land during the natural-gas boom
in north-central Arkansas.  The lawsuit is one of the biggest
class-action lawsuits to emerge from Fayetteville Shale activity.

Connie Jean Smith's case hinges on what a 12-person federal jury
will decide is "reasonable" for SWN Production, formerly known as
SEECO, to deduct from Ms. Smith's promised cut of the company's
proceeds.  Ms. Smith's case is class-action certified to represent
about 12,000 Arkansas landowners whom Smith's attorneys say were
cheated out of $98 million during years of royalty payments for
the use of their land to produce natural gas.  That averages out
to more than $8,000 per lease.

The appellate case is captioned as Connie Smith, et al. v. Charter
Land Co., LLC, et al., Case No. 17-2607, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on or before September 5, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on September 14, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellants Connie Arnett, Cecil Barnes III, Cecil
      Barnes Jr., Juanita Boone, David Brown, Edward Bryant,
      Norma Bryant, Roy Bryant, Rob Cassell, Sally Cassell,
      Patricia Cates, Dennis Cossey, Sandra Cossey, Isaac
      Criswell, Jerry Donahue, James Duncan, Kim Carrell Gifford,
      Michelle Gifford, Clemens Gottsponer, John Gottsponer,
      Myrtle Gottsponer, Karrie Gray, Thomas Gray, Robert Hall,
      James Harrison, John Hart, Kevin Holland, Hubert Isom,
      Joyce Isom, Floyd Jerrell, Sherry Jerrell, Brenda Sue Kay,
      Bennie Latimer, Junior Latimer, Robert Lee, Wanda Liddell,
      Megan Lockard, Dana Love, Charles Noakes, James
      Throneberry, Karen Throneberry, James Williams, Lucretia
      Williams, Kathleen Cambiano, James Huett, Charter Land Co.,
      LLC, Arthur Dunaway Rev Trust, Paula Barton, Betty
      B.Dunaway Rev. Trust, David Bird, Laurel Bird, Brents
      Holding Company, LLC, Georgene Christopher, Melissa Ruth
      Christopher, Warren Christopher, Dorr B. Moore Jr. Trust,
      Dunaway Brothers Properties, LLC, Steven English, Nancy
      Fleming, Thane Fleming, Gary Goff, Glyva Jo Grady, Verdain
      Grady, Pamela C. Harmon, Lonnie Wayne Harris, Mary
      Harrison, Rex Harrison, Thomas Hart, Hart of Arkansas
      Minerals, LLC, Jeannine Hill Thomas, Carol Howell, Gailon
      Howell, Kenneth Brents Family Trust, MWI, LLC, Barbara
      Moore, Dorr B. Moore, Marilynn Moore, Ruth Ann Needels,
      Faye Owens, Robert Owens, Paula Barton Revocable Trust,
      Joseph Peacock, Eric Rice, William Rice, Ruth Ann Needels
      Living Trust, Barbara J. Smith, Theresa Tubbs, Dana Walker,
      Julia Walker, Brinda Williams, David Michael Wood and
      Kimberly Wyborny is due on September 14, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant;

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Connie Jean Smith, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ben H. Caruth, Esq.
          Edward Allen Gordon, Esq.
          GORDON, CARUTH & VIRDEN, PLC
          105 S. Moose Street
          Post Office Box 558
          Morrilton, AR 72110-0558
          Telephone: (501) 354-0125
          E-mail: bcaruth@gcvlaw.com
                  agordon@gcvlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian L. Cramer, Esq.
          Tanner W. Hicks, Esq.
          Jack A. Mattingly, Jr., Esq.
          MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS, PLLC
          210 W. Oklahoma Avenue
          Guthrie, OK 70344
          Telephone: (405) 603-222
          E-mail: brian@mroklaw.com
                  tanner@mroklaw.com
                  jackjr@mroklaw.com

               - and -

          Erik P. Danielson, Esq.
          DANIELSON LAW FIRM, PLLC
          909 Rolling Hills Drive
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 935-8060
          E-mail: erik.danielson@danielsonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sean M. Handler, Esq.
          Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          Natalie Lesser, Esq.
          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087-0000
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: shandler@ktmc.com
                  gjarvis@ktmc.com
                  kjustice@ktmc.com
                  nlesser@ktmc.com
                  jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  mtroutner@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Brad E. Seidel, Esq.
          SEIDEL LAW FIRM, PC
          6 Hedge Lane
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 537-0903
          E-mail: bradseidel@me.com

               - and -

          James Fitzgerald Valley, Esq.
          J F VALLEY, ESQ, P.A.
          423 Rightor Street
          P.O. Box 451
          Helena, AR 72342
          Telephone: (870) 619-1750
          Facsimile: (870) 619-1760
          E-mail: james@jamesfvalley.com

Defendants-Appellees SEECO, Inc., Now known as SWN Production
(Arkansas), LLC, Desoto Gathering Company, LLC, Southwestern
Energy Services Company and Southwestern Energy Company are
represented by:

          Jess Askew, III, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-3000
          E-mail: Jess.Askew@KutakRock.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Daily, Esq.
          DAILY & WOODS, P.L.L.C.
          58 S. Sixth Street
          P.O. Box 1446
          Fort Smith, AR 72902-1446
          Telephone: (479) 782-0361
          E-mail: tdaily@dailywoods.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Ellis, Esq.
          R. Paul Yetter, Esq.
          YETTER & COLEMAN LLP
          909 Fannin
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 632-8000
          E-mail: rellis@yettercoleman.com
                  pyetter@yettercoleman.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Tabolsky, Esq.
          SCHIFFER ODOM HICKS & JOHNSON PLLC
          700 Louisiana
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 357-5150
          Facsimile: (713) 357-5160
          E-mail: mtabolsky@sohjlaw.com

               - and -

          Rex M. Terry, Esq.
          HARDIN & JESSON
          5000 Rogers Avenue
          P.O. Box 10127
          Fort Smith, AR 72917-0127
          Telephone: (479) 452-2200
          Facsimile: (479) 452-9097
          E-mail: terry@hardinlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee SEECO, Inc., Now known as SWN Production
(Arkansas), LLC, is represented by:

          Frederick H. Davis, Esq.
          Andrew King, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-3000
          E-mail: Frederick.Davis@KutakRock.com
                  Andrew.King@KutakRock.com

               - and -

          Matthew K. Hansen, Esq.
          Michael Vance Powell, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201-6776
          Telephone: (214) 740-8496
          E-mail: mkhansen@lockelord.com
                  mpowell@lockelord.com

Movant-Appellant Charter Land Co., LLC, is represented by:

          Phillip Allen, Esq.
          ALLEN & ALLEN LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 2602
          West Helena, AR 72390
          Telephone: (870) 572-6065

               - and -

          Jeremy K. Ward, Esq.
          FRANDEN FARRIS QUILLIN GOODNIGHT + ROBERTS
          217 E. Dickson Street
          Fayetteville, AR 72701
          Telephone: (800) 583-7129
          Facsimile: (918) 584-3814
          E-mail: jward@tulsalawyer.com


SEECO INC: Wyborny Appeals Order in "Smith" Suit to 8th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Movants Kimberly Wyborny, et al., filed an appeal from a court
order dated June 2, 2017, in the lawsuit titled CONNIE JEAN SMITH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SEECO, INC. n/k/a SWN Production (Arkansas), LLC, et al., Case No.
4:14-cv-00435-BSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas - Little Rock.

The Movants-Appellants are Kimberly Wyborny, David Bird, Laurel
Bird, Kenneth Brents Family Trust, Brents Holding Company, LLC,
Dunaway Brothers Properties, LLC, Betty B. Dunaway Rev. Trust,
Arthur Dunaway Rev Trust, Lonnie Wayne Harris, Thomas Hart, Hart
of Arkansas Minerals, LLC, Paula Barton, Paula Barton Revocable
Trust, Dorr B. Moore, Barbara Moore, Dorr B. Moore Jr. Trust,
Barbara J. Smith, Ruth Ann Needels, Ruth Ann Needels Living Trust,
Gary Goff, Verdain Grady, Glyva Jo Grady, Dana Walker, Julia
Walker, Brinda Williams, Steven English, Thane Fleming, Nancy
Fleming, Rex Harrison, Mary Harrison, Carol Howell, Gailon Howell,
Marilynn Moore, Robert Owens, Faye Owens, Joseph Peacock, Eric
Rice, William Rice, Theresa Tubbs, Jeannine Hill Thomas, David
Michael Wood, Individually and as trustee of the Dickson/Wood Land
Trust, Warren Christopher, Georgene Christopher, Warren
Christopher, as representative of Mountain Aire East, Inc., MWI,
LLC, Melissa Ruth Christopher and Pamela C. Harmon.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, several
movants have also filed appeals in the lawsuit.

Testimony in the lawsuit began on June 6 with two hours of
questions for an educator from Nashville, Tenn., who sued
Southwestern Energy Co. and three subsidiaries, alleging
underpayment for the use of her land during the natural-gas boom
in north-central Arkansas.  The lawsuit is one of the biggest
class-action lawsuits to emerge from Fayetteville Shale activity.

Connie Jean Smith's case hinges on what a 12-person federal jury
will decide is "reasonable" for SWN Production, formerly known as
SEECO, to deduct from Ms. Smith's promised cut of the company's
proceeds.  Ms. Smith's case is class-action certified to represent
about 12,000 Arkansas landowners whom Smith's attorneys say were
cheated out of $98 million during years of royalty payments for
the use of their land to produce natural gas.  That averages out
to more than $8,000 per lease.

The appellate case is captioned as Connie Smith, et al. v.
Kimberly Wyborny, et al., Case No. 17-2610, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on or before September 5, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on September 14, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellants Connie Arnett, Cecil Barnes III, Cecil
      Barnes Jr., Juanita Boone, David Brown, Edward Bryant,
      Norma Bryant, Roy Bryant, Rob Cassell, Sally Cassell,
      Patricia Cates, Dennis Cossey, Sandra Cossey, Isaac
      Criswell, Jerry Donahue, James Duncan, Kim Carrell Gifford,
      Michelle Gifford, Clemens Gottsponer, John Gottsponer,
      Myrtle Gottsponer, Karrie Gray, Thomas Gray, Robert Hall,
      James Harrison, John Hart, Kevin Holland, Hubert Isom,
      Joyce Isom, Floyd Jerrell, Sherry Jerrell, Brenda Sue Kay,
      Bennie Latimer, Junior Latimer, Robert Lee, Wanda Liddell,
      Megan Lockard, Dana Love, Charles Noakes, James
      Throneberry, Karen Throneberry, James Williams, Lucretia
      Williams, Kathleen Cambiano, James Huett, Charter Land Co.,
      LLC, Arthur Dunaway Rev Trust, Paula Barton, Betty
      B.Dunaway Rev. Trust, David Bird, Laurel Bird, Brents
      Holding Company, LLC, Georgene Christopher, Melissa Ruth
      Christopher, Warren Christopher, Dorr B. Moore Jr. Trust,
      Dunaway Brothers Properties, LLC, Steven English, Nancy
      Fleming, Thane Fleming, Gary Goff, Glyva Jo Grady, Verdain
      Grady, Pamela C. Harmon, Lonnie Wayne Harris, Mary
      Harrison, Rex Harrison, Thomas Hart, Hart of Arkansas
      Minerals, LLC, Jeannine Hill Thomas, Carol Howell, Gailon
      Howell, Kenneth Brents Family Trust, MWI, LLC, Barbara
      Moore, Dorr B. Moore, Marilynn Moore, Ruth Ann Needels,
      Faye Owens, Robert Owens, Paula Barton Revocable Trust,
      Joseph Peacock, Eric Rice, William Rice, Ruth Ann Needels
      Living Trust, Barbara J. Smith, Theresa Tubbs, Dana Walker,
      Julia Walker, Brinda Williams, David Michael Wood and
      Kimberly Wyborny is due on September 14, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant;

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Connie Jean Smith, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ben H. Caruth, Esq.
          Edward Allen Gordon, Esq.
          GORDON, CARUTH & VIRDEN, PLC
          105 S. Moose Street
          Post Office Box 558
          Morrilton, AR 72110-0558
          Telephone: (501) 354-0125
          E-mail: bcaruth@gcvlaw.com
                  agordon@gcvlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian L. Cramer, Esq.
          Tanner W. Hicks, Esq.
          Jack A. Mattingly, Jr., Esq.
          MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS, PLLC
          210 W. Oklahoma Avenue
          Guthrie, OK 70344
          Telephone: (405) 603-222
          E-mail: brian@mroklaw.com
                  tanner@mroklaw.com
                  jackjr@mroklaw.com

               - and -

          Erik P. Danielson, Esq.
          DANIELSON LAW FIRM, PLLC
          909 Rolling Hills Drive
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 935-8060
          E-mail: erik.danielson@danielsonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sean M. Handler, Esq.
          Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          Natalie Lesser, Esq.
          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087-0000
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: shandler@ktmc.com
                  gjarvis@ktmc.com
                  kjustice@ktmc.com
                  nlesser@ktmc.com
                  jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  mtroutner@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Brad E. Seidel, Esq.
          SEIDEL LAW FIRM, PC
          6 Hedge Lane
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 537-0903
          E-mail: bradseidel@me.com

               - and -

          James Fitzgerald Valley, Esq.
          J F VALLEY, ESQ, P.A.
          423 Rightor Street
          P.O. Box 451
          Helena, AR 72342
          Telephone: (870) 619-1750
          Facsimile: (870) 619-1760
          E-mail: james@jamesfvalley.com

Defendants-Appellees SEECO, Inc., Now known as SWN Production
(Arkansas), LLC, Desoto Gathering Company, LLC, Southwestern
Energy Services Company and Southwestern Energy Company are
represented by:

          Jess Askew, III, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-3000
          E-mail: Jess.Askew@KutakRock.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Daily, Esq.
          DAILY & WOODS, P.L.L.C.
          58 S. Sixth Street
          P.O. Box 1446
          Fort Smith, AR 72902-1446
          Telephone: (479) 782-0361
          E-mail: tdaily@dailywoods.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Ellis, Esq.
          R. Paul Yetter, Esq.
          YETTER & COLEMAN LLP
          909 Fannin
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 632-8000
          E-mail: rellis@yettercoleman.com
                  pyetter@yettercoleman.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Tabolsky, Esq.
          SCHIFFER ODOM HICKS & JOHNSON PLLC
          700 Louisiana
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 357-5150
          Facsimile: (713) 357-5160
          E-mail: mtabolsky@sohjlaw.com

               - and -

          Rex M. Terry, Esq.
          HARDIN & JESSON
          5000 Rogers Avenue
          P.O. Box 10127
          Fort Smith, AR 72917-0127
          Telephone: (479) 452-2200
          Facsimile: (479) 452-9097
          E-mail: terry@hardinlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee SEECO, Inc., Now known as SWN Production
(Arkansas), LLC, is represented by:

          Frederick H. Davis, Esq.
          Andrew King, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-3000
          E-mail: Frederick.Davis@KutakRock.com
                  Andrew.King@KutakRock.com

               - and -

          Matthew K. Hansen, Esq.
          Michael Vance Powell, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201-6776
          Telephone: (214) 740-8496
          E-mail: mkhansen@lockelord.com
                  mpowell@lockelord.com

The Movants-Appellants are represented by:

          B. Michael Easley, Esq.
          EASLEY & HOUSEAL PLLC
          510 E. Cross Street
          P.O. Box 1115
          Forrest City, AR 72336-1115
          Telephone: (870) 633-1447
          E-mail: mike@ehtriallawyers.com

               - and -

          Timothy R. Holton, Esq.
          HOLTON LAW FIRM
          296 Washington Avenue
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 523-2222
          E-mail: tholton@holtonlaw.com


SENTINEL OFFENDER: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Adams and Jerry Saint Vil, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Sentinel Offender Services, LLC,
Robert Contestabile, Chief Business Development Officer, Sentinel
Offender Services, LLC, Tim Lewis, Vice President of Georgia
Services, Sentinel Offender Services, LLC, and Steve Queen,
Director of Georgia Services, Sentinel Offender Services, LLC,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02813-WSD (N.D. Ga., July 25, 2017), alleges
violations of the Civil Rights Act.

Sentinel Offender Services, LLC provides case management and
offender-management services to courts, sheriff departments,
probation and parole departments, and other law enforcement
agencies in the United States.  The Company offers Voice Patrol
platform, a voice verification solution to verify the presence of
an individual at a specified location or locations; RF Patrol, an
electronic monitoring system; VoiceTrak, a voice-based
intervention platform that combines GPS, cellular, and radio-
frequency to deliver a system that verifies a participant's
presence at authorized location(s) based on their permitted
schedule; and SentinelDNA, a web-based monitoring and tracking
software application for law.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Akiva Hibel Freidlin, Esq.
          Sarah E. Geraghty, Esq.
          SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
          83 Poplar Street, N.W.
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 688-1202
          E-mail: akiva.freidlin@gmail.com
                  sgeraghty@schr.org

               - and -

          Julia Blackburn Stone, Esq.
          ROGERS & HARDIN, LLP
          229 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          2700 International Tower, Peachtree Center
          Atlanta, GA 30303-1601
          Telephone: (404) 522-4700
          Facsimile: (404) 525-2224
          E-mail: jstone@caplancobb.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Caplan, Esq.
          CAPLAN COBB LLP
          75 Fourteenth Street, NE, Suite 2750
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 596-5610
          Facsimile: (404) 596-5604
          E-mail: mcaplan@caplancobb.com


SERVICE KING: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Morales" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Service King Paint & Body, LLC, filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Abelardo Morales v. Service
King Paint & Body, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-04671-RGK-PJW, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Abelardo Morales v. Service
King Paint & Body, LLC, Case No. 17-80154, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent ABELARDO MORALES, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: aj@bamlawlj.com
                  norm@bamlawlj.com
                  Kyle@bamlawlj.com

Defendant-Petitioner SERVICE KING PAINT & BODY, LLC, is
represented by:

          Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
          Timothy L. Johnson, Esq.
          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
          E-mail: jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
                  tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com
                  spencer.skeen@ogletree.com


SHINE INC: Faces "Chambers" Suit in M.D. of Fla.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shine, Inc.  The
case is styled as Andrew Chambers, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shine, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01449-GAP-TBS
(M.D. Fla., August 4, 2017).

Shine, Inc. develops a daily text message service that helps young
people. It sends users an SMS experience around confidence, daily
happiness, mental health, and productivity to help them make the
most out of their days. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ryan S. Shipp, Esq.
   Law Office of Ryan S. Shipp, PLLC
   814 W. Lantana Road, Suite 1
   Lantana, FL 33462
   Tel: (561) 699-0399
   Email: ryan@shipplawoffice.com


SIRTEX MEDICAL: Maurice Blackburn Proposes Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lodewyke, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers has proposed a class action on behalf of
shareholders in an ASX-listed medical company.

The plaintiff law firm announced that it is investigating a
potential class action against Sirtex Medical Limited, which
specialises in oncology products.

The claim is centred on the actions of Sirtex and its former CEO
Gilman Wong between 24 August and 19 December 2016.

The company's share price fell 37 per cent when it announced
deteriorating earnings and sales growth on 9 December 2016.

Sirtex had informed the market on 24 August that it expected
double-digit sales growth to continue in FY17.  Mr Wong reiterated
this guidance on 25 October at the company's AGM.

However, Mr Wong sold over $2 million worth of Sirtex shares the
next day.

The company's share price dropped a further 9 per cent when Sirtex
announced an investigation into Mr Wong's share trading
activities.

The proposed class action will allege contraventions of the ASIC
Act, the Corporations Act and the Australian Consumer Law in
seeking to establish that Sirtex engaged in misleading or
deceptive conduct and/or breached its continuous disclosure
obligations, according to Maurice Blackburn.

"We've investigated this potential matter for some time now, and
it appears the company has serious questions to answer about its
conduct and that of the then CEO," said Andrew Watson, national
head of class actions at the firm.

"When a CEO dumps more than $2 million worth of stock shortly
before the company releases a surprise announcement of a severe
decline in earnings and sales growth, and investors then suffer a
37 per cent share price dive off the back of that, it immediately
rings alarm bells about compliance with continuous disclosure
laws."

Maurice Blackburn has teamed up with litigation funder IMF Bentham
to propose the claim.

Shareholders who purchased Sirtex shares between 24 August and 29
December 2016 could be eligible to participate in the class
action. [GN]


SIRTEX MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over 37% Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Burke, writing for Financial Standard, reports that an ASX-
listed healthcare company is facing a potential class action from
shareholders, including major Australian fund managers, following
a 37% fall in share price.

William Roberts Lawyers has alleged that Sirtex Medical, which
manufactures and distributes targeted radiation treatments for
liver cancer, engaged in "misleading and deceptive conduct," which
involved breaching its disclosure obligations when forecasting
double-digit growth for sales of its flagship product in FY17.

It wasn't until December 9, 2016, William Roberts Lawyers added,
that Sirtex issued a "downward revision of dose sales forecasts to
the market, triggering a 37% slump in its share price to $16 at
the day's close."

"We contend that Sirtex never had any reasonable basis for leading
investors to believe that it would record double-digit growth in
sales of its primary revenue-earner in FY17,"
William Roberts principal Bill Petrovski said.

"It is our view that Sirtex's share price was artificially
inflated based on misleading disclosures to the market.
Shareholders who suffered losses as a result may seek compensation
for their losses from the company," Mr. Petrovski said.

The proposed class action is open to shareholders who purchased
Sirtex shares from 24 August to December 9, 2016.  Litigation
Lending Services chief executive Stuart Price said that his firm
will fund the claim assuming sufficient shareholder interest.

Over the past 12 months, substantial Sirtex shareholders included
Yarra Capital Management, Hunter Hall/Pengana Capital Group and
parties related to UBS.

Yarra marketing and corporate affairs manager Stewart Harris
confirmed to Financial Standard that his firm remains a
substantial shareholder -- owning 6.6% at last filing -- but would
not comment on the William Roberts' proposed litigation.

Research from UBS as at June 28 maintained a 12-month "buy" rating
for Sirtex, highlighting that despite the company's turnaround
being a "long journey, we are encouraged to see that there has
been no further earnings collapse since the December downgrade."

Pengana Capital was contacted for comment.


SMG HOLDINGS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Urbano" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Oscar Urbano, Michael Rangel and Demetha Stroman filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Oscar
Urbano, et al. v. SMG, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00603-AG-MRW, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs filed an appeal from a ruling after the Court granted
the Defendants' motions for summary judgment and denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The appellate case is captioned as Oscar Urbano, et al. v. SMG, et
al., Case No. 17-56142, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 5, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on December 1, 2017;

   -- Appellants Michael Rangel, Demetha Stroman and Oscar
      Urbano's opening brief is due on January 10, 2018;

   -- Appellees SMG and SMG Holdings, Inc.'s answering brief is
      due on February 9, 2018;

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellant OSCAR URBANO, an individual, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; MICHAEL RANGEL, an
individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; and DEMETHA STROMAN, an individual, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: MMatern@maternlawgroup.com

Defendants-Appellees SMG, a business entity, form unknown, and SMG
HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, are represented by:

          Sergio Bent, Esq.
          Steven M. Kroll, I, Esq.
          BENT CARYL & KROLL, LLP
          6300 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone: (323) 315-0510
          Facsimile: (323) 774-6021
          E-mail: sbent@bcklegal.com
                  jcaryl@bcklegal.com


SOUTH CAROLINA: "McCray" Suit Moved to District Court of SC
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Willie James McCray, individually
and on behalf of other similarly situated Plaintiffs, Plaintiff v.
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Ms Amy Smith,
individually and/or in her official capacity, Major Charles West,
individually and/or in his official capacity, Assistant Warden Ms
Sellers, individually and/or in her official capacity, Warden
Willie Eagleton, Assistant Warden John McFadden, individually
and/or in his official capacity, Lieutenant Kennethia Friedman,
individually and/or in her official capacity, Bobby C Jenkins
#271240, Defendants, Case No. 2017-CP-34-157, was removed from the
Marlboro County Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina (Orangeburg) on August 3, 2017. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-02042-BHH-KDW to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to Honorable Bruce Howe
Hendricks.

The South Carolina Department of Corrections is the agency
responsible for corrections in the U.S. state of South Carolina.
It currently has about 6,000 employees and 23,000 inmates, in 24
institutions. The agency has its headquarters in Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James Edward Bell, III, Esq.
   Bell Legal Group
   219 N Ridge Street
   Georgetown, SC 29440
   Tel: (843) 546-2408
   Fax: (843) 546-9604
   Email: ebell@edbelllaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Samuel F Arthur, III, Esq.
   Aiken Bridges Nunn Elliott and Tyler
   PO Drawer 1931
   Florence, SC 29503
   Tel: (843) 669-8787
   Fax: (843) 664-0097
   Email: sfa@aikenbridges.com


SOUTH CAROLINA, USA: Stogsdill Appeals Ruling to Fourth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Richard Stogsdill, Nancy Stogsdill, Robert Levin and
Mary Self filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the
lawsuit styled Richard Stogsdill v. SC Dept. of HHS, et al., Case
No. 3:12-cv-00007-JFA, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina at Columbia.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Richard Stogsdill v. SC Dept.
of HHS, et al., Case No. 17-1880, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants RICHARD STOGSDILL; NANCY STOGSDILL, Parent
of Richard Stogsdill, on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated persons; ROBERT LEVIN; and MARY SELF, Parent of Robert
Levin, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
persons, are represented by:

          Patricia L. Harrison, Esq.
          PATRICIA LOGAN HARRISON LAW OFFICE
          611 Holly Street
          Columbia, SC 29205-0000
          Telephone: (803) 256-2017

Defendants-Appellees ANTHONY KECK and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES are represented by:

          Peter Michael Balthazor, Esq.
          Roy F. Laney, Esq.
          Thomas Lowndes Pope, Esq.
          Jayme Leigh Shy, Esq.
          Damon C. Wlodarczyk, Esq.
          RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC
          2838 Devine Street
          P. O. Box 11412
          Columbia, SC 29205
          Telephone: (803) 799-9993
          Facsimile: (803) 239-1414
          E-mail: peteb@rplfirm.com
                  rlaney@rplfirm.com
                  lpope@rplfirm.com
                  jshy@rplfirm.com
                  damonw@rplfirm.com

               - and -

          Nikole D. Haltiwanger, Esq.
          ROGERS, TOWNSEND & THOMAS, PC
          200 Executive Center Drive
          P. O. Box 100200
          Columbia, SC 29202-3200
          Telephone: (803) 771-7900
          Facsimile: (803) 343-7017
          E-mail: nikole.haltiwanger@rtt-law.com


SPANGLES INC: Yanes Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled RICKY YANES, on behalf of
himself and All others similarly situated v. SPANGLES, INC., Case
No. 6:16-cv-01369-EFM-TJJ (D. Kan.), moves the Court for an order:

   (1) finding that the Plaintiff has met his burden under 29
       U.S.C. Section 216(b) with regards to his Fair Labor
       Standard Act claims and conditionally certifying his
       claims as a collective action;

   (2) authorizing notice to be mailed and e-mailed to a class
       composed of all current and former employees of the
       Defendant, who were classified and paid as salaried
       managers during any workweek from September 23, 2013
       through the present;

   (3) requiring the Defendant to provide Plaintiff within 10
       days of the Court's Order, a list of the first and last
       names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail
       addresses of all members of the putative class, in order
       to assist with the issuance of notification of the right
       to opt-in to the lawsuit;

   (4) requiring the Defendant to post Notice of the lawsuit in
       conspicuous locations in each of its 27 restaurants;

   (5) tolling the statute of limitations from the date of the
       filing of the Plaintiff's complaint (September 23, 2016),
       or at minimum, from the filing of Plaintiff's Motion for
       Conditional Class Certification until the close of the
       opt-in period;

   (6) approving the proposed Notice of Claim and Consent to
       Joint;

   (7) designating Ricky Yanes as Class Representative; and

   (8) approving the Plaintiff's counsel to act as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wk4pI1Ak

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean M. McGivern, Esq.
          Nathan R. Elliott, Esq.
          GRAYBILL & HAZLEWOOD, LLC
          Telephone: (316) 266-4058
          Facsimile: (316) 462-5566
          E-mail: sean@graybillhazlewood.com
                  nathan@graybillhazlewood.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric W. Barth, Esq.
          HINKLE LAW FIRM, LLC
          1617 N Waterfront Pkwy., Suite 400
          Wichita, KS 67206
          Telephone: (316) 267-2000
          Facsimile: (316) 630-8466
          E-mail: ebarth@hinklaw.com


SPANGLES INC: Yanes Seeks to Certify Class over State Law Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled RICKY YANES, on behalf of
himself and All others similarly situated v. SPANGLES, INC., Case
No. 6:16-cv-01369-EFM-TJJ (D. Kan.), seeks class certification of
his claims against the Defendant for breach of contract under the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act and the Kansas Wage Payment Act.

Specifically, Mr. Yanes seeks:

   1. a determination that he has met his burden for class
      certification under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure;

   2. an order certifying this class of employees:

      all current and former employees of Spangles, Inc. whose
      wages were deducted for company uniforms at any point in
      time since January 20, 2012;

   3. an order requiring Spangles, Inc. to provide the Plaintiff
      within 10 days of the Court's Order; a list of the first
      and last names, last known addresses, telephone numbers,
      and e-mail addresses of all members of the putative class,
      to assist with notice;

   4. an order appointing Ricky Yanes as representative of the
      class;

   5. an order appointing Graybill & Hazlewood, LLC as class
      counsel;

   6. an order approving the Plaintiff's proposed class notice
      and authorizing its distribution; and

   7. an order requiring the Defendant to post the approved
      notice in conspicuous locations in each of its 27
      restaurants.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=i5SfeWhC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean M. McGivern, Esq.
          Nathan R. Elliott, Esq.
          GRAYBILL & HAZLEWOOD, LLC
          Telephone: (316) 266-4058
          Facsimile: (316) 462-5566
          E-mail: sean@graybillhazlewood.com
                  nathan@graybillhazlewood.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric W. Barth, Esq.
          HINKLE LAW FIRM, LLC
          1617 N Waterfront Pkwy., Suite 400
          Wichita, KS 67206
          Telephone: (316) 267-2000
          Facsimile: (316) 630-8466
          E-mail: ebarth@hinklaw.com


SPOTIFY USA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Ingalls" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William Alsup denied Gregory Ingalls' motion for class
certification and vacated the evidentiary hearing set for Aug. 1,
2017, in the lawsuit entitled GREGORY INGALLS and TONY HONG,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SPOTIFY USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-03533-WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Following a July 13 hearing Mr. Ingalls' motion to certify a
class, Judge Alsup ordered Spotify to provide the number of
people, who signed up for Spotify's free or reduced-price trial
and were later charged for the paid service even though they never
used it.  Spotify complied and provided a declaration indicating
that approximately 116,650 California users were charged at least
one time for Spotify's paid service even though they had not used
it.

Spotify's response also revealed, however, that Mr. Ingalls did
not fall within this group, Judge Alsup notes.  Rather, he used
Spotify Premium on 52 separate days and streamed over 1,000 songs
during the three months he paid for it -- in contrary to his prior
representations to the Court that he did not use Spotify Premium
after his free trial ended but was charged for it nonetheless,
Judge Alsup states.

"In the event that we had a problem-free plaintiff, the
undersigned judge would be inclined to certify a class of
California residents who subscribed to a free trial, thereafter
did not use the service, but were nevertheless charged for it.
This is the clearest-cut group that was likely misled to their
detriment due to alleged violations of the Automatic Renewal Law,"
Judge Alsup wrote in his order.

"The proposed class representative, however, is not problem-free.
Contrary to representations made to the Court (Dkt. No. 84 at 9),
it is now evident that Ingalls not only used Spotify Premium
during the free trial, but also continued to use it thereafter,"
Judge Alsup opines.  "It is highly likely that he is not a member
of the class the Court would be inclined to certify, and he is
unable to contend cleanly that he is," Judge Alsup adds.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DF7kD1US


STATE FARM: Burk Appeals Arizona Court Decision to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Betty Burk and Ray Burk filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit entitled Ray Burk, et al. v. State Farm
Fire & Casualty Co., Case No. 2:14-cv-02642-SMM, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

The lawsuit arose from insurance-related disputes.

The appellate case is captioned as Ray Burk, et al. v. State Farm
Fire & Casualty Co., Case No. 17-16536, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellants Betty Burk and Ray Burk's opening brief is due
      on November 8, 2017;

   -- Appellee State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company's
      answering brief is due on December 8, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants RAY BURK, husband - on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, and BETTY BURK, wife - on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Cory Steven Fein, Esq.
          CORY S FEIN PC
          8915 Skipping Stone CT
          Houston, TX 77064
          Telephone: (832) 259-6926
          E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Foreign Corporation, is represented by:

          Joseph Cancila, Jr., Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 258-5613
          Facsimile: (312) 258-5600
          E-mail: jcancila@schiffhardin.com

               - and -

          Carrie Marie Francis, Esq.
          STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP
          1850 North Central Ave.
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584
          Telephone: (602) 212-8535
          E-mail: carrie.francis@stinson.com

               - and -

          Sondra Hemeryck, Esq.
          RILEY, SAFER, HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
          70 W. Madison Street, Suite 2900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 471-8724
          Facsimile: (312) 471-8701
          E-mail:  shemeryck@rshc-law.com


SUNPOWER CORP: "Morris" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Morris, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sunpower Corp., Modernize Inc. and Sunrona
Solar LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-04444 (N.D. Cal., August
4, 2017), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorneys'
fees and costs and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Morris' residential telephone number has been listed on the
National Do Not Call Registry since at least at least 2015.
Despite this, SunPower attempted to sell Ms. Morris solar energy
products via phone. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: McKinsty Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rafael McKinsty filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Rafael McKinsty v. Swift Transportation
Company of Arizona, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01317-VAP-SP, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 28,
2017, Chief Judge Virginia A. Phillips denies the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  The Plaintiff sought to certify
this class:

     All California based current and former truck drivers
     employed by Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC who
     worked for at least four consecutive hours in California,
     and who were compensated via a piece-rate compensation
     system, at any time during the period from April 16, 2011
     through the conclusion of this action (the "Class Period").

The appellate case is captioned as Rafael McKinsty v. Swift
Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC, Case No. 17-80148, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner RAFAEL MCKINSTY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael Malk, Esq.
          MICHAEL MALK, ESQ., APC
          1180 S. Beverly Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 203-0016
          Facsimile: (310) 499-5210
          E-mail: mm@malklawfirm.com

Defendant-Respondent SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY OF ARIZONA, LLC,
a Delaware Corporation, is represented by:

          Paul Scott Cowie, Esq.
          John Ellis, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
          Telephone: (415) 774-3182
          Facsimile: (415) 520-9816
          E-mail: pcowie@littler.com
                  jellis@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Patricia Jeng, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          379 Lytton Avenue
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 815-2600
          Facsimile: (650) 815-4686
          E-mail: pjeng@sheppardmullin.com


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: McMahon Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Bruce McMahon and Christopher Bengston filed an appeal
from a court ruling relating to their lawsuit styled Bruce
McMahon, et al. v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:13-cv-02032-VAP-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Court on
April 17 again dismissed the putative class action, which alleges
that gamers were tricked into buying "Grand Theft Auto V" before
its online multiplayer mode launched, ruling the alleged delay
didn't harm gamers' wallets, but allowed "one final amendment" of
the suit.

Before a hearing in downtown Los Angeles, U.S. District Judge
Virginia A. Phillips issued a written tentative ruling granting
Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.'s motion to dismiss Named
Plaintiffs Bruce McMahon and Christopher Bengston's proposed class
action alleging the Company falsely touted GTA V's online
functionality the day it hit the market, even though it knew the
feature wouldn't be available for two weeks.  Judge Phillips had
previously dismissed the suit with prejudice only to see the Ninth
Circuit award the plaintiffs an extra life and revive the claims.

The appellate case is captioned as Bruce McMahon, et al. v. Take-
Two Interactive Software, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-56143, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 5, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on December 1, 2017;

   -- Appellants Christopher Bengston and Bruce McMahon's opening
      brief is due on January 10, 2018;

   -- Appellee Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.'s answering
      brief is due on February 12, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants BRUCE MCMAHON, on behalf of himself, and
CHRISTOPHER BENGSTON, on behalf of himself; and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey R. Lawrence, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY R. LAWRENCE
          341 W. 2nd Street, Suite 4
          San Bernardino, CA 92401
          Telephone: (909) 963-0143
          Facsimile: (909) 963-0143
          E-mail: Jeff@JeffLawrenceLaw.com

Defendants-Appellees TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC., and
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC., DBA Rockstar, Erroneously
Sued As Rockstar Games, Inc., are represented by:

          Lee Scott Brenner, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712-6100
          lbrenner@kelleydrye.com

               - and -

          Michael Charles Lynch, Jr., Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 808-5082
          E-mail: mlynch@kelleydrye.com


TALLAHASSEE DODGE: Masson Sues Over Junk Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------
Seth F. Masson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tallahassee Dodge Chrysler Jeep, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-22967 (S.D. Fla., August 3, 2017),
seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation and willful violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant operates an automotive dealership. It allegedly sent
Plaintiff automated telemarketing text messages, without their
prior express written consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
      HIRALDO P.A.
      401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 400-4713
      Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


TECHNIPFMC PLC: Faces "Prause" Securities Suit in S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH PRAUSE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TECHNIPFMC PLC, DOUGLAS J. PFERDEHIRT and MARYANN T.
MANNEN, Case No. 4:17-cv-02368 (S.D. Tex., August 3, 2017), is a
putative class action lawsuit brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who acquired
TechnipFMC securities between April 27, 2017, and July 24, 2017,
seeking to recover damages caused by their alleged violations of
federal securities laws.

TechnipFMC is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom, and its
U.S. headquarters are located in Houston, Texas.  TechnipFMC plc
provides oilfield services.  The Company offers subsea, surface,
onshore, and offshore solutions for oil and gas projects.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 752014
          Telephone: (214) 643-6011
          Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.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
          E-mail: 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
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


TEMPLE TERRACE, FL: Lea Seeks to Certify Rental Housing Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lea Family Partnership Ltd., asks the Court to certify a class in
the matter styled LEA FAMILY PARTNERSHIP Ltd., a Florida Limited
Partnership, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated v.
CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA, and LEN VALENTI, in his official
capacity as CLASS REPRESENTATION "Housing Compliance Officer" and
individually, Case No. 8:16-cv-03463-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla.), pursuant
to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

The class is defined as:

     All owners of residential dwellings located within the City
     of Temple Terrace: (i) whose dwelling was subject to the
     City's Rental Housing Ordinance Program; (ii) who submitted
     an initial application for the City's Rental Housing
     Ordinance Program at any time during the Class Period for
     such dwelling; (iii) who paid an initial fee to the City of
     Temple Terrace with their Rental Housing Ordinance Program
     application; and, (iv) whose dwelling was unoccupied at the
     time of the initial inspection performed by the City.

     For purposes of the above Class definition, the "Class
     Period" is November 16, 2012 to present.

Excluded from the class are the Defendants and their officers,
directors and employees and the Court to which this case may be
assigned, as well as any Judge to whom this action is assigned,
and any member of such Judge's staff and immediate family.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as Class Representative,
and the appointment of its counsel as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Hm4O8Oy4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christa L. Collins, Esq.
          HARMON, WOODS AND PARKER, P.A.
          110 North 11th Street, 2nd Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 222-3600
          Facsimile: (813) 222-3616
          E-mail: clc@harmonwoodslaw.com

               - and -

          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          J. ANDREW MEYER, P.A.
          15565 Gulf Boulevard
          Redington Beach, FL 33708
          Telephone: (727) 709-7668
          E-mail: andrew@jandrewmeyer.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Donovan A. Roper, Esq.
          ROPER & ROPER, P.A.
          116 North Park Avenue
          Apopka, FL 32703
          Telephone: (407) 884-9944
          Facsimile: (407) 884-4343
          E-mail: email@roperandroper.com


TOWNE PROPERTIES: Duggan Seeks to Certify Two Classes Under ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled CONNIE J. DUGGAN v. TOWNE
PROPERTIES GROUP HEALTH PLAN, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00623-MRB
(S.D. Ohio), moves the Court for an order certifying two classes
for equitable relief under Employee Retirement Income Security
Act:

   (1) Injunction Class (MedBen Only):

       All current and past participants in any ERISA-governed
       employee welfare benefit plan for which MedBen serves as
       third-party administrator.

   (2) Equitable Remedy Class:

       All participants in any ERISA-governed employee welfare
       benefit plan for which Defendant Medical Benefits
       Administrators, Inc. ("MedBen") acted to adjudicate claims
       for benefits and issued at least one notification of an
       "adverse benefit determination" during the class period,
       September 25, 2009 to present.

The gist of the action centers on violations of the ERISA.  Two
sets of violations are at issue: (1) Towne Properties Asset
Management, Inc., plan administrator and an ERISA fiduciary,
failed to provide the plan documents to participants as required
by ERISA and its regulations; and (2) MedBen, also an ERISA
fiduciary, failed to provide ERISA-compliant notice of its adverse
benefit determinations to participants of plans it administers.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William H. Blessing, Esq.
          THE BLESSING LAW FIRM
          119 East Court Street, Suite 500
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621-9191
          Telecopier: (513) 621-7086
          E-mail: bill@blessing-attorneys.com


TYSON FOODS: Settles Former Employees' Class Action for $5.8MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Tyson Foods has settled a 10-
year-old class-action lawsuit and will disburse nearly $6 million
to more than 3,900 current and former employees at a northwest
Iowa pork plant.

The Sioux City Journal reported that Storm Lake employees sued the
Arkansas-based company in 2007 to collect back pay for the time
they spent putting on and taking off protective work clothes and
equipment before and after their work shifts.

A Sioux City federal jury ruled in favor of the workers in 2011, a
decision the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in 2014.
Tyson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The court rejected the
company's appeal in March 2016 to limit workers' ability to
challenge pay and workplace issues.

Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson said each worker will receive about
$1,700. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Pricing Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Daniels, Cara Bayles, Linda Chiem and John Kennedy,
writing for Law360, report that Uber can't shake a putative class
action from drivers alleging a breach of contract stemming from
its upfront pricing model, a California judge said on Aug. 1,
finding that allegations of miscalculating driver pay are enough
to move ahead at this stage of the six-month-old suit.

Lead plaintiff Martin Dulberg claims that Uber Technologies Inc.'s
pricing model pricing model charges passengers a fare before their
ride even begins based on projections, but pays drivers based on
the distance and time actually driven, limiting their earnings and
violating terms of their employment contract.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued a 10-page decision on
Aug. 1 that shot down Uber Technologies Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the case following a hearing on July 27.  Though Judge Alsup cited
some inconsistencies in Mr. Dulberg's complaint, he found that his
description of Uber's allegedly misleading charging methods are
sufficient enough to proceed.

"Dulberg describes this process as essentially calculating the
'Fare' twice -- once upfront, using higher estimated time and
distance amounts, to determine Uber's own Service Fee, and again
after each ride, using lower actual time and distance amounts, to
determine the amount remitted to drivers -- even though the driver
agreement tied both Uber's Service Fee and the driver's remittance
to the same calculated Fare for each ride," Judge Alsup said.
"These allegations, taken as true, suffice to state a claim for
breach of contract."

Paul Malso of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC said in a statement sent to
Law360 that the agreement with drivers requires Uber to use the
same fare calculation to pay drivers as it uses to charge
passengers.  But since Uber implemented upfront pricing, it has
been using one fare calculation to determine what passengers pay
and a completely separate fare calculation performed after the
ride to determine drivers' compensation, he said.

"Because the upfront fare calculation always yields a higher
amount, drivers have been getting the short end of the stick," he
said.  "The ruling recognizes that the agreement supports drivers'
claim and allows them to move forward with their case."

Mr. Dulberg's complaint, initially filed in February, alleges that
under that upfront pricing model, in which passengers agree to a
fare before accepting a ride, Uber uses an aggressive and often
inflated projection of the distance and time involved in a
particular ride.

The driver is entitled to a set percentage of the fare as laid out
in the driver agreements, but Uber pays based on a calculation of
the distance and time actually driven, Mr. Dulberg says.  The
actual distance can often be less than what the customer actually
paid, allowing Uber to pocket the difference, according to Mr.
Dulberg's complaint.

In the Aug. 1 decision, Judge Alsup walked through the definition
of "fare" in the driver agreement and the terms of its upfront
pricing policy.  Uber says that its fare is calculated off of
actual amounts of time and distance after a trip it done, but it
doesn't have a provision that says so in its driver agreement.

Instead, the agreement says that its base fare amount plus
distance and time calculation is detailed at its website, Judge
Alsup said.  According to that website, users attempt to get a
fare estimate, they put in a pickup location and dropoff spot,
Judge Alsup said.

"Thus, the website referenced in the driver agreement currently
appears to facilitate a fare calculation process that closely
tracks Uber's current 'upfront pricing' policy," Judge Alsup said.
"This further supports the plausible inference that Uber's
'upfront pricing' policy simply explains to passengers the
enumerated charges covered by the driver agreement and Uber must
use the same time and distance amounts -- whether estimated or
actual -- for both."

And though Uber offered examples of other passenger charges that
aren't covered by the driver agreement, like UberPool, surge
pricing, promotions and discounts, Judge Alsup said none of the
examples "render implausible the amended complaint's theory that
the driver agreement obligated Uber to honor the fixed,
percentage-based split of the calculated Fare for each ride
between its Service Fee and the driver's remittance."

Representatives for Uber didn't immediately respond to request for
comment on Aug. 1

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

Mr. Dulberg is represented by Paul B. Maslo and Andrew Dressel of
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC.

The case is Dulberg v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00850 (N.D. Cal.).  The case is assigned to Judge William
Alsup.   The case was filed February 21, 2017. [GN]


UNIFUND CCR: Certification of Class Sought in "Livermore" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Livermore moves the Court to certify the class described
in the complaint of the lawsuit entitled CHARLES LIVERMORE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
UNIFUND CCR, LLC, PILOT RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, LLC, and
DISTRESSED ASSET PORTFOLIO III, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01051-DEJ
(E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion
for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiff says it is obligated to move for class certification
to protect the interests of the putative class. The Plaintiff
contends that more than one defendant has already attempted the
scheme contemplated in Campbell-Ewald.  See Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).  Judge Randa
denied the defendant's request to deposit funds on grounds that a
class certification motion was pending.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNIFUND CCR: Seeks Initial Approval of "Kramer" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned MARY KRAMER v. UNIFUND CCR
PARTNERS, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00243-TBR-LLK (W.D. Ky.),
jointly move that the Court preliminarily certify Plaintiff as
class representative, certify the Plaintiff's attorney as class
counsel, approve a proposed settlement and approve the proposed
class notice.

Plaintiff is an individual, who had a judgment entered against her
based on a consumer debt.  Michael J. Keeney, Esq., is an
attorney, who attempted to collect the judgment on behalf of his
client, Unifund.  The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants
violated state and federal law by charging post-judgment interest
compounded at a rate greater than annually.  The Plaintiff asserts
that such conduct renders the Defendants liable for violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, negligence per se, and
fraud.

The Parties have agreed to a settlement of this litigation on a
class-wide basis.  The Settlement Agreement provides that the
Court will certify the Plaintiff as class representative and the
Plaintiff's attorney as Class Counsel.  The Settlement Agreement
provides substantial benefits to the proposed Class and is fair,
reasonable, and adequate in light of the relevant facts, the
applicable law, and the potential value of the settlement to the
Class.  The Defendants agree to provide monetary relief and
account credits to the Plaintiff and the Class.

The Parties also ask the Court to authorize the form and mailing
of the Notice, to set a final hearing to determine whether the
Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable; and at such hearing
approve the Settlement and grant final judgment.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DOF5ApIO

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben Carter, Esq.
          CARTER LAW PLLC
          900 S. Shelby Street
          Louisville, KY 40203
          Telephone: (502) 509-3231
          E-mail: ben@bencarterlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth M. Shaffer, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP
          255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 977-8128
          E-mail: elizabeth.shaffer@dinsmore.com


UNITED FOOD: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Ohlendorf" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Robbie Ohlendorf and Sandra Adams filed an appeal from
a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Robbie Ohlendorf, et al.
v. Local 876 United Food & Commercial Workers International Union,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01439, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 12,
2017, the Hon. Judge Paul L. Maloney dismissed as moot the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Court said,
"Plaintiffs Ohlendorf and Adams filed a motion for class
certification. In its response, Defendant Local 876 argues that
consideration of class certification motion should be deferred
until its motion to dismiss is resolved.  In their reply,
Plaintiffs explicitly stated they did not oppose resolving the
motion to dismiss first.  A hearing on both the motion to dismiss
and the motion for class certification occurred on June 26, 2017.
Contemporaneous with this Order, the Court has granted Defendant
Local 876's motion to dismiss. Because all claims are dismissed,
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is moot."

The appellate case is captioned as Robbie Ohlendorf, et al. v.
Local 876 United Food & Commercial Workers International Union,
Case No. 17-1864, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ROBBIE OHLENDORF and SANDRA ADAMS, and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Amanda Freeman, Esq.
          NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION
          8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
          Springfield, VA 22160
          Telephone: (703) 321-8510
          Facsimile: (703) 321-9319
          E-mail: akf@nrtw.org

Defendant-Appellee LOCAL 876 UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION is represented by:

          J. Douglas Korney, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF J. DOUGLAS KORNEY
          32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334-1567
          Telephone: (248) 865-9214


UNITED INDUSTRIES: Faces "Parker" Class Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Parker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-05353-
RWS (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2017), arises from alleged fraud-related
claims.

United Industries Corporation manufactures consumer products for
home, lawn, and garden insect and weed control markets in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7127
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com


UNITED KINGDOM: Post Office Sued Over Faulty Computer System
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pooler, writing for The Financial Times, reports that
Britain's Post Office is facing a class action suit from more than
500 of its sub-postmasters, who claim that a faulty computer
system led to them being wrongly accused of false accounting or
theft.

Some of the postmasters were prosecuted and imprisoned after the
Horizon accounting system, which was introduced in 1999, allegedly
showed their branches to be in deficit. Sub-postmasters hold the
rights to operate smaller Post Office branches.

Others lost their homes, suffered ill health or declared
bankruptcy after being told to repay tens thousands of pounds in
certain cases, according to the Justice for Subpostmasters
Alliance (JFSA).

Lawyers for the group allege there was "a pattern of bullying and
intimidation" by the Post Office dating back to shortly after
Horizon was rolled out.

The system records day-to-day financial transactions at 11,600
branches.  The Post Office has previously described it as
"extremely robust" but the claimants say errors were caused both
by bugs in the software and inadequate training and support.

Alan Bates, of the JFSA, said: "We expect these proceedings will
reveal that Post Office Ltd began with a presumption of guilt.
They aggressively interviewed sub-postmasters experiencing
problems with the Horizon accounting system, telling them they
were the only ones with these problems."

People were held and their homes searched, said Mr Bates.  "Many
were pressured to pay alleged balance shortfalls and to resign."

The Post Office, which remained in public ownership after its
former sister company Royal Mail was privatised in 2013, has
previously denied any general issues with Horizon.

It said that an examination by independent forensic accountants
found no systemic issues.  Subsequent investigations of 150 cases,
completed in 2015, did not identify any transaction caused by a
technical fault that resulted in a postmaster being held
responsible for a loss of money.

The Post Office said it would defend the case and added: "We
welcome [the group litigation order] as offering the best
opportunity for the matters in dispute to be heard and resolved.

"We will be continuing to address the allegations through the
court's processes and will not otherwise comment on litigation
whilst it is ongoing."

The High Court this year granted a group litigation order, to
which 522 current and former postmasters attached as eligible
claimants before a deadline.

A procedural hearing with a managing judge will take place in
October, which should lead to a timetable for final resolution by
the court.

Among the allegations are that the Post Office failed to act upon
warnings about Horizon, or adequately investigate once sub-
postmasters fell under suspicion.

Deirdre Connolly ran the Killeter Post Office in a rural part of
County Tyrone, Northern Ireland, between 2006 and 2010.  She said
she was often told the Horizon system would "sort itself out" when
she reported problems with balancing the accounts.

But when an alleged deficit of almost GBP15,600 was revealed
during an unannounced audit, Ms Connolly said she was not given a
proper opportunity to respond.  Out of fear she repaid the amount
by borrowing from relatives and was dismissed by the Post Office,
though she did not face prosecution.

This litigation isn't just about money, but about lives being
destroyed

Bankruptcy followed and Ms Connolly's son later attempted suicide,
which she put down to witnessing the stress she was under.  Today
she is unable to work and is on benefits after her health
deteriorated.

"It's a real struggle to pay the mortgage," she said.  "I worked
my whole life and now I can hardly go out into a crowd.  I don't
have any confidence -- I'm a different person."

The law firm Freeths, which is leading the sub-postmasters'
collective legal action, said the claim was being pursued on
various grounds, including breach of contract, negligence, breach
of fiduciary duty, harassment and unjust enrichment, among others.

James Hartley, a partner, said: "We are confident that this will
enable the full extent of this systemic behaviour by Post Office
Ltd to be brought to light, wrongdoers held to account, victims
compensated and hopefully a broken Post Office culture mended."

The litigation threatens to cast a shadow over efforts to turn
round the Post Office.

Following a wave of strikes in the run-up to last Christmas over
redundancies and pension cuts, Paula Vennells, chief executive,
said in March that the institution was on the verge of breaking
even for the first time in more than a decade.

In parallel with the collective legal action, the Criminal Cases
Review Commission is reviewing 29 convictions where applicants say
the Horizon system played a part.  More than 10 postmasters
participating in the class action went to prison, with sentences
of between three weeks and two years.

"This litigation isn't just about money but about lives being
destroyed," said Mr Bates.

Fujitsu, which built the system, declined to comment. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Faces "P.K." Suit in D.C.
----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rex W. Tillerson.
The case is styled as P.K., N.H., M.K., M.K.1, M.K.2, Afshan Asadi
Sorkhab, Neda Heidari Dehkordi, Y.S.1, Y.S.2, Y.S.3, Hamed Sufyan
Othman Almaqrami, Radad Fauiz Furooz, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Rex W. Tillerson, in
his official capacity as Secretary of State, John Does #1-#50, in
their official capacity as the consular officials responsible for
issuing diversity visas, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01533-TSC
(D.C., August 3, 2017).

Rex W. Tillerson, in his official capacity as Secretary of
State.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Matthew E. Price, Esq.
   JENNER & BLOCK LLP
   1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900
   Washington, DC 20001-4412
   Tel: (202) 639-6873
   Fax: (202) 661-4802
   Email: mprice@jenner.com


UNITED STATES: Alexander's Medicare Beneficiaries Class Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael P. Shea granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit
captioned CHRISTINA ALEXANDER, et al. v. THOMAS E. PRICE,
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Case No. 3:11-cv-01703-MPS
(D. Conn.).

Judge Shea certified this class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     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 this definition.

The Court also appoints the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.

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


UNITED STATES: Medical Care Suit Obtains Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Edmund H. Mahony, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that a
Connecticut advocacy group has won class certification for a
lawsuit demanding that Medicare beneficiaries be allowed to
challenge their patient classification as "observational" rather
than "admitted" when hospitalized -- a distinction that can cost
thousands of additional dollars in hospital, medication and
nursing home care.

Recent estimates suggest that as many as 1 million Medicare
beneficiaries are hospitalized around the country each year under
observational status.  Until May, hospitals were under no
obligation to notify the patients that they were not admitted and
the patients learned only upon being billed for significant
medical and post-release nursing care.

Under Medicare rules, beneficiaries are not permitted to challenge
their classification.

The suit was brought six years ago by the Willimantic-based Center
for Medicare Advocacy, which represents beneficiaries across the
country.  U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea in Hartford
certified the suit as a class action in a decision made public on
Aug. 1.  Should the center prevail, hundreds of thousands of
beneficiaries forced to pay higher costs could benefit.

The center's litigation director, Alice Bers, said the experience
of an 84-year-old class member from North Carolina frames the
issues raised in the suit. After her physician sent her to an
emergency room, Nancy Niemi was hospitalized for 39 days.

Ms. Niemi later learned that, in spite of her hospitalization, she
had not been admitted.  Rather she was put on "observational
status," which under Medicare rules means she was essentially an
outpatient.  Because she could not claim to have been admitted for
the three-day minimum stay required by Medicare, Ms. Niemi was
responsible for care in the nursing home where she was placed
after leaving the hospital.

There is disagreement over the rationale hospitals use to
distinguish between admitted and observational patients, according
to the suit.  A now-deceased Connecticut resident was hospitalized
for eight days in 2009.  He was initially admitted, but his status
was changed retroactively to observational, according to the suit.

When hospitals treat beneficiaries on "observational status," the
patients essentially are denied Medicare Part A benefits and
switched to Part B, for which patients pay monthly premiums or are
subject to cost-sharing, according to the suit. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Customs & Border Protection Sued by Asylum Seekers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AL OTRO LADO, INC., a California corporation; ABIGAIL DOE,
BEATRICE DOE, CAROLINA DOE, DINORA DOE, INGRID DOE and JOSE DOE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
JOHN F. KELLY, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland
Security, in his official capacity; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting
Commissioner, United States Customs and Border Protection, in his
official capacity; TODD C. OWEN, Executive Assistant Commissioner,
Office of Field Operations, United States Customs and Border
Protection, in his official capacity; and DOES 1-25, inclusive,
Case No. 2:17-cv-05111-JFW-JPR (C.D. Cal., July 12, 2017), alleges
violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the
Administrative Procedure Act, the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution (Procedural Due Process) and the Non-
Refoulement Doctrine.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") officials have
systematically violated U.S. law and binding international human
rights law by refusing to allow individuals, including the Class
Plaintiffs -- who present themselves at Ports of Entry ("POEs")
along the U.S.-Mexico border and assert their intention to apply
for asylum or a fear of returning to their home countries -- to
seek protection in the United States, the Plaintiffs allege.  They
add that CBP is violating the law by utilizing various tactics,
including misrepresentations, threats and intimidation, verbal
abuse and physical force, and coercion, to deny asylum seekers,
including Class Plaintiffs, access to the asylum process.

Al Otro Lado is a non-profit, non-partisan organization
incorporated in California, and was established in 2014.  Al Otro
Lado is a legal services organization serving indigent deportees,
migrants, refugees and their families, principally in Los Angeles,
California and Tijuana, Mexico.

John F. Kelly is the Secretary of the United States Department of
Homeland Security.  Kevin K. McAleenan is Acting Commissioner of
CBP.  Todd C. Owen is the Executive Assistant Commissioner of
CBP's Office of Field Operations.  OFO is the largest component of
CBP and is responsible for border security, including immigration
and travel through U.S. POEs.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to Al Otro Lado and Class
Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Wayne S. Flick, Esq.
          Manuel A. Abascal, Esq.
          James H. Moon, Esq.
          Kristin P. Housh, Esq.
          Robin A. Kelley, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 485-1234
          Facsimile: (213) 891-8763
          E-mail: wayne.s.flick@lw.com
                  manny.abascal@lw.com
                  james.moon@lw.com
                  kristin.housh@lw.com
                  robin.kelley@lw.com

               - and -

          Melissa Crow, Esq.
          Karolina Walters, Esq.
          Kathryn Shepherd, Esq.
          AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
          1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 507-7523
          Facsimile: (202) 742-5619
          E-mail: mcrow@immcouncil.org
                  kwalters@immcouncil.org
                  kshepherd@immcouncil.org

               - and -

          Baher Azmy, Esq.
          Ghita Schwarz, Esq.
          Angelo Guisado, Esq.
          CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
          666 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 614-6464
          Facsimile: (212) 614-6499
          E-mail: bazmy@ccrjustice.org
                  gschwarz@ccrjustice.org
                  aguisado@ccrjustice.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          OIL-DCS Trial Attorney
          OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
          PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 353-8806
          E-mail: oil-dcs.cacd@usdoj.gov


US NONWOVENS CORP: Court Approves Class Notice in "Mendez" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Steven I. Locke granted the Plaintiffs' motion to approve
the Proposed Class Notice in the lawsuit captioned EFRAIN DANILO
MENDEZ a/k/a EFRAIN D. MENDEZ-RIVERA, ADRAILY ALBERTO COISCOU,
FERNANDO MOLINA a/k/a JORGE LUIS FLORES LARIOS, SIRYI NAYROBIK
MELENDEZ, RENE ALEXANDER OLIVIA, DANIEL SANTE, RAMIRO CORDOVA, and
JUAN FLORES -LARIOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. U.S. NONWOVENS CORP., SAMUEL MEHDIZADEH
a/k/a SOLOMON MEHDIZADEH, SHERVIN MEHDIZADEH, and RODY
MEHIDIZADEH, Case No. 2:12-cv-05583-ADS-SIL (E.D.N.Y.),

The Plaintiffs commenced the action on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, seeking unpaid overtime and spread
of hours compensation from the Defendants pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law.

Subject to certain revisions, Judge Locke approves the Proposed
Notice.  Class Counsel is directed to serve the Revised Notice via
first class mail within 30 days of the date of the Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XJXdpZ3F


US XPRESS: Court Certifies Class of Truck Drivers in "Ayala" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable George H. Wu granted the Plaintiff's renewed motion
for class certification in the lawsuit captioned Anthony Ayala v.
U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00137-GW-
KK (C.D. Cal.).

In this putative class action against U.S. Xpress Enterprises,
Inc. ("USXE") and U.S. Xpress, Inc. ("USX"), Anthony Ayala seeks
certification of a class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

USX is a subsidiary of USXE and provides delivery services,
including the hauling and delivery of freight loads by truck.  USX
provides these services to customers in the 48 contiguous states.
Both Defendants are Nevada corporations with their principal place
of business in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of
the California Labor Code and California Industrial Commission
Wage Orders, including failure to provide meal and rest periods
and failure to compensate for all hours of work performed.

The initial proposed Class consisted of: [A]ll truck drivers who
worked or work in California for U.S. Express after the completion
of training at any time since four years from the filing of this
legal action until such time as there is a final disposition of
this lawsuit.  In the Motion, however, the Plaintiff's class
consists only of California residents asserting claims based
solely on work performed in California, according to the Order.

Judge Wu also appoints Justin Swidler, Esq., and Richard Swartz,
Esq., of Swartz Swidler LLC; James M. Sitkin, Esq., at Law Offices
of James M. Sitkin; and David Borgen, Esq., James Kan, Esq., and
Raymond Wendell, Esq., of Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho as
class counsel.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BV7l2aAJ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Hwy. N., Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                  rswartz@swartz-legal.com

               - and -

          James M. Sitkin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. SITKIN
          255 California Street, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 318-1048
          Facsimile: (415) 362-3268
          E-mail: jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com

               - and -

          David Borgen, Esq.
          James Kan, Esq.,
          Raymond A. Wendell, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
                  jkan@gbdhlegal.com
                  rwendell@gbdhlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James H. Hanson, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY PC
          10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN  46204
          Telephone: (317) 492-9205
          Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
          E-mail: jhanson@scopelitis.com


UTILITY SERVICE: Wins Initial OK of "Komoroski" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Greg Kays entered an order in the lawsuit titled JAMES
KOMOROSKI and GALEN VERHULST, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. UTILITY SERVICE PARTNERS PRIVATE LABEL, INC.
d/b/a SERVICE LINE WARRANTIES OF AMERICA, Case No. 4:16-cv-00294-
DGK (W.D. Mo.), conditionally certifying settlement class and
granting preliminary approval to proposed class action settlement.

The case is a putative consumer class action.  The Plaintiffs
purchased utility warranties from the Defendant, which would
defray the cost to repair and replace the water service line
running into their home.  The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant
routinely denied warranty coverage for some legitimate repair
claims.

The Settlement creates a settlement class defined as "all
individuals with galvanized steel water service lines or interior
water meters in Kansas City, Missouri who purchased a Warranty
Agreement from [Defendant] which was still in effect as of
February 17, 2016."  The Settlement also creates a subclass
defined as,

     [T]hose individuals who were covered by a Warranty Agreement
     between May 1, 2015, and February 17, 2016, who made a valid
     claim under their Warranty Agreement and whose claims were
     denied in whole or in part for costs associated with
     replacing galvanized steel pipes with copper ones or for
     costs associated with relocating interior water meters to
     outside water meter pits (the "Damages Subclass").

The Settlement also provides incentive awards of $3,500 each to
Plaintiffs Komoroski and Verhulst, the designated class
representatives.  The Settlement further provides for an award of
attorneys' fees and costs to Plaintiffs' counsel in a "free-
sailing" provision under which Defendant agrees not to contest an
award of attorneys' fees and costs to Plaintiffs' counsel of up to
$83,000.

The Court appoints, for settlement purposes, Plaintiffs James
Komoroski and Galen Verhulst as Class Representatives, and
Attorneys Robert A. Horn and Joseph A. Kronawitter of the Law
Office of Horn Aylward & Bandy, LLC and Phyllis Norman of The
Norman Law Firm as Settlement Class Counsel.

The Court approves, as to form and content, the Notices submitted
by the parties with certain exceptions.  The Court also appoints
the Defendant to supervise and administer the notice procedure.

The Final Fairness Hearing will be held on November 2, 2017, at
9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ej6gawTn

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert A. Horn, Esq.
          Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq.
          HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, L.L.C.
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 421-0700
          E-mail: rhorn@hab-law.com
                  jkronawitter@hab-law.com

               - and -

          Phyllis Norman, Esq.
          THE NORMAN LAW FIRM
          4310 Madison Ave., Suite 120
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 895-8989
          E-mail: phyllis@pnormanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jarrod D. Shaw, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Sitter, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          EQT Plaza
          625 Liberty Ave., 23rd Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3142
          Telephone: (412) 667-7907
          Facsimile: (412) 402-4193
          E-mail: jshaw@mcguirewoods.com
                  bsitter@mcguirewoods.com


VALET PARKING: Sossaman Sues Over Misclassification of Operators
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SOSSAMAN, Individually, and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. VALET PARKING EXPERTS, INC., a
Florida Corporation, d/b/a Cubby Caboose Mini Express, and JEAN
PIERRE PETIT, individually, Case No. 2:17-cv-02557 (W.D. Tenn.,
August 3, 2017), challenges the Defendants' alleged:

   (1) classification of operators as independent contractors;
       and

   (2) denial to the Plaintiff and those similarly situated of
       the rights, obligations, privileges, and benefits owed to
       them as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants employ individuals classified as "operators" to
operate rides, such as electric trains, owned or leased by
Defendants, in traditional shopping malls across America,
according to the complaint.

Valet Parking Experts, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its
principal place of business located in Destin, Florida.  Valet
Parking Experts operates under the assumed name of Cubby Caboose
Mini Express and whose business consists of operating trains and
other rides in shopping malls across America.  Jean Pierre Petit
is a principal and owner of Valet Parking Experts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


VITAL RECOVERY: Franco Files Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery
Services, LLC.  The case is styled as Elliot Franco, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vital
Recovery Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04549 (E.D.
N.Y., August 2, 2017).

Vital Recovery Services, LLC owns and operates a third-party
collection agency in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
   337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


VITAMIN SHOPPE: 9th Circuit Revives Mislabeling Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that the Ninth U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals on Aug. 1 revived a class action alleging the
misleading labeling of Vitamin Shoppe products, declaring that the
district court improperly dismissed causes of action for unjust
enrichment, fraud, and unfair trade practices.

It upheld the dismissal of causes of action for breach of contract
and breach of warranty.

The gist of the complaint is that labels on Vitamin Shoppe
products state the number of capsules or tablets in a bottle or
package, and the strength, implying that each capsule or tablet is
of that strength, but advising in small print on the backs of the
products that the "serving size" is greater than one.

The complaint was brought on July 23, 2014, in Oregon by
Lee Walters, a medical doctor, who said he purchased a Vitamin
Shoppe product based on what he was led to believe by the
packaging to be the potency, and would not have made the purchase
had he not been misled. In particular, he bought a package of
"Calcium 1000 mg Caramel Chews" in May 2014.

Serving Size

According to the complaint, the front of the package of such chews
"represented that the package contained 'Calcium 1000 mg Caramel
Chews' and that '60 SOFT CHEWS' were inside the package" but that
"the package contained 60 soft chews that each contained only 500
mg of calcium."  On the back of the package, in "much smaller
type" -- and facing away from the purchaser when viewing the
product on a shelf -- it is noted that "a 'serving size' was two
soft chews."

Nothing on the front of the package, the complaint said,
"indicated that the 1000 mg dosage was predicated on consumption
of more than one soft chew, or that it was not an accurate
representation of the quantity of Calcium per each soft chew."
Walters was originally joined as a named plaintiff by a "Jane
Roe," a resident of California, who sued under California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False
Advertising Law.  Oregon plaintiffs and California plaintiffs were
to be subclasses of a nationwide class, but the Roe allegations
were eliminated in the operative pleading, and the action has
proceeded under Oregon law.

Defendant Vitamin Shoppe Industries, Inc. ("VSI"), a New Jersey
corporation, sells its products in more than 700 retail stores in
45 states -- including 90 in California -- as well as on the
Internet and by catalogues.  Products include, according to the
complaint, "vitamins, minerals, herbs, specialty supplements,
sports nutrition and other health and wellness products."

Memorandum Opinion

On an appeal from a district court dismissal, the Ninth Circuit
reinstated the action in a memorandum opinion signed by Circuit
Judges Paul J. Watford and John B. Owens and by Chief Judge Gloria
M. Navarro of the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

The judges said that the district court was correct in disallowing
a cause of action based on breach of contract, explaining:

"We have found no authority under Oregon law holding that the mere
purchase of a consumer good, without more, suffices to establish a
valid and enforceable contract.  To accept Walters' theory of
contract formation, we would have to conclude that the display of
a price term and quantity information on or immediately
surrounding a product's packaging constitutes an offer to sell."

They said this would be contrary to "the traditional rule."
The judges also declared that a cause of action for breach of
warranty was properly barred because the requirements are not met
under state or federal law.

Unjust Enrichment

However, the jurists found, the unjust enrichment cause of action
was erroneously excised.  Their opinion said:

"Under Oregon law, once a court determines that a valid contract
exists, an unjust enrichment claim must fail . . . The district
court dismissed Walters' unjust enrichment claim on this basis,
after concluding that a contract had been formed.  Because the
parties' transaction did not form a contract, the unjust
enrichment claim is not precluded."

U.S. District Court Judge Anna J. Brown of the District of Oregon
had adopted the findings and recommendations of Magistrate Judge
Paul Papak, who found that Walters's purchase did constitute
entail a contract.  He found, however, "that Walters' failure to
account for the information contained in the terms printed on the
packaging, whether on the front facing portion or the reverse-
side, does not place VSI in breach of the contract formed by
Walters' purchase of the product."
A cause of action was also stated for false representation, the
panel held on Aug. 1.  It said:

"Contrary to VSI's contention, the operative question is not
whether Walters unreasonably failed to read the terms of a
contract -- as explained above, no contract exists in this case.
Instead, the question is whether Walters was required, as a matter
of law, to cross-reference statements on a product's label against
information found in small print elsewhere on the product.  This
court has answered that question in the negative. Consumers review
the small print on a product's label to learn additional details
about a product, not to correct potentially misleading
representations found on the front."

A cause of action for an unfair trade practice was also restored.
The memorandum opinion set forth that Walters alleged that false
representations were made, in violation of a state statute, and
that if he had known of the falsity he would not have purchased
the chews.

"The ascertainable loss, therefore, is the monetary value of a
product that Walters would not otherwise have bought," the judges'
memorandum said.  "Because Walters alleges that he relied on VSI's
representations, he sufficiently pleaded that VSI's conduct caused
his loss."

The case is Walters v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries, Inc., No. 15-
35592.

Unsettled is whether Mr. Walter's suit may proceed as a class
action. In recommending that the entire action be dismissed
without leave to amend, Mr. Papak found that VSI's motion to
strike the class allegations was moot.

The complaint states that there are more than 100,000 class
members nationwide and the controversy exceeds $5 million. [GN]


WALGREENS BOOTS: de Leon Sues over Sweetened Beverage Tax
---------------------------------------------------------
Vincent De Leon, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2017-CH-10758 (Ill. Cir., August 4, 2017), seeks refund
of all improperly-charged Sweetened Beverage Taxes paid by
Plaintiffs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on such
monetary relief, appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief,
costs of bringing this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and all other relief resulting from unjust enrichment and in
Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

On August 4, 2017, Plaintiff Vince De Leon purchased a case of
Dasani Tropical Pineapple Sparking Water that is clearly labeled
"unsweetened." Despite this, de Leon was charged the sweetened
beverage tax as per receipt. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
      Chicago, IL 60611
      Telephone: (708) 628-4949
      Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
      E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com


WALT DISNEY: Violates Kids' Online Privacy, Rushing Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA RUSHING, and her child, L.L., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY; DISNEY
ENTERPRISES, INC.; DISNEY ELECTRONIC CONTENT, INC.; UPSIGHT, INC.;
UNITY TECHNOLOGIES SF; and KOCHAVA, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-04419
(N.D. Cal., August 3, 2017), is brought on behalf of parents of
children who, while playing online games via smart phone apps,
have had their personally identifying information exfiltrated by
The Walt Disney Company and its partners, for future commercial
exploitation, in direct violation of the federal Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act.

The Defendants intentionally intruded on and into the Plaintiffs'
and Subclass members' solitude, seclusion, right of privacy, or
private affairs by intentionally designing the Game Tracking Apps
-- as well as all software development kits ("SDK") identified in
the complaint -- to surreptitiously obtain, improperly gain
knowledge of, review, and retain the Plaintiffs' and Subclass
members' activities through monitoring technologies, the
Plaintiffs allege.

The Walt Disney Company is a diversified worldwide entertainment
company that (i) runs major media networks; (ii) operates parks
and resorts; (iii) produces live and animated films; and (iv)
licenses, develops, and publishes consumer products and
interactive media, including games for children on mobile
platforms through Disney's "Consumer Products & Interactive Media"
segment.  This segment generates revenue primarily from -- among
other things -- the sale of online games, in-game purchases, and
advertising through online video content.

Disney Enterprises, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Walt
Disney Company that functions as the merchandising and licensing
division of The Walt Disney Company, and is the registered owner
of Disney-branded trademarks, copyrights and other intellectual
property assets.  Disney Electronic Content, Inc. is identified as
the "Seller" in the Apple App Store and the "Developer" in the
Google Play Store, for many of Disney's Apps.

The "SDK Defendants" are entities, which provided their own
proprietary computer code to Disney, known as software development
kits ("SDK"), for installation and use in Disney's gaming apps,
including Disney Princess Palace Pets.

SDK Defendant Upsight, Inc. is an American technology company
headquartered in San Francisco, California.  SDK Defendant Unity
Technologies SF is an American technology headquartered in San
Francisco.  SDK Defendant Kochava, Inc. is an American technology
company headquartered in Sandpoint, Idaho.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: msobol@lchb.com

               - and -

          Nicholas Diamand, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq.
          Abbye R. Klamann, Esq.
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: ndiamand@lchb.com
                  dcuthbertson@lchb.com
                  aklamann@lchb.com

               - and -

          Hank Bates, Esq.
          Allen Carney, Esq.
          David Slade, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 West 7th St.
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
                  acarney@cbplaw.com
                  dslade@cbplaw.com


WAWA INC: Accused by "Papp" Class Suit of Failing to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT PAPP, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. WAWA, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-05393 (D.N.J.,
July 24, 2017), accuses the Defendant of failing to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals overtime
compensation for hours they have worked over 40 hours in a
workweek while training for the General Manager in Training
position.

Wawa, Inc., is a corporation, organized and existing under the
laws of the state of New Jersey, with its corporate headquarters
in Media, Pennsylvania.  In 2015, Wawa was ranked 34th on the
Forbes Magazine list of largest private companies.

Wawa does business under the name "Wawa" and operates over 720
retail locations in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware,
Virginia and Florida and has sales for the fiscal year ending 2015
of over 8.9 billion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph D. Monaco, III, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH MONACO, P.C.
          Seven Penn Plaza, Suite 1606,
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 486-4244
          Facsimile: (646) 807-4749
          E-mail: jmonaco@monaco-law.com

               - and -

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


WEITZ HEAVY: Followell Wants to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASON FOLLOWELL, RUBEN FOLLOWELL, and JOSEPH MUNOZ on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. WEITZ HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL, LLC and THE WEITZ COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-02280
(S.D. Tex., July 25, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiffs and
proposed members of the class are entitled to recover one and one-
half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week, less any overtime amounts already
paid.

Weitz Heavy Industrial, LLC, is a Foreign Limited Liability
Company with a principal place of business in Sugar Land, Texas.
The Weitz Company, LLC, is a Foreign Limited Liability Company
with a principal place of business in Des Moines, Iowa.  Weitz is
a major general contractor and industrial services provider in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          Justin C. Jenson, Esq.
          Katie R. McGregor, Esq.
          BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 425-7100
          Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
          E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com
                  jjenson@bpblaw.com
                  kmcgregor@bpblaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Nat'l General Insurance Named in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dugan, writing for New York Post, reports that the New York
insurance company that wrote policies for 800,000 questionable
Wells Fargo auto loans has been dragged into the bank's latest
scandal.

National General Insurance was named in a class-action lawsuit
filed against the bank -- for allegedly unduly profiting from $80
million in collateral protection insurance that the drivers didn't
need -- and didn't know they were paying for.

Katherine Jacobs, an Alabama woman who was charged for the CPI,
had her finances damaged by the additional costs, she claims in
her Manhattan federal court suit.

"Despite having appropriate insurance of her own, Wells Fargo
imposed forced CPI insurance on her, ratcheted up her monthly
payment, charged her late fees, and issued negative credit events
to the credit bureaus," the suit claims.

"Wells Fargo is very sorry for the inconvenience this caused
customers, and we are in the process of notifying them and making
things right," Kate Pulley, a bank spokeswoman, said in a
statement. She declined to answer additional questions about
Jacobs' situation.

A representative for National General didn't return a request for
comment.

Adam Levitt, a lawyer for Jacobs and a partner at Dicello Levitt &
Casey, has also filed a class-action against the bank over its
401(k) plan.  On Aug. 1, Mr. Levitt filed a motion to have similar
suits consolidated and tried in New York.

"This is a perfect example of why arbitration clauses are
unworkable for consumers and ordinary Americans," Mr. Levitt told
The Post. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Patti's Pitas Sues Over Excessive Credit Card Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patti's Pitas, LLC and Queen City Tours, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wells
Fargo Merchant Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04583
(E.D. N.Y., August 4, 2017), seeks recovery and restitution of all
improper fees seized by Defendant, disgorgement of the ill-gotten
gains, compensatory, general, nominal, punitive and exemplary
damages, pre-judgment interest and such other relief resulting
from breaches of the contract and of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.

Patti's Pitas operated a restaurant from January 2017 to May of
2017. Queen City Tours is a tour operator headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina. Both are merchants of Wells Fargo
credit card services and claim to have been charged excessively
for transactions made on their credit card terminals. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Adam Webb, Esq.
      WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
      1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Tel: (770) 444-9325
      Fax: (770) 444-0271
      Email: Adam@WebbLLC.com


WEYERHAEUSER CO: "Smith" Suit Sues Over Toxic Joists
----------------------------------------------------
Alyse Smith and Ryan Smith, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Weyerhaeuser Company,
Defendants. v. Case No. 1:17-cv-01900 (D. Colo., August 4, 2017),
seeks to recover all costs associated with repairing, removing
and/or replacing the joists, damages for diminution of the value
and future value of their homes, out-of-pocket expenses related to
dealing with these problems, including, without limitation, delays
in settlement and relocation expenses, as well as time spent away
from work to address these issues, injunctive relief requiring
Weyerhaeuser to pay for ongoing monitoring of the formaldehyde
levels in Plaintiffs' homes and for appropriate medical
monitoring, modification of its warranty claims process to
uniformly provide relief in accordance with all of its obligations
resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of express
and implied warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiffs own or who have signed contracts to purchase homes or
other structures located in the State of Colorado and across the
United States installed with Weyerhaeuser's TJI Joists with Flak
Jacket Protection that emits formaldehyde far in excess of
acceptable levels and causes other serious air quality and health
issues, thus rendering the said homes and other structures
uninhabitable and requiring immediate repair, removal and/or
replacement. Defendant sold the said joists claiming a fully
transferable warranty against manufacturing defects and remained
in effect for the lifetime of the structure.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, RC.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      Email: scarson@bm.net


WILMINGTON TRUST: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Order in Brundle Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Wilmington Trust, N.A., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Tim Brundle v. Wilmington Trust,
N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-01494-LMB-IDD, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Tim Brundle v. Wilmington
Trust, N.A., Case No. 17-1873, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that initial
forms are due within 14 days.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee TIM P. BRUNDLE, on behalf of the Constellis
Employee Stock Ownership Plan, is represented by:

          Athanasios Basdekis, Esq.
          Brian Alexander Glasser, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-0000
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: tbasdekis@baileyglasser.com
                  bglasser@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          3601 McDonough Street
          Joliet, IL 60431
          Telephone: (815) 730-8213
          E-mail: pmuench@baileyglasser.com

Defendant-Appellant WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., as successor to
Wilmington Trust Retirement and Institutional Services Company, is
represented by:

          Sarah Aiman Belger, Esq.
          ODIN, FELDMAN & PITTLEMAN, PC
          1775 Wiehle Avenue
          Reston, VA 20190
          Telephone: (703) 218-2161
          Facsimile: (703) 712-5299
          E-mail: sbelger@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          James Patrick McElligott, Jr.
          Summer Speight, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          P. O. Box 3916
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-4329
          Facsimile: (804) 698-2111
          E-mail: jmcelligott@mcguirewoods.com
                  sspeight@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Stephen William Robinson, Esq.
          Nicholas DelVecchio SanFilippo, Esq.
          John Edward Thomas, Jr., Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          1750 Tysons Boulevard
          Tysons Corner, VA 22102-3915
          Telephone: (703) 712-5378
          Facsimile: (703) 712-5258
          E-mail: srobinson@mcguirewoods.com
                  jthomas@mcguirewoods.com
                  nsanfilippo@mcguirewoods.com


WOODGRAIN MILLWORK: Opposes Henderson's Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the lawsuit styled JOHN RICHARD HENDERSON,
Individually And On Behalf of Similarly Situated Individuals v.
WOODGRAIN MILLWORK, INC. d/b/a WOODGRAIN DISTRIBUTION, Case No.
4:16-cv-01761 (S.D. Tex.), files an opposition to the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification and notice.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification and
notice seeking to certify a class of "All Delivery Drivers driving
a local route employed by Woodgrain in the past three (3) years
who were not compensated for overtime."

Mr. Henderson filed the action on June 20, 2016, as a putative
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, claiming he
was not properly paid for his work as a Woodgrain delivery driver
because he and other similarly situated drivers were improperly
classified as exempt from overtime.

In its Opposition, Woodgrain argues, among other things, that the
Plaintiffs fail to define a class supported by their factual
allegations and give no justification for why two drivers' alleged
experiences with a single distribution center should be
extrapolated to delivery drivers nationwide.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          Alecia D. Best, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          9801 Westheimer Road, Suite 302
          Houston, TX 77042
          Telephone: (713) 223-8855
          E-mail: Ttran@tranlawllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kimberly R. Miers, Esq.
          Russell R. Zimmerer, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1500
          Lock Box 116
          Dallas, TX 75201-2931
          Telephone: (214) 880-8100
          Facsimile: (214) 880-0181
          E-mail: kmiers@littler.com
                  rzimmerer@littler.com


* Class Actions More Beneficial to Consumers Than Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Economic Policy Institute, many financial
institutions use forced arbitration clauses in their contracts to
block consumers with disputes from banding together in court,
instead requiring each consumer to argue their case separately in
private arbitration proceedings.  Recently, members of Congress
introduced legislation to repeal a new rule from the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau that restores consumers' ability to
join together in class action lawsuits against financial
institutions.

Opponents of the rule have suggested that the CFPB's own findings
show consumers on average receive greater relief in arbitration
than class action lawsuits.  In a new fact sheet, EPI Policy
Director Heidi Shierholz explains that this is enormously
misleading.  While the average consumer who wins a claim in
arbitration recovers $5,389, consumers win only 9 percent of
disputes.  Overall, the average consumer who enters arbitration
with a bank or lender is ordered to pay $7,725.  Furthermore,
Ms. Shierholz points out, evidence shows that allowing consumers
to join together in court does not increase consumer costs or
decrease available credit.

"The numbers couldn't be more clear -- class actions return
hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers, while forced
arbitration only pays off for banks and lenders," said
Ms. Shierholz.  "Congress should side with the American people,
not big banks, and vote down this capricious attack on consumer
freedom."

The Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit Washington D.C. think
tank, was created in 1986 to broaden the discussion about economic
policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers.
Today, with global competition expanding, wage inequality rising,
and the methods and nature of work changing in fundamental ways,
it is as crucial as ever that people who work for a living have a
voice in the economic discourse. [GN]


* Kilpatrick Highlights Key Provisions in CFPB's Arbitration Rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Dowdy, Esq. -- JDowdy@kilpatricktownsend.com -- and Phillip
Harris Jr., Esq. -- PHarris@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
wrote that in a Legal Alert posted earlier this month, Kilpatrick
Townsend's Financial Institutions Team highlighted the key
provisions of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's
Arbitration Agreements Final Rule, 82 Fed. Reg. 33210 (July 19,
2017) (the "Rule").

The full Alert is available at https://is.gd/pCobMq

Among other things, the Rule prohibits covered financial services
providers from using pre-dispute arbitration agreements to block
consumer class actions in court and requires most financial
services providers to include language in their arbitration
agreements reflecting this limitation.

Soon after the Rule's issuance, the U.S. House of Representatives
voted 231-190 to repeal it under the Congressional Review Act.
H.R.J. Res. 111, 2017.  The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 801, et seq., permits Congress to pass a joint resolution
disapproving a regulatory enactment within 60 days of a
promulgating agency providing notice of the enactment to Congress,
and if the disapproval is signed by the President (or his veto is
overridden), the regulation does not go into effect and the same
or a substantially similar regulation cannot be enacted by the
agency. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801(a)(3), (b).  The House's disapproval
resolution will now go to the Senate for consideration, and if it
passes, it is likely to be signed into law by the President.  See
Sylvan Lane, House votes to repeal consumer arbitration rule, The
Hill, July 25, 2017, available at
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/343652-house-votes-to-repeal-
consumer-financial-protection-bureau-rule.  It is unclear whether
the resolution has the votes to pass the Senate.  Even if the
Senate does not pass the disapproval, it is possible that Congress
will eventually enact a law overriding the Rule.

Key Takeaways: The future of class waivers in pre-dispute consumer
financial services arbitration agreements remains uncertain.
Financial services providers should carefully monitor developments
and be sure to have an appropriate compliance plan. [GN]


* Objector Ted Frank Helps Limit Frivolous Merger Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Caleb Hannan, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that David
Duggan opened his mail last August to find he was part of a legal
settlement. He'd been a shareholder in Crestwood Midstream
Partners LP, a natural gas pipeline company that had recently
merged with one of its affiliates in a $3.5 billion deal.  A group
of attorneys Duggan had never heard of, representing Crestwood
investors, had objected to the terms of the deal and settled a
class-action suit brought in the Southern District of Texas
against the company and its affiliate.  Yet investors didn't get a
check. All that Duggan found in the mail was a dozen pages of
legal disclosures.

Mr. Duggan was upset.  A retired lawyer himself, he knew about
"disclosure-only" settlements like this one.  Someone would sue a
company involved in a merger for failing to provide a piece of
information that might be relevant to the merger deal and then
settle when the company agreed to disclose it.  The plaintiffs
wouldn't get any money--but the lawyers would have their fees paid
by the company as part of the agreement.  In the Crestwood case,
attorneys were paid about $575,000.

Mr. Duggan also knew that a well-known federal judge elsewhere had
just issued a ruling labeling disclosure-only suits "a racket."
So he wrote a letter complaining about the settlement to the judge
in the case.  That got the attention of the one man in the country
most interested in finding people like Mr. Duggan: Ted Frank,
professional objector.

Mr. Frank is an attorney and the director of the Center for Class
Action Fairness at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a
Washington think tank.  Representing a dissatisfied class member
like Mr. Duggan, he shows up at court to challenge settlements,
often with the goal of scuttling them, to the dismay of both
plaintiffs' attorneys and companies that just want to put the suit
behind them.  "I have no friends in the courtroom," says
Mr. Frank, whose resume includes vetting Sarah Palin as John
McCain's vice presidential nominee and winning a substantial sum
of money in a televised poker tournament.

Mr. Frank got his start in objections in 2009 when he learned that
he and all others who'd purchased a Grand Theft Auto game were due
a total of $30,000, the result of a class action accusing the
game's maker of explicit sexual content.  When
Mr. Frank learned the attorneys who'd brought the suit were due $1
million, he rented a car, drove to New York, and voiced his first
objection. The settlement was denied.

Many objectors hope to create just enough chaos that it will be
worth it for one or both parties to pay them to go away.
Mr. Frank is more mission-driven: He gets paid a salary of about
$200,000 by CEI and says he represents only clients who refuse to
take money to drop the objection.  His goal, he says, is to make
it more difficult and less profitable for lawyers to pursue what
he considers to be abusive suits.

Tamping down lawsuits against corporations has long been a
conservative cause, and CEI is on the libertarian right--it has
ties to the Koch brothers, and opposes many financial and
environmental regulation.  But Mr. Frank's approach can scramble
traditional political narratives. "T ed has been on the right side
of a number of cases," says Alan Morrison, an associate dean at
George Washington University Law School and the co-founder with
Ralph Nader of the litigation arm of the consumer-interest
nonprofit Public Citizen.  "We were the proverbial skunk at the
garden party, too."

Although he objects in all varieties of class-action suits,
Mr. Frank and a shortlist of people like him have been
particularly effective in pushing back on disclosure-only
settlements.  Critics call such settlements a merger tax, because
litigation is so common when two companies combine.  According to
financial consultant Cornerstone Research, about half of all deals
in 2008 with a value of more than $100 million led to a lawsuit.
For the seven years that followed, that percentage never dipped
below 86 percent.  Why those numbers shot up so quickly is the
subject of speculation.  One theory points to a decision by press-
release news wires to allow plaintiffs' firms to announce their
intent to sue, thereby making it easier to find one essential
ingredient of a suit: a shareholder willing to be a plaintiff.

But substantially fewer merger lawsuits are being filed than just
two years ago.  That change is largely attributable to Frank and
those he's encouraged.  "When I was asking myself how I was going
to do merger objections, I thought of Ted," says attorney Sean
Griffith.  "He's the fountainhead of this kind of work." Mr.
Griffith, who directs Fordham University's Corporate Law Center,
successfully objected to a settlement last year involving the
merger of real estate websites Trulia Inc. and Zillow Group Inc.
His victory in January 2016 set a precedent in Delaware, the state
where plaintiffs' attorneys in merger cases used to make much of
their money.  That year the percentage of deals that attracted a
lawsuit in Delaware dropped by half, according to a study to be
published in the Vanderbilt Law Review.

Next came an objection by Mr. Frank before the 7th Circuit Court
of Appeals and his real target: Judge Richard Posner, one of the
most famous and influential federal judges not on the Supreme
Court.  "When he speaks," Mr. Frank says, "people find out about
it." Mr. Frank was trying to stop a settlement involving Walgreen
Co.'s merger with a Swiss pharmacy chain.  Judge Posner wrote the
decision in Frank's favor in August 2016.  It said: "The type of
class action illustrated by this case . . . is no better than a
racket. It must end."

Mr. Frank took on the Crestwood case after Duggan wrote his
letter. This time, he didn't succeed: In July, the objection was
thrown out because, the court said, it came too late.  Mr. Frank's
opponent in the case on the plaintiff side was Juan Monteverde,
who is also his foe in a case he and Griffith are trying in New
York.  Mr. Monteverde declined to comment.
His co-counsel on the Crestwood case, Thomas Bilek, argues that
the settlement put more information in the hands of investors.
"Obviously more disclosure is better for shareholders," he says.
"That's a lesson we've learned again and again since Enron."

Even though Mr. Frank has helped to limit the number of merger
suits he considers frivolous being filed, he's unlikely to stop
the practice completely.   There are thousands of mergers every
year, and lots of lawyers scrutinizing them.   "We're playing a
game of whack-a-mole," he says. [GN]


* Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Provides Class Action Litigation Update
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
provided a Class Action Litigation Update for July 2017.

Tyson Foods One Year Later -- Representative Evidence in Class
Actions.

Last year in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036
(2016), the Supreme Court endorsed use of representative evidence
to establish liability in a Fair Labor Standards Act collective
and class action. Noting that "[e]vidence of this type is used in
various substantive realms of the law," the Supreme Court held
that "[w]hether and when statistical evidence can be used to
establish classwide liability will depend on the purpose for which
the evidence is being introduced and on 'the elements of the
underlying cause of action.'" As the Court said,"[i]n many cases,
a representative sample is 'the only practicable means to collect
and present relevant data,'" and "[i]n a case where representative
evidence is relevant in proving a plaintiff's individual claim,
that evidence cannot be deemed improper merely because the claim
is brought on behalf of a class."  The Court also noted that
"[o]nce a district court finds evidence to be admissible, its
persuasiveness is, in general, a matter for the jury."

In the short period since Tyson Foods was decided, lower courts
have begun applying its holdings in a number of disputes:

In Bernstein v. Virgin America, Inc., No. 15-CV-02277-JST, 2016 WL
6576621 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016), the court, citing Tyson Foods,
approved survey evidence in a wage and hour case to establish the
average time spent performing unpaid tasks for which the employer
did not keep adequate records, such as time class members spent
taking mandatory drug tests.  Similarly, in Ridgeway v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., No. 08-CV-05221-SI, 2016 WL 4529430 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
30, 2016), another wage and hour case where the employer failed to
record time spent performing unpaid tasks, the court also accepted
representative liability evidence and noted that, where an
employer fails to keep adequate records, a representative sample
may be the only practical means for employees to establish
liability.

By contrast, in two other wage and hour actions, lower courts
determined that variations in the defendants' procedures across
different company offices made use of representative evidence
inappropriate: In Davenport v. Charter Communications, LLC, No.
4:12CV00007 AGF, 2017 WL 878029 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 6, 2017), the court
denied the plaintiffs' attempt to establish liability through a
study that determined average unpaid time spent turning computers
on and off and loading required programs.  The court reasoned
that, because of variations in the defendant's procedures across
its offices, no plaintiff could rely on another plaintiff's
experience to establish how he or she clocked in or out. And in
Arnold v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 4:10-CV-352-JAR, 2017 WL 1251033 (E.D.
Mo. Mar. 31, 2017), the court denied the plaintiffs' attempt to
establish liability through representative evidence, because the
defendant's allegedly illegal pay practices varied across
subclasses and from plaintiff to plaintiff. The court found these
variations precluded the reliability of representative evidence to
determine if any particular class member had been injured by the
challenged practices.

Another court assessing a wage and hour claim found the propriety
of representative evidence turned largely on the extent of the
defendant company's obligation to maintain records.  In Atis v.
Freedom Mortgage Corp., No. CV 15-3424 (RBK/JS), 2016 WL 7440465
(D.N.J. Dec. 27, 2016), the court reasoned that Tyson Foods found
representative evidence appropriate because the employer violated
its duty to record employee hours.  Finding that the defendant in
Atis owed no similar obligation to track hours worked, the court
concluded Tyson Foods was inapposite and rejected the use of
representative evidence.

In In re: Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litigation, No. 14-MD-2591-JWL,
2016 WL 5371856 (D. Kan. Sept. 26, 2016), the court, citing Tyson
Foods, allowed the plaintiffs to show classwide liability and
damages through representative evidence a class action under the
Lanham Act and various state laws.  The holding was guided by the
court's determination that the plaintiffs could have relied on the
representative evidence to show liability and damages in an
individual suit. [GN]




                             *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *