CAR_Public/170816.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, August 16, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 161



                            Headlines

24 HOUR CAREGIVERS: Grafiam Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
ACCOUNT CONTROL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
ADVISORY BOARD: Oct. 2 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Meyer Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
ANGIE'S LIST: "Pill" Sues Over Merger with IAC/InterActiveCorp

ARCH COAL: Court Dismisses "Roe et al." ERISA Suit
AUDIT & ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Kruse" Suit in W.D. of Wash.
AVIS BUDGET: Mendez to Renew Class Cert. Bid in "e-Toll" Suit
BARCLAYS EVENTS: Sued Over Illegal Screening of Job Applicants
BATON ROUGE, LA: Faces Racketeering Class Action

BRECK'S RIDGE: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Meal Period Deduction
BROWNING ARMS: Faces "Wilbourn" Suit in Mississippi
CAIN INDUSTRIES: Dixie Plumbing Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
CAPT. GEORGE'S: "Gagliastre" Labor Suit Sent to E.D. Virginia
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Conety" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

CENTRAL COLLECTION: Lakkard Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert.
CHICAGO TITLE: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in "Mahon" Suit
CLARK COUNTY COLLECTION: Status Hearing in "Petrich" Suit Nixed
CLIENT SERVICES: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
COAST TO COAST: Faces "Boone" Suit in N.D. of Indiana

COHN RESTAURANT: Faces "Maxwell" Suit in Calif. S. Dist.
COLOMBIA: Faces Class Action Over HPV Vaccine
CORELOGIC SAFERENT: Faces "Feliciano" Suit Under FCRA, NYFCRA
CSC SERVICE: Faces Parkville Realty Suit Over Administrative Fees
CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Scheme

DENNY'S CORP: Web site Violates ADA, "Haynes" Class Suit Claims
DOLGENCORP LLC: "Horgan" Suit Transferred to W.D. of Missouri
DOMETIC CORP: Court Denies "Papasan" Plaintiffs' Bid to Reply
DUNKIN' DONUTS: No Real Fruit in Blueberry Doughnut, Suit Says
DUPONT FABROS: Oct. 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid

ECLIPSE AVIATION: 3rd Cir. Tosses Class Suit over Abrupt Layoffs
EDUCAP INC: Quick, et al. Seek to Certify Class
EGS FINANCIAL: Galli Files Suit in E.D.N.Y.
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Narrows Claims in "Davis" Likenesses Suit
ESTATE INFORMATION: Faces "Riley" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

EXPRESS SERVICE: "Stoddart" Case Discovery Cutoff Moved to Nov. 5
FAY SERVICING: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
FHI LLC: Faces "Orelus" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
FIRST ADVANTAGE: "Bankhead" Suit Transferred to N.D. of Ga.
FLORIDA: Davis Sues Dept. of Corrections Over Prison Policy

FMS INVESTMENT: Faces "McKenna" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
FORT WAYNE, IN: Original Motion to Certify Class Declared as Moot
FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Lilavois" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
FULL CITIZENSHIP MD: Craighead May File Amended Suit, Court Says
GEICO INDEMNITY: Bid to Certify Class Taken under Submission

GENWORTH LIFE: Accused by Avazian of Improperly Lapsing Insurance
GROSS POLOWY: "Carbone" Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
GUARDIAN PROTECTION: "Danganan" Suit Transferred to Penn. S.C.
HIGHVELD SYNDICATION: Georgiou Seeks to Appeal Judgment
HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Background Checks

INTEGRATED MEDIA: Brite Bite Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
INTERSTATE CLEANING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Chavez Says
INVICTA WATCH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Felice" Suit
JAGUAR ANIMAL: Faces "Plant" Lawsuit Over Napo Pharma Merger
JPMORGAN CHASE: $1.5M "Pacheco" Case Settlement Has Initial OK

KIA MOTORS: Consumers File Class Action Over Breach of Warranty
KS INDUSTRIES: Worker Claims Subject to Class Action Waiver
LANE LABS-USA: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in Bobo's Drugs Suit
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Firefighters Pension Files Securities Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: Spengler Can't Pursue Class Suit, Court Says

M3 USA: "Mauthe" Suit Transferred to S. Dist. of Fla.
MASTIHA CORP: Faces "Molina" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MARATHON OIL: Faces Kunneman Properties Suit in Okla.
MAXIMUS INC: Violates Securities Laws, Steamfitters Plan Alleges
MAXIMUS INC: Oct. 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid

MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Awards $2M in Counsel Fees in "Ochoa"
MCDONALD'S CORP: Settlement in "Ochoa" Gets Final Approval
MIAMI GARDENS: "Saleh" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Goldberg" Suit in New York East. Dist.
MISSOURI, USA: Court Narrows Claims in "Sargent" Suit

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Leo" Suit Reassigned to Judge Martinotii
NEVADA, USA: Court Dismisses "Downing" Suit without Prejudice
NORTHERN TIER: "Kendig" Securities Suit Sent to D. Delaware
NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Gomez" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Bonin et al. File Placeholder Class Cert. Bid

ONONDAGA COUNTY, NY: Settles Solitary Confinement Class Action
OREGON: Nelson Files Suit v. Dept. of Corrections
PALCO INC: Conditional Class Certification Granted in "Wells"
PARK AVENUE SOUTH: "Bahena" Case Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
PAYPAL INC: Tovar Sues Over Use of Auto Telephone Dialing System

PELICAN POINT: Court Denied Certification of Laborers Class
PERSONNEL STAFFING: Court to Continue "Haack" Class Cert. Bid
PETSMART INC: "Smadja" Suit Seeks to Certify 10 Classes
PLACE FOR MOM: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over TCPA Violation
PLANET FITNESS: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. of Fla.

PREMIUM ASSET: Initial Status Hearing Set for Sept. 19
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Certified in "Pettit" Charmin Wipes Suit
PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT: Court Denies Certification in "Wood" Suit
QUALITY SYSTEMS: 9th Cir. Revives Securities Class Action
QUIZNO'S MASTER: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. of Fla.

REV GROUP: Faces "Morales" Suit in Central Dist. of Calif.
REV-1 SOLUTIONS: Court Denied Bid to Certify Class as Moot
RIEMER INSURANCE: "Paz" Suit Removed to S. Dist. of Fla.
RIVERSIDE, CA: Class Status Sought in Juvenile Custody Case
SAFEWAY INC: 9th Cir. Affirms $42M Judgment in "Rodman" Case

SAN DIEGO, CA: Kries Files Suit Over Regular Rate of Pay
SANTANDER BANK: "Karlberg" Suit Moved to E.D. Penn.
SEALIFT HOLDINGS: "Llagas" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
SEARS PROTECTION: Court Denied Bid to File Materials under Seal
SMILE BRANDS: Faces "Polanco" Suit Over Debt Collection Practices

SPANDEX HOUSE: Sued by Sullivan for Minimum Wage & OT Violations
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Sept. 20 Hearing on Class Certification Bid
ST. LOUIS RAMS: Arnold Seeks to Certify Ticket Holders Classes
ST. LOUIS RAMS: Envision et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
SYSCO CORP: Must Produce Docs in "Frieri" Class Suit

TAKATA CORP: "Krmpotic" Suit Transferred to S.D. of Florida
TAMPA BAY SURGERY: Stapleton et al. Seek to Certify Class
TIME WARNER: Dismissal of "Groshek" FCRA Class Action Affirmed
TOWNCREST PHARMACY: 9th Cir. Approves Class Action in Arbitration
TWO JINNS: Bid for Class Certification Granted in "Shelby" Suit

UAG STEVENS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Medical Records Class Action Certified
UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Seeks Dismissal of Fraud Class Suit
VERMONT: Whistleblower Deposition Request in EB-5 Case Quashed
VITAMIN SHOPPE: "Nathan" Suit Moved to S. Dist. of Calif.

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Summer Alleges Price-Fixing of Luxury Cars
VOLUME SERVICES: Class Certification Bid in "Allchin" Suit Denied
WALGREENS: Faces Class Action Over New Sweetened Beverage Tax
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over Kids' Data Privacy Violation
WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Sarrell Seeks Collective Action Status

WELLS FARGO: Card Processing Unit Sued Over Excessive Fees
WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces "Zeiger" Suit Over "DHA" Label in Milk
WILCOX DEVELOPMENT: "Mejia" Suit Alleges FLSA, NYLL Violations
WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: "Embree" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ZODIAC U.S.: Approval of Settlement in "Cuzick" Action Sought

* Boyd County, Ky. Mulls Suit Against Opioid Distributors
* CFBP Rule to Benefit Class-Action Lawyers Than Consumers
* Class Action Attorneys Continue to Target Food Companies
* Texas' Hensarling Mulls Contempt Charge v. CFPB Director
* Washington Republicans Criticize CFPB's Arbitration Rule





                            *********


24 HOUR CAREGIVERS: Grafiam Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISE GRAFIAM, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 24 HOUR CAREGIVERS, INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC671257
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 4, 2017), arises from
the Defendants' alleged California Labor Code violations and
unfair business practices stemming from their failure to provide
meal periods, to authorize and permit rest periods, to pay minimum
and straight time wages, to pay overtime wages, to maintain
accurate records of hours worked, to timely pay all wages to
terminated employees, and to furnish accurate wage statements.

Based in Sherman Oaks, California, 24 Hour Caregivers, Inc., owns
and operates an industry, business, and establishment within the
State of California, including Los Angeles County, for the
purposes of providing caregivers to the general public, those that
required assistance with daily living.  The Plaintiff does not
know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACCOUNT CONTROL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JACQUELINE OLSON, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACCOUNT
CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01067-PP
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying a proposed classes in this case, appointing the
Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XRh9wLHj

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


ADVISORY BOARD: Oct. 2 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid
------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on Aug. 7 disclosed that on August 3, 2017, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against The Advisory Board
Company.  The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class
Period, which is January 21, 2015 through February 23, 2016.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all The Advisory
Board Company shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above.

Parties may move the Court no later than Monday, October 2, 2017
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However, in
order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com
[GN]


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Meyer Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SHARON MEYER, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIED
INTERSTATE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01106 (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
a proposed class in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as its
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

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

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

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

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

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


ANGIE'S LIST: "Pill" Sues Over Merger with IAC/InterActiveCorp
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ANGIE'S LIST, INC., SCOTT A. DURCHSLAG,
THOMAS R. EVANS, GEORGE D. BELL, MARK BRITTO, ANGELA R. HICKS
BOWMAN, MICHAEL S. MAURER, DAVID B. MULLEN, MICHAEL D. SANDS, H.
ERIC SEMLER, SUSAN THRONSON, IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, ANGI
HOMESERVICES INC., and CASA MERGER SUB, INC. Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-02461-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., July 20, 2017), alleges that the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 in connection with a
transaction wherein Angie's List, Inc. will be acquired by
IAC/InterActiveCorp, was false and misleading.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each holder of
Angie's List common stock is entitled to either (a) exchange on a
one-to-one ratio each share of Angie's List common stock for a
single share of Class A common stock, with one vote per share, in
Parent Sub, and/or (b) receive payment in the amount of $8.50 in
cash for each share of Angie's List common stock up to an
aggregate total of $130 million for all of Angie's List shares of
common stock issued and outstanding.

Allegedly, the S-4 omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders it false and misleading, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act.  In particular, the S-4 contains materially incomplete and/or
misleading information concerning, inter alia, (a) the financial
analyses performed by Angie's List's Financial Advisors in support
of their so-called "fairness opinions" that approved the Merger
Consideration, including the projections that the Financial
Advisors relied upon in performing their financial analyses, and
(b) the sales process leading to the Merger, including potential
conflicts of interest.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to
consummate the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed
Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the
Defendants' wrongdoing.

ANGIE'S LIST, INC. operates a nationwide local services consumer
review service and marketplace. Angie's List helps facilitate
transactions between individual consumers and service
professionals by providing an online directory that allows users
to read and publish reviews of local businesses and
contractors.[BN]


The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert J. Schuckit, Esq.
     SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES PC
     4545 Northwestern Drive
     Zionsville, IN 46077
     Phone: 317-363-2400
     Fax: 317-363-2257
     Email: rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com

        - and -

     Carl L. Stine, Esq.
     Sean M. Zaroogian, Esq.
     WOLF POPPER LLP
     845 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: 212-759-4600
     Fax: 212-486-2093
     Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com
     Email: szaroogian@wolfpopper.com


ARCH COAL: Court Dismisses "Roe et al." ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Carol E. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the Arch
Defendants' and Mercer Trust Co.'s motions to dismiss the case
captioned DOUGLAS R. ROE, ELMER BUSH, RONALD K. HUFF and JEROME
McLAUGHLIN on behalf of themselves and the Arch Coal, Inc.
Employee Thrift Plan, and/or on behalf of a class consisting of
similarly situated participants of the Plan, Plaintiffs, v. ARCH
COAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:15-CV-910 (CEJ)(E.D.
Mo.).

The Plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of the Arch
Coal, Inc. Employee Thrift Plan, bring this consolidated class
action pursuant to Sections 404, 405, 409 and 502 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  They claim that
the Defendants breached duties of prudence and loyalty in
administering the Plan.  The Plan is a retirement savings plan
which required the Arch Coal Stock Fund to include Arch Coal stock
as one of the investment options offered to the Plan participants.
During the period July 27, 2012 to Nov. 12, 2015, Arch Coal was
the sponsor of the Plan.

According to the amended complaint, the Plan and its participants
suffered tens of millions of dollars of losses during the Class
Period, as the market price of Arch Coal Stock fell from
approximately $680 on July 27, 2012 to $1.42 on Nov. 12, 2015.  On
or about Nov. 12, 2015, the Plan's investment in the Fund was
forcibly liquidated.  Before and during the Class Period, massive
amounts of publicly-available information about the collapse of
the coal industry in general, and Arch Coal in particular, was
generated.  On Jan. 11, 2016, Arch Coal filed for bankruptcy.  The
Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants failed to protect the
interests of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries, in
violation of their legal obligations under ERISA.

This matter is before the Court on the separate motions of the
Arch Defendants and Mercer, in its role as the Plan's trustee, to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint for failure to state a
claim.  The Plaintiffs have responded.

The Arch Defendants argue that the allegations in Count I fail to
state a claim for breach of any duty to manage the Plan prudently
and that the Plaintiffs' claim is foreclosed by the Supreme
Court's decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer.  Judge
Jackson concludes that the ruling in Dudenhoeffer applies in this
case such that, absent allegations of special circumstances, the
Plaintiffs cannot maintain a breach of prudence claim based on the
fiduciaries' alleged failure to recognize public information
indicating that the Arch Coal stock was improperly valued.  The
Plaintiffs have also failed to provide any facts or law to support
their allegation that the Defendants violated their duty of
candor.

In Count II, the Plaintiffs claim that the Arch Defendants
breached their duty of loyalty by continuing to allow the
investment of the Plan's assets in Arch Coal stock throughout the
Class Period despite the fact that they knew or should have known
that such investment was imprudent as a retirement vehicle.  The
Judge explains that the Plaintiffs' mere allegation that the Arch
Defendants owned Arch Coal stock and maintained options and stock
awards is insufficient to state a claim of breach of the duty of
loyalty.

In Count III, the Plaintiffs claim that the Arch Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by (i) failing to monitor their
appointees in administration of the Plan; (ii) failing to evaluate
their performance; iii) failing to have a proper system in place
for doing so; (iv) failing to ensure the monitored fiduciaries
"appreciate the true extent" of Arch Coal's situation; (v) failing
to provide complete and accurate information to their appointees;
and (vi) failing to remove inadequately performing appointees.
Because they have failed to state a claim for an underlying breach
of fiduciary duty, Judge Jackson finds that the Plaintiffs' claims
for failure to adequately monitor these fiduciaries must also
fail.

In Count IV, the Plaintiffs claim that Mercer failed to prudently
and loyally manage the Plan's assets.  They specifically allege
that Mercer knew or should have known that Arch Coal stock was not
a suitable and appropriate investment for the Plan.  Because there
was no breach of duty on behalf of the Arch Defendants, Mercer
cannot be liable as a co-fiduciary for the same conduct.

For these reasons, Judge Jackson granted the Arch Defendants' and
Mercer's motions to dismiss.  She denied as moot the joint motion
to stay discovery as well as Mercer's motion for leave to file
supplemental authority.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/k90po0 from Leagle.com.

Douglas R Roe, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher O. Bauman --
cbauman@bbdlc.com -- BLITZ AND BARDGETT.

Douglas R Roe, Plaintiff, represented by Mark K. Gyandoh --
mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- KESSLER AND TOPAZ, Michael J. Klein --
mklein@ssbny.com -- STULL AND STULL, pro hac vice & Robert D.
Blitz -- rblitz@bbdlc.com -- BLITZ AND BARDGETT.

Ronald K. Huff, Plaintiff, represented by Mark K. Gyandoh, KESSLER
AND TOPAZ.

Jerome McLaughlin, Plaintiff, represented by Mark K. Gyandoh,
KESSLER AND TOPAZ.

Elmer Bush, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher O. Bauman, BLITZ AND BARDGETT.

Elmer Bush, Plaintiff, represented by Don R. Lolli --
dlolli@dysarttaylor.com -- DYSART AND TAYLOR, Edward W. Ciolko --
eciolko@ktmc.com -- KESSLER AND TOPAZ, Julie E. Siebert-Johnson
-- jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- KESSLER AND TOPAZ, Mark K. Gyandoh,
KESSLER AND TOPAZ & James A. Maro, Jr. -- jmaro@ktmc.com --
KESSLER AND TOPAZ, pro hac vice.

Arch Coal Inc, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell --
jsrussell@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, Darci F. Madden --
dfmadden@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP & Michael G. Biggers, --
mgbiggers@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP.

The Finance Committee of the Board of Directors of Arch Coal Inc,
Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Theodore D Sands, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell,
BRYAN CAVE LLP.

John W Eaves, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell, BRYAN
CAVE LLP.

J Thomas Jones, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell,
BRYAN CAVE LLP.

George C. Morris, III, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S.
Russell, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Paul A Lang, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell, BRYAN
CAVE LLP.

James A Sabala, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell,
BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Steven F Leer, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell, BRYAN
CAVE LLP.

Robert G Potter, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell,
BRYAN CAVE LLP.


AUDIT & ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Kruse" Suit in W.D. of Wash.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Audit & Adjustment
Company, Inc.  The case is styled as Shelby Kruse, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Audit
& Adjustment Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01199
(W.D. Wash., August 8, 2017).

Audit & Adjustment Company is a Washington based debt collection
agency founded in 1996.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ryan Matthew Pesicka, Esq.
   CONCORD LAW, P.C.
   Waterfront Park Building
   144 RAILROAD AVENUE, Suite 236
   Edmonds, WA 98020
   Tel: (206) 512-8029
   Email: Ryan@ConcordLawSeattle.com


AVIS BUDGET: Mendez to Renew Class Cert. Bid in "e-Toll" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOSE MENDEZ, Individually and On Behalf Of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AVIS BUDGET
GROUP, INC. d/b/a BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC. and AVIS RENT A
CAR SYSTEM, LLC; and HIGHWAY TOLL ADMINISTRATION, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:11-cv-06537-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff
will renew before the Hon. Jose L. Linares, U.S.D.J., at the
United States District Court, Martin Luther King Building & U.S.
Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07101, his motion
seeking:

   1. certification of a Nationwide Class, a Florida Subclass,
      and a New Jersey Subclass;

   2. appointment of Plaintiff as representative of the Classes;
      and

   3. appointment of the undersigned attorneys and firms as Class
      Counsel.

This is a putative class action brought on behalf of those who
were allegedly charged non-discounted toll charges and convenience
fees when they rented vehicles equipped with an electronic system
to pay tolls known as "e-Toll" from locations and websites that
were owned by, operated by, or connected to Defendants Avis Budget
Group and Avis Rent-A-Car System, LLC.  Defendant Highway Toll
Administration, LLC ("HTA") was a vendor of the Avis Entities that
supplied and administered the e-Toll toll collection service.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Jeremy Nash, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623 3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623 0858
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  jnash@litedepalma.com


BARCLAYS EVENTS: Sued Over Illegal Screening of Job Applicants
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unlawful screening of job applicants seeking employment at the
Barclays Center in Brooklyn violates federal and state law,
according to a federal-court class action lawsuit filed by Outten
& Golden LLP and the nonprofit organization Youth Represent.

Filed in federal court in the Eastern District of New York, the
lawsuit alleges that Barclays used "flawed and discriminatory
criminal history screening policies and practices" to deny
employment opportunities to otherwise qualified job applicants.
The defendants are Barclays Events Center, LLC, doing business as
Barclays Center, Levy Restaurants, Inc., and Professional Sports
Catering LLC.

The lawsuit alleges violations of federal and state laws
regulating the use of criminal history screening policies and
practices -- and is a first of its kind class action suit to
challenge an employer's violation of New York City's recently
enacted "Ban the Box" legislation -- the Fair Chance Act.

The named plaintiff, Felipe Kelly, applied for a job in August
2016 to work for a restaurant operated by Levy Restaurants and/or
Professional Sports Catering LLC at Barclays.  Mr. Kelly alleges
Barclays refused to hire him after subjecting him to a criminal
background check.  Defendants never provided Mr. Kelly with the
information they used to deny him employment, and never provided
him with the "Fair Chance Notice" that employers are now required
to provide applicants under New York City law, the lawsuit
alleges.

According to the lawsuit, "Because Defendants never provided Mr.
Kelly with crucial information regarding his denial of employment,
Mr. Kelly was unaware of what information was being reported on
him, unable to review the information reported about him for
accuracy and completeness, contextualize even true information,
review Defendants' arguments (if any) for why they believed his
conviction barred him from employment, and/or explain why he was
nonetheless entitled to employment, including any evidence of
rehabilitation and good conduct."

Mr. Kelly, a resident of Bronx County, N.Y., is represented by
Ossai Miazad, Lewis M. Steel and Christopher M. McNerney of Outten
& Golden LLP, and Michael C. Pope and Eric Eingold of Youth
Represent.

Outten & Golden LLP and Youth Represent will seek to have the case
certified as a class action that covers proposed classes of
affected job applicants since Oct. 27, 2015.

Christopher M. McNerney, of Outten & Golden LLP, said, "As a
matter of basic fairness, federal and New York state laws require
that job applicants with criminal histories be provided with the
same criminal history information relied on by the prospective
employer so that they might evaluate that information, ensure it
is accurate, and even if it is accurate explain why they
nonetheless are qualified for employment This legal framework is
an essential aspect of reentering society for individuals with
criminal records."

Michael C. Pope, of Youth Represent, said, "State and federal law
are clear: job applicants with criminal histories are entitled to
be advised of and review the source and content of background
checks. Job applicants like Mr. Kelly and many others are entitled
to provide information regarding the criminal history -- including
the circumstances of their criminal history and their
rehabilitation and good conduct."

The case is "Felipe Kelly, et al., v. Barclays Event Center, et
al.," Class Action Complaint No. 1:17-cv-04600 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN]


BATON ROUGE, LA: Faces Racketeering Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Jim Mustian, writing for The Advocate, reports that with the help
of a local judge, a pretrial services company in Baton Rouge has
held hundreds of inmates "ransom" in recent years by requiring
they shell out hefty fees on top of their court-ordered bail
before they can be released from jail, according to a new class-
action lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed on Aug. 7 by the ACLU of Louisiana and the
Southern Poverty Law Center, accuses the company, Rehabilitation
Home Incarceration, of violating state and federal racketeering
laws by "extorting" an initial $525 payment -- and hundreds of
dollars in subsequent fees -- from defendants assigned to pretrial
supervision.

"Those who cannot afford the fee languish in jail for days, weeks
or even months as their loved ones scramble to assemble money to
pay off RHI," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit, which names East Baton Baton Rouge Parish as a
defendant, claims local jail officials have been complicit in
"wrongfully detaining" inmates before they have paid RHI for their
pretrial supervision.

The lawsuit also alleges RHI has benefited from its political
support of 19th Judicial District Judge Trudy White, who according
to the lawsuit has "indiscriminately" ordered hundreds of
defendants to complete services offered by the family-owned
company -- including electronic monitoring -- without even
inquiring about their financial resources.  The company, which
does not have a formal contract with the court, provides its
services through "an informal agreement" with Judge White, the
lawsuit alleges.

Founded in 1993, RHI has supervised "thousands of clients" in East
Baton Rouge, Orleans, Ascension and Tangipahoa parishes, according
to its website.  The lawsuit describes RHI officials as "political
allies" of White who supported her successful
re-election bid in 2014.  RHI is led by Cleve Dunn Sr., whose son
once reportedly ran White's campaign.

The lawsuit, citing court records, says Judge White, after winning
re-election, ordered more than 300 criminal defendants to complete
RHI's services in 2015 and 2016.  It's unclear whether any other
judges in the 19th Judicial District are sending business to RHI.

Reached by phone on Aug. 7, Judge White refused to comment on the
racketeering lawsuit.  Mr.  Dunn, who unlike White was named as a
defendant in the litigation, could not be reached for comment.

The lawsuit raises a number of allegations first reported last
year by WAFB-TV.  In many cases, Judge White assigns defendants to
undergo pretrial supervision even before they have appeared before
her, the lawsuit claims, and "does not ask arrestees any questions
before assigning them to RHI, such as whether an arrestee can
afford to pay bond or RHI's initial or monthly fees."  According
to the lawsuit, Judge White does not allow arrestees to be heard
at probable cause hearings and assigns arrestees to RHI
supervision "without conducting an individualized determination of
the need for, or the conditions of RHI supervision.

"Rather than conduct these inquiries, Judge White signs an order
making RHI supervision a condition of release on bond, without
instruction about the terms of this supervision," the lawsuit
says.

RHI, in turn, instructs jail officials not to release pretrial
inmates ordered to undergo its services until RHI has received
payment.  The lawsuit says jail officials have violated inmates'
rights by detaining them "beyond expiration of a valid order of
confinement, without probable cause."

The lawsuit says RHI, despite charging "significant fees for its
supervision," does not typically require supervisees to make
"substantive reports" to their monitors beyond complying with a
curfew.  The lawsuit also alleges that Dunn and RHI monitors
"routinely threaten" program participants with re-arrest if they
fail to make monthly $225 payments, a practice described in the
lawsuit as "an unlawful use of fear."

"Dunn's use of RHI to extort money from arrestees assigned by
Judge White constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity," the
lawsuit says.  "These actions are a regular way of conducting the
ongoing business of RHI." [GN]


BRECK'S RIDGE: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Meal Period Deduction
-------------------------------------------------------------
GARRY PARKER, on behalf of himself and other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRECK'S RIDGE,
LLC, and BRECK'S PAVING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00633-
EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, July 20, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff was not
paid for all of his compensable hours worked due to an automatic
meal period deduction in the amount of thirty (30) minutes per day
even though Named Plaintiff did not receive a bona fide meal
period resulting in unpaid overtime wages for the three years
preceding the filing of this Complaint.

The case was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Plaintiff was employed as a foreman and/or general laborer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
     COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
     1457 S. High St.
     Columbus, OH 43207
     Phone: (614) 949-1181
     Fax: (614) 386-9964
     Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

        - and -

     Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
     BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
     1457 S. High St.
     Columbus, OH 43207
     Phone: (614) 704-0546
     Fax: (614) 573-9826
     Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


BROWNING ARMS: Faces "Wilbourn" Suit in Mississippi
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Browning Arms
Company. The case is styled as James Wilbourn, individually and as
representative of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Browning Arms Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-23002-KMW (N.D.
Miss., August 8, 2017).

Browning Arms Company is an American maker of firearms and fishing
gear. Founded in Morgan, Utah, the company offers a wide variety
of firearms including shotguns, rifles, and pistols.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Erik S. Heninger, Esq.
   HENINGER BURGE VARGO & DAVIS, LLP
   2146 Highland Avenue
   Birmingham, AL 35205
   Tel: (205) 326-3336
   Email: erik@hgdlawfirm.com


CAIN INDUSTRIES: Dixie Plumbing Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DIXIE PLUMBING SPECIALTIES, INC., a
Georgia corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. CAIN
INDUSTRIES, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the
Defendants, Case No2:17-cv-01095-JPS. (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to:

   1. certify a class of:

      "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
      filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
      messages of material advertising the commercial
      availability or quality of any property, goods, or services
      by or on behalf of Defendants, (3) from whom Defendants did
      not obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to send
      fax advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendants did not
      have an established business relationship, or (5) where the
      fax advertisements did not include an opt-out notice
      compliant with 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)".

   2. appoint Plaintiff as the class representative; and

   3. appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LsV2VzUv

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPT. GEORGE'S: "Gagliastre" Labor Suit Sent to E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Chris Gagliastre, Zachary Tarry, and Olga
Zayneeva, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CAPT. GEORGE'S SEAFOOD RESTAURANTS, LP; CAPTAIN
GEORGE'S OF SOUTH CAROLINA, LP; CAPTAIN GEORGE'S OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, INC.; THE CAPTAIN AT THE BEACH, LLC; CAPTAIN KDH, LLC;
PIT CO 1, LLC; PITNORTH, LLC; LIDESLAMBOUS, INC.; PITSILAMBOUS,
INC.; GEORGE PITSILIDES; SHERRY PITSILIDES; NICOLE PERKINS; AND
KRISTINA CHASTAIN; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-4, Defendants, (originally,
Case No. 4:17-cv-01308, D.S.C., May 19, 2017) was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Carolina to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and
assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00379-RAJ-RJK, according to a case
docket dated July 19, 2017.

The case alleges that Defendants have repeatedly violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by improperly applying a tip credit to
servers' wages.  The case also asserts impermissible deductions in
violation of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

Defendant is a restaurant.  Plaintiffs worked for Captain George's
as servers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Patrick McLaughlin, Esq.
      WUKELA LAW FIRM
      403 Second Loop Rd.
      PO Box 13057
      Florence, SC 29504-3057
      Phone: 843-669-5634
      Fax: 843-669-5150
      Email: Patrick@wukelalaw.com

        - and -

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

Defendant is represented by:

     John P. Hutchins, Esq.
     LECLAIRRYAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     1170 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2350
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Phone: (404) 267-2733
     Fax: (404) 267-2750


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Conety" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services, LP.  The case is styled as Sean Conety, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital
Management Services, LP, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04627 (E.D.
N.Y., August 7, 2017).

Capital Management is a nationally licensed and recognized
collections agency, providing the highest level of delinquent
receivables resolution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is 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



CENTRAL COLLECTION: Lakkard Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled BARBARA LAKKARD, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL
COLLECTION CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01070-PP
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying a proposed class in this case, appointing the Plaintiff
as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0Oav7hFA

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


CHICAGO TITLE: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in "Mahon" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DEBORAH MAHON, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. CHICAGO TITLE INS. CO., Civil No.
3:09CV00690(AWT)(D. Conn.), Magistrate Judge Sarah A.L. Merriam of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted
the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel discovery and denied as moot the
Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order.

This class action relates to title insurance refinance rates.  The
Plaintiff served her First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
Production on Sept. 10, 2009.  The Request for Production No. 17
sought any and all documents constituting communication by,
between or among the Defendants and/or any of their Affiliates or
Agents on the one hand and the Connecticut Insurance Department on
the other hand that discuss, mention or refer in any way to the
Refinance Rate.  The Defendant initially objected to the request
on the grounds that it pertained to merits discovery.

After commencement of discovery on the merits of the Plaintiff's
claims, the Defendant asserted additional objections, and stated
that, notwithstanding the objections, it was not withholding any
document that is responsive, non-privileged, and consistent with
its non-objectionable interpretation of this Discovery Request.
It claims that documents potentially responsive to this request
had been previously identified in a privilege log dated Aug. 2,
2010, which was supplemented on Sept. 22, 2010.

The Defendant served supplemental privilege logs on April 27 and
May 30, 2017.  These logs list additional documents that the
Defendant has determined are responsive to Request 17.  From these
logs, the Plaintiff identifies 30 documents that were withheld as
privileged solely on the basis of section 38a-15(g) of the
Connecticut General Statutes.  According to the parties, each of
these documents pertains to a market conduct examination of
defendant that was conducted by the Connecticut Insurance
Department in 2010.  The relevance of these documents is not in
dispute; rather, the controversy arises over whether these
documents are privileged, and therefore protected from discovery.

Plaintiff Mahon has filed a Motion to Compel seeking the
production of a number of documents withheld on the basis of
privilege.  She also seeks to compel testimony regarding these
documents.

The Defendant has submitted opposition to the Plaintiff's motion,
and the Plaintiff has filed a reply.  The Defendant has filed a
Motion for a Protective Order, seeking protection from producing a
witness to testify about the documents in question pending
resolution of the Plaintiff's motion to compel.

The Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in opposition to the
Defendant's motion, and the Defendant has filed a reply.

Magistrate Judge Merriam held that the documents related to the
market conduct examination in the possession and control of the
Defendant are not privileged under section 38a-15(g) of the
Connecticut General Statutes such that they are protected from
disclosure in civil discovery.  Accordingly, she granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel.  The Defendant shall produce those
documents identified in Exhibit A to the Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel forthwith, and no later than Aug. 14, 2017.  It shall also
produce a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 4 of the
Plaintiff's Notice to Produce.  In light of the foregoing,
Magistrate Judge Merriam denied as moot the Defendant's Motion for
Protective Order.  She noted that this is not a Recommended Ruling
but an order regarding discovery which is reviewable pursuant to
the "clearly erroneous" statutory standard of review.  As such, it
is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified by the
District Judge upon motion timely made.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/IHyoC2 from Leagle.com.

Deborah Mahon, Plaintiff, represented by Mathew P. Jasinski --
mjasinski@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC.

Deborah Mahon, Plaintiff, represented by William H. Narwold --
bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC & Laura W. Ray --
lray@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC.

Chicago Title Ins Co, Defendant, represented by Derek Diaz --
ddiaz@hahnlaw.com -- Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan S. Bowman -- jbowman@cohenandwolf.com -- Cohen & Wolf,
P.C., Robert J. Fogarty -- rjfogarty@hahnlaw.com -- Hahn Loeser &
Parks LLP, pro hac vice, Steven A. Goldfarb --
sagoldfarb@hahnlaw.com -- Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, pro hac vice &
Stuart M. Katz -- skatz@cohenandwolf.com -- Cohen & Wolf, P.C..


CLARK COUNTY COLLECTION: Status Hearing in "Petrich" Suit Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Daniel Petrich, the Plaintiff, v. Clark
County Collection Service, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-
02396 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order
striking a status hearing set for August 29, 2017.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 3, 2017,
all pending motions are denied as moot.

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


CLIENT SERVICES: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MORGAN OTTMANN and SHEILA SCHMITZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-01069-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order certifying a proposed class in this case, appointing the
Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly,
LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the
Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

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

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

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


COAST TO COAST: Faces "Boone" Suit in N.D. of Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coast To Coast
Financial Solutions, Inc.  The case is styled as Sedrick Boone,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Coast To Coast Financial Solutions, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00333 (N.D. Ind., August 7, 2017).

Coast To Coast Financial Solutions, Inc. is a collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
   Marcus & Zelman LLC
   1500 Allaire Ave Ste 101
   Ocean, NJ 07712
   Tel: (845) 367-7146
   Fax: (732) 298-6256
   Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


COHN RESTAURANT: Faces "Maxwell" Suit in Calif. S. Dist.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cohn Restaurant
Group, Inc.  The case is styled as Austin Maxwell, individually
and On behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cohn
Restaurant Group, Inc. doing business as: The Melting Pot,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01609-JLS-BGS (S.D. Cal., August 9,
2017).

Cohn Restaurant Group, Inc. owns and operates restaurants in the
San Diego area and Maui.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   George Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
   Martin &Bontrager, APC
   6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 960
   Los Angeles, CA 90028
   Tel: (323) 940-1697
   Fax: (323) 238-8095
   Email: tom@mblawapc.com


COLOMBIA: Faces Class Action Over HPV Vaccine
---------------------------------------------
Carlos Guevara, writing for Medscape, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in Colombia against the Colombian
government and Merck Sharp & Dohme by a group representing 700
individuals who allege that they have been damaged by Gardasil,
the company's human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.

An ongoing class action lawsuit over the HPV vaccine in Japan
involves 63 plaintiffs.

The Colombian Rebuilding Hope Association (Asociacion
Reconstruyendo Esperanza), represented by the lawyer Monica Leon
del Rio, filed a class action on August 4 seeking compensation of
at least 490,000 million Colombian pesos (approximately $30.5
million).  The association is calling for compensation for the
damage allegedly due to the vaccine, mainly symptoms that affect
the immune and neurologic systems, and also is calling for a
declaration that the vaccine is unsafe.

However, the safety of the HPV vaccine has been repeatedly
confirmed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the World
Health Organization (WHO).

In a 2009 JAMA article on the postlicensure safety surveillance
for quadrivalent HPV recombinant vaccine, the authors reported
that the most frequently reported side effects were lower grade,
including excessive pain in the area of application and occasional
headaches or dizziness, at rates of 7.5 cases per 100,000 doses.

The most comprehensive study on this subject followed up on more
than 2 million women and reported a statistically nonsignificant
association between exposure to the vaccine and severe adverse
events, such as demyelinating diseases (including Guillain-Barre
syndrome).

HPV Vaccines in Colombia

In Colombia, the use of HPV vaccine in government public health
initiatives dates back to 2006, with implementation of the three-
dose scheme in 2012.

Dr Lina Maria Trujillo, coordinator of the Gynecologic Oncology
Group of the National Institute of Oncology in Colombia, commented
to Medscape Medical News that the lack of trust started in 2014,
when a group of girls who had recently been vaccinated presented
various symptoms, possibly associated with food poisoning.
Although a causal link was never shown, the rumor that the vaccine
had caused the symptoms spread, and the association for the
alleged victims of the vaccine, led by the local lawyer Monica
Leon del Rio, was formed.

Ms. Leon del Rio had already submitted similar lawsuits, which
were made public knowledge by the Colombian Rebuilding Hope
Association.  A 2015 lawsuit aimed to force the Colombian
government to generate a record of cases of vaccine adverse
effects, as well as to institute federal monthly compensation to
the alleged victims. [GN]


CORELOGIC SAFERENT: Faces "Feliciano" Suit Under FCRA, NYFCRA
-------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDINNE FELICIANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, against CORELOGIC SAFERENT, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05507-UA (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2017),
alleges that Defendant fails to ensure that the information it
compiles from the New York State Office of Court Administration
(OCA) about proceedings brought before various housing courts in
New York is complete, accurate or fair -- that is to say, that it
fails to ensure that the credit reports it sells comply with the
requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the New York Fair
Credit Reporting Act, and the General Business Law.

CORELOGIC SAFERENT, LLC is a credit reporting agency that, inter
alia, sells credit reports to landlords pertaining to individuals
who have filed applications to rent residential housing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James B. Fishman, Esq.
     FISHMAN ROZEN, LLP
     305 Broadway, Suite 900
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: (212) 897-5840

        - and -

     Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
     Alexis Castillo, Esq.
     KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
     Two International Drive, Suite 350
     Rye Brook, NY 10573
     Phone: (914) 934-9200

        - and -

     Andrew Bell, Esq.
     LOCKS LAW FIRM PLLC
     800 Third Avenue, 11th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 838-3333


CSC SERVICE: Faces Parkville Realty Suit Over Administrative Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PARKVILLE REALTY ASSOCIATES, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. CSC SERVICE WORKS, INC., Case No.
607833/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., August 4, 2017), is
brought on behalf of all persons, firms and entities in the United
States, who entered into agreements with CSC for the installation
and management of washing machines, dryers and the like on the
premises owned and managed by Class Members and who have been
subject to "administrative fees" notwithstanding the fact that the
agreements do not provide for the payment of such fees.

CSC Service Works, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Delaware with offices located in
Plainview, New York.  CSC is a company engaged in the business of,
inter alia, providing laundry solutions for multifamily,
residential and commercial industries as well as vending services
for convenience stores and gasoline stations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH A. ELAN
          Office and Post Office Address
          217 Broadway - Suite 603
          New York, NY 10007-2909
          Telephone: (212) 619-0261
          Facsimile: (212) 271-4230
          E-mail: elanfirm@yahoo.com


CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------
A new class-action lawsuit has been filed against CVS Health
alleging that the company has engaged in a massive fraudulent
scheme with third parties in order to increase profits by driving
up generic prescription drug costs for consumers who purchase them
using insurance, according to Hagens Berman.  CVS earns more than
$10 billion in profit annually from drug sales.

The lawsuit, filed Aug. 7, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Rhode Island, says CVS knowingly colludes with
third-party pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to raise the prices
of generic drugs, charging consumers what it calls a "co-pay,"
when in reality a significant portion of this amount is kicked
back to PBMs.  CVS also earns more money from the transaction
compared to customers who don't use insurance.

PBMs use their marketing leverage with pharmacies to negotiate
lower prices that the insurance companies have to pay to
pharmacies.  Pharmacies, in turn, get the benefit of having
enrollees in the insurance plan coming to their stores to get
their prescriptions filled.

If you used your insurance plan to fill a prescription for generic
drugs at a CVS pharmacy, you may be entitled to relief. Find out
more about the class-action lawsuit against CVS for prescription
drug cost increases.

"Consumers are led to believe that pharmacists have their best
interest in mind.  That's what CVS would want you to believe,
anyway," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. "In
reality, CVS is engaging in a widespread fraudulent scheme to
overcharge the public for certain generic drugs."

Berman added, "When customers go to CVS to fill their
prescription, they assume they should use insurance to buy their
drugs.  In fact, pharmacists often insist on getting customers'
insurance information, even if the customers don't want to use it.
Now we know why -- pharmacies are making more money from insurance
purchases than cash purchases because of the secret deals they
reached with PBMs."

Generic Drug Pricing Fraud Explained

The lawsuit details a two-pronged drug pricing scheme perpetrated
by CVS since at least 2010 that attorneys say violates the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and
federal ERISA laws.

In the first part of the scheme, customers who use their insurance
to fill prescriptions at CVS are actually charged a higher price
for the same medication than those who pay with cash or don't use
their insurance, according to the suit.  CVS never tells customers
that they can save money by not using insurance.

The suit's named plaintiff, Megan Schultz, used her insurance to
purchase a certain generic drug at her local CVS.  Under her plan
she paid $165.68, but if she simply paid in cash, without using
her insurance, she would have paid only $92 -- a whopping 45
percent difference that CVS never told her about.

In the second part of the scheme, CVS overcharges customers by
collecting "co-pays" that exceed the pharmacists' price and
profit, again unbeknown to the customer, according to the
complaint.  CVS gives this extra cash back to PBMs, again part of
an undisclosed agreement between the PBMs and CVS.

"This 'co-pay' is not a co-pay at all, but CVS forcing its
customers to overpay for drugs that they could get for cheaper
without insurance," Mr. Berman said.  "Much of this money goes to
paying off the PBMs who in turn keep CVS on their pharmacy
network."

These contracts between CVS and the PBMs are sealed from public
view under strict confidentiality agreements, barring consumers
from ever learning the true source of their drug cost.

The lawsuit states that this hidden fraud violates federal
racketing laws.  The suit also brings claims of fraudulent
concealment, fiduciary conflicts of interest, lack of adequate
care and violations of state consumer rights laws.

Under ERISA, CVS has an obligation as a fiduciary to act "solely
in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries," according
to the suit, and attorneys believe that by engaging in this
alleged fraudulent scheme, CVS failed to uphold this duty, and
that by basing its profits in this collusion with a third party,
created a blatant conflict of interest that harmed its customers.

Mr. Berman added, "In 2016, CVS proclaimed in a 'social
responsibility' report that it is 'committed to bringing
accessible and affordable care to as many people as we can.  It's
the right thing to do . . .' Despite that awareness, CVS has only
sought to profit from those it serves."

                     About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.
The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs'
Hot List eight times. [GN]


DENNY'S CORP: Web site Violates ADA, "Haynes" Class Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DENNIS HAYNES, Individually v. DENNY'S
CORPORATION & DFO, LLC, Case No. 0:17-cv-61307-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
July 1, 2017), the plaintiff individually, on his behalf and on
behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, seeks
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Denny's Corporation is the franchisor and operator of one of
America's largest franchised full-service restaurant chains, based
on the number of restaurants.  DFO, LLC is a subsidiary of Denny's
and owns and operates a chain of restaurants in the United States
and internationally.  The Companies are headquartered in
Spartanburg, South Carolina.

According to the complaint, subsequent to the effective date of
the ADA, the Defendants constructed, or caused to be constructed,
a Web site located at http://www.dennys.com/ The Defendants are
the owners, operators, lessors or lessees of the Web site, which
supports, is an extension of, is in conjunction with, is
complementary and supplemental to, the public accommodation.

The Plaintiff alleges that the features of the Web site are
inaccessible to the visually impaired, including the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Michael Cullen, III, Esq.
          THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
          621 South Federal Highway, Suite 4
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 462-0600
          Facsimile: (954) 462-1717
          E-mail: cullen@thomasbaconlaw.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


DOLGENCORP LLC: "Horgan" Suit Transferred to W.D. of Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Howard Horgan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dolgencorp,
L.L.C. doing business as: Dollar General Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00107, filed on June 26, 2017, was removed from
the District of Vermont, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri (Kansas City) on July 31, 2017. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-00584-GAF to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to District Judge Gary A. Fenner.

Dolgencorp, doing business as Dollar General Corporation, operates
as a discount merchandiser.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kristin A. Ross , Esq.
   Van Dorn, Curtiss & Rousseau, PLLC
   P.O. Box 263
   Main Street, Route 10
   Orford, NH 03777-0263
   Tel: (603) 353-4000
   Fax: (603) 353-4567


DOMETIC CORP: Court Denies "Papasan" Plaintiffs' Bid to Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the case captioned CATHERINE PAPASAN, NELSON
GOEHLE, ANDREW YOUNG, JIMMY BYERS, CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON, and all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DOMETIC CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, No. 4:16-cv-02117-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), requested Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, to grant leave to file a two-page response to
the Defendant's Statement of Recent Decision.

In an August 4 Order, Judge Gilliam, Jr. denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave.

On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class
Action Complaint.  On Aug. 19, 2016, Dometic filed its Motion to
Dismiss.  After briefing on the Motion to Dismiss, the parties
appeared before the Court on Nov. 17, 2016, for oral argument.
The Motion to Dismiss is currently under consideration by the
Court.

On July 27, 2017, Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida entered an Order on the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification dismissing in its entirety the Varner
Class Action against Dometic under Rule 56.  On Aug. 2, the Court
granted the Defendant leave to file its Statement of Recent
Decision, containing a citation to and providing a copy of a
summary judgment dismissal order in Varner et al. v. Dometic Corp.
("Varner Order").

Given that the Varner Order concerns the same allegedly defective
gas absorption refrigerators as this case, the Plaintiffs seek
leave to file a two-page response to the Defendant's Statement of
Recent Decision, in order to provide the Court with notable
distinctions between this action and the Varner action beyond the
procedural distinction that the Varner Order was at the Rule 56
stage, following denial of a Rule 12 motion and discovery.

A full-text copy of the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave is available
at https://is.gd/vzHYGn from Leagle.com.

Catherine Papasan, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman --
jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Catherine Papasan, Plaintiff, represented by Terrence Allen Beard,
Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede --
ashleyb@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Nelson Goehle, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of
Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Andrew Young, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of
Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Jimmy Byers, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of
Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Christopher Johnston, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices
of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Dometic Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter Allen Wald
-- peter.wald@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Adam L. Rosenbloom -
- adam.rosenbloom@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Emily Rose
Goebel, Latham & Watkins LLP, Marcy Christina Priedeman --
marcy.priedeman@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & Robert Christian
Collins, III -- robert.collins@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP,
pro hac vice.


DUNKIN' DONUTS: No Real Fruit in Blueberry Doughnut, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linze Rice, writing for dnainfo, reports that a class-action fraud
lawsuit has been filed against Dunkin' Donuts after a glazed
blueberry doughnut bought at a South Loop shop allegedly lacked
any actual blueberries.

Bartosz Grabowski bought the doughnut Dec. 10 at the Dunkin'
Donuts at 1231 S. Wabash Ave. but it did not contain any real
fruit, the suit alleges.  Mr. Grabowski filed the class-action
lawsuit July 9 in federal court.  He is representing more than 100
people in Illinois who all claim they, too, bought products such
as doughnuts, Munchkins and crumb cakes with the belief they were
made with actual berries -- and not "imitation blueberries."

The blueish bits in the bakery products "resemble, and in fact are
specifically made to resemble, actual blueberries or pieces of
actual blueberry due to their blue color and round shape,"
Grabowski's lawyers contend.

Dunkin' Donuts has not responded to the claim and asked a judge's
permission to take until Aug. 30 to respond to the complaints. An
initial hearing is set for Sept. 9.

A spokesman for the company said it was "unable to comment at this
time due to pending litigation."

Dunkin' Donuts items billed as containing blueberries are sold at
a premium, and the people suing would not have bought them, or
would have paid less, with the knowledge they did not actually
have blueberries, according to the suit.

Nutritional information regarding the pastries' ingredients is not
displayed along with the items, and marketing materials often
depict real blueberries side-by-side with the products, which
mislead consumers, the suit charges.

Among the allegations is that the imitation blueberries used in
Dunkin' Donuts products are "inferior" to the real thing, which
can provide health benefits.

"Blueberries have the potential to limit the development and
severity of certain cancers and vascular diseases, including
atherosclerosis, ischemic stroke, and neurodegenerative diseases
of aging," the suit contends.  "Research suggests that blueberries
are one of the richest sources of antioxidant phytonutrients."

Instead, the products contain sugar and corn syrup, gums and
artificial food coloring, "blueberry flavored bits" and "flavor
crystals" to mimic the fruit, the suit claims.

"Even when consuming the blueberry products, plaintiff and other
consumers cannot easily decipher whether the filling or glazing
they are consuming contains actual blueberries because defendant
has formulated and manufactured the products in a manner that
masks the absence of such ingredients," according to the
complaint.

The suit seeks more than $5 million in damages, restitution and
court fees, plus validation of its claims for violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
common law fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Mr. Grabowski is being represented by James X. Bormes and
Catherine P. Sons of the Law Office of James X. Bormes and Thomas
M. Ryan of the Law Office of Thomas M. Ryan.  None were available
for immediate comment.

Mr. Grabowski's lawyers argued other items at Dunkin' Donuts, like
strawberry doughnuts and "apple crumb"-flavored pastries, did have
real fruit as advertised.  Therefore, the breakfast chain "was not
only capable of formulating and manufacturing the blueberry
products to include blueberry, but also was, or should have been,
aware that the blueberry products did not contain blueberry and
that its representations would deceive unsuspecting consumers,"
the suit says.

Earlier this year, Dunkin' Donuts was hit with lawsuits that also
complained its products did not contain the natural flavors its
pastries claimed -- such as blueberries, maple and butter. [GN]


DUPONT FABROS: Oct. 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Aug. 7 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia on behalf of holders of DuPont Fabros
Technology, Inc. ("DuPont Fabros") common stock in connection with
the proposed acquisition of DuPont Fabros by Digital Realty Trust,
Inc. and its affiliates ("Digital Realty") announced on June 9,
2017 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against DuPont Fabros, its
Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Digital Realty, is captioned
Scarantino v. DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
01428 (D.D.C.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com; or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On June 8, 2017, DuPont Fabros entered into an agreement and plan
of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Digital Realty.  Pursuant
to the Merger Agreement, each share of DuPont Fabros common stock
will be converted into the right to receive 0.545 shares of
Digital Realty common stock, and each share of 6.625% DuPont
Fabros Series C preferred stock will be converted into the right
to receive one share of a newly designated class of preferred
stock of Digital Realty with substantially similar rights,
privileges, and preferences as the DuPont Fabros Series C
preferred stock (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10,
2017.  The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement,
which recommends that DuPont Fabros stockholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to
enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote
on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with
respect to DuPont Fabros' financial projections, the analyses
performed by DuPont Fabros' financial advisor, and potential
conflicts of interest.  The Complaint seeks injunctive and
equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of DuPont
Fabros' common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 6, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed 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.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com--
regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and
shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in
state and federal courts throughout the United States. [GN]


ECLIPSE AVIATION: 3rd Cir. Tosses Class Suit over Abrupt Layoffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re: AE LIQUIDATION, INC., ET AL, Debtors.
ANNETTE VARELA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated; JOHN J. DIMURA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Appellants, v. AE LIQUIDATION, INC., ET AL,
f/k/a ECLIPSE AVIATION CORPORATION, No. 16-2203(3d. Cir.), Judge
Cheryl Ann Krause of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit upheld the judgment of the District Court affirming a
bankruptcy court decision.

This case arises from the bankruptcy and subsequent closing of a
jet aircraft manufacturer.  Eclipse's employees filed the class
action complaint that gave rise to this appeal -- an adversary
proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court alleging that Eclipse's failure
to give them 60 days' notice prior to the layoff violated the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act").
After discovery, the employees moved for partial summary judgment,
asserting that Eclipse could invoke neither the Act's "faltering
company" exception, nor its "unforeseeable business circumstances"
exception to excuse its lack of notice, and Eclipse filed a cross-
motion for summary judgment, contending that the "unforeseeable
business circumstances" exception barred WARN Act liability.  The
Bankruptcy Court agreed with Eclipse and granted summary judgment
in its favor.  The District Court affirmed on appeal, and the
matter was elevated to the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit is required to assess that manufacturer's
obligation under the WARN Act, to give fair warning to its
employees before effecting a mass layoff.  On appeal, it is asked
to determine whether a business must notify its employees of a
pending layoff once the layoff becomes probable -- that is, more
likely than not -- or if the mere foreseeable possibility that a
layoff may occur is enough to trigger the WARN Act's notice
requirements.

The Appellants contend that Eclipse has not met its burden of
demonstrating that the unforeseeable business circumstances
exception applies for three reasons.  The argue, as a threshold
matter, that Eclipse is ineligible for the exception because, even
after the fact, it never provided its employees with proper notice
of their termination.  They also contend that Eclipse cannot show
that the purported unforeseeable business circumstance -- its
failure to close its proposed sale to European Technology and
Investment Research Center ("ETIRC")
-- was, in fact, the cause of the mass layoff.  They further
assert that, even if the failure to close the sale was the cause
of the layoff, the exception still would not apply because the
failure to close was not "unforeseeable" but rather could have
been anticipated at many points in the 60-day window prior to the
layoff.

The Appeals Court perceives no deficiency in Eclipse's notice and
perceives no dispute of material fact as to whether the notice's
contents or method of delivery violated the WARN Act.  To the
question of whether Eclipse may excuse its failure to provide
notice at an earlier date by relying on the unforeseeable business
circumstances defense, the Court finds that the record supports
the presumption that Eclipse's employees would have retained their
jobs had the sale been finalized.  The District Court thus did not
err in concluding as a matter of law that the failure to obtain
financing for that sale was the cause of the layoff.

The Appeals Court explains that companies in financial distress
will frequently be forced to make difficult choices on how best to
proceed, and those decisions will almost always involve the
possibility of layoffs if they do not pan out exactly as planned.
When the possibility of a layoff -- while present -- is not the
more likely outcome, any premature warning has the potential to
accelerate a company's demise and necessitate layoffs that
otherwise may have been avoided.  Thus, the Court joins the many
courts that have held this is not the burden the WARN Act was
meant to impose and that a layoff becomes reasonably foreseeable
only when it becomes more likely than not that it will occur.

Because the Appeals Court concludes that a probability of layoffs
is necessary, and the manufacturer has demonstrated that its
closing was not probable until the day that it occurred, it cannot
be held liable for its failure to give its employees requisite
notice.  Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the
District Court, which in turn affirmed the judgment of the
Bankruptcy Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ujW32i from Leagle.com.

Christopher D. Loizides, Loizides, 1225 King Street, Suite 800,
Wilmington, DE 19801. Jack A. Raisner -- jar@outtengolden.com --
(Argued), Rene S. Roupinian -- RSR@outtengolden.com -- Outten &
Golden, 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Counsel
for Appellants.

Mark E. Felger -- mfelger@cozen.com -- Barry M. Klayman --
bklayman@cozen.com -- (Argued), Cozen O'Connor, 1201 North Market
Street, Suite 1001, Wilmington, DE 1801, Counsel for Appellee.


EDUCAP INC: Quick, et al. Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DEWAINE QUICK, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
EDUCAP, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01242-APM
(D.D.C.), Dewaine Quick and Lynn Davis move the Court to certify a
class.

The case was filed June 26 and alleges violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Act.

Judge Amit P Mehta presides over the case.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dean Gregory, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DEAN GREGORY
          1717 K Street NW, Suite 900
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 905 8058
          Facsimile: (202) 776 0136
          E-mail: dean@deangregory.com


EGS FINANCIAL: Galli Files Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EGS Financial Care,
Inc. The case is styled as Brian E. Galli and Edwin Ortiz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. EGS Financial Care, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-04630 (E.D. N.Y., August 7, 2017).

Defendant EGS Financial Care, Inc. is a company that purchases
consumer debts and collecting thereon from Debtors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is 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


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Narrows Claims in "Davis" Likenesses Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Defendant's motion for partial
summary judgment in the case captioned MICHAEL E. DAVIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., Defendant, Case No. 10-cv-
03328-RS(N.D. Cal.).

The Named Plaintiffs in this putative class action are former
National Football League players who contend that Defendant EA has
misappropriated their likenesses and rights of publicity through
marketing and selling the popular "Madden NFL" series of video
games.  Those games undisputedly use likenesses of active NFL
players, which EA has licensed through the NFL Players'
Association.  Although EA vigorously contends the games do not use
former players' likenesses, there is no question that any such use
is unlicensed.

The motion for partial summary judgment brought by EA presents a
narrow question on whether the Plaintiffs have a viable statutory
claim under California Civil Code Section 3344.

Judge Seeborg held that the Plaintiffs have not shown, and cannot
show, that any of the visual images of players in the Madden games
-- the avatars -- would ever be "readily identifiable" as any
specific retired NFL player absent additional contextual
information.  Because controlling precedent requires such a
showing for claims under section 3344, the Defendants' motion must
be granted.

Subsequent to the hearing on the motion, the Plaintiffs were
granted leave to submit additional briefing regarding points they
contended had emerged through further discovery.  Judge Seeborg
noted that the briefing -- rather than focusing on any newly
discovered facts and new testimony -- largely reiterated the
Plaintiffs' prior arguments that they need not show the visual
appearances of the avatars render them identifiable.  They are
relying on additional contextual information that goes beyond the
elements of a "likeness" in a statutory claim.  However, no
genuine issue of material fact as to the "degree of resemblance"
exists upon comparison of the relevant aspects of the appearance
of the avatars to the appearance of the Plaintiffs.  Any questions
the Plaintiffs may have raised as to possible evidentiary
discrepancies in the details of how particular avatars are
selected for use in the historical games do not alter the
fundamental fact that the resulting avatars are not readily
identifiable as the Plaintiffs, absent consideration of
information that does not come within a statutory "likeness."

Therefore, Judge Seeborg granted EA's motion for partial summary
judgment.  The final judgment in this action will include judgment
in EA's favor on the Plaintiffs' claims under section 3344.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4MTJT1 from Leagle.com.

Michael E. Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Austin P. Tighe, Jr. -
- austin@feazell-tighe.com -- Feazell & Tighe LLP.

Michael E. Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Douglas Henri
-- brianhenri@henrilg.com -- Henri Law Group, Michael Irwin Katz -
- mkatz@ggtriallaw.com -- Greenberg Gross LLP & Sony Broto Barari
-- sbarari@bzbm.com  -- Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller.

Vince Ferragamo, Plaintiff, represented by Austin P. Tighe, Jr.,
Feazell & Tighe LLP, Brian Douglas Henri, Henri Law Group, Michael
Irwin Katz, Greenberg Gross LLP & Sony Broto Barari, Bartko,
Zankel, Bunzel & Miller.

Billy Joe Dupree, Plaintiff, represented by Austin P. Tighe, Jr.,
Feazell & Tighe LLP, Brian Douglas Henri, Henri Law Group, Michael
Irwin Katz, Greenberg Gross LLP & Sony Broto Barari, Bartko,
Zankel, Bunzel & Miller.

Samuel Michael Keller, Plaintiff, represented by Leonard W. Aragon
-- leonard@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice.

Electronic Arts Inc., Defendant, represented by R. James Slaughter
-- rslaughter@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Joseph
Taylor Gooch -- tgooch@keker.com -- Keker and Van Nest LLP,
Nicholas David Marais -- nmarais@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest &
Peters LLP & Robert Adam Lauridsen -- alauridsen@keker.com --
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.


ESTATE INFORMATION: Faces "Riley" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Estate Information
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Renee Riley, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Estate
Information Services, LLC doing business as: EIS Collections,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04685 (E.D. N.Y., August 9, 2017).

Estate Information Services, LLC specializes in the collection of
deceased debt and specialty recovery functions for creditors in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is 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


EXPRESS SERVICE: "Stoddart" Case Discovery Cutoff Moved to Nov. 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to
extend the discovery deadline for additional 90 days in the case
captioned MICHAEL H. STODDART, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXPRESS
SERVICES, et al., Defendants, No. 2:12-cv-01054-KJM-CKD (E.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiff, who formerly worked for Express Services in
Vallejo, California, now alleges Express Services systematically
violated employment laws by not providing legally mandated off-
duty meal periods or paying all wages owed to current and former
employees.  In early 2012, the Plaintiff brought a putative class
action against all three Named Defendants in state court for
damages and injunctive relief.  A month later, Express Services
removed the case to the Court.

After several dismissal motions and complaint amendments, the
Court issued the operative scheduling order on Aug. 4, 2016, in
which class certification discovery was to close on April 7, 2017.
On March 9, 2017, the parties jointly requested an extension of
class certification discovery for 120 days.  The Court granted the
request, extending the deadline to Aug. 7, 2017.  After the court
granted this stipulated extension, the parties scheduled private
mediation for Sept. 27, 2017.  In light of the upcoming mediation,
the Plaintiff now seeks to extend the certification discovery
deadline for another 90 days, to Nov. 5, 2017.  No trial has yet
been scheduled.  The Defendants oppose, arguing plaintiff lacks
good cause for another discovery extension.

The Plaintiff argues good cause exists to move the discovery
cutoff date beyond Aug. 7, 2017, because that date was set before
the parties had agreed to a Sept. 27, 2017 private mediation date.
The Defendants argue the Plaintiff can easily complete
certification discovery by the current cutoff.

Judge Mueller finds that the Plaintiff has acted reasonably
diligently throughout discovery, and the Defendants have not shown
that the Plaintiff's request will cause prejudice or that they
themselves were not complicit in the discovery delays to date.
She also finds that the Plaintiff's discovery extension request is
simple, and both sides agree the Plaintiff called to discuss the
request generally, and the Defendants rejected it out of hand.
Thus, the Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement.
Accordingly, Judge Mueller granted the Plaintiff's motion and
extended the class certification discovery cutoff for 90 days from
Aug. 7 to Nov. 5.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Hvqf1N from Leagle.com.

Michael H. Stoddart, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey Drew La
Val -- glaval@grahamhollis.com -- Graham Hollis APC.

Michael H. Stoddart, Plaintiff, represented by Janine Renee
Menhennet -- janetgrumer@dwt.com  Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Jeff
Geraci, Cohelan Khoury and Singer, Michael D. Singer, Cohelan
Khoury & Singer, Graham S.P. Hollis -- ghollis@grahamhollis.com --
GrahamHollis, APC & Marta Manus -- mmanus@grahamhollis.com --
GrahamHollis A.P.C..

Express Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron N. Colby -
- aaroncolby@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Morgan Patricia
Forsey -- mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter
and Hampton, Nora K. Stiles -- nstilestein@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton, Elizabeth Scott Wood --
elizabeth.wood@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft, APC, pro hac vice,
Janet Lynn Grumer, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Jason W. Kearnaghan
-- jkearnaghan@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton LLP & Richard J. Simmons -- rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com
-- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Phillips & Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by Janet Lynn
Grumer, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Jason W. Kearnaghan, Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Morgan Patricia Forsey, Sheppard
Mullin Richter and Hampton, Nora K. Stiles, Sheppard Mullin
Richter and Hampton, Richard J. Simmons, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP & Aaron N. Colby, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

Western Wine Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas
G.A. Johnston, Jackson Lewis P.C., Fraser Angus McAlpine --
McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Scott
Christopher Lacunza -- LacunzaS@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C.


FAY SERVICING: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CRISTINA ORTIZ, on behalf of plaintiffs and
a class, the Plaintiffs, v. FAY SERVICING, LLC, doing business as
FAY MORTGAGE SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05795 (N.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of:

   "(a) all individuals in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin (b) to
   whom Fay Servicing, LLC sent a "validation notice" (c) which
   failed to include amounts owed for escrow, unpaid accrued
   interest, late charges and/or NSF charges, (d) on a
   residential mortgage (e) that was in default when Fay
   Servicing, LLC obtained the loan, (f) which letter was sent at
   any time during a period beginning one year prior to the
   filing of this action and ending 21 days after the filing of
   this action".

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

The Plaintiffs brought this case against Defendant alleging
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oLLE03k4

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


FHI LLC: Faces "Orelus" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
AMSLEY ORELUS, on his own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FHI, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability
company, FREIGHT HANDLERS, INC., a North Carolina corporation, and
CHARLES WALL, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-61431-KMM
(July 19, 2017), alleges that Defendants failed to comply with the
Fair Labor Standards Act, in that Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees performed services for Defendants for which no
provisions were made by the Defendants to properly pay them for
those hours worked in excess of forty (40) within a work week.

Defendants provide logistics and distribution services to various
retailers across the United States. Defendants employ Plaintiff as
"Handler."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     Camar R. Jones, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     1515 Federal Hwy, Suite 404
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Phone: (561) 447-8888
     Fax: (561) 447-8831
     Email: ciones@shavitzlaw.com

        - and -

     Donald A. Yarbrough, Esq.
     P.O Box 11842
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33339
     Phone: 954-566-2000
     Fax: 954-537-2235
     Email: don@donyarbroygh.com


FIRST ADVANTAGE: "Bankhead" Suit Transferred to N.D. of Ga.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Latonya T. Bankhead,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. First Advantage Background Services Corp., Defendant, Case No.
2017cv291753, was removed from the Superior Court of Fulton
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Atlanta) on August 2, 2017. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-02910-LMM-JCF to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to District Judge Leigh Martin May.

The Defendant is a consumer reporting agency with its principal
place of business in Atlanta Georgia. It is regularly engaged in
the business of assembling, evaluating, and disbursing consumer
information reports to third parties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
   Berger & Montague, P.C.-MN
   43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
   Minneapolis, MN 55414
   Tel: (612) 594-5999
   Fax: (215) 875-4604
   Email: emdrake@bm.net

      - and -

   Gary B. Andrews, Jr., Esq.
   Blake Andrews Law Firm, LLC
   1831 Timothy Dr.
   Atlanta, GA 30329
   Tel: (770) 828-6225
   Email: blake@blakeandrewslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Edward Patrick Cadagin, Esq.
   Arnall Golden Gregory LLP-ATL
   171 17th Street, NW, Suite 2100
   Atlanta, GA 30363-1031
   Tel: (404) 873-8500
   Email: edward.cadagin@agg.com

      - and -

   Henry R. Chalmers, Esq.
   Arnall Golden Gregory LLP-ATL
   171 17th Street, NW, Suite 2100
   Atlanta, GA 30363-1031
   Tel: (404) 873-8646
   Email: henry.chalmers@agg.com


FLORIDA: Davis Sues Dept. of Corrections Over Prison Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARK DAVIS, MARK GERALDS, JESSE GUARDADO, JOSEPH JORDAN, KHALID
PASHA, ROBERT RIMMER, JOHN TROY, STEVEN STEIN, and GARY WHITTON,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. JULIE JONES, KEVIN JORDAN, and BARRY REDDISH, in
their official capacities as employees of the Florida Department
of Corrections, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00820-MMH-PDB (M.D.
Fla., July 19, 2017), seeks to obtain declaratory and injunctive
relief from an alleged unconstitutional Florida Department of
Corrections policy that automatically places Florida prisoners
sentenced to death in a permanently solitary confinement,
regardless of their behavior while incarcerated.

According to the case, the FDOC has held Plaintiffs in permanent
solitary confinement, called "single-cell special housing," for
between 4 and 30 years, an unconscionably long period of time.

The FDOC's policy of automatic, indefinite solitary confinement
for death row inmates is extremely debilitating, and inhumane,
violates contemporary standards of decency, and poses an
unreasonable risk of serious harm to the health and safety of
Plaintiffs and class members, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Linda McDermott, Esq.
     Martin J. McClain, Esq.
     MCLAIN & MCDERMOTT P.A.
     141 NE 30th Street,
     Wilton Manors, FL 33334-1064
     Phone: (850) 322-2172
     Fax: (954) 564-5412
     Email: Lindamcdermott@msn.com

        - and -

     Seth A. Rosenthal, Esq.
     Claire Wheeler, Esq.
     VENABLE LLP
     Washington, DC 20004
     Phone: (202) 653-3750
     Fax: (202) 344-8300
     Email: Sarosenthal@venable.com
     Email: Cmwheeler@venable.com

        - and -

     Maggie T. Grace, Esq.
     Matthew T. Shea, Esq.
     VENABLE LLP
     750 E. Pratt Street, Suite 900
     Baltimore, MD 21202
     Phone: (410) 244-7400
     Fax: (410) 244-7742
     Email: Mtgrace@venable.com
     Email: Mtshea@venable.com


FMS INVESTMENT: Faces "McKenna" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FMS Investment Corp.
The case is styled as Kathleen McKenna, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FMS Investment
Corp., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04628 (E.D. N.Y., August 7,
2017).

FMS Investment Corp. is a Maryland corporation that provides
receivables management solutions to financial service institutions
in the government and private sector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is 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


FORT WAYNE, IN: Original Motion to Certify Class Declared as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROLANDO JORDAN, RONALD WARD, and KENNETH
ROLLINGCLOUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,, the Plaintiffs, v. DAVID GLADIEUX, ALAN COOK, and
CHARLES HART, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00335-TLS-SLC (N.D.
Ind.), the Hon. Judge Theresa L. Springmann entered an order
declaring original motion to certify class as moot.

The Court said, "On March 17, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their
First amended motion for class certification. Because the
Plaintiffs have filed an amended Motion, the original motion to
certify class is now moot".

In September 2016, Plaintiffs asked the Court to certify the class
as defined in their action alleging unlawful and unconstitutional
religious discrimination against inmates practicing Muslim and
traditional Native American faiths at the Allen County Jail in
Fort Wayne, Indiana.  Plaintiffs proposed this class:

     "All individuals held at the Allen County Jail between
October 2014 and September 2016 practicing a Muslim or traditional
Native American faith who have been forbidden from engaging in
Muslim or traditional Native American communal worship and/or have
been forbidden from keeping an article of Muslim or traditional
Native American religious devotion."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oeo5ezvU


FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Lilavois" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC. The case is styled as Regine Lilavois, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04631
(E.D.N.Y., August 7, 2017).

Frontline Asset is a debt collection agency.[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


FULL CITIZENSHIP MD: Craighead May File Amended Suit, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint in the case captioned TALIA CRAIGHEAD, Plaintiff, v.
FULL CITIZENSHIP OF MARYLAND, INC. Defendant, Civil Action No. PX
17-595(D. Md.).

On March 3, 2017, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated putative class members, filed a class action
against the Defendant, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"); the Maryland Wage and Hour Law; and the
Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, as well as injunctive
relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 217.  The Defendant has
answered the complaint and discovery pertinent to class
certification is underway.

On June 29, 2017, the Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint
pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Specifically, she seeks to add named Plaintiffs to ensure that the
class is adequately represented by a number of typical class
members.  She also seeks to clarify the basis for federal
jurisdiction under the FLSA and the Class Action Fairness Act,
codified in relevant part at 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).  The
Plaintiff also proposes to add class allegations covering those
individuals who were not paid the legal minimum wage in any one
work week.  Finally, she would add Pansy Stancil-Diaz as a named
Defendant because she has allegedly exerted personal control over
and responsibility for the unlawful pay practices.  The Plaintiff
avers that she only recently learned of the factual bases
supporting the proposed amendments.

With regard to adding the minimum wage claims, Judge Xinis says
they are certainly related to the underlying class complaint in
that they involve the same institutional defendant, the same time
frame, and the same basic state law framework as the other state
claims.  Any possible prejudice may be cured by a reasonable
enlargement of time in the scheduling order to accommodate
discovery on the new claims.  Given that the claims are
sufficiently related enough to permit amendment, to do otherwise
would appear wasteful and unnecessary.  Similarly, with regard to
joining Stancil-Diaz, the Defendant has not marshalled sufficient
evidence of prejudice to warrant denial of amendment.
Accordingly, Judge Xinis granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave
to Amend the Complaint.  She directed the clerk to detach and file
the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and transmit copies of her
Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/7U5jaX from Leagle.com.

Talia Craighead, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Philip Tucker
-- jt@dcwagelaw.com -- Law Office of Justin Zelikovitz, PLLC.

Talia Craighead, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Brooks --
mb@outtengolden.com -- Outten and Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Sally
J. Abrahamson -- sabrahamson@outtengolden.com -- Outten and Golden
LLP, pro hac vice & Justin Zelikovitz -- justin@dcwagelaw.com --
DCWAGELAW.

Vernesha Hutchinson, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Philip
Tucker, Law Office of Justin Zelikovitz, PLLC, Molly Brooks,
Outten and Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Sally J. Abrahamson, Outten
and Golden LLP, pro hac vice & Justin Zelikovitz, DCWAGELAW.

Vernice Headen, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Philip Tucker,
Law Office of Justin Zelikovitz, PLLC, Molly Brooks, Outten and
Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Sally J. Abrahamson, Outten and Golden
LLP, pro hac vice & Justin Zelikovitz, DCWAGELAW.

Pamela Omar Ransom, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Philip
Tucker, Law Office of Justin Zelikovitz, PLLC, Molly Brooks,
Outten and Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Sally J. Abrahamson, Outten
and Golden LLP, pro hac vice & Justin Zelikovitz, DCWAGELAW.

Full Citizenship of Maryland, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Tamara B. Goorevitz -- tgoorevitz@fandpnet.com -- Franklin and
Prokopik PC.


GEICO INDEMNITY: Bid to Certify Class Taken under Submission
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Geoffrey Starks, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. Geico Indemnity Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-05771-
MWF-PJW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald
Entered an order taking Geico's motion for leave to file amended
answer to add affirmative defense, Geico's motion for summary
judgment as to second amended complaint, and Plaintiffs' motion to
certify class under submission.

The Courtroom Deputy Clerk issues the Court's tentative ruling,
prior to the hearing. Case called, and counsel make their
appearance. The Court takes the matter under submission. An order
will issue, according to the Civil Minutes.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          Beverly Hills, CA
          Telephone: (323) 285 3255

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian M Jazaeri, Esq.
          Esther K. Ro Esq.
          300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612 7333
          Facsimile: (213) 612 2501
          E-mail: brian.jazaeri@morganlewis.com


GENWORTH LIFE: Accused by Avazian of Improperly Lapsing Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR AVAZIAN, an individual, MICHAEL A. TORRES, in his capacity
as trustee of the Julio M. Torres 2012 Insurance Trust DTD, and
others similarly situated v. GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE
COMPANY and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. BC671240 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., August 4, 2017), alleges that by violating
California law, Genworth has improperly lapsed countless numbers
of life insurance policies, saving the Company untold sums by
retaining premiums on policies the Company will never pay out on.

The Plaintiffs state that they bring the purported class action
lawsuit because Genworth has knowingly and repeatedly failed to
comply with a California statutory scheme that seeks to safeguard
consumers' life insurance coverage by requiring insurers to
observe clearly defined notice procedures before terminating
coverage for nonpayment of premium.

Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of Virginia and
is authorized to transact and is transacting the business of
insurance in the state of California.  Genworth offers annuity and
life insurance underwriting services in the United States.  The
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the
Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William M. Shernoff, Esq.
          Samuel L. Bruchey, Esq.
          SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA LLP
          301 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 246-0503
          Facsimile: (310) 246-0380
          E-mail: wshernoff@shernoff.com
                  sbruchey@shernoff.com


GROSS POLOWY: "Carbone" Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL K. CARBONE and JANINE CARBONE, on
behalf of plaintiffs and a class, the Plaintiffs, v. GROSS POLOWY
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04564 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order determining that a Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act action may proceed
as a class action against Gross Polowy LLC.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes, defined as:

   "(a) all natural persons (b) whose correspondence address,
   according to the records of GPLCC, is the same as the property
   address, (c) which property contains one or two dwelling units
   (including condominium and cooperative apartments), (d) to
   whom GPLLC sent a letter referring to mortgage company "vs."
   homeowner or "foreclosure action" or "foreclosure sale" when
   no legal proceeding was pending, (e) 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"; and

   "(a) all natural persons (b) whose correspondence address,
   according to the records of GPLCC, is the same as the property
   address, (c) which property contains one or two dwelling units
   (including condominium and cooperative apartments), (d) with
   whom GPLLC communicated (e) without sending a "notice of debt"
   described in section 1692g prior to or within 5 days after the
   communication (f) where the first communication occurred 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.
   Plaintiffs further request that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
   Goodwin, LLC and Kleinman LLC be appointed counsel for the
   class".

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

This case involves GPLLC's attempt to collect a residential
mortgage loan debt from plaintiffs. The loan is secured by
plaintiffs' residence and was obtained for personal, family or
household purposes, namely housing.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KBCS40M5

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN, LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, New York 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522 2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522 1692

               - and -

          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-3593
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


GUARDIAN PROTECTION: "Danganan" Suit Transferred to Penn. S.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jobe Danganan, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Appellants v. Guardian
Protection Services and United States Court of Appeals For The
Third Circuit, Appellee, Case No. 44 WM 2017 was transferred from
the U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, to the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania on August 8, 2017, and assigned Case No. 36-WAP-2017
to the proceeding.

The Guardian Protection Services operate a residential and
commercial security and safety solution company that specializes
in the design, installation, service and monitoring of security
and fire monitoring systems.[BN]

The Appellees are represented by:

   Iannucci, Michael Anthony, Esq.
   Blank Rome
   One Logan Square
   130 North 18th St.
   Philadelphia, PA 19103

      - and -

   Vendzules, Laura Elizabeth, Esq.
   Blank Rome, LLP
   One Logan Square
   Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
   Tel: (215) 569-5500

      - and -

   John Patrick Wixted, Esq.
   Blank Rome LLP
   130 N 18TH St
   Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
   Tel: (215) 569-5500

      - and -

   Patricia S. Dodszuweit, Esq.
   U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
   601 Market St
   Philadelphia, PA 19106-1723
   Tel: (267) 299-4903

      - and -

   Amy Joseph Coles, Esq.
   Blank Rome LLP
   500 Grant St Ste 2900
   Pittsburgh, PA 15219
   Tel: (215) 569-5500

The Appellant is represented by:

   Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
   Donovan Litigation Group LLC
   15 St Asaphs Rd
   BalaCynwyd, PA 19004
   Tel: (610) 647-6067

      - and -

   James Pietz, Esq.
   Feinstein Doyle Payne &KravecLlc
   429 Forbes Ave Ste 1705
   Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1612
   Tel: (412) 281-8400


HIGHVELD SYNDICATION: Georgiou Seeks to Appeal Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------
Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that sparks flew in
the North Gauteng High Court in property magnate Nic Georgiou's
application for leave to appeal against a May judgment that found
his conduct to be unethical and an attempt to abuse the court
process.

Helgard Hancke, a former member of the Highveld Syndication Action
Group (HSAG) who now assists investors with settling their claims
directly with Mr. Georgiou, submitted an explosive affidavit as
part of his application to become an intervening party to the
proceedings.  In this affidavit, Mr. Hancke alleges that some
facts in HSAG lawyer Jacques Theron of T&V's original affidavit,
which the courts relied upon, were false and that he did not act
in the best interest of investors.  This challenges information
Mr. Theron put before the court in his original application and on
which the judgment was based.

Mr. Theron denied these allegations but is yet to file a
responding affidavit under oath.

The application for leave to appeal follows a judgment in May,
which was critical of Mr. Georgiou's conduct to secretly settle
the claims of the applicants who represented around 7 000 HSAG
members in their quest to institute a class action against
Mr. Georgiou.

The settlements were dependent on the condition that they withdraw
their application for certification for the class action, which
would effectively bring an end to the class action application.

A similar judgment was delivered for the other three applicants in
the South Gauteng High Court.

                    Helgard Hancke's affidavit

In his affidavit Mr. Hancke alleged that Johan Stander, a
longstanding HSAG executive member, and Mr. Theron demanded a
commission of 1% on all the settlements they negotiated on behalf
of HSAG investors with Georgiou.

"I am aware that Theron requested a commission of 1% of the
settlement reached on behalf of any investor and Georgiou.  I
assume it is for this reason that the applicants settled their
claims with Georgiou directly and that they did not pursue their
claims through the channels and the system made available by
Theron."

In a subsequent interview with Moneyweb, Mr. Hancke said
Mr. Georgiou refused to pay the 1% commission and the claims of
around 800 HSAG who were keen to settle, were not settled.

Mr. Hancke also recalls "a specific meeting in Benoni, secretly
arranged by Stander and Theron with Mr. Georgiou, where Mr. Theron
proposed a commission of R25 million from Mr. Georgiou in order to
settle the class action.  These claims later escalated to as much
as R66 million."

Mr. Hancke added that the class action application was extremely
lucrative for Mr. Theron and that it was in his best interest that
it continued.  "I recall mention being made of contributions of up
to R15 million in just three years, however Theron refused to
furnish audited financial statements of his trust account."  His
office claims it is confidential information.

This was also disputed by Elna Visagie, another former member of
the HSAG and currently in the employment of Georgiou, in a
supporting affidavit to Mr. Hancke's affidavit.  She confirmed
Mr. Hancke's contention that Mr. Theron sought a 1% commission on
settlements he negotiated.  She attached a copy of a handwritten
note, which was apparently "supplied" by Stander to Georgiou in
March 2017 "whereby (the) HSAG claimed a further 1% negotiators
fee together with the administrative fees and legal fees that were
already paid by the investors -- totalling an amount of R66
million."

                         Charlene Jordaan

In another development, Charlene Jordaan, one of the four HSAG
members who Georgiou apparently approached in secret and settled
her claim, also tried to submit an affidavit, but this was
disallowed by the judge.

In this affidavit however, she also denied Mr. Theron's version of
events, especially the statement that Georgiou secretly approached
her for settlement and that the six applicants didn't know each
other.

Ms. Visagie also disputed this in her affidavit.

Ms. Jordaan states that she instructed Mr. Theron to settle her
claim with Mr. Georgiou, but that he failed to do so.  Ms. Jordaan
then approached Mr. Georgiou directly after her claim was settled,
as well as those of the other applicants.

"The settlement agreements (which I was advised had been
negotiated and indeed prepared by Theron) were never signed
previously as Theron was insisting upon being paid a settlement
commission, which Georgiou refused to pay."

Ms. Jordaan and Ms. Visagie also denied Mr. Theron's claim that
the applicants did not know each other.  They both stated that the
applicants and Theron were members of a WhatsApp group.

                          Theron responds

Mr. Theron strongly denied the allegations and said the
application for leave to appeal did not address the merits of the
case.  "The facts are that Georgiou secretly paid an unknown
amount of money to the applicants to settle their claims, with the
condition that they would withdraw their application for class
action certification."

Mr. Georgiou strongly denied this and alleged that the applicants
approached him for settlement.

Mr. Theron said Mr. Hancke was waging a smear campaign against the
HSAG and himself after Georgiou secretly settled a family member's
claim and after Mr. Hancke was asked to resign from the HSAG
steering committee.  Mr. Theron also strongly denied he ever
demanded a 1% commission to settle claims.  "This allegation is
totally false.  The additional allegation that my demand for this
commission delayed or derailed settlement negotiations is a
further blatant lie."

Mr. Theron said the settlement agreement the HSAG negotiated and
signed with Georgiou, and which was attached to his replying
affidavit, did not contain any reference to a commission.

Regarding Mr. Hancke's claim that T&V's fees were exorbitant,
Mr. Theron said his fees were in accordance with guidelines of the
law society and that he would provide a full account of his trust
account at the conclusion of the case.  He said he could not
disclose this now, as this was sensitive information Georgiou
could use against the HSAG's application by adapting his tactics
and litigation strategy, depending on his knowledge of the HSAG's
financial strength.  He also said many investors were not fully
paid up.

Mr. Theron said he did not respond to Mr. Hancke's allegations
prior to the hearing as his affidavit was filed the previous day.
"I just did not have time to respond. Due to the irrelevance of
Hancke's allegations it was decided to argue the case without
filing an answering affidavit."

Mr. Theron indicated that he would most definitely file a
responding affidavit when the case in Johannesburg is heard in
September.

                          Smear campaign

Mr. Theron said these allegations form part of a campaign to
defame him and to diminish the support of the class action.
"Georgiou has not produced one e-mail or communication that proves
these amounts have been raised or commission demanded."

Mr. Theron maintained that the applicants didn't know each other.
"The applicants were randomly selected to represent the HSAG
members and live all around the country.  There was a WhatsApp
group, but this group was not very active . . . They (the
applicants) were obviously aware of each other, but I would be
very surprised if they ever met before they colluded with Georgiou
in 2016 to withdraw the court actions."

Mr. Theron also denied that Ms. Jordaan ever instructed him to
settle her claim. [GN]


HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that a putative class of
job applicants hit Home Depot USA Inc. with a lawsuit in
California federal court on Aug. 4, alleging the home improvement
retail chain violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by including
unlawful waivers in background check consent forms.

The suit alleges the background checks were unauthorized because
the consent forms that supposedly authorized them included a
liability waiver, and under the FCRA, valid background and credit
check releases can't contain extraneous information and must
consist "solely of the disclosure."  The release language also
flouts the Federal Trade Commission's "unambiguous regulatory
guidance" against such liability waivers, according to the
lawsuit.

"The violations of the FCRA were willful," the complaint says.
"Defendant knew that its background check disclosure and
authorization forms should not include extraneous information that
is prohibited by the FCRA, and acted in deliberate disregard of
its obligations and the rights of Plaintiff and other class
members."

The suit was filed by Katherine Saltzberg, who says she signed the
consent form when she applied to work for Lifetime Solutions Inc.,
a third-party water treatment company that offers services to Home
Depot customers.  Ms. Saltzberg says she had to sign the waiver as
a condition of the background check, which was part of the
employment application process.

Ms. Saltzberg says the waiver was illegal and rendered the
authorization improper.  She seeks to represent a nationwide class
of job applicants who signed background check disclosure form in
the last five years.

The statutory fines associated with the FCRA range from $100 to
$1,000 per violation, and the suit brings two claims under the
FCRA, one for failing to make a proper disclosure and another for
failing to obtain proper authorization.  Ms. Saltzberg also seeks
punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Attorneys for the class and representatives for Home Depot did not
immediately respond to requests for comment on Aug. 7.

The job applicants are represented by Norman B. Blumenthal --
norm@bamlawca.com -- Kyle R. Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawca.com --
and Aparajit Bhowmik -- aj@bamlawca.com -- of Blumenthal
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik LLP.

Counsel information for Home Depot was not immediately available.

The case is Katherine Saltzberg et al. v. Home Depot USA Inc.,
case number 2:17-cv-05798, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. [GN]


INTEGRATED MEDIA: Brite Bite Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled BRITE BITE DENTAL, PC, an Illinois
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. INTEGRATED MEDIA
SOLUTIONS, LLC and DENTAL PRODUCT SHOPPER, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-05738 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to certifying a class of:

   "each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone
   facsimile messages after August 7, 2013 offering the Dental
   Product Shopper publication".

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6t9VxdCi

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          David. M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658 5555


INTERSTATE CLEANING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Chavez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS CHAVEZ, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated current and former employees of Defendants v. INTERSTATE
CLEANING CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
BC671120 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 4, 2017),
accuses the Defendants of failure to provide all required meal and
rest periods, to pay minimum and straight time wages, and to pay
overtime wages, among other failures.

ICC is a corporation authorized to conduct business, and actually
conducts business, in the state of California, in the County of
Los Angeles.  ICC operates as a facility cleaning firm.  The
Company offers building cleaning and maintenance services.  The
Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the
persons or entities sued herein Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
          Thomas S. Campbell, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
          22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 961-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
          E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
                  tom@rastegarlawgroup.com


INVICTA WATCH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Felice" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida denied the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned JON B. FELICE, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INVICTA
WATCH COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-62772-
RLR (S.D. Fla.).

One of Invicta's product lines is the Pro Diver Series, which are
available in various different models.  These watches are
represented by Invicta to be suitable for scuba diving, marine
activity, and surface water sports.  Both in marketing materials
and on the watches themselves, the Pro Diver Watches are
represented to be water resistant from 50 meters to 300 meters.
Plaintiff Felice alleges, however, that Pro Diver Watches are
prone to various defects that make them unsuitable for diving,
water-related activities, and in non-marine, light use situations.

According to the Complaint, each Pro Diver Watch is accompanied by
an International Warranty Card and a Warranty Booklet.  Although
the terms of the Warranty materials that accompanied the
Plaintiff's purchases were the same, in the Complaint and in the
parties' briefing, it was revealed that there are multiple
versions of warranties, including one attached to the Defendant's
Motion, with different terms and conditions -- some of which are
inconsistent and possibly confusing.  The Plaintiff alleges that
there are many public complaints, like his, that Invicta's
Warranty terms are unfair and unconscionable as a result of
disproportionate costs and fees, and numerous exclusions.

The Plaintiff has asserted the following causes of action against
the Defendant: (i) Violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"); (ii) Violation of Florida's
Misleading Advertising Statute ("FMA"); (iii) Breach of Express
Warranty; and (iv) Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
("MMWA").  Through the Motion filed on April 10, 2017, the
Defendant requests that the Court dismiss all counts.  The Court
held a hearing on the Motion on May 1, 2017.

As to FDUTPA claim, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's claims
that Invicta misrepresented the Pro Diver Watch's suitability for
diving and water-related activities and that it concealed known
defects and engaged in an advertising campaign designed to entice
consumers to purchase products known to be defective, are
sufficient to set his FDUTPA claim apart from his breach of
express warranty claim.  The Plaintiff has articulated enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

As the Court already has noted, the Defendant mischaracterizes the
Plaintiff's claim as to the representations made in Invicta's
marketing and advertising.  The Defendant's arguments for
dismissal of the Plaintiff's FMA claim are similar to those made
as to the Plaintiff's FDUTPA claim; i.e., that no reasonable
person would believe that the watches were defect free and that
the Plaintiff suffered no damages due to Invicta's Warranty repair
and replace terms.  Because these Plaintiff's allegations are
sufficient, the Defendant is not entitled to dismissal of the
Plaintiff's FMA claim.

With respect to the breach of warranty claim, the Court, for
pleading purposes, concludes that the Plaintiff's allegations
satisfy each of the essential requirements for a claim for breach
of express warranty.  Invicta's Warranty does not serve as a de
facto bar to a breach of express warranty claim premised on a
product that fails to conform to its description.  Moreover, the
terms of its warranty are not relevant to the question of whether
the Plaintiff has sufficiently plead a claim based on the Pro
Diver Watch failing to conform to Invicta's express
representations.  The Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff
alleges sufficient facts demonstrating that Invicta's Warranty is
unconscionable and will not dismiss on that basis.

With respect to whether the Plaintiff was required to provide an
opportunity to cure to Invicta, to the extent this issue is not
resolved by the Court's conclusions, it defers any ruling on this
issue until summary judgment.  The Court will consider any further
argument on this issue in the context of a developed evidentiary
record that includes such information as whether the Plaintiff's
watch was within the relevant warranty period.

For these reasons, the Court denied the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/kjv1c5 from Leagle.com.

Jon B. Felice, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey M. Norton --
jnorton@nfllp.com -- Newman Ferrara, LLP, pro hac vice.

Jon B. Felice, Plaintiff, represented by Roger A. Sachar, Jr. --
rsachar@nfllp.com -- Newman Ferrara, LLP, pro hac vice &
Christopher Stephen Polaszek -- chris@polaszeklaw.com -- The
Polaszek Law Firm, PLLC.

Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Glen H. Waldman -- gwaldman@waldmanbarnett.com -- Waldman Barnett,
P.L. & Michael Sayre -- msayre@waldmanbarnett.com -- Waldman
Barnett, P.L..


JAGUAR ANIMAL: Faces "Plant" Lawsuit Over Napo Pharma Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
TONY PLANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JAGUAR ANIMAL HEALTH, INC., JAMES J.
BOCHNOWSKI, LISA CONTE, JIAHAO QIU, ZHI YANG, FOLKERT KAMPHUIS,
JOHN MICEK III, and ARI AZHIR, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04102
(N.D. Cal., July 20, 2017), alleges violations of the Securities
and Exchange Act in connection with the proposed merger between
Jaguar and Napo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Defendants have issued a materially incomplete and misleading
joint proxy statement/prospectus/information statement, says the
complaint.

Specifically, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) the terms and details
surrounding any alternative indications of interest the Company
received from other companies or any information regarding a
formal sales or merger process; (ii) the financial projections for
both Jaguar and Napo; (iii) the financial analyses performed by
the Company's financial advisor, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company,
Incorporated in support of its fairness opinion; (iv) potential
conflicts of interest Stifel faced as a result of its historical
dealings with either party and (v) actual Merger Consideration.

JAGUAR ANIMAL HEALTH, INC. is an animal health company focused on
developing and commercializing first-in-class gastrointestinal
products for companion and production animals, foals, and high
value horses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     David E. Bower, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
     Culver City, CA 90230
     Phone: (310) 446-6652
     Fax: (212) 202-7880
     Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: $1.5M "Pacheco" Case Settlement Has Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted preliminary approval of the class
settlement and certified the proposed class for settlement
purposes in the case captioned GLENN PACHECO, Plaintiff, v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-05689-JD
(N.D. Cal.).

The complaint alleges that Chase collected the challenged mortgage
payments in violation of Section 580d of the California Code of
Civil Procedure and consequently violated California's Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, as well as California's
Unfair Competition Law.

The parties engaged in formal discovery, including written and
data discovery as well as depositions.  They participated in a
series of settlement conferences before Magistrate Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley, and reached a tentative settlement.
After the settlement was finalized, Pacheco filed an unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, Chase will pay $1,500,000
into a non-reversionary settlement fund that will fund payment to
class members, the costs of notice and settlement administration,
any Court-approved service awards, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.  The gross settlement fund exceeds 100% of the
potentially recoverable payments made by the settlement class to
Chase, and none of it will ever revert to Chase.  The settlement
fund will be apportioned pro rata based upon the amount each
settlement class member paid to Chase in connection with the
allegedly unlawful mortgage collections.

On average, class members are expected to receive approximately
$3,576.

The class members will automatically be mailed a check for their
pro rata share of the settlement fund without filing a claim.  The
administrator will mail checks within 30 days of the effective
date.  Any checks that remain uncashed after 90 days will be
voided, and their amounts will be allocated toward a second
distribution, provided that at least $30,000 remains in the
settlement fund.  Any funds that remain after any second
distribution will be distributed to a cy pres recipient, subject
to Court approval.

Pacheco requests that the Court conditionally certify, for
settlement purposes only, the proposed class of California
borrowers who (i) on or after Dec. 12, 2011, made payments to
Chase on a junior mortgage following Chase's nonjudicial
foreclosure of a senior mortgage secured by the same property; and
(ii) are not members of the Banks settlement class.

Judge Donato preliminarily approved the settlement.  The Court
appointed Garden City Group, LLC to administer the settlement at a
maximum cost of $5,000.  The deadline to mail the notice and to
establish the notice website is Sept. 8, 2017.  The opt-out and
exclusion deadline is Oct. 20, 2017.

The Plaintiffs are directed to file their motion for final
approval, as well as any motion for attorneys' fees and costs and
service awards, by Dec. 22, 2017.  Any objections must be filed by
Jan. 26, 2018.  The final approval hearing is continued to Feb. 8,
2018.

Judge Donato will decide at the final approval stage any
attorneys' fees request and whether Pacheco will receive an
incentive payment for service as the class representative, a
practice that the Court has some concerns about, as stated in
prior class settlement orders.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/hEGijS from Leagle.com.

Glenn Pacheo, Plaintiff, represented by Tiffany Rochelle Norman
-- tiffany@trnlaw.com -- TRN Law Associates.

Glenn Pacheo, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Eric Loeser --
oml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Peter B.
Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter
Fredman.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, Defendant, represented by Julia B.
Strickland -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
LLP & Benjamin Gary Diehl -- bdiehl@stroock.com -- Stroock Stroock
Lavan LLP.


KIA MOTORS: Consumers File Class Action Over Breach of Warranty
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that three
consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against Kia Motors,
alleging breach of warranty, design defect, negligence and product
liability.

Darla Campbell of California, Tristin Hibler of Texas and Michael
Leppert of New Jersey filed a complaint, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated July 24 in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against Kia Motors
America, Inc. and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, alleging they
manufactured their vehicles that contain soy-based materials that
attract vermin.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs suffered damages from
having their claims for coverage denied which resulted in them
paying to have the wiring replaced.

The plaintiffs allege Kia used a soy-based material for the wiring
of their vehicles and this attracts vermin to chew through wiring
and engine components in their vehicles, causing faulty wiring.
The suit says repair costs ran from $294.25 to $2,660.27

The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, declare the soy-based material
defect is covered by their warranty, injunctivie relief,
restitution and disgorgement, compensatory damages, actual and
statutory damages, interest, all legal fees and all other relief
the court deems just.  Their legal team includes attorneys Kolin
C. Tang of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP in Los Angeles
and by James C. Shah of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah in
Media, Pennsylvania.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 8:17-cv-01272-CJC-DFM [GN]


KS INDUSTRIES: Worker Claims Subject to Class Action Waiver
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Neubaue, Esq. -- mneubauer@carltonfields.com -- and
Meredith M. Moss, Esq. -- mmoss@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton
Fields, report that employers finally won a key victory in
California courts in the continuing conflict between mandatory
arbitration/class waiver agreements versus representative actions
brought under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

In Esparza v. KS Industries, L.P., the California Fifth District
Court of Appeal held that while PAGA claims for civil penalties
cannot be arbitrated or waived, the underlying worker claims for
the wages themselves are subject both to arbitration and a class
action waiver.  This substantially undercuts an employer's group
exposure in wage and hour actions.

While conceding the California Supreme Court's decision in
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC, (2014) 59 Cal.4th
348 precluded arbitration of PAGA claims notwithstanding the
Federal Arbitration Act, the Esparza court held that plaintiffs
who still seek wages must still individually arbitrate their wage
claims.

This decision places employees and their lawyers in a quandary.
Where they file a PAGA case coupled with a class action asking for
wages before they determine whether or not a mandatory class
action/arbitration agreement exists, they may have a duty to their
potential class clients not to waive that individual recovery.
Consequently, they may want to limit their complaint to just the
PAGA penalties but then the amount is substantially less as is the
statute of limitations (one year vs. four).

The Court of Appeal interpreted Iskanian as follows:

"The rule adopted in Iskanian attempted to define the boundary
between the two types of claims by stating that PAGA
representative claims for civil penalties are not subject to
arbitration.  We conclude for purposes of the Iskanian rule, PAGA
representative claims for civil penalties are limited to those
where a portion of the recovery is allocated to the Labor and
Workforce Development Agency.  Claims for unpaid wages based on
Labor Code Section 558 are not allocated in this matter and
therefore the Iskanian rule does not exempt such claims from
arbitration."

The Court of Appeal went on to point out the conflict created by
seeking both civil penalties and statutory damages:

"Similarly, Employee's attempt to recover wages on behalf of other
aggrieved employees involve victim-specific relief and private
disputes.  The rule of non-arbitrability adopted in Iskanian is
limited to claims that can only be brought by the state and/or its
representatives, where any resulting judgment is binding on the
state and any monetary penalties largely go to the state's
coffers" [citation omitted].  "These limitations are not met by
the claims for unpaid wages owed to other aggrieved employees
because (1) those employees could pursue recovery of unpaid wages
on their own right and (2) the unpaid wages recovered would not go
to state coffers."

"In sum, Employee's claims for unpaid wages are subject to
arbitration pursuant to the terms of the party's arbitration
agreement and the Federal Arbitration Act.  The rule of non-
arbitrability adopted in Iskanian is limited to representative
claims for civil penalties in which the state has a direct
financial interest."

This is a clear victory for employers in California and reinforces
the importance of employers utilizing arbitration agreements
coupled with class action waivers in their employment agreements.
Unless, of course, the California Supreme Court takes the case and
decides otherwise.[GN]


LANE LABS-USA: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in Bobo's Drugs Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BOBO'S DRUGS, INC. d/b/a DAVIS ISLANDS
PHARM ACYS individually and as the representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. LANE LABS-USA, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-14046-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Jose Martinez entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion
for Class Certification without prejudice.

The Court said, "Plaintiff filed the Motion soon after the filing
of the Class Action Complaint in order to avoid an attempt by
Defendant to moot Plaintiff's individual claim s in this class
action. The Motion is premature, because a Rule 68 offer of full
relief to the named plaintiff does not moot a class action, even
if the offer precedes a class-certification motion, so long as the
named plaintiff has not failed to diligently pursue class
certification.'' Stein v. Buccaneers Ltd. P'ship, 772 F.3d 698,
707 (11th Cir. 2014) (To act diligently, a named plaintiff need
not file a class-certification motion with the complaint or
prematurely; it is enough that the named plaintiff diligently
takes any necessary discovery, complies with any applicable local
rules and scheduling orders, and acts without undue delay)."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xN46qa9o


LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Firefighters Pension Files Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., PAUL A. ROOKE, DAVID REEDER, GARY
STROMQUIST, and MARTIN S. CANNING, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
05543 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2017), was brought on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded securities of Lexmark between August 1, 2014 and
July 20, 2015, both dates inclusive.

The case alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act in that
Lexmark made false and misleading statements regarding its end-
user demand, channel inventory, and growth prospects for its high-
margin supplies business. The Company also failed to disclose
deterioration in end-user demand and excessive inventory levels at
its European wholesale distributors. Lexmark ultimately
acknowledged that its supplies growth was not attributable to end-
user demand but rather the result of its European customers buying
ahead of customary price increases which produced excessive
inventory.

Defendant Lexmark Int'l., Inc. is a manufacturer of printers and
related supplies, primarily ink cartridges. Lexmark sells its
products to wholesale distributors and large retail chains in more
than 90 countries around the world. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
     Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
     Francis P. McConville, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 907-0700
     Fax: (212) 818-0477
     Email: ckeller@labaton.com
            ebelfi@labaton.com
            fmcconville@labaton.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Spengler Can't Pursue Class Suit, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL R. SPENGLER, the Plaintiff v. LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFFS, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01809-DOC-SP
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheri Pym entered an order denying
Plaintiff's Motion to treat case as class action.

The Court said, "On July 10, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to
certify this and two of his other pending cases as class actions.
Putting aside the fact that plaintiff has not filed a class action
complaint or attempted to meet any of the requirements for class
certification, the court will not treat this as even a putative
class action because in no event may plaintiff assert claims on
behalf of other inmates. By statute, litigants have the right to
represent themselves in federal court, that is,
to "plead and conduct their own cases personally." 28 U.S.C.
section 1654. But "[i]t is well established that the privilege to
represent oneself pro se provided by Sec. 1654 is personal to the
litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities." Simon
v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing
McShane v. U.S., 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966)). In short, pro
se litigants have no authority to represent anyone other than
themselves. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877
(9th Cir. 1997) (parent cannot bring action on behalf of minor
without retaining counsel); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,
1105 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995) (non-attorney may only appear in her own
behalf); Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)
("it is plain error to permit this imprisoned litigant who is
unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class
action"). Accordingly, plaintiff does not have standing to
vicariously assert the constitutional claims of others. See Johns,
114 F.3d at 876 ("constitutional claims are personal and cannot be
asserted vicariously") (citing U.S. v. Mitchell, 915
F.2d 521, 526 n.8 (9th Cir. 1990) (criminal defendant "does not
have standing to raise the rights of other persons whose rights
may have been violated in the course of this investigation"));
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Sec. 17(a)(1) ("An action must be prosecuted in
the name of the real party in interest."). In short, plaintiff
cannot bring this case as a class action. Consequently, his motion
is denied."

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZwoF5nxT


M3 USA: "Mauthe" Suit Transferred to S. Dist. of Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Comprehensive Health Care Systems
of The Palm Beaches, Inc., a Florida corporation and Robert W.
Mauthe M.D., P.C., individually and as the representatives of a
class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs v. M3 USA
Corporation and John Does 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-mc-00126
was transferred from Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) on July 31, 2017.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:17-mc-80893-BB to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Beth Bloom.

M3 USA provides market research, multi-channel promotions, and
physician recruitment services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appeared PRO SE.


MASTIHA CORP: Faces "Molina" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mastiha Corp. The
case is styled as Luis C. Molina, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mastiha Corp.,
doing business as: Stage Door Deli, George Chritis and Gustavo
Rosario, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05939 (S.D.N.Y., August 7,
2017).

The Defendants own and operate a lifestyle boutique offering
natural products.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MARATHON OIL: Faces Kunneman Properties Suit in Okla.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marathon Oil
Company. The case is styled as Kunneman Properties LLC, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Marathon
Oil Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00456-JED-FHM (N.D.
Okla., August 7, 2017).

Marathon Oil is an American petroleum and natural gas exploration
and production company headquartered in the Marathon Oil Tower in
Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Reagan Edward Bradford, Esq.
   Lanier Law Firm (OKC)
   12 E CALIFORNIA AVE STE 200
   Oklahoma City, OK 73104
   Tel: (405) 820-4401
   Fax: (713) 659-2204
   Email: reagan.bradford@lanierlawfirm.com

      - and -

   W Mark Lanier, Esq.
   Lanier Law Firm (Houston)
   6810 FM 1960 W
   HOUSTON, TX 77069
   Tel: (713) 659-5200


MAXIMUS INC: Violates Securities Laws, Steamfitters Plan Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION PLAN, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. MAXIMUS, INC., RICHARD MONTONI,
RICHARD NADEAU, and BRUCE CASWELL, Case No. 1:17-cv-00884-AJT-IDD
(E.D. Va., August 4, 2017), is brought on behalf of all persons or
entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired Maximus common stock
between October 30, 2014, and February 3, 2016, alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Maximus is an administrator providing business process management
to government health and human services agencies in the United
States, Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and the UK.  Maximus
focuses on administering government-sponsored benefit programs,
such as the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid, as well as
welfare-to-work and child support programs. Maximus' primary
customer base includes federal, provincial, state, county, and
municipal governments.  Maximus is incorporated in Virginia and
maintains its principal executive offices in Reston, Virginia.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan R. Podolsky, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN R. PODOLSKY
          1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (571) 366-1702
          Facsimile: (703) 647-6009
          E-mail: spodolsky@podolskylaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com


MAXIMUS INC: Oct. 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid
---------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on Aug. 7 disclosed that on August 4, it
filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan ("Steamfitters 449") against
MAXIMUS, INC. ("Maximus" or the "Company"), and certain of its
senior executives (collectively, "Defendants").  The action, which
is captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Maximus, Inc.,
No. 17-cv-00884 (E.D. Va.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Maximus common stock between
October 30, 2014 and February 3, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

On October 29, 2014, the United Kingdom Department for Work and
Pensions awarded Maximus a significant contract to carry out
health and disability benefits, called the Health Assessment
Advisory Service ("HAAS"), over a period of three and a half
years.  The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
despite encountering problems from the start, Defendants assured
investors that Maximus was meeting targets concerning the HAAS
contract.

During the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) in obtaining the
HAAS contract, Maximus set an unattainable target number of
healthcare professionals to recruit and an unattainable target
number of assessments; (ii) throughout the HAAS contract, Maximus
was struggling to recruit, train and ramp-up new health care staff
to perform the assessments; (iii) the inability to meet its target
number of healthcare recruits and target number of assessments,
meant Maximus would not earn the performance-based incentive fees
from the HAAS contract; and (iv) consequently, Defendants'
statements about the Company, its financial condition, and the
outlook for its business, including statements about the HAAS
contract and the amount of revenue the Company expected the
contract to contribute, lacked a reasonable basis when made.

On February 4, 2016, Maximus issued a press release announcing its
earnings for the first quarter of fiscal 2016, again missing
expectations and confirming its inability to meet HAAS contract
assessment targets.  The reduced earnings were based in part on
weak performance of the HAAS contract, which "tempered operating
margin."  On this news, shares of Maximus common stock dropped
$5.53 per share over two trading sessions, or 10.5 percent.

If you purchased or acquired Maximus common stock during the Class
Period, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek
appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead Plaintiff motion papers must
be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia no later than October 6, 2017.  The Lead Plaintiff is a
court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class.
You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in
any Class recovery in this action.  If you are a Class member and
there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery
as an absent Class member.  You may retain counsel of your choice
to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the
complaint online at http://www.labaton.com/en/about/press/Labaton-
Sucharow-Files-Securities-Class-Action-on-Behalf-of-Maximus-Inc-
Investors.cfm

Steamfitters 449 is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which
represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States
and internationally with combined assets under management of more
than $2 trillion.  Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is
built on its half-century of securities litigation experience,
more than 60 full-time attorneys, and in-house team of
investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants.

Labaton Sucharow -- http://www.labaton.com-- has been recognized
for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently
ranked in leading industry publications.  Offices are located in
New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, Washington, D.C., and Chicago, IL.
[GN]


MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Awards $2M in Counsel Fees in "Ochoa"
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco, granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs in a total amount of
$2,000,000 in the case captioned STEPHANIE OCHOA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. McDONALD'S CORP., et al., Defendant, Case No. 3:14-
cv-02098-JD (N.D. Cal.).

Before reaching a settlement with McDonald's on the eve of trial,
the Class Counsel engaged in approximately 2.5 years of intense
litigation, involving review of more than 100,000 pages of
discovery, more than a dozen depositions, a motion to certify the
class, motions for full and partial summary judgment, a motion to
strike and several motions to seal, briefing regarding the
propriety of interlocutory appeals, and months of settlement
negotiations culminating in settlements first with the Edward J.
Smith and Valerie S. Smith Family Limited Partnership ("Smith")
and then with McDonald's.  The two settlements provide significant
injunctive relief to class members, as well as substantial
monetary compensation.

Judge Donato finds that the requested award, which is just over
one-half of the actual lodestar value of the fees and costs
incurred by the Class Counsel in litigating this matter, is fair
and reasonable under the applicable fee-shifting analysis.  The
payments that McDonald's and Smith will make to class members and
to the State of California as a result of the Court-approved
settlement agreements exceed the total award of fees and costs
requested by the Class Counsel, and the two settlements also
provide significant and meaningful injunctive relief to the class.
The Class Counsel's request thus falls well within the range of
awards made in comparable fee-shifting cases.

Judge Donato further finds that notice of the requested award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses was
directed to class members in a reasonable manner that complied
with Rule 23(h)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Class
counsel filed their motion for attorneys' fees and costs on March
17, 2017, the class members and any party from whom payment is
sought have been given the opportunity to object, and no class
member or other party has objected to the requested fees or
expenses.  The absence of any objection further supports the
reasonableness and fairness of the requested award.

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs came before
the Court for hearing on July 13, 2017.  Having considered the
arguments and evidence, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and awards class counsel $2,000,000
in statutory attorneys' fees and costs, to be paid by McDonald's
pursuant to the terms of the Court-approved class action
settlement between the McDonald's Defendants and the Named
Plaintiffs/Class Representatives.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/jq0MpG from Leagle.com.

Stephanie Ochoa, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Jane Chisholm -
- bchisholm@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuer Berzon LLP.

Stephanie Ochoa, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Marc Sellers --
michael.j.sellers@gmail.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Kristin Marie Garcia -- kgarcia@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Matthew J. Murray -- mmurray@altshulerberzon.com --
Atshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -
- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Miriam Rose Nemeth --
mnemeth@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC
& Patrick Casey Pitts -- cpitts@altshulerberzon.com -- Alsthuler
Berzon LLP.

Ernestina Sandoval, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Jane
Chisholm, Altshuer Berzon LLP, Joseph Marc Sellers, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kristin Marie Garcia, Altshuler Berzon LLP,
Matthew J. Murray, Atshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin, Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Miriam Rose Nemeth, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice & Patrick Casey Pitts, Alsthuler Berzon LLP.

Yadira Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Jane Chisholm,
Altshuer Berzon LLP, Joseph Marc Sellers, Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC, Kristin Marie Garcia, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Matthew J.
Murray, Atshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP,
Miriam Rose Nemeth, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac
vice & Patrick Casey Pitts, Alsthuler Berzon LLP.

Jasmine Hedgepeth, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Jane
Chisholm, Altshuer Berzon LLP, Joseph Marc Sellers, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kristin Marie Garcia, Altshuler Berzon LLP,
Matthew J. Murray, Atshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin, Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Miriam Rose Nemeth, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice & Patrick Casey Pitts, Alsthuler Berzon LLP.

McDonald's Corp., Defendant, represented by Brent D. Knight, Jones
Day, pro hac vice, Jonathan Bunge, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Linus, pro hac vice,
Lawrence C. DiNardo, JONES, DAY, REAVIS 7 POGUE, pro hac vice,
Allison B. Moser, JONES DAY, Catherine Suzanne Nasser, Jones Day,
Daniel Lombard, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac
vice, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP,
Elizabeth B. McRee, Jones Day, Kelsey Israel-Trummel, Jones Day,
Margaret Pepple, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac
vice & Valerie Anne Lozano, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan
LLP.

McDonald's U.S.A., LLC, Defendant, represented by Brent D. Knight,
Jones Day, pro hac vice, Jonathan Bunge, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Linus, pro hac vice,
Lawrence C. DiNardo, JONES, DAY, REAVIS 7 POGUE, pro hac vice,
Allison B. Moser, JONES DAY, Catherine Suzanne Nasser, Jones Day,
Daniel Lombard, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac
vice, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP,
Elizabeth B. McRee, Jones Day, Fred W. Alvarez, JONES DAY, Kelsey
Israel-Trummel, Jones Day, Margaret Pepple, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice & Valerie Anne Lozano, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP.

McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Brent D. Knight -- bdknight@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac
vice, Jonathan Bunge, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP,
pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Linus, pro hac vice, Lawrence C.
DiNardo, JONES, DAY, REAVIS 7 POGUE, pro hac vice, Allison B.
Moser -- amoser@svelf.com -- JONES DAY, Catherine Suzanne Nasser -
- csnasser@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Daniel Lombard, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Diane M.
Doolittle -- dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Elizabeth B. McRee --
emcree@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Fred W. Alvarez, JONES DAY,
Kelsey Israel-Trummel -- kitrummel@jonesday.com -- Jones Day,
Margaret Pepple, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac
vice & Valerie Anne Lozano -- valerielozano@quinnemanuel.com --
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP.

The Edward J. Smith and Valerie S. Smith Family Limited
Partnership, Defendant, represented by Bruce E. Weisenberg,
Freeman Mathis and Gary, John Laurence Fitzgerald --
jfitzgerald@fmglaw.com -- Dennis Daniel Strazulo --
dstrazulo@fmglaw.com -- Freeman, Mathis & Gary LLP, Elizabeth B.
McRee, Jones Day, Jeanine A. Scalero, Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP &
Lisa Rachel Gorman, Freeman Mathis and Gary, LLP.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Settlement in "Ochoa" Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco, granted final approval of
the parties' Settlement Agreement dated Oct. 27, 2016, in the case
captioned STEPHANIE OCHOA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. McDONALD'S
CORP., et al., Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-02098-JD (N.D. Cal.).

The matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the Order
Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement dated Jan. 27,
2017, and on application of the parties for final approval of
their Settlement.

Having considered all relevant factors for determining the
fairness of the Settlement and concluded that all such factors
weigh in favor of granting final approval, Judge Donato finally
approved in all respects the Settlement.  He directed the
Settlement to be consummated in accordance with the terms and
conditions set forth therein.

Judge Donato dismissed the action against the Released Parties
with prejudice as to the Class Representatives and all Class
Members and without costs, except as otherwise provided in the
Settlement.  He finds that a service award of $500 for each Class
Representative is appropriate for the Class Representatives'
efforts in bringing and prosecuting the action and for devoting
time and effort to keeping themselves informed of the litigation.

The Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses will be addressed by a
separate order.

Without affecting the finality of the Final Order and Judgment in
any way, the Court retains continuing jurisdiction over (i)
implementation of the Settlement; and (ii) the Parties and the
Class Members for the purpose of construing, enforcing, and
administering the Settlement and this Final Order and Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Hp8Nma from Leagle.com.

Stephanie Ochoa, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Jane Chisholm -
- bchisholm@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuer Berzon LLP.

Stephanie Ochoa, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Marc Sellers --
michael.j.sellers@gmail.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Kristin Marie Garcia -- kgarcia@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Matthew J. Murray -- mmurray@altshulerberzon.com --
Atshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -
- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Miriam Rose Nemeth --
mnemeth@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC
& Patrick Casey Pitts -- cpitts@altshulerberzon.com -- Alsthuler
Berzon LLP.

Ernestina Sandoval, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Jane
Chisholm, Altshuer Berzon LLP, Joseph Marc Sellers, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kristin Marie Garcia, Altshuler Berzon LLP,
Matthew J. Murray, Atshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin, Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Miriam Rose Nemeth, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice & Patrick Casey Pitts, Alsthuler Berzon LLP.

Yadira Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Jane Chisholm,
Altshuer Berzon LLP, Joseph Marc Sellers, Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC, Kristin Marie Garcia, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Matthew J.
Murray, Atshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP,
Miriam Rose Nemeth, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac
vice & Patrick Casey Pitts, Alsthuler Berzon LLP.

Jasmine Hedgepeth, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Jane
Chisholm, Altshuer Berzon LLP, Joseph Marc Sellers, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kristin Marie Garcia, Altshuler Berzon LLP,
Matthew J. Murray, Atshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin, Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Miriam Rose Nemeth, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice & Patrick Casey Pitts, Alsthuler Berzon LLP.

McDonald's Corp., Defendant, represented by Brent D. Knight, Jones
Day, pro hac vice, Jonathan Bunge, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Linus, pro hac vice,
Lawrence C. DiNardo, JONES, DAY, REAVIS 7 POGUE, pro hac vice,
Allison B. Moser, JONES DAY, Catherine Suzanne Nasser, Jones Day,
Daniel Lombard, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac
vice, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP,
Elizabeth B. McRee, Jones Day, Kelsey Israel-Trummel, Jones Day,
Margaret Pepple, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac
vice & Valerie Anne Lozano, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan
LLP.

McDonald's U.S.A., LLC, Defendant, represented by Brent D. Knight,
Jones Day, pro hac vice, Jonathan Bunge, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Linus, pro hac vice,
Lawrence C. DiNardo, JONES, DAY, REAVIS 7 POGUE, pro hac vice,
Allison B. Moser, JONES DAY, Catherine Suzanne Nasser, Jones Day,
Daniel Lombard, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac
vice, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP,
Elizabeth B. McRee, Jones Day, Fred W. Alvarez, JONES DAY, Kelsey
Israel-Trummel, Jones Day, Margaret Pepple, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice & Valerie Anne Lozano, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP.

McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Brent D. Knight -- bdknight@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac
vice, Jonathan Bunge, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP,
pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Linus, pro hac vice, Lawrence C.
DiNardo, JONES, DAY, REAVIS 7 POGUE, pro hac vice, Allison B.
Moser -- amoser@svelf.com -- JONES DAY, Catherine Suzanne Nasser -
- csnasser@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Daniel Lombard, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Diane M.
Doolittle -- dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Elizabeth B. McRee --
emcree@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Fred W. Alvarez, JONES DAY,
Kelsey Israel-Trummel -- kitrummel@jonesday.com -- Jones Day,
Margaret Pepple, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac
vice & Valerie Anne Lozano -- valerielozano@quinnemanuel.com --
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP.

The Edward J. Smith and Valerie S. Smith Family Limited
Partnership, Defendant, represented by Bruce E. Weisenberg,
Freeman Mathis and Gary, John Laurence Fitzgerald --
jfitzgerald@fmglaw.com -- Dennis Daniel Strazulo --
dstrazulo@fmglaw.com -- Freeman, Mathis & Gary LLP, Elizabeth B.
McRee, Jones Day, Jeanine A. Scalero, Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP &
Lisa Rachel Gorman, Freeman Mathis and Gary, LLP.


MIAMI GARDENS: "Saleh" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled YAZAN SALEH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIAMI GARDENS
SQUARE ONE, INC. D/B/A TOOTSIE'S CABARET, a Florida corporation,
and RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC., a Texas Corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20001-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of:

   (i) all persons in the United States (ii) who, when making
   payment for goods or services at one of RCI Hospitality
   Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiaries across the country (iii) made
   such payment using a credit or debit card (iv) and were
   provided with a point of sale receipt (v) which displayed more
   than the last 5 digits of said credit or debit card (vi)
   within the two years prior to the filing of the complaint to
   the date of class certification".

According to the Complaint, the Defendants systematically and
willfully violated one of this Nation's most fundamental consumer
protections against identity theft. Defendants printed the first
six and last four digits of their customer's credit and debit card
account numbers -- nearly two thirds of the digits -- on
electronically printed, point of sale receipts at their chain of
establishments. This case is ideal for class certification, the
Plaintiff contends, saying number courts have certified similar
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) cases, including
Judge Cohn in Legg v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., 315 F.R.D. 383 (S.D.
Fla. 2015). Like Legg, Plaintiff says his proposed class has
numerous people with the same relatively small claim for statutory
damages. Each claim raises the same material issues and the case
covers a manageable six-month time period (July 5, 2016 through
January 4, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          Patrick C. Crotty, Esq.
          Sean M. Holas, Esq.
          SCOTT D.OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589 0588
          Facsimile: 954-337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com
                  patrick@scottdowens.com
                  sean@scottdowens.com

               - and -

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 SE 6th Street
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

               - and -

          Bret L. Lusskin, Esq.
          LUSSKIN LAW
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454 5841
          Facsimile: (954) 454 5844
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Goldberg" Suit in New York East. Dist.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Elke Goldberg, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04610
(E.D.N.Y., August 7, 2017).

Midland Credit Management Inc. operates a collection agency that
helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations. [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


MISSOURI, USA: Court Narrows Claims in "Sargent" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court for Eastern
District of Missouri, Southeastern Division, partially dismissed
the case captioned INCENT E. SARGENT, Plaintiff, v. STEVE LONG, et
al., Defendants, No. 1:17-CV-12 NAB (E.D. Mo.).

The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 alleging violations of his civil rights.  The Plaintiff, a
practicing Muslim, claims that the Defendants Thomas Shanefelter
(Regional Food Service Coordinator, MDOC) and Joseph Campbell
(Food Service Manager, SECC) violated his First Amendment rights
to freely practice his religion and equal protection rights to be
free from discrimination when they denied him the same meal as the
rest of the general prison population during the religious month
of Ramadan.  He believes that the sack lunch he was given for
fasting during Ramadan was tantamount to punishment for practicing
his religious beliefs, a clear violation of RLUIPA.  The Plaintiff
states, in a conclusory manner that Doug Worsham and Robin Norris
instituted the rule of serving fasting Muslim inmates sack lunches
under the guise of accommodation but this has only resulted in a
form of punishment for practicing a sincerely held religious
belief.  He has not produced any facts that have indicated that
Worsham or Norris instituted the sack lunch rules.

Plaintiff claims that Worsham and Steven Johnson, the Chaplain at
SECC, violated his First Amendment rights to freely practice his
religion and his equal protecting right to be free from
discrimination and RLUIPA when they refused he and other Muslims
the right to receive religious oil donations (or the right to
purchase religious oil) from a valid Islamic vendor.  He states in
a conclusory fashion that Defendant Long and Dave Dormire issued
the directive not to allow the purchasing of religious oils, but
he has not included any statements relating to these two
Defendants or their issuance of such a directive.

Last, the Plaintiff asserts that Ms. B. Meredith (Functional Unit
Manager, SECC), Acting Warden Stange and Dwayne Kemper upheld the
enforcement of DOC policy I.S. 17-1.1, Sec. (L) Section B.  He
Plaintiff believes that the policy violates his right to equal
protection and to be free from discrimination, presumably under
RLUIPA and/or the First Amendment, by limiting the wearing of a
kufi to religious practice only.  The Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief only in this action.

Judge White denied the Plaintiff's request to certify a class
action will be denied because a litigant may bring his own claims
to federal court without counsel, but not the claims of others.
He also dismissed the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants in
their official capacity, as naming a government official in his or
her official capacity is the equivalent of naming the government
entity that employs the official, in this case the State of
Missouri.

Judge White held that the Plaintiff's claims against Worsham and
Norris for purportedly instituting the sack lunch rule, as well as
his claims against Long and Dormire for issuing the alleged
directive not to allow such purchases, are too conclusory to state
a claim for relief at this time.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis
is granted by Judge White.  The Plaintiff shall pay an initial
filing fee of $35.28 within 30 days of the date of the Order.  He
is instructed to make his remittance payable to Clerk, United
States District Court.  If he fails to pay the initial partial
filing fee within 30 days of the date of the Order, then this case
will be dismissed without prejudice.

The Clerk is directed to issue process or cause process to issue
upon the complaint as to Defendants Shanefelter, Campbell,
Worsham, Johnson, FUM Meredith, Stange and Kemper in their
individual capacities.  The Defendants, who are MDOC employees,
shall be served through the waiver of service agreement the Court
maintains with the Missouri Attorney General's Office.  The
Defendants shall reply to the Plaintiff's claims within the time
provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge White held that the Plaintiff's claim against Worsham for
purportedly instituting the sack lunch rule in violation of his
civil rights is subject to dismissal at this time.  The Clerk is
directed not issue process or cause process to issue upon the
complaint as to the Plaintiff's claims against all of the
Defendants in their official capacities because the complaint is
legally frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted with respect to these claims.  The Clerk is further
ordered not to issue process or cause process to issue upon the
complaint as to Defendants Long, Dormire and Norris because, as
the complaint is legally frivolous or fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or both.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/kxcnBn from Leagle.com.

Vincent E. Sargent, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Leo" Suit Reassigned to Judge Martinotii
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Edward Leo, as executor of the
Estate of Dawn L. Leo, Clifford J Marchion, Donna Marchion, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC of Delaware doing business as: Champion
Mortgage Company, Great American Assurance Company, Willis of
Ohio, Inc. doing business as: Loan Protector Insurance Services,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-5839 was reassigned from Judge Renee
Marie Bumb, Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams, to Judge Brian R.
Martinotti and Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 7, 2017.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-05839-BRM-DEA
to the proceeding.

Nationstar provides mortgage services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Christopher Brendan Healy, Esq.
   BATHGATE WEGENER & WOLF PC
   One Airport Road
   Lakewood, NJ 08701
   Tel: (732) 363-0666
   Email: chealy@bathweg.com


NEVADA, USA: Court Dismisses "Downing" Suit without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CURTIS L. DOWNING, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
STEVEN B. WOLFSON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02131-APG-
PAL (D. Nev.), Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada accepted Magistrate Judge Peggy A.
Leen's report and recommendation, overruled Plaintiff Downing's
objections and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs are inmates at the Southern Desert Correctional
Center who have been convicted of crimes under Nevada state law
and are in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections.
They bring this declaratory relief action alleging that certain
Nevada criminal statutes are unconstitutional because they derive
from unconstitutional acts of the Nevada Legislature and Nevada
Supreme Court justices.  Some Plaintiffs have moved to proceed in
forma pauperis and two paid the filing fee.

Magistrate Judge Leen recommended that Judge Gordon dismissed this
case because, despite prior warnings, Plaintiff Downing continues
to identify himself as the Lead Plaintiff and attempts to
represent the other Plaintiffs, which he cannot do because he is
not an attorney.  Additionally, she noted that because Downing is
not an attorney, he cannot represent the class in a class action
and the Plaintiffs must hire an attorney to represent them to
pursue class-wide claims.  Finally, the Magistrate Judge screened
the complaint and found it did not state a claim because the
Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the rule in Heck v. Humphrey.  In
light of the proposed dismissal, she also recommended that the
applications to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot and
the filing fees of the two who paid be refunded.

Plaintiff Downing filed an objection.  He concedes he cannot
represent the other Plaintiffs and that they cannot proceed on a
class basis without counsel.  He therefore requests Judge Gordon
appoint counsel.  On the merits, Downing generally argues the
Court can exercise jurisdiction in this case to address the
constitutional challenges to Nevada statutes.  As to Heck, Downing
argues that structural errors in his state criminal prosecution
render his conviction void such that he has no conviction to
challenge.

Judge Gordon explains that under the rule announced in Heck, if a
judgment in the plaintiff's favor would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his conviction or sentence, the complaint must be
dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction
or sentence has already been invalidated.  The Plaintiffs state
that they are still in the custody of the Nevada Department of
Corrections as a result of state court convictions.  Thus, they
cannot demonstrate that their convictions or sentences have
already been invalidated.  As a result, their claims are barred
under Heck.

Accordingly, Judge Gordon dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint
without prejudice to each Plaintiff refiling his claim should his
criminal conviction later be invalidated.  He denied the request
to appoint counsel because he dismissed this case.  Plaintiffs
Downing, Erick Brown, Edwin Artiga, Fabian Rosas, and Oscar Perez-
Marquez's applications to proceed in forma pauperis are denied.
The clerk of court is directed to refund Nicholas Willing and
Erick Brown's $400 filing fee and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/QbHtBJ from Leagle.com.

Curtis L. Downing, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Erick M. Brown, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Gaston Joseph Danjou, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Robert Reiger, Plaintiff, Pro se.

Paul Barfield, Plaintiff, Pro se.

Demetrius Joseph, Plaintiff, Pro se.

Elder Zacarias-Lopez, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Jeffrey M Austin, Plaintiff, Pro se.

Edwin Artiga, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Jeffrey T. Lark, Plaintiff, Pro se.

Alan D Daniels, Plaintiff, Pro se.

Oscar Perez-Marquez, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Christopher Willing, Plaintiff, Pro se.

Nicholas Willing, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Fabian F Rosas, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Scott Nichols, Plaintiff, Pro se.

Gary Shepard, Plaintiff, Pro se.

Jerry B Johnson, Plaintiff, Pro se.


NORTHERN TIER: "Kendig" Securities Suit Sent to D. Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver signed an order transferring the case
captioned JEFF KENDIG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. NORTHERN TIER ENERGY LP (NTI),
NORTHERN TIER ENERGY GP LLC, DAVID L. LAMP, PAUL L. FOSTER, LOWRY
BARFIELD, TIMOTHY BENNETT, ROCKY L. DUCKWORTH, THOMAS HOFMANN, DAN
F. SMITH, JEFF A. STEVENS, SCOTT D. WEAVER, WESTERN REFINING,
INC., WESTERN ACQUISITION CO., LLC AND EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C.,
Defendants (originally, Case No. 2:16-cv-02844, D. Ariz., August
24, 2016) from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
(Wilmington), and assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00985-UNA, according
to a case docket dated July 20, 2017.

The case alleges violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act
in connection with the going private transaction between NTI and
WNR, whereby WNR acquired the 61.6% of outstanding NTI common
units it did not already own in exchange for inadequate
consideration. The Transaction closed on June 23, 2016.

Defendants have allegedly violated the above-referenced Sections
of the Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and
misleading proxy statement/prospectus.

Specifically, the Proxy contained materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) the valuation of the Merger
Consideration and financial analyses conducted by Evercore,
financial advisor to the NTI GP Conflicts Committee; (ii) the
projected financial information furnished to the NTI GP Conflicts
Committee and Evercore for purposes of evaluating the Transaction;
and (iii) Defendants' views with respect to the fairness of the
Merger and Merger Consideration to NTI Unaffiliated Unitholders in
light of the various indications that the Merger Consideration was
not in fact fair to them.

Northern Tier Energy LP is a downstream energy limited partnership
with refining, retail and logistics operations that served the
Midwest region of the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
     DLA PIPER LLP
     1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 468-5646
     Fax: (302) 691-4778
     E-mail: Derrick.Farrell@dlapiper.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Gomez" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group,
Inc. The case is styled as Alejandra Gomez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Northland
Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04670 (E.D. N.Y.,
August 9, 2017).

Northland Group provides accounts receivable management and
collection services to national credit grantors, debt buyers, and
student loan lenders.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Bonin et al. File Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ELAINE BONIN and MORGAN OTTMAN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01094-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying a proposed class in this case,
appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and
further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DriCu0Y0

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


ONONDAGA COUNTY, NY: Settles Solitary Confinement Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Feuer, writing for The New York Times, reports that a year
after the Department of Justice banned putting juvenile inmates in
federal prisons into solitary confinement, a small network of
inmate advocates has undertaken an effort to end the practice in
some of upstate New York's county jails.

In late June, the New York Civil Liberties Union and a public
defenders group in Syracuse settled a class-action lawsuit with
officials at the Onondaga County jail, who agreed to stop placing
16- and 17-year-old inmates into solitary confinement.  Working
alone, the public defenders group, Legal Services of Central New
York, sued officials at the Broome County jail, saying the sheriff
and other jail officials routinely locked young inmates into 8-by-
10 foot cells for 23 hours a day, sometimes for weeks on end.

The inmates were left with "no meaningful human interaction, no
education or programming, no music or television, and limited
reading materials," the suit says.

A large body of scientific research indicates that solitary
confinement is especially damaging to adolescents and young adults
because their brains are still developing.  Prolonged isolation in
solitary cells can worsen mental illness and in some cases cause
it, studies have shown.

In the last few years, federal officials have wrested similar
agreements on ending the placement of young inmates in solitary
confinement at local jails in Baltimore; Jefferson County, Ala.;
Hinds County, Miss., and at Rikers Island in New York.  Under a
settlement with the New York Civil Liberties Union, which was
reached at the end of 2015 and is still being put into effect, the
State Department of Corrections has agreed to stop putting
juvenile inmates into solitary confinement at all state prisons.

Lawyers for the teenage inmates in Onondaga and Broome Counties
said the vast majority had been placed in solitary as a punishment
even before their trials and had been held there, in some cases
for extended periods, without having been convicted of a crime.

"Despite an emerging consensus that solitary confinement places
juveniles at risk of serious harm -- including suicide, psychosis
and post-traumatic stress disorder -- and despite a national
abandonment of the solitary confinement of juveniles, the Broome
County Sheriff's Office has embraced the frequent and arbitrary
use of solitary confinement," the most recent lawsuit said.  "As
the Sheriff's Office is well aware, these practices are exposing
the young people held at the jail to serious harm."

The Onondaga County jail, which has 671 beds, sits in downtown
Syracuse, a city of about 140,000 people.  The Broome County jail
has about 560 beds and is in Dickinson, N.Y., a small town just
outside Binghamton and about a three-hour drive from New York
City.

The Broome County suit, which was filed on July 25 on behalf of
all young inmates at the jail, cites two plaintiffs, both of whom
are 17 and were charged with felonies but have not yet gone to
trial.  One of them, A.T., arrived at the jail on Nov. 3 and has
already been in solitary confinement for more than 100 days.  The
other, B.C., entered the jail on April 16, 2016, and has spent
more than 150 days in solitary.

According to the suit, "nearly every aspect" of the Broome County
jail's solitary wing, or special housing unit, is "dehumanizing."
When juveniles are taken to the unit, they are strip searched, the
suit says, and for the first three days are allowed only one
religious book.  If they do not have a religious book, the suit
went on, they are left "with nothing to do but sit and think."

The cells smell of feces and urine, according to the suit, and are
covered in graffiti.  Inmates are given a shower every other day
and one hour of exercise a day in a yard with no seating,
equipment or activities.  During their first week there, the suit
says, they are shackled at the waist, wrist and ankles in the
yard.

The suit says A.T., who is scheduled to remain in solitary until
December, started yelling in his cell one day after he was served
a peanut butter sandwich on stale bread with a hair in it.
Corrections officers entered his cell, forced him into a
mechanical restraining chair and pepper-sprayed him, the suit
says.  He was then taken to another cell, in the jail's medical
unit, where he was forced to take his clothes off and was left
naked for two and a half days, the suit says.

B.C. is in solitary for fighting with another inmate and is
scheduled to stay there until late September.  His previous stints
in what is colloquially known as the Box arose from less egregious
incidents, according to the suit: for talking loudly, singing,
horse-playing, saying hello to his brother in a hallway and
playing with snow in the yard.

The Broome County sheriff, David Harder, said that most of his
jail's 500 or so inmates followed the rules, but that those who
did not needed to be subject to punishment.  "These two," Sheriff
Harder added, "didn't follow the rules in jail, just like they
didn't on the streets."

The suit against Onondaga County officials was settled on June 26,
four months after Judge David N. Hurd of Federal District Court in
Utica, N.Y., issued a ruling that found "convincing evidence" that
the jail's "continued use of solitary confinement on juveniles
puts them at serious risk of short- and long-term psychological
damage."

In his ruling, Judge Hurd said juveniles in solitary were forced
to eat alone in their cells and were not permitted to talk to one
another either through the doors or in passing.  They are denied
access to radios and TV sets, he wrote, and have only limited
reading materials.

For those who are mentally ill, treatment "is limited to jail
staff" occasionally asking "whether they are feeling homicidal or
suicidal," Judge Hurd wrote.  The inmates were also deprived of
their state-mandated rights to an education, he said, hindering
"important aspects of their adolescent development."

Under the terms of the settlement, Onondaga County officials
agreed to put juveniles in solitary confinement only if they posed
"an imminent threat" to the safety of the jail and then only for
"the minimum period of time necessary to resolve the threat."
Jail officials also agreed to write reports about any use of
solitary for juvenile inmates, allow juveniles to take at least
one shower a day and increase outdoor recreation for juveniles to
two hours.

The settlement also required the Syracuse City School District to
provide the inmates access to classes, special education services
and an "incentive program" designed to encourage better behavior.

The Justice Department under President Barack Obama weighed in on
the Onondaga County suit with what is known as a letter of
interest.  In it, the department cited studies both by the
government and by private organizations that showed that solitary
confinement has a particularly "damaging impact" on children and
can result in "serious psychological and developmental
consequences."

Joshua Cotter, the staff attorney for Legal Services of Central
New York who filed both of the suits, said he had spent the last
year or so looking into the solitary confinement practices of
several other county jails in upstate New York.

"The main hurdle is finding out when the kids are locked up and
put in solitary," Mr. Cotter wrote in an email.  "Since I'm the
only one in my office working on this issue, I have to rely
heavily on referrals from advocacy groups or parents." [GN]


OREGON: Nelson Files Suit v. Dept. of Corrections
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oregon Department of
Corrections. The case is styled as Robert Nelson, on behalf of
himself, and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. State
of Oregon, acting by and through, Jackson County Oregon and Oregon
Department of Corrections, a state agency, Defendants, Case No.
6:17-cv-01239-AA (D. Or., August 9, 2017).

The Oregon Department of Corrections is the agency of the U.S.
state of Oregon charged with managing a system of 14 state prisons
since its creation by the state legislature in 1987.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John D. Burgess, Esq.
   Law Offices of Daniel Snyder
   1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2400
   Portland, OR 97205
   Tel: (503) 241-3617
   Fax: (503) 241-2249
   Email: johnburgess@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com

      - and -

   Carl Lee Post, Esq.
   Law Offices of Daniel Snyder
   1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 2400
   Portland, OR 97205
   Tel: (503) 241-3617
   Fax: (503) 241-2249
   Email: carlpost@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com

      - and -

   Daniel J. Snyder, Esq.
   Law Offices of Daniel Snyder
   1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 2400
   Portland, OR 97205
   Tel: (503) 241-3617
   Fax: (503) 241-2249
   Email: dansnyder@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com


PALCO INC: Conditional Class Certification Granted in "Wells"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CITIA WELLS, Individually and on Behalf of
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v. PALCO, INC., ALICIA A.
PALADINO, and LARRY PALADINO, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-
00527-KGB (Ark.), the Hon. Judge Kristine G. Baker entered an
order:

   1. granting a joint motion for approval of stipulation on
      conditional class certification of:

      "all individuals who currently or formerly performed
      services for Palco, Inc. as a financial counselor at any
      time during the limitations period";

   2. directing Palco to provide to Ms. Wells the potential class
      members' contact information within 10 business days of the
      issuance of the Order; and

   3. granting Ms. Wells 60 days from the date of receipt of the
      potential class members' contact information to distribute
      the notice and file all consent forms.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3mamxI6I


PARK AVENUE SOUTH: "Bahena" Case Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned VICENTE BAHENA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PARK
AVENUE SOUTH MANAGEMENT LLC, et al., Defendant, No. 15-CV-1507
(VSB)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for (i) preliminary approval of a
class settlement agreement; (ii) conditional certification of the
proposed class; (iii) approval of the proposed notice of the
settlement; and (iv) appointment of class counsel and class
representatives.

The Plaintiffs and members of the settlement class are current and
former employees of the Defendants who worked as building
superintendents and porters in buildings owned, operated, or
managed by the Defendants between March 2009 and the present.
They allege that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and wage and hour laws of New York by failing to pay
them overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 in all
workweeks, failing to pay them the required minimum wage, and
failing to provide the required notices.

The Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing the Complaint on
March 2, 2015.  On May 19, 2015, they filed their Amended
Complaint.  On Sept. 16, 2016, Judge Broderick granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification as a collective
action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA.  On Feb. 27, 2017,
he granted the parties' request to hold discovery in abeyance
pending mediation.  On May 15, 2017, the parties participated in a
mediation session at which they reached a settlement in principle.
On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their unopposed motion to
approve the settlement agreement, certify the settlement class,
authorize the class notice, and schedule a fairness hearing along
with the memorandum of law in support and declaration of Bruce
Menken, with exhibits.

Having reviewed the Plaintiffs' submissions, including the
Settlement Agreement and the Declaration of Bruce Menken, Judge
Broderick concluded that the settlement is the result of
substantial investigative efforts, arm's length negotiations, and
that its terms are within the range of possible settlement
approval.

He provisionally certified for settlement purposes the "Settlement
Class" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) defined as all
superintendents and porters who worked in a building or buildings
managed, owned, or operated by the Defendants between March 3,
2009 and the date of the Order.  He appointed the Plaintiffs'
counsel, Bruce E. Menken of the law firm Beranbaum Menken LLP, as
the class counsel. He also appointed Bahena, Jonas Bahena, Jose
Cruz Ayala, and Rafael Rodriguez as the class representatives.

Having reviewed the proposed notice submitted by the Plaintiffs,
Judge Broderick approved their proposed notice.  In addition, he
noted that the Plaintiffs will provide English and Spanish copies
of the notice.

The Judge will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 1, 2017, at 11:00
a.m. to determine (i) whether the proposed settlement of this
action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement
Agreement is fair, just, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interest of the Settlement Class; (ii) whether he should approve
the Settlement Agreement; and (iii) whether he should enter a
Final Judgment of Dismissal.  To the extent that the Plaintiffs
will seek to recover attorney's fees, Judge Broderick directed
them to submit contemporaneous billing records for each attorney
who worked on the case at the time they file their motion for
final settlement approval.  In addition, the Plaintiffs are
directed to provide courtesy copies on or before Nov. 20 of their
submissions, which shall include a proposed order for final
settlement approval.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Memorandum and
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/ykVFFu from Leagle.com.

Vicente Bahena, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken,
Beranbaum Menken Ben-Asher & Bierman LLP.

Vicente Bahena, Plaintiff, represented by Grace Cathryn Cretcher -
- gcretcher@nyemployeelaw.com -- Beranbaum Menken Ben-Asher &
Bierman LLP, Abigail Ruth Cook-Mack, Beranbaum Menken, LLP & Scott
Simpson -- ssimpson@nyemployeelaw.com -- Beranbaum Menken LLP.

Jonas Bahena, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken,
Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Grace Cathryn Cretcher,
Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Abigail Ruth Cook-Mack,
Beranbaum Menken, LLP & Scott Simpson, Beranbaum Menken LLP.

Jose Cruz Ayala, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken,
Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Grace Cathryn Cretcher,
Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Abigail Ruth Cook-Mack,
Beranbaum Menken, LLP & Scott Simpson, Beranbaum Menken LLP.

Rafael Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken,
Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Grace Cathryn Cretcher,
Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Abigail Ruth Cook-Mack,
Beranbaum Menken, LLP & Scott Simpson, Beranbaum Menken LLP.

Alberto Rivera, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken,
Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Grace Cathryn Cretcher,
Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP & Scott Simpson,
Beranbaum Menken LLP.

Alexis Bahena, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken,
Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Grace Cathryn Cretcher,
Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP & Scott Simpson,
Beranbaum Menken LLP.

Bladimir DeLeon, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken,
Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Grace Cathryn Cretcher,
Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP & Scott Simpson,
Beranbaum Menken LLP.

Candido Quezeda, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken,
Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Grace Cathryn Cretcher,
Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP & Scott Simpson,
Beranbaum Menken LLP.

Fernando Delvalle, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken,
Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Grace Cathryn Cretcher,
Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP & Scott Simpson,
Beranbaum Menken LLP.

Park Avenue South Management LLC, Defendant, represented by
Carolyn Diane Richmond -- crichmond@foxrothschild.com -- Fox
Rothschild, LLP, Glenn Sklaire Grindlinger --
ggrindlinger@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild, LLP & James M.
Lemonedes --

jlemonedes@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild, Attorneys at Law.

Gilanco Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric David Raphan
-- eraphan@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton, LLP & Sean Joseph Kirby -- skirby@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP.

3850 Broadway Holding LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel
William Morris -- dwmorris@cbdm.com -- Clifton Budd & DeMaria,
LLP.

Barberry Rose Management Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Daniel William Morris, Clifton Budd & DeMaria, LLP.

2500 ACP Partners LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Kevin
Brown, Leeds Morelli & Brown, Lauren Ruth Reznick, Leeds Brown
Law, P.C. & Michael Alexander Tompkins, Leeds Brown Law PC.

Amsterdam Realty Partners, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
Kevin Brown, Leeds Morelli & Brown, Lauren Ruth Reznick, Leeds
Brown Law, P.C. & Michael Alexander Tompkins, Leeds Brown Law PC.

Emo Realty Partners LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Kevin
Brown, Leeds Morelli & Brown, Lauren Ruth Reznick, Leeds Brown
Law, P.C. & Michael Alexander Tompkins, Leeds Brown Law PC.

Maurice Mckenzie, Defendant, represented by Carolyn Diane
Richmond, Fox Rothschild, LLP, Glenn Sklaire Grindlinger, Fox
Rothschild, LLP & James M. Lemonedes, Fox Rothschild, Attorneys at
Law.

Edward M. Ostad, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Kevin Brown,
Leeds Morelli & Brown, Lauren Ruth Reznick, Leeds Brown Law, P.C.
& Michael Alexander Tompkins, Leeds Brown Law PC.


PAYPAL INC: Tovar Sues Over Use of Auto Telephone Dialing System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Tovar, on behalf himself and others similarly situated v.
PayPal, Inc. and Bill Me Later, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-04421 (N.D.
Cal., August 4, 2017), alleges that the Defendants routinely
violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an
automatic telephone dialing system and an artificial or
prerecorded voice to place non-emergency calls to numbers assigned
to a cellular telephone service, without prior express consent, in
that they place autodialed and prerecorded or artificial voice
calls to wrong or reassigned telephone numbers.

PayPal, Inc. operates a technology platform that enables
individuals and businesses to send and receive payments online.
The Company was incorporated in 1999 and is based in San Jose,
California.

Bill Me Later, Inc. provides PayPal Credit, a line of credit from
Comenity Capital Bank that allows users to buy now and pay later.
Its solution also allows users to send money and schedule future
payments.  The Company also provides a special financing solution
that allows users to buy more and choose how the user wants to
pay-in full, or by spreading out payments over time. Its PayPal
Credit solution is available as a payment option at various online
stores and offline.  Bill Me Later was formerly known as I4
Commerce, Inc. and changed its name to Bill Me Later, Inc. in
August 2007.  The Company was founded in 2000 and is based in
Timonium, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Morrison, Esq.
          ALEXANDER KRAKOW & GLICK LLP
          401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 394-0888
          Facsimile: (310) 394-0811
          E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com

               - and -

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


PELICAN POINT: Court Denied Certification of Laborers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled DAVID GROSS, on his own behalf and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PELICAN POINT SEAFOOD OF
TARPON SPRINGS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01208-JSM-AAS
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody Jr. entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
      and facilitation of court-authorized Notice on behalf of:

      "current and former hourly-paid laborers who work(ed) at
      Defendant's location in Pinellas County, Florida between
      May 22, 2014 and the present; who worked hours for which
      they were not compensated, in some cases working more than
      40 hours per week, without lawful and proper and complete
      overtime compensation"; and

   2. dismissing opt-in Plaintiffs from the action without
      prejudice.

The Court said, "Plaintiff's Declaration is insufficient to
establish that there are other similarly situated employees
because a class of "hourly-paid laborers" would presumably cover
nearly every employee, despite the fact that Pelican Point is
comprised of four separate departments, and the employees within
those departments have different job titles and duties. For
example, the majority of Pelican Point's employees work as
"cashiers/front counter." The proposed class would potentially
include the cashiers, to the extent that they were "non-exempt"
and performed "labor" on an hourly basis. This is too broad.
Moreover, Plaintiff's Declaration does not address how the
individuals who opted-in this action are similarly situated to
Plaintiff with respect to their job duties and responsibilities.
Plaintiff was the only fish cutter. And Russell's Declaration
states that the opt-in individuals were employed as "Shrimp
Processers and/or Back of the House employees," which is different
from the fish cutter job. Notably, this Court previously denied a
plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a
broad class of non-exempt "former hourly-paid laborers," and
remarked that if "such a broad and inexact class of employees were
sufficient to conditionally certify a class under the
FLSA, the conditional-certification standard would not merely be a
lenient one, but a meaningless one." See White v. SLM Staffing
LLC, No. 8:16-CV-2057-T-30TBM, 2016 WL 4382777, at 2 (M.D. Fla.
Aug. 17, 2016). Likewise, Plaintiff's proposed class in this case
is too expansive to meet the similarly-situated requirement.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=O0uqdgGa


PERSONNEL STAFFING: Court to Continue "Haack" Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Roman Haack, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Personnel Staffing LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02854 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Ronald A. Guzman entered an
order continuing Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 9, 2017,
Plaintiffs' motion for Fair Labor Standards Act conditional
collective action as stated on the record to be filed by September
8, 2017. Response due by September 18, 2017. Reply due by
September 25, 2017. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file response
instanter to Defendants Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, Daniel S.
Barnett, David Barnett Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss complaint
as to them is granted. Reply due by August 21, 2017. Motion
hearing set for August 15, 2017 is stricken and no appearance is
required. Status hearing set for September 26, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ev2aV0P2


PETSMART INC: "Smadja" Suit Seeks to Certify 10 Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LEA M. SMADJA, an individual, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated, and as aggrieved
employees pursuant to the private attorney general act, the
Plaintiff, v. PETSMART, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
Through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00379-SVW-
JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on September 11,
2017, at 1:30 p.m. for an order to:

   1. certify the following classes:

      Overtime Class:

      "all non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed
      by Defendant PETSMART, INC. ("PETSMART" or "DEFENDANT") in
      California as grooming salon employees, other than bathers,
      during the appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT failed to
      properly or timely pay overtime";

      Meal Period Class

      All non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed
      by DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees
      during the appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT failed to
      authorize and permit the legally requisite meal periods";

      Rest Period Class:

      "all non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed
      by DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees
      during the appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT failed to
      authorize and permit the legally requisite rest periods";

      226 Wage Statement Class

      "all non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed
      by DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees
      during the appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT failed to
      provide accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code
      section 226";

      226.3 Wage Statement Class 2

      all non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed
      by DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees
      during the appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT failed to
      provide accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code
      section 226.3

      Uniform Class

      "all non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed
      by DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees
      during the appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT failed to
      pay uniform maintenance"'

      Reimbursement Class

      "all non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed
      by DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees
      other than bathers during the appropriate time period whom
      DEFENDANT failed to fully reimburse work expenses";

      Withheld Wage Class

      "all non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed
      by DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees
      during the appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT
      unlawfully withheld wages

      LC 201 Class

      "all non-exempt individuals formerly employed by DEFENDANT
      in California as grooming salon employees during the
      appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT willfully failed to
      timely pay any and all wages";

      California's Unfair Competition Law Class

      "non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed by
      DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees under
      California's Unfair Competition Law"

   2. create a sub-class of all Grooming Salon Employees and a
      sub-class of Grooming Salon Employees other than Bathers;

   3. appoint Lea Smadja as Class Representative;

   4. appoint Ophir J. Bitton of Bitton & Associates, Class
      Counsel; and

   5. send notice to certified class members advising them of
      this action.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ophir J. Bitton, Esq.
          Cesar G. Lachica, Jr., Esq.
          BITTON & ASSOCIATES
          7220 Melrose Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90046
          Telephone: (310) 356 1006
          Facsimile: (818) 524 1224
          E-mail: ophir@bittonlaw.com
                  cesar@bittonlaw.com


PLACE FOR MOM: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that senior housing
referral service A Place For Mom Inc. was slapped with a proposed
class action in Illinois federal court on Aug. 7 over its alleged
practice of "bombarding" consumers with automatic calls in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Consumers who enter their contact information on the service's
website are warned only by a "Lilliputian" caption that they'll be
called immediately after doing so, Andrew Kim says in his
complaint.

Mr. Kim used the service for the first time in July and quickly
"received an autodialed telemarketing call" that "was annoying and
harassing . . . and an invasion of his privacy."

He says the service has violated the TCPA because the small-
lettered consent message on the bottom of its website doesn't
constitute the "reasonable notice" required for the use of
autodialers.

"The search page is designed in such a manner so that the consumer
provides his or her phone number . . . without ever receiving
notice that the consumer is agreeing to be contacted via
prerecorded or autodialed calls," Mr. Kim says.  "Defendant's
autodialer authorization thus fails to meet the thresholds"
mandated by the TCPA.

Mr. Kim is seeking to certify a class of everyone in the U.S. who
provided their number to the service and received an autodialed
call, an alleged violation of the TCPA that Kim says is worth $500
a pop.  He estimates the proposed class contains "thousands" of
members and called his suit just one prong in a campaign to bring
"about an end to the rampant violations" of the TCPA "that occur
within the sphere of the online 'lead' generating industry."

A Place For Mom works with users to provide information about
assisted living facilities nearby, refers the leads generated to
those facilities and then receives a commission if and when
seniors ultimately enroll, the suit says.

The service's website prominently displays a large box that asks
consumers to give their name, location and phone number before
clicking a button that says "Start Your Search." Shortly after
clicking the button, users receive a call from a representative
with A Place For Mom.

In small font at the bottom of the site there is a caption that
reads, in full: "We value your privacy.  By clicking you agree to
the terms and conditions of our privacy policy.  You also consent
that we can reach out to you using a phone system that can auto-
dial numbers (we miss rotary telephones, too!).  Your consent is
not required to use our service."

Mr. Kim says the "barely legible" paragraph isn't good enough,
however, because the site's design leaves users with "no reason to
suspect that he or she is agreeing to be contacted" via an
autodialed phone call.

The TCPA expressly forbids the use of autodial systems unless
prior notice is provided and consent is given, or in emergency
situations.

"Not surprisingly, defendant's unlawful practices have led to
significant backlash from consumers across the country," Kim says,
citing one other lawsuit, Erickson v. A Place For Mom Inc., in
Washington district court.

That suit, also a prospective class action, claims plaintiff
Robert Erickson was called several times by A Place Called Mom
despite never entering his information through the website in the
first place.  It was filed in May 2016 and ended last August after
both parties agreed to a dismissal, though it's not clear why.
The attorneys on that case don't appear to be involved in Mr.
Kim's case.  In his suit, Mr. Erickson cited several postings from
the phone call watchdog forum 800notes.com, with posters
complaining about calls received from A Place Called Mom.

"They must call 3-4 times a day and do not leave a message," one
posting reads. "My parents have been dead for almost 10 years, my
wife's parents even longer. No clue why they think I or my wife
need senior care."

Neither party responded on Aug. 7 to requests for comment.

Mr. Kim is represented by Gary M. Klinger --
gklinger@kozonislaw.com -- and Ryan F. Sullivan --
rsullivan@kozonislaw.com -- of Kozonis Law Ltd., and Jonathan D.
Selbsin and Daniel M. Hutchinson of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP.

Counsel information for A Place For Mom was not immediately
available.

The case is Kim v. A Place For Mom, Inc., Case No.1:17-cv-05716
(N.D. Ill.).  The case is assigned to Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.
The case was filed August 7, 2017. [GN]


PLANET FITNESS: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. of Fla.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Planet Fitness, Inc.
The case is styled as Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of
all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Planet
Fitness, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-23002-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
August 8, 2017).

The Defendants are "one of the largest and fastest-growing
franchisors and operators of fitness centers in the United States
by number of members and locations" with more than 8.9 million
members and 1,300 total locations worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
   333 Las Olas Way, Suite CU3-311
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com


PREMIUM ASSET: Initial Status Hearing Set for Sept. 19
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Nicholas Navarroli, the Plaintiff, v.
Premium Asset Services LLC,, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-05483 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan
entered an order striking Plaintiff's motion to certify class
without prejudice to reinstate or file a new motion at a later
date.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 3, 2017,
Plaintiff's motion to continue is stricken as moot. Initial status
hearing is set for September 19, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. At least four
working days before the initial status hearing, the parties shall
conduct a FRCP 26(f) conference and file a joint written Initial
Status Report, not to exceed five pages in length, and file the
Court's Joint Jurisdictional Status Report and deliver courtesy
copies to this Court's Courtroom Deputy in Room 1908. The Court's
standing orders on the Initial Status Report and Joint
Jurisdictional Status Report maybe obtained from Judge
Der-Yeghiayan's web page or from this Court's Courtroom Deputy.
Counsel for the Plaintiff is warned that failure to serve summons
and complaint on Defendants will result in a dismissal of the
action and/or a dismissal of that Defendant not properly served
pursuant to FRCP Counsel for Plaintiff is further directed to file
with the Clerk of Court, the appropriate returns of service and/or
waivers of service.

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


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Certified in "Pettit" Charmin Wipes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JAMIE PETTIT, the Plaintiff, v. PROCTER &
GAMBLE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-02150-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting
certification of:

   "[a]ll persons who, between April 6, 2011 and the [date of
   class certification], purchased in California the Charmin
   Freshmates Flushable Wipes (excluding purchases for purpose of
   resale)".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jhx3JT9D


PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT: Court Denies Certification in "Wood" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vanessa L. Bryant of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned LEONARD WOOD II and MAYA SHAW,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT INSURANCE AND ANNUITY
COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-1785 (VLB)(D. Conn.).

Plaintiff Shaw, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, brings this action against Defendant
Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company ("PRIAC"),
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1973 ("ERISA").  They allege that the Defendant sets the
crediting rate well below its internal rate of return on the
invested capital it holds through the Guaranteed Income Fund
("GIF") and/or Principal Preservation Separate Account ("PPSA")
and therefore guarantees a substantial profit for itself.  The
Defendant calculates, but does not disclose to its retirement plan
clients and their participants the difference between the
crediting rate and its internal rate of return.  The Plaintiffs
therefore allege that the Defendant collects tens of millions of
dollars annually in undisclosed compensation from the retirement
plans in violation of its fiduciary duties under Section 502 of
the ERISA.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of class of all ERISA-covered
employee benefit plans whose plan assets were invested in PRIAC's
GIF and/or PPSA on or after Dec. 3, 2009.

The Court explains that determining whether PRIAC breached any
fiduciary duty is similarly unsuited to classwide resolution.  As
with the question of whether the GIF minimum offered a "reasonable
rate of return," variables among plans render unmanageable any
attempt to reach classwide conclusions regarding the
reasonableness of the spread.  The difficulty of reaching
classwide conclusions regarding whether PRIAC acted as a fiduciary
or breached any fiduciary duty therefore prevents the Court from
finding that the commonality prerequisite has been met.

The Court finds that unlike investments in an insurer's general
account, gains and losses within separate accounts cannot be
offset by the performance of other investments.  They therefore do
not involve the same set of concerns.  The Plaintiff has therefore
failed to show that her claims or defenses are typical of those of
the proposed class.  And because the Plaintiff 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, she cannot adequately represent the interests
of current plan participants.

Because the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the commonality,
typicality, and adequacy of representation prerequisites, the
Court needs not determine whether the proposed class could satisfy
any of the Rule 23(b) factors.

For these reasons, the Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/yPBFNX from Leagle.com.

Maya Shaw, Plaintiff, represented by Mark P. Kindall --
mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP.

Maya Shaw, Plaintiff, represented by Michael L. Murphy, Bailey &
Glasser LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Barrett --
cbarrett@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP & Robert A.
Izard, Jr. -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP.

Prudential Retirement Ins & Annuity Co, Defendant, represented by
Daniel R. Thies -- DTHIES@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac
vice, James T. Shearin, Pullman & Comley, Joel S. Feldman --
JFELDMAN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Kathleen
L. Carlson -- KATHLEEN.CARLSON@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP,
pro hac vice, Mark B. Blocker -- MBLOCKER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley
Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Tara A. Amin -- TAMIN@SIDLEY.COM --
Sidley Austin, LLP, pro hac vice & Edward B. Lefebvre --
tlefebvre@pullcom.com -- Pullman & Comley.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: 9th Cir. Revives Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that
on July 28, 2017, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court decision dismissing a
putative class action lawsuit against Quality Systems, Inc.,
("QSI" or the "Company"), a company that develops and markets
management software for medical and dental providers, and several
of its officers.  In re Quality Systems, Inc. Secs. Litig., No.
15-55173 (9th Cir. July 28, 2017).  Plaintiffs brought a putative
shareholder class action against defendants alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
5 in connection with statements made over the course of several
months regarding the Company's past and projected sales as well as
guidance given to investors about the Company's projected growth
and revenue.  The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that many of the
defendants' statements "mixed" forward and non-forward looking
statements and holding for the first time in the Ninth Circuit
that it is appropriate to consider the forward and non-forward
looking aspects of a "mixed" statement separately when evaluating
a securities claim.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements at various healthcare conferences and on analyst calls
regarding its sales "pipeline," including sales that were expected
to close with 70% certainty within eight months, and that the
Company's stock price dropped significantly when QCI eventually
issued a press release announcing a steep decline in earnings and
stating that it could not affirm its previous guidance.
Plaintiffs also alleged--through statements attributed to several
confidential witnesses--that defendants had access to updated
sales pipeline information and knew that sales were declining.

Reviewing the complaint de novo, the Court categorized the
statements at issue as either "mixed statements" containing
"mixed" forward and non-forward looking statements about revenue
and earnings or non-forward-looking statements about the Company's
sales pipeline.  With respect to the "mixed statements," the Court
held that a defendant may not transform non-forward looking
statements into forward looking statements protected by the PSLRA
safe harbor by combining forward and non-forward looking, and that
non-forward statements must be evaluated separately from
coincidental forward-looking statements.  The Court then found
that statements regarding the sales pipeline were non-forward-
looking statements that "affirmatively created an impression of a
state of affairs that differed in a material way from the one that
actually existed."  The Court also rejected arguments these
statements were corporate puffery or "feel good" optimistic
statements because they "provided a concrete description of the
past and present state of the pipeline."

In addition, the Court found that the allegations -- including
statements attributed to confidential witnesses -- sufficed to
give rise to a strong inference of scienter because they
established that defendants had access to and used sales pipeline
reports documenting in real time the decline in sales during the
relevant period.

This decision serves as a reminder that the PSLRA safe harbor may
not extend to non-forward looking statements that are mixed with
forward-looking statements and that such "mixed" statements may be
subject to parsing by courts. [GN]


QUIZNO'S MASTER: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. of Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Quizno's Master,
LLC. The case is styled as Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf
of all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The
Quizno's Master, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-22998-FAM (S.D.
Fla., August 8, 2017).

The Quizno's Master LLC owns and operates restaurants that offer
made-to-order oven-toasted sandwiches.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
   333 Las Olas Way, Suite CU3-311
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com


REV GROUP: Faces "Morales" Suit in Central Dist. of Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against REV Group, Inc.  The
case is styled as Marvin Morales, an individual, and all other
similarly situated employees and Halcore Group, Inc., an Indiana
corporation dba Leader Emergency Vehicles, Plaintiffs v. REV
Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05876 (C.D. Cal., August
8, 2017).

REV Group is an American manufacturer of specialty vehicles the in
Fire & Emergency, Recreational Vehicles, and Bus & Industrial
sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


REV-1 SOLUTIONS: Court Denied Bid to Certify Class as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DEBORAH OZIER, the Plaintiff, v. REV-1
SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00118-JPS (E.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to file additional
      authority in opposition to the Defendant's motion to
      dismiss;

   2. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss;

   3. dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice;

   4. denying Plaintiff's motion to certify class as moot; and

   5. directing Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly.

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


RIEMER INSURANCE: "Paz" Suit Removed to S. Dist. of Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Regla Paz and other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Riemer Insurance Group, Inc.
a Florida Profit Corporation, Stephen L. Riemer, individually,
Paul riemer, individually, Defendants, Case No. CACE-17012046 was
removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Ft Lauderdale) on August 7, 2017. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-61575-BB to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to Judge Beth Bloom.

Riemer Insurance Group, Inc. operates in the insurance
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
   Remer & Georges-Pierre, PLLC
   Courthouse Tower
   44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
   Miami, FL 33130
   Tel: (305) 416-5000
   Fax: (305) 416-5005
   Email: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com

      - and -

   Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
   Remer& Georges-Pierre, PLLC
   Court House Tower
   44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
   Miami, Fl 33130
   Tel: (305) 416-5000
   Fax: (305) 416-5005
   Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

      - and -

   Tyler Aaron Stull, Esq.
   Remer & Georges-Pierre, PLLC
   44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
   Miami, FL 33130
   Tel: (305) 416-5000
   Email: ts@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Angel Castillo, Jr., Esq.
   DLD Lawyers
   12th Floor
   806 Douglas Road
   Coral Gables, FL 33134
   Tel: (305) 443-4850
   Fax: (305) 443-5960
   Email: acastillo@dldlawyers.com


RIVERSIDE, CA: Class Status Sought in Juvenile Custody Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned A.A., a minor, by and through her
guardian ad litem, and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a public entity; KARLA TORRES
and FELICIA BUTLER, individuals, together with all others
similarly situated, the Defendants, Case No. 5:14-cv-02556-VAP-SP
(C.D. Cal.), Plaintiff will move the Court on October 16, 2017, at
2:00 p.m., for an order certifying the action as a class for
injunctive relief for:

   "all children that were seized, or are likely to be seized
   from their parent's custody, and monetary relief for children
   who were removed from their parent's custody by the County
   without judicial authorization based on neglect".

This action challenges the County of Riverside's constitutionally
deficient policies and practices of refusing to obtain judicial
authorization before removing a child from his or her parents'
custody, under circumstances where that child was not in immediate
danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9QLWazfQ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. McMillan, Esq.
          Stephen D. Daner, Esq.
          Adrian M. Paris, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN A. MCMILLAN, APC
          4955 Via Lapiz
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 646 0069
          Facsimile: (858) 746 5283
          E-mail: attyshawn@netscape.net
                  steve.mcmillanlaw@gmail.com
                  adrian.mcmillanlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Mark Ankcorn, Esq.
          ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1060 Woodcock Road, Suite 128
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (619) 870 0600
          Facsimile: (619) 684 3541
          E-mail: mark@ankcorn.com


SAFEWAY INC: 9th Cir. Affirms $42M Judgment in "Rodman" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's class action judgment of nearly $42 million in
the case captioned MICHAEL RODMAN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAFEWAY, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant, No. 15-17390(9th Cir.).

The Defendant appeals the district court's class action judgment
of nearly $42 million this case arising out of an online grocery
shopping program initiated in 2001.  The judgment was entered
after the court certified the class, granted summary judgment on
both the disputed legal issues relating to contract
interpretation, and on Safeway's affirmative defense of voluntary
payment.  Safeway then entered into a stipulated judgment as to
any remaining issues in order to facilitate this appeal.

The appeal centers around whether Safeway promised its customers
price parity between online and physical stores.  The parties
dispute the meaning of the product pricing clause in the Special
Terms governing online grocery sales.  The clause states that the
prices quoted on their web site at the time of a customer's order
are estimated prices only.  The customer will be charged the
prices quoted for Products he has selected for purchase at the
time his order is processed at checkout.  The actual order value
cannot be determined until the day of delivery because the prices
quoted on the web site are likely to vary either above or below
the prices in the store on the date the order is filled and
delivered.

The Court held that the district court correctly determined that
the modification clause in the Special Terms did not allow Safeway
to unilaterally amend the Special Terms without notice.  Safeway
cites no authority from California law suggesting that a merchant
may modify a consumer contract and bind the consumer without any
form of notice.  It also held that there was no error in
certifying the class because the legal issues pertain to all class
members.  This case therefore materially differs from Avritt v.
Reliastar Life Insurance Co.  Accordingly, the Court affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/dAGTot from Leagle.com.


SAN DIEGO, CA: Kries Files Suit Over Regular Rate of Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
DAVID K. KRIES, and GARY MONDESIR, on behalf of themselves and all
other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF SAN
DIEGO; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-01464-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal., July 19, 2017), alleges
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the case, Defendant City has failed to correctly
calculate the "regular rate" of pay for plaintiffs and others
similarly situated.  The City's failure to correctly calculate the
regular rate was caused by, among other things, failing to include
cash paid to the plaintiffs, and other similarly situated, in lieu
of providing or paying medical and related insurance premiums
under the City's flexible benefits plan.  The plaintiffs, and
others similarly situated, worked overtime for the City in the
three-year period before the filing of this complaint. The amount
paid by the City for this overtime was too low because the City
had failed to properly calculate the regular rate of pay on which
the overtime rate was calculated.

San Diego is a major city in California, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael A. Conger, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. CONGER
     16236 San Dieguito Road, Suite 4-14
     P.O. Box 9374
     Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
     Phone: (858) 759-0200
     Fax: (858) 759-1906
     Email: congermike@aol.com


SANTANDER BANK: "Karlberg" Suit Moved to E.D. Penn.
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Drew Karlberg, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Santander
Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 170403795 was removed from the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia) on August 9, 2017. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-03561-HB to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to Honorable Harvey Bartle, III.

Santander Bank provides banking products and services. It offers
personal checking accounts, savings and money market accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

      - and -

   Michael D. Shaffer, Esq.
   SHAFFER& GAIER LLC
   8 PENN CENTER SUITE 400
   1628 JOHN F KENNEDY BLVD
   PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 751-0100
   Fax: (215) 751-0723
   Email: mshaffer@shaffergaier.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Fred W. Hoensch, Esq.
   Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLC
   1635 Market Street, 11th Floor
   PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
   Tel: (267) 908-9800
   Fax: (267) 908-9888
   Email: fred.hoensch@piblaw.com


SEALIFT HOLDINGS: "Llagas" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DANIEL GONZALES LLAGAS, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. SEALIFT
HOLDINGS INC. ET AL., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00472-PM-KK
(W.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to:

   1. certify this case as class action pursuant to Rule 23 of
      the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   2. appoint Plaintiff as class representative of the Class; and

   3. appoint Richard J. Dodson and Kenneth H. Hooks, III as
      Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BaFsC7bz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth H. Hooks, III, Esq.
          Richard J. Dodson, Esq.
          Michael A. Colomb, Esq.
          H. Price Mounger, III, Esq.
          DODSON & HOOKS, LLC
          112 Founders Drive
          Baton Rouge, LA 70810
          Telephone: 225 756 0222
          Facsimile: 225 756 0025


SEARS PROTECTION: Court Denied Bid to File Materials under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Nina Greene, et al., the Plaintiff, v.
Sears Protection Company, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-
cv-02546 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso entered an
order denying Plaintiff's motion to file materials under seal is
denied.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 3, 2017,
Case called on Plaintiff's motion to file materials under seal,
parties failed to appear. There is no substantive argument as to
why the materials should be sealed. Plaintiff's renewed motion for
class certification is taken under advisement. The court will rule
electronically and set further dates in the ruling.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z0dTHiWy


SMILE BRANDS: Faces "Polanco" Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO POLANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. SMILE BRANDS FINANCE, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05380 (C.D.
Cal., July 20, 2017), results from the alleged illegal actions of
the Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully
contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, thereby
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

SMILE BRANDS FINANCE, INC. is a dental finance company engaged in
collection activity in connection with debts allegedly owed to
it.[BN]


The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPANDEX HOUSE: Sued by Sullivan for Minimum Wage & OT Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN SULLIVAN and JASON DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. SPANDEX HOUSE, INC.; NEW YORK
THEATRICAL SUPPLY INC.; and SABUDH NATH, in his individual and
corporate capacity, Case No. 1:17-cv-05929 (S.D.N.Y., August 4,
2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the minimum wage and
overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

Spandex House and New York Theatrical Supply are incorporated
organizations, organized and existing under the laws of the state
of New York, with their principal place of business located at 263
W 38th Street, in New York City.  The Corporate Defendants are
owned and/or operated by Sabudh Nath.

According to its Web site, Spandex House is a specialized source
of Stretch Fabrics and is one of the largest spandex suppliers in
the world.  Spandex House maintains the largest selection of
Spandex and Lycra(R).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin Weisenberg, Esq.
          THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
          401 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 571-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0505
          E-mail: benjamin@ottingerlaw.com


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Sept. 20 Hearing on Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Marcus Mason, the Plaintiff, v. Specialized
Loan Servicing LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05607 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order continuing
motion to certify class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 3, 2017,
the motion hearing set for August 7 is stricken. Another Status
hearing set for September 20 at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PgEKC8zf


ST. LOUIS RAMS: Arnold Seeks to Certify Ticket Holders Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RICHARD ARNOLD, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
THE ST. LOUIS RAMS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00172-
SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), Richard Arnold, R. McNeeley Cochran, and Brad
Pearlman (collectively "Arnold") ask the Court to certify a Rams
Class and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) subclass.

The Rams Class is defined as:

   "A) all persons or entities who: 1) purchased PSLs directly
   from the Rams; or 2) had any Rams or FANS PSL transferred to
   them; or 3) upgraded their PSL tier; and B) purchased Rams
   season tickets through their PSLs for the 2015 season; or C)
   did not purchase Rams season tickets for the 2015 season but
   did not receive a PSL cancellation notice from the Rams".

The MMPA subclass is defined as:

   "all natural persons who are members of the Rams Class who
   purchased PSLs primarily for personal, family or household
   purposes".

Arnold also moves the Court that:

   1. Arnold, Cochran, and Pearlman be appointed as class
      representatives for the class and the subclass; and

   2. Fernando Bermudez and Martin M. Greenbe jointly appointed
      as class counsel for the class and the subclass;

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OAldPA8A

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Fernando Bermudez, Esq.
          BERMUDEZ LAW STL, LLC
          7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 950
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: 314 339 3082
          E-mail: fbermudez@bermudezlawstl.com

               - and -

          Martin M. Green, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN M. GREEN, P.C.
          7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 950
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 862 6800
          Facsimile: (314) 862 1606
          E-mail: green@martingreenpc.com


ST. LOUIS RAMS: Envision et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RONALD MCALLISTER, the Plaintiff, v. THE ST.
LOUIS RAMS, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00172-SNLJ
(E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs Envision, L.L.C., Robert Bohm, Sue
Bohm, and Edward Mock move the Court for certification of these
Class and Subclasses:

Class:

   "all persons or entities who possessed PSLs subject to the
   Rams' Agreement, and who continued to be PSL owners through,
   and purchased season tickets for, the 2015 season";

Charter Subclass:

   "all persons or entities who purchased one or more PSLs
   directly from the St. Louis Rams, and who continued to be PSL
   owners through, and who purchased season tickets for, the 2015
   season; Upgrade Subclass. All persons, or entities who
   originally signed a PSL Agreement with FANS, Inc. or the Rams,
   and later upgraded their PSLs, and who continued to be PSL
   owners through, and purchased season tickets for, the 2015
   season";

Transfer Subclass:

   "all persons or entities who took transfer of one or more PSLs
   after September 1, 1995, whose interest in the PSLs was
   recorded on the books and records of the Rams, and who
   continued to be PSL owners through, and purchased season
   tickets, for the 2015 season; and

Missouri Merchandising Practices Act Subclass:

   "all natural persons who are members of the Class (excluding
   entities because, pursuant to the Missouri Merchandising
   Practices Act ("MMPA"), section 407.025.1, RSMo, damages are
   only recoverable by persons who purchase or lease merchandise
   "primarily for personal, family or household purposes");

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Envision, Bohm, And Mock:

          David R. Bohm, Esq.
          Robert L. Devereux, Esq.
          Jeffrey R. Schmitt, Esq.
          Michael R. Cherba, Esq.
          DANNA MCKITRICK, P.C.
          7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63105 3907
          Telephone: (314) 726 1000
          Facsimile: (314) 725 6592
          E-mail: dbohm@dmfirm.com
                  rdevereux@dmfirm.com
                  jschmitt@dmfirm.com
                  mcherba@dmfirm.com


SYSCO CORP: Must Produce Docs in "Frieri" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RICK FRIERI, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff, v. SYSCO CORPORATION; SYSCO SAN DIEGO, INC.; AND DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS (S.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to
interrogatories and requests for production of documents
propounded to the Defendant.

This case presents a putative state-wide class action of truck
drivers for alleged wage and hour violations while employed as
drivers for the Defendants.  Frieri seeks discovery to support
certification of the class.  His motion for class certification is
due to be filed by Nov. 10, 2017.

The Plaintiff propounded interrogatories and two sets of requests
for production of documents on the Defendant on Feb. 14, 2017.
His interrogatories seek contact and other information relating to
the putative class members.  His document requests primarily aim
to collect documents to establish a joint employer relationship
between the two Named Defendants.

Following some extensions, the Defendant responded to the
discovery requests on May 24, 2017.  The parties engaged in some
meet and confer efforts, but were ultimately unable to resolve the
disputes now presented to the Court.

Magistrate Judge Stormes held that this is the second discovery
dispute in this matter whereby the Plaintiff seeks to compel
production of voluminous documents in response to broad requests
without any indication of pursuit of other forms of discovery
likely to yield the information sought at reduced cost and with
expenditure of fewer resources by the parties and the Court.
Therefore, in the event that the Plaintiff initiates a third
discovery dispute before the Court, he must first either (i)
demonstrate that he has taken the deposition of a corporate
representative; or (ii) file an ex parte request for leave to file
a discovery dispute, explaining in no more than 5 pages why a
deposition would not affect the content of the discovery dispute
he wishes to file.  For these reasons, she granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to compel consistent with
the terms as set forth in her Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/R7sRQi from Leagle.com.

Rick Frieri, Plaintiff, represented by William D. Turley --
bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law Firm, APLC.

Rick Frieri, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Evan Crawford, The
Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC.

Sysco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Julie Kwun --
jkwun@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hosteler, LLP, Margaret Rosenthal
-- mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, Sabrina Layne
Shadi -- sshadi@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP & Vartan S.
Madoyan -- vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP.

Sysco San Diego, Inc., Defendant, represented by Julie Kwun, Baker
& Hosteler, LLP, Margaret Rosenthal, Baker & Hostetler LLP,
Sabrina Layne Shadi, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Vartan S. Madoyan,
Baker and Hostetler LLP.


TAKATA CORP: "Krmpotic" Suit Transferred to S.D. of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Branko Krmpotic and Susan Knapp
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Takata Corporation, TK Holdings Inc., Mercedes-Benz
USA, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company and Daimler AG a
foreign corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04771, filed on
July 28, 2017, in New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami) on July 31, 2017. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-22870-FAM to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Federico A. Moreno and
Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff.

Takata Corporation manufactures and sells automotive safety
systems for automakers worldwide. It offers seat belts, including
webbings, retractors, and buckles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
   Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody &Agnello, P>C.
   5 Becker Farm Road
   Roseland, NJ 07068-1741
   Tel: (973) 994-1700
   Email: cbartlett@carellabyrne.com

      - and -

   James E. Cecchi, Esq.
   Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein
   5 Becker Farm Road
   Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
   Tel: (973) 994-1700
   Fax: (973) 994-1744
   Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com


TAMPA BAY SURGERY: Stapleton et al. Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JANIE STAPLETON, on her own behalf and
on behalf of her minor child, C.P. DAVID PACKEN, on his own behalf
and on behalf of his minor child, D.J., and CARMELO ALVAREZ, JR.
on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor child, K.R.A., the
Plaintiffs, v. TAMPA BAY SURGERY CENTER, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 8:17-cv-01540-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for class certification.

This class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs
and all other persons similarly situated against Defendant, Tampa
Bay Surgery Center, Inc. (TBSCI) because of its failure to
adequately protect its patient's confidential personal information
and/or private personal, medical and/or financial
information -- Sensitive Information -- which led to the loss,
disclosure and/or breach of such information resulting in
violation of their and the putative class's federal and state
constitutional rights, rights under the laws of the United States
and the State of Florida, and damages.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7qBh3Ys1

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TIME WARNER: Dismissal of "Groshek" FCRA Class Action Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Raffetto, Esq., of Goodwin, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of two
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) class actions on Spokeo grounds.
The cases, which were consolidated for appeal, were filed by the
same plaintiff against two corporate defendants alleged to have
provided credit-report disclosures that did not comply with the
FCRA.  The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of Groshek v. Time
Warner Cable, Inc. and Groshek v. Great Lakes Higher Education
Corp. (together, "Groshek") because it concluded plaintiff failed
to adequately allege any concrete injury.  The decision has
strategic implications for defendants considering whether to seek
dismissal of similar FCRA cases and for those planning defenses to
certification motions.

As relevant to Groshek, the FCRA requires prospective employers
who plan to pull a job applicant's credit report as part of the
application process to disclose this to the applicant.  Among
other things, the disclosure must be "clear and conspicuous" and
must appear in a document that consists only of the disclosure.
The applicant must also authorize the employer to pull the report.

In Groshek, plaintiff alleged that defendants' disclosures
appeared in forms that contained information extraneous to the
disclosure.  Defendants moved to dismiss claiming plaintiff lacked
standing because he had not suffered a concrete injury.  Citing
Spokeo v. Robins, defendants argued that plaintiff's only injury
was the violation of a procedural right.

Plaintiff argued that he suffered a concrete injury because
defendants' alleged failure to provide him with a compliant
disclosure was a failure to provide information required by the
FCRA.  The Seventh Circuit rejected this argument because it
concluded the alleged withholding of information was not the kind
of injury the FCRA was designed to protect.  The Seventh Circuit
held that the FCRA does not seek to protect individuals from the
receipt of a non-compliant disclosure, rather, Congress's purpose
was to protect privacy by ensuring that job applicants only
knowingly consent to the pulling of their credit reports.
Plaintiff also argued that he suffered a privacy injury because
the defective disclosures meant he never provided valid
authorization, and defendants' procurement of his credit report
was therefore an invasion of his privacy.  The Seventh Circuit
rejected this argument as well, holding that plaintiff's admission
that he signed authorization forms coupled with his failure to
allege that the non-conforming disclosure misled or confused him
demonstrated that he suffered no invasion of privacy.

In deciding the case, the Seventh Circuit recognized the Ninth
Circuit's recent decision in Syed v. M-I, LLC, where the Ninth
Circuit reversed the dismissal of a similar FCRA claim because of
allegations that the plaintiff was confused by the disclosure and
would not have signed it had it been clear.  The Seventh Circuit
concluded Syed was inapposite because Groshek had not included any
similar allegations, choosing instead to rest his case on the bare
claim that the disclosure did not comply with the FCRA.

For defendants considering whether and how to seek dismissal of
similar FCRA claims, Groshek provides persuasive authority that
mere allegations of statutory failings are insufficient to
establish concrete Article III injury.  Groshek demonstrates that,
absent some claim that a procedural failing led to some specific
injury, the plaintiff lacks standing.  But Groshek also
potentially provides some assistance for defendants facing class
certification motions in similar FCRA cases.  The distinction
drawn by the Seventh Circuit between Syed and Groshek depends upon
facts unique to the Syed plaintiff, and suggests that
individualized issues related to standing could derail
certification efforts in such cases. [GN]


TOWNCREST PHARMACY: 9th Cir. Approves Class Action in Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Kramer, Esq. -- liz.kramer@stinson.com -- of Stinson Leonard
Street LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that class action
arbitration continues to be a hot topic among the federal
appellate courts this summer.

The 8th Circuit followed the lead of other circuit courts, finding
that courts, not arbitrators, presumptively decide whether the
parties' arbitration agreement allows for class arbitration.
Catamaran Corporation v. Towncrest Pharmacy, 2017 WL 3197622 (July
28, 2017).  In support of its decision, the court raised concerns
about class arbitration, including loss of confidentiality, due
process concerns for absent parties, and a concern about the lack
of appellate review. [Interesting that it didn't cite any of
CFPB's report on this, but just cited other case law . . . ]
Therefore, unless the parties have "clearly and unmistakably
delegated" the class arbitration issue to the arbitrator, a court
will decide the issue.  Furthermore, the court said that
incorporating the AAA rules is not a clear and unmistakable
delegation of the class arbitration decision, even though citing
the AAA rules is sufficiently clear in analogous issues in regular
"bilateral arbitration."  The court remanded to the district court
to determine whether there was a contractual basis for class
arbitration.

Halfway across the country, the 9th Circuit held that employees
could bring their claims related to a data breach as a class
action in arbitration.  Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 2017 WL
3309944 (Aug. 3, 2017).  The employees had first brought their
class claims to federal court, and the employer moved to compel
individual arbitration.  The district court found the arbitration
agreement was valid, but ambiguous about whether class actions
were waived. Construing that ambiguity against the employer who
drafted the agreement, the district court ordered class
arbitration.  On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed the finding of
ambiguity, sending the class to arbitration as a group.  One judge
issued a two sentence dissent, noting "we should not allow Varela
to enlist us in this palpable evasion of Stolt-Nielsen."
[GN]


TWO JINNS: Bid for Class Certification Granted in "Shelby" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned GAYLA SHELBY, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TWO JINNS, INC.
DBA ALADDIN BAIL BONDS, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-03794-AB-
GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order
granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification and final
approval of the class settlement.

The Court also granted Plaintiff's motion for fees, including:

   1. attorneys' fees in the amount of $114,250.00;

   2. reimbursement of litigation costs in the amount of
      $4,903.56;

   3. reimbursement of administrative costs in the amount of
      $37,411.00; and

   4. incentive award in the amount of $2,500.00.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=srsHBt48


UAG STEVENS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco employment law attorneys at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on Aug. 7 disclosed that it filed a class
action lawsuit alleging that UAG Stevens Creek II, Inc. failed to
provide their California automotive sales employees with meal and
rest periods in accordance with the California Wage Order and
Labor Code.  The UAG Stevens Creek II, Inc. class action lawsuit,
Case No. 17CV313457 is currently pending in the Santa Clara County
Superior Court for the State of California.

According to the lawsuit, UAG Stevens Creek II, Inc. allegedly
failed to provide all employees the legally required off-duty meal
breaks as required by the applicable Wage Order and Labor Code.
The Complaint further claims that UAG Stevens Creek II, Inc.
allegedly failed to accurately record missed meal and rest breaks
and also allegedly failed to pay the proper minimum wages causing
the wage statements being issued to the employees by UAG Stevens
Creek II, Inc. to allegedly violate California law, and in
particular, Labor Code Section 226(a).

Additionally, the Complaint alleges that UAG Stevens Creek II,
Inc. committed acts of unfair competition by engaging in a
company-wide policy and procedure which fails to accurately
calculate and record all missed meal breaks and fails to pay
employees for rest periods as required by California law and is in
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Secs. 17200.

If you would like to know more about the UAG Stevens Creek II,
Inc. lawsuit, please contact attorney Nicholas De Blouw today by
calling (800) 568-8020.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with
offices located in San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Los
Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Medical Records Class Action Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bennett Loudon, writing for Rochester Business Journal, reports
that a federal judge has certified a class action lawsuit claiming
patients were overcharged for copies of their medical records in
violation of New York state law.

The defendants are the University of Rochester, Strong Memorial
Hospital and Highland Hospital -- both operated by UR Medicine --
and Verisma Systems Inc., which manages UR Medicine's medical
records.

"Defendants have systematically violated New York law by
manipulating charges for medical records, and by charging
artificially inflated amounts to plaintiffs and other class
members," according to the complaint.

"These artificially inflated amounts exceed the actual cost of
producing such records and include built-in kickbacks from Verisma
to the health provider defendants and other health care providers
in New York," according to the complaint.

In a 21-page decision issued July 28, Senior U.S. District Court
Judge Michael S. Telesca certified the class to include all
patients who requested medical records from a health care facility
owned or operated by the UR and were charged through Verisma on or
after May 14, 2011.  Telesca also certified two subclasses: People
who sought and received records from Highland and Strong hospitals
on or after May 14, 2011.

According to the complaint, the classes include hundreds of
people.

The plaintiffs are seeking actual damages, treble damages,
attorneys' fees and expenses.

The class representative plaintiffs are: Ann McCracken, of
Rochester; Joan Farrell, of Avon, Livingston County; Sarah
Stilson, of Canandaigua; Kevin McCloskey, of Brockport;
Christopher Trapatsos, of Fairport; and Kimberly Bailey, of
Shortsville, Ontario County.

"The University makes no profit from the copying of medical
records, and does not control what Verisma charges for records.
The certification of the class is one step in a lawsuit the
University intends to continue to defend vigorously," Chip
Partner, spokesperson for the University of Rochester Medical
Center, said in an email.

New York law caps the amount of money that can be charged for
copies of medical records at the actual cost to produce the
records or 75 cents per page, whichever is less.  The suit claims
patients are charged the maximum and the profit is split between
Verisma and the company's clients.

"Verisma has reaped most of the economic benefit of their scheme,
but the University of Rochester has also received a big indirect
economic benefit in the form of free services from Verisma, and
that's what we intend to prove at trial," said Kathryn Lee Bruns,
an attorney with Faraci Lange LLP, the firm Telesca named class
counsel.

For example, in 2011 and 2012, McCracken was charged $431.70 for
569 pages of medical records, which was 75 cents per page, plus
shipping and handling fees, according to the complaint.

Verisma provided 148 pages of records on paper, printed from
electronic files. The other records were provided in electronic
format through an online portal.

"We're in the process of working through an expert analysis of
what we believe the actual costs were.  At this point we believe
it's at least less than half of 75 cents per page," Ms. Bruns
said.

Verisma officials did not immediately respond to a request for
comment. [GN]


UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Seeks Dismissal of Fraud Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Salls, writing for Northern California Record, reports that
the University of Southern California is asking the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California to dismiss a class
action lawsuit filed against the university and 10 unnamed "Doe"
defendants amid allegations that the plaintiffs' credit card
information was compromised because more than five digits of the
card numbers were printed on receipts.

The credit card information was allegedly printed on receipts
generated by one or more of the university's retail locations.

In its June 22 motion to dismiss, the university said the
"plaintiffs' complaint offers only boilerplate allegations
asserting violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act (FACTA)."

"Like many cut-and-paste FACTA complaints, these allegations fail
to establish that plaintiffs suffered actual harm or that a
willful violation of FACTA was committed," the motion said.

Southern California said Congress passed a subsequent law after
FACTA was passed, clarifying that the purpose of FACTA was to
protect consumers from "any actual harm to their credit or
identity" and to curb the amount of frivolous lawsuit filed after
FACTA became law.

As a result, the university said in the motion that "numerous
courts have since explored the requirement of 'actual harm' within
the context of FACTA and have held that plaintiffs must allege
more than mere statutory violations under the act to establish
such harm."

According to the motion, the plaintiffs do not actually say in
their class action lawsuit that their credit card information was
stolen or "much less viewed" by anyone who should not have access
to it.

In addition, USC said "what few allegations plaintiffs provide are
so generic that they could apply to nearly any business," and the
arguments that are presented by the plaintiffs actually show that
USC and the other defendants did not intentionally compromise the
plaintiffs' credit card information.

However, the motion to dismiss said the plaintiffs argued in their
lawsuit that USC "knew of or should have known of, and were
informed about" the provisions of FACTA.

A hearing on the dismissal motion is scheduled for Sept. 7. [GN]


VERMONT: Whistleblower Deposition Request in EB-5 Case Quashed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Galloway, writing for VTDigger, reports that a judge has
ruled that, for now, defrauded EB-5 investors in a class action
lawsuit against the state cannot take the deposition of a key
whistleblower in the case.

Lamoille County Superior Court Judge Thomas Carlson quashed the
plaintiffs' request for the deposition of Douglas Hulme, citing
state rules prohibiting discovery until the defense has an
opportunity to respond.

The plaintiffs allege that the state was complicit in allowing 800
investors to be systematically defrauded by Bill Stenger, the CEO
and President of Jay Peak, and Ariel Quiros, the owner of the
resort and other properties.

Barr and Associates, which is representing the investors, has
asked for depositions of 10 individuals, starting with Mr. Hulme
on July 27, and the release of all records pertaining to the EB-5
program.

The Vermont Attorney General's office asked Judge Carlson to block
the depositions and the records release in a motion on
July 18.

Judge Carlson ruled that the plaintiffs' requests violated legal
procedures.

Bill Griffin, the chief assistant Vermont Attorney General, said
in an interview that it was "inappropriate" for the plaintiffs to
file a request for depositions and documents before the state
responded to the investors' complaint, which was filed in June.

The AG's response, which must be filed by September 8, will be a
motion to dismiss on the grounds that the state is protected from
civil lawsuits under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Griffin
said.

Three state entities and 10 individuals are named in the class
action lawsuit, including members of the former Shumlin
administration who are no longer in public office.  The AG's
office is representing current officials named in the lawsuit, and
the Vermont EB-5 Regional Center, the Agency of Commerce and
Community Development and the Vermont Department of Financial
Regulation.

Russell Barr, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, says his firm
wanted to get Hulme, who is now 74, on the record as soon as
possible.

"The state quashed whistleblower Douglas Hulme when he attempted
to tell them the truth about Jay Peak in 2012 and they are doing
so again by quashing his deposition now," Barr said. "What are
they so fearful of? The truth?"

Mr. Hulme, of Rapid USA Visas, worked as a consultant for Jay Peak
CEO Bill Stenger and resort owner Ariel Quiros from 2006 through
2011.  In that role, Mr. Hulme solicited investors for the Jay
Peak projects.  In February 2012, he broke off his relationship
with the developers and publicly announced that he no longer had
faith in the financials at Jay Peak.

Later that year, Mr. Hulme told officials with the Vermont EB-5
Regional Center that Messrs. Stenger and Quiros, who were looking
to use nearly $800 million in EB-5 immigrant investor funds for a
series of developments in the Northeast Kingdom, were
misappropriating funds, according to the plaintiffs' lawsuit.

Under the federal EB-5 program, immigrants who put up a $500,000
in risky developments in poor rural areas are eligible to receive
green cards.

The Vermont center, the only one of its kind nationally, was
responsible for monitoring, overseeing and reviewing financial
documents for the Jay Peak EB-5 projects.  Instead of
investigating Mr. Hulme's allegations in 2012, the Vermont
Regional EB-5 Center vouched for the developers and forced Rapid
USA, which had other clients in Vermont including Mount Snow
Resort, out of the state.

Before and after Mr. Hulme blew the whistle on the developers,
state officials told investors that the projects promoted by
Messrs. Stenger and Quiros were safe investments.  In marketing
materials, the two developers, and Gov. Peter Shumlin, claimed the
projects were audited by the state. Shumlin, U.S. Sen. Patrick
Leahy, D-Vermont, and U.S. Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vermont, promoted
Jay Peak to potential investors in China.

Despite Mr. Hulme's warning to state officials in 2012, the fraud
continued through April 2016 when the Securities and Exchange
Commission charged Messrs. Quiros and Stenger with
misappropriating $200 million in immigrant investment funds.

Many investors say it was the state's stamp of approval that gave
the projects legitimacy. More than 800 were allegedly defrauded by
Messrs. Stenger and Quiros, according to the SEC.

In the civil complaint against the state, five immigrants,
including Tony Sutton, a British investor in the Tram Haus Lodge,
and Wei Wang, a Chinese investor in AnC Bio Vermont, a proposed
biomedical facility, charge that state officials were at best
"grossly negligent" and at worst intimately involved in a
conspiracy to cover up their joint improprieties with the
developers.

Mr. Sutton and his attorneys allege that the state effectively
acted as partners in the alleged fraud at Jay Peak Resort.  The
16-count class action lawsuit alleges that the state failed to
perform due diligence in reviewing the projects, failed to monitor
the projects, violated securities laws, profited at the expense of
investors, misrepresented its oversight role to investors, and
failed to follow up on red flags that would have uncovered the
scheme.

Sutton, in 2014, asked Pat Moulton, the former secretary of the
Agency of Commerce and Community Development, to investigate
allegations that the developers had illegally used investor funds
to purchase the Jay Peak Resort in 2008.

Ms. Moulton came to the defense of the Jay Peak developers and
ignored Mr. Sutton's request.  Ms. Moulton is named in the class
action investor lawsuit, as is James Candido, Brent Raymond and
Eugene Fullam, the former directors of the regional center; Joan
Goldstein, the interim director of the center; William Carrigan,
deputy commissioner of the Securities Division; Michael Pieciak
and Susan Donegan, the current and former commissioners of the
Department of Financial Regulation; Lawrence Miller, former
secretaries of the commerce agency; and John Kessler, general
counsel for the commerce agency.

Ms. Donegan refused service of the plaintiffs' lawsuit, according
to an affidavit. [GN]


VITAMIN SHOPPE: "Nathan" Suit Moved to S. Dist. of Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Andrea Nathan, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated and the general public,
Plaintiff v. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 37-02017-
00023258-CU-BT-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of
California, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego) on August 8, 2017. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01590-DMS-RBB to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Dana M. Sabraw.

Vitamin Shoppe is a retailer of nutritional products and sports
supplements as well as herbs, homeopathic remedies, and beauty
aids.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
   The Law Office of Paul K. Joseph, PC
   4125 West Point Loma Blvd., No. 206
   San Diego, CA 92110
   Tel: (619) 767-0356
   Fax: (619) 331-2943
   Email: paul@pauljosephlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Amy B Alderfer, Esq.
   Cozen O'Connor
   601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
   Los Angeles, CA 90017
   Tel: (213) 892-7941
   Fax: (213) 784-9067
   Email: aalderfer@cozen.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Summer Alleges Price-Fixing of Luxury Cars
---------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN SUMMER, MICHAEL VIGORITO, and VICTOR VILAPLANA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
VOLKSWAGEN AG, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., BENTLEY MOTORS
LIMITED, AUDI AG, AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC, DR.
ING. H.C.F. PORSCHE AG, PORSCHE CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
DAIMLER AG, MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, MERCEDES-BENZ VANS, LLC,
MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC., BMW AG and BMW NORTH
AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-05740 (D.N.J., August 4, 2017),
alleges violations of antitrust laws.

The case follows stunning revelations of a decades-long conspiracy
where the "German Five" carmakers held themselves out to be fierce
competitors, but in reality were functioning as divisions of a
single massive company, agreeing on nearly every aspect of the
creation of their cars, unbeknownst to the millions of consumers,
who thought they were the beneficiaries of innovation and
competition, the Plaintiffs allege.  Through thousands of meetings
and constant communication between hundreds of employees, Audi,
BMW, Daimler (parent of Mercedes), Porsche and Volkswagen
conspired not to compete on innovation, and worked together to
keep it all secret, the Plaintiffs say.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David R. Buchanan, Esq.
          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          550 Broad Street, Suite 920
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          Facsimile: (973) 639-9393
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                  dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Scullion, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: jscullion@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
          Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
          Carmen A. Medici, 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: patc@rgrdlaw.com
                  davidm@rgrdlaw.com
                  bomara@rgrdlaw.com
                  xanb@rgrdlaw.com
                  cmedici@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          Steven M. Mckany, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
                  smckany@robbinsarroyo.com


VOLUME SERVICES: Class Certification Bid in "Allchin" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the case captioned MARK ALLCHIN and DAVID FOSTER,
individuals, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. VOLUME SERVICES, INC. dba CENTERPLATE and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00488-H-KSC(S.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiffs are employees of the Defendant.  Allchin has been
employed by the Defendant since 1993 and has worked exclusively at
the San Diego Convention Center and Qualcomm Stadium.  Foster has
been employed by Defendant since 2011 and also worked exclusively
at the San Diego Convention Center and Qualcomm Stadium.  They
allege that the Defendant has failed to properly compensate
employees for their overtime and improperly provided employees
with inaccurate paystubs.  They filed this case as a purported
class action and now seek to certify three classes, including one
subclass.

The first class, the Overtime Class, includes all current and
former non-exempt employees of the Defendant within the State of
California who were compensated, at least in part, by service
charge distributions and who worked overtime hours.  The second
class, the Late Pay Subclass, is a subclass of the Overtime Class
and includes any member of the Overtime Class who also did not
receive all their full overtime wages upon termination or
resignation.  The third class, the Inaccurate Pay Statement Class,
includes all current and former non-exempt employees of the
Defendants within the State of California who were not provided
with an accurate, itemized pay statement reflecting (i) all
applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
corresponding number of hours worked by the employee at each
hourly rate, or (ii) reflecting the name and address of the legal
entity that is the employer.  Finally, the fourth class, the UCL
Class, is a derivative class, consisting of all members of the
other classes.

The alleged injury to the Overtime Class and the Late Pay Subclass
stems from the claim that the Defendant improperly calculated the
amount of overtime pay for employees receiving service charge
distributions.  The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant failed to
include service charges in the calculation of employees' regular
pay rates for purposes of determining the proper overtime rate.
Thus, as a result of this miscalculation, neither class received
their entire compensation.

The alleged injury to the Inaccurate Pay Statement Class stems
from misstatements in employee's pay statements.  The Plaintiffs
argue that employees' pay statements violated the California Labor
Code because they did not, for example, include all hourly rates
or the name and address of the employer.

Judge Huff held that plaintiffs bear the burden of affirmatively
demonstrating they have satisfied all of the prerequisites of a
class action.  Here, they Plaintiffs have not done so.  The record
before her is limited to facts concerning the Named Plaintiffs,
and offers almost no details as to other class members.
Similarly, the Plaintiffs have failed to address differences
between Named Plaintiffs' employment and that of other class
members such as differences in unionization and the impact of
collective bargaining agreements.  With no evidence regarding
other class members, she is unable to assess similarities and
differences between Named Plaintiffs and the classes they seek to
represent.  As such, Judge Huff cannot find that Rule 23's
prerequisites are met and must, thus, she denied certification.
Furthermore, pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, the parties
were to complete discovery by Jan. 12, 2017.  Because the
discovery deadline has already passed, she denied certification
with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/gmp0PJ from Leagle.com.

Mark Allchin, Petitioner, represented by Andrew Michael Greene --
agreene@salisburylegal.com -- Greene Law Offices.

Mark Allchin, Petitioner, represented by Lawrence J. Salisbury --
lsalisbury@salisburylegal.com -- Salisbury Legal Corp & Mark A.
Redmond -- nrr@markredmondlaw.com -- Law Offices of Mark A Redmond
PC.

David Foster, Petitioner, represented by Andrew Michael Greene,
Greene Law Offices, Lawrence J. Salisbury, Salisbury Legal Corp &
Mark A. Redmond, Law Offices of Mark A Redmond PC.

Volume Services, Inc., Respondent, represented by Evelina
Shpolyansky -- evelina.shpolyansky@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg
LLP, Scott J. Witlin -- scott.witlin@btlaw.com -- Barnes &
Thornburg, LLP & Steve Lou Hernandez -- stevelouesq@yahoo.com --
Barnes & Thornburg LLP.


WALGREENS: Faces Class Action Over New Sweetened Beverage Tax
-------------------------------------------------------------
Becky Yerak, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
Schaumburg man is suing Walgreens for allegedly wrongly charging
Cook County's new sweetened beverage tax on unsweetened sparkling
water.

The lawsuit, filed on Aug. 4 by Vincent De Leon, comes days after
the county's penny-per-ounce tax took effect.

The tax went into effect on Aug. 2 and applies to nonalcoholic
beverages that are either sugar- or artificially sweetened,
including fountain drinks as well as bottled and canned beverages.

LaCroix and similar flavored bubbly waters, such as Perrier and
Soleil, aren't supposed to be taxed because they're not sweetened.
But some retailers experienced snafus in implementing the tax.
Walgreens, for example, said that it "inadvertently coded" some
products incorrectly, but that it was "working to resolve this
complex issue as soon as possible."

De Leon is seeking a jury trial and class-action status for his
lawsuit, which was filed in Cook County Circuit Court.

"Even the architect of the tax, Cook County Board President
Toni Preckwinkle, recently tweeted that unsweetened beverages are
not subject to the pop tax," says the lawsuit, which includes a
screen grab of her tweet.

"Walgreens has publicly admitted it is wrongly charging the pop
tax on unsweetened beverages -- and yet it continues to do so
without informing customers that they are being wrongly charged,"
the lawsuit says.  "Despite knowing that it has improperly coded
its products, Walgreens has not taken any steps to provide
corrections at the cash register."

De Leon's lawsuit says he bought Dasani Tropical Pineapple
Sparkling Water, labeled as unsweetened, from a Walgreens store in
Hoffman Estates on Aug. 4 and was charged the sweetened beverage
tax.

The lawsuit also says a Walgreens store in Western Springs charged
the tax on a case of Dasani Black Cherry Sparkling Water that was
labeled as unsweetened. The lawsuit included photos of the water
and the receipt.  The drugstore chain also charged the sweetened
beverage tax on Lipton Pure Leaf Unsweetened Green Tea, the
lawsuit says.

Walgreens spokesman Phil Caruso declined to comment on the
lawsuit.

Meanwhile, a state appeals court on Aug. 7 denied a request from a
group of retailers to put the controversial tax on hold once
again.

The Illinois Retail Merchants Association sued the county in June,
alleging the tax is unconstitutional and too vague to implement.
The legal battle delayed the tax for a month.

Cook County Circuit Judge Daniel Kubasiak dismissed the suit July
28 and dissolved a temporary restraining order that blocked
implementation of the tax.  But the merchants group is appealing
the ruling and asked the appeals court to reinstate the court
order blocking the tax.

Preckwinkle spokesman Frank Shuftan said county officials "applaud
the appellate court's decision."

"We believe this was the appropriate action by the court, and we
appreciate the quick action by the justices," Mr. Shuftan said.
[GN]


WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over Kids' Data Privacy Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Bisson, writing for Graham Cluley, reports that two
plaintiffs have filed a class-action lawsuit against The Walt
Disney Company for wrongfully exfiltrating children's personally
identifying information.

Amanda Rushing and her child "L.L." submitted their claims to the
San Francisco/Oakland Division of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on August 3.  In so doing, they
brought action on themselves and all others who feel Disney did
not abide by existing data protection laws when designing some of
its mobile apps. Their complaint seeks to try Disney and its
partners by jury for their alleged violations.

The class-action lawsuit reaches back to 14 January 2014 when Ms.
Rushing installed one of Disney's apps called "Disney Princess
Palace Pets" onto L.L.'s device. L.L. thereafter played the game
on an ongoing basis. Unbeknownst to them or their mother, L.L.
inadvertently handed over their personal information to Disney
while they played the game.

As it turns out, Disney had consulted with three partners to
insert advertising-specific software development kits (SDKs) into
Disney Princess Palace Pets and some of its other applications.
These SDKs gather pieces of data and help advertisers detect a
user's activity via persistent identifiers.  SDK providers can
subsequently use these persistent identifiers to track someone
across multiple devices and apps with the intention of serving
targeted ads.

SDKs are not illegal on their own.  But app developers can
leverage them in ways that violate data protection laws.

Take Disney. As its apps target mainly children aged 13 years and
under, the entertainment conglomerate is supposed to follow the
Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA), which among
other things requires developers to obtain parents' permission
before they collect children's personally identifying information.
Well, Disney allegedly never requested Ms. Rushing's permission at
the time of installation, following installation, or on the home
page of the Disney Palace Princess Pets app.  Hence Ms. Rushing
and L.L.'s claims that the company committed "highly offensive"
intrusions into their privacy.

As the complaint states:

"The ability to serve behavioral advertisements to a specific user
no longer turns upon obtaining the kinds of data with which most
consumers are familiar (email addresses, etc), but instead on the
surreptitious collection of persistent identifiers, which are used
in conjunction with other data points to build robust online
profiles.  Permitting technology companies to obtain persistent
identifiers associated with children exposes them to the
behavioral advertising (as well as other privacy violations) that
COPPA was designed to prevent."

Ms. Rushing and L.L. want Disney and its partners to stop
wrongfully collecting children's information and to award
appropriate relief to everyone affected.

This isn't the first time Disney, which refused to pay
extortionists earlier in the year, has run afoul of privacy laws.

In 2011, the company paid $3 million to settle a complaint that
Playdom, Disney's online game developer which suffered a breach in
August 2016, illegally collected and disclosed children's
information.  Three years later, the Center for Digital Democracy
filed a complaint alleging similar violations against the
conglomerate's Marvelkids.com.

Given this track record, parents and their children might want to
think carefully about downloading one of Disney's apps.  Maybe
just put on one of the princess movies instead . . . [GN]


WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Sarrell Seeks Collective Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MICHAEL SARRELL, Individually, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. WAUPACA FOUNDRY, INC., a Wisconsin Corporation,
formerly THYSSENKRUPP WAUPACA, INC., KPS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, a
Delaware Limited Partnership, and HITACHI METALS AMERICA LTD.,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00056-TRM-SKL (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs moves the Court to
issue an Order:

   1. authorizing this case to proceed as a collective action
      against Defendants Waupaca Foundry, Inc. (formerly
      Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc.), KPS Capital Partners, LP, and
      Hitachi Metals America Ltd., Inc. (collectively "Waupaca"
      or "Defendants") to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
     liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory
      penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and other damages
      owed, for overtime wage violations under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of
      hourly-paid employees who were required to wear protective
      safety gear and items ("Protective Safety Geared employees)
      throughout Waupaca's foundries located in Tennessee,
      Indiana, and Pennsylvania during the last three years;

   2. directing Waupaca to immediately provide a list of names,
      last known addresses and email addresses, and last known
      telephone numbers for all putative class members within the
      last three years;

   3. providing that notice be prominently posted at each of
      Waupaca's production facilities in Tennessee, Indiana, and
      Pennsylvania where putative class members work, be attached
      to its current hourly-paid Protective Safety Geared
      employees' next scheduled pay check, and be mailed to each
      such current and former hourly-paid Protective Safety
      Geared employee who was so employed in Waupaca's foundries
      located in Tennessee, Indiana, and Pennsylvania during the
      last three years so each can assess their claims on a
      timely basis as part of this litigation;

   4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative Class
      as of the date this motion is granted (except for those who
      already have opted into this action); and

   5. requiring that the Opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent Forms be
      deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked (except for
      those who already have opted into this action).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VNuNfR2V

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          James L. Holt, Jr., 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
                  jholt@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


WELLS FARGO: Card Processing Unit Sued Over Excessive Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Daniels and Evan Weinberger, writing for Law360, report
that a pair of small businesses hit Wells Fargo Merchant Services
with a putative class action in New York federal court on Aug. 4
alleging it misleads customers and charged excessive fees for its
credit- and debit-card-processing services.

Patti's Pitas LLC, a shuttered Pennsylvania restaurant, and Queen
City Tours, a tour operator in Charlotte, North Carolina, claim
Wells Fargo Merchant Services inflates "pass through" costs,
increases agreed-upon fees, and imposes new charges without
telling new customers about these costs when they sign up -- and
that it also charges a $500 termination fee if they want to end
their services.

The plaintiffs say hundreds of thousands of merchants have been
damaged by Wells Fargo Merchant Services' alleged wrongful
conduct.

"As a consequence of defendant's overbilling policies and
practices, plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class have
been wrongfully forced to pay unauthorized fees and charges," the
suit says.  "Defendant has improperly deprived plaintiffs and
those similarly situated of significant funds, causing
ascertainable monetary losses and damages."

The defendant is co-owned by Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and First Data
Merchant Services Corporation, the suit says.

Sara Hassell, a spokesperson for Wells Fargo, told Law360 that the
accusations in the complaint do not reflect how the company
operates its Merchant Services business.

"We believe our negotiated pricing terms are fair and were
administered appropriately," Ms. Hassell said.  "We deny the
claims and plan to defend against the misrepresentations outlined
in the lawsuit."

The complaint claims Wells Fargo Merchant Services dupes customers
from the start by making promises it doesn't intend to keep about
its fee structure and periodic charges.  Its contractual terms are
included in a "massive" 63-page program guide filled with fine
print that would take an expert attorney weeks to read and
understand, the suit says.

Sales reps also tell the defendants they can cancel without a
penalty, even though merchants often have to pay an early
termination fee should they seek to cancel within a mandatory
three-year period, the complaint says.

Queen City Tours says it negotiated a contract that had no monthly
minimum charge, but wound up paying $35 for a "monthly service
fee" even if it didn't have any transaction activity. It was also
hit with a $10 statement billing fee after cancelling paper
statements, despite a contract footnote saying the fee would be
waived if the customer signed up for electronic billing, the
complaint says.

Patti's Pitas says it stopped using Wells Fargo Merchant Services
after its business shut down in May of this year -- but it was
continually charged fees until the owner complained.

"Fortunately, by the time the business closed, Wells Fargo's
improper sales practices had already come to light so, when the
owner of Patti's Pitas informed defendant that he had not been
told about a three-year term, defendant closed the account without
a termination fee," the complaint says.  "Most of defendant's
customers are not so fortunate, rather they are put to a Hobson's
Choice -- pay the early termination fee, usually $500, or accept
the overbilling for three years."

Claims include breach of contract and breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiffs seek restitution of
any improper fees, disgorgement and other damages.

The new complaint is the latest in a series of actions against
Wells Fargo since September 2016, when it agreed to pay $185
million in a settlement with the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Los
Angeles City Attorney's office over the creation of more than 2
million deposit and credit card accounts.  It later agreed to a
$142 million class settlement with customers who allege they
suffered financial losses from unauthorized accounts that were
opened in their names.

Then, in late July, Wells Fargo said it would reimburse $80
million to approximately 570,000 car loan borrowers who were
wrongly charged by the bank for insurance.

The Aug. 4 complaint puts the merchant services suit in the
context of the "dramatic revelations" about Wells Fargo's business
practices, citing regulatory scrutiny, press reports and legal
action.

E. Adam Webb of Webb Klase & Lemond LLC, the attorney for the
plaintiffs, told Law360 it has become "obvious over the past year
that Wells Fargo had a corporate culture which emphasized revenue
and profit over honorable business practices."

"In April of 2017, internal reports surfaced that confirmed that
this culture had infected the Merchant Services division, which
provides the vital service of credit [and] debit card processing
to many mom-and-pop businesses," Webb said. "We have now seen
evidence of this through the experiences of our clients, who
learned the hard way that profit trumps promises at Wells Fargo
Merchant Services."

A spokesperson for First Data declined to comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by E. Adam Webb of Webb Klase &
Lemond LLC.

Counsel information for Wells Fargo Merchant Services LLC wasn't
immediately available.

The case is Patti's Pitas LLC et al. v. Wells Fargo Merchant
Services LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-04583 (E.D.N.Y.).  The case is
assigned to Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry.  The case was filed
August 4, 2017. [GN]


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces "Zeiger" Suit Over "DHA" Label in Milk
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAN ZEIGER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated
v. WHITEWAVE FOODS COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:17-
cv-04464-EDL (N.D. Cal., August 4, 2017), alleges violations of
the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law
created by the Defendant's alleged advertising, including false
labeling of their line of milk products fortified with "DHA"
derived from algae under its brand name "Horizon Organic."

DHA is one of several omega-3 fatty-acids in the human diet.
These include alphalinolenic acid ("ALA"), the only omega-3 fatty
acid considered essential in the diet, and eicosapentaenoic acid
("EPA") and docosahexaenoic acid ("DHA").  The Plaintiff tells the
Court that front and center and prominently featured by itself in
a white banner running across the front of each and every milk
carton, the Defendant states "DHA Omega-3 Supports Brain Health."
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's Milk Products do not
"support brain health" as the Defendant represents on the Milk
Products' packaging and labeling.

WhiteWave Foods Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dean Foods,
is organized and existing under the laws of the state of
Delaware with its headquarters located in Broomfield,
Colorado.  WhiteWave Foods manufactured, advertised, marketed, and
sold the DHA-fortified milk to tens of thousands of consumers
nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798-4593
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  claliberte@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart Weltman, Esq.
          Michael Chang, Esq.
          SIPRUT, P.C.
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: sweltman@siprut.com
                  mchang@siprut.com


WILCOX DEVELOPMENT: "Mejia" Suit Alleges FLSA, NYLL Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELVIN MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against WILCOX DEVELOPMENT CORP., STOP & STOR
NEW YORK'S SELF STORAGE LEADER LLC, NEIL SIMON, and JEFF HENICK,
jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04304
(E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2017), alleges that Defendants initially paid
Plaintiff on a daily basis, then on an hourly basis, but never
paid him overtime premium pay for hours worked over forty (40) in
a given workweek.

Plaintiff brings this action to recover unpaid overtime wages owed
to him pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.  Plaintiff also brings this action to recover
damages for Defendants' failure to provide proper wage statements
and wage notices pursuant to the NYLL and supporting regulations.

Plaintiff worked as a construction worker and laborer for
Defendants' general contracting and storage facilities company.
Plaintiff brings his FLSA claim on behalf of himself and all other
laborers, construction workers, and demolition workers of
Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
     Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
     PELTON GRAHAM LLC
     111 Broadway, Suite 1503
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: (212) 385-9700


WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: "Embree" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled TOMMY J. EMBREE, the Plaintiff, v. WYNDHAM
WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, WYNDHAM VACATION REPORTS, INC., WYNDHAM
VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC. FAIRSHARE VACATION OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
RCI LLC, TERRI DOST, PETER HERNANDEZ and ROB HEBELER, Case No.
6:16-cv-00928-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
certify a class of:

   "all persons and entities who are citizens of the United
   States of America and who on or after March 14, 2008: (1)
   purchased a timeshare with a Property Interest (or the Use
   Rights therein) subject to the Fairshare Vacation Plan Use
   Management Trust or (2) purchased (including upgrading or
   refinancing) a Property Interest (or the Use Rights therein)
   previously subject to the Fairshare Vacation Plan Use
   Management Trust".

The Plaintiff challenges the Individual Defendants improper use of
an Arkansas Trust to reap enormous profits at the expense of the
Trust's beneficiaries -- including Plaintiff and members of the
putative class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0210bOxe

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223 5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  pbarthle@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          James M. Terrell, Esq.
          MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, PA
          2201 Arlington Ave. S
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205)939 0199
          Facsimile: (205)939 0399

               - and -

          Bradford D. Barron, Esq.
          THE BARRON LAW FIRM, PLLC
          P.O. Box 369
          Claremore, Ok 74018
          Telephone: (918) 341 8402
          Facsimile: (918) 515 4691

               - and -

          Richard F. Hatfield, Esq.
          RICHARD F. HATFILED, PA
          401 W. Capital Ave., Suite 502
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501)374 9010
          Facsimile: (501)374 8510

The Defendants are represented by:

          David E. Cannella, Esq.
          Chris Coutroulis, Esq.
          D. Mathew Allen, Esq.
          450 S. Orange Ave., Suite 500
          Orlando, FL 34760
          E-mail: dcannella@carltonfields.com
                  ccoutroulis@carltonfields.com
                  mallen@carltonfields.com


ZODIAC U.S.: Approval of Settlement in "Cuzick" Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled KYLE CUZICK, on behalf of himself, and all
others similarly situated, the vPlaintiff, v. ZODIAC U.S. SEAT
SHELLS, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-03793-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order to:

   1. grant preliminary approval of the terms of the Stipulation
      as fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the amount of
      the settlement; the amount of distributions to class
      members; the procedure for giving notice to class members;
      the procedure for opting out of the settlement; and the
      amounts allocated to the enhancement payments and
      attorney's fees and costs;

   2. preliminarily certify for settlement purposes the
      Settlement Class described in the Stipulation as follows:

      "all individuals who are or who have been employed by
      Defendant in California as a non-exempt employee during any
      portion of the Settlement Class Period (the period from May
      25, 2012, through the date of preliminary approval);

   3. appoint Plaintiff as representative for the Settlement
      Class;

   4. appoint Setareh Law Group as counsel for the Settlement
      Class;

   5. approve ILYM Group, Inc. as the settlement administrator;

   6. direct that notice issue to members of the Settlement Class
      as provided in the Stipulation; and

   7. schedule a final approval and fairness hearing on a date
      approximately 140 days after preliminary approval (April 8,
      2018 is proposed) to consider whether the Stipulation
      should be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate
      under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
      and to rule on the motion for attorney's fees, costs and
      enhancement award submitted by Plaintiff.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


* Boyd County, Ky. Mulls Suit Against Opioid Distributors
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Adkins, writing for The Daily Independent, reports that
heroin in the streets didn't spark the vicious drug epidemic
throttling Boyd County, Sheriff Bobby Jack Woods argued as he
urged the fiscal court to file suit against opioid distributors.

"We need to hold them accountable for the problems that started
here in Boyd County," he said.

Sheriff Woods made his recommendation in a fiscal court meeting.
He cited a discussion he and Judge-Executive Steve Towler had in
late July with officials of the Kentucky Association of Counties
who educated them on their legal options.

Government bodies across Kentucky, West Virginia and Ohio are
pouncing on the chance to sue opioid-distributing corporations.
They're partnering with law firms -- Greene, Ketchum Farrell
Bailey & Tweel of Huntington -- in pursuit of millions of dollars
in damages.

Cabell County hired the Huntington firm and filed suit in March
against mega-corporations distributing the drug, according to the
suit filed in federal court.

The suit alleges the companies sold 40 million doses of opioid
pain medicine in Cabell County between 2007 and 2012.  The
county's population hovered around 94,000 in the same time span.

Federal law requires drug distributors to report any suspicious
controlled substance orders by pharmacies to authorities. The
wholesale distributors "breached their duty to monitor, detect,
investigate, refuse and report suspicious orders of prescription
opiates originating from Cabell County," the suit alleges.

Greene Ketchum is representing Kanawha County, W. Va. and Clermont
County, Ohio in similar litigation.

Like Clermont, Boyd County could sue opioid wholesalers on the
grounds they caused a "public nuisance," by allegedly contributing
to the opioid abuse and dependency, Woods said.

"I don't know why we wouldn't get on board with this," said
Mr. Towler.  "Most people recognize we have an addiction problem,
and a lot of people believe these companies are partly at fault."

The opioid epidemic has pummeled Boyd more than any other county
in eastern Kentucky.  Boyd reported 30 overdoses last year, the
sixth most in the state behind Jefferson, Fayette, Boone, Campbell
and Kenton.  Boyd's population of 48,000 is the 16th highest in
the state and nearly half the size of Campbell's -- the least
populated of the five.

The overdose death totals in Boyd have escalated since 2009 when
nine reportedly fatally overdosed.  Thirteen overdosed and died in
2014.  The next year, 24 died.  And, the county is on track this
year to catapult beyond last year's total.

The Boyd coroner has confirmed 23 overdose deaths as of July 31.

Addiction is not only leading to overdose deaths.  It's leading
otherwise law-abiding citizens to commit crimes, said Woods. It's
also draining resources from emergency responders.

Boyd EMS has treated at least 185 overdose patients this year
according to Director Tom Adams.  The agency is on pace to spend
$30,000 on the overdose-reversing drug Narcan in 2017.  The EMS
Narcan budget was $1,200 eight years ago.

Pending litigation filed against wholesalers seeks reimbursement
of "the costs associated with past efforts to eliminate the
hazards to public health and safety."

If Boyd filed suit and was successful in its suit the county could
use settlement money to fund emergency services, law enforcement,
the coroner's office, the jail, rehabilitation and treatment
centers.  The financially-strapped Boyd County 911 center could
also benefit, Woods said.

The county would likely not be on the hook for legal fees if it
sues wholesale distributors according to KACo.  Greene Ketchum
agreed to work for Cabell County on a contingency basis.  The law
firm would receive 30 percent of any potential damages won but
won't charge the county if no damages are awarded.

Boyd would not be the only Kentucky county looking for perceived
compensation from wholesalers.

Harlan County announced plans to join Bell and other southeastern
counties last month in a class-action suit against three
distributors.

The state of Kentucky is also pursuing ancillary litigation.
Kentucky Attorney General Andy Beshear announced in June a lawsuit
against drug manufacturers who he claims illegally marketed
opioids to patients.  The state reached a $24 million settlement
with Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of oxycontin, in 2015, the
year a record-high 1,248 fatally overdosed.

The state record was short-lived. Last year, 1,404 died after
overdosing in Kentucky.

The Boyd Fiscal Court took no action after Sheriff Woods asked the
fiscal court to consider his request.

Mr. Towler believes the process could take three-to-five years.

"But it could be worth it," he said. [GN]


* CFBP Rule to Benefit Class-Action Lawyers Than Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------
According to The Wall Street Journal, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown's
Aug. 1 letter "The Arbitration Rule Saves Consumers From Big
Banks" accuses Journal editorial writers of "carefully select[ing]
statistics" to criticize the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau's recently finalized anti-arbitration rule.  But he's
rather selective himself by failing to acknowledge that the new
rule's biggest beneficiaries will not be allegedly cheated
consumers but wealthy class-action lawyers who happen to comprise
his party's most reliably generous campaign contributors. [GN]


* Class Action Attorneys Continue to Target Food Companies
----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that plaintiffs
attorneys who target food and beverage companies with class action
lawsuits are showing no signs of slowing down, according to
analysis from international law firm Perkins Coie that also shows
California's lawyers are the most active.

Two members of the firm hosted a mid-year summary on food and
beverage class actions on Aug. 2, presenting figures that show
2017 is on pace for a similar amount of filings as the previous
two years.  With 83 cases filed in the first seven months of the
year, Perkins Coie projects 143 for the year.

That's nearly identical to 2016 (145 lawsuits) and a little behind
2015 (158). In 2008, there were only 19.

"There's been a return to California as the forum of preference
for food and beverage class action lawsuits," Perkins Coie's
Charles Sipos said during a one-hour webinar.

In fact, California courts have seen 47 food industry class
actions in 2017, compared to only 12 by second-place New York.

It's a larger gap than last year, when 65 were filed in California
and 35 in New York.

Legal Newsline has reported on several of these cases, which boil
down to a few separate types of claims.

There are lawsuits in which consumers claim they were misled into
buying the product. Such was the case in Vicky Silva's Oregon
lawsuit that says she thought coconut-flavored sparkling water
would contain coconut milk or water.

The company argued that a label on the product stated: "Contains
no coconut."

Similarly, lawsuits have been filed against the makers of ginger
ale. Plaintiffs allege there is no ginger in the soda, despite
being marketed as so.

Lawsuits alleging false or misleading claims make up the majority
of cases filed since 2015. So far, 40 have been filed in 2017.

Nineteen lawsuits this year have alleged companies falsely use the
phrase "all natural" to describe their products.

Defendants, like Utz and salad dressing maker Annie's Homegrown,
are facing these cases despite a lack of federal guidance on what
makes a food "natural."  Plaintiffs and their lawyers say some
products labeled that way actually contain non-natural, artificial
and synthetic ingredients and preservatives.

"The (Food and Drug Administration) does have an informal policy,
but that policy has not been given the weight of law," Mr. Sipos
said.

In fact, Mr. Sipos said Congress is tiring of the FDA's delay,
given that it was asked in November 2015 to define "natural." More
than 7,600 comments have been submitted to the FDA.

A pending appropriations bill would force the FDA to act.  The
agency would be required to report to Congress 60 days after the
bill's passage on the status of its rulemaking activity.

"It encourages the FDA to promulgate a regulation to have some
sort of uniform, standard use for that term," Mr. Sipos said,
adding that it shows Congress prefers regulation to litigation to
settle the issue.

In the meantime, judges have stayed some of these cases, but a
couple of stays have been recently lifted.

Another main type of food and beverage class action concerns
"slack fill," the amount of empty space in packaging.  Plaintiffs
allege they are tricked by the size of the package and upset to
find how much actual product is inside.

Muscle Milk received a favorable decision in New York federal
court late last year, but that hasn't stopped plaintiffs
attorneys.

Among the products mentioned in these cases are Jolly Ranchers,
Hot Tamales, Mike and Ikes, Whoppers, Ice Breakers, Reese's Pieces
and pepper.

Unlike the term "natural," slack fill has an official definition
from the FDA, but defendants argue it can be necessary and useful.
Plus, labels show the products' weight and how many servings are
inside.

Fourteen of these cases have been filed in 2017, according to
Perkins Coie.  There were 37 last year and 30 in 2015.

Missouri is a jurisdiction to watch for these cases, Breena Roos
said during the webinar.  The state has recently drawn attention
from legal reformers as a result of massive verdicts in talcum
powder litigation in St. Louis.

"The reason why Missouri is targeted, in state court at least, is
they're considered a very plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction and it's
quite difficult to get a case dismissed early on," Mr. Sipos
added.

The state saw 14 food and beverage class actions last year, third-
most in the country.  This year, there have been six.

Still, California remains the king.  If a plaintiffs attorney
can't get a nationwide class certified by a judge, it makes sense
to focus on the laws of a state with a large population to create
large statewide class.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco
has given district courts leeway to determine if plaintiffs'
damages models are accurate enough when certifying a class,
Mr. Sipos said.


Other favorable rulings make it harder for defendants to win their
motions to dismiss, he added.

"Defendants would be well-served picking apart damages models and
demonstrating that the models proffered might not have a tight
enough relationship to putative class members or might not be
reflective of actual market data," Mr. Sipos said. [GN]


* Texas' Hensarling Mulls Contempt Charge v. CFPB Director
----------------------------------------------------------
Tory Newmyer, writing for The Washington Post, reports that the
dog days of summer will be especially hot for the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau.  Its push to enable class-action
lawsuits against financial firms is setting up a defining clash
with Wall Street interests.  The battle will come to a head in
September, when Senate Republicans aim to sink the agency's
proposed ban on contracts that lock consumers out of suing their
banks.

The industry is already fighting back.  And, as in the health-care
debate that swallowed the summer, a handful of Senate Republicans
will determine the outcome. House Republicans voted in January to
scupper the rule.  Their colleagues across the Capitol need to
muster a simple majority to follow suit, which also means they can
afford only minimal defections. One has already declared himself,
as the Wall Street Journal's Andrew Ackerman reported on Aug. 4:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) in an interview said he opposed the
resolution, saying arbitration is "a windfall for the companies in
terms of how you settle their cheating."

"You've had banks and credit-card companies nickel-and-diming
consumers, and one of the things that makes them think twice is
the idea of a massive lawsuit," Mr. Graham said.  "Nobody is going
to get a lawyer over a $10 overcharge, but when you overcharge
millions of people $10, the bank or the credit-card company makes
out like a bandit" in arbitration.

Those on the bubble include the three Republican senators who sunk
the party's Obamacare repeal drive. Susan Collins of Maine and
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have said they're undecided on the
matter; and it's not clear whether John McCain (Ariz.) will be
back in time for a vote after undergoing treatment for brain
cancer. John Kennedy (R) of Louisiana also says he has yet to make
up his mind.

With a broader rewrite of post-crisis regulation barely budging in
the Senate, the debate offers the Trump era's first live-
ammunition test of Wall Street's mettle in the upper chamber.  The
industry is facing off against labor unions, the progressive grass
roots and the trial bar, forces that arguably enjoy the political
upper hand.  Marginal Republicans know a vote against the CFPB
could be seen as anti-consumer.

The five-year-old agency already repulsed a similar challenge to
its authority back in May, when Senate Republicans couldn't
marshal the votes to kill a CFPB rule regulating prepaid debit
cards. Advocates on both sides say the stakes are significantly
higher this time.

The CFPB faces a rear guard assault, meanwhile, from House
Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) for its
handling of the issue.  The Texas Republican is considering
whether to pursue a contempt of Congress charge against CFPB
director Richard Cordray, whom he says failed to comply with
subpoena requests from the panel related to the agency's work on
the rule.  Mr. Hensarling's committee issued a 36-page report on
Aug. 4 arguing that Mr. Cordray has ignored its document requests;
the CFPB maintains it has produced thousands of pages of documents
and is trying to cooperate.

Mr. Cordray provides a shrinking target.  The former Ohio attorney
general is widely expected to quit his post soon to mount a bid in
his home state's 2018 gubernatorial race. [GN]


* Washington Republicans Criticize CFPB's Arbitration Rule
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Wehrman, writing for CantonRep.com, reports that
Washington Republicans are sharply criticizing a rule that would
allow consumers to file class-action lawsuits against financial
companies -- the latest battle in an ongoing war between the GOP
and a consumer watchdog headed by former Ohio Attorney General
Richard Cordray.

In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a rule
barring financial service companies from inserting fine print into
contracts that would effectively prevent customers from filing
class-action lawsuits against them.  Instead, consumers with beefs
are forced into arbitration -- a process that involves a third
party who hammers out an agreement between the company and the
aggrieved.

Supporters of the rule say few customers are willing to enter
arbitration over a bank that erroneously charges, say, $20 and
won't refund the money.  But if a bank is doing it systematically,
a class-action lawsuit can stop them from ripping off hundreds,
maybe thousands of consumers -- and can also keep them from
ripping off people in the future.

The clauses, said Mr. Cordray, "block groups of consumers from
taking action together."  Without being able to sue, he argues,
"no justice is done, no deterrent achieved, no oversight of banks
can be had."

Opponents, meanwhile, argue the rule not only presents an easy
payday for trial lawyers -- it's a symbol, they say, of an agency
with too much unchecked power.

Those critics -- including Republicans and the banking industry
-- have been foes of the CFPB almost since the agency opened its
doors in 2011.  Because Mr. Cordray is appointed to a five-year
term and Congress has no financial power over his agency, they
argue that he is a one-man legislating machine.

"Everything about this says it's an abuse of power," said
Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Troy.  He said Mr. Cordray "doesn't ask
for the law to be changed.  He just issues an edict and expects
that it's going to be okay.

"He's not been elected to do this role," he said.  "He's not even
accountable to Congress or the president."

Some, including Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, chair of the House
Financial Services Committee, have called for Mr. Cordray to be
fired.  Short of that, though, critics are content in trying to
undo the agency's work.

In July, the House voted 231-190 to overturn the arbitration rule.
The Senate has until late September to follow suit.  Ohio
Democrats opposed overturning the rule; Ohio Republicans supported
doing so.

Critics say the CFPB itself has undermined its defense of the
rule, issuing a report finding that consumers who prevailed in
arbitration recovered on average $5,389 while those who joined
class actions received $32.  Trial lawyers on average raked in $1
million.

While arbitration is typically settled within a few months, they
say, class action lawsuits can take years to resolve.

But proponents say that incidents such as Wells Fargo's recent
scandal -- where it was found to have created millions of
unauthorized accounts in the names of its customers -- is evidence
enough that consumers need to have the right to sue. They say that
the new rule doesn't ban customers from seeking arbitration -- it
just gives them another alternative.

Melissa Stegmen, a senior counsel for the Center for Responsive
Lending, which supports the rule, said class action lawsuits are
"far more effective" for consumers than forced arbitration and
"keeps financial companies from exploiting consumers in the first
place."

While critics counter that class action lawsuits are a giveaway to
trial lawyers, Ms. Stegman has another perspective.  "Forced
arbitration is a giveaway to predatory lenders and those who want
to cheat consumers," she said.  "Because they're able to continue
their illegal conduct."

Others insist the rule will merely result in unnecessary
litigation.

Richard Hunt, president and CEO of the Consumer Bankers
Association calls the rule "a gift to trial lawyers."

"They'll make millions off of each case," he said.  "In some
cases, 50 percent of the monetary compensation goes to trial
lawyers."

He predicts the result will be that banking becomes more
expensive.

"There will be higher litigation costs to each bank for no
reason," he said.  "And the costs may be passed onto the
consumers."

Brian Quigley of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said while the rule
doesn't prohibit consumers from seeking arbitration, companies
"are not going to have two systems" of dealing with consumers.
It's too costly."

"The whole point of arbitration is to try to build a dispute
resolution system that's fast, efficient and more equitable to all
parties, customers included, that doesn't include all the
processes of the court that bog down cases for years," he said.

Mr. Quigley said most of the disputes credit card companies and
banks have with consumers are individualized -- not the sort of
thing that can be addressed in class action lawsuits.  "It's
unlikely there are 10,000 other customers that have exactly the
same problem that you do that can be bundled into a class action,"
he said.

"This rule will ultimately harm lots of customers," he said.
"because the effect is they will have no recourse."

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said despite the fact that nearly
every Republican on the Senate Banking Committee has cosponsored
the Senate bill to undo the rule, "there's a reluctance among a
lot of Senate Republicans" to actually undo it. Many, he said,
would prefer to "just let it die," Brown said.  He said that for
years, financial services have drawn up such contracts knowing
that few customers will read them and those that do won't
understand that they're giving up their right to sue.

Still, if Senate Republicans press on to undo the rule "I will be
leading the opposition," he said.

Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law
Center, said the issue is a constitutional one: People, she said,
are owed the right to a day in court under the 7th Amendment.

In the Wells Fargo case, for example, the bank created 3.5 million
fake accounts. "It's insane that people had to go one by one to
secretive arbitration," she said.  And she said the notion that
Cordray authorized the rule without congressional input is just
"more falsehood."  Congress, she said, ordered the agency to do a
study on forced arbitration in 2010, giving them the authority to
prohibit arbitration if it was in the public interest.  The
agency, she said, did not one, but two studies.  The rule, she
said is based on the findings of those studies.

The agency, she said, "is doing its job to protect consumers."
[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  * * *