CAR_Public/170817.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Thursday, August 17, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 162



                            Headlines

7-ELEVEN: Faces Class Action Over "Pop Tax" Collection
36 TOYAMA: "Basurto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
A-1 SYSTEMS: Class Action Over Hail Damage Solicitation Okayed
ALLEGHENY, PA: Faces Class Action Over Disability Benefits
ALLSEC TECHNOLOGIES: "Lipsey" Suit Alleges Misclassification

ALLSTATE FIRE: Bid to Compel Arbitration of Coverage Claims Denied
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: "Searle" Alleges Non-payment of OT Work
ANGIE'S LIST: Oct. 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid
ASHLEY MADISON: Jan. 2 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
ATHENE ANNUITY: Faces "Hughes" Suit Over Terms of GLWB Rider

BAYER AG: Judge to Decide on VitaCraves Class Suit Dismissal Bid
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Faces "Briscoe" Suit Over Emission Cheating
BEHR PROCESS: "Meyers" Sues Over DeckOver False Ad
BROOKLYN EVENTS: Class Action to Challenge "Ban the Box" Law
BUILDERS DISBURSEMENTS: Navarro Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls

C.L. WILLIAMS: Faces "Barber" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
CAL-MAINE FOODS: 3rd Cir. Appeal over Class Cert. Ruling Pending
CAPFUSION LLC: Menichiello Seeks to Certify 2 Classes Under TCPA
CENTENE CORP: Still Faces Federal Securities Suit in Missouri
CHICAGO BRIDGE: "Jones" Suit Claims "9/80" Pay Plan Unlawful

CLEARWATER, ID: Commissioners Approve AG's Defense in Class Action
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Class Action Mulled Over Money Laundering Probe
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Constantine" Suit Under FDCPA
CONVERGYS CORP: Class Action Waivers Enforceable, Court Rules
CSK AUTO: "Aguilar" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Law Violations

CVS HEALTH: NASP Responds to Class Action Over PBMs Collusion
DAIICHI SANKYO: Faces Lawsuits Over Benicar Side Effects
DAVID PURKEY: Court Denied Bid to Certify Class in "Shell" Suit
DIRECTV LLC: Faces "Guice" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
DIRECTV LLC: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Decision in "Cordoba" Suit

DITECH FINANCIAL: Faces "Nelson" Suit Over SCRA Interest Rate Cap
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid to Substitute Class Representative Denied
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Review Sought on Class Status Denial in "Brady"
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Still Faces Putative Securities Class Lawsuit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid to Dismiss ERISA Class Suit Still Ongoing

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Still Faces "Klein" Suit over EpiPen Products
EXPRESSWAY DELIVERIES: Faces "Munoz" Suit Under Cal. Labor Code
DEMOCRATIC NAT'L: Media Mum on Class Action v. Wasserman Schultz
FAGRON INC: Bobo's Drugs Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
FOUNDATION MEDICINE: Faces "Mahoney" Securities Class Action

FREDERICK-THOMPSON: "Al-Anazi" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
G5IVE LLC: Faces "Martinez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
GENERAL MOTORS: 100 Putative Class Actions Pending in US, Canada
GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal from Shareholder Class Settlement Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: Ontario Court Affirms 2015 Ruling in Dealers Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Still Faces Class Lawsuits on Emission Standards
GENERAL MOTORS: Takata Airbag Inflators Class Actions Ongoing
GERBER PRODUCTS: Wants Suit Over Good Start Gentle Formula Tossed
GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Faces "Askin" Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
GLOBALSCAPE INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action

GNC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Website
GOOGLE INC: Fired Software Engineer Files Pay Gap Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Altshuler Berzon Mulls Gender Pay Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Judge Okays $22.5MM AdWords Class Action Settlement
GOOGLE INC: 60+ Women May Join Pay Disparity Class Action

GREAT WALL SUPERMARKET: Rivera Sues over Unpaid Meal Breaks
GROUPON INC: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violation
GUARDNOW INC: "Colding" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Irsan Seeks to Certify Class of Muslim Inmates
HOME CAPITAL: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Aug. 21

HOME QUALITY: Faces "Blundell" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
HONEYWELL SAFETY: Class Certification in "McKnight" Suit Denied
IFCO SYSTEMS: Former Workers Seek Unpaid Vacation Pay
JACKSONVILLE, FL: Responds to Fairway Oaks Residents' Class Suit
JASON NATURAL: Sept. 18 Shampoo Settlement Claims Filing Deadline

JETSMARTER INC: Conditional Certification Granted in "Lamey" Suit
JUI LI ENTERPRISE: Court Certifies 17 Classes in Fond Du Lac Suit
KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE: Zayerz Moves for Class Certification
KINDER MORGAN: Landowners' Appeal on Class Status Bid Underway
KINDER MORGAN: Purported Class Litigation on EPB Merger Underway

KINDER MORGAN: Interlocutory Appeal in Wisconsin Suit Granted
KING BUFFET: Faces "Yu" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations
KONA SUSHI: "Boots" Files Suit Over Tip Pooling Scheme
KORONET PIZZA: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
LEACHVILLE, AR: Faces "Crocker" Suit Under FLSA, Ark. Wage Law

LIBERTY POWER: Faces "Kreke" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of TCPA
LIFE CARE: Faces "Lavrenyuk" Suit Under New York Labor Laws
LIVANOVA PLC: Faces Class Action Over Heater-Cooler Units
MAGIC TOUCH: "Matamoros" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
MAM ENTERPRISES: Faces "Mckeever" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law

MIDLAND FUNDING: Wiitanen's Bid to Certify Denied as Premature
NATIONAL OILWELL: Moreno Seeks to Certify Welders/Mechanics Class
NATIONWIDE EVICTION: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Sought
NISSAN MOTOR: Settles Takata Airbag Class Action for $97.7M
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Auker Appeals Ruling in "Batista" Suit

OLIO RESTAURANTS: Faces "Carrera" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
PACIFIC BELLS: Hodges Claims Unpaid for Off-the-Clock Work
PCL CONSTRUCTION: Down Creek Claims Lost Income from Power Outage
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Sept. Hearing Set on Bid to Drop Class Suit
POSTMATES INC: "Niles" Suit Removed to Mass. Federal Court

POWER ULTRA: Lawyers Tapped to Represent Mass Shooting Victims
PREMIER COURIER: Faces "Lumley" Suit over Unpaid Minimum Wages
PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT: Class Action Status Denied in ERISA Case
REDBACK COIL: Faces "Laney" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
RELIANCE TRUST: "Nistra" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

RIZNO INC: TCPA Class Certification Sought in Brite Bite Suit
ROCKET FUEL: Haines Claims Shortchanged in Onerous Merger Deal
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Taxotere Class Action Investigation Opened
SEE'S CANDY: California Judge Nixes Mislabeling Class Action
SPA CITY STEAKS: Thompson Moves to Certify Tipped Employees Class

SPEEDWAY OFFICE: Innovative Accounting's Certification Bid Denied
SPOTIFY INC: December 1 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Status Denied in "McKinsty" Lawsuit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Fritsch" Plaintiffs Seek Class Status
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Julian" Class Certification Still Pending

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Trial on "Slack" Class Suit Set for Sept.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Garza" Suit to Proceed in Maricopa County
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appeal on "Sheer" Suit Pending in 9th Cir.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Merits Discovery in "Banks" Suit Underway
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Denies "Anderson" Class Status Bid

T ROWE PRICE: Still Faces Potential Class Suit on ERISA Breaches
TD AMERITRADE: District Judge Affirms Dismissal of Class Lawsuit
TEXAS DE BRAZIL: Haynes Claims Website Not Accessible to Blind
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 1 in "Ferris" Case
UNITED STATES: Al Obaidy Appeals USDC-CASF Order to Ninth Circuit

UNITED STATES: "Nio" Suit Seeks to Certify Selected Reserve Class
VANTIV INTEGRATED: Aug. 26 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Faces Class Action Over Weight Loss Supplement
VL FUNDING: "McHarris" Suit Removed to E.D. New York
W&T OFFSHORE: Faces "Fontenot" Suit Alleging Misclassification

WATERSTONE MORTGAGE: Fails to Pay Loan Originators, Werner Claims
WELLS FARGO: "Miller" Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
WELLS FARGO: "Hancock" Sues Over Collateral Protection Insurance
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Berger & Montague Files TJI Joists Class Action
WILMINGTON TRUST: Brown Files Suit Over Henny Penny Share Buy

* Class Actions Over Data Collection Methods Surge
* German Politicians Argue Over Adoption of US-Style Class Action
* Pillsbury Winthrop Attorneys Discuss CFPB Arbitration Rule





                            *********


7-ELEVEN: Faces Class Action Over "Pop Tax" Collection
------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that add
7-Eleven to the list of retailers now facing a class action
lawsuit over the collection of Cook County's controversial
so-called "pop tax".

On Aug. 9, lawyers Thomas Zimmerman, Sharon Harris, Matthew De Re,
Nickolas Hagman and Maebetty Kirby, all of the Zimmerman Law
Offices, of Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court on
behalf of named plaintiff Kelly Tarrant against 7-Eleven Corp.
The lawsuit alleges the convenience store chain improperly charged
Tarrant, of Chicago, Cook County's one-cent-per-ounce sweetened
beverage tax, even though she filled her Super Big Gulp cup with
unsweetened coffee.  That purchase, the lawsuit asserts, should
have been exempt from the tax.  Instead, Ms. Tarrant was allegedly
made to pay an additional 28 cents on her drink purchase.

According to the complaint, Ms. Tarrant was told by store
employees and later by a manager that "the tax is programmed in
the 7-Eleven Store Information System and that the system
automatically charges the sweetened beverage tax to all beverages
purchased in Gulp cups, regardless of whether the beverage is
subject to the sweetened beverage tax."

The lawsuit seeks to expand the action to include all others who
may have been similarly charged the tax when they purchased an
unsweetened beverage at a Cook County 7-Eleven store in the last
seven days.  The complaint estimates the number of additional
plaintiffs could number in the "many thousands."

The lawsuit asks the court to award the plaintiffs actual damages,
plus attorney fees.

Zimmerman's and Ms. Tarrant's lawsuit is the third such class
action lawsuit filed in the last five days against retailers over
the collection of the tax. The tax took effect Aug. 2, about a
month after the county had intended it to do so.

Other lawsuits have targeted Walgreens and local McDonald's
franchisees.

However, collection and enforcement of the tax was delayed by
about a month as a Cook County judge weighed a legal challenge
launched by a group of Cook County grocers and the Illinois Retail
Merchants Association trade group.  Among other allegations, the
retailers argued the ordinance enacting the tax was poorly written
and would leave retailers exposed to class action lawsuits and
other litigation over the collection of the tax.

The county and the judge, however, brushed aside those concerns,
with the judge particularly calling such concerns "merely
speculation."

In the wake of the rollout of the tax, some Cook County Board
members have introduced new measures to repeal the tax. Those
measures will be considered at the county board's September
meeting.

Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, who championed the
tax and cast the tie-breaking vote to enact the ordinance
establishing the tax, has estimated the tax could bring in as much
as $200 million in additional revenue for the county.  As the fate
of the pop tax hung in the balance in court in July, Ms.
Preckwinkle laid off hundreds of county workers, saying the
inability to collect nearly $17 million from the pop tax forced
the layoffs to make up for the purported budgetary shortfall.

The plaintiff's attorneys in the case are no strangers to such
class action lawsuits.  The Zimmerman Law Offices have brought
numerous lawsuits targeting, among others: online attorney
directory Avvo, for allegedly misappropriating the personal
information of lawyers listed on their site; the makers of grated
Parmesan cheese, for allegedly including cellulose in the cans
marked "100 percent cheese;" Peet's Coffee, for allegedly not
pouring enough French press coffee into customers' cups; United
Airlines, for allegedly breaching a contract by placing customers
and their checked bags on different aircraft; the Illinois
Lottery, for not paying winners amid the state's budget crisis;
Sears, for allegedly charging sales tax on purchases of digital
television converter boxes bought with federal vouchers; and the
makers of Templeton Rye whiskey, for allegedly misleading
customers into thinking their whiskey was made in the small town
of Templeton, Iowa.

Zimmerman's website indicates the firm specializes in consumer
fraud litigation and class actions, touting settlements of as much
as $62 million for a variety of consumer fraud cases involving
skin cream, newspaper advertising, improperly charged cell phone
fees and more. [GN]


36 TOYAMA: "Basurto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
ISAURO MORALES BASURTO and RUBEN PEREZ VAZQUEZ, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against 36
TOYAMA SUSHI INC. (d/b/a ATOYAMA SUSHI), ATOYAMA SUSHI CORP.
(d/b/a ATOYAMA SUSHI), FENG LI, and PING CAO Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-05702 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs
are primarily employed as delivery workers, but they are required
to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-
tipped, non-delivery duties.

Plaintiffs have allegedly worked for Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours
over 40 per week that they have worked.  Rather, Defendants have
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
have failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked
over 40, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium.  Further, Defendants have failed to pay
Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
they have worked over 10 hours per day.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Japanese restaurant.
Plaintiffs are primarily employed as delivery workers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Fax: (212) 317-1620


A-1 SYSTEMS: Class Action Over Hail Damage Solicitation Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claims Journal reports that contractors acting as public adjusters
illegally could face class action lawsuits, according to a new
decision by a Texas appeals court.

The finding could result in a pool of 3000 affected customers of
A-1 Roofing.  The decision stems from an underlying case involving
damage to the plaintiffs' roof due to a May 2011 hailstorm. The
plaintiffs notified their insurance carrier and signed a contract
with A-1 (also known as Lon Smith Roofing and Construction) for
roof replacement in the amount of $33,769.50.  The plaintiffs
received $18,926.69 from their homeowners' insurer and paid that
amount to A-1.  To collect the balance owed, A-1 filed suit
against the plaintiffs, obtaining a default judgment.  The
plaintiffs challenged the default judgment and obtained a judgment
voiding it. A-1 appealed.  The plaintiffs then filed a declaratory
judgment against the roofer, indicating the contract was null and
void since it wasn't licensed to act as a public adjuster.  They
also alleged violations under Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and requested class certification for both claims.

According to the court, all class actions must satisfy four
threshold requirements contained in the Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 42(a): (1) numerosity ("the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable"); (2) commonality ("there
are questions of law or fact common to the class"); (3) typicality
("the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical
of the claims or defenses of the class"); and (4) adequacy of
representation ("the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class")

According to the court, "Class-action treatment is particularly
useful in this situation because it will determine the propriety
of the behavior of the party opposing the class in a single
action."

The decision should cause roofers and other contractors to
reconsider their solicitation tactics.

Steve Badger -- sbadger@zelle.com -- a partner with Zelle LLP's
Dallas office, said the primary reason for the dramatic increase
in the number of hail claims in Texas are contractors that inject
themselves into the claims process.  He said they solicit
homeowners using door hangers, call centers, and other means to
aggressively market to homeowners with the promises of a free
roof.  Mr. Badger said the homeowner then signs an agreement
giving the contractor the right to negotiate the insurance claim
and install the roof for the amount of the insurance proceeds.

These types of contracts are a favorite among storm chaser
contractors who travel city-to-city looking for work after hail
events, said Badger.  There are even seminars and entire
conferences that teach contractors how to market to homeowners
using these contracts.

Mr. Badger brought attention to the issue of mounting hail claims
in a 2015 article published by Claims Journal, "The Emerging Hail
Risk: What the Hail is Going On?"

"The problem is that this entire business model is flat-out
illegal," said Mr. Badger, who noted that Texas law has been very
clear that roofing contractors are not allowed to negotiate
insurance claims.

The public adjuster licensing statute in was enacted in 2005 to
curtail the unauthorized practice of public adjusting (UPPA) among
contractors.

"The problem is so bad that a second statute was passed in 2013
stating the very same thing," Mr. Badger said.  "Both statutes
contain criminal penalties for violators."

Despite the two laws, there is little enforcement against the
practice.

"Literally, every day I receive calls about contractors engaged in
UPPA, both from insurance companies and homeowners. I routinely
report contractors to the Texas Department of Insurance.  The TDI
will send a letter telling the contractor to stop.  But that's all
that happens.  There is no criminal enforcement. For every
contractor I turn in, there are 25 others out there violating the
law with no repercussions," Badger said.

Insurers are under no obligation to negotiate with contractors and
Mr. Badger often advises insurers to simply ignore them.

"The sad calls I receive are the ones from homeowners who have
unwittingly signed-up with these contractors and only later
realize their contractors are hucksters," Mr. Badger said.  "These
homeowners believe they are stuck in the contract, as the
contracts typically contain a penalty provision requiring the
homeowner to pay 20-40 percent of the insurance proceeds to the
contractor if the contract is canceled."

Mr. Badger, who has been a vocal advocate against the rampant
fraud he sees surrounding hail claims, said he could easily employ
a team of lawyers that do nothing else but respond to calls
related to contractor schemes.

"I have a dozen pro bono cases in the office right now where we
are helping homeowners get out of these contracts," he said.  "But
the toughest calls are from homeowners who have had their
insurance proceeds ripped off after signing up with storm chaser
contractors who never came back to put on their roofs. There is
very little we can do to help these homeowners."

Keys is an important decision, he said.

"Finally, the contractor is at risk. With this decision, there is
now a strong body of case law in Texas helping consumers fight
back," Mr. Badger said.  "The homeowner is no longer stuck in the
contract. The homeowner can now argue that the contract is void,
illegal and unenforceable and simply walk away from it."

Mr. Badger is hopeful that the threat of lawsuits and class
actions will cause contractors to think twice before engaging in
UPPA.

"This opinion is a game changer.  Under this decision, Lon Smith
has to return all payments it has received from every single one
of its homeowner clients who signed one of these illegal
contracts.  Every single dollar paid must be returned. That will
be millions of dollars," Mr. Badger said.  "Now, every contractor
in Texas who has employed this illegal scheme is at risk of
similar lawsuits."

Even if this decision deters contractors from engaging in this of
type illegal conduct,

Mr. Badger said storm chasers and scammers will continue to
operate under the radar and perpetuate the scheme.

"We'll continue to knock these off one at a time," said
Mr. Badger.  "But only when the Texas legislature finally realizes
that we must have roofing contractor licensing and regulation,
will Texas homeowners finally be protected from these crooks and
frauds.

The Court of Appeals case is Lon Smith & Associates, Inc. and A-1
Systems, Inc., DBA Lon Smith Roofing and Construction v. Joe Key
and Stacci Key. [GN]


ALLEGHENY, PA: Faces Class Action Over Disability Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------
WPXI News reports that a former employee filed the lawsuit because
she's demanding changes to the retirement board when it comes to
doling out disability pensions.

Susan Donohue needs a cane just to walk down the hallway with her
attorneys.  She was at their office the Aug. 9 filing a civil
lawsuit against the retirement board of Allegheny County.

"Frustrating, discouraging and just like wow this really
happened," Ms. Donohue said.

Ms. Donohue worked for the Allegheny County court system for 30
years.  Several years ago, she began having severe back pain.  Her
doctor eventually determined she could no longer work, so she
applied for disability retirement.

The county denied it.

She says she was fired after they couldn't find a job to
accommodate her.  The lawsuit she filed on Aug. 9 claims the
retirement board failed to establish guidelines and standards for
awarding disability pensions, calling the system irrational and
arbitrary.

"It's wrong, it's unfair and it's unconstitutional," said
Tybe Brett, Donohue's attorney.

Ms. Donohue and her attorneys also say that one doctor the
retirement board hired came to two different conclusions.

"One said she could work with accommodations and one said she was
totally and permanent disabled, based on the same examination, so
what's going on here," Mr. Brett said.

The goal of the lawsuit, they say, is not only to get Donohue the
money she deserves, but to force the board to make wholesale
changes.

"To require the pension board to publish and articulate clear
standards for when  someone can receive disability pension
benefits that they've contributed to for their entire employment,"
another attorney, Tim O'Brien said.

What's even more troubling, her attorneys say, is that the Social
Security Administration awarded her disability benefits.

Meanwhile, the retirement board says there are guidelines in place
and that they are preparing to address the lawsuit in court. [GN]


ALLSEC TECHNOLOGIES: "Lipsey" Suit Alleges Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------
MONROE LIPSEY, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, vs. ALLSEC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Texas
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01915-D (N.D. Tex., July
18, 2017), alleges that despite working more than forty (40) hours
per week, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly
situated AML workers overtime compensation at a rate of time and a
half their regular rate of pay for the hours they worked over
forty in each workweek.

Allegedly, Defendant has misclassified Plaintiff and those
similarly situated Anti-Money Laundering Financial Transactions
Specialist (AMLs) employees as independent contractors under the
FLSA and failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated AML
workers proper overtime premium compensation for all overtime
hours worked each week.

Defendant -- http://www.allsectech.com/about.php-- provides
business process solutions across various industry verticals.
Defendant provided these services to Standard Chartered Bank among
other institutions in Irving, Texas, where Defendant employed
Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers to perform the
physical work.  Plaintiff is an AML Financial Transactions
Specialist. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clara H. Saafir, Esq.
     THE WITHERSPOON LAW GROUP, PLLC
     1717 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 773-1133
     Fax: (972) 696-9982
     Email: saafir@twlglawyers.com

        - and -

     C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
     P.O. Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Phone: (407) 420-1414
     Fax: (407) 245-3401
     Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

        - and -

     Andrew. R. Frisch, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Fax: (954) 327-3013
     E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


ALLSTATE FIRE: Bid to Compel Arbitration of Coverage Claims Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wichert, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
federal judge on Aug. 9 shot down an Allstate unit's bid to force
a putative class action over unpaid medical benefits into
arbitration, rejecting the insurer's argument that state law
allowed it to take such action without an arbitration agreement
between the parties.

U.S. District Judge Anne E. Thompson denied the motion from
Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. to compel arbitration of
claims made by an insured and a surgical center, saying there was
neither an arbitration agreement nor notice that the parties could
be forced to arbitrate the matter.

"Both the Federal Arbitration Act and New Jersey policy express a
preference for resolution by arbitration," Judge Thompson said in
her written opinion.  "However, both are predicated on a formal
agreement between the parties or notice that they may be forced to
submit a dispute to arbitration."

"As there is no agreement or notice in this case, the court will
decline to compel arbitration," the judge added.

Plaintiffs Juan Gonzalez and Ambulatory Surgical Center of
Somerset launched the proposed class action against Allstate in
September in connection with claims that the insurer has
unlawfully denied coverage for a surgery Gonzalez underwent at the
facility in March 2015.

The surgery was related to injuries Gonzalez sustained in an
August 2011 car accident in Jefferson Township, New Jersey, court
documents state.  At the time of the accident, Gonzalez was
insured by an auto policy issued by Allstate in Pennsylvania,
court documents state.

Allstate has refused to reimburse the surgical center for the
procedure, because the code assigned to Gonzalez's surgery was not
listed in New Jersey's auto medical fee schedule for such
payments, court documents state.  The plaintiffs have asserted
that the procedure is still payable at reasonable rates pursuant
to New Jersey insurance regulations.

Gonzalez and the surgical center are seeking liability and damages
on behalf of two proposed classes: individuals insured by Allstate
who were injured in car accidents and are entitled to automobile
medical benefits under New Jersey law, and ambulatory surgical
facilities that performed procedures for which there are no codes
listed in the fee schedule and for which Allstate has refused
payment, according to the judge's opinion.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that Allstate must pay
for those procedures, and assert related claims for breach of
contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the
opinion said.

While there is no arbitration agreement between the parties,
Allstate sought to compel arbitration based on the state's "Deemer
Statute" and an arbitration provision within the New Jersey
Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act, which provides for
personal injury protection, or PIP, coverage, according to the
judge's opinion.

Under the Deemer Statute, an out-of-state insured is entitled to
the PIP coverage required under New Jersey law when the covered
vehicle is involved in a New Jersey accident.  The arbitration
provision states that disputes regarding the recovery of medical
benefits provided under PIP coverage "may be submitted to dispute
resolution on the initiative of any party to the dispute."

Based on the Deemer Statute, Allstate argued that "the entire PIP
statute applies to an out-of-state insured who received coverage
in New Jersey pursuant to the statute," and that thus the insurer
could require arbitration under the arbitration provision,
according to the opinion.

But Judge Thompson found that the plain text of the Deemer Statute
"only provides for coverage of out-of-state insured who are
insured by insurers authorized to transact or transacting
automobile insurance business in New Jersey."

"It does not incorporate other aspects of the PIP statute," the
judge said.

The judge also pointed to the differences between the Allstate
matter and the New Jersey Appellate Division's 1996 decision in
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Crocker, which also dealt with
the application of the arbitration provision to an out-of-state
insured who utilized medical care in New Jersey.

In Crocker, the appellate court found that the insured could
compel the insurance company to arbitrate based on that provision,
even though the Deemer Statute did not specifically incorporate
the arbitration clause, Judge Thompson said.

But to be subject to the statute, the insurer had to be authorized
to transact or transacting an automobile insurance business in New
Jersey, the judge said.

"Therefore, the insurance company had notice that it could be
compelled to arbitrate.  That is distinct from the present case,
in which the insurer seeks to compel arbitration based on the New
Jersey statute," Judge Thompson said.  "The out-of-state insured
might have no notice that it could be compelled to arbitrate."

The judge added, "Therefore, based on the text of the relevant
statement and the interpreting case law, it is unclear that the
arbitration provision permits insurers to compel arbitration based
on the Deemer Statute with out-of-state insureds who utilize in-
state coverage."

Charles Kannebecker, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told
Law360 on Aug. 9, "Allstate calculated that it could avoid
responsibility by terminating the single action to determine its
fault, thereby forcing every insured and every medical provider to
incur the time, expense, delay and fees of hundreds of separate
individual claims in arbitration."

"The court properly refused Allstate's attempts and now Allstate
will be held accountable for all of its conduct," Kannebecker
added.

Counsel for Allstate did not immediately respond to a request for
comment on Aug. 9.

The plaintiffs are represented by Charles Kannebecker.

Allstate is represented by David J. D'Aloia and Marc E. Wolin of
Saiber LLC.

The case is Ambulatory Surgical Center of Somerset and Juan
Gonzalez v. Allstate Fire Casualty Insurance Co., Case No.
3:16-cv-05378 (D.N.J.).  The case is assigned to Judge Anne E.
Thompson.  The case was filed September 2, 2016. [GN]


AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: "Searle" Alleges Non-payment of OT Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARL SEARLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC, dba
ARS/RESCUE ROOTER, ROBERT ANCHANDO, JUSTIN FRYE, TRACY KENNEDY,
and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Defendants, Case No. RG 17867995 (Cal.
Super., County of Alameda, July 17, 2017), alleges that Defendants
have had a consistent policy of (1) permitting, encouraging and/or
requiring its non-exempt service technician employees, including
the Plaintiff and Class Members, to work in excess of eight hours
per day and in excess of forty hours per week without paying them
overtime compensation at the correct rate, as required by
California's wage and hour laws, (2) willfully failing to provide
Plaintiff and Class Members with statutorily mandated meal and
rest periods, (3) willfully failing to pay compensation (including
unpaid overtime) in a prompt and timely manner to the Plaintiff
and those Class Members whose employment with Defendants
terminated, (4) willfully failing to indemnify employees for
expenditures or losses in discharge of duties or obedience to
instructions, as required by California Labor Code, and (5)
failing to provide complete and accurate wage statements as
required by California Labor Code.

AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC, doing business as ARS/Rescue
Rooter, provides heating, air conditioning (AC), indoor air
quality, plumbing, drain cleaning, and sewer line services to
residential and light commercial customers in the United States.
The Plaintiff is a non-exempt service technician employee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew Righetti, Esq.
     John Glugoski, Esq.
     Michael Righetti, Esq.
     RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
     456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 983-0900
     Fax: (415) 397-9005

        - and -

     Zachary Crosner, Esq.
     Michael Crosner, Esq.
     CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
     1112100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 650
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Phone: (310) 496-5818
     Fax: (310) 510-6429


ANGIE'S LIST: 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
Southern District of Indiana on behalf of holders of Angie's List,
Inc. ("Angie's List") common stock in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Angie's List by IAC/InterActiveCorp and ANGI
Homeservices Inc. ("IAC") announced on May 1, 2017 (the
"Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Angie's List, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), and IAC, is captioned Parshall v. Angie's
List, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-02418-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind.).

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 May 1, 2017, Angie's List entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with IAC.  Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, shareholders of Angie's List will receive $8.50 in cash
for each share of Angie's List stock they own (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 June 30,
2017.  The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement,
which recommends that Angie's List 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 Angie's List financial projections, the analyses
performed by Angie's List's financial advisors, and the background
of the Proposed Transaction.  The Complaint seeks injunctive and
equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Angie's List
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]


ASHLEY MADISON: Jan. 2 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Angie Koehle, writing for abc15, reports that even cheaters get a
break once in a while.  Ashley Madison, the website that enables
extramarital affairs settled a lawsuit in its 2015 security
breach.  If you were signed up on the site on or before July 20,
2015, you may be able to claim between $19 to $3,500 from the
class action settlement.  The settlement was reached after the
company was accused of failing to protect users' personal
information from being hacked. Hackers posted the information
online.

According to Top Class Actions: The class action settlement also
addresses allegations that the company falsely advertised that its
"full delete" or "paid delete" services would "remove all traces
of your usage."  Plaintiffs also alleged the company used
conversation-stimulating software known as "bots" or "engagers" to
communicate with real users, giving them the false impression that
they were engaging with real people.  This caused some Ashley
Madison users to purchase spending credits to communicate with the
fake profiles.

The deadline to file a claim is January 2, 2018. [GN]


ATHENE ANNUITY: Faces "Hughes" Suit Over Terms of GLWB Rider
------------------------------------------------------------
JON BRUCE HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. ATHENE ANNUITY & LIFE
ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02702-LMM (N.D.
Ga., July 18, 2017), alleges that Defendant caused material harm
to Plaintiff and the proposed class by improperly reducing and/or
calculating the Lifetime Withdrawal Percentage based on the age of
individuals who are not identified as Annuitants, joint or
otherwise, under the terms of the "Guaranteed Lifetime Withdrawal
Benefit" (GLWB) Rider.

Defendant Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company is a life
insurance company. Plaintiff purchased a single premium deferred
annuity from Defendant with a GLWB Rider. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rodney E. Miller, Esq.
     MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C.
     2201 Arlington Avenue, South
     Birmingham, AL 35205
     Phone: (205) 939-0199
     Fax: (205) 939-0399


BAYER AG: Judge to Decide on VitaCraves Class Suit Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Hutton, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Judge
Phyllis J. Hamilton recently oversaw a hearing on Bayer's motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit that claims the company
misrepresented the number of multivitamins that are contained in
bottles of One A Day VitaCraves chewable vitamin supplements.

The hearing was held July 12 at the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Plaintiff Daniel Goldman filed a response to the motion to dismiss
the class action suit, claiming that the companies violate the
consumer protection laws of several states with the misinformation
of the number of days' worth of vitamins contained in the bottles.

Mr. Goldman had filed the initial class action complaint in
February against the companies.

In its motion to dismiss, Bayer contends that Mr. Goldman's claims
are baseless.

According to Mr. Goldman's complaint, Bayer markets and sells
numerous multivitamin products under the One A Day brand.  It also
displays the number of vitamins contained in each bottle or box
prominently on the bottom right corner of the front label.

The VitaCraves, adult multivitamin supplements in a chewable,
fruit-flavored gummy form, are marketed in at least 10 different
types.

Mr. Goldman purchased One A Day VitaCraves in December at two
outlets, one in New York and another in California.  He claims he
relied on the labels, which led him to believe he was receiving
twice as many days' supply of vitamins than the bottles actually
contained.

In the complaint, Mr. Goldman maintains that most consumers
purchasing a bottle of VitaCraves would understand they should
take one each day.  As a result, each bottle would contain the
number of days' worth of vitamins equal to the number of gummies
in each bottle.

However, that is not the case.  Each product in the One A Day
VitaCraves line requires the consumer to take two gummies per day,
not just one, to get a full serving.

As a result, consumers are only receiving half the supply of
gummies that they would likely expect from the One A Day brand,
the plaintiff claims.  While a bottle containing 70 gummies would
be expected to last 70 days, it actually is only a 35-day supply,
he says.

In the motion to dismiss, Bayer argued that the "California
statutory count fail to state a claim."

Citing Williams v. Gerber Products Co., Mr. Goldman's objection to
Bayer's motion to dismiss noted that courts and others in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit routinely deny motions to
dismiss in light of Williams.

"Despite the overwhelming body of case law showing that factual
issues should not be decided on a motion to dismiss, defendants
cite several cases that represent the rare situation where it is
possible to conclude as a matter of law at the pleading stage that
no reasonable consumer could be misled by the advertising in
question," the response noted.

"But these cases are simply fringe cases where it was manifestly
and objectively impossible for the representation to be
deceptive."

The defendants also cited two cases -- Brady v. Bayer AG and
Howard v. Bayer Corp., which Goldman's objection deemed had been
incorrectly decided.

Both the Brady and Howard orders held that no reasonable consumer
could be misled by the labels at issue here because "a reasonable
consumer of any medicine or medicine-like substance such as
vitamins would not stop with the brand name," and "there are no
allegations of misrepresentations by defendant other than the
brand name."

Mr. Goldman is represented by Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP. [GN]


BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Faces "Briscoe" Suit Over Emission Cheating
---------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL BRISCOE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG, BMW
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, VOLKSWAGEN AG, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,
INC., AUDI AG, AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC, DR. ING. H.C. F. PORSCHE AG,
PORSCHE CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., DAIMLER AG, and MERCEDES-BENZ
USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04320 (N.D. Cal., July 28,
2017), accuses Defendants of colluding to limit their competitive
advantages over one another by agreeing to identical or very
similar standards, by agreeing to limit technological development
or by sharing technology, by covering for each other's emission
cheating and lowering development and supplier costs.

Together, Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, Daimler, and BMW are known as
the German Five, the oldest and largest auto manufacturers in
Germany.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
     Oakland, CA 64612
     Phone: (510) 463-3900
     Fax: (510) 463-3901
     Email: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com

        - and -

     Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com


BEHR PROCESS: "Meyers" Sues Over DeckOver False Ad
--------------------------------------------------
GLEN MEYERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. BEHR PROCESS CORP., BEHR PAINT CORP., and
MASCO CORP., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04040 (C.D. Cal., July
18, 2017), alleges that Defendants falsely marketed their patio
and deck product branded as DeckOver as a durable and long-lasting
alternative to paint and stains, capable of extending the life of
surfaces.  And yet, DeckOver performs worse than cheaper options
and requires hours of scraping, scrubbing, and sanding to remove
it, says the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks an order forcing Behr to stop the alleged
deceptive conduct and provide appropriate remuneration to affected
consumers.

BEHR PROCESS CORP. is a supplier of architectural paint and
exterior wood care products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael F. Ram, Esq.
     Susan S. Brown, Esq.
     ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
     2440 West El Camino Real
     Mountain View, CA 94040
     Phone: (650) 784-4040
     Fax: (650) 784-4041
     Email: mram@robinskaplan.com
     Email: sbrown@robinskaplan.com

        - and -

     Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq.
     Matt J. Malone, Esq.
     ROCK LAW LLP
     101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 433-4949
     Email: jbc@rocklawcal.com
     Email: mjm@rocklawcal.com


BROOKLYN EVENTS: Class Action to Challenge "Ban the Box" Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for Employment Screening Resources, reports
that a class action lawsuit filed in a New York federal court on
August 4, 2017, could be the first of its kind to challenge
alleged violations by employers of a New York City "Ban the Box"
law called the Fair Chance Act (FCA), according to a press release
from employment law firm Outten & Golden LLP, which filed the suit
along with the nonprofit organization Youth Represent.

The press release states that the lawsuit claims the defendants --
Brooklyn Events Center, LLC (doing business as Barclays Center),
Levy Restaurants, Inc., and Professional Sports Catering LLC --
"used flawed and discriminatory criminal history screening
policies and practices" to deny employment to otherwise qualified
job applicants in violation of the Ban the Box law.

Lead plaintiff, Felipe Kelly, applied for a job at Barclays Center
-- home of the Brooklyn Nets of the National Basketball
Association (NBA) and the New York Islanders of the National
Hockey League (NHL) -- in 2016.  He claims the defendants did not
hire him after a background check, never said why, and did not
give him the "Fair Chance Notice" required by the Ban the Box law.
The lawsuit claims Kelly was unaware of what information was being
reported on him, unable to review the information for accuracy and
completeness, review the arguments of defendants as to why they
believed his conviction barred him from employment, or explain why
he thought he was still entitled to employment and include any
evidence of rehabilitation and good conduct.

"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 they might
evaluate that information, ensure it is accurate, and even if it
is accurate explain why they nonetheless are qualified for
employment," said Christopher M. McNerney of Outten & Golden.
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 October 27, 2015.  The case is
Felipe Kelly, et al., v. Brooklyn 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.

As reported earlier by ESR News, the New York City Commission on
Human Rights amended rules to establish definitions and procedures
applying to the FCA that took effect in October of 2015 to amend
the provisions regarding unlawful discrimination on the basis of
criminal history against job applicants and employees.  The
amended rules took effect on August 5, 2017.

Ban the Box refers to removing the box on job applications that
applicants are asked to check if they have criminal records.
According to the National Employment Law Project (NELP), 29 states
and over 150 cities and counties have Ban the Box laws.  A 2011
study by NELP estimated that nearly 65 million people in the
United States -- more than one in four adults -- had a criminal
record.

"The purpose of Ban the Box is to give ex-offenders a fair chance
at obtaining employment," says Attorney Lester Rosen, founder and
CEO of Employment Screening Resources(R) (ESR).  "By removing the
criminal history question, supporters claim job applicants can be
sure that they will not be automatically excluded from
consideration for a job because of past mistakes."

Mr. Rosen, author of "The Safe Hiring Manual," adds: "Ban the Box
does not mean there can never be a background check but instead
prevents an early knock-out punch before ex-offenders have the
opportunity to be considered on individual merits.  Employers can
still conduct criminal background checks, but Ban the Box delays
this screening until later in the hiring process." [GN]


BUILDERS DISBURSEMENTS: Navarro Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Navarro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Builders Disbursements, Inc.
and Does 1 through 10, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05838 (C.D.
Cal., August 7, 2017), seeks statutory damages and injunctive
relief resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Plaintiff has received numerous solicitation calls from Defendant
within a 12-month period in its attempt to market its services.
Navarro's number is on the national Do-Not-Call registry.

Builders Disbursements Inc. -- http://www.bdiinc.info/-- provides
comprehensive and professional assistance to construction lenders
with the disbursement of construction loans. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


C.L. WILLIAMS: Faces "Barber" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON BARBER, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, vs. C.L.
WILLIAMS ENTERPRISES, INC., and CHARLES WILLIAMS, a Michigan for-
profit company and owner of said Michigan for profit company,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-12429-JCO-SDD (E.D. Mich., July 27,
2017), alleges that Plaintiff was compensated for 40 hours a week
in the year 2015, regardless of how many hours he actually worked.
Because Plaintiff worked more than 8 hours per day, Plaintiff
Barber was not compensated for all the hours that he worked in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants provide home healthcare.  Plaintiff Barber worked as a
care giver for Defendant C.L. Williams Enterprises and Defendant
Williams from 2013 to 2016.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
     Omar Badr, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
     23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
     Brownstown, MI 48134
     Phone: (734) 692-9200
     Fax: (734) 692-9201
     Email: bryan@yaldoulaw.com


CAL-MAINE FOODS: 3rd Cir. Appeal over Class Cert. Ruling Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on July 24,
2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 3, 2017 that the plaintiffs filed a
petition with the Third Circuit asking the court to hear an appeal
of a June 27 order denying their renewed motion for injunctive
class certification. The Company and other defendants have filed a
response on July 21, 2017 with the Third Circuit opposing the
plaintiffs' petition.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants
-- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously
purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to
be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The Pennsylvania court organized the
putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers) and named interim lead counsel for the named
plaintiffs in each group.

           The Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action

The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No.  2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  As previously reported, in November
2014, the Court approved the Company's settlement with the direct
purchaser plaintiff class and entered final judgment dismissing
with prejudice the class members' claims against the Company.

          The Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action

The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No.  2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  On April 20-21, 2015, the Court held an
evidentiary hearing on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  On September 18, 2015, the Court denied
the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification
of 21 separate classes seeking damages under the laws of 21
states, holding that the plaintiffs were not able to prove that
their purported method for ascertaining class membership was
reliable or administratively feasible, that common questions would
predominate, or that their proposed class approach would be
manageable in a single trial.  In addition to barring any right to
pursue a class monetary remedy under state law, the Court also
denied indirect purchaser plaintiffs' request for certification of
an injunctive-relief class under federal law.  However, the court
allowed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs to renew their motion
for class certification seeking a federal injunction.  The
plaintiffs filed their renewed motion to certify an injunctive-
relief class on October 23, 2015.  The Company joined the other
defendants in opposing that motion on November 20.  The plaintiffs
filed their reply memorandum on December 11, 2015, and on March 7,
2017, the Court heard arguments on the renewed motion for
injunctive class certification.

On June 27, 2017, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for
injunctive class certification.  The plaintiffs also filed a
petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, asking the court to hear an immediate appeal of the trial
court's denial of the motion to certify 21 state-law damages
classes.

On December 3, 2015, the Third Circuit entered an order staying
its consideration of the plaintiffs' request for an immediate
appeal of the damages-class ruling pending the trial court's
resolution of the plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify an
injunctive-relief class.  On July 11, 2017 the plaintiffs filed a
petition with the Third Circuit asking the court to hear an appeal
of the June 27 order denying plaintiffs' renewed motion for
injunctive class certification.  On July 21, 2017, the Company
joined other defendants in a response filed with the Third Circuit
opposing the plaintiffs' petition.

                      The Non-Class Cases

Six of the cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a
class have been consolidated with the putative class actions into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No.  2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The court granted with prejudice the
defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the non-class plaintiffs'
claims for damages arising before September 24, 2004.  On July 2,
2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for summary
judgment that sought either dismissal of all of the claims in all
of these cases or, in the alternative, dismissal of portions of
these cases.

On July 2, 2015, the non-class plaintiffs filed a motion for
summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative defenses
based on statutory immunities from federal antitrust law.  The
Court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment on
February 22 and 23, 2016.  On September 6, 2016, the Court granted
the defendants' motion for summary judgment against the
plaintiffs' claims arising from their purchases of egg products,
dismissing those claims with prejudice.

On September 9, 2016, the Court granted in part the Company's
motion for summary judgment on liability, dismissing as a matter
of law the plaintiffs' allegations of a side agreement to cease
construction of new facilities and ruling that the plaintiffs'
allegations against United Egg Producers (UEP) animal-welfare
guidelines must be evaluated at trial under the rule of reason.

On September 12, 2016, the Court granted in part the Company's
motion for summary judgment on damages, ruling that plaintiffs
cannot recover damages on purchases of eggs from non-defendants
and cannot recover any relief on eggs and egg products produced or
sold in Arizona after October 1, 2009, the date that Arizona
mandated that all eggs sold or produced in that state must be
produced in compliance with the 2008 version of the UEP animal-
welfare guidelines.

On September 13, 2016, the Court granted in part the plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment as to the applicability of the Capper-
Volstead defense, ruling that United States Egg Marketers (an
industry cooperative of which the Company is a member) may invoke
the defense at trial but that UEP (another industry cooperative of
which the Company is a member) cannot.  The Capper-Volstead
defense is a defense pursuant to the Capper-Volstead Act (the Co-
operative Marketing Associations Act), enacted by Congress in
1922, which gives certain associations of farmers certain
exemptions from antitrust laws.

On October 4, 2016, certain direct action plaintiffs (Kraft Food
Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The
Kellogg Company) filed an appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit from the District Court's Order
dated September 6, 2016, granting defendants' motion for summary
judgment and dismissing with prejudice all claims based on the
purchase of egg products.  These plaintiffs filed their opening
brief on March 7, 2017.  The defendants filed their response brief
on April 20.  These plaintiffs filed their reply brief on May 18.
The court of appeals heard oral argument on July 11, 2017, but has
not issued a ruling.

On November 22, 2016, the non-class plaintiffs filed a motion
asking the Court to hold a status conference and asking the court
to set the non-class cases for trial in June of 2017.  The parties
in all of the remaining class and non-class cases submitted
several different proposed trial schedules to the court, and a
status conference was held on February 9, 2017.  A trial date has
not yet been set.

                    Allegations in Each Case

In all of the cases described above, the plaintiffs allege that
the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers
conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted
effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels.  In
each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce
the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production;
(b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide
animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and
eggs.

The named plaintiffs in the remaining indirect purchaser putative
class action seek treble damages under the statutes and common-law
of various states and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act on
behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the
United States.  Although plaintiffs allege a class period starting
in October, 2006 and running "through the present," the Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify classes seeking damages
under the laws of 21 states and denied without prejudice the
plaintiffs' motion to certify an injunctive-relief class, although
the plaintiffs have filed a renewed motion to certify an
injunctive-relief class.

Five of the original six non-class cases remain pending against
the Company.  The principal plaintiffs in these cases are: The
Kroger Co.; Publix Super Markets, Inc.; SUPERVALU, Inc.; Safeway,
Inc.; Albertsons LLC; H.E.  Butt Grocery Co.; The Great Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Company, Inc.; Walgreen Co.; Hy-Vee, Inc.; and Giant
Eagle, Inc.  In four of these remaining non-class cases, the
plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief under the
Sherman Act.  In one of those four cases, the plaintiffs purchased
only egg products, and as noted above, the Court dismissed with
prejudice all claims arising from the purchase of egg products.
On October 4, 2016, the four plaintiffs in that case (Kraft Food
Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The
Kellogg Company) appealed that decision to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  In the fifth remaining non-
class case, the plaintiff seeks treble damages and injunctive
relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as
the Valentine Act).

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to
case management, discovery, class certification, summary judgment,
and scheduling.  The Court has also denied all four motions that
the plaintiffs filed to exclude testimony from certain expert
witnesses retained by the defendants.  The Pennsylvania court has
not set a trial date for any of the Company's remaining
consolidated cases (non-class and indirect purchaser cases).  As
noted above, the court held a hearing on the parties' proposed
trial schedules but has not yet set a trial date.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. produces, grades, packages, markets, and
distributes shell eggs.  The Company was founded in 1957 and is
based in Jackson, Mississippi.


CAPFUSION LLC: Menichiello Seeks to Certify 2 Classes Under TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled Joseph Menichiello,
Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v.
CAPFUSION LLC, RYAN SULLIVAN, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
and each of them, Case No. 8:17-cv-00717-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal.),
moves the Court to certify two classes under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act:

   (1) All persons within the United States who received any
       solicitation/telemarketing telephone calls from Defendant
       to said person's cellular telephone made through the use
       of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial
       or prerecorded voice and such person had not previously
       consented to receiving such calls within the four years
       prior to the filing of this Complaint; and

   (2) All persons within the United States registered on the
       National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days, who
       had not granted Defendants prior express consent nor had a
       prior established business relationship, who received more
       than one call made by or on behalf of Defendants that
       promoted Defendants' products or services, within any
       twelve-month period, within four years prior to the filing
       of the complaint.

Mr. Menichiello also moves the Court for his appointment as Class
Representative, and for appointment of his attorneys as Class
Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 12, 2018, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kubdq3hy

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTENE CORP: Still Faces Federal Securities Suit in Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
Centene Corporation continues to defend itself against a federal
securities class action currently pending in Missouri, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 25, 2017 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

In November 2016, a putative federal securities class action was
filed against the Company and certain of its executives in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  In
March 2017, the court entered an order transferring the matter to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company's accounting
and related disclosures for certain liabilities acquired in the
acquisition of Health Net violated federal securities laws.

Centene said, "The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously
defending itself against these claims.  Nevertheless, this matter
is subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict
how long this litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome
will be, and an adverse outcome in this matter could potentially
have a materially adverse impact on our financial position and
results of operations."

Centene Corporation operates as a diversified and multi-national
healthcare enterprise that provides programs and services to
under-insured and uninsured individuals in the United States.  It
operates through two segments, Managed Care and Specialty
Services.  The Company provides its services through primary and
specialty care physicians, hospitals, and ancillary providers.
Centene Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
St. Louis, Missouri.


CHICAGO BRIDGE: "Jones" Suit Claims "9/80" Pay Plan Unlawful
------------------------------------------------------------
BONNIE R. JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY (DELAWARE)
a/k/a CB&I and CB&I STONE & WEBSTER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00424 (W.D.N.C., July 18, 2017), alleges that Defendant's
current and former hourly employees were denied overtime
compensation pursuant to an unlawful "9/80" pay plan.

According to the case, under a lawful 9/80 pay plan, employees
work nine days in a two-workweek period, but not more than forty
hours in either week. The two-workweek period is scheduled so that
employees work four 9-hour days, followed by an 8-hour day.
Employees then work four 9-hour days the next week. For a 9/80 pay
plan to comply with the FLSA, the workweek must end at the
midpoint of the 8-hour day. When implemented properly, the first
four hours worked during the 8-hour day fall into one workweek and
the second four hours worked during the 8-hour day fall into the
next workweek. The result is that the hours worked in both
workweeks will not exceed 40.

Defendant's workweek violates the FLSA because it begins on a
Monday and ends on a Sunday. Under Defendant's 9/80 pay plan, the
8-hour day is every other Friday. As a result, employees work 36
hours one workweek and 44 hours the next workweek, but are only
paid for 80 total hours of pay, with no overtime premium for the 4
hours of overtime worked during the 44-hour workweek, says the
complaint.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
well as for violations of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY is a conglomerate engineering,
procurement and construction (EPC) company. The proposed class is
composed of current and former hourly employees of the Defendants.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     15720 Brixham Hill Avenue, Suite 331
     Charlotte, NC 28277
     Email: Pgibbons@stephanzouras.com

        - and -

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Email: Rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            Jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            Aficzko@stephanzouras.com


CLEARWATER, ID: Commissioners Approve AG's Defense in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwater Tribune reports that the Idaho Attorney General's
Office proposed to represent Clearwater County amongst many other
counties in the state, in a class action lawsuit filed by
convicted sex offenders claiming requirements of the sex offender
registry are unconstitutional.

Clayne Tyler, Clearwater County Prosecutor, explained to
Commissioners that plaintiffs are asking for a ruling on the
constitutionality of the registry.  They are not requesting
compensation for damages.  Mr. Tyler said he didn't expect there
to be any cost to Clearwater County to have the attorney general
represent the defendants. [GN]


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Class Action Mulled Over Money Laundering Probe
------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Durkin and Katie Walsh, writing for Australian Review,
report that the Commonwealth Bank may face a class action from
investors, following revelations the board failed to disclose a
money laundering investigation for over two years, which triggered
a $5.5 billion collapse in the bank's share price when the
regulator launched its case.

Class action lawyers are circling the CBA saga as more information
emerges about what the executives and board knew and when.

Treasurer Scott Morrison met with CBA chairman Catherine
Livingstone on Aug. 8 and the Treasurer has taken advice from
Australian Securities and Investments Commission chairman Greg
Medcraft who is also investigating taking action over CBA's
disclosure.

The threat of a major shareholder class action poses a further
headache for the CBA which is already facing a multi-billion
dollar penalty, on top of the board's self-imposed response
including a $40 million technology upgrade, $85 million to
strengthen the bank's "know-your-customer" processes and cutting
executives short-term bonuses.

"It should not have taken the issuing of court proceedings by
AUSTRAC and media reporting of that, for the bank to own up to
such serious and troubling allegations by one of its regulators,"
class action law firm Phi Finney McDonald said.

The three founding partners of the new firm, which was launched
this month, previously headed Slater and Gordon's class actions
practices in Australia and the UK.

"The bank has known about AUSTRAC's investigation for two years.
That investigation included AFP raids last year.  The matters
raised by AUSTRAC must be of substance since, when they were
raised with CBA by AUSTRAC, CBA responded by lodging over 50,000
threshold transaction notifications, well after they should have
done so," the firm said.

                 Board knew but failed to disclose

Before launching the class action, lawyers said they will monitor
AUSTRAC's pending Federal Court action to piggy back off any
evidence uncovered during the case.  That may provide an extra
incentive for the bank to seek an early settlement with the
regulator, however one litigation funder said they would "eat
their hat" if no class action emerged.

The other precondition is for shareholders to suffer a loss.
CBA's share price has recovered some ground from its 4 per cent
fall on Aug. 4 but some investors believe the market response
showed there was a material non-disclosure which would make the
shareholder class action worthwhile.

"I see this as a failure of timely disclosure of a material event
as evidenced by the share price reaction," Velocity Trade senior
banking analyst Brett Le Mesurier said.

One leading corporate lawyer who advises company boards said the
likely shareholder action would turn on the knowledge of the CBA
board.

CBA chairman Catherine Livingstone revealed at the bank's full
year results on Aug. 9 that the board was aware of transaction
reporting issues with its smart ATMs in the second half of 2015.

                 'You can't disclose every notice'

CBA CEO Ian Narev argues the bank is constantly flooded with
regulatory requests and if it disclosed everything, the market
would be overwhelmed and confused.

"All major financial institutions have a raft of notices from very
active regulators, as you would hope they would, and you simply
can't make disclosure every time you get notices from regulators
or you would be making disclosures every day," Mr Narev said.

"Our view would be these things didn't come anywhere near it in
the form they came at the time."

AUSTRAC allege CBA became aware of a systems error which meant
transactions larger than $10,000 were not being reported on
June 16, 2014.

The problems affected 778,370 accounts with $8.91 billion
deposited in the bank's smart ATMs before it was fixed.  The
investigation led to police raids on CBA premises in April last
year and dozens of international arrests.

The lawyer said four disclosure questions would be key to any
shareholder class action: the bank's failure to make a provision
in their accounts or a contingent liability note, the failure to
inform the market under continuous disclosure provisions and
excluding any detail about the issue in remuneration reports for
senior executives. [GN]


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Constantine" Suit Under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
DEBBIE CONSTANTINE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., a
WASHINGTON CORPORATION AND PINNACLE CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, a
MINNESOTA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-
01259-HNJ (N.D. Ala., July 27, 2017), alleges that Defendants'
form debt collection letter violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act because it failed to state that Convergent, the
original creditor, or any of the related entities listed on the
reverse side of the letter could not also sue on the debt, and
that Convergent and the original creditor could not also make a
credit report about the debt; moreover, by stating that Pinnacle
"will not" sue or credit report, rather than it "cannot" sue or
credit report, the letter implied that Pinnacle still had the
option to take those actions, and that it was simply choosing not
to do so.

Defendant acts as a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


CONVERGYS CORP: Class Action Waivers Enforceable, Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Council, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that in a major
win for employers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
has shot down a National Labor Relations Board ruling forcing the
Convergys Corp. to stop requiring its job applicants to sign class
action waivers that prevent them from suing the company.

The recent 2-1 decision in Convergys v. NLRB rejects the board's
finding that the Ohio-based customer management company violated
worker rights to self-organize under the National Labor Relations
Act by requiring potential employees to sign class action waivers.

The background to the Aug. 7 decision is as follows. Convergys
requires job applicants to sign an agreement that they will not
"lead, join or serve as a member or group of persons" bringing a
claim against the company.

A Convergys employee later complained to the NLRB about the class
action waiver.  While the board noted that the Fifth Circuit had
allowed for class action waivers in arbitration agreements in its
2013 decision in D.R. Horton v. NRLB, it still rejected Convergys'
waiver requirement noting that it sought to distinguish its
decision from Horton by recognizing a broad "right of employees to
join together to improve their terms and conditions of employment
through litigation."

Convergys appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit.  And the
threshold question for the appellate court was whether Section 7
of the NRLA, which guarantees the right to self-organize and
collective bargain and "to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of . . . other mutual aid or protection," also
contemplates an employees' right to participate in class actions.
In her majority decision, Judge Jennifer Elrod wrote that class
action waivers are allowed and that the court has previously ruled
in Horton that an employee's use of class actions or class action
procedures is not a substantive right.

"After our decision in Horton, the idea that Section 7 protects a
substantive right to participate in class and collective actions
is still more firmly foreclosed," Judge Elrod wrote.  "Simply put,
the board's position that Section 7 guarantees a substantive right
of employees to participate in class and collective actions
against their employers is contrary to our binding precedent."

Judge Elrod also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court is set to
consider whether employer arbitration agreements that can ban them
from pursuing class action claims violates federal labor laws this
year in NRLB v. Murphy Oil.  "In the meantime, however, we must
apply our circuit's binding precedent," Judge Elrod wrote.

Senior Judge Patrick Higginbotham dissented to decision, noting
that Convergys' case is different from previous Fifth Circuit
decisions allowing class action waivers.

"Although this court has held time and again that such waivers are
permissible, one important distinction makes the waiver in this
case different: there is no arbitration agreement," Judge
Higginbotham wrote.

Without being contained in an arbitration provision, which is
shielded by the powerful Federal Arbitration Act that favors
alternative dispute resolution over litigation, a bare class
action waiver violates the NRLA, he wrote.

"The language of Section 7 cannot be plainer: class and collective
actions are 'other concerted activities for the purpose of . . .
mutual aid or protection," Judge Higginbotham wrote.  "Because
such actions are rights protected by Section 7, employers cannot
interfere with them by forcing employees to waive them.  I would
enforce the board's orders, and so I dissent."

Jennifer Rose Asbrock, a member Frost Brown Todd who represents
Convergys, did not return a call for comment.  Neither did
Gregoire Sauter, a NLRB lawyer who represents the board on appeal.
[GN]


CSK AUTO: "Aguilar" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CSK AUTO, INC., O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE
STORES, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-
cv-04263-JCS (N.D. Cal., July 27, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs
have been injured by CSK's failure to provide proper rest breaks
as required by California law, failure to furnish accurate wage
statements, and failure to timely pay all wages due upon
termination of employment.

For these injuries, Plaintiffs seek damages and penalties, as well
as interest, attorney's fees, costs, and injunctive relief, all
under California law, including: California Labor Code, Industrial
Wage Commission Wage Order; California Code of Civil Procedure;
and California Business & Professions Code.

The Proposed Class consists of all non-exempt employees working at
any CSK store in California at any time during the Class Period,
excluding persons holding the job position of Store Manager or an
equivalent position.

CSK AUTO, INC. provides retail sale of new automobile tires,
batteries, and other automobile parts and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CVS HEALTH: NASP Responds to Class Action Over PBMs Collusion
-------------------------------------------------------------
A new class-action lawsuit filed against CVS Health alleges that
the company knowingly colludes with third party pharmacy benefit
managers (PBMs) to increase profits and drive up the cost of
generic prescription drugs.  Following the lawsuit's filing on
Aug. 7 in the District Court of Rhode Island, the National
Association of Specialty Pharmacy's Executive Director, Sheila
Arquette, released the following statement:

"Fraud, waste and abuse is one of the single most important
drivers of escalating costs in any business, and healthcare is no
exception.  Especially in matters of life or death -- like
healthcare -- fraud, waste and abuse of any kind should not be
tolerated.

Escalating healthcare costs consistently ranks as one of the top
things keeping Americans up at night, and the effects reach beyond
patients, as well as the healthcare providers and pharmacies that
work to keep them as healthy as possible.

Unfortunately, the current market dynamics and lack of
transparency make it very difficult for patients and healthcare
providers to navigate the increasingly complex healthcare and drug
delivery system.

NASP will continuing working with Washington, individual states,
and others in the healthcare delivery channel to institute reforms
that will not only benefit patients and healthcare providers, but
taxpayers alike.

We are at the table, eager to find actionable solutions to ensure
the highest quality care and patient satisfaction possible,
especially when it comes to providing affordable medications and
support services for patients, their families and caregivers as
they work to manage tough conditions.

We hope big PBMs will join us at the table, so we can work
together to contain prescription drug costs.  More transparency
from big PBMs, along with others in the prescription drug supply
chain, are critical to this important effort."

Specialty Pharmacy provides medications to treat patients with
serious, chronic, rare, progressive, or debilitating or fatal if
left untreated or undertreated. According to the Drug Channels
Institute and other sources, specialty pharmacy drugs will
represent 44% of the U.S. drug spend by the year 2020.  Examples
of illnesses that require specialty medications include cancer,
hepatitis C, infectious disease, infertility, Crohn's disease,
rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis,
Cystic Fibrosis, organ transplantation, human growth hormone
deficiencies, hemophilia, and other bleeding disorders.

Direct and Indirect Remuneration (DIR) fees | One of the
challenges facing the industry right now is: how to help CMS and
Congress stop big PBMs from imposing unfair and opaque DIR fees
that increase prescription drug costs for seniors and crush
specialty pharmacy's ability to provide the care that sick seniors
need. DIR fees are increasingly egregious and impose negative
consequences by inflating prescription drug costs for the sickest,
most vulnerable seniors -- the very patients the Medicare Part D
program was designed to protect.  Not only that, DIR fees threaten
the specialty pharmacies that serve the unique needs of patients
living with complex, life-altering, and often life-threatening
diseases.

National Association for Specialty Pharmacy (NASP) | NASP was
founded in 2012 and is the only national trade association that
represents specialty pharmacy, serving as the leading educational
resource and national advocate for specialty pharmacy healthcare
professionals and patients alike.  In addition to providing
medications to severely ill patients, specialty pharmacy also
features support programs and services to ensure patients maximize
the benefit from their medication, therapies and services, working
to ease the treatment burden for patients, families and caregivers
as they work to manage these tough conditions.  NASP will convene
its fifth annual conference from Sept. 18 to Sept. 20 in
Washington, D.C., kicking off with a keynote speech from
healthcare veteran and former Lilly USA President Alex Azar,
followed by two days of thought-provoking discussions on the state
of specialty pharmacy (RSVP to nasp@skdknick.com). [GN]


DAIICHI SANKYO: Faces Lawsuits Over Benicar Side Effects
--------------------------------------------------------
Angie Koehle, writing for abc15, reports that have you ever taken
hypertension medications Benicar HCT, Azor or Tribenzor? They've
been linked to severe gastrointestinal problems that mimic the
symptoms of celiac disease, leading some users to be misdiagnosed
as having the autoimmune disorder.

According to Top Class Actions:  Benicar side effects can cause
severe and chronic diarrhea, substantial weight loss, sprue-like
enteropathy, villous atrophy, and other GI problems.  These
complications may develop months to years after taking Benicar,
leaving some users unaware that their GI problems were caused by
the drug.  Lawsuits accuse drug makers of failing to adequately
research the potential side effects of Benicar and provide
sufficient warnings about the risks.  If you suffered severe GI
problems after taking Benicar, you may have a legal claim. [GN]


DAVID PURKEY: Court Denied Bid to Certify Class in "Shell" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAVID SHELL, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
DAVID PURKEY, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00059-TAV-
HBG (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Thomas A. Varlan entered an order
denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify class without prejudice.

The Court noted that in a report and recommendation, Judge Guyton
recommended that plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class be denied
with leave to refile after the parties have completed the
discovery necessary to properly consider the merits of class
certification.  The Court further noted that there have been no
timely objections to the R&R, and enough time has passed since the
filing of the R&R to treat any objections as having been waived.
See 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. After a
careful review of the matter, the Court agreed with Magistrate
Judge Guyton's recommendations, which the Court adopted and
incorporates into its ruling. As such, the Court accepted in whole
the R&R.

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


DIRECTV LLC: Faces "Guice" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GUICE, STEVEN SCOTT, THOMAS PEDICORD, BERNARD TYNDALE,
RANDY COLLIER, BENJAMIN HAYNES, ZACHARY LAUDERMAN, ANTHONY DA VIS,
SHANE HARRIS, BRIAN ELLIOTT, DAVID CROWLEY, COREY MARSH, ANDREW
SINCLAIR, ATOY WILLIAMS, DAVE CRAWFORD, STEVE DICKSON, KENNETH
PRESS, ERICK COLLINS, ANTONIO RUFFIN, ERIK WOLD, BRANDON WATSON,
NICHOLAS AMBROSO, MARIO ROMERO, MICHAEL ERICKSON, GENE JOHN,
MICHAEL LOGEMAN, FRANKLIN VELASQUEZ, CLIFTON RICE, JUSTIN HOLMAN,
CARLOS BELTRE PEREZ, OLUW ASE UN OGUNWUNMI, DANNY HILL, JOSEPH
FAERBER, DANIEL BLANKENSHIP, CHAD MEDUKAS, LARRY VANVLEET, PATRICK
GORMAN, ALAN JACOBSON, RICHARD MUELLER, KEITH LEITZINGER, DAVID
CROWLEY, TYRONE RASMUSSON, AARON HUNT, and JOHN PAGEL, Plaintiffs,
v. DIRECTV, LLC and DIRECTSAT, USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-03379-PD (E.D. Pa., July 28, 2017), alleges that
Defendants paid Plaintiffs on a piece-rate basis that did not
properly compensate them for all of the hours they worked.
Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages and other applicable
remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

DIRECTV, LLC is registered to conduct business in Pennsylvania,
operates warehouses, offices, and separate retail locations in
Pennsylvania, and promotes, markets, and sells its satellite
television service in this district.  Plaintiffs worked as
satellite television installation and service technicians.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     George A. Hanson, Esq.
     Crystal R. Cook, Esq.
     STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
     460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Phone: 816-714-7100
     Fax: 816-714-7101
     Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
     Email: cook@stuevesiegel.com

        - and -

     Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
     Todd C. Werts, Esq.
     LEAR WERTS LLP
     2003 W. Broadway, Ste. 107
     Columbia, MO 65203
     Phone: 573-875-1991
     Fax: 573-875-1985
     Email: lear@learwerts.com
     Email: werts@learwerts.com


DIRECTV LLC: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Decision in "Cordoba" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant DIRECTV, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Sebastian Cordoba v. DirecTV LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-03755-MHC, in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 28,
2017, a Georgia federal judge certified a class action accusing
DirecTV of making illegal telemarketing calls to names on the
National Do Not Call Registry, saying the class has demonstrated
common claims and standing to bring them.

In an order, U.S. District Judge Mark H. Cohen held that
unsolicited telephone calls are an invasion of privacy under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act that constitute a concrete
injury necessary to demonstrate Article III standing, noting that
an injury can be intangible and still be considered "concrete."

"Just as a junk fax renders a fax machine temporarily unavailable,
a call placed in violation of the TCPA -- whether or not a person
has taken any affirmative steps to avoid it, like requesting
placement on a caller's [internal] DNC list -- deprives its
recipient of time, mental energy and privacy," Judge Cohen said.

The appellate case is captioned as DIRECTV, LLC v. Sebastian
Cordoba, Case No. 17-90020, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

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

          Michael Joseph Boyle, Jr.
          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
          E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com
                  mwilson@meyerwilson.com

               - and -

          Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq.
          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson St., 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10113
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          E-mail: dcuthbertson@lchb.com
                  dhutchinson@lchb.com

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Jonathan David Grunberg, Esq.
          L. Lin Wood, Esq.
          Nicole Jennings Wade, Esq.
          G. Taylor Wilson, Esq.
          L. LIN WOOD, PC
          1180 West Peachtree Street, Ste. 2400
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 891-1402
          Facsimile: (404) 506-9111
          E-mail: jgrunberg@linwoodlaw.com
                  lwood@linwoodlaw.com
                  nwade@linwoodlaw.com
                  twilson@linwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew M. Wilkins, Esq.
          Stephen A. Yaklin, Esq.
          KING & YAKLIN, LLP
          192 Anderson Street, Suite 125
          Marietta, Georgia 30060
          Telephone: (770) 424-9235
          Facsimile: (770) 424-9239
          E-mail: mwilkins@kingyaklin.com
                  syaklin@kingyaklin.com

Defendant-Petitioner DIRECTV, LLC, individually and as successor
through merger to DIRECTV, Inc., is represented by:

          Ava Conger, Esq.
          John P. Jett, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
          1100 Peachtree St., Suite 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 815-6500
          E-mail: aconger@kilpatricktownsend.com
                  jjett@kilpatricktownsend.com

               - and -

          Hans J. Germann, Esq.
          John E. Muench, Esq.
          Andrew John Pincus, Esq.
          Kyle J. Steinmetz, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K St. NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3000
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5220
          E-mail: hgermann@mayerbrown.com
                  jmuench@mayerbrown.com
                  apincus@mayerbrown.com
                  ksteinmetz@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Kara W. Ong, Esq.
          CINGULAR WIRELESS, LLC
          5565 Glenridge Connector NE, Suite 1700
          Atlanta, GA 30342-4756
          Telephone: (404) 236-6000


DITECH FINANCIAL: Faces "Nelson" Suit Over SCRA Interest Rate Cap
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN S. NELSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-05582 (W.D. Wash., July 28, 2017), was brought
pursuant to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) of 2003, on
behalf of a class of current and former servicemembers whose
statutory rights to a 6% interest rate cap under the SCRA have
been violated in connection with mortgage loans incurred by them
and their spouses before they were called to active service.

The lawsuit challenges Defendant Ditech Financial, LLC's policy or
practice of refusing to apply the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act's 6% interest rate cap for periods of military service,
including with respect to those periods preceding the transfer of
the servicing rights on those loans to Defendant.

Defendant Ditech Financial, LLC is a mortgage company that lends
and services residential mortgages throughout the United States.
Plaintiff Brian S. Nelson is a retired Major from the Army
National Guard.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq.
     CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC
     905 W. Riverside Ave. Ste. 409
     Spokane, WA 99201
     Phone: (509) 850-7011
     Email: matt@crottyandson.com

        - and -

     R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     1735 20th Street, NW
     Washington, DC 20009
     Phone: 202-734-7046
     Email: jbarton@blockesq.com

        - and -

     Vincent Cheng, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     610 16th Street, Suites 214-16
     Oakland CA 94612
     Phone: 415-968-8999
     Email: vincent@blockesq.com

        - and -

     Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS JARRARD, PLLC
     1020 N. Washington St.
     Spokane, WA 99201
     Phone: (425) 239-7290
     Email: TJarrard@att.net


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid to Substitute Class Representative Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
on July 25, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs'
request to substitute the proposed class representatives in the
case styled Jerry Beeman, et al. v. Caremark, et al. has been
denied.

The Company said, "Plaintiffs allege that ESI and the other
defendants failed to comply with statutory obligations to provide
California clients with the results of a bi-annual survey of
retail drug prices.  On November 14, 2016, the district court
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification, holding that
the proposed class representatives and counsel were inadequate to
represent a class.  Plaintiffs' request to substitute the proposed
class representatives was denied on June 9, 2017."

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and Europe.
It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business Operations.
It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and changed its
name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April 2012.  The
Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Saint Louis,
Missouri.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Review Sought on Class Status Denial in "Brady"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
on July 25, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs
in the Brady Enterprises case are seeking reconsideration of a
previously denied request for class certification.

In Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions,
Inc., and North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts,
Inc., et al., the plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.  The court has entered an order denying
class certification in the Brady case and decertifying the class
against ESI and Medco in the North Jackson case.  The Brady
plaintiffs have filed a motion requesting reconsideration of the
court's denial of class certification.

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and Europe.
It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business Operations.
It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and changed its
name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April 2012.  The
Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Saint Louis,
Missouri.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Still Faces Putative Securities Class Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company continues to face a putative class
action related to purchasers of the Company's common stock between
February 2015 and March 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on July 25, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The case is styled In re Express Scripts Holdings Company
Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "Plaintiff filed this putative securities class
action complaint on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
common stock between February 24, 2015 and March 21, 2016 and
alleges the Company and named individuals violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by carrying out a
scheme to defraud the investing public. Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and other class
members, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable relief."

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and Europe.
It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business Operations.
It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and changed its
name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April 2012.  The
Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Saint Louis,
Missouri.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid to Dismiss ERISA Class Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company's unit, Express Scripts, Inc.
(ESI), filed its reply brief on July 21, 2017 in response to the
plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss a consolidated
class action case regarding alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 25, 2017 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

The case is styled In re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation,
and it consolidates other cases, namely: John Doe One and John Doe
Two v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell,
and Robert Shullich v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem, Inc.

The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on behalf of health plan beneficiaries who are enrolled
in health care plans that are insured or administered by Anthem.
Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Anthem breached fiduciary
duties and otherwise violated their legal obligations under ERISA,
that ESI engaged in mail fraud, wire fraud and other racketeering
activity through its invoicing system with Anthem, that ESI
breached its contract with Anthem, that plaintiffs are entitled to
equitable relief under theories including unjust enrichment, that
ESI violated unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes, that
Anthem breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
implied in health plans, and that ESI violated the anti-
discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

In support of the claim, the plaintiff adopts many of the
allegations made by Anthem, Inc. in a separate proceeding.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, declaratory relief,
equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On June 9, 2017, plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the
motion to dismiss and ESI filed its reply brief on July 21, 2017.

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and Europe.
It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business Operations.
It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and changed its
name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April 2012.  The
Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Saint Louis,
Missouri.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Still Faces "Klein" Suit over EpiPen Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company is facing lawsuit filed by Elan
and Adam Klein, et al. related to the price of EpiPen products,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 25, 2017, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017.

The case is styled Elan and Adam Klein, et al. v. Prime
Therapeutics, LLC; Express Scripts Holding Co.; Express Scripts,
Inc.; and CVS Health Corp.

The Company stated, "Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated
legal obligations under ERISA by negotiating increasingly large
rebates from Mylan, which allegedly caused an increase in the
price of EpiPen products.  Plaintiffs further allege that
defendants retained a significant portion of rebates, rather than
passing them on to class members (who are participants in, or
beneficiaries of, health insurance plans governed by ERISA who
purchased EpiPen products)."

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and Europe.
It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business Operations.
It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and changed its
name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April 2012.  The
Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Saint Louis,
Missouri.


EXPRESSWAY DELIVERIES: Faces "Munoz" Suit Under Cal. Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADONAY MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EXPRESSWAY DELIVERIES, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
BC668867 (Cal. Super., County Of Los Angeles, July 17, 2017),
alleges violation of the California Labor Code, specifically
pertaining to meal period, minimum wage and overtime, rest period,
pay during employment, wages due at separation of employment,
issuance of accurate itemized wage statements, and reimbursement
for necessary business expenditures.  It also alleges violation of
the California Business and Professions Code.

Defendant is a perishable products transport company.  Plaintiff
was employed in a non-exempt hourly position.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
     AnnaR. Salusky, Esq.
     Derek R. Guizado, Esq.
     Keren B. Serrano, Esq.
     MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
     249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Phone: (562) 590-5550
     Fax: (562) 590-8400
     Email: kmahonev@mahoney-law.net
            asalusky@mahonev-law.net
            dguizado@mahoney-law.net
            kserrano@mahoney-law.net


DEMOCRATIC NAT'L: Media Mum on Class Action v. Wasserman Schultz
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Smith, writing for Sunshine State News, reports that why is
there so little media attention given the class-action lawsuit
filed June 28 accusing the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and
the Florida congresswoman who chaired it, Debbie Wasserman
Schultz, of fraud for skewing the party's primaries to benefit
Hillary Clinton?

The accusations haven't come from Republicans, either. Wasserman
Schultz piqued the ire of 150 Democratic voters and donors who are
still outraged, still feel Wasserman Schultz cheated them.

It's a drama playing out in U.S. District Court in Broward County,
where the Dems' accusations specifically run to accusing their
party and Wasserman Schultz of breach of fiduciary duty,
negligence, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation for
secretly helping Clinton get the presidential nomination over
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

"But you don't hear a peep in the press," retired Miami broker and
Sanders supporter Edmond Ross told Sunshine State News.

"Despite the requirements in the Charter, and in spite of the
multiple public declarations of neutrality and impartiality with
respect to the Democratic primary process, the DNC was not
neutral," a 35-page complaint states.  "To the contrary, the DNC
was biased in favor of one candidate -- Hillary Clinton -- from
the beginning and throughout the process.  The DNC devoted its
considerable resources to supporting Clinton above any of the
other Democratic candidates.  Through its public claims to being
neutral and impartial, the DNC actively concealed its bias from
its own donors as well as donors to the campaigns of Clinton's
rivals, including Bernie Sanders."

The scandal broke when leaked DNC electronic mail showed the DNC
favored and backed Clinton instead of Sanders during the primary.
Wasserman Schultz resigned in disgrace as DNC chair, was publicly
blasted by Sanders supporters and didn't gavel in the party
convention last summer in Philadelphia.

The Sun-Sentinel wrote it was a hurricane-force controversy over
leaked emails that showed the DNC under Wasserman Schultz was
helping Clinton while Sanders was still a contender for the
Democratic presidential nomination.  In the article, the veteran
congresswoman from the city of Weston indicated she stepped down
as DNC chair to focus on "making sure everyone knows that Hillary
Clinton would make the best president."

Democrats suing her insist the congresswoman violated DNC's
charter and bylaws that say the party chair "shall exercise
impartiality and evenhandedness" and "shall be responsible for
ensuring that the officers and staff of the DNC maintain
impartiality and evenhandedness."

Wasserman Schultz also made public declarations vowing to run a
neutral primary, according to the lawsuit, while she and the DNC
pushed for Clinton from the start of the 2016 presidential
election cycle.

The complaint cites a leaked internal DNC document dated May 26,
2015 listing a plan to provide a contrast between "GOP field and
HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton]" as well as the use of "specific hits
to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign
finance attacks on HRC."

The DNC and Wasserman Schultz had actual knowledge of the
wrongfulness of the conduct, the lawsuit says, adding that the
conduct was so reckless it constituted a conscious disregard for
the rights of the plaintiffs.

In the absence of media interest, the attorneys representing the
class, a husband-and-wife team from Miami who supported Sanders,
created a website where all documents related to the case are
posted as well as courtroom illustrations and information on
hearings.  The docket is extensive and dates back to June 2016
when the complaint was filed.

Says Judicial Watch, "This is a valuable tool because, unlike
state cases, federal court records are not available to the public
for free and must be purchased through the government's online
system known as Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER).
The database is most commonly used by attorneys and journalists
(though not in this case) to research federal criminal, civil and
bankruptcy cases. Having access to dozens of documents related to
this case is a true bonus, especially since there's been no local
or national media coverage."

Judicial Watch, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit watchdog organization, is
monitoring the case and circulating press releases on pertinent
developments.

This case is in addition to a more recent scandal in which
Wasserman Schultz is embroiled, involving her top information
technology aide, Imran Awan, who was recently arrested on bank-
fraud charges at the airport while trying to flee to his native
Pakistan.  Mr. Awan had just wired $283,000 from the Congressional
Federal Credit Union to Pakistan, according to news reports, and
he had been fired by other members of Congress -- but not by
Wasserman Schultz -- after getting busted stealing computers and
data systems months earlier. [GN]


FAGRON INC: Bobo's Drugs Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned BOBO'S DRUGS, INC. d/b/a
DAVIS ISLANDS PHARMACY, a Florida corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
FAGRON, INC., FAGRON ACADEMY, LLC, FAGRON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES,
LLC, FAGRON HOLDING USA, LLC, and B&B PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case
No. 8:17-cv-01862-CEH-TBM (M.D. Fla.), moves for an order
certifying this class:

     Each person sent one or more telephone facsimile messages
     from Fagron or B&B Pharmaceuticals promoting pharmaceutical
     products or educational services from the Fagron Academy
     Compounding Technical Services [FACTS] but did not inform
     recipients that to opt out of receiving further faxes they
     must identify the telephone number of the telephone
     facsimile machine to which their opt-out request relates,
     that a request must be made to the telephone number,
     facsimile number, Web site address or email address
     identified in the sender's facsimile advertisement, and that
     an opt-out request will be valid until the recipient
     subsequently provides express invitation or permission to
     the sender, in writing or otherwise, authorizing
     advertisements by fax.

Bobo's Drugs informs the Court it filed the Motion soon after the
filing of its Class Action Complaint in order to avoid an attempt
by the Defendants to moot its individual claims in the class
action.  However, Bobo's Drugs asserts, additional discovery is
necessary for the Court to determine whether to certify the class
the Plaintiff seeks to represent.  As a result, Bobo's Drugs will
seek leave to pursue class discovery as soon as practicable.

The case involves common fact questions about the Defendants' fax
campaign and common legal questions under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com


FOUNDATION MEDICINE: Faces "Mahoney" Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
MARC F. MAHONEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. FOUNDATION MEDICINE, INC.,
MICHAEL J. PELLINI, STEVEN KAFKA and JASON RYAN, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-11394 (D. Mass., July 28, 2017), is a securities class
action on behalf of all purchasers of Foundation common stock
between February 26, 2014 and November 3, 2015, inclusive.

Allegedly, during the Class Period, the Company made positive
statements regarding the reimbursement process for its tumor tests
by Medicare, claimed to be on track for obtaining Medicare
coverage, and provided strong 2015 financial guidance, causing the
price of its common stock to trade at fraud-inflated prices.

On July 29, 2015, the Company finally disclosed that it was not
making the strides obtaining coverage it had claimed to have been
making during the Class Period and that in reality, Foundation
would receive no Medicare payments in 2015 for its tumor profiling
tests, due to a delay in receiving a local coverage determination
from its regional Medicare Administrative Contractor. As a result
of the delay, the Company slashed its 2015 financial guidance
which, unbeknownst to investors, was based on an assumption that
Medicare approval was going to be obtained in 2015.

Defendant Foundation, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, develops,
manufactures and sells genomic analysis diagnostics for solid and
circulating cancers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Theodore M. Hess-mahan, Esq.
     HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP
     110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
     Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
     Phone: 781/431-2231
     Fax: 781/431-8726
     Email: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian

        - and -

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 S. Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Phone: (631) 367-7100
     Fax: (631) 367-1173

        - and -

     Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
     Adam M. Apton, Esq.
     Adam C. McCall, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Telephone: (202) 524-4290
     Fax: (202) 333-2121


FREDERICK-THOMPSON: "Al-Anazi" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ABDALLAH AL-ANAZI, SADAQA NATIONAL, INC.,
ANTHONY COLEMAN, and RALPH ROSS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FREDERICK-THOMPSON
COMPANY d/b/a FTI, and BILL THOMPSON TRANSPORT INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-12928-JEL-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all independent owner-operators who leased a
      vehicle/tractor to Bill Thompson Transport, Inc., and/or
      FTI pursuant to a Lease Agreement and whose agreements were
      in effect at any time within 4 years prior to the date this
      action was filed or any time after this action was filed";
      and

   2. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5zr2y4sX

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Philo, Esq.
          Anthony D. Paris, Esq.
          SUGAR LAW CENTER
          FOR ECONOMICAL & SOCIAL JUSTICE
          4605 Cass. Ave., 2nd Floor
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 993 4505
          Facsimile: (313) 887 8470
          E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org
                  tparis@sugarlaw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jack W. Schulz, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Gotham, Esq.
          SCHULZ GOTHAM PLC
          PO Box 44855
          Detroit, MI 482244
          Telephone: (313) 246 3590
          E-mail: jackwschulz@gmail.com

               - and -

          Martin J. Leavitt, Esq.
          Paul E. Robinson, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & LEAVITT, PC
          P.O. Box 5490
          Northville, MI 48167
          Telephone: (248) 349 3980
          E-mail: mjl@sullivanleavitt.com
                  pr@sullivanleavitt.com


G5IVE LLC: Faces "Martinez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOALIE MARTINEZ, on her own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. G5IVE, LLC, a FLORIDA LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY, and ANTONIO BRYANT, an individual, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-22857-CMA (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2017), alleges
that throughout the Relevant Time Period, Plaintiff and those
similarly situated were not paid an hourly wage but instead were
only paid a share of the tips collected, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  Further, throughout the Relevant Time
Period, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to share their
tips with non-tipped employees, such as management and owners.

Defendant G5IVE owns and operates the club G5IVE.  Plaintiff and
the proposed collective action members were employed as adult
entertainers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
     17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone.: 305.358.6800
     Fax: 305.358.6808
     Email: robert@kuvinlaw.com
            legal@kuvinlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: 100 Putative Class Actions Pending in US, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company is facing 100 putative class actions
currently pending in various courts in the U.S. and Canada related
to the Company's product recalls in 2014, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017

In 2014, the Company announced various recalls relating to safety
and other matters.  Those recalls included recalls to repair
ignition switches that could under certain circumstances
unintentionally move from the "run" position to the "accessory" or
"off" position with a corresponding loss of power, which could in
turn prevent airbags from deploying in the event of a crash.

The Company said, "Through July 17, 2017, we were aware of over
100 putative class actions pending against GM in various courts in
the U.S. and Canada alleging that consumers who purchased or
leased vehicles manufactured by GM or General Motors Corporation
had been economically harmed by one or more of the recalls
announced in 2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions
associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases).  In general,
these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory
damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain damages or damages
related to alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, as well as
punitive damages, injunctive relief and other relief.  There are
also two civil actions brought by state governmental entities
relating to the recalls that seek civil penalties and injunctive
relief for alleged violations of state laws."

General Motors Company (GM) designs, builds, and sells cars,
trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide.  It operates
through GM North America, GM Europe, GM International Operations,
GM South America, and GM Financial segments.  The Company was
founded in 1897 and is based in Detroit, Michigan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal from Shareholder Class Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company is awaiting court action on an appeal from
a May 2016 decision, which approved a settlement of a putative
shareholder class action in Michigan, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filed on July 25, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017

The Company said, "In the putative shareholder class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan (Eastern District) on behalf of purchasers of our common
stock from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014 (Shareholder Class
Action), the lead plaintiff, the New York State Teachers'
Retirement System, alleged that GM and several current and former
officers and employees made material misstatements and omissions
relating to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in
SEC filings and other public statements.  On May 23, 2016 the
Eastern District entered a judgment approving a class-wide
settlement of the Shareholder Class Action for US$300 million.
One shareholder has filed an appeal of the decision approving the
settlement."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

General Motors Company (GM) designs, builds, and sells cars,
trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide.  It operates
through GM North America, GM Europe, GM International Operations,
GM South America, and GM Financial segments.  The Company was
founded in 1897 and is based in Detroit, Michigan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Ontario Court Affirms 2015 Ruling in Dealers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on July
25, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that on July 4. 2017, the
Court of Appeals for Ontario has affirmed the Superior Court's
July 2015 judgment with regard to GM Canada in a case initiated by
former Canadian dealers.

On February 12, 2010, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against GM Canada on behalf of a purported class
of over 200 former GM Canada dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which
had entered into wind-down agreements with GM Canada.

In May 2009, in the context of the global restructuring of GM's
business and the possibility that GM Canada might be required to
initiate insolvency proceedings, GM Canada offered the Plaintiff
Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their exit from
the GM Canada dealer network and to facilitate winding down their
operations in an orderly fashion.

The Plaintiff Dealers allege that their Dealer Sales and Service
Agreements were wrongly terminated by GM Canada and that GM Canada
failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its
statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the
Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to
coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down
agreements.  The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that
the wind-down agreements are rescindable.

The Plaintiff Dealers' initial pleading makes reference to a claim
"not exceeding" 750 million Canadian Dollars, without explanation
of any specific measure of damages.

On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for
the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues.
A number of former dealers opted out of participation in the
litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class.

On July 8, 2015 the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the Plaintiff
Dealers' claim against GM Canada.  The court also dismissed GM
Canada's counterclaim against the Plaintiff Dealers for repayment
of the wind-down payments made to them by GM Canada as well as for
other relief.

On July 4, 2017, the Court of Appeals for Ontario affirmed the
Superior Court's judgment with regard to GM Canada.

The Company said, "It is possible that the Plaintiff Dealers may
seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.  We cannot
estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in the event of
liability as the case presents a variety of different legal
theories, none of which GM Canada believes are valid."

General Motors Company (GM) designs, builds, and sells cars,
trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide.  It operates
through GM North America, GM Europe, GM International Operations,
GM South America, and GM Financial segments.  The Company was
founded in 1897 and is based in Detroit, Michigan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Still Faces Class Lawsuits on Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company continues to defend itself against several
putative class actions in the U.S. and Canada related to
violations of emission standards, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on July 25, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017

The Company said, "There are several putative class actions
pending against GM in federal courts in the U.S. and in the
Provincial Courts in Canada alleging that various vehicles sold
including model year 2011-2016 Duramax Diesel Chevrolet Silverado
and GMC Sierra vehicles, violate federal and state emission
standards.

"GM also faces a series of additional lawsuits based primarily on
allegations in the Duramax suit, including putative shareholder
class actions claiming violations of federal securities law.

"At this early stage of these proceedings, we are unable to
provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be
incurred or an estimate of the amounts or range of possible loss."

General Motors Company (GM) designs, builds, and sells cars,
trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide.  It operates
through GM North America, GM Europe, GM International Operations,
GM South America, and GM Financial segments.  The Company was
founded in 1897 and is based in Detroit, Michigan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Takata Airbag Inflators Class Actions Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company continues to defend against several
putative class actions in the U.S. and Canada related to Takata
airbag inflators, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
July 25, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "Through July 17, 2017, we were aware of one
putative class action pending against GM in federal court in the
U.S., one putative class action in Mexico and four putative class
actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada arising out
of allegations that airbag inflators manufactured by Takata are
defective.  At this early stage of these proceedings, we are
unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will
be incurred or an estimate of the amounts or range of possible
loss.

"In addition, the New Mexico Attorney General initiated litigation
against Takata and numerous automotive manufacturers, including
GM.  However, on June 13, 2017 the parties filed a stipulation of
dismissal without prejudice as to all claims against GM brought by
the New Mexico Attorney General."

General Motors Company (GM) designs, builds, and sells cars,
trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide.  It operates
through GM North America, GM Europe, GM International Operations,
GM South America, and GM Financial segments.  The Company was
founded in 1897 and is based in Detroit, Michigan.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Wants Suit Over Good Start Gentle Formula Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Barnett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Gerber
Products Co. has asked a federal judge for the dismissal of a
class action lawsuit brought earlier this year over Good Start
Gentle formula.

The suit, brought in Chicago federal court, states Gerber damaged
consumers by charging higher prices for its Good Start Gentle
formula, which was allegedly falsely advertised as reducing the
risk of infant allergies and being endorsed by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).

Gerber argues the suit should be dismissed because the lead
plaintiff, Linda Hobbs, failed to make a plausible claim under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
(ICFA).  Gerber also claims Hobbs did not provide enough evidence
to prove Gerber's advertising claims were misleading (and thereby
a breach of express warranty) and failed to sufficiently plead her
common law claim of fraudulent misrepresentation.

On May 10, Ms. Hobbs, who acted as a babysitter and daily
caretaker for a number of her nieces and nephews, filed a class
action complaint against Gerber and its parent company, Nestle (as
Nestle Nutrition, Nestle Infant Nutrition, and Nestle Nutrition
North America), alleging that Gerber "falsely advertised [GSG] as
the first and only infant formula to reduce the occurrence of
allergies generally, as well as the first and only infant formula
endorsed by the FDA."

Ms. Hobbs alleges she and other consumers affected by the
company's advertising "were injured by [Gerber's] unlawful conduct
and are entitled to actual, statutory, and punitive damages,
restitution, interest, and the reimbursement of attorneys' fees."

Ms. Hobbs' suit is one of several similar suits launched by
consumers and government agencies around the country over the past
few years.  Most notably, the Federal Trade Commission launched a
suit in October 2014 alleging Gerber engaged in deceptive
practices through falsely advertising GSG's anti-allergy benefits
and its supposed FDA endorsement.

At the same time, the FDA sent Gerber a warning letter alleging
its advertising violated federal law, causing the company to make
changes to the GSG label and alter some of its advertising claims.

In its memorandum on June 22, Gerber denied Ms. Hobbs' claims that
the company's advertising violated the ICFA, breached express
warranty, and caused fraudulent misrepresentation.

Gerber asserted that "all three claims hinge on the allegation
that Gerber's advertising is false," yet the company claimed that
Hobbs "failed to plead any facts supporting this allegation of
falsity," concluding that, "Since scientific evidence exists that
supports Gerber's advertising, the advertising cannot be false
(and any express warranty cannot have been breached) as a matter
of law mandating dismissal of plaintiff's claims." [GN]


GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Faces "Askin" Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA ASKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. GLOBAL EXCHANGE VACATION CLUB, GLOBAL
EXCHANGE DEVELOPMENT CORP., GLOBAL VACATIONS MARKETING CORP.,
RESORT VACATIONS, INC., RICHARD SARGENT; DOES 1-10, ABC
CORPORATIONS 1-10, ZYZ, LLC's 1-10 Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01530-JLS-JLB (S.D. Cal., July 28, 2017), accuses Defendants of
negligently or intentionally contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in an attempt to sell vacations to Plaintiff
over the phone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, thereby seriously invading Plaintiff's privacy.

GLOBAL EXCHANGE VACATION CLUB --
http://www.globalexchangevacation.com/-- offers global luxury
vacations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dante T. Pride, Esq.
     THE PRIDE LAW FIRM
     2831 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 104
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: 619-516-8166
     Fax: 619-785-3414
     Email: dpride@pridelawfirm.com


GLOBALSCAPE INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, on Aug. 9 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit against GlobalSCAPE, Inc. (NYSE: GSB) and
certain of its officers and directors for violations of the
federal securities laws.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Global securities during
the Class Period described below and have questions about your
legal rights or possess information relevant to this lawsuit,
please contact attorney Bradley Vettraino at (617) 398-5600, by
email at bradley@blockesq.com, or by visiting
www.blockesq.com/gsb.

On August 7, 2017, after trading had closed, Global disclosed that
its audit committee has been "conducting an investigation" into
certain transactions in the fourth quarter of 2016" and that the
Company "intends to effect a restatement of its previously issued
financial statements through filing an amended Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 and an amended
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2017."

On this news, Global's share price fell 17.66% to close at $3.87
on August 8, 2017, causing millions in losses to investors.

The lawsuit, brought on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Global securities between January 26, 2017 and
August 7, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period") alleges that
throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Global
overstated the reported amounts of accounts receivable as of
December 31, 2016, and license revenue for the three months and
year ended December 31, 2016, by approximately $403,000 and
$396,000, respectively, resulting in the overstatement of the
Company's revenues for those periods by the same amounts; (ii) the
Company's total current assets and total assets were overstated by
$292,000; (iii) the Company's total stockholder equity and total
liabilities and stockholders' equity were overstated by $217,000
and $292,000, respectively; (iv) the Company lacked adequate
internal controls over financial reporting; and (v) that as a
result, Global's publicly disseminated financial statements were
materially false and misleading.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than October 9, 2017. As a member of the class, you may
seek to file a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no
action and remain an absent class member. If you wish to become
involved in the litigation or have questions about your legal
rights, please contact attorney Bradley Vettraino at (617) 398-
5600, by email at bradley@blockesq.com.

Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information
relevant to this investigation is assured.

Block & Leviton LLP -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a Boston-
based law firm representing investors nationwide.  The firm's
lawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities cases on
behalf of individual and institutional investors for over 50
years, and have recovered billions of dollars on their behalf.
Block & Leviton's investigations into corporate wrongdoing were
recently covered by the New York Times.

The lawsuit is pending in the Western District of Texas and is
captioned Giovagnoli v. GlobalSCAPE, Inc., et al., No. 5:17-cv-
00753.  The courthouse is located at 2450 State Hwy. 118 Alpine,
Texas 79830. [GN]


GNC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Website
----------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a Pennsylvania federal judge has dismissed a nascent class action
against vitamin and nutritional supplement chain GNC alleging the
company's website violated New Jersey state consumer law.

U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornak of the Western District of
Pennsylvania ruled that New Jersey resident Samantha Pasciolla
didn't have constitutional standing to file New Jersey Truth-in-
Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act claims against
Pittsburgh-based GNC.

Ms. Pasciolla alleged that the website's terms and conditions
violate the TCCWNA's Sections 15 and 16, which prohibit a seller
from offering or entering into a contract with a consumer that
"includes any provision that violates any clearly established
legal right of a consumer or responsibility of a seller, lessor,
creditor, lender or bailee as established by state or federal law"
and "no consumer contract, notice or sign shall state that any of
its provisions is or may be void, unenforceable or inapplicable in
some jurisdictions without specifying which provisions are or are
not void, unenforceable or inapplicable within the state of New
Jersey."

Judge Hornak said that Ms. Pasciolla failed to show that she
suffered a concrete injury from the terms and conditions of GNC's
website.  Judge Hornak noted that courts have consistently held
that standing is not established if a plaintiff can't prove his or
her rights were violated by terms and conditions.

The judge pointed to the New Jersey federal court case Rubin v. J.
Crew Group.  In that case, the plaintiff purchased items on the J.
Crew website, but didn't claim anything was wrong with her
purchases. Nor did she claim that she relied upon the terms and
conditions, or that they worked against her.

The judge in that case held that the plaintiff had pleaded only
procedural violations.

"This court reaches the same conclusion in this case," Judge
Hornak said.  "Here, as in Rubin, the plaintiff alleges that she
purchased a product on the defendant's website and that the terms
of the T&C are contrary to the TCCWNA.  However, she does not
claim that she was dissatisfied with her purchase, that the T&C
deceived her or that the T&C prevented her from asserting any of
her rights."

"In fact, the plaintiff does not even allege that she read the
T&C," he continued.  "As in Rubin, 'the genesis of [the]
plaintiffs lawsuit "is seeking only to bring the [T&C] into accord
with what she believes New Jersey law requires, not to actually
bring a suit or recover damages which she believes are unlawfully
barred" by [the T&C].'"

GNC's attorney, Mark Golen of Gordon & Rees, did not respond to a
request for comment.

Ms. Pasciolla's lawyer, R. Bruce Carlson --
bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela,
said in an email, "I would note that the dismissal was without
prejudice and that we are evaluating our options consistent with
Judge Hornak's analysis." [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Fired Software Engineer Files Pay Gap Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Swisher, writing for Recode, reports that Google is getting
it from both sides of the ever more contentious debate over gender
inequity in Silicon Valley -- on one side for taking decisive
action against what the search giant deemed sexist language by a
staffer and on the other for allegations that it pays women less
than men.

First, James Damore -- the software engineer Google fired on
Aug. 7 for penning a controversial memo about biological reasons
why women did not succeed in tech compared to men.  He appears to
have filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board,
claiming the search giant retaliated against him unfairly.

Mr. Damore was let go as the result of a piece he posted on Google
message boards that posited, among other things, that women were
not biologically suited to do tech and that the company had a
left-leaning bias that prevented contrary discussions.

Titled "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber," Mr. Damore started off
with a benign tone:

"I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism
exists, and don't endorse using stereotypes.  When addressing the
gap in representation in the population, we need to look at
population level differences in distributions.  If we can't have
an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the
problem."

But then, he went on in detail and way off the rails for Google:
"I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and
abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes
and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal
representation of women in tech and leadership."

What followed was a list of those differences, including a claim
that women were more social and artistic and could not take the
stress of high-pressure jobs.  Hence, he wrote that women suffered
more than men from "neuroticism," or higher anxiety and lower
stress tolerance.

Google execs took days to respond, but soon several top execs
weighed in decrying Mr. Damore's memo.  Finally, Google CEO Sundar
Pichai wrote a memo to staff, with a clear message:

"To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them
less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.  It
is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which
expects 'each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace
culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and
unlawful discrimination.'"

Mr. Damore was then fired for violating those internal company
rules. He later told the New York Times that he had filed with the
NLRB over the dismissal:

"Before being fired, Mr. Damore said, he had submitted a complaint
to the National Labor Relations Board claiming that Google's upper
management was 'misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence
my complaints.'  He added that it was 'illegal to retaliate'
against an N.L.R.B. charge."

Sources not authorized to speak at Google said the company only
learned of the action via the media report and not before it fired
him.

And, indeed, the actual complaint was only filed on Aug. 8 --
alleging "Coercive Statements (Threats, Promises of Benefits,
etc.)" by a Los Angeles-based law firm, Paul Hastings. There is a
letter attached that is not available as yet.

Meanwhile, a San Francisco law firm has been advertising on
Facebook and online since mid-July, seeking female employees of
the company to join what appears to be a class-action lawsuit over
gender pay gaps at the company.

The Equal Pay for Google Women ad was posted by Altshuler Berzon
LLP and James M. Finberg. It noted:

You might be a victim of discrimination if you:

   -- Currently work at Google; or

   -- Worked at Google within the last 3 years.

AND

   -- You work or worked for Google in California.

   -- You work or worked in an Information Technology, Product
      Development, Programmer or Technology Support position.

Mr. Finberg confirmed the firm was looking into filing a case
against Google and had already been contacted by 70 women.

"We are looking into the evidence," he said in an interview. "And
we think there is a factual basis for the claims that women were
paid less than men for the same work at Google."

Along with all the lawyers attacking Google, the federal
government and the company are engaged in an ongoing legal battle.
The Labor Department has alleged that Google has a gender gap in
pay, a charge the company has denied.

Google has also declined to provide some information asked for by
the government, although it has handed over 329,000 documents,
including detailed compensation information.  But it refused to
give the Labor Department contact information from 25,000
employees and more than 15 years of compensation records, claiming
it was a risk to privacy.

A judge recently agreed with Google, noting the government demands
were "over-broad, intrusive on employee privacy, unduly burdensome
and insufficiently focused on obtaining the relevant information."

But Google, like many tech companies, most definitely has an issue
with diversity, as evidenced by recent employee statistics: Men
make up almost 70 percent of the staff and a full 80 percent of
the technical employees. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Altshuler Berzon Mulls Gender Pay Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
David Ruiz, writing for The Recorder, reports that local
plaintiffs firm Altshuler Berzon is gathering kindling for a
potential class action against Google Inc., with dozens of current
and former female employees claiming their male counterparts made
more money.

The news comes weeks after a judge told Google to hand over more
data for a U.S. Department of Labor audit that invoked the specter
of gender pay discrimination, and just days after an internal,
employee-written memo gained notoriety for its denouncement of
Google's "arbitrary" approach to gender diversity.

James Finberg, who is representing the former and current Google
employees in the potential suit, said in a phone interview on
Aug. 9 that he first gained interest in Google's internal issues
during the company's fight with the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs, a workplace discrimination auditing arm of
the Labor Department.

Before an administrative law judge in San Francisco, OFCCP
regional solicitor Janet Wipper testified that her agency found
"systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much
across the entire workforce," in a partial analysis of Google's
employee compensation data.  Janet Herold, another regional
solicitor with OFCCP, later told Wired that a "preliminary
analysis showed 6 to 7 standard deviations between pay for men and
women in nearly every job classification."

That surprised Mr. Finberg.

"We looked and said, 'Wow, that's pretty serious,'" Mr. Finberg
said, adding that the likelihood of such statistical deviations
happening randomly is one in 100 million.  "We were interested in
hearing women's experiences."

The law firm put a public post on Facebook on July 10, Mr. Finberg
said.  He said the firm received 70 responses in a couple of
weeks.  The firm also has a website advertisement asking other
women to come forward if they have experienced what they believe
is gender pay discrimination at Google.

Mr. Finberg said he plans to file his class action by the end of
the month, and that the number of women covered by the lawsuit
will balloon far past 70.  He said some of his clients will sue
under the California Fair Pay Act, which was amended at the start
of the year to include language that prohibits employers from
unfairly paying a new hire based on prior pay alone.

Mr. Finberg said that testimony in the Labor Department hearing
showed that Google uses prior salary as one of several factors
when determining the pay of "industry hires," meaning employees
hired not immediately out of college.  Even if Google doesn't know
the gender of its employees, that practice can disfavor women,
Mr. Finberg said.

"We know from studies that women make less than men in America, so
if you use prior pay to set salary, you'll institutionalize gender
pay discrimination," Mr. Finberg said.  "The California law was
amended recently and it makes it crystal clear that what I just
described is illegal."

A Google representative did not respond to direct questions about
the class action or if outside counsel has been selected, but
instead forwarded a recent post by Google CEO Sundar Pichai in
response to a separate issue regarding a memo drafted by a former
engineer that has roiled Google's campus.  The representative also
forwarded an April 11 post written by Eileen Naughton, vice
president of people operations, about Google valuing equal pay
among men and women.

With claims of gender discrimination, allegations of an internal
"bro-culture" polluting the hallways and wall-to-wall, it seems
that Google is having an Uber moment. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Judge Okays $22.5MM AdWords Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
in San Jose, California, has signed off on a $22.5 million deal
Google Inc. reached in a long-running class action accusing the
company of overcharging certain customers using its AdWords
keyword advertising program.

Plaintiffs filed suit in 2008 accusing the search giant of
inappropriately placing ads on error pages and so-called "parked
domains," or sites that have been registered for future use or to
protect against cybersquatters.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District of
California signed off on the truce on Aug. 7, which includes a
little more than $6 million in attorney fees for class counsel at
Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe, even though only about 7 percent of
the nearly 1.1 million class members submitted claims.

Davila noted in the August 7 order that the case wound its way up
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S.
Supreme Court before landing back in his courtroom and settling.
Davila initially declined to certify a class in 2012, finding that
plaintiffs couldn't easily provide proof of the restitution amount
due each class member because of the complex way AdWords set
prices.

But Judge Davila's class certification decision was reversed in
2015 by the Ninth Circuit, which found the judge erred by
conflating the question of liability with the difficulty of
calculating restitution awards for individual class members.
Restitution, the appellate court found, is available on a
classwide basis once a class representative has made a "threshold
showing of liability" under the applicable law.  Google asked the
U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in, but the high court denied the
company's cert petition in June 2016.

The terms of the deal approved on August 7 were hashed out with
the help of mediation from retired U.S. District Judge Layn
Phillips, who's been periodically involved since 2011, according
to court filings.  Plaintiffs are set to receive 100 percent of
the amount they claim they overpaid, if total claims are less than
the total settlement fund.  If more than $100,000 is left after
distributions, the settlement provides for active AdWords users
who didn't submit claims to be given an account credit based on
the amount they spent on ads placed on parked domains and error
pages during the class period.

Davila signed off on $6.075 million in fees for class counsel, or
27 percent of the settlement fund.  The amount was a hair lower
than the $6.5 million the lawyers at Schubert Jonckheer requested.
Davila wrote the slightly lower amount "properly accounts for the
risk involved, the significant amount of work done, and the lower-
than-typical participation rate."

Google was represented by counsel from Cooley. Cooley's Michael
Rhodes and a Google spokeswoman declined to comment on Aug. 8 on
the deal.

Noah Schubert, who represents the class, said in an email on
Aug. 8 that his firm is "gratified by this excellent result for
millions of AdWords advertisers."

"It has been a hard-fought nine-year case including an important
victory in the Ninth Circuit." [GN]


GOOGLE INC: 60+ Women May Join Pay Disparity Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Sam Levin, writing for The Guardian, reports that more than 60
current and former Google employees are considering bringing a
class-action lawsuit alleging sexism and pay disparities against
women, as the technology giant wrestles with a deepening crisis
over alleged discrimination.

James Finberg, the civil rights attorney working on the possible
legal action on behalf of the female employees, told the Guardian
they contend they have earned less than men at Google despite
equal qualifications and comparable positions.

Others, he said, have struggled in other ways to advance their
careers at Google due to a "culture that is hostile to women".

The Silicon Valley company is reeling from the leak over the
weekend of a male software engineer's 10-page manifesto
criticizing diversity initiatives and arguing that men may occupy
more leadership roles than women in tech due to "biological"
differences.

The document, which was widely condemned as misogynistic and
scientifically inaccurate, prompted Google to eventually fire the
author, James Damore, and reignited debate about discrimination
and sexual harassment that critics say is rampant in the
technology industry.

A class-action gender discrimination suit would build on a case
brought by the US Department of Labor (DoL), which is arguing that
Google systematically underpays women and recently convinced a
judge to force the company to hand over a portion of the company's
salary records.

Google is vehemently denying that its salaries are discriminatory.
However, Mr. Finberg, who said he had interviewed about half of
the 60 women who may be part of his lawsuit, said their testimony
indicated there were clear disparities and prejudices that hurt
women at the Mountain View company.

"They are concerned that women are channeled to levels and
positions that pay less than men with similar education and
experience," Mr. Finberg said.  Despite similar positions and
qualifications, he said, some women said they made less than male
counterparts in salaries, bonuses and stock options.

Several women he interviewed have said they make about $40,000
less than male colleagues doing the same work, with one woman
saying she makes two-thirds of a male peer's salary.

Of the more than 60 women who have reached out to the attorney in
the last three weeks, about half still work for Google, according
to Mr. Finberg, who said that more than a dozen claimed that
discrimination played a role in their decision to leave the
company.

One former senior manager who recently left Google told the
Guardian she repeatedly learned of men at the same level as her
earning tens of thousands of dollars more than her, and in one
case, she said she had a male employee join her team with a higher
salary despite the fact that she was his superior.

"It's demoralizing," said the worker, who requested anonymity for
fear of retribution.  "There's something subconsciously that
happens where you do start to question the value that you're
adding to the company."

The manager said that dealing with frequent sexism in the
workplace and helping other women navigate the discrimination they
were facing took a toll on her and contributed to her decision to
quit. "After a while, it just became exhausting," she said.  "It
takes emotional energy that builds up over time."

Mr. Finberg argued that when men get higher compensation in the
form of base salary and stocks, "the big initial disparity turns
into a larger and larger disparity every year".

"I felt like I wasn't playing the game in the 'boys' club'
environment," said another woman who worked for two years as a
user experience designer and recently left Google.  She said she
regularly dealt with sexist remarks, such as comments about her
looks, and that she felt it was discriminatory when she was denied
a promotion despite her achievements and large workload.

"I was watching male coworkers progress at a faster rate than
myself.  It was really disturbing," said the designer, who also
requested anonymity.

A Google spokesperson declined to comment on the pending class
action.  However, in reference to the women considering legal
action, the spokesperson said: "Sixty people is a really small
sample size."  He added: "There are always going to be differences
in salary based on location, role and performance, but the process
is blind to gender."

The women's stories bolster the claims of labor department
officials, who have said that a preliminary analysis found that
women face "extreme" pay discrimination across the company and
have recently raised concerns that Google's strict confidentiality
agreements are discouraging employees from speaking up.

While the labor department has not released details of its
analysis or the scale of the pay gap it claims to have uncovered,
its regional solicitor recently said that the agency's initial
audit has founded six to seven standard deviations between pay
rates for men and women across the company.

What that means is that there is a one in 100m chance that the
observed disparity is occurring randomly or by chance, said Janice
Madden, a University of Pennsylvania sociology professor who has
served as an expert witness in class-action employment cases.

If there are two standard deviations, the labor department
considers the disparity statistically significant.

The former Google manager said it was upsetting to hear about the
disparity.  "It just makes me feel a little sick," she said.
"That's a lot of missed income for me personally and the people on
my team."

The Google spokesperson said the company could not comment on the
standard deviations because it had not seen the labor department's
analysis.

Mr. Finberg said he hoped a class-action case could have a ripple
effect in the industry.

"Google is not alone in Silicon Valley," he said.  "The goal of
the case is to not only get Google to change its practices, but to
encourage other Silicon Valley companies to change their pay
practices as well." [GN]


GREAT WALL SUPERMARKET: Rivera Sues over Unpaid Meal Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erazmo Alvarenga Rivera, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Great Wall Supermarket of Maryland, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02233 (D. Md., August 4, 2017), seeks
an injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in future
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage
provisions, damages for all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, reasonable counsel fees and costs of this lawsuit and
such further and appropriate relief under the Maryland Wage and
Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Defendant operates a supermarket located at 700 Hungerford Drive,
Rockville, Maryland 20850 where Plaintiff worked as a cook and
general laborer from 2013 through July 12, 2017. He claims to have
worked through his designated meal break but was uncompensated for
this. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
     Roy Lyford-Pike, Esq.
     ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG, LLC
     8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Office: (301) 587-9373
     Fax: (240) 839-9142
     Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
            rlpike@zagfirm.com


GROUPON INC: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a man
with spina bifida has accused Groupon of discrimination for not
offering comparable products accessible to those with disabilities
alongside other offered deals, including discounted hotel stays
and football tickets.

Andrew Huzar said he was trying to purchase a Groupon Getaway Deal
on July 30, 2015, for a stay at a Red Lion Hotel in Harrisburg,
Penn., but discovered the website offered no options for rooms
that incorporated accessibility features for people with physical
difficulties.  He emailed Groupon to inquire about wheelchair-
accessible rooms, and though the company responded promptly, the
answer was negative.

"I'm sorry, unfortunately handicap-accessible rooms are not
available," Groupon wrote via email, per the complaint.

Though he said that experience discouraged him from researching
future Groupon hotel discounts, he encountered a similar roadblock
with a July 21, 2016, offer to buy tickets for up to three New
York Jets games at MetLife stadium in New Jersey. Again, he said
Groupon was not selling any tickets designated as being accessible
via wheelchair, not did it "have any method for patrons with
disabilities to purchase tickets."

"Providing accessible purchasing options" through the website, Mr.
Huzar alleged, "is readily achievable, reasonably feasible and
easily accomplished, and would not place an undue burden on"
Groupon.  He further stipulated the Groupon "website serves as a
nexus or conduct for individuals to obtain access to places of
public accommodation and is directly linked to places of public
accommodation."

Groupon Inc. is headquartered in Chicago.

Mr. Huzar formally alleged Groupon had violated Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as the company's ticket
sales provision intended to establish equal opportunity for
purchasing accessible seating through the same methods of
distribution as general tickets, "including telephone service, in-
person ticket sales at the facility or third-party ticketing
services."

He said Groupon "including telephone service, in-person ticket
sales at the facility or third-party ticketing services" and also
"has absolutely zero accessible options for patrons with
disabilities who want to purchase accessible tickets to Jets games
or other in-person sporting events."

The complaint outlined two classes -- one for those with
disabilities who wanted or tried to purchase public event tickets
through Groupon, and a second for those who tried to buy travel
arrangements.  Both classes are believed to have tens of thousands
of members, the complaint indicated.

In addition to class certification, Mr. Huzar wants the court to
declare Groupon's policies to be in violation of the ADA, to order
injunctions forcing ADA compliance and to give him an incentive
award "for the time, burden and difficulty of bringing and
maintaining this action," as well as legal fees.

Representing Mr. Huzar in the matter, and putative class
attorneys, are lawyers from Bizer & DeReus, of New Orleans, and
the Law Office of Charles E. McElvenny, Chicago. [GN]


GUARDNOW INC: "Colding" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
RAHEEME COLDING, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GUARDNOW,
INC., a CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-at-00576
(E.D. Cal., July 27, 2017), alleges that Defendant classified
Plaintiff as a non-exempt employee paid on an hourly basis and
entitled to meal and rest periods. In connection with his
employment application, plaintiff completed defendant's standard
application materials. Among other things, these application
materials included a background investigation disclosure and
consent form. To date, Defendant has not fully paid Plaintiff the
compensation still owed to him or any penalty wages owed to him
under California Labor Code.

DEFENDANT provides on-demand security guard services to businesses
and individual customers.  PLAINTIFF worked for DEFENDANT in
California as a Security Guard.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
     Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
     Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
     BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP
     2255 Calle Clara
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Phone: (858)551-1223
     Fax: (858) 551-1232


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Irsan Seeks to Certify Class of Muslim Inmates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Ali Mahmood Awad Irsan, SPN00872773, the
Plaintiff, V. SHERIFF ED GONZALEZ, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 4:17-cv-01434 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
certify a class of:

   "all Muslim inmates currently detained in the Harris County
   Sheriff's Jail (HCSOJ) and all Muslims to be detained in the
   HCSOJ in the future."

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Person Act, in connection with the conditions of
confinement for all Muslim inmates currently detained in the
Harris County Sheriff's Jail (HCSOJ) and all Muslims to be
detained in the HCSOJ in the future.

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

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


HOME CAPITAL: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Aug. 21
---------------------------------------------------------
Home Capital Group Inc. (TSX: HCG) on Aug. 9 disclosed that the
Ontario Securities Commission ("OSC") issued an order approving
the previously announced settlement of an enforcement proceeding
commenced in April 2017 regarding the Company's disclosure in 2014
and 2015.

The Company entered into two agreements which comprise a global
settlement of the OSC proceeding and related class action with
each settlement being conditional on the approval of the other.
The order approving the OSC settlement is effective only upon the
final court approval of the class action settlement.  A hearing to
consider approval of the class action settlement is scheduled for
August 21, 2017.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement with the OSC,
Home Capital will not be making any further statements on this
matter outside of the approval proceedings.

                  About Home Capital Group Inc.

Home Capital Group Inc. is a public company, traded on the Toronto
Stock Exchange (HCG), operating through its principal subsidiary,
Home Trust Company.  Home Trust is a federally regulated trust
company offering residential and non-residential mortgage lending,
securitization of insured residential mortgage products, consumer
lending and credit card services.  In addition, Home Trust offers
deposits via brokers and financial planners, and through its
direct to consumer deposit brand, Oaken Financial.  Home Trust
also conducts business through its wholly owned subsidiary, Home
Bank. Licensed to conduct business across Canada, Home Trust has
offices in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Quebec
and Manitoba. [GN]


HOME QUALITY: Faces "Blundell" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
SABRINA A. BLUNDELL and ALICIA K. MORGAN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOME QUALITY
CARE HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., d/b/a BETHANY HOME HEALTH SERVICES;
BRADLEY P. LASSITER; and WYNDALL S. LANDERS, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-01990-L (N.D. Tex., July 27, 2017), accuses the Defendants
of failing to pay Plaintiffs and the putative collective action
members: (a) time and one-half their respective regular rates of
pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven day workweek
for the time period they were employed by Defendants within the
maximum limitations period allowed by the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and (b) all minimum wages owed and/or liquidated damages owed
relative to failure to timely pay all minimum wages owed.

Bethany provides healthcare services for patients in their own
home setting. Blundell was employed by Defendants as an office
staff member in support of Defendants' home health business
operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff are represented by:

     Ben K. DuBose, Esq.
     Greg W. Lisemby, Esq.
     DUBOSE LAW FIRM, PLLC
     4310 North Central Expressway
     Dallas, TX 75206
     Phone: (214) 389-8199
     Fax: (214) 389-8399
     Email: bdubose@duboselawfirm.com
     Email: glisemby@duboselawfirm.com

        - and -

     Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
     BARON & BUDD, P.C.
     3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
     Dallas, TX 75219
     Phone: (214) 521-3605
     Fax: (214) 520-1181
     Email: avaught@baronbudd.com


HONEYWELL SAFETY: Class Certification in "McKnight" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled BARBARA MCKNIGHT and SHEILA ANDERSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00132-S-PAS (D.R.I.), the
Hon. Judge William E. Smith entered an order denying Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification without prejudice.

The Court said, "After reviewing Plaintiffs' Motion, Defendants'
objection, the exhibits submitted by both parties, the R&R, and
Plaintiffs' objection, the Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge's analysis and recommendation that Plaintiffs' Motion be
denied without prejudice to refiling after further discovery has
been completed. Plaintiffs' argument emphasizing the lenient
standard for the preliminary showing required at this first tier
of the two-tier approach to conditional class certification
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) is well-taken. But, the Court
finds that Plaintiffs' objection simply re-summarizes the
statements in their declarations and the substantive corporate
policies submitted as exhibits and concludes that Plaintiffs have
not yet shown that other "buyers" employed by Defendants are or
were similarly situated to Plaintiffs.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KY7Yux8x


IFCO SYSTEMS: Former Workers Seek Unpaid Vacation Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
WHITNEY SYKES, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. IFCO SYSTEMS
US, LLC. Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-09695 (Ill. Cir., July 17,
2017), alleges that Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees were not paid for all vacation pay they had accrued upon
termination of their employment. Plaintiff seeks to certify this
claim as a class action pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil
Procedure.

IFCO SYSTEMS US, LLC operates a national supply and logistics
business that delivers fruits and vegetables to retailers in
Illinois, including Cook, County and in other states. Plaintiff
was hired by IFCO to work at one of Defendant's warehouses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alvar Ayala, Esq.
     Christopher J Williams, Esq.
     WORKERS' LAW OFFICE PC
     53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 701
     Chicago, IL 60605
     Phone: (312) 795-9121


JACKSONVILLE, FL: Responds to Fairway Oaks Residents' Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francesca Amiker, writing for News4Jax, reports that an attorney
representing Fairway Oaks residents, who have been fighting for
years to get repairs to what they call poorly built homes, said
the city of Jacksonville and Habitat for Humanity of Jacksonville
have responded to a class action lawsuit he filed in May on the
residents' behalf.

Since May 2016, the News4Jax I-TEAM has been digging into reports
that show the area in Northwest Jacksonville in which HabiJax
chose to build the 85 homes in 2000 is near a landfill that might
not have been lined in the 1950s.

Within five years of the homes being built by HabiJax and 10,000
volunteers in 17 days, residents said that they noticed their
homes were shaking and unsettled, and homeowners also began
complaining about cracked slabs, sinking, mold and termites.

But HabiJax has claimed that homeowners' "complaints stem from
lack of maintenance and not from poor construction."

Despite that assertion, Fairway Oaks residents were given hope as
they watched multiple City Council members, the mayor and even a
state senator tour their sinking homes earlier this year, but to
no avail.

Attorney Jack Krumbein, of Krumbein Law PLLC & The Strems Law
Firm, has only been working with the Fairway Oaks residents for a
few months, but he's already brought them more hope than anyone
who has stepped into their sinking and cracking homes.

"The homeowners are excited. They are energized.  They are some of
the strongest people that I've ever met," Mr. Krumbein said.
"They are individuals that have endured a difficult time in their
lives, and they need resolution."

Mr. Krumbein, who was initially contacted by Fairway Oaks
Homeowners Association president Nathaniel Borden, took a step
toward that resolution when he filed a 51-page class action
lawsuit outlining 12 different counts against both the city and
HabiJax earlier this year.  He said both parties have responded,
filing motions to dismiss, which he described as "very
interesting."

Mr. Krumbein said that in their response, HabiJax and the city
claim the statute of limitations to file a lawsuit has expired,
but Mr. Krumbein said several agreements that would extend that
time frame were negotiated by his clients' previous attorneys. He
said the city and HabiJax failed to include that information in
their motions.

The case is set for its first hearing in January, and Mr. Krumbein
said it's important that it moves quickly.

"I guess my biggest concern is the amount of time it's going to
take," Mr. Krumbein said.  "Fortunately, we have a system that
allows for a judge to make a decision without a jury.  It's really
the ultimate form of society governing itself."

He said he doesn't plan on backing down and that he will prevail.
He's already in the written discovery process and has received
affidavits from nearly 60 residents, all saying they were not told
the homes were built on potentially contaminated land.

The residents are asking for undisclosed damages in the suit.

Mr. Krumbein said he is grateful to Jacksonville Area Legal Aid
for stepping in when it did, because if it  had not, the situation
would have been lost.  But he wishes a lawsuit had been filed
earlier.

                     What the lawsuit alleges

In the lawsuit, count one alleges there was a breach of contract
by HabiJax.  It says the residents were sold properties built on a
former city dump and that those homes are not habitable.

The lawsuit also claims negligence, stating that had the city and
HabiJax informed residents about the properties they were
purchasing, they would have never experienced damages.

Another count in the lawsuit is negligent misrepresentation by
HabiJax.  It states HabiJax represented that the houses met
reasonable standards of quality and habitability but that HabiJax
knew or should have known that its representation of the quality
of houses being sold to the plaintiffs wasn't right.

The lawsuit goes on to say that HabiJax concealed or left out
important facts.

Mr. Krumbein said that sometimes people have to be able to call
for a stranger's help, the same way one would call family, and
that was the call he received from Borden.

"It's a complaint that fundamentally involves breach of
contract, negligence and various other accounts, including
misrepresentation," Mr. Krumbein said.  "This is about
justice."[GN]


JASON NATURAL: Sept. 18 Shampoo Settlement Claims Filing Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angie Koehle, writing for abc15, reports that the makers of JASON
brand shampoo and body wash settled a false advertising lawsuit.
The plaintiffs alleged JASON Natural Products Inc. and The Hain
Celestial Group claimed that some of their personal care products
did not contain the chemical sodium lauryl sulfate, or SLS -- a
chemical that may cause adverse health effects ranging from skin,
eye and respiratory tract irritation to dermatitis.  The deadline
to file a claim is September 18, 2017 for anyone who purchased the
product between August 17, 2011 and June 2, 2017.  You may be
eligible to claim up to $40. [GN]


JETSMARTER INC: Conditional Certification Granted in "Lamey" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Beth Bloom grants the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally
certify Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and to
authorize notice to potential class members in the lawsuit
entitled GRACE LAMEY, et al. v. SERGEY PETROSSOV and JETSMARTER,
INC., Case No. 0:17-cv-61217-BB (S.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiffs' Motion is granted subject to the terms and
conditions of the parties' stipulation, which the Court approves.
The collective action is conditionally certified as a class of:

     "All current and former Shuttle Experience Managers who have
      worked for JetSmarter, Inc. at any locations throughout the
      United States at any time between July, 2015 and the
      present without being paid overtime compensation for all
      hours worked in excess of Forty (40) hours per week."

The Defendants are ordered to deliver to the Plaintiffs' Counsel
a list in the form of an Excel spreadsheet containing the full
names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and personal
e-mail addresses of the putative class members.  After receiving
all information from the Defendants, the Plaintiffs' Counsel is
authorized to facilitate the issuance of notice to the individuals
in the conditionally certified class and shall do so within a
reasonable time from delivery.

The Plaintiffs will have until September 1, 2017, to send the
Class Notice and "Consent to Become Party Plaintiff" form to all
members of the putative class.

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


JUI LI ENTERPRISE: Court Certifies 17 Classes in Fond Du Lac Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lynn Adelman entered a decision and order in the lawsuit
titled FOND DU LAC BUMPER EXCHANGE, INC., on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated v. JUI LI ENTERPRISE COMPANY, LTD. et
al., Case No. 2:09-cv-00852-LA (E.D. Wisc.), directing the Clerk
of Court to enter default against Defendants Auto Parts
Industrial, Inc. and Cornerstone Auto Parts LLC.

Judge Adelman also granted the indirect purchaser plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, these statewide-damages classes are certified:

   (1) All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
       the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
       indirectly purchased in Arizona between January 1, 2003,
       and September 4, 2009, from one or more of defendants, for
       end use and not sale or resale;

   (2) All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
       the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
       indirectly purchased in Arkansas between January 1, 2003,
       and September 4, 2009, from one or more of defendants, for
       end use and not sale or resale;

   (3) All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
       the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
       indirectly purchased in California between January 1,
       2003, and September 4, 2009, from one or more of
       defendants, for end use and not sale or resale;

   (4) All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
       the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
       indirectly purchased in Florida between January 1, 2003,
       and September 4, 2009, from one or more of defendants, for
       end use and not sale or resale;

   (5) All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
       the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
       indirectly purchased in Iowa between January 1, 2003, and
       September 4, 2009, from one or more of defendants, for end
       use and not sale or resale;

   (6) All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
       the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
       indirectly purchased in Massachusetts between January 1,
       2003, and September 4, 2009, from one or more of
       defendants, for end use and not sale or resale;

   (7) All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
       the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
       indirectly purchased in Michigan between January 1, 2003,
       and September 4, 2009, from one or more of defendants, for
       end use and not sale or resale;

   (8) All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
       the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
       indirectly purchased in Minnesota between January 1, 2003,
       and September 4, 2009, from one or more of defendants, for
       end use and not sale or resale;

   (9) All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
       the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
       indirectly purchased in Nebraska between January 1, 2003,
       and September 4, 2009, from one or more of defendants, for
       end use and not sale or resale;

  (10) All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
       the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
       indirectly purchased in New Mexico between January 1,
       2003, and September 4, 2009, from one or more of
       defendants, for end use and not sale or resale;

  (11) All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
       the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
       indirectly purchased in New York between January 1, 2003,
       and September 4, 2009, from one or more of defendants, for
       end use and not sale or resale;

  (12) All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
       the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
       indirectly purchased in North Carolina between January 1,
       2003, and September 4, 2009, from one or more of
       defendants, for end use and not sale or resale;

  (13) All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
       the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
       indirectly purchased in North Dakota between January 1,
       2003, and September 4, 2009, from one or more of
       defendants, for end use and not sale or resale;

  (14) All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
       the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
       indirectly purchased in South Dakota between January 1,
       2003, and September 4, 2009, from one or more of
       defendants, for end use and not sale or resale;

  (15) All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
       the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
       indirectly purchased in Tennessee between January 1, 2003,
       and September 4, 2009, from one or more of defendants, for
       end use and not sale or resale; and

  (16) All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
       the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
       indirectly purchased in Wisconsin between January 1, 2003,
       and September 4, 2009, from one or more of defendants, for
       end use and not sale or resale.

Judge Adelman also certified this nationwide-injunction class:

     All third-party payors that paid or reimbursed others for
     the purchase of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts
     indirectly purchased in the United States between January 1,
     2003, and September 4, 2009, from one or more of defendants,
     for end use and not sale or resale.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. and National Trucking Financial
Reclamation Services, LLC are appointed as representative parties
for each above-certified class.  Ben Barnow, Esq., and Erich P.
Schork, Esq., of Barnow and Associates, P.C.; Michael L. Roberts,
Esq., of the Roberts Law Firm; Kevin P. Caraher, Esq., and Peter
L. Crema, Jr., Esq., of Cozen O'Connor; Derek G. Howard, Esq., of
the Howard Law Firm; and Daniel R. Karon, Esq., of Karon LLC are
appointed as class counsel for each above-certified class.

The indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion to enforce a settlement
agreement with Defendants Auto Parts Industrial, Inc. and
Cornerstone Auto Parts LLC is denied.

The Plaintiffs brought the action alleging that the Defendants,
manufacturers of aftermarket sheet metal parts, conspired to
artificially inflate and fix prices on AMSM parts in violation of
federal and state antitrust and common law.  AMSM parts are used
to replace parts of cars and other motor vehicles, such as hoods,
doors, and fenders, when they are worn or damaged.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vhobXKD0

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
          ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          20 Rahling Circle
          Little Rock, AR 72223
          Telephone: (501) 821-5575
          E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us

               - and -

          Kevin P. Caraher, Esq.
          Peter L. Crema, Jr., Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1900 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 665-2729
          E-mail: kcaraher@cozen.com
                  pcrema@cozen.com

               - and -

          Derek G. Howard, Esq.
          HOWARD LAW FIRM
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 432-7192
          Facsimile: (415) 524-2419
          E-mail:  derek@derekhowardlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com


KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE: Zayerz Moves for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled PETER ZAYERZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KIEWIT
INFRASTRUCTURE WEST CO.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case
No. 2:16-cv-06405-PSG-PJW (C.D. Cal.), asks the Court for an order
granting class certification.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 2, 2017, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Ali S. Carlsen, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: khaque@aegislawfirm.com
                  swong@aegislawfirm.com
                  jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
                  acarlsen@aegislawfirm.com


KINDER MORGAN: Landowners' Appeal on Class Status Bid Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by a group of private landowners in California
related to the denied request for class certification remains
pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, according to Kinder
Morgan, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

Company subsidiary SFPP, L.P. and Union Pacific Railroad Company
(UPRR) have been engaged in a proceeding to determine the extent,
if any, to which rent payable by SFPP for the use of pipeline
easements on rights-of-way held by UPRR should be adjusted
pursuant to existing contractual arrangements for the ten-year
period beginning January 1, 2004 (Union Pacific Railroad Company
v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., et al, Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC319170).

In September 2011, the trial judge determined that the annual rent
payable as of January 1, 2004 was US$14 million, subject to annual
consumer price index increases.  SFPP appealed the judgment.

In addition, as part of the second ten-year rent setting period,
in 2013, UPRR demanded the payment of US$22.3 million in rent for
the first year of the next ten-year period beginning January 1,
2014, which SFPP rejected.

On November 5, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion which
reversed the judgment, including the award of prejudgment
interest, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a
determination of UPRR's property interest in its right-of-way,
including whether UPRR has sufficient interest to grant SFPP's
easements.  UPRR filed a petition for review to the California
Supreme Court which was denied.

In July 2017, UPRR and SFPP reached a settlement of the rental
disputes on terms that are confidential and within the right-of-
way liability previously recorded for back rent.

After the decision by the California Court of Appeals which held
that UPRR does not own the subsurface rights to grant certain
easements and may not be able to collect rent from those
easements, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in 2015 in
California federal court by private landowners in California who
claim to be the lawful owners of subsurface real property
allegedly used or occupied by UPRR or SFPP.  Substantially similar
follow-on lawsuits were filed and are pending in federal courts by
landowners in Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico.  These suits, which
are brought purportedly as class actions on behalf of all
landowners who own land in fee adjacent to and underlying the
railroad easement under which the SFPP pipeline is located in
those respective states, assert claims against UPRR, SFPP, KMGP,
and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D" for declaratory judgment,
trespass, ejectment, quiet title, unjust enrichment, inverse
condemnation and accounting arising from defendants' alleged
improper use or occupation of subsurface real property.

Plaintiffs' motions for class certification were denied by the
federal district courts in Arizona and California, and plaintiffs
are pursuing an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
New Mexico and Nevada lawsuits have been stayed.  SFPP views these
cases as primarily a dispute between UPRR and the plaintiffs.
UPRR purported to grant SFPP a network of subsurface pipeline
easements along UPRR's railroad right-of-way.  SFPP relied on the
validity of those easements and paid rent to UPRR for the value of
those easements.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company
in North America.  It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2,
Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada segments.
The Company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco LLC and
changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011.  Kinder
Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


KINDER MORGAN: Purported Class Litigation on EPB Merger Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that a purported class action suit is ongoing
related to a merger agreement with El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P.
(EPB).

In April 2017, a purported class action suit was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery by a former EPB unitholder on behalf of
a class of former unaffiliated unitholders of EPB, seeking to
challenge the US$9.2 billion merger of EPB into a subsidiary of
KMI as part of a series of transactions in November 2014 whereby
KMI acquired all of the outstanding equity interests in KMP, KMR,
and EPB that KMI and its subsidiaries did not already own.

The suit alleges that the merger consideration did not
sufficiently compensate EPB unitholders for the value of three
derivative suits concerning drop down transactions which the
derivative plaintiff lost standing to pursue after the merger and
which the present suit now alleges were collectively worth as much
as US$700 million.  The suit claims that the alleged failure to
obtain sufficient merger consideration for the drop down lawsuits
constitutes a breach of the EPB limited partnership agreement and
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The suit
also asserts claims against KMI and certain individual defendants
for allegedly tortiously interfering with and/or aiding and
abetting the alleged breach of the limited partnership agreement.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the suit.

The Company said, "We continue to believe that both the merger and
the drop down transactions were appropriate and in the best
interests of EPB, and we intend to defend this lawsuit
vigorously."

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company
in North America.  It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2,
Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada segments.
The Company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco LLC and
changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011.  Kinder
Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


KINDER MORGAN: Interlocutory Appeal in Wisconsin Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has
granted the plaintiff's request for an interlocutory appeal of a
district court's ruling, which denied a bid for class
certification in a Wisconsin class action related to price
reporting matters.

Beginning in 2003, several lawsuits were filed by purchasers of
natural gas against El Paso Corporation, El Paso Marketing L.P.
and numerous other energy companies based on a claim under state
antitrust law that such defendants conspired to manipulate the
price of natural gas by providing false price information to
industry trade publications that published gas indices.  Several
of the cases have been settled or dismissed.

The remaining cases, which are pending in Nevada federal district
court, were dismissed, but the dismissal was reversed by the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals.  The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision dated April 21, 2015, and
the cases were then remanded to the Nevada federal district court
for further consideration and trial, if necessary, of numerous
remaining issues.

On May 24, 2016, the district court granted a motion for summary
judgment dismissing a lawsuit brought by an industrial consumer in
Kansas in which approximately US$500 million in damages has been
alleged.  That ruling has been appealed to the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals.  Tentative settlements have been reached in class
actions originally filed in Kansas and Missouri, which settlements
are subject to final court approval.

In the remaining case, a Wisconsin class action in which
approximately US$300 million in damages has been alleged against
all defendants, the district court denied plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted
plaintiff's request for an interlocutory appeal of this ruling.

The Company said, "There remains significant uncertainty regarding
the validity of the causes of action, the damages asserted and the
level of damages, if any, which may be allocated to us in the
remaining lawsuits and therefore, our legal exposure, if any, and
costs are not currently determinable."

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company
in North America.  It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2,
Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada segments.
The Company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco LLC and
changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011.  Kinder
Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


KING BUFFET: Faces "Yu" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZHAOHUA YU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. KING BUFFET IN SPRINGVILLE, INC. d/b/a King Buffet,
XIU YAN ZHANG, and WEN JUAN PAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00656 (E.D.N.Y., July 17, 2017), alleges that Defendants have
willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law by engaging in a
pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiff, minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours
worked over forty (40) each workweek.

Plaintiff further alleges pursuant to NYLL and New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations Sec. 146 (NYCRR) that he is entitled to
recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wage compensation,
(2) unpaid overtime compensation, (3) unpaid "spread of hours"
compensation, (4) liquidated damages equal to the sum of unpaid
minimum wage, unpaid overtime, unpaid "spread of hours," in the
amount of twenty five percent under NYLL, and one hundred percent
after April 9, 2011 under NY Wage Theft Prevention Act, (5) up to
five thousand dollars ($5,000) per Plaintiff for Defendants'
failure to provide a Time of Hire Notice detailing rates of pay
and payday, (6) up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) per Plaintiff
for Defendants' failure to provide a paystub that accurately and
truthfully lists employee's hours along with the name, employer's
name, employer's address and telephone number, employee's rate or
rates of pay, any deductions made from employee's wages, any
allowances claimed as part of the minimum wage, and the employee's
gross and net wages for each pay day, (7) 9% simple prejudgment
interest provided by NYLL, (8) post-judgment interest, and (9)
attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiff YU was employed by Defendants as a fry wok at King
Buffet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Phone: (718) 762-1324
     Email: johntroy@troypllc.com


KONA SUSHI: "Boots" Files Suit Over Tip Pooling Scheme
------------------------------------------------------
MITCHELL BOOTS, individually and on behalf of the PROPOSED RULE 23
CLASS, Plaintiff, v. KONA SUSHI, INC. d/b/a KONA GRILL, Defendant,
Case No. 0:17-cv-03401-PAM-SER (D. Minn., July 27, 2017), accuses
Defendant of unlawfully requiring, coercing, and participating in
a gratuity/tip pooling scheme in violation of the Minnesota Fair
Labor Standards Act; and of improperly retaining a portion of
server and bartender gratuities and by an artifice, which requires
directly tipped employees to pay into a tip pool from their own
personal cash property, for the benefit of other employees and
Defendant.

Defendant owns and operates 45 restaurants in 23 states and Puerto
Rico.  Plaintiff Mitchell Boots was employed by Defendant as a
server and occasional bartender.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert R. Hopper, Esq.
     Matthew L. McMullen, Esq.
     ROBERT R. HOPPER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
     333 South 7th Street, Suite 2450
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 455-2199
     Fax: (612) 455-1689
     Email: Robert.hopper@robertrhopper.com


KORONET PIZZA: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIO MARTINEZ, JORGE MALDONADO and JULIO MARTINEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, against KORONET PIZZA CORP. (d/b/a KORONET PIZZA),
HRISTINA MANIKIS and PETER MANEKES, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
05457 (S.D.N.Y., July 18, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs regularly
have worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation.  Rather,
Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked and
have failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked
over 40, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium.  Further, Defendants have failed to pay
Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
they have worked over 10 hours per day.

The case raises claims of violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.

Koronet Pizza is a pizzeria.  Plaintiff works as a pizza
maker. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200


LEACHVILLE, AR: Faces "Crocker" Suit Under FLSA, Ark. Wage Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZAKKERY CROCKER and BRANDON WOMACK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF LEACHVILLE,
ARKANSAS, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00191-DPM (E.D. Ark., July
27, 2017), is a result of Defendant's alleged policy and practice
of failing to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
individuals proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant City of Leachville, Arkansas, operates the City of
Leachville Police Department where Plaintiffs were employed.
Plaintiffs were employees of a public agency employed in law
enforcement activities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040
     Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


LIBERTY POWER: Faces "Kreke" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN KREKE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY POWER HOLDINGS LLC, a DELAWARE
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00808 (S.D.
Ill., July 28, 2017), alleges that in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, Defendant called Plaintiff and other
putative class members on their cellular telephone lines using an
artificial or prerecorded voice without their prior express
consent and called Plaintiff and other putative class members on
their cellular telephone lines more than once in a
12-month period despite those lines being on the national Do Not
Call registry.

Defendant supplies retail electricity to residential, business and
government customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
     Anthony R. Friedman, Esq.
     THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
     800 Market Street, Suite 1700
     Saint Louis, MO 63101
     Phone: 314.241.2929
     Fax: 314.241.2029
     Email: asimon@simonlawpc.com
            afriedman@simonlawpc.com


LIFE CARE: Faces "Lavrenyuk" Suit Under New York Labor Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------
OLENA LAVRENYUK, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LIFE CARE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, INDEX NO. 156393/2017 (N.Y. Sup., County Of New York,
July 17, 2017), alleges that Defendant has maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of
ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly
compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread
of hours" compensation.  The case was filed pursuant to New York
Labor Law, the New York Public Health Law, and the New York City
Administrative Code.

Life Care Services is primarily engaged in providing nursing and
home health aide services at the residences of its clients.  The
Plaintiff is a home health care attendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
     LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
     Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
     VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
     40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 943-9080
     Fax: (212) 943-9082
     Email: lambinder@vandallp.com
            llusher@vandallp.com


LIVANOVA PLC: Faces Class Action Over Heater-Cooler Units
---------------------------------------------------------
Roopal Luhana, writing for The Legal Examiner, reports that an
Iowa woman filed on May 31, 2017, a new class action lawsuit
against 3T heater-cooler manufacturer LivaNova PLC, previously
Sorin Group Deutschland GMBH.  The case was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Iowa.

The plaintiff claims that during open-heart surgery, she was
exposed to potentially fatal bacteria from a contaminated 3T
heater-cooler unit, which was used to keep her warm during
surgery.  She seeks to represent more than 4,100 class members who
are or were citizens of the state of Iowa at the time of their
exposure.  The class members' claims total more than $5 million.

Plaintiff Claims All Class Members Exposed to Potentially Fatal
Bacteria

According to her complaint, the plaintiff had open-heart surgery
on June 19, 2016.  The surgeons used a 3T heater-cooler system
during her surgery, exposing her to M. chimaera and/or M.
abscessus, which are subspecies of nontuberculous mycobacterium
(NTM). She alleges that the defendants manufactured and sold the
3T heater-cooler system used in her and in other class members'
surgeries.

The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC) announced on
February 2, 2016, that about 1,500 of its patients had undergone
major heart, lung, or liver surgeries between January 1, 2012 and
January 22, 2016 with the Sorin 3T heater-cooler systems.  All had
been exposed to these rare and potentially fatal bacteria via the
Sorin 3T heater-cooler systems that were used to regulate blood
temperature.

On August 29, 2016, Mercy Medical Center announced that 2,600 of
its patients who had gone through open-heart surgery between
July 1, 2012 and July 1, 2016, had also been exposed to the same
rare and potentially fatal bacteria.  Both hospitals advised
patients to watch for certain symptoms of an NTM infection,
including rapid weight loss, fatigue, fever, and muscle pain.

Certain NTM bacterium is slow-growing, which means that the
infection can take months or even years post-surgery for any
symptoms to show up.  These infections can also be resistant to
common antibiotics, and treatment can be intensive and long.
Infections that are detected early can be often be successfully
treated with a series of antibiotics, but late diagnosis can
increase the risk of death, particularly in patients with weakened
immune systems.

CDC & FDA Advise Caution with Contaminated 3T Heater-Cooler Units

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has linked
these and other related hospital infections to the Sorin 3T
heater-cooler system because some units were contaminated with the
bacteria at the manufacturing site.  In surgery, water from inside
the device is aerosolized and pushed into the operating room by
the device's fan.  Bacteria from the aerosolized water can then
settle on the patient's exposed organs as they are undergoing
surgery.

Infections similar to those reported in the U.S. were also
reported in Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands.  In October
2016, the FDA issued a safety communication warning that surgery
with these devices had been linked to dangerous NTM infections.

The plaintiff seeks certification for the class action lawsuit
stating that common questions of law and fact exist to all class
members. [GN]


MAGIC TOUCH: "Matamoros" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lilliam Matamoros, and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
v. Magic Touch Professional Cleaning LLC, and David Perez,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05828 (D. N.J., August
7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey
State Wage and Hour Law.

Magic Touch, headquartered in Paterson, Passaic County, New
Jersey, is a cleaning company that operates throughout the tri
state area. Matamoros was employed by Defendants as a full time
cleaner from May 2014, until approximately June 29, 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, New Jersey 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
             AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com


MAM ENTERPRISES: Faces "Mckeever" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE MCKEEVER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MAM ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a ALWAYS BEST
CARE, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05555 (N.D. Ill., July 28,
2017), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, for Defendant's alleged failure to pay Plaintiff
and other caregivers minimum wages and overtime wages.

Defendant is in the business of providing home health care and
companionship care services to patients in Illinois.
Plaintiff and persons similarly situated are current and former
caregivers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
      Steven P. Schneck, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Phone: 312/419-1008
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             msalas@flsalaw.com
             sarendt@flsalaw.com
             sschneck@flsalaw.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Wiitanen's Bid to Certify Denied as Premature
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Gordon J. Quist dismisses as premature the "placeholder"
motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit entitled KAREN
WIITANEN, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly-
situated v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.;
ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC.; and WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO.,
L.P.A., Case No. 1:17-cv-00534-GJQ-PJG (W.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiff filed the putative class action pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and the Michigan Regulation of
Collection Practices Act.  In connection with her complaint, the
Plaintiff filed a so-called "placeholder" motion for class
certification in order to avoid a "pick off" of the Plaintiff's
claims by the Defendants.  The Plaintiff is concerned that the
Defendants may seek to thwart Plaintiff's class claims by mooting
the Plaintiff's individual claims through a Rule 68 offer of
judgment, and argues that a "placeholder" motion for class
certification is the only way the Plaintiff can avoid a potential
pick-off.

The Court concurs with certain district courts, which ruled that
placeholder motions are unnecessary and should be dismissed as
premature, according to the order.  Therefore, the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification is dismissed without prejudice with
leave to re-file after class discovery, if necessary, is
completed.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gm7ZgluT


NATIONAL OILWELL: Moreno Seeks to Certify Welders/Mechanics Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled HECTOR MORENO, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NATIONAL OILWELL
VARCO, L.P. and NOV GP HOLDINGS, L.P., Case No. 4:17-cv-00782
(S.D. Tex.), asks the Court to conditionally certify this class:

     All current and former "welders" and "rig welders" and
     "mechanics" who worked for NOV, its parents, subsidiaries or
     affiliates at any location (including, without limitation,
     Galena Park, I-610 and Scott, Navigation, West Little York,
     Port of Houston, and Baytown) during the last three years
     and who were classified as independent contractors.

Mr. Moreno filed a putative collective action lawsuit against the
Defendants on March 13, 2017, alleging that they violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 by, among other things, failing to pay
him and others similarly situated employees overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xP5lShU9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net
                  bddavidson11@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David M. Gregory, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD, LLP
          2800 JPMorgan Chase Tower
          600 Travis Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 226-1344
          Facsimile: (713) 229-2630
          E-mail: dgregory@lockelord.com


NATIONWIDE EVICTION: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAN RUSSELL, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE
EVICTION, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00008 (S.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to grant his renewed motion for
conditional certification.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated are paid a flat fee for each court appearance regardless
of the amount of time it takes to perform the task. Often Court
Representatives do not make minimum wage for every hour worked
during their shifts. Nationwide Eviction does not compensate
drivers for the expenses associated with using their own vehicles,
cell phone data, car insurance, gas, parking and other expenses.
The Plaintiff and others similarly situated are entitled to
overtime at one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek as required by 29
U.S.C. section 207. Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and others
similarly situated one-and-one half times their regular rates of
pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Defendant
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, because it did not pay
Plaintiff and others similarly situated employees the overtime pay
they should have received for the hours worked in excess of 40 in
a workweek, in addition to not paying court representatives
minimum wage. As a result, Plaintiff and others similarly situated
did not receive compensation they were legally entitled to
receive. The work performed by Plaintiff and others similarly
situated was with Defendant's knowledge. Defendant provided
training for Court Representatives, approved their schedules,
assigned and supervised their work. Defendant's violations of the
FLSA were committed knowingly, willfully, and/or with reckless
disregard to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees' rights.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard Jr.
          Ronald E. Dupree, Jr.
          KENNARD LAW
          2603 Augusta Dr., Ste. 1450
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742 0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742 0951
          E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com
                  ronald.dupree@kennardlaw.com


NISSAN MOTOR: Settles Takata Airbag Class Action for $97.7M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Nissan Motor Co on Aug. 8 agreed to pay
US$97.7 million to settle class-action claims of consumer economic
loss in the United States tied to the recall of 4.4 million
vehicles with Takata air bag inflators, court records show.

Nissan said in a statement that it was not admitting fault under
the settlement.

The settlement is similar to others reached with major carmakers.
In June, a federal judge in Miami granted preliminary approval to
settlements with Toyota Motor Corp, Subaru Corp, BMW AG and Mazda
Motor Corp totalling US$553 million and affecting 15.8 million
vehicles with Takata inflators.

At least 18 deaths and 180 injuries worldwide have been tied to
the defect that led Takata Corp to file for bankruptcy protection
in June.  Takata inflators can explode with excessive force,
unleashing metal shrapnel inside cars and trucks.

Honda Motor Co and Ford Motor Co to date have not agreed to settle
consumer economic loss claims.

All the settlements reached so far include an outreach programme
to contact owners of recalled vehicles and to address the low
number of completed repairs, as well as compensation for economic
losses including out-of-pocket expenses; a possible residual
distribution payment of up to US$500; rental cars for some owners;
and a customer support programme for repairs and adjustments,
including an extended warranty.

Nissan said its settlement is "intended to significantly increase
customer outreach and to accelerate recall remedy completion rates
for Takata airbag inflator recalls."

As of late June, only 29.9 per cent of Nissan vehicles recalled
with Takata inflators had been fixed.  The settlement is subject
to court approval.  A hearing to grant final approval for the
other four carmaker settlements is set for October 25.

In January, Takata agreed to plead guilty to criminal wrongdoing
and to pay US$1 billion to resolve a US federal investigation into
its inflators.

As part of the Justice Department settlement, Takata agreed to
establish two independently administered restitution funds: one
for US$850 million to compensate carmakers for recalls and a
US$125 million fund for individuals injured by its airbags who had
not already reached a settlement. [GN]


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Auker Appeals Ruling in "Batista" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Interested Parties Plaintiffs Wendy Auker, Stuart Desner and
Robert Fritz filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
titled Kenai Batista, and others, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:14-cv-24728-RNS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court certified a Settlement Class, for settlement purposes only,
consisting of all current and former owners and lessees of 2013-
2014 model year Nissan Pathfinder and 2013-2014 model year
Infiniti JX35/QX60 vehicles equipped with the FK-*k2 CVT in the
United States and its territories, including Puerto Rico.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) NNA, any entity or
division in which NNA has a controlling interest, its/their legal
representatives, officers, directors, assigns and successors; (ii)
any judge to whom this case is assigned and the judge's clerks and
any member of the judge's immediate family; (iii) fleet and
government purchasers and lessees; and (iv) those persons or
entities that validly and timely elected exclusion from the
Settlement Class.

The appellate case is captioned as Wendy Auker, et al. v. Nissan
North America, Inc., Case No. 17-13413, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before August 18, 2017, as to Appellant Wendy Auker;

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or
      before August 25, 2017, as to Appellee Nissan of North
      America, Inc.; and

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before August 18, 2017, as to Appellant Robert Fritz.[BN]

Interested Parties-Appellants WENDY AUKER, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, and STUART DESNER are
represented by:

          David J. Gorberg, Esq.
          DAVID J. GORBERG & ASSOCIATES
          103 Sibley Ave.
          Ardmore, PA 19003
          Telephone: (215) 665-7660

               - and -

          Elliot Burt Kula, Esq.
          KULA & ASSOCIATES, PA
          11900 Biscayne Blvd Ste 310
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 354-3858
          E-mail: Elliot@kulalegal.com

Interested Party-Appellant ROBERT FRITZ is represented by:

          Andrew Y. Winston, Esq.
          THE WINSTON LAW FIRM
          2924 Davie Rd., Suite 201
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 475-9666
          E-mail: awinston@winstonlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., is represented
by:

          Ramon Alberto Abadin, Esq.
          Christopher J.M. Collings, Esq.
          Valerie Shea, Esq.
          SEDGWICK, LLP
          1 Biscayne Tower, Suite 1500
          2 S Biscayne Blvd.
          Miami, FL 33131-1822
          Telephone: (305) 671-2124
          E-mail: ramon.abadin@sedgwicklaw.com
                  christopher.collings@sedgwicklaw.com
                  valerie.shea@sedgwicklaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan Christopher Brown, Esq.
          E. Paul Cauley, Jr., Esq.
          SEDGWICK, LLP
          1717 Main St., Suite 5400
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (469) 227-8200
          Facsimile: (469) 227-8004
          E-mail: ryan.brown@dbr.com
                  paul.cauley@sedgwicklaw.com

               - and -

          Sherman Vance Wittie, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE REATH LLP
          1717 Main St., Suite 5400
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (469) 227-8200
          E-mail: vance.wittie@dbr.com

Plaintiff KENAI BATISTA, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Lawrence D. Deutsch, Esq.
          Jeffrey Osterwise, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC
          1622 Locust St
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-4658
          E-mail: ldeutsch@bm.net
                  josterwise@bm.net

               - and -

          Hirlye R. Lutz, III, Esq.
          Frank Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Adam Wade Pittman, Esq.
          CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS, PC
          2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
          E-mail: rlutz@corywatson.com
                  jtapley@corywatson.com
                  apittman@cwcd.com

               - and -

          C. Richard Newsome, Esq.
          William Carl Ourand, Jr., Esq.
          NEWSOME MELTON LAW OFFICE
          201 S Orange Ave., Suite 1500
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 648-5977
          E-mail: newsome@newsomelaw.com
                  ourand@newsomelaw.com

               - and -

          Maria Victoria Olszewska, Esq.
          WEIL QUARANTA, P.A.
          7083 Hollywood Blvd., 1st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323) 629-3794
          E-mail: mary@weillaw.net

               - and -

          Ronald Peter Weil, Esq.
          WEIL QUARANTA, PA
          200 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131-5344
          Telephone: (305) 372-5352
          Facsimile: (305) 372-5355
          E-mail: rpw@weillaw.net


OLIO RESTAURANTS: Faces "Carrera" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO CARRERA and JOSE LUIS CALPENO GUEVARA, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against OLIO
RESTAURANTS LLC (d/b/a OLIO E PIU), WHYNOT MY WAY LLC (d/b/a
DOMINIQUE BISTRO), EMIL STEFKOV and DOMINICK PEPE, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-05714-PGG (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2017), alleges that
Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising
Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records to avoid paying
Plaintiffs at the minimum wage rate and to enable them to pay
Plaintiffs at the lower tip-credited rate (which they still failed
to do), by designating them as delivery workers instead of non-
tipped employees.  The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant under
the name "Olio e Piu" and a French restaurant and wine bar under
the name "Dominique Bistro".  Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed
by Defendants as delivery workers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Fax: (212) 317-1620


PACIFIC BELLS: Hodges Claims Unpaid for Off-the-Clock Work
----------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Hodges, individually, and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v.
Pacific Bells, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02564 (W.D. Tenn., August 7, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid straight time wages, unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendant operates Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut
Express, Long John Silvers and A&W franchised restaurants. Hodges
worked as a Restaurant General Manager at a Taco Bell Branch owed
by the Defendant. She claims to have rendered work before and
after she clocked in and out but was not compensated for such.
[BN]

Plaintiff is 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
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com
             pjackson@jsyc.com


PCL CONSTRUCTION: Down Creek Claims Lost Income from Power Outage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Gross (d/b/a Down Creek Galleries), Rhonda G. Derring,
Robert D. Case, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PCL Construction Services, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 4:17-cv-00102 (D.N.C., July 31, 2017), seeks compensatory,
consequential, exemplary or punitive damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and disbursements in prosecuting
this action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and
such other and further relief resulting from negligence, willful
misconduct, nuisance and tortious interference.

Marissa Gross is an owner of an art gallery, Down Creek Galleries,
located at 260 Irvin Garrish Highway, Ocracoke, North Carolina.
Down Creek Galleries relies primarily on tourists to provide its
business with income.

N.C. Department of Transportation awarded a design-build contract
to PCL with HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas as the lead
design firm for the Bonner Bridge Replacement Project. PCL drove a
steel piling through the underground power cable thus cutting off
power to Ocracoke and Hatteras Islands. Plaintiff claims damages
because of lost rentals, tourist and business income. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
      Scott C. Harris, Esq.
      Matthew Lee, Esq.
      WIDTFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      900 W. Morgan St.
      Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
      Tel: 919-600-5005
      Fax: 919-600-5035
      Email: matt@wbmllp.com
             scott@wbmllp.com
             matt@wbmllp.com

             - and -

     Gary E. Mason, Esq.
     Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
     WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, L.L.P.
     1625 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Ste. 605
     Washington, DC 20036
     Tel: (202) 429-2290, (202) 640-1164
     Fax: 202-429-2294
     E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Sept. Hearing Set on Bid to Drop Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has
scheduled a September 2017 hearing on the motion of Polaris
Industries Inc. and other defendants to dismiss a securities class
action in Minnesota, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017.

In September and October 2016, investors filed two purported class
action complaints in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota naming the Company and two of its executive
officers as defendants.

On December 12, 2016, the District Court consolidated the two
actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

In a later order, the court set a date of March 14, 2017, for the
lead plaintiff to file a consolidated amended complaint or to
designate one of the filed complaints as the operative pleading.

On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the Company and six current or former executives
for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.  The lead
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased or
acquired Polaris securities during the time period from February
20, 2015 through September 11, 2016.

The amended complaint alleges that, during the proposed class
period, defendants made materially false or misleading public
statements about the Company's business, operations, forecasts,
and compliance policies relating to certain of its ORV products
and product recalls.  The amended complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

In May 2017, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.  The Court has set a hearing on
the motion for September 2017.

Polaris Industries Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets power sports vehicles worldwide.  It operates through four
segments: Off-Road Vehicles (ORVs)/Snowmobiles, Motorcycles,
Global Adjacent Markets, and Other.  Polaris Industries Inc. was
founded in 1954 and is headquartered in Medina, Minnesota.


POSTMATES INC: "Niles" Suit Removed to Mass. Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Niles, Bianca Tsolias, Benjamin Sassoon and Marga Celado,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Postmates, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1784-CV-02025,
originally filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts on June 27, 2017, was removed to the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
July 28, 2017, under Case No. 1:17-cv-11397.

Plaintiffs are delivery drivers who connect with customers through
the Postmates smartphone application to provide delivery services
throughout Massachusetts. Customers are charged a fee for these
delivery services and Plaintiffs allege that Postmates has
unlawfully withheld a portion of such fees from them in violation
of Massachusetts General Law. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James D. Livingstone, Esq.
      John P. Regan, Jr., Esq.
      REGAN, LANE & MESSINGER
      41 Winter Street
      Boston, MA 02108
      Tel: (774) 847-7390
      Fax: (617) 778-9742
      Email: jay@reganlanemessinger.com
             john@reganlanemessinger.com

Defendant is represented by:

      Michael Mankes, Esq.
      Sarah E. Green, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
      One International Place, Suite 2700
      Boston, Massachusetts 02110
      Tel: (617) 378-6000
      Fax: (617) 737-0052
      Email: mmankes@littler.com
             sgreen@littler.com


POWER ULTRA: Lawyers Tapped to Represent Mass Shooting Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys from Romanucci & Blandin, LLC, Taylor A. King &
Associates, P.A., and The Law Offices of Conrad J. Benedetto
announced Aug. 8 that they have been retained to represent over 15
victims of the mass shooting that took place at Power Ultra Lounge
in Little Rock July 1, 2017.

In the early morning hours of July 1, a barrage of gunfire rang
out at the downtown club where Memphis rapper Ricky Hampton was
performing. Ultimately, 28 individuals were injured during the
shooting at Power Ultra Lounge, with a number of victims in
critical condition.  Since the incident, Hampton was placed under
arrest and has been ordered to stay behind bars until trial.

According to public records, Power Ultra Lounge was the source of
over three dozen civil and criminal complaints which local and
state authorities responded to during a four-year time period.
Furthermore, the club was on a property zoned for a restaurant --
not a club or concert venue.

"The venue was clearly operating outside of the law for years and
hired a performer with a 10-year history of run-ins with law
enforcement.  Yet, neither the club nor authorities provided
security to patrons," said J.D. Hays, Jr., Attorney at Taylor A.
King & Associates, P.A.  "This could have been prevented, but
rather it took a mass shooting that left 28 injured to get
someone's attention."

"Despite all the complaints and warnings, city officials never
exercised any authority to sanction or close down Power Ultra,"
added Antonio M. Romanucci, Principal and Partner at Romanucci &
Blandin, LLC.  "Our investigations over the next several months
will be taking a closer look into the actions of the City and how
institutions like Power Ultra can be licensed to do one thing, but
actually be operating as a completely different entity.  We will
keep the media apprised as our investigations continue." [GN]


PREMIER COURIER: Faces "Lumley" Suit over Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Lumley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ronald T. Dillard and Premier Courier,
Inc. and John Does 1-3, Case No. 2:17-cv-00654 (S.D. Ohio, July
27, 2017) seeks declaratory, equitable, and monetary relief from
the Defendants under the Ohio Fraudulent Transfer Act for unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation.  The suit alleges that
the Defendants have transferred their assets to avoid payment.

Lumley full time as delivery drivers for Defendant's courier
business at 638 Sullivan Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Premier
misclassified them as independent contractors. In 2014, Dillard
and Premier settled a class and collective action lawsuit with the
drivers, agreeing to a common fund settlement of up to $750,000 to
resolve the drivers' wage claims but Defendants allegedly
transferred their assets to other persons and entities with the
actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud their creditors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      The Caxton Building
      812 E. Huron Road, Suite 490
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Tel. (440) 498-9100
      Fax (216) 621-1094
      Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
             rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com

             - and -

      Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
      46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104
      Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
      Tel: (440) 973-9000
      Email: tom@chagrinlaw.com


PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT: Class Action Status Denied in ERISA Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Manganaro, writing for PlanAdviser, reports that a federal
district court judge has denied class action status to an ERISA
challenge filed by a retirement plan participant invested in a
stable value product offered by Prudential.

The suit, filed against Prudential Retirement Insurance and
Annuity Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, alleged that the firm improperly assessed and failed
to disclose compensation derived from clients' investment in a
stable value fund.

As laid out in the initial complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that
Prudential sets the crediting rate for certain stable value funds
"well below its internal rate of return on the invested capital it
holds through the SVAs.  Thus, the company guarantees a
substantial profit for itself . . . It does not disclose to its
retirement plan clients and their respective participants the
difference between its internal rate of return and the crediting
rate.  Thus, the company collects tens of millions of dollars
annually in undisclosed compensation from the retirement plans and
participants to whom it owes the highest duties known to the law,
in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) and statutory disclosure obligations."

Among other allegations, plaintiffs also charged that Prudential
"does not provide reasonable notice of a change in the crediting
rate. Accordingly, a plan cannot reasonably terminate [the stable
value investment contract] if defendant imposes an unfavorable
crediting rate.  Further . . . defendant imposes substantial
penalties on the plans should the plans attempt to terminate the
[contract] because of an unfavorable rate.  Thus, plan fiduciaries
are effectively precluded from making determinations concerning
the reasonableness of the crediting rate, and from replacing the
[contract] with another stable value fund when a crediting rate
imposed by defendant is unreasonable."

In seeking class certification and determining the proposed scope
of the class, the suit cites Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  The plaintiff's conclusion is bold and the suit seeks
to include "all ERISA covered employee pension benefit plans whose
plan assets were invested in Prudential Retirement Insurance and
Annuity Company's Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds within
the six years prior to, on or after December 3, 2015."

Turning to the decision recently issued by the Connecticut
district court, it seems Prudential has successfully convinced the
court that certain assertions in the challenge are faulty, leading
to the result that class certification is in appropriate.  In
particular, the court notes, "while the plaintiff has offered
evidence that 'most pools' used the same crediting rate,
defendants counter that plans invested in [the relevant products
called out by the suit] benefit from a 'wide range' of crediting
rates, and that [the products] provide distinct rate changes to at
least 20% of the rate pools."

Strictly speaking, Prudential did not challenge the "numerosity
prerequisite" set forth in Rule 23(a), and the court "therefore
considered only whether the plaintiff's proposed class satisfies
requirements for commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation." [GN]


REDBACK COIL: Faces "Laney" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID LANEY, JEREMY ADAMS, KEVIN HOLMES and DOUGLAS MONEYPENNY,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. REDBACK COIL TUBING, LLC, MIKE FERNANDEZ, PAUL
JACOBI, DANTE DOMENICHELLI, PHIL LANCASTER and MARK LAYTON,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00650 (W.D. Tex., July 18, 2017), was
filed over the Defendants' alleged failure to pay Plaintiffs and
other Supervisors lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of forty (40) hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

REDBACK COIL TUBING, LLC performs geophysical, geological, and
other exploration services for oil and gas. Plaintiff was employed
by Defendants as a supervisor. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040
     Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


RELIANCE TRUST: "Nistra" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ARTUR A. NISTRA, on behalf of The
Bradford Hammacher Group, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and
on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-04773 (N.D. Ill.), Mr. Nistra asks the Court to enter an
order certifying a class of:

   "all persons who were participants in The Bradford Hammacher
   Group, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463 2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463 2103
          E-mail: rjenny@baileyglasser.com
                  gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  pmuench@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493 6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493 6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  dneedham@ikrlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Theodore M. Becker, Esq.
          Richard J. Pearl, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
          191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 569 1000
          E-mail: Theodore.Becker@dbr.com
                  Richard.Pearl@dbr.com


RIZNO INC: TCPA Class Certification Sought in Brite Bite Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled BRITE BITE DENTAL, PC, an
Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons v. RIZNO, INC. d/b/a PULSE
UNIFORM, Case No. 1:17-cv-05747 (N.D. Ill.), moves for an order
certifying this class:

     Each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone
     facsimile messages after August 7, 2013 from Pulse Uniform
     offering work uniforms.

The case involves common fact questions about the Defendant's
alleged fax campaign and common legal questions under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Brite Bite says it filed the Motion soon after the filing of its
Class Action Complaint in order to avoid an attempt by the
Defendant to moot its individual claims in the class action.
However, in this case, additional discovery is necessary for the
court to determine whether to certify the class it seeks to
represent, Brite Bite asserts.  As a result, Brite Bite says it
will seek leave to pursue class discovery as soon as practicable.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XE0spJUs

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          David. M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  tod@classlawyers.com
                  david@classlawyers.com


ROCKET FUEL: Haines Claims Shortchanged in Onerous Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adryan Haines, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Rocket Fuel Inc., Monte Zweben, Randy
Wootton, Richard Frankel, Susan L. Bostrom, Ronald E. F. Codd,
William Ericson, Clark Kokich and John Lewis, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-04473 (N.D. Cal., August 7, 2017), seeks to preliminarily
and permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the acquisition of Rocket Fuel Inc. by Sizmek Inc., rescissory
damages in case the merger pushes through, reasonable allowance
for Plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

Company shareholders stand to receive $2.60 in cash for each share
of Rocket Fuel stock they own representing $3.0 billion in total
value. Plaintiff, a Rocket Fuel stockholder, claims that merger
amount is inadequate in light of the company's recent financial
performance and prospects for future growth. In addition, the deal
locked in with Sizmek, threatening to penalize Rocket fuel should
the deal be cancelled, thereby preventing any other offers for the
company.

The Company operates media services that offer its proprietary
Predictive Marketing Platform as a managed service operated on
behalf of customers and platform solutions, a technology solution
that Rocket Fuel customers acquire and operate themselves, or
acquire and utilize along with support services from Rocket Fuel.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Bower, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
      Culver City, CA 90230
      Tel: (213) 446-6652
      Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com

             - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 971-1341
      Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Taxotere Class Action Investigation Opened
----------------------------------------------------------
Angie Koehle, writing for abc15, reports that breast cancer
patients may be able to be part of an investigation into an
intravenous breast cancer treatment drug.  Patients suffering from
hair loss after taking Taxotere (docetaxel) may have a legal
claim.  A class action lawsuit investigation has been opened into
claims that the manufacturer of Taxotere knew that permanent hair
loss could occur, but failed to disclose this risk. [GN]


SEE'S CANDY: California Judge Nixes Mislabeling Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Alyse Thompson, writing for Candy Industry, reports that a
California federal judge has thrown out an 18-month-old class-
action suit against See's Candy Shops, Inc., alleging the company
had mislabeled some Valentine's Day candy as kosher.

In a nine-page order handed down, U.S. District Judge Edward M.
Chen said New Jersey resident Avi Weiss had failed to demonstrate
that sales of the candy allegedly subject to mislabeling had
exceeded $5 million, the threshold outlined in the Class Action
Fairness Act.

Weiss, with help from two California law firms, filed a class-
action suit in February 2016 after he purchased a heart-shaped box
of assorted chocolates from a See's Candies location in Los
Angeles.  An identifying placard hung above the boxes allegedly
indicated the candies were kosher, though they weren't.

Weiss said he wouldn't have purchased the candy if he knew they
were not kosher-certified. As a result, he sought damages on
behalf of any customers who purchased within four years of the
first filing that a product from a See's Candies Shop was marketed
as kosher-certified when the product was not.  He estimated
"thousands" of customers were in the class.

See's Candy Shops, which achieves kosher certification for its
products through Kosher Supervision of America (KSA), said the
certification is in effect only when the KSA logo appears on the
factory-sealed packaging.  The heart-shaped boxes in question did
not have the KSA logo, court documents say.

However, on learning of the lawsuit, See's pulled the placards for
the heart-shaped boxes with the KSA logo, issued a press release
about the error and offered a refund. Revenue from the heart-
shaped boxes sold under the incorrect placard was redacted in
public court records.

See's also launched an investigation into price cards for other
non-kosher items sold over the four years preceding the suit.
While the sales total was redacted, it apparently did not meet the
$5 million threshold.  See's also argued that Weiss also did not
provide evidence indicating it would meet the threshold.

Chen agreed, granting See's order to dismiss the case.

"Here, See's did provide evidence to show that the amount in
controversy is less than the total sales of its kosher products --
i.e. that any mislabeling constituted only a tiny subset of the
total sales of kosher products," he wrote.  "Mr. Weiss . . . has
failed to show that portion exceeds $5 million."

See's was represented by the Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton law
firm. [GN]


SPA CITY STEAKS: Thompson Moves to Certify Tipped Employees Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled CHEVON THOMPSON,
Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. SPA
CITY STEAKS, INC., d/b/a COLTON'S STEAK HOUSE AND GRILL, Case No.
6:17-cv-06055-SOH (W.D. Ark.), asks the Court to conditionally
certify this class:

     All persons whom Defendant classified as tipped employees at
     any time since June 30, 2014.

Ms. Thompson brought the lawsuit on behalf of all former and
current tipped employees employed by the Defendant to recover
wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Ms. Thompson also asks the Court to order the Defendant to provide
the names and current and last known mailing and e-mail addresses
of all potential class members no later than one week after the
date of the entry of the Order granting the Motion, to approve the
sending of Notice and Consent to Join form, along with the
Plaintiff's Original Complaint, and Defendant's Answer thereto,
to all potential class members, and to grant the Plaintiff's
counsel a period of 90 days during which to distribute by mail and
by e-mail the Notice and to file opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent forms
with the Court.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vmOdE9Q3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve Rauls, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center,
          650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          J. Bruce Cross, Esq.
          Gregory J. Northen, Esq.
          CROSS, GUNTER, WITHERSPOON & GALCHUS, P.C.
          500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 371-9999
          Facsimile: (501) 371-0035
          E-mail: bcross@cgwg.com
                  gnorthen@cgwg.com


SPEEDWAY OFFICE: Innovative Accounting's Certification Bid Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned INNOVATIVE ACCOUNTING
SOLUTIONS, INC., a Michigan Corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
SPEEDWAY OFFICE PRODUCTS, METRO RECORD SERVICE, INC., and SECURITY
X-RAY, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-12563-LVP-SDD (E.D. Mich.), moves
for entry of an order certifying this class:

     Each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone
     facsimile messages offering "Speedway" paper fasteners
     containing telephone number 888-381-9811 or fax number
     818-558-6842.

The case involves common fact questions about the Defendants' fax
campaign and common legal questions under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Innovative Accounting informs the Court that it files the Motion
soon after the filing of its Class Action Complaint in order to
avoid an attempt by the Defendants to moot its individual claims
in the class action.  However, the Plaintiff contends, in this
case, additional discovery is necessary for the court to determine
whether to certify the class Plaintiff seeks to represent.  As a
result, Plaintiff will seek leave to pursue class discovery as
soon as practicable.

                          *     *     *

The Hon. Linda V. Parker entered an opinion and order denying
without prejudice the Motion.

"The practice of filing premature motions for class certification
in TCPA cases has proliferated in this District as a means to
avoid the named plaintiff's claim possibly being rendered moot by
the defendant's offer of judgment.  However, with the Supreme
Court's January 20, 2016 decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez,
136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), there no longer is a need for plaintiffs to
file premature motions for class certification," Judge Parker
opines.

"In short, there no longer is a reason for Plaintiff to file a
motion for certification which it is not able to support at this
time.  The motion is premature," Judge Parker states.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Vdo4q0Q0

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          David. M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  robert@classlawyers.com
                  tod@classlawyers.com
                  david@classlawyers.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
          MARK K. WASVARY, P.C.
          2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 100
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 649-5667
          Facsimile: (248) 649-5668
          E-mail: markwasvary@hotmail.com


SPOTIFY INC: December 1 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Digital Music News' Daniel Sanchez provides a few pointers on
getting your slice of Spotify $43.5 million songwriter settlement
pie.

On May 23, Spotify entered into a settlement agreement with
songwriters over unresolved mechanical licenses.  Mechanical
licenses are a type of publishing license owed to songwriters that
Spotify wasn't paying.  As a result, they got sued.

In a class action settlement, the company agreed to pay $43.5
million to cover its massive pile of unpaid mechanical royalties.
But, if you're a songwriter, how can you make sure that you get
your fair share of the settlement?  Read on.

So, how did the case begin?

Artist activist David Lowery had started the contentious class
action lawsuit against Spotify.  Shortly thereafter,
singer/songwriter Melissa Ferrick sponsored a similar action.
Lowery had initially launched a $150 million lawsuit, while
Ferrick filed a similar class action seeking $200 million.  Those
are rough estimates, though the rival lawsuits eventually
combined, with Ferrick's attorneys taking the lead.

Both Lowery and Ferrick had accused Spotify of conveniently
withholding mechanical royalty payments.  The streaming platform
had made a number of musical works available without such
licenses.

After failing to derail the class action lawsuits, Spotify's
attorneys ultimately agreed to settle.  However, the company still
believes that the "factual and legal allegations . . . are
incorrect."  The platform also specifically denies any fault,
wrongdoing, or liability when it comes to withholding royalty
payments.

Do I qualify?

To be included in the Settlement, you must be a member of the
Settlement Class.  To be in the Settlement Class, you must satisfy
the following requirements:

     1. You're the owner of a copyright of a musical composition
that Spotify made available for interactive streaming and/or
limited downloading between December 28th, 2012 and June 29th,
2017.

     2. You contend that Spotify made your musical composition
available without a license.

     3. You or someone else applied for and received a certificate
of registration from the US Copyright Office for the musical
composition on or before June 29th, 2017.

Who doesn't qualify?

The following people will remain excluded from the settlement
payment.

     1. Spotify, or one of its affiliates, employees, and counsel.

     2. A federal, state, or local government entity.

     3. A member of the National Music Publishers' Association
(NMPA) and/or a party to a 'Participating Publisher Pending and
Unmatched Usage Agreement' between Spotify and the NMPA.
4. Someone who agreed not to bring a claim against the company in
this class action lawsuit.

How can I receive a part of the settlement?

If you believe you are a qualifying member of the Settlement
Class, you must fully complete and timely submit a valid claim
form to the Settlement Administrator, Garden City Group LLC.  You
can complete and submit claim forms at
http://www.SpotifyPublishingSettlement.com/

Class members also may request a paper copy of a claim form by
emailing the Settlement Administrator at
info@SpotifyPublishingSettlement.com.  You can also call 1-855-
474-3853 for the paper copy.

How do I complete the claim form?

To complete the claim form, Settlement Class members must provide
some information about themselves.  This includes:

     1. Name

     2. Contact information

     3. Relevant musical compositions (the works members contend
        Spotify made available between December 28th, 2012 and
        June 29th, 2017 without a license).

Required information includes:

The copyright registration number of each musical composition.
The track identifier for each recording on Spotify of that
composition.

The claim form also includes optional information that members can
fill out to be eligible for a payment.

If you can't find the track identifier, Spotify has assembled the
Track Database.  This consists of tracks with correct identifiers
and certain other information about recordings.  The database is
limited to tracks made available for interactive streaming and/or
limited downloading during the Class period.

You can find the Spotify Track Database at
www.SpotifyPublishingSettlement.com.

When can I receive a part of the settlement?

The Settlement still requires Court approval.  If you're a Class
member, you will be entitled to receive a payment from the $43.5
million Net Settlement Fund (minus attorneys' fees, expenses, and
other legal fees.)

The court will hold a hearing on December 1st, 2017, to decide
whether to grant final approval to the settlement.  Once the court
approves the settlement, Spotify may choose to appeal.

Payments to Settlement Class members will be made only after the
settlement is finally approved and any appeals are resolved in
favor of the settlement.

How much will I receive?

Approved Settlement Class Members will receive a minimum pro rata
payment from the Net Settlement Fund based on the following
criteria:

Percentage equal to the number of streams of qualifying musical
compositions divided by the total number of streams of all class
members' claimed musical works.

Approved Settlement Class Members will also receive payment of
mechanical royalties using the statutory rate for future use of
the musical compositions.  So, depending on how many plays are in
question, this could add up significantly.

In addition, Spotify will establish a Mechanical Licensing
Committee for affected Settlement Class Members.  This committee
will develop proposals to facilitate the mechanical licensing of
content on Spotify's service. [GN]


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Status Denied in "McKinsty" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
July 24, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the court denied
the McKinsty Motion for Class Certification on July 13.

The Company also disclosed that it remains a defendant in 7 driver
class actions (including the McKinsty case) involving employee
compensation and pay practices specifically on California Wage,
Meal, and Rest matters. These cases are:

   -- filed by John Burnell (individually and on behalf of all
      others similarly situated) against Swift Transportation
      Co., Inc instituted on March 22, 2010 currently pending
      in United States District Court for the Central District of
      California;

   -- filed by James R. Rudsell (individually and on behalf of
      all others similarly situated) against Swift Transportation
      Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Company
      instituted on April 5, 2012 currently pending in United
      States District Court for the Central District of
      California;

   -- filed by Lawrence Peck (individually and on behalf of all
      others similarly situated) against Swift Transportation Co.
      of Arizona, LLC instituted on September 25, 2014 currently
      pending in United States District Court for the Central
      District of California;

   -- filed by Lawrence Peck (individually and on behalf of all
      others similarly situated, and Peck Private Attorneys
      General Act ("PAGA") complaint) against Swift
      Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, et al. instituted on
      November 20, 2014 currently pending in Superior Court of
      California, County of Riverside;

   -- filed by Sadashiv Mares (individually and on behalf of all
      others similarly situated) against Swift Transportation Co.
      of Arizona, LLC instituted on February 27, 2015 currently
      pending in United States District Court for the Central
      District of California;

   -- filed by Rafael McKinsty(individually and on behalf of all
      others similarly situated) against Swift Transportation Co.
      of Arizona, LLC, et al. instituted on April 15, 2015
      currently pending in United States District Court for the
      Central District of California; and

   -- filed by Thor Nilsen (individually and on behalf of all
      others similarly situated) against Swift Transportation Co.
      of Arizona, LLC instituted on October 15, 2015 currently
      pending in United States District Court for the Central
      District of California.

The Company said, "The plaintiffs generally allege one or more of
the following: that the Company 1) failed to pay the California
minimum wage; 2) failed to provide proper meal and rest periods;
3) failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment; 4)
failed to pay for all hours worked; 5) failed to pay overtime; 6)
failed to properly reimburse work-related expenses; and 7) failed
to provide accurate wage statements."

"Before and during 2016, the Rudsell, Peck, Peck PAGA, Mares,
McKinsty, and Nilsen complaints were stayed, pending resolution of
earlier-filed cases.

"In May 2016, the Burnell plaintiffs were denied class
certification.  Their subsequent petition to appeal the
decertification order was also denied.  Following the Burnell
plaintiffs' failure to certify the class, the stays on certain
cases were lifted.

"The Peck case is currently in discovery.

"The parties in the Mares and McKinsty cases completed class
certification briefing during the first half of 2017.  On May 15,
2017, the court held oral argument on both the Mares and McKinsty
Motions for Class Certification.

"On May 23, 2017, the court denied the Mares Motion for Class
Certification.  The Mares plaintiffs have filed a petition with
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal the court's denial of
class certification.

"On July 13, 2017, the court denied the McKinsty Motion for Class
Certification.

"Based on the current procedural nature of the cases, the final
disposition of the matter and impact to the Company cannot be
determined at this time.  The likelihood that a loss has been
incurred is remote."

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Fritsch" Plaintiffs Seek Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
July 24, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that the plaintiffs in a
yard hostler class action filed by Grant Fritsch are seeking class
certification. Their motion was filed on July 17, 2017.

The Company also disclosed that it remains a defendant in 2 yard
hostler class actions (including the Fritsch case) involving
employee compensation and pay practices specifically on California
Wage, Meal, and Rest matters. These cases are:

   -- filed by Grant Fritsch (individually and on behalf of all
      others similarly situated) against Swift Transportation
      Company of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Company
      instituted on January 28, 2016 currently pending in
      Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino; and

   -- filed by Bill Barker, Tab Bachman, and William
      Yingling(individually and on behalf of all others similarly
      situated) against Swift Transportation Company of Arizona,
      LLC instituted on April 1, 2016 currently pending in United
      States District Court for the Eastern District of
      California.

The Company said, "The plaintiffs, representing yard hostlers
employed by the Company in California, generally allege one or
more of the following: that the Company 1) failed to pay minimum
wage; 2) failed to pay overtime and doubletime wages required by
California law; 3) failed to provide accurate, itemized wage
statements; 4) failed to timely pay wages upon separation from
employment; 5) failed to reimburse for business expenses; and 6)
failed to provide proper meal and rest periods."

"On July 17, 2017, the Fritsch plaintiffs filed their motion for
class certification.  The Barker complaint is currently in
discovery.  The Company retains all of its defenses against
liability and damages related to these lawsuits.  Additionally,
the Company intends to vigorously defend against the merits of the
claims and to challenge certification.  The final disposition of
these matters and the impact on the Company cannot be determined
at this time.  The likelihood that a loss has been incurred is
remote."

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Julian" Class Certification Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company is awaiting court action on a motion
for conditional class certification in an Arizona Fair Labor
Standards Act class action initiated by Pamela Julian
(individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated),
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 24, 2017 with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017.

The class action was filed against Swift Transportation Inc., et
al., on December 29, 2015, and currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company violated the FLSA by
failing to pay its trainee drivers minimum wage for all work
performed and by failing to pay overtime.

In March 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's overtime claims, which was granted by the district
court in May 2016. The parties completed briefing on the
plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification and are
awaiting a ruling on the Motion from the Court.

Swift Transportation said, "The Company retains all of its
defenses against liability and damages for the remaining claims.
Additionally, the Company intends to vigorously defend against the
merits of the claims and to challenge certification. The final
disposition of the matter and the impact on the Company cannot be
determined at this time. The likelihood that a loss has been
incurred is remote."

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Trial on "Slack" Class Suit Set for Sept.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
July 24, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that trial for the
Washington Overtime class action initiated by Troy Slack is set
for September 2017.

The Company also disclosed that it remains a defendant in 2
Washington Overtime Class actions, specifically these cases:

   -- filed by Troy Slack(individually and on behalf of all
      others similarly situated) against Swift Transportation
      Company of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
      Corporation instituted on September 9, 2011, currently
      pending in United States District Court for the Western
      District of Washington; and

   -- filed by Julie Hedglin(individually and on behalf of all
      others similarly situated) against Swift Transportation
      Company of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
      Corporation instituted on January 14, 2016 currently
      pending in United States District Court for the Western
      District of Washington.

The Company said, "The plaintiffs allege one or more of the
following, pertaining to Washington state-based drivers: that the
Company 1) failed to pay minimum wage; 2) failed to pay overtime;
3) failed to pay all wages due at established pay periods; 4)
failed to provide proper meal and rest periods; 5) failed to
provide accurate wage statements; and 6) unlawfully deducted from
employee wages."

"The parties in the Slack matter recently completed dispositive
motion briefing.  On June 15, 2017, the parties engaged in
mediation, but it was unsuccessful.  The case is scheduled for
trial in September 2017.

"The parties in the Hedglin matter will be preparing class
certification briefing beginning in August 2017.

"The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and
damages for both matters.  Additionally, the Company intends to
vigorously defend against the merits of the claims and to
challenge certification.  The final disposition of the matter and
the impact on the Company cannot be determined at this time.  The
likelihood that a loss has been incurred is probable."

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Garza" Suit to Proceed in Maricopa County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
July 24, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Arizona owner-
operator class action initiated by Leonel Garza (individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated) will now proceed in
the Maricopa County Superior Court.

The case was instituted in January 30, 2004 against Swift
Transportation Co., Inc.

The Company said, "The putative class alleges that the Company
improperly compensated owner-operators (later expanding the class
to include employee drivers) using the contracted and industry
standard remuneration based upon dispatched miles, instead of
using a method of calculating mileage that the plaintiffs allege
would be more accurate."

"The original trial court's decision was to deny class
certification of the owner-operators, which was reversed and
reinstated several times by various courts prior to 2016.  The
class is currently certified, based on an appellate court's
decision from July 2016.  The Company filed a petition for review
with the Arizona Supreme Court in August 2016, which was denied in
January 2017.  The matter will now proceed in the Maricopa County
Superior Court.  The final disposition of the matter and impact to
the Company cannot be determined at this time.  The likelihood
that a loss has been incurred is remote."

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appeal on "Sheer" Suit Pending in 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company's appeal to the Ninth Circuit
regarding the owner-operator misclassification class case
initiated by Joseph Sheer, et al., is still pending, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 24, 2017 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

The plaintiffs of the case are Joseph Sheer, Virginia Van Dusen,
Jose Motolinia, Vickii Schwalm and Peter Wood (individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated). The defendants are Swift
Transportation Co., Inc., Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc.,
Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew. The case was instituted on
December 22, 2009, and is currently pending in the U.S. District
Court of Arizona and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company said, "The putative class alleges that the Company
misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in
violation of the FLSA and various state laws, and that such owner-
operators should be considered employees.  The lawsuit also raises
certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that
certain owner-operators have entered into with IEL.

"For several years, the parties have been arguing over the proper
venue in which to proceed.  The plaintiffs argue that they signed
contracts of employment, thus exempting them from arbitration
under the Federal Arbitration Act, and claim that their case
should be heard in court by a judge.  The Company takes the
position that these individuals signed independent contractor
agreements and therefore can properly be required to submit their
claims to arbitration.  In January 2017, the district court issued
an order finding that the plaintiffs had signed contracts of
employment and thus the case could properly proceed in court.  The
Company has appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit and the
district court stayed the proceedings, pending resolution of the
appeal.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against any
proceedings.  The final disposition of the matter and impact to
the Company cannot be determined at this time.  The likelihood
that a loss has been incurred is remote."

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Merits Discovery in "Banks" Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
July 24, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that the Indiana Fair
Credit Reporting Act class action initiated by Melvin Banks
(individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated)
against subsidiary Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. is moving to
merits discovery.

The case was instituted in March 18, 2015 and is currently pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

The Company said, "The plaintiff alleges that Central Refrigerated
Service, Inc. violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to
provide job applicants with adverse action notices and copies of
their consumer reports and statements of rights.

"On May 2, 2017, the court certified the class.  The parties will
next move into merits discovery.  The Company retains all of its
defenses against liability and damages.  Additionally, the Company
intends to vigorously defend against the merits of the claims.
The final disposition of the matter and the impact on the Company
cannot be determined at this time.  The likelihood that a loss has
been incurred is remote."

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Denies "Anderson" Class Status Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
July 24, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the court has
denied the class certification request in a case initiated by
Robin Anderson (individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated) related to pre-employment physical testing.

The case was instituted on October 6, 2014 against Central
Refrigerated Service, Inc., Workwell Systems, Inc., and Swift
Transportation Company, and currently pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

The Company said, "The plaintiff alleges that pre-employment tests
of physical strength administered by a third party on behalf of
Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. had an unlawfully
discriminatory impact on female applicants and applicants over the
age of 40.  The suit seeks damages under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the age Discrimination Act, and parallel
California state law provisions, including the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act.

"Litigation is at a very preliminary stage and no trial date has
been set.  The plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification
was denied by the court on July 6, 2017.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend against the merits of the plaintiff's claims and
to oppose certification of any class of plaintiffs.  The final
disposition of this case and the financial impact cannot be
determined at this time.  The likelihood that a loss has been
incurred is remote."

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


T ROWE PRICE: Still Faces Potential Class Suit on ERISA Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
putative class suit related to alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filed on July 25, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price
Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former
members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe
Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland.  The plaintiff is a former employee who alleges
breaches of ERISA's fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction
provisions on behalf of a class of all participants and
beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan from February 14,
2011, to the time of judgment.  The plaintiff is seeking
certification of the complaint as a class action.

The Company stated, "T. Rowe Price believes the claims are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.  This matter is
in the early stages of litigation and we cannot predict the
eventual outcome or whether it will have a material negative
impact on our financial results, or estimate the possible loss or
range of loss that may arise from any negative outcome."

T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager.
The firm provides its services to individuals, institutional
investors, retirement plans, financial intermediaries, and
institutions.  The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group,
Inc. and T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.  The Company was founded
in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland.


TD AMERITRADE: District Judge Affirms Dismissal of Class Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the District Judge in a
putative class action issued an opinion and order on July 5
adopting the findings and recommendation of a Magistrate Judge,
granting in part and denying in part, the defendants' motions to
dismiss, and allowing plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

An amended putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon in Lawrence Ciuffitelli
et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, EisnerAmper LLP, Sidley Austin
LLP, Tonkon Torp LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and Integrity Bank &
Trust, Case No. 3:16-cv-580, on May 19, 2016.

The putative class includes all persons who purchased securities
of Aequitas Commercial Finance, LLC and its affiliates on or after
June 29, 2011.  Other groups of plaintiffs subsequently filed
three non-class action lawsuits in Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah
County, against these and other defendants: Walter Wurster, et al.
v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV25920 (filed Aug. 11,
2016), Kenneth Pommier, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case
No. 16CV36439 (filed Nov. 3, 2016) and Charles Ramsdell, et al. v.
Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV40659 (filed Dec. 2, 2016).

Several FINRA arbitrations are also pending against TD Ameritrade,
Inc.  The claims include allegations that the sales of Aequitas
securities were unlawful, the defendants participated or
materially aided in such sales in violation of the Oregon
securities laws, and material misstatements and omissions were
made.

While the factual allegations differ in various respects among the
cases, plaintiffs' allegations include assertions that in addition
to serving as custodian for Aequitas securities, TD Ameritrade,
Inc. recommended and referred investors to financial advisors as
part of its advisor referral program for the purpose of purchasing
Aequitas securities, and provided credibility to and developed a
market for such securities.

In the putative class action, plaintiffs allege that more than
1,500 investors were owed more than US$600 million on the Aequitas
securities they purchased.  In that case and the other cases,
collectively 147 named plaintiffs allege a total of approximately
US$114 million in losses plus other damages.  Of that amount, 52
plaintiffs were TD Ameritrade, Inc. customers who allege
approximately US$24 million in losses plus other damages.

On July 5, 2017, the District Judge in the putative class action
issued an opinion and order adopting the findings and
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, granting in part and
denying in part, the defendants' motions to dismiss, and allowing
plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

TD Ameritrade said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend
against the Aequitas litigation.  The Company is unable to predict
the outcome or the timing of the ultimate resolution of this
litigation, or the potential losses, if any, that may result."

TD Ameritrade is a provider of securities brokerage services and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors,
traders and independent registered investment advisors ("RIAs").


TEXAS DE BRAZIL: Haynes Claims Website Not Accessible to Blind
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Haynes, individually, on his behalf and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Texas de
Brazil Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61564 (S.D. Fla.,
August 7, 2017), seeks injunctive and other relief, and attorney's
fees, litigation expenses and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Defendant operates a chain of stores in Broward County and
throughout Florida. To complement its physical stores, it operates
a website at http://www.texasdebrazil.com/which Haynes, a blind
individual, attempted to access but to no avail because of
incompatibility issued with screen reader software that he is
using. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeannette E. Albo, Esq.
      Thomas B. Bacon, P.A.
      9444 S.W. 69th Ct.
      Miami, FL 33156
      Tel: (305) 502-4593
      Email: jalbo@bellsouth.net

             - and -

      Thomas B. Bacon, Esq.
      THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
      644 North Mc Donald St.
      Mt. Dora, FL 32757
      Tel: (954) 478-7811
      Email: tbb@thomasbaconlaw.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 1 in "Ferris" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 8, 2017, in the case styled
Richard Ferris v. Transworld Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-
cv-03703 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.

The minute entry states that:

   -- As stated on the record, the Defendants to provide counsel
      for the Plaintiff with definite dates for depositions;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to compel is stricken without prejudice;

   -- As further stated on the record, Defendant Convergent
      Outsourcing to answer outstanding discovery by August 25,
      2017;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is stricken;

   -- Plaintiff is given until September 1, 2017, to file its
      motion for class certification;

   -- Defendants are given until October 6, 2017, to file their
      responses and Plaintiff is given until October 27, 2017, to
      file his replies; and

   -- Dispositive motion schedule is extended as follows:

      * Dispositive motions are to be filed by November 27, 2017;

      * Responses to dispositive motions, if any, are to be filed
        by December 18, 2017, and replies, if any, are to be
        filed by January 12, 2018;

      * Status hearing is reset to March 7, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.;
        and

      * Status hearing set for September 20, 2017, is stricken.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E6u21RIh


UNITED STATES: Al Obaidy Appeals USDC-CASF Order to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Omer Al Obaidy filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled OMER AL OBAIDY, on behalf of himself And all
others similarly situated v. JOHN F. KELLY, Secretary Department
of Homeland Security; REX W. TILLERSON, Secretary of State, U.S.
Department of State; JEFF SESSION, The United States Attorney
General; DAVID T. DONAHUE, (Acting) Assistant Secretary for
Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State; THOMAS D. HOMAN,
Director Immigration and Custom Enforcement; DEPUTY DIRECTOR
(Vacant) Immigration and Custom Enforcement; and ANDREW McCabe,
(Acting) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Omer Al Obaidy v. USDC-
CASF, Case No. 17-72122, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The action alleges claims under the Immigration and Nationality
Act of 1952.

Mr. Al Obaidy was born in Perugia, Italy, on July 27, 1968.  He
filed form DS-160 for visa entry to the United States on Nov. 11,
2014.  He alleges that due to misrepresentation of a former
attorney, he didn't apply for G-639 and analyze contents of
FOIA/PA to determine the course of action necessary to apply for
third time with the U.S. Embassy-Kyiv.

Mr. Al Obaidy, of Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom, appears pro
se.[BN]


UNITED STATES: "Nio" Suit Seeks to Certify Selected Reserve Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KUSUMA NIO, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00998-ESH (D. Colo.), Haendel Crist
Calisto Alves de Almeida, Prashanth Batchu, Lucas Calixto, Shu
Cheng, Seung Joo Hong, Wanjing Li, Ye Liu, and Emeka Udeigwe move
the Court for an order certifying a class consisting of all
persons who:

   (i) have enlisted in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve
   ("Selected Reserve") through the Military Accessions Vital to
   the National Interest (MAVNI) program; (ii) have served
   honorably with the U.S. military through participation in
   Selected Reserve drill periods or in an active-duty status;
   (iii) have received or will receive executed Form N-426s
   certifying their honorable service as members of the Selected
   Reserve or in active-duty status; (iv) have submitted or will
   submit N-400 Applications for Naturalization to United States
   Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); and (v) have had
   or will have the processing or final adjudication of their
   naturalization applications (including naturalization itself)
   withheld or delayed because of a final processing hold that is
   based on their status as MAVNIs and pending (a) completion of
   enhanced United States Department of Defense (DoD) security
   screenings, (b) completion of an N-426 review by DoD to
   determine whether to revoke the previously-issued honorable
   service certifications, and/or (c) completion of a review by
   DoD of its policies regarding certification of honorable
   service or issuance of Form N-426s.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court for an Order appointing their
attorneys as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph J. LoBue, Esq.
          Douglas W. Baruch, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Wollenberg, Esq.
          Neaha P. Raol, Esq.
          Webster R. M. Beary, Esq.
          Shaun A. Gates, Esq.
          Katherine L. St. Romain, Esq.
          FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP
          801 17th Street, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 639 7000
          Facsimile: (202) 639 7003
          Email: joseph.lobue@friedfrank.com
                 douglas.baruch@friedfrank.com
                 jennifer.wollenberg@friedfrank.com


VANTIV INTEGRATED: Aug. 26 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Shinn, writing for Durango Herald, reports that Vantiv
Integrated Payments could pay $52 million to settle a class-action
lawsuit that claims the company charged customers unauthorized and
marked-up fees.

Businesses in Ohio, California and Tennessee claim that Mercury
Payment Systems, a company founded in Durango, and a company it
contracted with, Global Payments Direct, overcharged customers for
the fees that major credit card companies require and imposed
unauthorized fees.

The lawsuit, filed in 2016, claims that Mercury committed fraud,
breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violated the state
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  Vantiv bought
Mercury in 2014, making it part of the case.

"Mercury (with the knowledge and assistance of Global) has for
years carried out a widespread and systematic fraud on its
customers.  Without notice to merchants, Mercury has been
surreptitiously and gradually inflating certain small,
per-transaction fees," court documents claimed.

The overcharged fees may add up to hundreds or thousands of
dollars per merchant and tens or hundreds of millions of dollars
in fraudulent profits, the claim states.

Mercury does not admit fault, but it agreed to settle the case to
avoid the expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction of
continuing the case, court documents state.

"We firmly believe that all of Mercury's business practices were
both legal and transparent," said Adam Kiefaber, a spokesman for
the company, in an email.

Those who used Mercury or were referred by Mercury to Global for
payment processing from Oct. 9, 2009, through May 16, 2017, and
paid certain fees could receive money or credit in the settlement,
according to information provided by the settlement administrator.

A hearing scheduled for Aug. 26 will likely determine the amount
owed to businesses in the settlement.

Prosecuting attorney Adam Levitt said in an email the settlement
is an example of the positive effect of class-action litigation.
Several months after the lawsuit was filed, Mercury changed the
worst of its practices and saved customers millions, he said.

"We believe that it is a well-thought-out, well-researched, well-
documented and strongly and effectively litigated settlement that
does a lot of good for a lot of hardworking, American small
business owners and other merchants.  We hope that the court
agrees and grants final approval to this settlement at the end of
the month," he said in an email. [GN]


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Faces Class Action Over Weight Loss Supplement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Graf, writing for Law360, reports that Vitamin Shoppe Inc.
has falsely advertised that a dietary supplement can contribute to
weight loss when the product's active ingredients have no such
benefits, according to a proposed class action removed to
California federal court on Aug. 8.

Andrea Nathan said the company's Garcinia Cambogia Extract dietary
supplement claims to facilitate ''weight management" and "appetite
control," but its only active ingredients, hydroxycitric acid and
chromium, "are scientifically proven to be incapable of providing
such weight-loss benefits."

"Defendant markets and advertises the product as an effective
weight-loss supplement through claims placed directly on the
bottle product despite that it provides no such benefits," the
suit said.

Ms. Nathan, who filed the suit in California state court in June,
alleges she paid about $20 in February for a 180-caplet bottle of
the Garcinia Cambogia Extract based on its weight loss claims.
Vitamin Shoppe purposefully made the misleading claims to entice
the average consumer to buy the product, the suit said.

But instead of purchasing a weight loss aid, the customers were
actually purchasing a product that is "no more effective than a
placebo," Ms. Nathan argued.

Ms. Nathan says that she lost money due to the company's
misrepresentations, since she paid more than she would have for
similar products that did not make weight loss claims.

"The senior officers and directors of defendant allowed the
product to be sold with full knowledge or reckless disregard that
the challenged claims are fraudulent, unlawful, and misleading,"
according to the filing.

Ms. Nathan is seeking to represent a class of people who have
bought Vitamin Shoppe's Garcinia Cambogia since June 26, 2013.

Ms. Nathan is alleging violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, as well as breach of warranties.

Counsel for the parties didn't respond on Aug. 9 to requests for
comment.

Ms. Nathan is represented by Paul K. Joseph of The Law Office of
Paul K. Joseph PC.

Vitamin Shoppe is represented by Amy B. Alderfer and Brett N.
Taylor -- btaylor@cozen.com -- of Cozen O'Connor.

The suit is Andrea Nathan v. Vitamin Shoppe Inc., case number
3:17-cv-01590 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California. [GN]


VL FUNDING: "McHarris" Suit Removed to E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
Tameika L. McHarris, an individual, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VL Funding LLC, Navient
Solutions, Inc., Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA, Defendants,
Case No. 504969/2017 (N.Y. Sup., March 13, 2017), is removed to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on August 7, 2017 under Case No. 1:17-cv-04616.

McHarris alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act by the Defendant. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented pro se.

Defendant is represented by:

      Ashley B. Huddleston, Esq.
      VEDDER PRICE P.C.
      1633 Broadway, 31st Floor
      New York, New York 10019
      Tel: (212) 407 7700
      Fax: (212) 407 7799
      Email: ahuddleston@vedderprice.com


W&T OFFSHORE: Faces "Fontenot" Suit Alleging Misclassification
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH FONTENOT, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. W&T OFFSHORE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-
02320 (S.D. Tex., July 28, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff, and the
other workers like them, were typically scheduled for 12 hour
shifts, 7 days a week, for weeks at a time. But W&T does not pay
all of these workers overtime for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a single workweek.  Instead of paying overtime as
required by the FLSA, W&T pays these workers a day-rate and
improperly classifies them as independent contractors.

W&T Offshore, Inc. is a global oil and gas exploration and
production company.  Plaintiff works for W&T as a well site
supervisor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: 713-352-1100
     Fax: 713-352-3300
     Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
     Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com

        - and -

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


WATERSTONE MORTGAGE: Fails to Pay Loan Originators, Werner Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUG WERNER, both individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons v. WATERSTONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00608 (W.D. Wisc., Aug. 4, 2017), is brought to
remedy the alleged failure of Waterstone to pay the Plaintiff and
similarly situated mortgage loan originators wages required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Waterstone is a corporation having tts headquarters and office in
Pewaukee, Wisconsin.  Waterstone is southeastern Wisconsin's
largest mortgage lender with more than $2.5 billion in annual loan
origination volume.  The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of
an FDIC bank, WaterStone Bank SSB, which has assets of more than
$1.8 billion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Getman, Esq.
          GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
          260 Fair Street
          Kingston, NY 12401
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
          E-mail: dgetman@getmansweeney.com
                  mdunn@getmansweeney.com


WELLS FARGO: "Miller" Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BEVERLY MILLER and ROGER PLATE., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-05597-JHS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
conditionally certify a collective action and to issue notice
pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yziUhZi3

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Farsheed Fozouni, Esq.
          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          Farsheed Fozouni, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521 3605
          Facsimile: (214) 520 1181
          E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com
                  marbuckl@baronbudd.com
                  ffozouni@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          Gregory G. Paul, Esq.
          MORGAN & PAUL, PLLC
          First and Market Building
          100 First Avenue, Suite 1010
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 259 8375
          Facsimile: (888) 822 9421
          E-mail: gregpaul@morgan-paul.com


WELLS FARGO: "Hancock" Sues Over Collateral Protection Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL HANCOCK, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. WELLS FARGO &
COMPANY, a DELAWARE CORPORATION, and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04324-MEJ (N.D.
Cal., July 30, 2017), is a proposed class action brought by
Plaintiff on behalf of all persons who obtained an auto loan from
Defendants and who were required to pay for a Collateral
Protection Insurance (CPI) policy. Plaintiff challenges
Defendants' practice of secretly imposing such CPI on their
customers and automatically deducting the cost of such insurance
from their bank accounts.

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo &
Company, and is a national bank organized and existing as a
national association under the National Bank Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel Alberstone, Esq.
     Roland Tellis, Esq.
     Mark Pifko, Esq.
     Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
     BARON & BUDD, P.C.
     15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
     Encino, CA 91436
     Phone: (818) 839-2333
     Fax: (818) 986-9698
     Email: dalberstone@baronbudd.com
            rtellis@baronbudd.com
            mpifko@baronbudd.com


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Berger & Montague Files TJI Joists Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C., a national plaintiffs' law firm with a
long history of successfully prosecuting complex mass tort and
class action cases, on Aug. 8 disclosed that it has filed class
action lawsuits in federal courts located in New Jersey, Colorado,
and Delaware on behalf of its clients.

The cases allege claims on behalf of all individuals in the United
States who have been harmed by their purchase or pending purchase
of homes containing TJI Joists with Flak Jacket Protection
manufactured by Weyerhaeuser Company.  Berger & Montague, P.C.
anticipates that it will file additional lawsuits on behalf of
consumers affected by the TJI Joists in other states including
Arkansas, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and others.

The class action complaints filed in federal court in New Jersey,
Colorado, and Delaware allege that Weyerhaeuser's TJI Joists with
Flak Jacket Protection manufactured after December 1, 2016 are
defective.  The TJI Joists' "Flak Jacket" fire-protection coating
includes a formaldehyde-based resin that results in the "off-
gassing" of high levels of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.

The formaldehyde fumes build up quickly and invade consumers'
homes with a pickle-like odor, which can cause families, visitors,
and workers to suffer from headaches, stinging and tearing eyes,
dizziness, nausea, coughing, wheezing, and asthma-type symptoms.
The TJI Joists' defective nature is so severe that class members'
homes are uninhabitable, and the TJI Joists require immediate
repair or removal.  Berger & Montague, P.C. is helping its clients
evaluate their possible remediation options and is working with
leading experts in the United States on formaldehyde pollution and
indoor environmental engineering and testing.

The TJI Joists with Flak Jacket Protection were installed between
December 2016 and July 2017, including in many new housing
developments by major builders.  Berger & Montague has assembled a
large team of lawyers, investigators and experts who are providing
counsel and representation to affected individuals across the
United States.

"Learning that your new home contains toxic levels of
formaldehyde, a cancer-causing pollutant, is just horrible," said
Berger & Montague, P.C. Managing Shareholder, Shanon J. Carson --
scarson@bm.net -- who leads the Firm's Consumer Protection Group.
"Our firm is proud to represent these families, and we intend to
make sure that they are compensated for all of the damages caused
by this product, including the inconveniences of being forced to
temporarily or permanently move.  We are also committed to
ensuring that any proposed repairs will safely and permanently
solve this problem, will not expose families to further health
risks, and will not further diminish the value of these homes."

Plaintiffs and the proposed class members are seeking to recover
all expenses caused by the defective TJI Joists with Flak Jacket
Protection, including repair, removal, replacement, relocation,
and delayed closing expenses.  They also seek to ensure that
repairs do not expose homeowners to any risks of long-term
formaldehyde exposure.  Plaintiffs are also seeking all available
statutory damages and penalties, and punitive damages.

Affected homeowners and homebuyers should contact Shanon J. Carson
at rel="nofollow">scarson@bm.net or (215) 875-4656 for a free
evaluation of their potential case. Additional information about
the lawsuits is available at www.bergermontague/weyerhaeuser.

Berger & Montague, P.C. -- http://www.bergermontague.com-- is a
national plaintiffs' law firm based in Philadelphia with
additional offices in Minneapolis and Washington D.C.  The Firm
litigates consumer protection cases in federal and state courts
throughout the United States and employs over 65 attorneys.  The
Firm has played lead roles in major cases for over 47 years,
resulting in recoveries of over $30 billion for its clients.  The
Firm's attorneys have extensive experience representing injured
parties in product liability disputes. [GN]


WILMINGTON TRUST: Brown Files Suit Over Henny Penny Share Buy
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILMA BROWN, on behalf of the HENNY PENNY CORPORATION EMPLOYEE
STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, and on behalf of a class of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A.,
as successor to WILMINGTON TRUST RETIREMENT and INSTITUTIONAL
SERVICES COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00250-WHR (S.D.
Ohio, July 27, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff suffered losses when
Wilmington Trust authorized the Plan to buy shares of Henny Penny
for more than fair market value.  The case avers that as Trustee
for the Plan, it was Wilmington Trust's exclusive duty to ensure
that any transactions between the Plan and the Sellers, and
between the Plan and Henny Penny, including acquisitions of Henny
Penny stock by the Plan and loans to the Plan, were fair and
reasonable and to ensure that the Plan paid no more than fair
market value.

On December 30, 2014, the Plan purchased from party in interest
sellers, members of the Cobb family, 1,600,000 shares of Henny
Penny common stock for $165,000,000, which was paid for by a
$165,000,000 loan from Henny Penny to the Plan with an interest
rate of 2.74% per annum.

Wilmington Trust, N.A. is successor to Wilmington Trust Retirement
and Institutional Services Company, the trustee for the Henny
Penny Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan.  Henny Penny
bills itself as "one of the country's leading designers and
manufacturers of premium foodservice cooking, holding and display
equipment for thousands of restaurants, supermarkets and
institutions around the world."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
     MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
     1114 Dublin Road
     Phone: (614) 488-0400
     Fax: (614) 488-0401
     Email: murphy@mmmb.com

        - and -

     Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
     Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 463-2101
     Fax: (202) 463-2103
     Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com
     Email: rjenny@baileyglasser.com


* Class Actions Over Data Collection Methods Surge
--------------------------------------------------
Glenn Minnis, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
growing number of U.S. companies are turning to measures like
biometric tools to validate time entries and other forms of
tracking an employee's movements and actions.  And as technology
rapidly changes, it has also sparked a surge of litigation over
data collection methods, and the levels of protection dedicated to
electronically-gleaned data.

A simple scan of an employee's fingerprints can conclusively
validate a worker and who they are signing in as, seemingly doing
away with employer concerns such as "buddy punching."

Still, the issue remains perplexing for employers, who now must
face potential lawsuits, as well.

In Illinois, for instance, the Biometric Information Protection
Act allows individuals to sue over alleged violations, leaving
some companies exposed to "liquidated damages" of as much as
$5,000 per violation, along with attorney and expert witness fees.

"People become more nervous as breaches happen," Joseph
Lazzarotti, an attorney at the New Jersey office of law firm
Jackson Lewis, told the Cook County Record.  "There has not been a
lot of case law on the issue, and the Illinois law is unique. In
the end, some companies might try to find different ways of
timekeeping."

In the meantime, Mr. Lazzarotti advises companies that still rely
on the technology to take precautions, including making sure they
don't keep any personal information for longer than needed and by
obtaining written consent from targeted individuals prior to
collecting any data.

"Employees need to understand tech and what it does,"
Mr. Lazzarotti said.  "They need to think of that before just
dumping on employees.  They need to work to have employees embrace
the process."

In Illinois, both the parent company of Mariano's supermarkets and
the Intercontinental Hotel Group have been hit with class action
lawsuits alleging they improperly collected and stored employee
fingerprints and other biometric data.

Presently, 48 states have enacted laws requiring notification of a
breach of "personal information."  From state to state, the
definition of personal information varies, but is largely not
limited to just Social Security numbers.  Laws in Illinois,
Connecticut, Iowa and Nebraska also include biometric information.

Mounting confusion aside, Mr. Lazzarotti predicts that such
technology will continue to grow as it becomes even more
convenient.

"It's much easier to put a thumb on everything and not have to
remember passwords," he said.  "With that, you're likely to see
more laws in more states."

Meantime, Mr. Lazzarotti is closely monitoring developments in
biometric technology, including an employer in Wisconsin that
recently offered to implant a microchip in employees to help with
time tracking and plant security.

"Some have raised the question of, if that might lead to medical
conditions, or the matter of what happens when an employee leaves
and how much monitoring is too much," Mr. Lazzarotti said.
"Employees need to always be vigilant with data and remember that
nothing is completely secure.  Tech helps us to be more
productive, but we also have to be concerned about making people
more comfortable with it." [GN]


* German Politicians Argue Over Adoption of US-Style Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dietmar Neuerer, writing for Handeslblatt Global, reports that
barely a day goes by in Germany without bad tidings for car
drivers, as the emissions cheating scandal engulfs ever more
models, driving bans loom in German cities and the prices of
second-hand cars tumble.

Following the Aug. 2 "diesel summit" between the country's leading
automakers and government representatives, more than five million
owners in Germany will have to take their cars into garages for
software updates aimed at throttling their emissions of nitrogen
oxide.

But the summit has failed to have the desired impact of reassuring
customers.  On the contrary: many are even more irate than before
and want to take legal action against the carmaker or dealer that
saddled them with a vehicle that's dirtier, and hence less
valuable, than they were told when they bought it.

The potential for blackmail with unjustified lawsuits is immense
due to the high costs involved and the impact of companies being
publicly pilloried.

Thousands of individual lawsuits have already piled up in courts
up and down the country.  The scandal cries out for class-action
suits of the kind that are commonplace in the US, but German law
makes no provision for that type of lawsuit at present.

American and German diesel owners have both suffered damage from
Volkswagen's global emissions deception, yet the automaker has
treated consumers across the Atlantic very differently.  Consumers
in the United States have received billions of dollars in
compensation, while Germans have been left empty handed.  This is
despite the fact that the scale of the emissions scandal is much
larger in Germany, where diesel vehicles are more popular with
drivers.  In fact, more than four times as many cars, some 2.8
million, had cheat software installed compared to the United
States, where 500,000 cars were affected.

The unequal treatment boils down to a major difference in the
German and American legal systems.  While Americans can join
forces in class-action suits to level the playing field and
extract concessions from powerful firms, consumers in Germany have
to make their case individually, often leaving them powerless
before deep-pocketed corporate legal teams.

So it is handy for German drivers that the September 24 election
is around the corner because the issue is fast turning into a
political battleground in the campaign.  There is a renewed push
in response to the emissions scandal to create a system akin to
US-style class-action suits, but the proposal is controversial.

The center-left Social Democrats, junior partners to Chancellor
Angela Merkel's Christian Democrat Union party (CDU), have drafted
a law to introduce such suits and are piling on the pressure, not
least because they sense this is something that could help them
narrow Ms. Merkel's current 15-point lead in opinion polls.

The opposition Greens also back legislation before the end of the
current parliamentary term.

The conservatives are divided.  The CDU has resisted swift action
over concern it would be too costly for corporations, while
Bavarian governor Horst Seehofer, the shoot-from-the-hip leader of
the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to the
CDU, voiced support for class-action suits in the diesel scandal.

Volker Kauder, the powerful head of the conservatives'
parliamentary group, said: "The conservatives will review in the
coming parliamentary term how consumers can safeguard their rights
more easily.  The introduction of model lawsuits in consumer law
can be a means to that end."  He added however that the
legislation drafted by Justice Minister Heiko Maas of the Social
Democrats was "insufficient."

The Association of German Chambers of Commerce and Industry (DIHK)
also voiced skepticism about the draft law, saying it could hurt
industry.  "The potential for blackmail with unjustified lawsuits
is immense due to the high costs involved and the impact of
companies being publicly pilloried," DIHK's chief legal expert,
Stephan Wernicke, told Handelsblatt.

If collective legal protection is made available to such
plaintiffs it will endanger Germany's judicial reputation.
He said allowing class-action cases would allow British lawsuit-
financing companies and US law firms to elbow their way into the
German market and pursue a business model that had little to do
with compensating consumers or businesses.  "If collective legal
protection is made available to such plaintiffs it will endanger
Germany's judicial reputation," he warned.  "The law isn't an
investment asset."

But Volkert Vorwerk, from the German Association of Lawyers, does
not share Mr. Wernicke's fear that Germany will become an overly
litigious society like the United States.  The German legal system
is too different to simply import American methods,
Mr. Vorwerk said.

Germany has its own legal mechanisms that it can use as a guide.
For example, collective legal action, in a very narrow sense, is
already possible for investors.  A court can designate the case of
one plaintiff as a model for all other similar cases. VW
shareholders have used this avenue to sue the automaker for
allegedly informing them too late about emissions cheating.

Germany could also open this legal avenue to consumers such as VW
diesel owners.  Mr. Vorwerk said consumers need a "sharp sword" to
wield against companies who have done them harm.  "What's
important is effective legal protection to compensate for
individual damage," he said. The problem with the justice
ministry's proposal is that it relies on consumer associations,
which are not competent to represent individuals in such cases,
Mr. Vorwerk said.

Though class-action suits are not technically possible, consumer
groups are looking for creative ways to pursue collective action
within the current legal framework in Germany.  The online
platform Myright, for example, is gathering claims against VW. So
far, 30,000 diesel owners have registered with the group.  The
plan is for Myright to represent the diesel owners in court with
the US law firm Hausfeld by its side.  It's unclear, however,
whether or not the plan will work. [GN]


* Pillsbury Winthrop Attorneys Discuss CFPB Arbitration Rule
------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes K. Tunstall, Esq. -- mercedes.tunstall@pillsburylaw.com
-- and Andrew Caplan, Esq. -- andrew.caplan@pillsburylaw.com -- of
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, in an article for Lexology,
report that financial Institutions may need to revise consumer
contracts to remove class action waivers in preparation for a
March 2018 federal rule.

On July 19, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the
federal regulator for a sweeping range of depository and non-
depository consumer financial services companies (including the
largest of U.S. banks), published a final rule that makes it
illegal for many of the CFPB's regulated entities to include
consumer class action waivers in pre-dispute arbitration
agreements.  The Rule's effective date is September 18, 2017, and
applies to contracts entered into after March 19, 2018. (The Rule
does not apply to pre-existing contracts.)

As a result, covered consumer contracts entered into after March
19, 2018, will need to: (a) remove language in pre-dispute
arbitration provisions that bars consumers from participating in
class actions; and (b) add language informing consumers of their
rights to participate in class actions.  The Rule will also
require such companies to provide information on individual
arbitration awards to the CFPB for publication in a public
database (redacting consumers' private financial information).
Although the Rule does not outright prohibit pre-dispute
arbitration agreements themselves (as many expected the CFPB
might), companies will need to reconsider the economics behind
offering consumers a full arbitration program in light of a future
reality of increased class actions.

Unlike the majority of the CFPB's regulations, which cover
specific financial products or services, the Rule applies across a
wide swath of traditional and online consumer financial products
and services, including among other things deposit accounts,
credit cards and consumer reporting products. (Arbitration
agreements, themselves, are already prohibited in residential
mortgage transactions, so the Rule does not cover those.)

Although the Rule was issued as "final" (as opposed to a mere
proposal), the Rule is currently subject to fierce political
headwinds from Congressional Republicans, the White House and
industry trade groups, all of whom strongly oppose the CFPB's
current director, Richard Cordray, an Obama appointee.

Indeed, the House of Representatives has already passed a
resolution that, if adopted by the Senate and signed by the
President, would nullify the Rule and bar the CFPB from issuing a
similar rule in the future without an express Congressional
directive.  The catch is that the procedure Congress would invoke
to nullify the Rule, the Congressional Review Act, must be used
within 60 legislative days of the Rule's publication of the
Federal Register. While the House of Representatives has taken the
first step, it remains to be seen if the Senate will have
opportunity to act in light of other legislative priorities.

Notwithstanding these potential threats to the Rule from Congress,
as of the time of this writing, the CFPB appears to be moving full
steam ahead.  As a result, companies that fall within the Rule's
coverage are well advised to begin reviewing their consumer
agreements and dispute resolution procedures in preparation for
the distinct possibility that prohibitions on consumer class
action waivers become the law in March 2018. [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  * * *