CAR_Public/170821.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Monday, August 21, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 164



                            Headlines

1-800 FLOWERS.COM: Class of CSRs Certified in "Conklin" Suit
7-ELEVEN INC: Faces Class Suit Over Tax on Unsweetened Coffee
AAA TOWING: Faces "Borrero" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
AETNA HEALTH: Seney Moves for Class Certification in MDL 2020
AETNA HEALTH: Subscribers Move for Class Certification in UCR MDL

ALSTON PERSONAL: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Hollis"
ANNIE'S INC: Faces "Alvandi" Suit Over Labeling of Fruit Snack
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Rosen Files Class Action Suit
BANCO POPULAR: Costa Dorada, et al. File Suit Over Foreclosures
BANNER SMOKED: "Dillarza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

BMW AG: "Cordover" Suit Alleges Conspiracy on Vehicle Prices
CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Class Certification in "Butler"
CAPITAL BANK: WeissLaw Sues Over First Horizon Acquisition
CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Buxbaum" Suit in E.D. of New York
CHICAGO, IL: Hit with New Suit Over Distracted Driving Ordinance

CL WILLIAMS: Barber Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
CLEVELAND, OHIO: Class Certification in "Eighmey" Reversed
COLORADO: Court Dismisses Former DYC Detainee's Class Suit
CONCESSION A25: Threatened with Class Suit Over Toll Fees
CONTEXTMEDIA HEALTH: Griffith Seeks to Certify Class Under TCPA

CORECIVIC: Attorney Seeks to Probe Detention Center Conditions
COURTYARD REHABILITATION: "Johnson" Suit Moved to W.D. of Ark.
DAIRYAMERICA INC: Court Ordered to Seal Documents in "Carlin"
DAUBERT LAW: Certification of Class Sought in "Bleske" Suit
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Goldstein" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

DUNKIN DONUTS: Sued Over Lack of Blueberries in Blueberry Donuts
ECOLAB INC: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Miner" Suit
ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Oct. 10 Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
EMERY FEDERAL: Court Certifies RESPA Class in "Palombaro" Suit
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Misled Shareholders, Class Action Claims

ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Suit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Denial of Arbitration in "Chassen" Affirmed
FLAGSHIP S: Faces "Joshi" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations
FMS INC: Faces "Hodges" Lawsuit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Fund Suit Class Might Not Be Eligible

GLOBALSCAPE INC.: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES: Advocates See Danger in Rejection of CA
HYLAND'S INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Allen" Class Suit
INMAN'S AUTO: Faces "Johnson" Suit Under FLSA, Col. Wage Act
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: 2 Cos. Wins Summary Ruling in Antitrust Suit

IPLAY INC: Deceives Consumers Over BPA in Teethers, Spearman Says
JAGUAR ANIMAL: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Class Suit
JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Clark" Suit Over Xarelto(R) Side Effects
JOE KEY: Tex. App. Reverses Certification of DPTA Claim
KILOO APS: "McDonald" Suit Alleges Exfiltration of Players' Info

KIMBERLY-CLARK: Perry Drops Flushable Wipes Class Action Suit
LABORATORY CORP: AIG, Liberty Say They Don't Have to Cover Deal
LAMPS PLUS: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Arbitration in "Varela"
LAMPS PLUS: Compelled to Arbitrate Class Action by Warehouseman
LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Shareholder Class Action

MAC ACQUISITION: Faces "Jenkins" Suit Alleging FCRA Violation
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Designation of Transport Officers "Denied"
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: "Lopez" Suit Moved to S.D. California
MATAGRANO INC: $1.35 Million Class Settlement Gets Court Nod
MAXIMUS INC: Oct. 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

MDL 2361: Coca Cola Appeals Class Certification Order
MLG PARTNERS: Texas American Syndicate Asks Court to Wind up Trust
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Appeals Order in "Zaklit" Suit to 9th Cir.
NUTRACEUTICAL INT'L: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
NORDSTROM INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Workers' PAGA Claims

OMNI HEALTHCARE: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Bryant" Suit
PARAMOUNT EQUITY: "Robinson" Class Settlement Has Final Approval
PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALTIES: Quinonez's Bid to Certify Class Nixed
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Denies Garcia's Bid for Certification
PRET A MANGER: Faces "Lau" Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices

PSCU INCORPORATED: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Davis" Suit
RETAIL MERCHANTS: Faces "Overby" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
S & O GOLD: "Lake" Suit Alleges FLSA, Ohio Wage Law Violations
SAFELITE GROUP: Faces "Mackall" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Laws
SAMSUNG: Wins Galaxy 7 Class Action in South Korea

SEE'S CANDY: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Weiss" Suit
SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: Howard G. Smith Files Investor Class Suit
SIMON PROPERTY: Blind People Cannot Access Web site, Young Claims
SOCIAL SECURITY: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Rose"
SOUTH CAROLINA: Health Dept. Appeals "Stogsdill" Suit Ruling

STEWART ENTERPRISES: La. App. Junks Appeal in Stockholder Suit
SWISSPORT USA: Court Stays "Mario" Pending Morris Decision
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Faces "Bayne" Suit Over Defective Drywall
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Faces "Bentz" Suit Over Defective Drywall
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Faces "Bright" Lawsuit Over "Defective" Drywall

TAISHAN GYPSUM: Faces "Allen" Suit Over Defective Drywall
TRANSDIGM GROUP: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Lawsuit
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Kindel" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
TSUEN MAY: Faces "Morales" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Fights FACTA Class Action Suit

WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Clawbacks
WAL-MART STORES: Files Petition for Review in S.C. of Penn.
WELLS FARGO: Multidistrict Litigation Sought in Class Actions
WOOD RIVER: Settles Pollution Class Action for $4.5 Million
X1 BUILDERS: Faces "Ajtun" Suit Alleging Non-payment of OT Work

XACTLY CORPORATION: Court Grants Stipulation Dismissing "Berg"

* Trump Seeks 18 Month Delay on Retirement Savings Rules






                            *********


1-800 FLOWERS.COM: Class of CSRs Certified in "Conklin" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Algenon L. Marbley granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification of a class under Section 216 of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and for approval of their proposed notice
and consent to sue forms in the lawsuit titled VIRGINIA CONKLIN &
ALYSON CLARK, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated
individuals v. 1-800 FLOWERS.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-
00675-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio).

The Court conditionally certifies this class under the Fair Labor
Standards Act:

     All call center "Customer Service Representatives," or
     similar job title, employed by 1-800-Flowers Services
     Support Center, Inc. in Hebron, Ohio, who were not paid for
     the overtime hours they worked.

Additionally, the Court orders the parties to confer on the form
of notice and submit a joint notice within 30 days.  Once notice
is approved, the Defendants must produce a class list within 14
days of approval, and notice will be distributed by regular mail
and e-mail within 14 days of the Plaintiffs' receipt of the class
list.

Putative class members are permitted to sign their consent to sue
forms electronically.  Notice may be posted at the Defendant's
Hebron call center.  The opt-in period will last 90 days.
Finally, the Court appoints Levin Papantonio and Johnson Becker as
interim class counsel.

A copy of the Opinion & Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ke3Payio


7-ELEVEN INC: Faces Class Suit Over Tax on Unsweetened Coffee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Convenience Store News reports that 7-Eleven Inc. is the latest
retailer to face a class action lawsuit over the collection of a
beverage tax in Cook County, Ill.

Attorneys Thomas Zimmerman, Esq. -- thomas@attorneyzimmerman.com -
- Sharon Harris, Esq. -- sharon@attorneyzimmerman.com  Matthew De
Re, Esq. -- matthew@attorneyzimmerman.com -- Nickolas Hagman, Esq.
-- nikolas@attorneyzimmerman.com -- and Maebetty Kirby, Esq. --
maebetty@attorneyzimmerman.com -- all from Zimmerman Law Offices
of Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court on behalf of
plaintiff Kelly Tarrant on Aug. 9.

The lawsuits allege that 7-Eleven improperly charged Tarrant the
county's penny-per-ounce sweetened beverage tax despite the fact
that she purchased a Super Big Gulp cup filled with unsweetened
coffee, which should have been exempt from the tax. Tarrant paid
an extra 28 cents for her purchase, according to the
filing, reported the Cook County Record.

Store employees allegedly informed Tarrant 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 to include all others who may also
have been erroneously charged the tax when purchasing an
unsweetened beverage since the tax went into effect Aug. 2, which
it estimates could come to "many thousands." It also asks the
court to award plaintiffs actual damages plus attorney fees,
according to the report.

This marks the third class action lawsuit filed against retailers,
including Walgreens and local McDonald's franchisees, over the tax
collection, according to the report.

Collection and enforcement of the tax were previously delayed for
about a month after the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and
a group of Cook County grocers filed a legal challenge, alleging
that the tax was poorly written and would expose retailers to
class action lawsuits and other litigation over its collection.

Headquartered in Irving, 7-Eleven operates, franchises and/or
licenses more than 60,000 stores in 17 countries, including 10,700
in North America. [GN]


AAA TOWING: Faces "Borrero" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
ERNEST BORRERO, JAVIER PEREZ, and other similarly-situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. AAA TOWING & RECOVERY, LLC, d/b/a
M.I.A. TOWING & RECOVERY, and EDWIN RODRIGUEZ, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22896-RNS (S.D. Fla., August 1,
2017), alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff minimum
wages and overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his
regular, in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act provisions.
Defendants did not keep any time-keeping method and did not keep
track of the hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals. Plaintiff was paid with checks without
paystubs providing any accounting for hours worked,
classification, says the comlpaint.

Defendant AAA TOWING is a towing company operating a 24/7 road
side assistance in Miami-Dade, and Monroe County.  Defendant
employed Plaintiffs ERNEST BORRERO, and JAVIER PEREZ as a tow
truck drivers in 2016.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd, Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-150
     Fax: (305) 446-1502
     Email:  zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


AETNA HEALTH: Seney Moves for Class Certification in MDL 2020
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Seney, Alan John Silver, Mary Ellen Silver, Jeffrey M.
Weintraub, Frank G. Tonrey, M.D., and Carmen M. Kavali, M.D., some
of the Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation entitled In Re:
Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL No. 2020 and Master File No. 2:07-cv-
03541-KSH-CLW (D.N.J.), move for an order pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure granting class certification
and appointing class counsel.

The litigation relates to Aetna's payments for "out-of-network"
healthcare services.  The Plaintiffs allege that through wrongful
and unlawful actions, Aetna paid less than it was contractually
obligated to pay for the ONET, and both the Subscribers and
Providers were, thereby, injured.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 17, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          James A. O'Brien III, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: JCecchi@CarellaByrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Axelrod, Esq.
          AXELROD LLP
          830 Third Avenue, 5th floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 448-5263
          E-mail: jaxelrod@axelroddean.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
          2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
          Phoenix, Arizona 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com

               - and -

          Lynne Kizis, Esq.
          Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 636-8000
          Facsimile: (732) 726-4735
          E-mail: lkizis@wilentz.com
                  kroddy@wilentz.com

               - and -

          Christopher Burke, Esq.
          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Amanda Lawrence, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
                  jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water St., 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                  dkekatos@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          Edith Kallas, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7060
          Facsimile: (212) 447-7077
          E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
                  ekallas@whatleykallas.com


AETNA HEALTH: Subscribers Move for Class Certification in UCR MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Cooper, Michele Werner, Paul and Sharon Smith and Carolyn
Samit, the Subscriber Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In Re: Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL No. 2020 and Master
File No. 2:07-cv-03541-KSH-CLW (D.N.J.), move for an order:

   (1) pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
       Procedure, certifying their proposed classes;

   (2) joining the Subscriber Plaintiffs to the Rule motion
       pending before the Court;

   (3) pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
       Procedure, appointing the Subscriber Plaintiffs as Class
       action lawsuits Representatives;

   (4) Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
       designating Epstein P.C. as Class Counsel; and

   (5) rescinding Case Management Order No. 2.

The litigation relates to Aetna's payments for "out-of-network"
healthcare services.  The Plaintiffs allege that through wrongful
and unlawful actions, Aetna paid less than it was contractually
obligated to pay for the ONET, and both the Subscribers and
Providers were, thereby, injured.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 16, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lI9V4gJn

The Subscriber Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barry M. Epstein, Esq.
          Roy A. Epstein, Esq.
          EPSTEIN P.C.
          103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 104
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 493-5008


ALSTON PERSONAL: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Hollis"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Middle District of North
Carolina, issued an Memorandum and Opinion and Order granting in
part Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action
and Approve Notice and Expedited Consideration in the case
captioned MICHELLE HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALSTON PERSONAL CARE
SERVICES, LLC, and TINY MICHELLE VANHOY, Defendants, No.
1:16CV1447 (M.D.N.C.).

Plaintiff worked at Alston's Forsyth County location as a home
healthcare worker who provided companionship services.  Plaintiff
alleges that her "hours varied from week to week but she regularly
worked more than 40 hours a week, including some weeks in which
she worked in excess of 62 hours.

Plaintiff brings two claims on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated individuals.  Plaintiff brings her first claim
under 29 U.S.C. Section 207, alleging that Defendants suffered and
permitted Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective to routinely work more
than 40 hours in a workweek without proper overtime compensation.
Plaintiff brings her second claim under N.C. Gen Stat. Section 95-
25.4 making the same allegations.

Plaintiff defines the class, or collective under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), to be certified as all current or former
home healthcare workers employed by Alston Personal Care Services,
LLC and Tina Michelle Vanhoy from January 1, 2015 to the present.

Plaintiff's claim is based upon a single alleged violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sectrion 201 et seq.), which
is the failure to pay overtime for more than 40 hours worked in
one week.

Plaintiff alleges that domestic-service workers employed by third-
party agencies or employers were not exempt from the FLSA and
NCWHA overtime requirements. Plaintiff alleges the common
characteristic between Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective is that
they have routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek
without receiving proper overtime compensation for their overtime
hours worked.

Plaintiff does not allege that all employees of Defendants have
routinely worked more than 40 hours per workweek, nor is there any
suggestion of any issue that may have extended to all employees of
Defendants such as routine understatement of hours worked.

While Plaintiff is not bound to that response and may determine
otherwise during discovery, this court does not find it necessary
to include all of Defendants' employees in the collective notice
requested, but instead at this stage, the notice will be limited
to the 34 employees who may have submitted time cards reflecting
more than 40 hours of work in one week. Plaintiff's motion will be
denied to the extent it requests inclusion of all employees of
Defendants.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify
Collective Action, Approve Notice and Expedited Consideration is
granted in part as to the 34 employees identified by Defendants as
having been employed by Defendants during 2015 and 2016 and having
worked more than 40 hours in a workweek and not been paid
overtime.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybe94l4xfrom
Leagle.com.

MICHELLE HOLLIS, Plaintiff, represented by CAMALA COLLINS FRANCIS,
CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP, 6654 Chippewa StreetSaint Louis, MO 63109-
2527

MICHELLE HOLLIS, Plaintiff, represented by PHILIP BOHRER -
phil@bohrerbrady.com - Bohrer Brady, LLC, SCOTT E. BRADY -
scott@bohrerbrady.com - BOHRER LAW FIRM, L.L.C. & BRIAN L.
KINSLEY, CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP., 2400 Freeman Mill RoadSuite
200Greensboro, NC 27406.

TINA MICHELLE VANHOY, Defendant, represented by KEITH MICHAEL
WEDDINGTON,  keithweddington@parkerpoe.com - PARKER POE ADAMS &
BERNSTEIN LLP.

ALSTON PERSONAL CARE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, represented by
KEITH MICHAEL WEDDINGTON, PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP & JASON
L. KEITH, KEITHLAW & ASSOCIATES, 241 Summit AvenueSuite
103Greensboro, NC 27401-3017


ANNIE'S INC: Faces "Alvandi" Suit Over Labeling of Fruit Snack
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND ALVANDI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. ANNIE'S, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-05691 (C.D. Cal., August 1, 2017), alleges that Defendant
misrepresented the fruit content and the nutritional and health
qualities of its "Summer Strawberry" Organic Bunny Fruit Snacks.

The complaint says Defendant engaged in a deceptive marketing
campaign to convince consumers that its Strawberry Fruit Snacks
actually contained strawberries as claimed in the marketing and on
the labeling of Strawberry Fruit Snacks and was nutritious and
healthful to consume.  However, Defendant's Strawberry Fruit
Snacks do not contain any strawberries.  The Nutrition Facts do
not even list a strawberry byproduct such as strawberry juice made
from concentrate, it adds.

Annie's, Inc. produces, markets, and distributes natural and
organic food products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
     LEMBERG LAW, LLC
     1333 Stradella Road
     Los Angeles, CA 90077
     Phone: (480) 247-9644
     Fax: (480) 717-4781
     E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Rosen Files Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all those who purchased the
publicly traded common stock and/or call options or sold put
options of Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. (NASDAQ:AAOI) from July
13, 2017 through August 3, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Applied Optoelectronics
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Applied Optoelectronics class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1182.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for
information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) a major customer was reducing its purchases of the
Company's 40G receivers; (2) the loss of this major customer's
business would have a severe negative impact on the Company's
financial performance; and (3) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
October 04, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1182.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has
been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder Services
for the number of securities class action settlements annually
obtained for investors.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: 212-686-1060
         Toll Free: 866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 kchan@rosenlegal.com


BANCO POPULAR: Costa Dorada, et al. File Suit Over Foreclosures
---------------------------------------------------------------
COSTA DORADA APARTMENT CORP., COSTA DORADA BEACH RESORT CORP.,
CARLOS RAFAEL FERNANDEZ RODRIGUEZ, IRIS MYRNA CANCEL LUGO  AND THE
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM; TIENDAS PEPE DE
LUIS, INC, LUIS DELGADO MARQUEZ, MARGARITA RODRIGUEZ REYES and the
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM;  SAN JUAN
PROPERTIES, INC., ENSYSA PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING INC., ROLANDO
AVILA PEREZ, ELIZABETH CHAMPANA GAGNERON AND THE CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM; LUCERO DE AMOR CORP.,
RICARDO ARIEL GOYECHEA PABON, WILMA IDELIZA PABON RODRIGUEZ,
OVIDEO TORRENS CASTRO, RADIO BORINQUEN INC.,   ANGEL MANUEL RIVERA
CABAN, LUIS ROBERTO RIVERA CABAN, PARIO OB-GYN PSC, LUIS EDUARDO
PARDO TORO, YMA OSORIO DE JESUS, UNKOWN HUSBAND AND THE CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM; SAMUEL ROQUE MORALES, MARIA
MAGDALENA LEAL BARBOSA AND THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
BETWEEN THEM; SAMUEL ROQUE LEAL, ALBERTO ROQUE, TIERRAZO CORP.;
CARLOS MANUEL CRUZ BENITEZ, MIRTA IVETTE SANTIAGO GONZALEZ, AND
THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM; ILDEFONSO
MARTINEZ SANTIAGO, UNKOWN SPOUSE AND THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM,  UNKNOWN PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiffs, vs.
BANCO POPULAR OF PUERTO RICO, SCOTIABANK OF PUERTO RICO, BANCO
SANTANDER DE PUERTO RICO, ISLAND FINANCE CORPORATION, ORIENTAL
BANK PUERTO RICO, WM CAPITAL PARTNERS 53 LLC, LSREF2 ISLAND
HOLDINGS, LTD., INC., HUDSON PUERTO RICO LLC; FIRSTBANK DE PUERTO
RICO, V&R ENTERPRISES S.E., JOSE RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ COLON, IRMA V.
RODRIGUEZ COLON, JOSE RODRIGUEZ NIEVES, JOSE MOLINA VARGAS,
CONDADO 3 CR LLC, PR ASSET PORTFOLIO 2013-1   INT, LLC; PRLP 2011
HOLDINGS, LLC, PRLP PROPERTIES I, LLC, SHORELINE CAPITAL PARTNERS,
LLC, SOLAMAR MANAGEMENT, LLC, GURABO MEMORIAL INC., GUADALUPE
CALDERON VICENTE, VIDAL PEREZ COTTO, MANUEL ARROYO ARROYO,
GILBERTO PAGAN ACOSTA, UNKOWN DEFENDANTS, UNKOWN INSURANCE
AGENCIES, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02028-ADC (D.P.R., August
1, 2017), was brought by Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a
class of persons who have been subject to illegal foreclosures
and/or sought modifications to their mortgage payments through
their mortgage servicers, and/or Defendants.

Plaintiffs contacted Defendants to reduce the loan payments on
their commercial loans due to a reduction in revenue, sales,
profits and other situations that affected their payment capacity.
Despite Plaintiffs complying with Defendant's requests for various
documentation, Plaintiffs found themselves hounded by Defendants a
few months later for a delinquency, their credit-worthiness
ruined, and rejected for permanent loan modification.

The case was brought under the Consumer Credit Protection Act,
Truth in Lending Act, and Fair Credit Billing Act.

Plaintiffs are residents of Puerto Rico and the United States of
America, with real estate properties subject to a guarantee for a
commercial loan, located in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Defendants are banks, capitals, funds, financial institutions,
mortgage investors, mortgage loan servicers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Vanessa Saxton-Arroyo, Esq.
     P.O. Box 191590
     San Juan, PR 00919-1590
     Phone: 787-552-6332
     Fax: 787-667-8094
     Email: vanessa.saxton@capr.org

        - and -

     Gwendolyn Moyer Alma, Esq.
     Vistas del Bosque 216 C/Real
     Bayamon, PR 00956
     Phone: 787-638-5870
     Email: gmoyeralma@gmail.com


BANNER SMOKED: "Dillarza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE DILLARZA and MARINO ARACLEO, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. BANNER SMOKED FISH, INC., ABRAHAM A.
ATTIAS, and ELI ATTIAS, Case No. 1:17-cv-04435-ARR-SMG (E.D.N.Y.,
July 27, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime
compensation and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

Banner is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws
of the State of New York, with a principal place of business
located in Brooklyn, New York.  The Individual Defendants are
father and son, and are the owners, shareholders, directors,
supervisors, managing agents, and proprietors of Banner.  Banner's
line of business includes providing canned and cured fish and
seafoods.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


BMW AG: "Cordover" Suit Alleges Conspiracy on Vehicle Prices
------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN CORDOVER, JACOBO FLORENS, GINA FRANCO FLORENS, and ROBERT
PASTERNAK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BMW AG, BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
VOLKSWAGEN AG, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., AUDI AG, AUDI OF
AMERICA, INC., AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC, DR. ING. H.C. F. PORSCHE AG,
PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., BENTLEY MOTORS LIMITED, DAIMLER
AG, MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL,
Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-61528-DPG (S.D. Fla., August 1,
2017), alleges that Defendants, all German automotive
manufacturers, have unlawfully, unfairly, and deceptively
conspired to increase the prices of their German Luxury Vehicles.

According to the suit, Defendants perpetrated the antitrust
conspiracy for nearly the past 30 years.

Luxury Vehicle refers to German vehicles sold by the Defendants
under the following five brands: Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Audi,
BMW, and Bentley. Defendant Daimler owns the Mercedes-Benz brand.
Volkswagen owns the Audi, Porsche and Bentley brands.

Defendants are German automotive manufacturers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
     Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
     EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
     5400 University Drive, Ste. 417
     Davie, FL 33329
     Phone: (954) 889-3359
     Fax: (954) 889-5913
     Email: JEggnatz@ELPLawyers.com
     Email: MPascucci@ELPLawyers.com

        - and -

     Melissa Emert, Esq.
     STULL, STULL & BRODY
     6 East 45th Street
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (954) 341-5561
     Fax: (954) 341-5531
     Email: memert@ssbny.com


CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Class Certification in "Butler"
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of California,
issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
in the captioned CHRISTOPHER STEVEN BUTLER, Plaintiff, v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-02399-PJH (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Plaintiff has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This action is identical and
has been related to Wade v. CDCR, No. 17-cv-0042 PJH.

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer
or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A(a).
In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief.  Pro se pleadings
must be liberally construed.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants have interfered with the of
practice his religion.

Section 3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act (RLUIPA) provides: "No government shall impose a substantial
burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or
confined to an institution, as defined in section 1997 which
includes state prisons, state psychiatric hospitals, and local
jails.

In order to establish a free exercise violation, a prisoner must
show a defendant burdened the practice of his religion without any
justification reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests.

The Equal Protection Clause requires that an inmate who is an
adherent of a minority religion be afforded a reasonable
opportunity of pursuing his faith comparable to the opportunity
afforded fellow prisoners who adhere to conventional religious
precepts.

Plaintiff states that he is a member of the Nation of Islam. He
maintains that there are several prison television channels that
show different religious video presentations. While there is an
Islam channel and a video, it is a different denomination than the
Nation of Islam.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to certify this case as a class
action. The motion is denied because pro se prisoner plaintiffs
are not adequate class representatives able to fairly represent
and adequately protect the interests of a class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ydyg6ad4from Leagle.com.

Christopher Steven Butler, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CAPITAL BANK: WeissLaw Sues Over First Horizon Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------
WeissLaw LLP disclosed that a class action was commenced in the
United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina on behalf of shareholders of Capital Bank Financial Corp.
("Capital Bank") (NASDAQ: CBF) seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Capital Bank by First
Horizon National Corporation ("First Horizon") (NYSE: FHN).

On May 4, 2017, Capital Bank and First Horizon announced that they
had entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which First
Horizon will acquire all outstanding shares of Capital Bank in a
cash-and-stock transaction valued at approximately $2.2 billion
("Proposed Transaction"). Under the terms of the agreement,
Capital Bank shareholders will receive 1.750 shares of First
Horizon and $7.90 in cash for each Capital Bank share held.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named
plaintiff and all Capital Bank shareholders. The plaintiff is
represented by WeissLaw, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.  The complaint further alleges that in
an attempt to secure shareholder approval for the merger, the
defendants filed a materially false and/or misleading Registration
Statement with the SEC in violation of the Exchange Act. The
omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be
material to Capital Bank shareholders' ability to make an informed
decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than sixty (60) days from today. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Joshua M. Rubin
of WeissLaw at 888.593.4771, or by e-mail at
stockinfo@weisslawllp.com  Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

WeissLaw LLP has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and
derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary
duties. We have recovered over a billion dollars for defrauded
clients and obtained important corporate governance relief in many
of these cases. If you have information or would like legal advice
concerning possible corporate wrongdoing please email us at --
stockinfo@weisslawllp.com [GN]


CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Buxbaum" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit
Services LLC. The case is styled as Sigmund Buxbaum, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Central Credit Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04724
(E.D. N.Y., August 11, 2017).

Central Credit Services is a collection agency that has been in
business since 1987.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


CHICAGO, IL: Hit with New Suit Over Distracted Driving Ordinance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that fast
on the heels of a $39 million settlement ending their class action
lawsuit against City Hall over tickets issued under its red light
camera program, attorneys with the firm of Myron Cherry &
Associates have again delivered a class action lawsuit against the
city of Chicago, now alleging the city also wrongly prosecuted
tens of thousands of city citations issued under the city's
distracted driving ordinance.

On Aug 1., attorneys Myron M. Cherry, Esq. -- mcherry@cherry-
law.com -- Jacie Zolna, Esq. -- jzolna@cherry-law.com -- Benjamin
Swetland, Esq. -- bswetland@cherry-law.com -- and Jessica Chavin,
Esq. -- jchavin@cherry-law.com -- filed the lawsuit in Cook County
Circuit Court against the city on behalf of named plaintiffs Aaron
Potek, Adina Klein and Stephen Michelini.

The lawsuit asserts the city has for years improperly prosecuted
people ticketed by Chicago Police for texting or otherwise using a
mobile phone while driving. The lawsuit does not directly
challenge the validity of the tickets themselves or question
whether the ordinance under which the tickets were issued is
constitutional.

Rather, the lawsuit alleges the city, rather than giving ticketed
motorists the chance to defend themselves in Cook County Circuit
Court, the city funneled those cited through the city's
administrative hearings system, depriving the accused of their
rights under the law and allowing the city to collect
significantly more money through the process.

"As a result of the City's knowing circumvention of our State's
system for adjudicating distracted driving offenses, Plaintiffs
were deprived of their right of a true day in court before a sworn
judge," the lawsuit alleged. "Meanwhile, the City was able to
route them into private courts designed to favor the City -- and
pocket 100 percent of the revenue that resulted."

The lawsuit centers on requirements written into state law that
so-called moving violations -- tickets issued to motorists for
allegedly violating Illinois and local traffic laws while
operating a motor vehicle -- be sent to state courts for hearings
and potential trial.

The reason such requirements exist, the lawsuit notes, is to allow
those cited the chance to defend themselves against the
accusations, as all moving violations are reported to the Illinois
Secretary of State. And, should a motorist accumulate too many
moving violations, the Secretary of State's office is empowered to
suspend their drivers license.

This requirement extends to violations of state law and of local
ordinances which essentially mirror state traffic rules. In this
instance, the complaint notes, Chicago's distracted driving
ordinance is little different from the state law forbidding
similar behavior.

However, the city did not send accused violators of the rules to
state court, nor did the city report violations to the Secretary
of State.

Further, because the alleged violations were tried through the
city's Department of Administrative Hearings, the city could
pressure the accused into quickly paying a $100 fine, as did the
three named plaintiffs in this case. For instance, the complaint
notes the city, in communications accompanying the ticket, would
threaten to jack up fines to as much as $500, if those ticketed
didn't pay $100 within seven days. Meanwhile, the complaint
alleged, the city would often schedule hearings on the tickets
weeks into the future, well beyond the urged seven-day $100
payment window.

And, the complaint alleged, the city employed yet more "perverse
incentives" to press the accused "into compliance," threatening to
ask the Secretary of State to suspend their drivers license until
they paid the fines and otherwise satisfied the DOAH.

"Accordingly, Plaintiffs were forced to appear before a 'court'
that had no jurisdiction over them and then submit to whatever
fines that 'court' assessed on pain of elevated fines and the loss
of their license to drive," the lawsuit said.

And the city, the complaint alleged, had good reason to prosecute
such violations this way. Should the matter have been sent to
state court, the complaint said, the city would need to split any
fines collected with the court and others, keeping only about 45
percent of the fines paid.

However, by prosecuting through the administrative hearing
process, the city would be able to keep the full fines paid.

The legal challenge comes as the latest gambit launched by the
Cherry firm against the city over traffic enforcement programs.

In July, the firm announced a $39 million settlement ending years
of litigation against the city over allegedly improperly
prosecuted tickets issued to motorists under the city's
controversy-plagued automated red light camera program.

As part of that settlement, the Cherry firm is expected to request
as much as $11 million in attorney fees. [GN]


CL WILLIAMS: Barber Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled CARLTON BARBER, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown v. C.L. WILLIAMS ENTERPRISES, INC. and CHARLES WILLIAMS, a
Michigan for-profit company and owner of said Michigan for-profit
company, Case No. 5:17-cv-12429-JCO-SDD (E.D. Mich.), moves for
conditional class certification and court supervised notice
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Barber also asks the Court to appoint his counsel as counsel
for all employees, who join this action without counsel of their
own, to approve the attached form of Notice to be mailed and e-
mailed to affected employees by a third-party claims
administrator, to require the Defendants to identify and produce
the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of affected employees
in a computer-readable format within 30 days and to allow 60 days
after receipt of the Notice for employees to opt in to the case,
if they so choose.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yo6jmihe

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          Omar Badr, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692-9200
          Facsimile: (734) 692-9201
          E-mail: bryan@yaldoulaw.com
                  Ted@Yaldoulaw.com


CLEVELAND, OHIO: Class Certification in "Eighmey" Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
issued a Journal Entry and Opinion granting Defendant-Appellant's
appeal and reversing the trial court's judgment in the appeals
case captioned ALLYSON EIGHMEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF
CLEVELAND, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants, No. 104779 (Ohio).

Defendant-appellant, city of Cleveland, appeals an order
certifying a class of plaintiffs who claim the city issued
unlawful traffic citations generated by unmarked traffic cameras.

The city assigns one error for our review: The trial court erred
in granting class certification as Plaintiff Eighmey is precluded
from seeking judicial review and does not meet the requisite
typicality requirement that would allow her to represent an
identified class.

In July 2005, Cleveland enacted Cleveland Codified Ordinances
(C.C.O.) 413.031, which authorized the use of automated cameras to
impose civil penalties on individuals who exceed the posted speed
limit or cross a marked stop line at a steady red light.

A mobile speed unit recorded a traffic violation committed by the
plaintiffs' class representative, Allyson Eighmey (Eighmey), at
the intersection of Detroit Avenue and West 32nd Street in
Cleveland. She later received the notice of violation in the mail
and promptly paid her ticket on October 27, 2013.

Eighmey filed a class action complaint against Cleveland, alleging
that the mobile unit that recorded her traffic violation failed to
comply with the notice requirements of C.C.O. 413.031(g) because
the unit contained "no distinguishable markings whatsoever.

The trial court granted Eighmey's motion for class certification.
In a written opinion, the court expressly found that Eighmey met
all the requirements for class certification set forth in Civ.R.
23 and certified the following class:

     All persons (a) issued tickets or notices of Liability by a
mobile speed unit under Cleveland Codified ordinances Section
413.031 et seq., (b) during the period September 25, 2013 to
December 26, 2016, (c) which were not warnings, and (d) upon which
there was not a finding of no liability pursuant to Section
413.031(k).

In the city's sole assigned error, it argues the trial court erred
in granting class certification because Eighmey, the purported
class representative, fails to meet the typicality requirement of
Civ.R. 23(A) that would allow her to represent the class.

A plaintiff's claim is typical 'if it arises from the same event
or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of
other class members, and if his or her claims are based on the
same legal theory. When it is alleged that the same unlawful
conduct was directed at or affected both the named plaintiff and
the class sought to be represented, the typicality requirement is
usually met irrespective of varying fact patterns which underlie
individual claims.

Cleveland argues that Eighmey lacks standing and cannot legally
represent the class because (1) she failed to exhaust
administrative remedies, and (2) her claims are barred by res
judicata.

The fact that a plaintiff seeks to bring a class action does not
change the standing requirements.  A class representative must
have proper standing. Individual standing is a threshold
requirement of all actions, including class actions.

Eighmey was injured by having to pay Cleveland a fine that was
wrongfully generated by an unmarked mobile vehicle. However,
C.C.O. 413.031(k) provides, in relevant part, that the failure to
give notice of appeal or pay the civil penalty within this time
period shall constitute a waiver of the right to contest the
ticket. Cleveland argues that Eighmey waived her right to contest
the ticket and is barred from recovery because she voluntarily
paid her ticket instead of appealing it. Therefore, the city
asserts, she will neither benefit from, nor be harmed by, the
litigation of other potential class members who may pursue viable
claims.

If Eighmey cannot receive redress from this litigation and lacks
standing, she may not represent the class. The class
representative must have proper standing. Cleveland's standing and
res judicata defenses are threshold questions that would
predominate the litigation if Eighmey remained the class
representative. She therefore fails to meet the typicality
requirement of Civ.R. 23, and the trial court erred in granting
class certification.

The trial court's judgment is reversed. The case is remanded to
the trial court for further proceedings to determine the merits of
Eighmey's claims and Cleveland's defenses and for the possible
substitution of a more suitable class representative.

A full-text copy of the appeals court's August 3, 2017 Journal
Entry and Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9gglv2xfrom
Leagle.com.

Barbara A. Langhenry, Law Director, City of Cleveland, BY: Gary S.
Singletary, Assistant City Prosecutor, 601 Lakeside Avenue, Room
106, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, Attorneys for Appellant.

Frank A. Bartela - fbartela@dworkenlaw.com - Nicole T. Fiorelli -
nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com - Patrick J. Perotti -
pperotti@dworkenlaw.com - Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., 60
South Park Place, Painesville, Ohio 44077, Attorneys for Appellee.


COLORADO: Court Dismisses Former DYC Detainee's Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Colorado, issued an
Order granting Defendant's Third Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned LINDSAY A. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff, v. ANDERS JACOBSON, in
his official capacity as Interim Director of the Colorado Division
of Youth Corrections; and ERIN JACOBS, in her official capacity as
Director of Platte Valley Youth Services Center, Defendants, No.
Civ. 15-2201-CBS (D. Colo.).

Defendants move to dismiss the action as moot because Plaintiff is
no longer in DYC custody and is not expected to return to DYC.

Plaintiff Lindsay A. Saunders sued Defendants Anders Jacobson and
Erin Jacobs, in their official capacities for the Colorado
Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Corrections (DYC)
and the DYC's Platte Valley Youth Services Center (Platte Valley)
for not permitting her to access local news while she was in
Platte Valley's custody.

She seeks prospective injunctive relief in the form of requiring
Platte Valley to permit her personal subscription to the Denver
Post, subject to the facility's existing screening policies.

Plaintiff was faced with a strategy choice. If she requested that
all similarly-situated youths in Platte Valley should be permitted
personal subscriptions to local news (or a sufficient number of
such subscriptions to be shared), this would likely avoid the
mootness issue that would arise if Plaintiff was moved, the Court
held.

But it would also make proof of the third Turner factor more
difficult because Plaintiff would have to show that screening
multiple copies of local newspapers would not impact prison
resources. If Plaintiff instead restricted her claim to only her
personal subscription request, this made the third Turner factor
less difficult but left the possibility of mootness if she were
moved.

Plaintiff's pro bono counsel ably represented her in making the
strategy choice, and Plaintiff cannot reverse course at this late
phase. Accordingly, the case is now moot.

Because Plaintiff's claim is moot, the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. Plaintiff's claim is dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yay9ljr8from Leagle.com.

Lindsay A. Saunders, Plaintiff, represented by Chuan Cheng -
ccheng@hollandhart.com - Holland & Hart, LLP.

Lindsay A. Saunders, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas L. Abbott -
dabbott@hollandhart.com - Holland & Hart, LLP.

Anders Jacobson, Defendant, represented by Anita Marie Icenogle,
Colorado Attorney General's Office-Dept. of Law & Theodore A.B.
McCombs, Colorado Attorney General's Office.

Erin Jacobs, Defendant, represented by Jessica Diane Perrill,
Colorado Attorney General's Office, Theodore A.B. McCombs,
Colorado Attorney General's Office & Anita Marie Icenogle,
Colorado Attorney General's Office-Dept. of Law.


CONCESSION A25: Threatened with Class Suit Over Toll Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that the operators of the privately-run
Highway 25 toll bridge are being threatened with a class action
lawsuit.

Lawyers say tens of thousands of people are being overcharged
because the sign isn't clear enough about the cost to use the
bridge.

There are signs for drivers approaching the Olivier Charbonneau
bridge, including one with a digital display where the prices,
which alter depending on time of day, are shown.

But lawyers say that sign is five kilometres from the bridge and
is not clear.

Jamie Benizri of the firm Legal Logic represents the lead
complainant in the case, a Laval resident who claims the sign is
misleading because it does not explain the higher cost to cross
during rush hours.

"The bottom line is you're basically getting an estimate on that
billboard 5 kilometres before the ramp. By the time you get to the
ramp the estimate that you got in money surged, goes up without
any warning, any indication, so it's actually false advertising,"
said Benizri.

This case has yet to be approved by a judge, a necessary step
before it moves forward.

The company that operates the bridge had no comment when contacted
by CTV.

The Olivier Charbonneau Bridge opened in 2011 and it is the first
in Quebec to use an exclusively electronic payment system: the
licence place of each vehicle is recorded a bill sent in the mail,
or drivers can use pre-installed transponders and save money.

The bridge operators were sued before by the Union des
Consommateurs about the extra fee that was charged to drivers who
did not have transponders.

That case was settled out of court for $4.8 million. [GN]


CONTEXTMEDIA HEALTH: Griffith Seeks to Certify Class Under TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled CHRISTY GRIFFITH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CONTEXTMEDIA HEALTH, LLC d/b/a OUTCOME HEALTH, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02900 (N.D. Ill.), moves to certify this class:

     Plaintiff and all persons within the United States to whose
     cellular telephone number Defendant ContextMedia Health, LLC
     sent, between July 28, 2015 and March 31, 2016, a text
     message, other than an opt-out confirmation text message, as
     part of its "Healthy Tips" campaign, after Defendant's
     records or the records of any entity with whom Defendant
     contracted to provide text messaging services, indicate that
     the telephone number to which the text messages were sent
     had previously sent a text message with the single word
     "STOP" or the single phrase "STOP CMH TIPS", regardless of
     capitalization ("Class").

Christy Griffith alleges on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated a claim for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, stemming from the Defendant's alleged
practice of sending text messages to persons after those persons
revoked their consent for such text messages.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=37hXB64E

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
          THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC
          1704 Maxwell Drive
          Wall, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 455-9737
          Facsimile: (732) 709-5150
          E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com



CORECIVIC: Attorney Seeks to Probe Detention Center Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Horan, writing for New York Journal, reports that, citing
information from detention center employees and inmates, the
attorney behind a class action lawsuit has called for an
investigation of CoreCivic facilities and its treatment of
inmates.

In a letter and memorandum from attorney Gary Blackburn to Dr.
Bill Paul of the Metro Health Department, Blackburn provided a
summary of statements he's received from people who said they were
either denied drugs or received medical treatment that took up to
a month to arrive.

"The consistency of it gives it the ring of truth," said
Blackburn, whose office has been inundated with emails, letters,
and calls from those connected to the issue.

CoreCivic, formerly known as Corrections Corporation of America
(CCA), first came into the public light for a scabies outbreak in
May that spread to Metro employees in the Birch Building.

However, Blackburn said this memo had nothing to do with his 29
page class action lawsuit. He has been wanting a general
investigation done into the general conditions for jail inmates.

"If you have an obligation to respond to sick call requests in 24
hours but routinely do not do that, then you're not providing the
medical services that you've agreed to do and duties you've taken
money to perform."

Blackburn said the level of mistreatment of inmates rises to the
level of potential FBI investigation. In his letter, he included
Davidson County Sheriff Daron Hall, Nashville Mayor Megan Barry,
and Councilwoman Kathleen Murphy, head of the personnel committee.
[GN]


COURTYARD REHABILITATION: "Johnson" Suit Moved to W.D. of Ark.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Shirley Johnson, individually and
as Adminx. of the Estate of Evon Williams and on behalf of the
wrongful death beneficiaries of Evon Williams, and themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Courtyard Rehabilitation
and Health Center, LLC, Union Assets, LLC, SA Eldercare, LLC, Mark
Thompson, John Ponthie, Kimberly Hamilton, in her capacity as
Administrator of Courtyard Rehab, David Lewis, in his capacity as
Administrator of Courtyard Rehab, John Doe I-V, JEJ Investments,
LLC, Ross M. Ponthie, Defendants, Case No. CV 2015 - 0101-6, was
removed from the Union County Circuit Court, to the U. S. District
Court Western District of Arkansas (El Dorado) on August 11, 2017.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-01053-SOH to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to Honorable Susan O. Hickey.

Courtyard Rehabilitation and Health Center, LLC is a nursing home
facility.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gene A Ludwig, Esq.
   Ludwig Law Firm PLC
   1 Three Rivers Drive
   Little Rock, AR 72223
   Tel: (501) 868-7500
   Fax: (501) 868-7501
   Email: gene@ludwiglawfirm.com

      - and -

   Kale L. Ludwig, Esq.
   Ludwig Law Firm PLC
   1 Three Rivers Drive
   Little Rock, AR 72223
   Tel: (501) 868-7500
   Email: kale@ludwiglawfirm.com

      - and -

   Kyle Phillip Ludwig, Esq.
   Ludwig Law Firm
   1 Three Rivers Drive
   Little Rock, AR 72223
   Tel: (501) 868-7500
   Fax: (501) 868-7501
   Email: kyle@ludwiglawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Andrew King, Esq.
   Kutak Rock LLP
   124 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
   Little Rock, AR 72201
   Tel: (501) 975-3000
   Fax: (501) 975-3001
   Email: Andrew.King@KutakRock.com

      - and -

   Dale W. Brown, II, Esq.
   Kutak Rock LLP
   234 E. Millsap Road, Suite 200
   Fayetteville, AR 72703
   Tel: (479) 973-4200
   Fax: (479) 973-0007
   Email: dale.brown@kutakrock.com

      - and -

   Jeff Fletcher, Esq.
   Kutak Rock LLP
   234 East Millsap Road, Suite 400
   Fayetteville, AR 72703
   Tel: (479) 973-4200
   Fax: (479) 973-0007
   Email: jeff.fletcher@kutakrock.com

      - and -

   Mark W. Dossett, Esq.
   Kutak Rock LLP
   234 East Millsap Road, Suite 400
   Fayetteville, AR 72703-4099
   Tel: (479) 973-4200
   Fax: (479) 973-0007
   Email: mark.dossett@kutakrock.com


DAIRYAMERICA INC: Court Ordered to Seal Documents in "Carlin"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Eastern District of California,
Fresno Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Request to
Seal Documents and File Redacted Versions in the case captioned
GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL ROZWADOWSKI and DIANA WOLFE,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRYAMERICA, INC., and CALIFORNIA
DAIRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:09-CV-00430-AWI (EPG) (E.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs are permitted to file redacted versions of Plaintiffs'
Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Sanctions as well as
Exhibits F through P on the public docket, and Plaintiffs will
email the unredacted versions of the documents to
ApprovedSealed@caed.uscourts.gov for filing under seal. Only the
parties' counsel of record, the Court and its staff shall have
access to the unredacted documents.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yaffh63tfrom Leagle.com.

Gerald Carlin, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler, -
cpoppler@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio.

Gerald Carlin, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony David Phillips,
- aphillips@archernorris.com - Berman DeValerio, Benjamin Doyle
Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -  Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, Brent W. Johnson - bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C. Laufenberg
claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com - Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac
vice, Christopher Heffelfinger --
cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com - Berman DeValerio, George F.
Farah, - gfarah@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and
Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris -
jfarris@kellerrohrback.com - Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif -
jsaif@bermandevalerio.com - Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice, Leslie
M. Kroeger - lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Ryan McDevitt -
rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com - Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac
vice.

John Rahm, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler, Berman
DeValerio, Anthony David Phillips, Berman DeValerio, Benjamin
Doyle Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson,
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C.
Laufenberg, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher
Heffelfinger, Berman DeValerio, George F. Farah, Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif, Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice,
Leslie M. Kroeger, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ryan McDevitt, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Paul Rozwadowski, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler,
Berman DeValerio, Anthony David Phillips, Berman DeValerio,
Benjamin Doyle Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W.
Johnson, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari
C. Laufenberg, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher
Heffelfinger, Berman DeValerio, George F. Farah, Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif, Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice,
Leslie M. Kroeger, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ryan McDevitt, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Diana Wolfe, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler, Berman
DeValerio, Anthony David Phillips, Berman DeValerio, Benjamin
Doyle Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson,
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C.
Laufenberg, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher
Heffelfinger, Berman DeValerio, George F. Farah, Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif, Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice &
Ryan McDevitt, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

DairyAmerica, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M. English,
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice, E. John Steren -
esteren@ebglaw.com - Ober Kaler, pro hac vice, Joseph Michael
Marchini - jmm@bmj-law.com - Baker, Manock & Jensen, Wendy M.
Yoviene - wyoviene@bakerdonelson - Ober Kaler, pro hac vice,
Allison Ann Davis - allisondavis@dwt.com - Davis Wright Tremaine
LLP, Joy G. Kim - joykim@dwt.com - Davis Wright Tremaine LLP &
Sanjay Mohan Nangia - sanjaynangia@dwt.com -- Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP.

California Dairies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lawrence
Michael Cirelli - lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com  - Hanson Bridgett,
Shannon Marie Nessier, Hanson Bridgett LLP & Megan Oliver
Thompson, Hanson Bridgett LLP.

Bimemiller Candice, Unknown, represented by Edward Zusman -
ezusman@mzclaw.com - Markun Zusman Freniere & Compton LLP.
James Rehberg, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J. Barton
Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100, West
Des Moines, IA 50265 pro hac vice & Jon A. Tostrud -
tostrud@tostrudlaw.xom - Tostrud Law Group, P.C.

Ronald Hayek, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J. Barton
Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Jon A. Tostrud, Tostrud
Law Group, P.C.

Michael K. Schugg, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J. Barton
Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Juli E. Farris, Keller
Rohrback LLP.

Timothy L. Rawlings, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J.
Barton Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris,
Keller Rohrback LLP, Mark A. Griffin, Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac
vice & Raymond J. Farrow, Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice.

Land O' Lakes, Inc., Amicus, represented by Gregory M. Schweizer,
- gschweizer@eimerstahl.com - Eimer Stahl LLP, pro hac vice, Scott
C. Solberg, -ssolberg@eimerstahl.com - Eimer Stahl LLP, pro hac
vice & Seth D. Hilton - sethhilton@stoel.com - Stoel Rives LLP.
California Farmers Union, Amicus, represented by Daniel Bennett
Harris - dbh2007@sbcglobal.net -- California Dairy Campaign,
Amicus, represented by Daniel Bennett Harris.

Lani Ellingsworth, Movant, represented by Darin M. Dalmat -
dmdalmat@jamhoff.com - James & Hoffman, P.C. & Glenn Rothner,
Rothner, Segall & Greenstone.


DAUBERT LAW: Certification of Class Sought in "Bleske" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Bleske moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned ANTHONY BLESKE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
DAUBERT LAW FIRM, LLC, and PALISADES ACQUISITION XVI, LLC, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01107-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the
Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant
the Plaintiff (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=S70m4U69

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Goldstein" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Adjustment Service, Incorporated. The case is styled as Faigy
Goldstein, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiff v. Diversified Adjustment Service,
Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04729 (E.D. N.Y., August
11, 2017).

Diversified Adjustment operates as an accounts receivable
management company in America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


DUNKIN DONUTS: Sued Over Lack of Blueberries in Blueberry Donuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aly Walansky, writing for TODAY, reports that when you order a
"blueberry" doughnut, it's fair to expect that there are actual
blueberries in the recipe. Sometimes, though, that's not the case
and it's rubbing some doughnut lovers the wrong way.

A Dunkin' Donuts customer in Chicago has filed a class-action suit
against the chain, claiming some of the company's blueberry
pastries are misleading to consumers because they lack any actual
blueberries.

The lawsuit, filed in July in a Northern Illinois district court,
alleges that Dunkin' is violating the Illinois' Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act since items like the Blueberry
Crumb Cake doughnut only contain imitation blueberries "that
highly resemble actual blueberries due to their round shape and
blue color." The imitation blueberries are actually "flavored
crystals" made of sugar, corn syrup, and Blue 1 dye.

It should be noted, however, that the chain's blueberry muffins do
contain real blueberries. So real blueberries are available.
Somewhere.

"Due to their blue color and round shape, the 'flavor crystals'
and 'blueberry flavored bits' are inserted strategically on the
inside and outside of the Blueberry Products to induce
unsuspecting consumers into believing that the products contain
actual blueberries," the lawsuit states, pointing out that these
menu items are also advertised next to pictures of blueberries and
labeled as such in the store, which supposedly misleads consumers.

The lead plaintiff alleges that he would have paid far less for
the baked good (which he reportedly bought for just under a
dollar) had he known they were fake blueberries and not the real
thing. He is seeking $5 million in damages, restitution, and court
fees.

This isn't the first time a doughnut chain has faced a lawsuit
over its fake fruit ingredients.

In November, Krispy Kreme faced the same type of lawsuit when a
customer issued a complaint about the lack of real blueberries or
authentic maple syrup in their doughnuts, and called out the
pastries' labeling as false advertising. That suit was later
voluntarily dismissed.

And this isn't the first time that Dunkin' Donuts has faced a
similar suit, either. They've been sued over the supposed lack of
steak in their steak sandwiches and for not using real butter on
their buttered bagels. [GN]


ECOLAB INC: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Miner" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Ecolab, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Doug Miner v. Ecolab, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02313-
FMO-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Los Angeles.

The nature of suit is stated as other labor litigation.

The appellate case is captioned as Doug Miner v. Ecolab, Inc.,
Case No. 17-56183, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Ecolab, Inc.'s opening brief is due on
      January 11, 2018;

   -- Appellee Doug Miner's answering brief is due on
      February 12, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee DOUG MINER, an individual, on behalf of himself
and other persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Alejandro P. Gutierrez, Esq.
          HATHAWAY, PERRETT, WEBSTER, POWERS CHRISMAN
          & GUTIERREZ, APC
          5450 Telegraph Rd., Suite #200
          Hathaway Bldg.
          Ventura, CA 93006
          Telephone: (805) 644-7111
          Facsimile: (805) 644-8296
          E-mail: agutierrez@hathawaylawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Hefelfinger, Esq.
          PALAY & HEFELFINGER, APC
          1484 E. Main Street, Suite 105-B
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (805) 642-8220
          Facsimile: (805) 765-8600
          E-mail: bdh@calemploymentcounsel.com

               - and -

          Daniel Jay Palay, Esq.
          PALAY LAW FIRM
          121 N. Fir Street, Suite F
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (805) 641-6600
          E-mail: djp@calemploymentcounsel.com

               - and -

          Aris Edmund Karakalos, Esq.
          Michael Strauss, Esq.
          STRAUSS LAW GROUP, APC
          121 N. Fir Street, Suite F
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (805) 641-9992
          Facsimile: (805) 641-6607
          E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com
                  aris@strausslawyers.com

Defendant-Appellant ECOLAB, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Carlos Jimenez, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
          E-mail: cajimenez@littler.com

               - and -

          Jody Ann Landry, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          501 W. Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101-3577
          Telephone: (619) 515-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
          E-mail: jlandry@littler.com

               - and -

          John Anthony Ybarra, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          321 North Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 372-5520
          Facsimile: (312) 372-7880
          E-mail: jybarra@littler.com


ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Oct. 10 Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Electronics for
Imaging, Inc. and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased EFI securities between February 22,
2017 through August 3, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/efii.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) EFI was improperly recognizing revenue; (2)
EFI's disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; (3)
EFI's internal control over financial reporting were not
effective; and (4) consequently, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/efii or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in EFI you
have until October 10, 2017 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.   Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


EMERY FEDERAL: Court Certifies RESPA Class in "Palombaro" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Susan J. Dlott grants the Plaintiffs' second amended
motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled Frank A. and
Shelly Palombaro, Jr., et al. v. Emery Federal Credit Union, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00792-SJD-KLL (S.D. Ohio).

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that between 2009 and
2014, Genuine Title, LLC, pursuant to an agreement, paid kickbacks
to Emery employees in exchange for referrals in connection with
loan settlement services.  The Plaintiffs also allege that Genuine
Title split the fees it received for such settlement services with
the Emery employees implicated in the alleged scheme, and that
these kickbacks were not in exchange for services actually
performed by these Emery employees.  The Plaintiffs argue that
these kickbacks violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
and that named Plaintiffs and putative class members represent
those affected by this scheme.

The class is defined as:

     All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a
     federally related mortgage loan (as defined under the Real
     Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 2602)
     originated or brokered by Emery for which Genuine Title
     provided a settlement service, as identified in Section 1100
     on the borrower's HUD-1, between January 1, 2009, and
     December 31, 2014. Exempted from this class is any person
     who, during the period of January 1, 2009, through December
     31, 2014, was an employee, officer, member and/or agent of
     Defendant Emery Federal Credit Union, Genuine Title LLC,
     Brandon Glickstein, Inc., Competitive Advantage Media Group
     LLC, and/or Dog Days Marketing, LLC.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have easily satisfied their burden
under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  While
Rule 23(b) requires a substantially more difficult showing, the
Court is simply not persuaded that the potential for some
individualized inquiry predominates over the overarching and
consistent conduct by Emery to carry out and cover up the kickback
scheme alleged in this case, Judge Dlott concludes.

"The Court is cognizant of its prerogative to alter, amend, or
otherwise tailor this Order prior to final judgment; or to
decertify the class should the class prove unmanageable or
overwhelmed by individual issues as it progresses," Judge Dlott
states.

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


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Misled Shareholders, Class Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that a
class action complaint was filed against Envision Healthcare
Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. The complaint is
brought on behalf of all purchasers of Envision securities between
March 2, 2015 and July 21, 2017, for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Envision's officers and
directors. Envision, through its subsidiaries, provides various
healthcare services in the United States. EmCare Holdings, Inc.
("EmCare") has been one of the company's primary operating
subsidiaries.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/envision-
healthcare-corporation

Envision Accused of Engaging in Unfair Billing Practices

According to the complaint, Envision touted EmCare's capabilities
in its public filings, stating, "We believe that EmCare is well-
positioned to continue to generate significant organic growth due
to its integrated service offerings, differentiated, data-driven
processes to recruit and retain physicians, scalable technology
and sophisticated risk management programs." Envision failed to
mention, however, that EmCare routinely arranged for patients who
sought treatment at in-network facilities to be treated by out-of-
network physicians and accordingly billed these patients at higher
rates than if the patients had been treated by in-network
physicians. On July 24, 2017, The New York Times reported that
hospitals associated with EmCare were disproportionately likely to
engage in "surprise billing" in which patients who go to in-
network hospitals are treated by out-of-network doctors and
subsequently billed at higher rates. On this news, Envision's
stock fell $2.33 per share, or 3.72%, to close at $60.28 per share
on July 24, 2017.

Envision Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, -- LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, -- or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested. [GN]


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that class action lawsuit has been filed
against Envision Healthcare Corporation ("Envision" or the
"Company") (NYSE:EVHC) and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Middle District of
Tennessee, and docketed under 17-cv-01112, is on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Envision securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused
by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Envision securities between
March 2, 2015 and July 21, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have
until October 3, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

Envision Healthcare Corporation provides health care services. The
Hospital offers surgery, pharmacy, medical imaging, emergency
care, and other related health care services. Envision Healthcare
serves patients in the United States.   At all relevant times,
EmCare Holdings, Inc. ("EmCare") has been one of the Company's
primary operating subsidiaries.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) EmCare routinely arranged for
patients who sought treatment at in-network facilities to be
treated by out-of-network physicians; (ii) EmCare accordingly
billed these patients at higher rates than if the patients had
received treatment from in-network physicians; (iii) the Company's
statements attributing EmCare's Class Period growth to other
factors were therefore false and/or misleading; (iv) Envision's
EmCare revenues were likely to be unsustainable after the
foregoing conduct came to light; and (v) as a result of the
foregoing, Envision's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 24, 2017, The New York Times reported that hospitals
associated with Envision's subsidiary EmCare were
disproportionately likely to engage in "surprise billing," in
which patients who sought treatment at in-network facilities were
treated by out-of-network physicians and subsequently billed at
higher rates.

On this news, Envision's share price fell $2.33, or 3.72%, to
close at $60.28 on July 24, 2017.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

         Robert S. Willoughby
         Pomerantz LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Denial of Arbitration in "Chassen" Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's denial of Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration an insurance dispute in the appeals
case captioned ARTHUR CHASSEN; DEBORAH MEREDITH; JOEL OSTER;
DENNIS SCRIMER; GLEN J. DALAKIAN; JACK HOFFMAN; DEBORAH HOFFMAN;
KATHLEEN COOPER; RICHARD MURPHY, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated; AMI FELLER, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL
FINANCIAL INC, a Delaware corporation; FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation; CHICAGO TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Missouri corporation; THE FIRST AMERICAN
CORPORATION, a California corporation; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation; LANDAMERICA FINANCIAL
GROUP INC, a Virginia corporation; TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Nebraska corporation; LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE
CORPORATION, a Nebraska corporation; STEWART INFORMATION SERVICES
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; STEWART TITLE GUARANTY
COMPANY, a Texas corporation; OLD REPUBLIC INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; OLD REPUBLIC TITLE INSURANCE
GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation; WEICHERT TITLE AGENCY
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Appellant, No. 15-2814 (3rd
Cir.).

The Hoffmans purchased a New Jersey home in 2004. They allege that
Lawyers Title Insurance overcharged them by $110.  Lawyers Title
Insurance issued them an Owner's Policy and a Loan Policy. The
Policies contained an arbitration provision permitting either
party to compel arbitration should a dispute arise.

However, the Owner's Policy also included an Arbitration
Endorsement that amended the arbitration provision to require that
both parties consent to arbitration.

Following a partial grant of a motion to dismiss, the Hoffmans'
one remaining claim was for breach of contract. Lawyers Title then
moved to compel arbitration. The District Court denied this
request because it concluded that the Arbitration Endorsement
controlled, meaning both parties would have to consent to
arbitrate, and it found that the Hoffmans did not agree to do so.

Lawyers Title Insurance first asserts that the Arbitration
Endorsement was sent in error, and thus, under a theory of mutual
mistake.  The Third Circuit held that, here, there was not even a
general understanding regarding arbitration. Indeed, the parties
never discussed arbitration with one another let alone reached any
agreement contrary to the Endorsement. Accordingly, mutual mistake
does not apply.

The Closing Letter states that liability under it is subject to
all of the Conditions and Stipulations of the policy.  Lawyers
Title issued in connection with the Hoffmans' purchase of their
home.  These policies include both the Owner's and Loan Policies.
Hence the Letter incorporates the conditions of both, including
the Arbitration Endorsement.

Accordingly, because the Endorsement applies and the Hoffmans did
not agree to arbitrate, the Third Circuit affirms the District
Court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's August 3, 2017 Opinion is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y8nycncgfrom Leagle.com.


FLAGSHIP S: Faces "Joshi" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
DHARM RAJ JOSHI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. FLAGSHIP S B AMSTERDAM NY, LLC d/b/a
SARAVANAA BHAVAN AMSTERDAM, FLAGSHIP S B NEW YORK, LLC d/b/a
SARAVANAA BHAVAN LEXINGTON, HICKSVILLE SB, LLC d/b/a SARAVANAA
BHAVAN HICKSVILLE, MATHAIAH RAMAIAH, VEENA RAMAIAH SHAHUL HAMEED,
and OOTY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05785 (S.D.N.Y., July
31, 2017), seeks to remedy violations of the wage and hour
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants own and operate Indian vegetarian restaurants
located in New York County and Nassau County.  Plaintiffs were
employed by Defendants as non-exempt servers, server assistants,
back waiters, bussers, runners, bartenders, barbacks, and other
"Tipped Workers" who work or have worked for the Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Cafaro, Esq.
     Amit Kumar, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
     108 West 39111 Street, Suite 602
     New York, NY 10018
     Phone: (2 12)583-7400


FMS INC: Faces "Hodges" Lawsuit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
------------------------------------------------------------
JENNI HODGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. FMS INC., DBA FMS ASSET MANAGEMENT, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-at-00588 (E.D. Cal., July 31, 2017), alleges that
Defendant negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacted
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in an attempt to
collect on an alleged debt in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby causing Plaintiff to incur charges for
incoming calls and invading Plaintiff's privacy.

FMS INC., DBA FMS ASSET MANAGEMENT, is a debt collection
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Fund Suit Class Might Not Be Eligible
---------------------------------------------------------
Nevin E. Adams, writing for Napa Net, reports that a plaintiff
seeking class action status in a proprietary fund suit against his
former employer may have hit a snag.

The case is one brought by Marlon H. Cryer, individually and on
behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, and on
behalf of the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan. The suit,
which had claimed that the plan invested in funds offered and
managed by Franklin Templeton, when "better-performing and lower-
cost funds were available."

Now U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken has opened the door (Cryer
v. Franklin Resources, Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 4:16-cv-04265-CW,
order for opposition to motion for reconsideration 8/8/17) for
Franklin Templeton to formally seek reconsideration of her July 26
decision certifying the case as a class action, ordering the
plaintiff to respond to Franklin Templeton's primary rebuttal to
the suit: a class action release signed by Cryer -- after he left
the firm.

Judge Wilken ordered that, ". . . on or before August 14,
Plaintiff must file an opposition of no more than five pages. In
particular, Plaintiff should address whether the class action
release that he executed after his employment terminated is
unenforceable under Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975,
979 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 809 (2017), or for
any other reason." Moreover, "on or before August 16, FRI may file
a reply of no more than three pages."

Franklin Templeton had argued that Judge Wilken was wrong to rely
on the 9th Circuit's 2016 decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young LLP,
a case in which the 9th Circuit joined the 7th Circuit in holding
that class action waivers signed as a condition of employment are
barred by the National Labor Relations Act. But since Cryer signed
the agreement after he terminated his employment with Franklin,
and not as a condition of his employment as was the case in
Morris, Franklin Templeton argued that it didn't apply.

Bloomberg BNA notes the 5th and 8th Circuits have drawn different
conclusions than have the 9th and 7th Circuits on this issue, and
that the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to take up the issue on
October 2. [GN]


GLOBALSCAPE INC.: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against GlobalSCAPE, Inc. ("GlobalSCAPE" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:GSB) in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired GlobalSCAPE
securities on the open market from January 26, 2017 through August
7, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company
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; (2) the
Company's total current assets and total assets were overstated by
$292,000; (3) the Company's total stockholder equity and total
liabilities and stockholders' equity were overstated by $217,000
and $292,000, respectively; (4) the Company lacked adequate
internal controls over financial reporting; and (5) that as a
result, the Company's publicly disseminated financial statements
were materially false and misleading. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 10, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at  --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES: Advocates See Danger in Rejection of CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
appeals court has upheld the denial of class certification in a
case disability advocates claim could make it more difficult to
bring class actions over civil rights violations.

The case is one of several in which Denver-based Civil Rights
Education and Enforcement Center has sued real estate investment
trusts over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The defendant, a REIT called Hospitality Properties Trust,
owns about 300 hotels under various names, including Hyatt and
Country Inn & Suites. Of those, 142 provided shuttle services but
not to those who use wheelchairs or scooters to get around,
according to the suit, brought by three individuals.

In 2016, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco refused to
certify the class action after finding that the REIT had no common
policy prohibiting ADA compliance across its hotels, which were
managed by independent contractors.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed, upholding
Tigar's ruling.

"A practice may indeed be evidence of a systematic policy," wrote
Kim McLane Wardlaw, "but it is undisputed that HPT, pursuant to
its contracts, does not participate in the management and
operation of the hotels. Absent any allegation that HPT somehow
discourages its contractors from complying with the ADA, CREEC
cannot establish a pattern of discrimination orchestrated by HPT,
as it must in order to establish a question of fact common to its
claims against HPT."

In a dissent, U.S. District Judge Brian Morris of Montana, sitting
by designation on the appellate panel, said the majority's opinion
would allow HPT "to shirk its responsibilities as the owner under
the ADA."

The case got the attention of a dozen legal aid and disability
rights groups, including three nonprofits based in the Washington,
D.C., area -- National Disability Rights Network, Association of
the Deaf and National Federation of the Blind -- and several
California groups led by the Impact Fund in Berkeley, California.
In a Nov. 3 amicus brief, Lindsay Nako, director of litigation at
the Impact Fund, argued that upholding the district judge's ruling
would allow employers to escape liability for civil rights
violations. In an interview, she said the case highlighted how
noncompliance with the law, even without a policy, often comes up
in civil rights cases where the goal is to "make sure the
violations don't continue in the future."

Tim Fox, co-executive director of CREEC, did not respond to a
request for comment. But in the plaintiffs' appeal brief, filed on
Oct. 27, he called it "the epitome of the type of case for which"
class actions were designed to address.

"Fundamentally, this civil rights case challenges HPT's widespread
'failure to act' to comply with the law, a failure that has
resulted in an injury common to a large number of people," he
wrote.

HPT lawyer David Raizman, a shareholder at Olgetree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart in Los Angeles, declined to comment. In a
Dec. 28 appeal brief, he maintained the separate management
companies, not his client, would be in charge of policies dealing
with ADA compliance. He also challenged standing, noting that none
of the plaintiffs actually stepped foot in the hotels. They
instead relied on phone calls that found 90 percent of HPT's
hotels providing shuttle services didn't do so for those in
wheelchairs and scooters.

But the Ninth Circuit upheld standing, citing rulings in the
Eleventh and Tenth circuits that dealt with so-called tester
standing in ADA cases.

"Actually visiting a hotel, as opposed to phoning, does not make a
plaintiff's injury any more concrete: she is deterred from using
the accommodation in either event," Wardlaw wrote. [GN]


HYLAND'S INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Allen" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kim Allen, Melissa Nigh, Nancy Rodriguez, Diana Sisti,
Sherrell Smith, Daniele Xenos and Yuanke Xu filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Kim Allen, et al. v. Hylands,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-01150-DMG-MAN, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs allege breach of express warranty, and violations of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law and the
False Advertising Law.  The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendants' products did not perform as stated on the product
packaging because they cannot relieve certain symptoms as
represented.

The appellate case is captioned as Kim Allen, et al. v. Hylands,
Inc., et al., Case No. 17-56184, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 8, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on December 4, 2017;

   -- Appellants Kim Allen, Melissa Nigh, Nancy Rodriguez, Diana
      Sisti, Sherrell Smith, Daniele Xenos and Yuanke Xu's
      opening brief is due on January 12, 2018;

   -- Appellees Hylands, Inc. and Standard Homeopathic Company's
      answering brief is due on February 12, 2018; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants KIM ALLEN, DANIELE XENOS, SHERRELL SMITH,
NANCY RODRIGUEZ, YUANKE XU, DIANA SISTI and MELISSA NIGH, on
behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the
general public, are represented by:

          John Gomez, Esq.
          GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 237-3490
          E-mail: john@gomeztrialattorneys.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
          NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 622-6469
          E-mail: gnelson@nflawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees HYLANDS, INC., a California corporation, and
STANDARD HOMEOPATHIC COMPANY are represented by:

          Spencer Stephen Persson, Esq.
          Stephanie Anne Stroup, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
          555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone:(213) 892-9223
          E-mail: spencer.persson@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  stephanie.stroup@nortonrosefulbright.com


INMAN'S AUTO: Faces "Johnson" Suit Under FLSA, Col. Wage Act
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. INMAN'S AUTO RESCUE OF COLORADO, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01844-WJM (D. Colo., July 31, 2017),
arises from Defendant's willful violation of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act and the
Colorado Wage Act.

The Plaintiff filed the case on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated to challenge Defendant's alleged unlawful
policy and practice of misclassifying its roadside assistance
technicians as "independent contractors" when they are properly
classified as employees.  By misclassifying its roadside
assistance technicians as "independent contractors," Defendant
violated the FLSA by failing to pay their workers minimum wage and
overtime for all time worked in excess of forty hours per week.

Defendant Auto Rescue employs Plaintiff and others similarly
situated as roadside assistance technicians to provide services to
motorists whose vehicles have suffered a mechanical failure that
leaves the operator stranded, such as getting a flat tire, being
locked out of their car, running out of fuel, or a dead
battery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
     Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     Email: scarson@bm.net
            sschalman-bergen@bm.net
            elechtzin@bm.net

       - and -

     David M. Blanchard, Esq.
     Daniel C. Tai, Esq.
     BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
     221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
     Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1166
     Phone: (734) 929-4313
     Fax: (888) 929-5833
     Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
            tai@bwlawonline.com

        - and -

     Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
     Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
     WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
     3900 E Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
     Denver, CO 80210
     Phone: 720-213-0675
     Fax: 303-927-0809
     Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
            ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

        - and -

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


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: 2 Cos. Wins Summary Ruling in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendants Georgia-Pacific and Westrock's Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned KLEEN PRODUCTS LLC, et al.,
Individually and on behalf Of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER, et al., Defendants, Case No.
10 C 5711 (N.D. Ill.).

This case is an antitrust class action in which Plaintiffs accuse
Defendants of conspiring to fix prices in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs were direct purchasers of
containerboard products from Defendant paper companies. They
allege that during the Class Period Defendants engaged in a series
of agreed-upon actions to raise the price of containerboard
products.

All but two Defendants have settled. The two Defendants that
remain in the case are Georgia-Pacific and Westrock and they have
continued to press for summary judgment.

Defendants' case is simple. They say that Plaintiffs have not
carried their burden to show that there was an agreement to fix
prices among the alleged conspirators.  All of their actions,
Defendants claim, are consistent with actions taken in permissible
competition.  Moreover, Defendants argue that the range of
permissible competition allowed them large firms operating in a
concentrated industry is wide.

Plaintiffs disagree.  They contend that the evidence, when viewed
in the light most favorable to them, permits a reasonable jury to
find that Defendants were not competing but illegally colluding
with one another.  Plaintiffs offer the following evidence to
contest summary judgment.  They draw attention to the fact that
during the six and a half years of the alleged conspiracy,
Defendants a group that includes both the Defendants that have
settled and the two moving Defendants, Georgia-Pacific and
Westrock, that have not collectively announced 15 price increases.

Plaintiffs concede that they have uncovered no direct evidence of
conspiracy.  Various pieces of evidence to support their case and
stating that Plaintiffs present extensive and strong
circumstantial evidence.  Therefore, circumstantial evidence
decides this case, and that evidence comes in two forms, economic
evidence suggesting that the defendants were not in fact
competing, and noneconomic evidence suggesting that they were not
competing because they had agreed not to compete.

Economic Evidence of Conspiracy

The Court first tackles the economic evidence. Plaintiffs have
amassed four categories of that evidence that they say support an
inference that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy.

The Court found that the evidence that Plaintiffs bring does not
offer unalloyed support to their case. Plaintiffs stress that the
demand for containerboard products was inelastic, meaning that
Defendants' customers were not particularly sensitive to price. As
such, inelastic demand and homogeneous products explain why
Defendants do not compete on price, and this is so even in the
absence of an unlawful agreement not to compete.

Lockstep Price Increases

Plaintiffs' prima facie case for a price-fixing scheme is the
fifteen price increases that Defendants announced during the six
and half years of the Class Period.

First, the time that it took Defendants to follow a leader's price
announcement varied widely. In one of the announcements, three of
the six Defendants never did join the leader's price announcement.
Second, Defendants were not the only containerboard producers that
timed their price increases to coincide with their competitors. In
fact, two of the fifteen announcements were led by a non-
Defendant.

Third, not every Defendant led a price announcement. At least one
court in this district has treated leaders and followers
differently when examining an antitrust claim based on parallel
conduct.

Lastly, the Court could not detect in Defendants' fifteen price
announcements any notable break with their prior practice. While
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants were vigorously competing in the
period before the alleged conspiracy began, they have not adduced
much evidence on Defendants' pattern or practice regarding price
announcements before the Class Period.

The Court concludes that, even in the context of an industry
structure conducive to collusion, the fifteen price increases do
not raise an inference of conspiracy [that] is reasonable in light
of the competing inferences of independent action.

Supply Reductions as a Means to Support Price Collusion

The Court examines the evidence that Plaintiffs have adduced to
show that Defendants cut production over the Class Period. The
evidence is quite weak (thus explaining the parties' dispute over
the focus of the case).

First, the Court notes that Plaintiffs' various assertions about
how much Defendants should have produced, but did not due to their
conspiracy, often miss the mark.  Second, even within this
framework, Plaintiffs cannot dispute that Georgia-Pacific and
Westrock did not restrict supply by closing any paper mill within
the relevant time period (the Class Period for Georgia-Pacific and
post-bankruptcy interval for Westrock).

Third, the evidence that Plaintiffs have brought to show supply
reductions (of any form) paints quite a mixed picture. For
example, the evidence shows that Defendants added new capacity
during the Class Period -- they bought new mills as well as closed
existing ones. Lastly, even accepting all these shortfalls,
Plaintiffs have not actually shown that the moving Defendants
restricted supply. Plaintiffs' evidence of supply reduction comes
from the expert report of Douglas Zona.

The Court is of the view that Plaintiffs have not made a case
allowing for a reasonable inference that Defendants restricted
supply to facilitate their price-fixing scheme. This finding is
near fatal to their conspiracy claim.

Acts against Self-Interest as Evidence of Collusion

The evidence, however, falls short of establishing such below-
market pricing. The evidence here consists of an email dated July
29, 2008 from an employee of Westrock to his counterpart at
International Paper. The email thus does not implicate Georgia-
Pacific, the other moving Defendant in this case. As to Westrock,
the communication predates the company's discharge from bankruptcy
and so does not shed light on whether Westrock joined or rejoined
the conspiracy after that date. It is therefore of little value.

The Court finds that the economic evidence is not sufficient to
permit a reasonable jury to conclude that Defendants worked
together to fix prices.

Non-Economic Evidence of Agreement

The Court now considers the non-economic evidence of conspiracy.

Trade Association Meetings, Phone Calls, Inter-Firm Trades, and
Public Messages as Opportunities to Collude

Defendants have presented expert testimony that the information
revealed in their public statements is consistent with their
disclosure obligations, and Plaintiffs have little to rebut that
testimony. Without such rebuttal, the fact that Defendants
listened to their competitors' communications cannot raise an
inference of illicit collusion. Competitors in concentrated
markets watch each other like hawks, even when they are not
violating antitrust law. Text Messaging, 782 F.3d at 875.

Price Increases around Communications as Evidence of Opportunities
Seized

The areas where Plaintiffs do have something other than
speculation about the substance" of the talks are the public
announcements where Defendants allegedly signaled to their co-
conspirators and used analysts as conduits for their messages.
However, as discussed in the previous section, the substance of
these communications is entirely consistent with independent
actions. Two permissible events talks and price-following put
together does not transmogrify into conspiracy.

Incriminating Words Suggesting Agreement

The CEO's comments do not rise to a level where they constitute an
offer to enter an agreement to fix prices. See, High Fructose, 295
F.3d at 654. Instead, the comments reflect what firms in the
industry likely all knew and what this Court, and others, have
said: there is a trade-off between price and volume. If firms want
to raise prices, they have to produce less, sell less, and thereby
say no to customers. It should not be a mark of conspiracy to say
what is true, already known by the audience, and articulated by
countless third-party analysts, academicians, and jurists alike.

The Court has now considered the evidence, economic and non-
economic alike, that must 'tend to exclude the possibility' that
the alleged conspirators acted independently. Matsushita, 475 U.S.
at 588. Despite the abundance of evidence and the favorable light
in which it is viewed, the inference of independent action remains
as reasonable, if not more so, than that of conspiracy.

The Evidence That Was Not There

Plaintiffs attempt to excuse the lack of evidence, not just on
this point but also more generally, by arguing that Defendants are
experienced with antitrust litigation and so know to destroy
evidence. The Court cannot credit such a position, especially
given that the evidence to support it is ambiguous at best and
Plaintiffs have had extensive discovery to uncover even that which
Defendants wish to hide.

In sum, when the Court considers both the evidence that has been
presented and that which is missing, Plaintiffs' case falls even
further from the mark necessary to survive summary judgment.

Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are granted. The Cross
Motions for Partial Summary Judgment are denied as moot, as are
the Motions for Daubert and summary judgment hearings.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7bmy8htfrom
Leagle.com.

Kleen Products LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Heidi M. Silton -
hmsilton@locklaw.com - Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.

Kleen Products LLC, Plaintiff, represented by W. Joseph Bruckner -
wjbruckner@locklaw.com - Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Amelia
Igo Pelly Frenkel - afrenkel@kellogghansen.com - Kellogg, Hansen,
Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Amy Thomas
Brantly - abrantly@kbslaw.com - Kesselman Brantly Stockinger LLP,
pro hac vice, Anthony D. Shapiro -
tony@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Charles P. Goodwin
- cgoodwin@cpgesq.com -  Law Offices of Charles P. Goodwin, pro
hac vice, Christopher M. Burke -  cburke@vlmglaw.com -ScottScott
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel A. Bushell - dan@bushellappellatelaw.com
- Berman DeValerio, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, 120
South 6th Street, Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402,  Daniel C.
Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Jay Mogin -
dmogin@moginrubin.com - MoginRubin LLP, pro hac vice, David Wayne
Kesselman -  dkesselman@@kbslaw.com - Kesselman Brantly Stockinger
LLP, pro hac vice, Dianne M. Nast  - dnast@nastlaw.com - NastLaw
LLC, Edward A. Diver - ndiver@langergrogan.com - Langer Grogan &
Diver, P.c., pro hac vice, Erin C. Burns -  eburns@nastlaw.com -
NastLaw LLC, pro hac vice, Ethan Padilla Fallon -
efallon@Kellogghansen.com - Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Geoffrey C. Rushing -
GRushing@saveri.com  - Saveri & Saveri, Inc., pro hac vice,
Gregory G. Rapawy - grapawy@kellogghansen.com - Kellogg, Hansen,
Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, H. laddie
Montague - hlmontague@bm.net - Berger & Montague, P.c., pro hac
vice, Howard Langer - hlanger@langergrogan.com - Langer Grogan &
Diver P.C., Jodie Michelle Williams - jwilliams@moginlaw.com - The
Mogin Law Firm, P.c., pro hac vice, Joseph Goldberg JG@FBDLAW.COM
- Freedman Boyd Hollander, pro hac vice, Kristen M. Anderson -
kanderson@foley.com - ScottScott LLP, pro hac vice, Manuel Juan
Dominguez - jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll, Martin I. Twersky - mtwersky@bm.net - Berger & Montaque,
P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Jerry Freed - mfreed@fklmlaw.com  -
Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC, Michael E. Moskovitz -
mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com  - Freed Kanner London &Millen LLC, Peter
E. Leckman - pleckman@langergrogan.com - Langer Grogan & Diver,
P.c., pro hac vice, Richard Alexander Saveri - rick@saveri.com -
Saveri & Saveri, Inc., pro hac vice, Robert J. Wozniak -
rwozniak@fklmlaw.com   -Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC, Steven
F. Benz - sbenz@kellogghansen.com - Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Steven J. Greenfogel -
sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com - Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Steven
A. Kanner - skanner@fklmlaw.com - Freed Kanner London & Millen,
LLC, Trevor Vincent Stockinger - tstockinger@kbslaw.com -
Kesselman Brantly Stockinger LLP, pro hac vice & Walter W. Noss -
WNOSS@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM - Scottscott Llp, pro hac vice.
Ferraro Foods of North Carolina, LLC., Plaintiff, represented by
Heidi M. Silton, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., W. Joseph
Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Daniel Jay Mogin,
MoginRubin LLP, pro hac vice, Manuel Juan Dominguez, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, Robert G. Eisler, Grant & Eisenhofer
P.A., pro hac vice, Robert J. Wozniak, Freed Kanner London &
Millen, LLC & Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., pro
hac vice.

MTM Packaging Solutions of Texas, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Heidi M. Silton, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., W. Joseph
Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Daniel Jay Mogin,
MoginRubin LLP, pro hac vice, Manuel Juan Dominguez, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll & Robert J. Wozniak, Freed Kanner London &
Millen, LLC.

Ferraro Foods, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Heidi M. Silton,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Daniel Jay Mogin, MoginRubin LLP, pro hac
vice, Manuel Juan Dominguez, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Robert
G. Eisler, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice, Robert J.
Wozniak, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC & Vincent J. Esades,
Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., pro hac vice.

RHE Hatco, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Heidi M. Silton,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Daniel Jay Mogin, MoginRubin LLP, pro hac
vice, Manuel Juan Dominguez, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll &
Robert J. Wozniak, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC.

R.P.R. Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by W. Joseph
Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Brian D. Clark,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.l.l.p., pro hac vice, Daniel Jay Mogin,
MoginRubin LLP, pro hac vice, Devona Lynn Wells, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.l.l.p., Heidi M. Silton, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.,
Manuel Juan Dominguez, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Richard
Frank Lombardo, Shaffer Lombardo Shurin, pro hac vice, Robert J.
Schmit, Lockridge Grindal Nauen Pllp & Robert J. Wozniak, Freed
Kanner London & Millen, LLC.

Chandler Packaging, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Heidi M.
Silton, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., W. Joseph Bruckner,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Brian Philip Murray, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Daniel Jay Mogin, MoginRubin LLP, pro hac
vice, Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice,
Manuel Juan Dominguez, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll & Robert J.
Wozniak, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC.

Mighty Pac, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Heidi M. Silton,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Daniel J. Kurowski, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Daniel Jay Mogin, MoginRubin LLP, pro hac vice,
Manuel Juan Dominguez, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll & Robert J.
Wozniak, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC.

International Paper, Defendant, represented by James T. McKeown -
jmckeown@koley.com - Foley & Lardner LLP, Amber D. Floyd, Wyatt,
Tarrant & Combs, Llp, 1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 800,
Memphis, TN 38120 pro hac vice, Andrew John Barragry
abarragry@folwy.com - Foley & Lardner Llp, pro hac vice, Brett H.
Ludwig, Foley & Lardner, pro hac vice, James T. McKeown, Foley &
Lardner LLP, Joanne Lee, Foley & Lardner, Kacey L. Faughnan,
Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, Llp, pro hac vice, Michael D. Leffel -
mleffel@foley.com - Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice, Nathan P.
Eimer, Eimer Stahl LLP, Peter James O'meara - pomeara@foley.com -
Foley & Lardner Llp, Robert L. Crawford, McDonnell, Boyd, Smith
and Solmson, pro hac vice, Susan M. Razzano, Eimer Stahl LLP &
Trent M. Johnson - tjohnson@foley.com - Foley & Lardner Llp.
Norampac Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott M.
Mendel - scott.mendel@klgates.com - K&L Gates LLP, John Edward
Susoreny - john.susoreny.klgates.com - K&L Gates LLP & Lauren
Nicole Norris - lauren.norris@klgates.com - K&L Gates LLP.
Cascades, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott M. Mendel, K&L
Gates LLP, John Edward Susoreny, K&L Gates LLP & Lauren Nicole
Norris, K&L Gates LLP.

Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, represented by Michelle S. Lowery
- mslowery@mwe.com -  McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Chelsea L.
Black - Chelsea@,magdalena-law.com - Mcdermott Will & Emery,
Margaret H. Warner - mwarner@mwe.com McDermott Will & Emery, LLP &
Stephen Yusheng Wu, McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

Georgia Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Rakesh Nageswar
Kilaru, Wilkinson Walsh + Eskovitz, pro hac vice, Alexandra M.
Walsh -  awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com - Wilkinson Walsh + Eskovitz,
pro hac vice, Beth A. Wilkinson -  bwilkinson@wilkinsonwalsh.com -
Wilkinson Walsh Eskovitz, pro hac vice, Brant W. Bishop  -
bbishop@wilkinsonwalsh.com - Wilkinson Walsh Eskovitz PLLC, pro
hac vice, D. Bruce Hoffman, Shearman & Sterling LLP, pro hac vice,
Deborah Kay Brown - deborahbrown@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel,
pro hac vice, Jaime Singer Kaplan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan Llp, pro hac vice, James R. Figliulo -
jfigliulo@fslegal.com - Figliulo & Silverman, Kyle R. Taylor,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Llp, pro hac vice, Marc L.
Greenwald, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Llp, pro hac vice,
Michael B. Carlinsky, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Ryan
A. Shores- ryan.shores@shearman.com - Shearman & Sterling LLP, pro
hac vice, Sami Husayn Rashid, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
Llp, pro hac vice, Stephanie D. Jones, Figliulo & Silverman, P.C.
& Stephen R. Neuwirth - stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Llp, pro hac vice.

Temple-Inland, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Stanley
Marovitz - amarovitz@mayerbrown.com - Mayer Brown LLP, Britt Marie
Miller - bmiller@mayerbrown.com - Mayer Brown LLP, Courtney Lynn
Anderson, Mayer Brown LLP, Joshua Aaron Faucette, Mayer Brown Llp
& Matthew David Provance, Mayer Brown LLP.

WestRock CP, LLC, Defendant, represented by James Franklin
Herbison - jherbiso@winston.com -  Winston & Strawn LLP, Kevin
Fitzgerald Wolff - kwolff@winston.com - Winston & Strawn Llp &
Michael P. Mayer - mmayer@winston.com - Winston & Strawn LLP.
Cascades Canada Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott M. Mendel,
K&L Gates LLP & Lauren Britt Salins, McDermott Will & Emery LLP.
Norampac Holdings U.S. Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott M.
Mendel, K&L Gates LLP & Lauren Britt Salins, McDermott Will &
Emery LLP.

Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Respondent, represented by Jeffrey
Scott Torosian -- jeffrey.torosian@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP &
Abigail A. Clapp -- clappa@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


IPLAY INC: Deceives Consumers Over BPA in Teethers, Spearman Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTY SPEARMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. IPLAY., INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01563-TLN-KJN (E.D.
Cal., July 27, 2017), accuses the Defendant of misrepresenting and
failing to disclose material facts concerning its Green Sprouts
Cooling Teethers.

The Defendant represents on the front of the product packaging
that the Teethers are "BPA free," according to the complaint.
Contrary to the Defendant's representation, however, laboratory
testing has shown that the Teethers do in fact contain BPA, Ms.
Spearman alleges.  She contends that laboratory testing
commissioned by her counsel detected and extracted 702 nanograms
of BPA from the Teether.

Bisphenol A, or "BPA," is a toxic synthetic compound used in
certain mass-produced plastic consumer products, like the
Teethers, Ms. Spearman alleges.  She argues that BPA can seep out
of the Teethers, thereby, allowing the BPA to be ingested by
infants, who use these products.

iPlay., Inc., is incorporated in the State of North Carolina, with
its principal place of business in North Carolina.  The Defendant
manufactures, markets, and distributes the Teethers throughout
California and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Fraser, Esq.
          THE FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4120 Douglas Blvd., #306-262
          Granite Bay, CA 95746
          Telephone: (888)557-5115
          Facsimile: (866)212-8434
          E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net


JAGUAR ANIMAL: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, case no. 3:17-cv-04102, on behalf
of shareholders of Jaguar Animal Health, Inc. ("Jaguar" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq CM: JAGX) who held Jaguar securities and have
been harmed by Jaguar's and its board of directors' alleged
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the Company's
acquisition of Napo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Proposed Merger").

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Jaguar will assume (i)
each outstanding and unexercised option to purchase Napo common
stock, which will be converted into options to purchase Jaguar
common stock, (ii) each outstanding warrant to purchase Napo
common stock, which will be converted into warrants to purchase
Jaguar common stock, and (iii) each outstanding restricted stock
unit to acquire Napo common stock, which will be converted into
restricted stock units to acquire Jaguar common stock. Jaguar
shareholders before the Proposed Merger will experience dilution
in the amount of approximately 75% as a result of the Proposed
Merger.

The complaint alleges that the Proposed Merger is unfair to Jaguar
shareholders and that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus/information statement regarding the Proposed
Merger (the "Proxy") provides materially incomplete and misleading
information about the Company's and Napo's financials and the
fairness of the Proposed Merger, in violation of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from today.  Any member of the putative class
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.  If you wish to discuss this action, or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact Monteverde & Associates PC:

Click here for more information:
www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/ It is free and there is
no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers
from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates PC lawyers
have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         Monteverde & Associates PC
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
         New York, NY 10118
         United States of America
         Tel: (212) 971-1341
         E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN]


JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Clark" Suit Over Xarelto(R) Side Effects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RITA AND HENRY CLARK, IN RE: XARELTO (RIVAROXABAN) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, Plaintiffs, vs. JANSSEN RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT LLC f/k/a JOHNSON AND JOHNSON PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT LLC, JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC. f/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. f/k/a ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;JANSSEN ORTHO LLC;BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; BAYER PHARMA AG, f/k/a BAYER SCHERING
PHARMA AG; BAYER CORPORATION; BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, BAYER
HEALTHCARE AG; BAYER AG; and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-07340-EEF-MBN (E.D. La., August 1, 2017), seeks redress
for injuries allegedly suffered by Plaintiff as a direct result of
Plaintiff Rita Clark's ingestion of the pharmaceutical product
Xarelto(R).  The drug is allegedly defective in that persons who
were prescribed and ingested Xarelto(R), for even a brief period
of time, including Plaintiff, were at increased risk for
developing life-threatening uncontrolled bleeding.

The Defendants are pharmaceutical companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Timothy E. Jackson, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312-346-2222
     Fax: 312-346-0022
     Email: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
            tej@wexlerwallace.com


JOE KEY: Tex. App. Reverses Certification of DPTA Claim
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth, issued
an Opinion reversing a portion of the trial court's class
certification in the case captioned LON SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
AND A-1 SYSTEMS, INC., D/B/A LON SMITH ROOFING AND CONSTRUCTION,
Appellants, v. JOE KEY AND STACCI KEY, Appellees. (Tex. App.), and
remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to
decertify the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DPTA) claim.

Appellants Lon Smith & Associates, Inc., and A-1 Systems, Inc.,
d/b/a Lon Smith Roofing and Construction, raise five issues
claiming that the trial court erred by certifying a class because
various class-certification requirements of Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 42 were not met.

A May 2011 hailstorm damaged the roof of the Keys' residence. The
Keys notified their homeowners' insurance carrier of the damage,
and Joe signed a contract with A-1 for the installation of a new
roof with a total price of $33,769.50.  Stacci did not sign the
contract; the Keys allege that Joe signed it on her behalf.  Keys
sued LSRC, asserting that the Acceptance and Agreement provision
in the contract with A-1, which did business collectively with
Associates, violated Texas Insurance Code section 4102.051's
prohibition against a corporation acting or holding itself out as
a public insurance adjuster in the absence of a license.

The Keys pleaded a claim for declaratory relief -- to declare the
agreement with LSRC illegal, void, and unenforceable and to
declare, consequently, that they and other class members are
"entitled to a judgment restoring all monies paid to [LSRC] under
the illegal contract" pursuant to the statutory remedy provided by
section 4102.207(b).

The class-certification order appointed the Keys to represent a
class defined as "All Texas residents who from June 11, 2003
through the present signed agreements with LSRC."

The order certified three claims for class treatment: (a)
Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim, (b) Plaintiffs' DTPA claim
based on Section 17.50(a)(3) (Unconscionability), and (c)
Plaintiffs' DTPA claim based on Section 17.50(a)(4) (Violation of
Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code).

DTPA section 17.50(a)(4) authorizes a consumer to maintain an
action for restitution damages when a person's use or employment
of an act or practice in violation of chapter 541 of the insurance
code is a producing cause of such damages.

The appellate court finds that Lon Smith Defendants' use and
employment of an agreement that was and is illegal and violative
of Chapter 4102 of the Texas Insurance Code constituted an act or
practice in violation of Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code
and, thus, a violation of section 17.50(a)(4) of the DTPA.).
We overrule the portion of LSRC's first issue complaining that the
trial court misunderstood the law concerning the Keys' DTPA
section 17.50(a)(4) (Violation of Chapter 541 of the Texas
Insurance Code) claim.

Having sustained the portions of LSRC's first, second, and third
issues challenging class certification of the Keys' DTPA section
17.50(a)(3) (Unconscionability) claim, the appellate court
reverses that portion of the trial court's class certification
order and remand the cause to the trial court with instructions to
decertify the DTPA section 17.50(a)(3) (Unconscionability) claim.

Having overruled the remaining portions of LSRC's first and third
issues, having overruled LSRC's fourth and fifth issues, and
having determined that we need not address the portions of LSRC's
third issue challenging class certification under rule
42(b)(1)(A), the appellate court affirms the remainder of the
trial court's class-certification order.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' August 3, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yach3u4jfrom Leagle.com.

Shawn M. McCaskill, Robert C. Wiegand - bob.wiegand@swolegal.com -
Rick K. Disne - rdisney@csa-lawfirm.com - for Lon Smith &
Associates, Inc., Appellant.

David Garza - info@garzaandgarza.com - Bill N. Warren -
bill.warren@kellyhart.com - for Stacci Key, Appellee.

Shawn M. McCaskill, Robert C. Wiegand, Rick K. Disney, for A-1
Systems Inc., d/b/a Lon Smith Roofing and Construction, Appellant.
David Garza, Bill N. Warren, for Joe Key, Appellee.


KILOO APS: "McDonald" Suit Alleges Exfiltration of Players' Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MCDONALD, TAMARA DRAUT, and their children, P.G.M.,
P.S.M., P.R.M., and H.D.F., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KILOO APS; SYBO GAMES APS;
ADCOLONY, INC.; ALTABA INC.; CHARTBOOST, INC.; FLURRY, INC.;
INMOBI PTE LTD.; INMOBI INC.; IRONSOURCE LTD.; IRONSOURCE USA
INC.; TAPJOY, INC.; and VUNGLE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-
cv-04344 (N.D. Cal., July 31, 2017), is an action brought by the
parents of children who, while playing online games via smart
phone apps, have had their personally identifying information
exfiltrated by the defendant game developers and their partners,
for future commercial exploitation, in direct violation of the
federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

Defendant Kiloo Aps is a commercial mobile game development
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
     Francisco, CA 94111-3339
     Phone: 415.956.1000
     Fax: 415.956.1008
     Email: msobol@lchb.com

       - and -

     Nicholas Diamand, Esq.
     Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq.
     Abbye R. Klamann, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10013-1413
     Phone: 212.355.9500
     Fax: 212.355.9592
     Email: ndiamand@lchb.com
            dcuthbertson@lchb.com
            aklamann@lchb.com

       - and -

     Hank Bates, Esq.
     Allen Carney, Esq.
     David Slade, Esq.
     CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
     519 W. 7th St.
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Phone: 501.312.8500
     Fax: 501.312.8505
     Email: hbates@cbplaw.com
            acarney@cbplaw.com
            dslade@cbplaw.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Perry Drops Flushable Wipes Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
INDA, the Association of Nonwoven Fabrics Industry, announced the
settlement of the class action lawsuit brought by the City of
Perry, Iowa, in which Perry alleged damages from flushable wipes
manufactured by a number of flushable wipes producers. In dropping
its lawsuit, Perry admitted that since the inception of its
lawsuit, filed in 2015, it had not experienced any clogs or
increased maintenance costs attributable to flushable wipes. Perry
also admitted that none of its personnel were able to identify any
flushable wipes manufactured by select companies in the city's
plumbing or wastewater systems. Notably, Perry agreed to drop its
lawsuit without receiving any compensation for any alleged
damages.

In 2016, two of the defendants in the Perry case were able to
resolve another flushable wipes class action lawsuit in Florida
(Sweeney v. Kimberly-Clark, et al.), where the consumer Plaintiffs
also agreed to drop the class action lawsuit without any
compensation for alleged damages.

"The settlement terms of the Perry litigation corroborate what
years of testing and field collection studies have shown: that
flushable wipes are not causing municipal clogs or increased
maintenance," said Dave Rousse, president of INDA. "To date,
despite sensational headlines, there is no evidence from any
wastewater agency proving that flushable wipes are causing clogs
or maintenance issues."

Recent studies point to similar findings. A recent independently
conducted collection study in New York City found that more than
98% of the items examined were not labeled or designed to be
flushed, including baby wipes, surface cleaning wipes, paper
towels, as well as additional trash items. Other collection
studies conducted in Maine and California have yielded similar
results.

INDA recognizes that wastewater agencies are facing real
challenges associated with clogs due to diverse causes, such as
aging infrastructure, kitchen grease and flushing of items not
designed to be flushed. Flushable wipes are part of the solution
to those challenges because they are designed to break down in
properly maintained sewer and septic systems. Banning these
innovative products designed to be flushed will only worsen the
problems faced by municipalities because consumers will likely
turn to non-flushable products - like baby wipes - to address
their toileting needs.

INDA and its partner organization, The Responsible Flushing
Alliance (RFA), along with the flushable wipes industry, remain
committed to educating consumers about proper disposal of non-
flushable products through improved labeling and cooperation with
wastewater operators to establish effective consumer-facing
campaigns on the consequences of flushing non-flushable products.

                              About INDA

INDA, the Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry, serves
hundreds of member companies in the nonwovens/engineered fabrics
industry in global commerce. Since 1968, INDA networking events
have helped members connect, innovate, and develop their
businesses. INDA educational courses, market data, test methods,
consultancy, and issue advocacy help members succeed by providing
them the information they need to better plan and execute their
business strategies. [GN]


LABORATORY CORP: AIG, Liberty Say They Don't Have to Cover Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, reports that AIG Specialty
Insurance Co. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. told a Florida
federal court that Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings is not
entitled to coverage for an $11 million class action settlement
after LabCorp went rogue in negotiations.

In an escalating back-and-forth among the companies, the two
insurers say they don't have to cover the settlement reached in
the underlying Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act class
action brought by Christopher Legg.

"LabCorp never advised AIG Specialty or Liberty Mutual about the
ongoing settlement negotiations, and it ignored AIG Specialty's
repeated requests for information regarding the class action. By
failing to abide by its obligations, LabCorp breached the policies
and is thus not entitled to coverage for the settlement
agreement," the insurers said.

LabCorp brought its own suit over coverage for the dispute in
North Carolina federal court, where it said, after a failed
mediation effort, that the insurers should cough up $11 million
for the settlement. LabCorp also wants $2.3 million in attorneys'
fees from the insurers. AIG and Liberty have also filed another
suit against LabCorp.

Legg sued LabCorp in July 2014, alleging that LabCorp printed
sensitive credit card information on its customers' receipts for
lab tests and other services. By that fall, both insurers had
issued coverage positions and agreed to defend while reserving
their rights.

An AIG claims handler emailed for more information in January
2015; AIG says LabCorp never replied, and it met for a mediation
with Legg's people in March 2015 without telling its insurers.
Another information request followed in June and another
undisclosed mediation in July, according to the suit. LabCorp
signed a settlement in October 2015.

The insurers say LabCorp gave up its right to coverage when it
violated policy clauses in "the failure to obtain (or even seek)
AIG Specialty's and Liberty Mutual's prior written consents before
entering into the settlement agreement."

"Moreover, the class action did not allege any actual damages and
only sought statutory amounts pursuant to LabCorp's allegedly
'willful' violations of FACTA. This constitutes a claim for civil
penalties and is thus excluded from coverage," they said.

AIG is represented by Steven Brodie, Aaron Weiss, Esq. --
aaron@caltonfields.com -- and Daniel Enriquez, Esq. --
denriquez@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA.

Liberty Mutual is represented by Robert Newman. Esq. --
rnewman@marlowadler.com -- and Jennifer Hoffman, Esq. --
jhoffman@marlowadler.com -- of Marlow Adler Abrams Newman & Lewis.

Counsel information for LabCorp was not immediately available.

The case is AIG et al. v. LabCorp., case number 0:17-cv-61595, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. [GN]


LAMPS PLUS: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Arbitration in "Varela"
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued a
Memorandum affirming the District Court order permitting class
arbitration of claims related to a data breach of personal
identifying information of Lamps Plus, Inc.'s employees in the
case captioned FRANK VARELA, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAMPS PLUS, INC.; et
al., Defendants-Appellants, No. 16-56085 (9th Cir.), and vacating
the stay of arbitration.

Lamps Plus appeals an order permitting class arbitration of claims
related to a data breach of personal identifying information of
its employees.

After Lamps Plus released his personal information in response to
a phishing scam, Frank Varela filed a class action complaint
alleging negligence, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and
other claims. Lamps Plus moved to compel bilateral arbitration
pursuant to an arbitration agreement.  The (Agreement) it drafted
and required Varela to sign as a condition of his employment.

The district court found that the Agreement is a contract of
adhesion and ambiguous as to class arbitration. It construed the
ambiguity against the drafter, Lamps Plus, and compelled
arbitration of all claims, allowing class-wide arbitration to
proceed.

On appeal, Lamps Plus argues that the parties did not agree to
class arbitration. The Ninth Circuit disagrees.

The Ninth Circuit applies state law contract principles in order
to interpret the Agreement. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v.
Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944 (1995). In California, a contract is
ambiguous when it is capable of two or more constructions, both of
which are reasonable.  Contracts may be ambiguous as a whole
despite terms and phrases that are not themselves inherently
ambiguous.

The Agreement contains a paragraph outlining Varela's
understanding of the terms in three sweeping phrases. First, it
states Varela's assent to waiver of any right he may have to file
a lawsuit or other civil action or proceeding relating to my
employment with the Company.  Second, it includes an additional
waiver by Varela of any right he may have to resolve employment
disputes through trial by judge or jury.  Third, arbitration shall
be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal
proceedings relating to my employment.

A reasonable and perhaps the most reasonable interpretation of
this expansive language is that it authorizes class arbitration.
It requires no act of interpretive acrobatics to include class
proceedings as part of a lawsuit or other civil legal proceeding.
Class actions are certainly one of the means to resolve employment
disputes in court. That arbitration will be in lieu of a set of
actions that includes class actions can be reasonably read to
allow for class arbitration.

The Ninth Circuit affirms and vacates the stay of arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 3, 2017 Memorandum
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9j5t4txfrom Leagle.com.


LAMPS PLUS: Compelled to Arbitrate Class Action by Warehouseman
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that Lamps Plus, in including
an arbitration provision in an employment contract with a
warehouseman, might only have intended to force arbitration of any
disputes with that worker, but it is now faced with unwanted
arbitration of a class action against it, under a ruling on August
3 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a memorandum decision, the majority -- comprised of Judges
Stephen Reinhardt and Kim Wardlaw -- said that by binding employee
Frank Varela to an agreement to arbitrate rather than litigating
in the courts, it is now compelled to arbitrate the class action
he has brought.

Varela has sued for negligence, breach of implied contract,
violation of the California Consumer Records Act, violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law, invasion of privacy, and
negligent violation of the Credit Reporting Act. The causes of
action stem from Lamp Plus giving out its 1,300 employees' 2015 W-
2 income and tax withholding statements, in response to a Feb. 11,
2016 phishing scam.

The complaint alleges that the company's approach to securing the
privacy of employee records was "lackadaisical, cavalier and
reckless."

U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee rejected Varela's contention that
the arbitration clause was unconscionable, but agreed with him
that if it is enforceable, it applies not only to his individual
claims, but also those of the class.

                      Supreme Court Opinion

She noted that the United States Supreme Court said in the 2010
case of Stolt-Nielsen SA. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. that
a party may not be compelled under the Federal Arbitration Act "to
submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis
for concluding that the party agreed to do so." Gee wrote:
"The lack of an explicit mention of class arbitration here does
not constitute the 'silence' contemplated in Stolt-Nielsen, as die
parties did not affirmatively agree to a waiver of class claims in
arbitration. Indeed, such a waiver in the employment context would
likely not be enforceable."

The Ninth Circuit's majority affirmed, saying:

"That the Agreement does not expressly refer to class arbitration
is not the 'silence' contemplated in Stolt-Nielsen."

Provisions of Contract

It went on to observe:

"At its outset, the Agreement contains a paragraph outlining
Varela's understanding of the terms in three sweeping phrases.
First, it states Varela's assent to waiver of 'any right I may
have to file a lawsuit or other civil action or proceeding
relating to my employment with the Company.' Second, it includes
an additional waiver by Varela of 'any right I may have to resolve
employment disputes through trial by judge or jury.' Third,
'arbitration shall be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other
civil legal proceedings relating to my employment.' A reasonable-
and perhaps the most reasonable-interpretation of this expansive
language is that it authorizes class arbitration. It requires no
act of interpretive acrobatics to include class proceedings as
part of a "lawsuit or other civil legal proceeding[].' Class
actions are certainly one of the means to resolve employment
disputes in court. That arbitration will be 'in lieu of' a set of
actions that includes class actions can be reasonably read to
allow for class arbitration."

The opinion said that Gee was correct in finding the agreement to
be ambiguous and, applying California law, resolving the ambiguity
against the party that drafted it.

Judge Ferdinand Fernandez dissented, maintaining that the
agreement "was not ambiguous," and commenting:
"We should not allow Varela to enlist us in this palpable evasion
of Stolt-Nielsen . . . "

The case is Varela v. Lamps Plus. Inc., No. 16-56085, [GN]


LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., disclosed the settlement of a class
action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(the "Action").

On January 13, 2017, a stockholder of Lionbridge filed a class
action complaint against Lionbridge's CEO and board members
alleging claims for breaches of fiduciary duty.  The claims in the
Action derived from the execution of the merger agreement dated
December 12, 2016, between Lionbridge and H.I.G. Capital, LLC, LBT
Acquisition, Inc., and LBT Merger Sub, Inc. (collectively, "HIG")
and the filing of what was alleged to be an incomplete and
materially deficient Preliminary Proxy Statement with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on January 5,
2017. The class action, among other things, sought additional
disclosure of facts relating to the merger in connection with the
stockholder vote thereupon and/or injunctive relief. Defendants
denied that anything was incomplete or materially deficient and
denied all liability to plaintiff.

Lionbridge filed supplemental disclosures to address a subset of
plaintiff's claims on January 17, 2017 with the SEC.  These
supplemental disclosures included information confirming that no
agreement regarding the future employment of Lionbridge management
had taken place prior to the Merger Agreement as well as details
regarding the previously disclosed "Rollover Agreements" with
certain stockholders.

On April 7, 2017, the Court of Chancery entered an order
dismissing the action with prejudice as to the plaintiff, and
without prejudice as to all other members of the putative class.
Pursuant to the order, the Court of Chancery retained jurisdiction
to determine plaintiff's application for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses.

After negotiations, to avoid further litigation expenses, and
denying any and all liability, Lionbridge has agreed to pay
$100,000 for plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses pertaining
to the Action.  This fee will be paid by Lionbridge. The Court of
Chancery has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment
on, the payment of the fee or its reasonableness.

                     About Lionbridge

Lionbridge enables more than 800 world-leading brands to increase
international market share, speed adoption of products and
effectively engage their customers in local markets worldwide.
Using our innovative cloud technology platforms and our global
crowd of more than 100,000 professional cloud workers, we provide
detail-critical business processes, including translation, online
marketing, global content management and application testing
solutions that ensure global brand consistency, local relevancy
and technical usability across all touch points of the customer
lifecycle. Based in Waltham, Mass., Lionbridge maintains solution
centers in 27 countries. [GN]


MAC ACQUISITION: Faces "Jenkins" Suit Alleging FCRA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
XIAOMAE JENKINS, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MAC ACQUISITION OF DELWARE LLC
d/b/a ROMANO'S MACARONI GRILL, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01825-
JDW-AAS (M.D. Fla., July 31, 2017), alleges that Defendant
routinely obtains and uses information in consumer reports to
conduct background checks on prospective and current employees,
and frequently relies on such information, in whole or in part, as
a basis for taking adverse employment action,  such as termination
of employment, reduction in working hours, demotion, failure to
hire, and failure to promote.


The case alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Defendant operates a chain of restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
     1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone: (813) 224-0431
     Phone: (813) 379-2565
     Fax: (813) 229-8712
     Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
            twells@fclaw.com


MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Designation of Transport Officers "Denied"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of New Mexico, issued a
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to
Designate Detention Officers Assigned to Transport Duty as a
Subgroup in the case captioned MARISELA AGUILAR, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION, d/b/a MTC,
Defendant, Civil No. 16-00050 WJ/GJF (D.N.M.).

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

Plaintiffs seek to designate Detention Officers who are named
Plaintiffs or who have opted-in and were assigned to the Transport
Duty post as a subgroup asserting a sub-claim in this lawsuit.

Plaintiffs' motion is denied, for several reasons. First, the
Court recently denied Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to
specifically include missed meal break claims. The Court concluded
that the motion was both untimely, and that amendment would be
futile, thus precluding any claim for missed meal breaks. There is
no sense in allowing a subgroup for plaintiffs asserting a claim
that does not exist.

Second, even if such a claim had been initially asserted, the
Court fails to see how designating a subgroup would allow the
Court to manage the case more efficiently. Plaintiffs' counsel
cites to cases involving circumstances that are more obviously
conducive to the creation of sub-groups--for example, where
separate work facilities are involved.

Third, creation of a new subgroup would involve further discovery.
This case has been conditionally certified. Further discovery
would be required to ascertain whether the members of this new
subgroup are similarly situated, utilizing a stricter standard at
this point in the litigation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y73yt66b
from Leagle.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anthony Guadalupe Ordaz, Plaintiff, represented by David L. Kern,
Kern Law Firm, pro hac vice & Robert Blumenfeld, Mendel
Blumenfeld, PLLC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: "Lopez" Suit Moved to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Carlos Lopez, Angel Alejo,
individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Management & Training Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
ECU09900, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County Imperial, to the U.S. District Court Southern District of
California (San Diego) on August 11, 2017. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01624-JM-JMA to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to Judge Jeffrey T. Miller.

Management & Training Corporation is a Utah corporation that
conducts academic and technical training to disadvantaged
population.[BN]

The filing date of the original case is not available in the
document.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Alexander Isaac Dychter, Esq.
   Dychter Law Offices, APC
   1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1835
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 487-0777
   Fax: (619) 330-1827
   Email: alex@dychterlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Shireen Yvette Wetmore, Esq.
   Seyfarth Shaw LLP
   560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
   San Francisco, CA 94105
   Tel: (415) 397-2823
   Fax: (415) 397-8549
   Email: swetmore@seyfarth.com


MATAGRANO INC: $1.35 Million Class Settlement Gets Court Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that San
Francisco employee labor law class action is one step closer to
resolution after a San Francisco judge signaled he would grant
final approval of a settlement worth $1.35 million. The lawsuit,
which has been ongoing for about 18 months, pits a beer
distributor from the Bay Area against a class of hourly employees
who claimed violations against state labor laws.

The defendant in the lawsuit is Matagrano Inc. Plaintiffs,
according to court records, are delivery drivers, ballpark vendors
and warehouse workers that are paid hourly. In February of last
year they filed suit claiming they were stiffed on overtime and
state-mandated breaks as guaranteed under California employee
labor law. Allegations included a lack of meal and rest breaks,
timely wage payments, improper recordkeeping and unfair
competition.

Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that workers who toiled offsite
were always on duty and were not in a position to take breaks,
even though pay packets were reduced by 30 minutes each day for
meal breaks the employees were in no position to actually take, or
so it was alleged.

Other alleged violations included the lack of compensation for
commuting time between job site(s) and their homes, in spite of
driving company vehicles. Plaintiffs characterized the lack of pay
for commuting time as off the clock work. The plaintiffs in the
California employee labor law dispute cited damages for any class
member employed as an hourly worker by Matagrano Inc. from
February 2012 through April of this year.

All told, the plaintiffs alleged damages of about $7.4 million.

However, the settlement at $1.35 million does not approach that
figure. The judge in the case, California Superior Court Judge
Curtis Karnow, expressed some reservations about incentive awards
for the two lead plaintiffs in the California lawsuit.
Specifically, $12,000 was earmarked for plaintiff Martin Gonzalez
with $5,000 worth of incentive money for Juan Perez. Judge Karnow
noted that in his view the incentive awards were high when
compared with the expected proceeds from the settlement for the
remainder of the class.

"Incentive awards are a fairly recent invention in the law. People
usually don't get involved in a class action because they're in it
for the money," the judge said. "I'm acutely aware of the fact
that every cent that goes to class representatives is taken away
from the class."

In spite of the judge's misgivings about cy pres, as well as legal
fees the judge felt was a tad high, he nonetheless signaled he
would approve the settlement at $1.35 million.

The California employee labor lawsuit is Martin Gonzalez v.
Matagrano Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-16-550494, in the California
Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco. [GN]


MAXIMUS INC: Oct. 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of MAXIMUS, Inc.
securities during the period between October 30, 2014 through
February 3, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who
wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until
October 6, 2017 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in MAXIMUS securities during the Class Period.  Members
of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that in obtaining the
Health Assessment Advisory Service ("HAAS") contract, MAXIMUS set
an unattainable target number of healthcare professionals to
recruit and an unattainable target number of assessments and
MAXIMUS was struggling to recruit, train and ramp-up new health
care staff to perform the assessments.

According to the complaint, following an August 5, 2015
announcement that the Company had start-up challenges, a November
12, 2015 announcement that the HAAS contract delivered an
operating loss, and a February 4, 2016 announcement that the
Company was unable to meet HAAS contract assessment targets, the
value of MAXIMUS shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in MAXIMUS securities purchased on or after October 30, 2014 and
held through the revelation of negative information during and/or
at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at -- hoffman@browerpiven.com -- or by telephone at (410)
415-6616.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class. [GN]


MDL 2361: Coca Cola Appeals Class Certification Order
-----------------------------------------------------
Defendants The Coca-Cola Company, Simply Orange Juice Company and
The Minute Maid Company filed an appeal from a District Court
order certifying seven state-specific "issues" classes pursuant to
Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the
multidistrict litigation entitled In re: Simply Orange Orange
Juice Marketing and Sales Practices litigation, MDL No. 4:12-md-
02361-FJG, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri - Kansas City.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 4,
2017, the District Court granted in part the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.

The Plaintiffs in the litigation assert that Coca-Cola sells
millions of containers of Simply Orange, Minute Maid Pure
Squeezed, and Minute Maid Pure Premium (the orange juice products)
to consumers each year throughout the seven states at issue in
this matter.  The Plaintiffs allege that Coca-Cola has failed to
disclose its use of added flavors in these products.

The appellate case is captioned as PHILIP J. WIECZOREK, et al., on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Respondents v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, et al., Defendants-
Petitioners, Case No. Case No. 17-8025, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The Defendants-Petitioners want the Eighth Circuit to determine
whether the District Court manifestly erred in:

   1. (a) finding that the Eighth Circuit's precedents holding
      that each class member must have suffered an Article III
      injury were silently overruled by Spokeo, and (b) endorsing
      a "risk-of-harm" theory of classwide injury that the Eighth
      Circuit rejected in Wallace?

   2. certifying Rule 23(c)(4) issues classes in contravention of
      the Eighth Circuit's holding in Grovatt?

   3. concluding that the classes were ascertainable even though
      no objective criteria exist for identifying class members
      or verifying their membership in the classes?[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent Paul Wieczorek, WDMO 12-308, is represented
by:

          Parvin K. Aminolroaya, Esq.
          Scott A. George, Esq.
          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS, LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: paminolroaya@seegerweiss.com
                  Sgeorge@seegerweiss.com
                  sweiss@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Norman Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE & SIEGEL
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Reginald Von Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL LAW GROUP
          223 25th Street
          Richmond, CA 94804-0000
          Telephone: (510) 237-3930
          E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com

Plaintiff-Respondent Cheryl D'Aloia, WDMO 12-766, is represented
by:

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT
          405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          E-mail: guglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Gregory L. Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & TALIAFERRO
          7031 Halcyon Park Drive
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 832-9080
          E-mail: gldavis@knology.net

               - and -

          Norman Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE & SIEGEL
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Joseph Silver, Esq.
          SILVER & AGACINSKI
          1325 W. Cass Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 259-9863
          Facsimile: (813) 259-9864
          E-mail: attyjosephsilver@aol.com

               - and -

          Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (415) 913-7800
          Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
          E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS, LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com

Plaintiff-Respondent John Albert Veal, Jr., is represented by:

          Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
          Andrew S. Herring, Esq.
          John E. Norris, Esq.
          Courtney L. Peinhardt, Esq.
          DAVIS & NORRIS
          2154 Highland Avenue, S.
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 930-9900
          Facsimile: (205) 930-9989
          E-mail: wbarnett@davisnorris.com
                  aherring@davisnorris.com
                  jnorris@davisnorris.com
                  courtney@davisnorris.com

               - and -

          D. Frank Davis, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN
          420 N. 20th Street, Suite 3400
          Birmingham, AL 35203-0000
          Telephone: (205) 251-3000

               - and -
          Norman Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE & SIEGEL
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS, LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com

Plaintiff-Respondent Randall Davis, WDMO 12-771, is represented
by:

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1310
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: richard@Qulegal.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          Jamie Elisabeth Weiss, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: Jeff@Qulegal.com
                  Jamie@Qulegal.com

               - and -

          Julie D. Miller, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          E-mail: julie@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Norman Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE & SIEGEL
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          David M. Sternfield, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID STERNFIELD, LLC
          33 N. Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 622-6659
          Facsimile: (312) 924-7555
          E-mail: dmslawoffice@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS, LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com

Plaintiff-Respondent Kirk Yee, WDMO 12-789, is represented by:

          Michael Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 W. 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: michael@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW GROUP
          195 Plymouth Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (212) 687-8291
          E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Petra Renee Wicklund, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW GROUP
          535 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94501
          Telephone: (415) 359-5688
          E-mail: rwicklund@richmanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Norman Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE & SIEGEL
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS, LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com

Plaintiff-Respondent Jeremy M. Dasaro, WDMO 12-789, is represented
by:

          David Eldridge Bower, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (213) 446-6652
          E-mail: dbower@bowerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Norman Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE & SIEGEL
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS, LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com

Plaintiff-Respondent Carole Sovocool, WDMO 12-790 WDMO 12-789, is
represented by:

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

               - and -

          Scott Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7129
          Facsimile: scott@bursor.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Sarah Nicole Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER
          1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 470-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  swestcot@bursor.com

               - and -

          Norman Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE & SIEGEL
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS, LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com

Defendants-Petitioners The Coca-Cola Company, Simply Orange Juice
Company and The Minute Maid Company, a division of Coca-Cola
Company are represented by:

          Travis J. Tu, Esq.
          Steven A. Zalesin, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-6710
          Telephone: (212) 336-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 336-7966
          E-mail: tjtu@pbwt.com
                  sazalesin@pbwt.com


MLG PARTNERS: Texas American Syndicate Asks Court to Wind up Trust
------------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS AMERICAN SYNDICATE; HOUSTON E. HOLMES, JR., as Trustee of
the Texas American Syndicate; AND RICHARD R. LINDSLY, as Trustee
of the Texas American Syndicate, Plaintiffs, v. MLG PARTNERS LTD.,
MIKE MAHONEY, AND KELLY MAHONEY, individually, and as
representatives or members of a class of all others similarly
situated, Defendants, Case No. DC-17-08475 (Tex. Dist., Dallas
County, July 17, 2017), concerns the winding up and termination of
the Texas American Syndicate.

The Texas American Syndicate (TAS) is a Massachusetts business
trust with over 2,000 beneficial interest holders located across
the United States and abroad.  MLG Partners, LTD was at all
relevant times a Dollar Interest Holder in the TAS.

The Trustees believe that it is in the Dollar Interest Holders'
best interest to wind up and terminate the TAS now rather than
waiting until 2022, and request that the Court order them to do
so. The amount of money that the Dollar Interest Holders stand to
receive now is likely greater than the amount of money they would
receive in 2022, if the Trustees are forced to incur over four
years of additional costs.

Plaintiffs request that this action proceed under a Level 3
Discovery Control Plan pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
190.4.


The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William M. Katz, Jr., Esq.
     Alexander T. Dimock, Esq.
     THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
     1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Phone: (214) 969-1700
     Fax: (214) 969-1751
     Email: william.katz@tklaw.com
     Email: alex.dimock@tklaw.com

        - and -

     Benjamin B. Hallmark, Esq.
     THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
     98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1900
     Austin, TX 78701
     Phone: (512) 469-6100
     Fax: (512) 469-6180
     Email: benjamin.hallmark@tklaw.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Appeals Order in "Zaklit" Suit to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant NationStar Mortgage LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Alfred Zaklit, et al. v. NationStar
Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-02190-CAS-KK, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 9,
2017, the Hon. Judge Christina A. Snyder entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

   "all individuals who, from October 23, 2014 to May 2016, while
   physically present in California and using a cellular device
   with a California area code, participated for the first time
   in an outbound telephone conversation with a representative of
   Defendant or their agents who were recording the conversation
   without first informing the individual that the conversation
   was being recorded".

The appellate case is captioned as Alfred Zaklit, et al. v.
NationStar Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 17-80156, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents ALFRED ZAKLIT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and JESSY ZAKLIT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
          324 S. Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Asaf Agazanof, Esq.
          ASAF LAW APC
          8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 310
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (424) 254-8870
          Facsimile: (888) 254-0651
          E-mail: asaf@lawasaf.com

Defendant-Petitioner NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, is represented by:

          Eric Kemp, Esq.
          Jan T. Chilton, Esq.
          John B. Sullivan, Esq.
          SEVERSON & WERSON APC
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-3344
          Facsimile: (415) 956-0439
          E-mail: ek@severson.com
                  jtc@severson.com
                  jbs@severson.com


NUTRACEUTICAL INT'L: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of
holders of Nutraceutical International Corporation
("Nutraceutical") (NasdaqGS:NUTR) common stock in connection with
the proposed acquisition of Nutraceutical by affiliates of HGGC,
LLC ("HGGC") announced on May 22, 2017 (the "Complaint").  The
Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against Nutraceutical, its Board of Directors (the
"Board"), and HGGC, is captioned Berg v. Nutraceutical
International Corporation, Case No. 17-cv-830 (D. Utah).

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 21, 2017, Nutraceutical entered into an agreement and plan
of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with HGGC.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of Nutraceutical will receive
$41.80 in cash for each share of Nutraceutical 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 proxy
statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 12, 2017.  The
Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement, which recommends that
Nutraceutical 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 the analyses performed by Nutraceutical's financial advisor and
potential conflicts of interest.  The Complaint seeks injunctive
and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of
Nutraceutical common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 9, 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.

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


NORDSTROM INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Workers' PAGA Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the Judgment of the trial court dismissing the
cases captioned CHRISTOPHER MENDOZA, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Appellant, and MEAGAN GORDON, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. NORDSTROM,
INC., a Washington Corporation authorized to do business in the
State of California, Defendant-Appellee; and CHRISTOPHER MENDOZA,
an individual, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, and MEAGAN GORDON, Plaintiff-
Intervenor-Appellant, v. NORDSTROM, INC., a Washington Corporation
authorized to do business in the State of California, Defendant-
Appellee, Nos. 12-57130, 12-57144 (9th Cir.).

Plaintiff Christopher Mendoza and Plaintiff-Intervenor Meagan
Gordon (Plaintiffs) appeal the dismissal of their California Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims against Defendant
Nordstrom, Inc., alleging violations of California's "day of rest"
law.

Mendoza sued Nordstrom, alleging that it had violated California
Labor Code sections 551 and 552 by failing to provide him with one
day's rest in seven on three occasions. He brought the action in
California state court; Nordstrom removed to federal court.
Mendoza also pleaded other claims that are not at issue in the
present appeal. He filed his complaint on behalf of a class of
similarly situated hourly, non-exempt Nordstrom employees in
California, and he brought the relevant claim pursuant to the
California's Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

The California Supreme Court accepted certification and modified
the questions slightly.

The first question asked: Is the day of rest required by sections
551 and 552 calculated by the workweek, or does it apply on a
rolling basis to any seven-consecutive-day period?

The California Supreme Court responded: A day of rest is
guaranteed for each workweek. Periods of more than six consecutive
days of work that stretch across more than one workweek are not
per se prohibited.

The second question asked: Does the section 556 exemption for
workers employed six hours or less per day apply so long as an
employee works six hours or less on at least one day of the
applicable week, or does it apply only when an employee works no
more than six hours on each and every day of the week?

The California Supreme Court responded: The exemption for
employees working shifts of six hours or less applies only to
those who never exceed six hours of work on any day of the
workweek. If on any one day an employee works more than six hours,
a day of rest must be provided during that workweek, subject to
whatever other exceptions might apply.

The third question asked: What does it mean for an employer to
cause' an employee to go without a day of rest:  force, coerce,
pressure, schedule, encourage, reward, permit, or something else?

The California Supreme Court responded: An employer causes its
employee to go without a day of rest when it induces the employee
to forgo rest to which he or she is entitled. An employer is not,
however, forbidden from permitting or allowing an employee, fully
apprised of the entitlement to rest, independently to choose not
to take a day of rest.

Under the California Supreme Court's now-binding interpretation of
these provisions, Plaintiffs were not aggrieved employees.

Under the requirements of Labor Code section 2699.3, they would
have to exhaust their claims administratively before bringing a
PAGA action of their own. Well before trial, the district court
asked Plaintiffs if they wished to include additional plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs declined.

Only as the trial was beginning did Plaintiffs request to present
new witnesses who might have been aggrieved. But Plaintiffs
apparently did not propose to add these people as PAGA plaintiffs
and, in any event, Plaintiffs ultimately agreed not to demand the
witnesses.

The Ninth Circuit pointed out that Plaintiffs have cited no
authority -- and it has located none -- explaining why the
district court was obligated to permit the addition or
substitution of PAGA representatives. Plaintiffs invoke
authorities holding that district courts may permit substitution
of class representatives in ordinary class action cases, but that
comparison is unavailing for at least two reasons.

First, a PAGA suit is fundamentally different than a class action.
Second, a district court's discretion to permit substitutions or
additions of parties is not a requirement that it do so. The court
was under no such obligation.

The district court did not err by dismissing the case, the Ninth
Circuit held.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 3, 2017 Opinion is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ydyg6ad4from Leagle.com.

Andre E. Jardini - aej@kpclegal.com - (argued) and K.L. Myles -
klm@kpclegal.com - Knapp Petersen & Clark, Glendale, California,
for Plaintiff-Appellant.

R. Craig Clark,  (argued) and James M. Treglio, Clark Law Firm,
205 W Date St, San Diego, California; David R. Markham, The
Markham Law Firm, 750 B Street, Suite 1950, San Diego, California;
for Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant.

Julie A. Dunne - jdunne@littler.com - (argued), Dawn Fonseca -
jdunne@littler.com - and Joshua D. Levine -  jdlevine@littler.com
- Littler Mendelson P.C., San Diego, California, for Defendant-
Appellee.


OMNI HEALTHCARE: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Bryant" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled KRYSTAL BRYANT, LAURA
GONZALEZ, KAYLA MCTAGGERT, and KATIE MACINNIS v. OMNI HEALTHCARE
MANAGEMENT CORP., OMNI HOME CARE, INC., OMNI HOME CARE OF OHIO,
INC., SWARUP SAHA, and RESHMI SAHA Jointly and Severally, Case No.
2:16-cv-12639-AC-EAS (E.D. Mich.), seek conditional certification
for a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action to include a
class of similarly situated individuals, known and unknown, who
were employed by the Defendants and were deprived of overtime pay.

In violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Defendants
failed to pay their workers overtime pay and made impermissible
deductions from the pay of salaried workers without paying them
overtime.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to order the Defendants to
produce a complete list of individuals, who were employees of
Defendants for the past three years and designate the manner i.e.
hourly, salary, etc.) those individuals received compensation for
their work, dates of employment, positions held, and last known
addresses, and to authorize Plaintiffs, at their own expense, to
present notices to the opt-in class in content and form
substantially as presented.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cfRE2IGm

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce A. Miller, Esq.
          Richard G. Mack Jr., Esq.
          Adam M. Taub, Esq.
          MILLER COHEN, P.L.C.
          600 W. Lafayette Blvd., 4th Floor
          Detroit, MI 48226-0840
          Telephone: (313) 964-4454
          Facsimile: (313) 964-4490
          E-mail: richardmack@millercohen.com
                  adamtaub@millercohen.com
                  brucemiller@millercohen.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David F. Greco, Esq.
          Ahmad A. Chehab, Esq.
          GASIOREK, MORGAN, GRECO, MCCAULEY & KOTZIAN, P.C.
          30500 Northwestern Highway, #425
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Telephone: (248) 865-0001
          Facsimile: (248) 865-0002
          E-mail: dgreco@gmgmklaw.com
                  achehab@gmgmklaw.com


PARAMOUNT EQUITY: "Robinson" Class Settlement Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Eastern District of California,
granted Plaintiff Matthew Scott Robinson's unopposed Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and unopposed Motion for
Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in the case captioned
MATTHEW SCOTT ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PARAMOUNT EQUITY MORTGAGE, LLC,
Defendant, No. 2:14-cv-02359-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.).

The Court having considered the Stipulation of Settlement and
Release and all other exhibits submitted in support of both
motions, all papers and proceedings held herein, and all oral and
written comments received regarding the proposed settlement, and
having reviewed the record in this action, and good cause
appearing therefore, ordered, among other things, that the
Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) as
discussed in the Court's prior Order preliminarily approving this
settlement (the Preliminary Order), and the Settlement Class is
certified and defined as follows:

     "All persons whom Defendant called for marketing purposes on
a cellular telephone without prior express written consent from
October 16, 2013 to May 15, 2015, and all persons whom Defendant
called on a telephone number which was registered on the National
Do Not Call Registry without prior express written consent from
October 16, 2013 to May 15, 2015."

The Court also grants Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses, and awards Class Counsel $165,000 in fees and
$9,185.33 in expenses, to be paid from the Settlement Fund as
provided in the Stipulation.

The Court awards Plaintiff Matthew Scott Robinson an incentive
award of $10,000, for his service as representative of the
Settlement Class, to be paid from the Settlement Fund as provided
in the Stipulation.

The Court approves a payment of $43,000 to the Settlement
Administrator on the terms set forth in the Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the District Court August 3, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y9xdtjtsfrom Leagle.com.

Matthew Scott Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Jarrett L.
Ellzey, Hughes Ellzey, LLP, pro hac vice. info@hughellzey.com
Matthew Scott Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by William Craft
Hughes, Hughes Ellzey, LLP, info@hughellzey.com pro hac vice &
Michael Ryan Dufour -- mdufour@swlegalgrp.com -- Southwest Legal
Group.

Paramount Equity Mortgage, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael
E. Chase -- mchase@boutinjones.com -- Boutin Jones Inc.


PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALTIES: Quinonez's Bid to Certify Class Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Beverly Reid O'Connell denies the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit titled BRIANNA QUINONEZ, ET AL.
v. PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALTIES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-05966-BRO-
AGR (C.D. Cal.).

Brianna Quinonez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed her original class action Complaint on
August 10, 2016.  The action arises from a dispute about the
efficacy of Pharmaceutical Specialties, Inc.'s product, Vanicream
SPF 50+ Sunscreen.  The Plaintiff contends that PSI mislabeled its
Products claiming the Product was rated SPF 50+.  She alleges that
it was determined that the Product had an actual SPF of only 17.

In her First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to certify the
class and sub-class:

   Class: All persons who purchased a product in the Vanicream
          SPF 50+ product line in the United States, within the
          applicable statute of limitations, for personal use
          until the date notice is disseminated.  Excluded from
          this Class is Defendant and its officers, directors and
          employees and those who purchased a Product in the
          Vanicream SPF 50+ product line for the purpose of
          resale.

   Sub-Class: All California consumers who purchased a product in
          the Vanicream SPF 50+ product line, within the
          applicable statute of limitations, for personal use
          until the date notice is disseminated.  Excluded from
          this Class are Defendants and its officers, directors
          and employees and those who purchased a Product in the
          Vanicream SPF 50+ product line for the purpose of
          resale.

According to the civil minutes, the Court denies the Motion due to
the Plaintiff Counsel's manifest inadequacy.

Judge O'Connell notes, among other things, that the Counsel's
utter failure to vigorously pursue discovery beyond initial
document requests and interrogatories since the Action's filing in
August 2016, failure to offer any substantive evidence whatsoever
to support the Motion and failure to respond to the serious
concerns raised by defense counsel leave the Court of firm
conviction that the Plaintiff's Counsel are not adequate to
protect the rights of absent Class members and vigorously litigate
the Action.

Hence, the Plaintiff's Motion is denied.  Judge O'Connell opines
that the denial is without prejudice so the Plaintiff may seek,
retain or associate adequate counsel to represent her and the
putative Class.  Absent adequate counsel, the Plaintiff shall
proceed to litigate her claims as an individual.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2XogxajT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Farahi, Esq.
          Raymond Collins, Esq.
          FARAHI LAW FIRM, APC
          22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 230
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 774-4500
          Facsimile: (424) 295-0557
          E-mail: justin@farahilaw.com
                  raymondfarahilaw@gmail.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Denies Garcia's Bid for Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
For reasons expressed in the Opinion entered on August 9, 2017,
the Hon. Noel L. Hillman denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled RUFINO D. GARCIA, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03685-NLH-JS (D.N.J.).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RMWz4VpE


PRET A MANGER: Faces "Lau" Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YEE TING LAU on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, against PRET A MANGER (USA) LIMITED, and JOHN DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05775 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 31, 2017), is a consumer protection action arising out of
alleged deceptive and otherwise improper business practices that
Defendants engage in with respect to the packaging of their Pret A
Manger(R) sandwich wraps.  The wraps are invariably packaged in
partially opaque packaging so that consumers cannot see the empty
air (or slack-fill) in the wrap.

Defendants operate food services enterprises.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PSCU INCORPORATED: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Davis" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Charlene Edwards Honeywell denies the Plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification in the lawsuit captioned LARRY DAVIS
v. PSCU INCORPORATED, Case No. 8:16-cv-02079-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla.).

Larry Davis brings the putative collective and class action
against his former employer, PSCU, asserting claims for unpaid
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment.  Mr. Davis' primary contention is
that PSCU failed to pay him and other employees for time spent
logging in to and out of PSCU's computer system during every
shift.

In the Motion, Mr. Davis seeks conditional certification of an
FLSA class defined as: "All current and former hourly customer
service representatives -- both call center based and home based -
- who worked for Defendant at any time during the last three
years."

Judge Honeywell opines that Mr. Davis provides no persuasive
evidence that other employees wish to join the action.  Judge
Honeywell adds that Mr. Davis fails to offer any reliable, non-
conclusory evidence that the putative plaintiffs are similarly
situated.  Thus, Judge Honeywell notes, on the facts of this case,
the Court finds that "the purpose of a collective action -- to
efficiently resolve a large number of plaintiffs' claims" -- will
not be served by conditional certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9Bm2udxV


RETAIL MERCHANTS: Faces "Overby" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB OVERBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RETAIL MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, INC., a
LOUISIANA CORPORATIO, d/b/a CREDIT BUREAU OF LOUISIANA, Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00636-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., July 31, 2017),
alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for a
finding that Defendant's form debt collection letter violated the
FDCPA.  The letter allegedly makes it appear as if it is a credit
reporting agency, when, in fact, it is not.

Defendant is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edwin Woods Jr., Esq.
     BOND BOTES & WOODS, P.C.
     5760 I-55 North, Ste. 100
     Jackson, MS 39211
     Phone: (601) 535-5000
     Email: lwilkinson@bondnbotes.com


S & O GOLD: "Lake" Suit Alleges FLSA, Ohio Wage Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRENT LAKE, on behalf of himself and other members of the general
public similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. S & O GOLD, INC. d/b/a
GOLD STAR CHILI, and MYRANNA TUEIMEH, Defendants, Case No.: 1:17-
cv-00510-MRB (S.D. Ohio, July 31, 2017), alleges that Defendant
employer has violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, which only
allows employers to pay less than minimum wage to employees who
receive tips under very specific conditions.

The case also raises claims of violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Defendant Myranna Tueimeh owns and operates Defendant Goldstar
restaurants.  Mr. Lake was employed by Defendants as a server.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


SAFELITE GROUP: Faces "Mackall" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAMAR MACKALL, and RYAN HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. SAFELITE GROUP, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02145-CCB (D. Md., July 31, 2017),
alleges that Plaintiffs and other technicians were not properly
compensated for the overtime they worked. Defendant refused to pay
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees overtime wages
in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, Maryland
Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection
Law.

Defendant provides automobile maintenance services to customers
across the United States. Defendant's business primarily consists
of repairing side windows and windshields.  Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated were employed as technicians.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert J. Leonard, Esq.
     George E. Swegman, Esq.
     Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     E-mail: rleonard@nicholllaw.com
             gswegman@nicholllaw.com
             bdavis@nicholllaw.com


SAMSUNG: Wins Galaxy 7 Class Action in South Korea
--------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Pulse, writing for Newsy, reports that things might be
looking up for Samsung -- you know, after the whole "phones
randomly exploding" debacle last year.

Yonhap News Agency reports a court in South Korea has ruled in
favor of the tech company in a class-action lawsuit filed by
consumers.

According to the outlet, the suit alleged recalls of the Galaxy
Note 7 caused various inconveniences to some consumers and sought
around $822,000 in compensation.

But the district court overseeing the case reportedly said Samsung
did its job in making the recall as easy as possible for
consumers.

The news comes as Samsung gears up to launch the Galaxy Note 8
later this month. [GN]


SEE'S CANDY: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Weiss" Suit
---------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of California,
issued an order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned AVI WEISS, Plaintiff, v. SEE'S CANDY SHOPS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-00661-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

See's has represented to its customers that certain candies,
including but not limited to the Valentine's Day Classic Red Heart
Box in various sizes and weights are Kosher certified.  The
lawsuit alleged they were not.  According to Mr. Weiss, he and
other putative class members have been harmed because they
overpaid for the products (or would not have purchased the
products) had they known that the products were not Kosher
certified.

In the case at hand, there are relevant facts in dispute, extent
of the mislabeling problem, and, as the parties have submitted
only written materials to the Court, Mr. Weiss is required to make
only a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, the Court held.  For
these reasons, Mr. Weiss has failed to satisfy that low standard
that is, he has failed to make a prima facie case that the amount-
in-controversy exceeds $5 million, the Court added.

Because Mr. Weiss had the opportunity to take jurisdictional
discovery and yet still failed to make a prima facie case that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, he has failed to
establish subject matter jurisdiction in this Court, the Court
said.  And given he was afforded an opportunity to take discovery,
dismissal without leave to amend is warranted, the report added.

See's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y8uocutqfrom Leagle.com.

Avi Weiss, Plaintiff, represented by Suzanne Havens Beckman, -
shavens@parisihavens.com - Parisi & Havens LLP.

Avi Weiss, Plaintiff, represented by Suzanne L. Havens Beckman,
Parisi & Havens LLP, Grace E. Parasmo -
gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com  - Parasmo Lieberman Law,
Yitzchak Hillel Lieberman, ParasmoLiebermanLaw,  7400 Hollywood
Blvd Apt 505. Los Angeles, CA 90046 & David Christopher Parisi, -
dcparisi@parisihavens.com - Parisi & Havens LLP.

See's Candy Shops, Inc., Defendant, represented by Neil A.
Friedman Popovic, - npopovic@sheppardmullin.com  - Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP & Eric James DiIulio -
ediiulio@sheppardmullin.com - Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.

See's Candies Inc., Defendant, represented by Neil A. Friedman
Popovic, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Eric James
DiIulio, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.


SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: Howard G. Smith Files Investor Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Sequans Communications S.A ("Sequans" or the "Company") (NYSE:
SQNS) securities between April 29, 2016 through July 31, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Sequans investors have until
October 10, 2017 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Sequans investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to
discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or
by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On August 1, 2017, Sequans disclosed that the Company's second
quarter revenue was negatively affected after the Company had to
take product back into their inventory from an early 2016 sale
related to the tablet business.

On this news, Sequans stock dropped $0.67 per share, or over 18%,
to close at $3.01 per share on August 1, 2017.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Sequans made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sequans was improperly
recognizing revenue; and (2) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased shares of Sequans during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than October 10, 2017 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-
free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to  --
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com -- or visit our website at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.[GN]


SIMON PROPERTY: Blind People Cannot Access Web site, Young Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE YOUNG, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC. and SIMON
PROPERTY GROUP, L.P., Case No. 1:17-cv-05713-JPO (S.D.N.Y., July
27, 2017), is brought for the Defendants' alleged failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

Mr. Young is a visually impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using
his computer.  He seeks a permanent injunction to cause Simon
Property to change its corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its Web site -- http://www.simon.com/-- will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

Simon Property Group, Inc., is a Foreign Corporation organized
under Delaware law that is licensed to do business in the state of
New York.  Simon Property Group, L.P., is a Foreign Limited
Partnership organized under Delaware law that is licensed to do
business in the state of New York.

Simon Property owns and operates shopping malls throughout the
United States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
          E-mail: dl@bronsonlipsky.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


SOCIAL SECURITY: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Rose"
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, issued an
opinion vacating the judgment of the District Court and remanding
with direction for the District Court to dismiss the case
captioned JENNY ROSE and KATHY COLLINS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and KEVIN
ROBERTSON, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, in her official
capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration, Defendant-Appellee, No. 16-2377 (4th Cir.).

Jenny Rose and Kathy Collins appeal the district court's order
dismissing their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

The Fourth Circuit held that a case becomes moot when the issues
presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally
cognizable interest in the outcome.  A change in factual
circumstances can moot a case on appeal, such as when the
plaintiff receives the relief sought in his or her claim, or when
an event occurs that makes it impossible for the court to grant
any effectual relief to the plaintiff.

The Acting Commissioner contends that this appeal is moot because
both Rose and Collins have now exhausted their administrative
remedies. Rose concedes that her action is moot and has filed an
unopposed motion to vacate the judgment.  Counsel for Collins
state that they are unable to contact Collins regarding the issue
of mootness, despite several attempts to do so.

However, the Acting Commissioner has submitted evidence of
Collins' exhaustion in the form of copies of an unfavorable
administrative law judge decision and a subsequent notice that the
agency's Appeals Council had denied review.

The Fourth Circuit concludes that this appeal is moot because
neither Rose nor Collins has a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome" and it is impossible for the court to grant any effectual
relief.

The Fourth Circuit therefore vacates the district court's judgment
and remand with directions for the district court to dismiss the
action.

A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's August 3, 2017, Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybg5sdh5from Leagle.com.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Health Dept. Appeals "Stogsdill" Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled
Richard Stogsdill v. SC Dept HHS, et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-00007-
JFA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
at Columbia.

The appellate case is captioned as Richard Stogsdill v. SC Dept
HHS, et al., Case No. 17-1916, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 15,
2017, Plaintiffs Richard Stogsdill, Nancy Stogsdill, Robert Levin
and Mary Self filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the
lawsuit.  That appellate case is captioned as Richard Stogsdill v.
SC Dept. of HHS, et al., Case No. 17-1880.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees RICHARD STOGSDILL; NANCY STOGSDILL, Parent of
Richard Stogsdill, on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated persons; ROBERT LEVIN; and MARY SELF, Parent of Robert
Levin, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
persons, are represented by:

          Patricia L. Harrison, Esq.
          PATRICIA LOGAN HARRISON LAW OFFICE
          611 Holly Street
          Columbia, SC 29205-0000
          Telephone: (803) 256-2017

Defendant-Appellant SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES is represented by:

          Peter Michael Balthazor, Esq.
          Thomas Lowndes Pope, Esq.
          Jayme Leigh Shy, Esq.
          Damon C. Wlodarczyk, Esq.
          RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC
          2838 Devine Street
          P. O. Box 11412
          Columbia, SC 29205
          Telephone: (803) 799-9993
          Facsimile: (803) 239-1414
          E-mail: peteb@rplfirm.com
                  lpope@rplfirm.com
                  jshy@rplfirm.com
                  damonw@rplfirm.com


STEWART ENTERPRISES: La. App. Junks Appeal in Stockholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, issued a Decree
dismissing the Plaintiff's appeals case captioned KAREN MOULTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
STEWART ENTERPRISES, INC., JOHN B. ELSTROTT, JR., THOMAS M.
KITCHEN, ALDEN J. MCDONALD, JR., RONALD H. PATRON, ASHTON J. RYAN,
JR., JOHN K. SAER, JR., FRANK B. STEWART, JR., AND SERVICE CORP.
INTERNATIONAL, RIO ACQUISITION CORP. PHILIP JOSEPH ROSEN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
STEWART ENTERPRISES, INC., FRANK B. STEWART, JR., JOHN B.
ELSTROTT, ALDEN J. MCDONALD, JR., THOMAS M. KITCHEN, ASHTON J.
RYAN, JR., RONALD H. PATRON, JOHN K. SAER, JR., SERVICE
CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL, AND RIO ACQUISITION CORP., No. 2017-CA-
0243, Consolidated With No. 2017-CA-0244 (La. App.).

This is a direct stockholder class action. From the trial court's
judgment granting certain defendants' motions for summary
judgment, the plaintiffs appeal.

This suit arises out of a $1.4 billion merger transaction
involving two of the country's largest publicly traded death care
companies -- Service Corporation International (SCI) and Stewart
Enterprises, Inc. (STEI).

Karen Moulton filed a class action suit on behalf of herself and
the public stockholders of STEI (the Moulton Suit). Named as
defendants in the Moulton Suit were STEI; the seven members of
STEI's board of directors  Frank Stewart, Jr.,  John Elstrott,
Jr.,  Alden McDonald, Jr.,  Thomas Kitchen,  Ashton Ryan, Jr.,
Ronald Patron; and John Saer, Jr.,  SCI and Rio.

Ms. Moulton alleged, inter alia, that the sale price was
inadequate and that the sale process was unfair.

Philip Joseph Rosen filed a similar class action suit on behalf of
himself and the public stockholders of STEI against the same
defendants making similar allegations as in the Moulton Suit.

Thereafter, the remaining defendants filed two motions for summary
judgment. One motion was filed by Mr. Stewart; the other motion
was filed by the remaining six director-defendants and STEI. The
trial court granted certain defendants' motions for summary
judgment.

This appeal followed.

Here, the trial court's October 31, 2016 judgment states as
follows:

     It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment are Granted. Pursuant to
La. Code Civ. Proc. Art. 1915, this judgment is designated a final
judgment.

Applying the principles, the appeals court finds that the trial
court's judgment fails to satisfy the jurisprudential requirements
for a valid final judgment. The judgment fails to identify which
of the defendants' summary judgment motions are granted.

Although the judgment states that it grants the motions for
summary judgment filed by certain of the defendants, the judgment
fails to state the relief granted. Stated otherwise, the judgment
fails to state what claims, if any, are dismissed and whether the
dismissal is with prejudice. Rather, the judgment simply states
that certain of the defendants' motions for summary judgment are
granted.

Given the instant appeal, as lodged, lacks a valid final judgment,
we lack appellate jurisdiction to address the merits of the
appeal. Because the instant appeal was not filed within thirty
days from the date of the trial court's judgment, the appeals
court declines to exercise its discretion to convert the
plaintiffs' appeal to a writ application.

The appeals court thus dismisses the plaintiffs' appeal without
prejudice and remand for further proceeding. Once a final
appealable judgment is rendered, the parties may file a new appeal
with this court.

The appeal filed by the plaintiffs in this matter is dismissed
without prejudice and this matter is remanded.

A full-text copy of the appeals court's August 3, 2017 Decree is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yaredt8qfrom Leagle.com.

Andrew A. Lemmon, LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC, 15058 River Road,
Hahnville, LA 70057, David T. Wissbroecker, ROBBINS, GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101,
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant.

Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Mark A. Cunningham, Alexander N.
Breckinridge, V, JONES WALKER LLP, 201 St. Charles Avenue, 49th
Floor, New Orleans, LA 70170, Steven W. Usdin, Joshua O. Cox,
BARRASSO USDIN KUPPERMAN FREEMAN & SARVER, LLC, 909 Poydras
Street, 24th Floor, New Orleans, LA 70112, Pamela S. Palmer, Pro
Hac Vice, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, 350 South Grand Avenue, Two
California Plaza, Suite 3400, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3427, Counsel
for Defendants/Appellees.


SWISSPORT USA: Court Stays "Mario" Pending Morris Decision
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of California,
issued an Order granting parties' stipulation as modified in the
case captioned FESAITU MARIO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SWISSPORT USA, INC., and
SWISSPORT CARGO SERVICES, L.P., Defendants, No. C 17-02099 WHA
(N.D. Cal.).

The Supreme Court granted a writ certiorari in Morris v. Ernst &
Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975(9th Cir. 2016) 137 S.Ct. 809 (U.S. Jan
13, 2017), the controlling decision in the Northern District of
California's circuit regarding whether class action waivers
violate the National Labor Relations Act. The Supreme Court has
set Morris for oral argument on October 2, 2017.

Pending a decision in Morris, the parties have stipulated to a
stay of all discovery deadlines related to class and collective
claims. The parties have further stipulated that defendants can
move to compel arbitration until a reasonable time after the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Morris and that plaintiff will not
assert a waiver argument or defense for defendants' delay in
bringing a motion to compel.

The parties' stipulation is granted as modified.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ycc2p39xfrom Leagle.com.

Fesaitu Mario, Plaintiff, represented by Kiley Lynn Grombacher --
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com -- Bradley Grombacher, LLP.
Fesaitu Mario, Plaintiff, represented by Marcus Joseph Bradley --
mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com -- Bradley Grombacher, LLP & Taylor
Lindsey Emerson -- TEmerson@bradleygrombacher.com -- Bradley
Grombacher, LLP.

Swissport USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kenneth Dawson
Sulzer -- ksulzer@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith &
Prophete, LLP & Sarah Kepner Hamilton -- shamilton@constangy.com -
- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP.

Swissport Cargo Services L.P., Defendant, represented by Kenneth
Dawson Sulzer, Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP & Sarah
Kepner Hamilton, Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP.


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Faces "Bayne" Suit Over Defective Drywall
---------------------------------------------------------
RANDY BAYNE, et al., individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TAISHAN GYPSUM CO., LTD. f/k/a
SHANDONG TAIHE DONGXIN CO., LTD; TAI'AN TAISHAN PLASTERBOARD CO.,
LTD; BEIJING NEW BUILDING MATERIALS PUBLIC LIMITED CO.; BEIJING
NEW BUILDING MATERIALS (GROUP) CO., LTD; CHINA NATIONAL BUILDING
MATERIAL CO., LTD., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01286-KOB (N.D.
Ala., August 1, 2017), was brought by owners and residents of real
property containing Chinese manufactured drywall that was
defective in that sulfur compounds exit the drywall.  The sulfur
cause rapid sulfidation and damage to personal property, are
smelly and irritating to humans and pets, says the complaint.

The Defendants also allegedly consistently misrepresented that the
drywall they were exporting complied with ISO and ASTM quality
standards.

Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. produces and sells gypsum boards and
frames.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Reeves Jr., Esq.
     REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC
     160 Main Street
     Biloxi, MS 39530
     Phone: (228) 374-5151
     Fax: (228) 374-6630
     Email: jrr@rmlawscall.com

        - and -

     Russ M. Herman, Esq.
     HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
     820 O'Keefe Avenue
     New Orleans, LA 70113
     Phone: (504) 581-4892
     Fax: (504) 561-6024
     Email: rherman@hhklawfirm.com

        - and -

     Arnold Levin, Esq.
     LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
     510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Phone: (215) 592-1500
     Fax: (215) 592-4663
     Email: alevin@lfsblaw.com

        - and -

     Dawn M. Barrios, Esq.
     BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, LLP
     701 Poydras Street, Suite 3650
     New Orleans, LA 70139
     Phone: (504) 524-3300
     Fax: (504) 524-3313
     Email: Barrios@bkc-law.com

        - and -

     Robert Becnel, Esq.
     BEENEL LAW FIRM, LLC
     425 W. Airline Highway, Suite B
     Laplace, LA 70068
     Phone: (985) 536-1186
     Fax: (985) 536-6445
     Email: rbeenel@beenellaw.com

        - and -

     Peter Prieto, Esq.
     PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
     25 Flagler Street, 8th Floor
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: (305) 358-2382
     Fax: (305) 358-2382
     Email: pprieto@podhurst.com

        - and -

     Patrick Montoya, Esq.
     COLSON, HICKS, EDISON
     255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
     Cora Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 476-7400
     Fax: (305) 476-7444
     Email: patrick@colson.com

        - and -

     Hugh P. Lambert, Esq.
     THE LAMBERT FIRM
     701 Magazine Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 581-1750
     Fax: (504) 529-2931
     Email: hlambert@thelambertfirm.com

        - and -

     Bruce William Steckler, Esq.
     STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
     12720 Hillcrest Road, Ste 1045
     Dallas, TX 75230
     Phone: (972) 387-4040
     Fax: (972) 387-4041
     Email: bruce@stecklerlaaw.com

        - and -

     Ben W. Gordon Jr. Esq.
     LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, ECHSNER & PROCTOR, PA
     316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     Phone: (850) 435-7000
     Fax: (850) 435-7020
     Email: bgordon@levinlaw.com

        - and -

     Gerald E. Meunier, Esq.
     GAINSBURGH, BENJAMIN, DAVID, MEUNIER & WARSHAUER, LLC
     2800 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street
     New Orleans, LA 70163-2800
     Phone: (504) 528-9973
     Fax: (504) 528-9973
     Email: gmeunier@gainsben.com

        - and -

     Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
     WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
     900 W. Morgan Street
     Raleigh, NC 27603
     Phone: (919) 600-5000
     Fax: (919) 600-5002
     Email: dan@bmllp.com

        - and -

     Richard J. Serpe, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF RICHRARD J. SERPE
     Crown Center, Ste. 310
     580 East Main Street
     Norfolk, VA 23510-2322
     Phone: (757) 233-0009
     Fax: (757) 233-0455
     Email: rserpe@serpefirm.com

        - and -

    Victor M. Diaz Jr. Esq.
    V.M DIAZ AND PARTNERS, LLC
    119 Washington Ave, Suite 402
    Miami Beach, FL 33139
    Phone: (305) 704-3200
    Fax: (305) 538-4928
    Email: victor@diazpartners.com

        - and -

    Richard S. Lewis, Esq.
    HAUSFELD LLP
    1700 K Street, N.W, Suite 650
    Washington, DC 20006
    Phone: (202) 540-7200
    Fax: (202) 540-7201
    Email: rlewis@hausfeldllp.com

        - and -

    Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
    LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC
    P.O. Box 904
    15058 River Road
    Hahnville, LA 70057
    Phone: (985) 783-6789
    Fax: (985) 783-1333
    Email: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com


        - and -

    Anthony D. Irpino, Esq.
    IRPINO AVIN HAWKINS LAW FIRM
    2216 Magazine Street
    New Orleans, LA 70130
    Phone: (504) 525-1500
    Fax: (504) 525-1501
    Email: airpino@irpinolaw.com


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Faces "Bentz" Suit Over Defective Drywall
---------------------------------------------------------
KELLY BENTZ, et al., individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TAISHAN GYPSUM CO., LTD. f/k/a
SHANDONG TAIHE DONGXIN CO., LTD; TAI'AN TAISHAN PLASTERBOARD CO.,
LTD; BEIJING NEW BUILDING MATERIALS PUBLIC LIMITED CO.; BEIJING
NEW BUILDING MATERIALS (GROUP) CO., LTD; CHINA NATIONAL BUILDING
MATERIAL CO., LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02892-AT (N.D.
Ga., August 1, 2017), was brought by owners and residents of real
property containing Chinese manufactured drywall that was
defective in that sulfur compounds exit the drywall.  The sulfur
cause rapid sulfidation and damage to personal property, are
smelly and irritating to humans and pets, says the complaint.

The Defendants also allegedly consistently misrepresented that the
drywall they were exporting complied with ISO and ASTM quality
standards.

Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. produces and sells gypsum boards and
frames.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrea S. Hirsch, Esq.
      HERMAN GEREL, LLP
      60 Lenox Pointe
      Atlanta, GA 30324
      Phone: (404) 880-9500
      Fax: (770) 450-9236
      Email: ahirsch@hermangerel.com

        - and -

      James R. Reeves Jr., Esq.
      REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC
      160 Main Street
      Biloxi, MS 39530
      Phone: (228) 374-5151
      Fax: (228) 374-6630
      Email: jrr@rmlawscall.com

        - and -

      Russ M. Herman, Esq.
      HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
      820 O'Keefe Avenue
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Phone: (504) 581-4892
      Fax: (504) 561-6024
      Email: rherman@hhklawfirm.com

        - and -

      Arnold Levin, Esq.
      LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Phone: (215) 592-1500
      Fax: (215) 592-4663
      Email: alevin@lfsblaw.com

        - and -

      Dawn M. Barrios, Esq.
      BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, LLP
      701 Poydras Street, Suite 3650
      New Orleans, LA 70139
      Phone: (504) 524-3300
      Fax: (504) 524-3313
      Email: Barrios@bkc-law.com

        - and -

      Robert Becnel, Esq.
      BEENEL LAW FIRM, LLC
      425 W. Airline Highway, Suite B
      Laplace, LA 70068
      Phone: (985) 536-1186
      Fax: (985) 536-6445
      Email: rbeenel@beenellaw.com

        - and -

      Peter Prieto, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      25 Flagler Street, 8th Floor
      Miami, FL 33130
      Phone: (305) 358-2382
      Fax: (305) 358-2382
      Email: pprieto@podhurst.com

        - and -

      Patrick Montoya, Esq.
      COLSON, HICKS, EDISON
      255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
      Cora Gables, FL 33134
      Phone: (305) 476-7400
      Fax: (305) 476-7444
      Email: patrick@colson.com

        - and -

      Hugh P. Lambert, Esq.
      THE LAMBERT FIRM
      701 Magazine Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Phone: (504) 581-1750
      Fax: (504) 529-2931
      Email: hlambert@thelambertfirm.com

        - and -

      Bruce William Steckler, Esq.
      STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
      12720 Hillcrest Road, Ste 1045
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Phone: (972) 387-4040
      Fax: (972) 387-4041
      Email: bruce@stecklerlaaw.com

        - and -

      Ben W. Gordon Jr. Esq.
      LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, ECHSNER & PROCTOR, PA
      316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
      Pensacola, FL 32502
      Phone: (850) 435-7000
      Fax: (850) 435-7020
      Email: bgordon@levinlaw.com

        - and -

      Gerald E. Meunier, Esq.
      GAINSBURGH, BENJAMIN, DAVID, MEUNIER & WARSHAUER, LLC
      2800 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street
      New Orleans, LA 70163-2800
      Phone: (504) 528-9973
      Fax: (504) 528-9973
      Email: gmeunier@gainsben.com

        - and -

      Christopher Seeger
      SEEGER WEISS, LLP
      77 Water Street
      New York, NY 10005
      Phone: (212) 584-0700
      Fax: (212) 584-0799

        - and -

      Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
      WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
      900 W. Morgan Street
      Raleigh, NC 27603
      Phone: (919) 600-5000
      Fax: (919) 600-5002
      Email: dan@bmllp.com

        - and -

      Richard J. Serpe, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RICHRARD J. SERPE
      Crown Center, Ste. 310
      580 East Main Street
      Norfolk, VA 23510-2322
      Phone: (757) 233-0009
      Fax: (757) 233-0455
      Email: rserpe@serpefirm.com

        - and -

     Victor M. Diaz Jr. Esq.
     V.M DIAZ AND PARTNERS, LLC
     119 Washington Ave, Suite 402
     Miami Beach, FL 33139
     Phone: (305) 704-3200
     Fax: (305) 538-4928
     Email: victor@diazpartners.com

        - and -

     Richard S. Lewis, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street, N.W, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 540-7200
     Fax: (202) 540-7201
     Email: rlewis@hausfeldllp.com

        - and -

     Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
     LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC
     P.O. Box 904
     15058 River Road
     Hahnville, LA 70057
     Phone: (985) 783-6789
     Fax: (985) 783-1333
     Email: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Anthony D. Irpino, Esq.
     IRPINO AVIN HAWKINS LAW FIRM
     2216 Magazine Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 525-1500
     Fax: (504) 525-1501
     Email: airpino@irpinolaw.com



TAISHAN GYPSUM: Faces "Bright" Lawsuit Over "Defective" Drywall
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID AND MELODY BRIGHT, et al., individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TAISHAN GYPSUM CO.,
LTD. F/K/A SHANDONG TAIHE DONGXIN CO., LTD.; TAI'AN TAISHAN
PLASTERBOARD CO., LTD.; BEIJING NEW BUILDING MATERIALS PUBLIC
LIMITED CO.; BEIJING NEW BUILDING MATERIALS (GROUP) CO., LTD.;
CHINA NATIONAL BUILDING MATERIAL CO., LTD., Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00035-FL (E.D.N.C., August 1, 2017), was brought by owners
and residents of real property containing Chinese manufactured
drywall that was defective in that sulfur compounds exit the
drywall.  The sulfur causes rapid sulfidation and damage to
personal property, are smelly and irritating to humans and pets,
says the complaint.

The Defendants also allegedly consistently misrepresented that the
drywall they were exporting complied with ISO and ASTM quality
standards.

Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. produces and sells gypsum boards and
frames.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Michael Malone, Esq.
     HENDREN, REDWINE & MALONE, PLLC
     4600 Marriott Drive, Suite 150
     Raleigh, NC  27612
     Phone: (919) 420-7867
     Fax: (919) 420-0475
     Email: bcolvin@williamgcolvinlaw.com

        - and -

     Andrea S. Hirsch, Esq.
     HERMAN GEREL, LLP
     60 Lenox Pointe
     Atlanta, GA 30324
     Phone: (404) 880-9500
     Fax: (770) 450-9236
     Email: ahirsch@hermangerel.com

        - and -

     James R. Reeves Jr., Esq.
     REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC
     160 Main Street
     Biloxi, MS 39530
     Phone: (228) 374-5151
     Fax: (228) 374-6630
     Email: jrr@rmlawscall.com

        - and -

     Russ M. Herman, Esq.
     HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
     820 O'Keefe Avenue
     New Orleans, LA 70113
     Phone: (504) 581-4892
     Fax: (504) 561-6024
     Email: rherman@hhklawfirm.com

        - and -

     Arnold Levin, Esq.
     LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
     510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Phone: (215) 592-1500
     Fax: (215) 592-4663
     Email: alevin@lfsblaw.com

        - and -

     Dawn M. Barrios, Esq.
     BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, LLP
     701 Poydras Street, Suite 3650
     New Orleans, LA 70139
     Phone: (504) 524-3300
     Fax: (504) 524-3313
     Email: Barrios@bkc-law.com

        - and -

     Robert Becnel, Esq.
     BEENEL LAW FIRM, LLC
     425 W. Airline Highway, Suite B
     Laplace, LA 70068
     Phone: (985) 536-1186
     Fax: (985) 536-6445
     Email: rbeenel@beenellaw.com

        - and -

     Peter Prieto, Esq.
     PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
     25 Flagler Street, 8th Floor
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: (305) 358-2382
     Fax: (305) 358-2382
     Email: pprieto@podhurst.com

        - and -

     Patrick Montoya, Esq.
     COLSON, HICKS, EDISON
     255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
     Cora Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 476-7400
     Fax: (305) 476-7444
     Email: patrick@colson.com

        - and -

     Hugh P. Lambert, Esq.
     THE LAMBERT FIRM
     701 Magazine Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 581-1750
     Fax: (504) 529-2931
     Email: hlambert@thelambertfirm.com

        - and -

     Bruce William Steckler, Esq.
     STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
     12720 Hillcrest Road, Ste 1045
     Dallas, TX 75230
     Phone: (972) 387-4040
     Fax: (972) 387-4041
     Email: bruce@stecklerlaaw.com

        - and -

     Ben W. Gordon Jr. Esq.
     LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, ECHSNER & PROCTOR, PA
     316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     Phone: (850) 435-7000
     Fax: (850) 435-7020
     Email: bgordon@levinlaw.com

        - and -

     Gerald E. Meunier, Esq.
     GAINSBURGH, BENJAMIN, DAVID, MEUNIER & WARSHAUER, LLC
     2800 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street
     New Orleans, LA 70163-2800
     Phone: (504) 528-9973
     Fax: (504) 528-9973
     Email: gmeunier@gainsben.com

        - and -

     Christopher Seeger
     SEEGER WEISS, LLP
     77 Water Street
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 584-0700
     Fax: (212) 584-0799

        - and -

     Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
     WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
     900 W. Morgan Street
     Raleigh, NC 27603
     Phone: (919) 600-5000
     Fax: (919) 600-5002
     Email: dan@bmllp.com

        - and -

     Richard J. Serpe, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF RICHRARD J. SERPE
     Crown Center, Ste. 310
     580 East Main Street
     Norfolk, VA 23510-2322
     Phone: (757) 233-0009
     Fax: (757) 233-0455
     Email: rserpe@serpefirm.com

        - and -

     Victor M. Diaz Jr. Esq.
     V.M DIAZ AND PARTNERS, LLC
     119 Washington Ave, Suite 402
     Miami Beach, FL 33139
     Phone: (305) 704-3200
     Fax: (305) 538-4928
     Email: victor@diazpartners.com

        - and -

     Richard S. Lewis, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street, N.W, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 540-7200
     Fax: (202) 540-7201
     Email: rlewis@hausfeldllp.com

        - and -

     Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
     LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC
     P.O. Box 904
     15058 River Road
     Hahnville, LA 70057
     Phone: (985) 783-6789
     Fax: (985) 783-1333
     Email: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Anthony D. Irpino, Esq.
     IRPINO AVIN HAWKINS LAW FIRM
     2216 Magazine Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 525-1500
     Fax: (504) 525-1501
     Email: airpino@irpinolaw.com



TAISHAN GYPSUM: Faces "Allen" Suit Over Defective Drywall
---------------------------------------------------------
LELA and MELINDA ALLEN, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TAISHAN GYPSUM CO., LTD.
f/k/a SHANDONG TAIHE DONGXIN CO., LTD; TAI'AN TAISHAN PLASTERBOARD
CO., LTD; BEIJING NEW BUILDING MATERIALS PUBLIC LIMITED CO.;
BEIJING NEW BUILDING MATERIALS (GROUP) CO., LTD; CHINA NATIONAL
BUILDING MATERIAL CO., LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00217-
LG-RHW (S.D. Miss., August 1, 2017), was brought by owners and
residents of real property containing Chinese manufactured drywall
that was defective in that sulfur compounds exit the drywall.  The
sulfur cause rapid sulfidation and damage to personal property,
are smelly and irritating to humans and pets, says the complaint.

The Defendants also allegedly consistently misrepresented that the
drywall they were exporting complied with ISO and ASTM quality
standards.

Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. produces and sells gypsum boards and
frames.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Reeves Jr., Esq.
     REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC
     160 Main Street
     Biloxi, MS 39530
     Phone: (228) 374-5151
     Fax: (228) 374-6630
     Email: jrr@rmlawscall.com

        - and -

     Russ M. Herman, Esq.
     HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
     820 O'Keefe Avenue
     New Orleans, LA 70113
     Phone: (504) 581-4892
     Fax: (504) 561-6024
     Email: rherman@hhklawfirm.com

        - and -

     Arnold Levin, Esq.
     LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
     510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Phone: (215) 592-1500
     Fax: (215) 592-4663
     Email: alevin@lfsblaw.com

        - and -

     Dawn M. Barrios, Esq.
     BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, LLP
     701 Poydras Street, Suite 3650
     New Orleans, LA 70139
     Phone: (504) 524-3300
     Fax: (504) 524-3313
     Email: Barrios@bkc-law.com

        - and -

     Robert Beenel, Esq.
     BEENEL LAW FIRM, LLC
     425 W. Airline Highway, Suite B
     Laplace, LA 70068
     Phone: (985) 536-1186
     Fax: (985) 536-6445
     Email: rbeenel@beenellaw.com

        - and -

     Peter Prieto, Esq.
     PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
     25 Flagler Street, 8th Floor
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: (305) 358-2382
     Fax: (305) 358-2382
     Email: pprieto@podhurst.com

        - and -

     Patrick Montoya, Esq.
     COLSON, HICKS, EDISON
     255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
     Cora Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 476-7400
     Fax: (305) 476-7444
     Email: patrick@colson.com

        - and -

     Hugh P. Lambert, Esq.
     THE LAMBERT FIRM
     701 Magazine Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 581-1750
     Fax: (504) 529-2931
     Email: hlambert@thelambertfirm.com

        - and -

     Bruce William Steckler, Esq.
     STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
     12720 Hillcrest Road, Ste. 1045
     Dallas, TX 75230
     Phone: (972) 387-4040
     Fax: (972) 387-4041
     Email: bruce@stecklerlaaw.com

        - and -

     Ben W. Gordon Jr. Esq.
     LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, ECHSNER & PROCTOR, PA
     316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     Phone: (850) 435-7000
     Fax: (850) 435-7020
     Email: bgordon@levinlaw.com

        - and -

     Gerald E. Meunier, Esq.
     GAINSBURGH, BENJAMIN, DAVID, MEUNIER & WARSHAUER, LLC
     2800 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street
     New Orleans, LA 70163-2800
     Phone: (504) 528-9973
     Fax: (504) 528-9973
     Email: gmeunier@gainsben.com

        - and -

     Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
     WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
     900 W. Morgan Street
     Raleigh, NC 27603
     Phone: (919) 600-5000
     Fax: (919) 600-5002
     Email: dan@bmllp.com

        - and -

     Richard J. Serpe, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF RICHRARD J. SERPE
     Crown Center, Ste. 310
     580 East Main Street
     Norfolk, VA 23510-2322
     Phone: (757) 233-0009
     Fax: (757) 233-0455
     Email: rserpe@serpefirm.com

        - and -

    Victor M. Diaz Jr. Esq.
    V.M DIAZ AND PARTNERS, LLC
    119 Washington Ave, Suite 402
    Miami Beach, FL 33139
    Phone: (305) 704-3200
    Fax: (305) 538-4928
    Email: victor@diazpartners.com

        - and -

    Richard S. Lewis, Esq.
    HAUSFELD LLP
    1700 K Street, N.W, Suite 650
    Washington, DC 20006
    Phone: (202) 540-7200
    Fax: (202) 540-7201
    Email: rlewis@hausfeldllp.com

        - and -

    Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
    LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC
    P.O. Box 904
    15058 River Road
    Hahnville, LA 70057
    Phone: (985) 783-6789
    Fax: (985) 783-1333
    Email: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com


        - and -

    Anthony D. Irpino, Esq.
    IRPINO AVIN HAWKINS LAW FIRM
    2216 Magazine Street
    New Orleans, LA 70130
    Phone: (504) 525-1500
    Fax: (504) 525-1501
    Email: airpino@irpinolaw.com


TRANSDIGM GROUP: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased TransDigm
Group Incorporated ("TransDigm" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:TDG)
securities between May 10, 2016 and January 19, 2017, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). TransDigm investors have until October 10,
2017 to file a lead plaintiff motion. To obtain information or
participate in the class action, please visit the TransDigm page
on our website at www.glancylaw.com/case/transdigm-group-inc.

On January 20, 2017, Citron Research issued a report accusing
TransDigm of being the "Valeant of the aerospace industry." The
report disclosed that the Company uses multiple shell distributors
that have no pricing power to avoid detection by making government
bids seems competitive. Citron further emphasized that TransDigm's
growth was driven, in large part, by rampant acquisitions and
extreme debt levels.

On this news, TransDigm's share price dropped $24.86 per share, or
9.87%, from $251.76 per share on January 19, 2017 to $226.90 per
share on January 20, 2017, thereby damaging investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that TransDigm
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) TransDigm's growth and profitability were artificially
inflated as a result of its illicit business practices; (2) the
Company used exclusive distributors to make noncompetitive
government bids seems competitive; (3) TransDigm subsidiaries
failed to list TransDigm as a parent entity when submitting
government bids; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about TransDigm's business, operations, and prospects
were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a
result of this fraudulent scheme, Defendants were able to
artificially inflate the Company's financials throughout the Class
Period. [GN]


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Kindel" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems,
Inc.  The case is styled as Craig Kindel, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld Systems,
Inc., The National Collegiate Funding LLC, National Collegiate
Student Loan Trust 2006-1, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust
2006-2 and National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04717 (E.D. N.Y., August 11, 2017).

Transworld Systems provides accounts receivable, debt recovery,
and past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies,
and dental companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


TSUEN MAY: Faces "Morales" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN C. MORALES, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. TSUEN MAY TRADING, INC., and LAP FAI CHAN, a/k/a
MICHAEL CHAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22893-JLK
(S.D. Fla., July 31, 2017), alleges that Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff at the rate of time and one half his regular rate for
every hour in excess of 40 worked in a week period, as established
by the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Plaintiff JUAN C. MORALES seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated during all their time
of employment, as allowable by law.

Corporate Defendant MAY TRADING is an importer, wholesales and
distributor of incenses, scents, oils, Oriental decorations and
all kind of novelties.  Plaintiff had duties as a warehouse
employee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Fights FACTA Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Lewis, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a motion
to dismiss has been filed by the University of Southern California
against a class action lawsuit accusing the college of violating
the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA).

According to the memorandum filed June 22 in the U.S. District
Court Central District of California, the plaintiffs Elizabeth
Alvarado and Jose Ramos failed to produce facts supporting the
plausibility of their claim. USC further argues the complaint was
filed without alleging "actual harm" and without arguing that the
violation was committed willfully by the university under FACTA.

Alvarado and Ramos filed their complaints on April 18 against the
University of Southern California and 10 other unidentified
defendants alleging more than the last five digits of their credit
card numbers had been printed on receipts they received from the
university.

They claim to have suffered damages from possible having their
card information compromised and are seeking an injunction against
the university for preventing further incidents, statutory
damages, punitive damages, courts costs, and any other relief the
court decides to grant.

The university's attorneys, however, assert the plaintiffs are not
alleging they were victims of identity theft or that their
information was actually compromised and stolen - nor are they
alleging the university had "knowingly or recklessly" made their
information public.

From the defense's stance and interpretation of the FACTA, harm to
a party must have occurred or facts proving intent to cause harm
must be presented in order to sue under the federal law.

The University of Southern California is represented by attorneys
Ekwan E. Rhow and Andrew McTernan of Bird, Marella, Boxer,
Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow PC in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Western Division Case number 2:17-cv-03671-GW-AJW  [GN]


WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Clawbacks
-------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Schencker, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
California man is suing Walgreens Boots Alliance, accusing it of
profiting by charging customers with insurance more for generic
drugs than what they would have paid if they had not presented an
insurance card.

David Grabstald filed the proposed class-action lawsuit in federal
court in Illinois, accusing the Deerfield-based pharmacy giant of
fraudulently overcharging many customers for generic drugs.

Walgreens does this, Grabstald alleges, because of its agreements
with pharmacy benefit managers -- which act as middlemen between
pharmacies and insurance companies.

Customers pay pre-determined copays for medications even if the
medications actually cost less than the copays, according to the
lawsuit. Some of the extra money goes to the pharmacy and some of
it goes to the pharmacy benefit manager, Grabstald alleges.

For example, if a patient's copay on a generic drug is $15 but the
drug only costs the pharmacy $2, the pharmacy might get to keep an
extra $5 of that copay and send the remaining $8 to the pharmacy
benefit manager, he alleges.

Grabstald alleges that he was charged an average of $17.74 when he
used his insurance to buy a prescription drug at Walgreens on
several occasions this year and last year, but that he would have
only been charged $10 for that same drug if he had not used his
insurance. Walgreens did not tell him it would be cheaper to pay
for the drug outright, he alleges.

"You don't expect when you go into your pharmacy that you're going
to pay more by using your insurance card than a cash payer would
just walking in off the street," said Steve Berman, an attorney
for Grabstald and a partner at law firm Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro. "You don't expect that a pharmacist is hiding that from
you."

Walgreens spokesman Phil Caruso said in an email, "The complaint
lacks merit and we will vigorously defend against the
allegations."

The same law firm that filed the suit on behalf of Grabstald filed
a similar lawsuit against Walgreens rival CVS Health earlier.

At least 16 other lawsuits have also been over so-called
clawbacks, according to a Bloomberg investigative story on the
issue published earlier this year.

CVS Health spokesman Mike DeAngelis said in a statement that the
allegations against CVS are without merit and built on a false
premise. He noted that copays are determined by a patient's
prescription coverage plan, not pharmacies, and he said CVS' own
pharmacy benefit manager, CVS Caremark, does not engage in the
practice of copay clawbacks.

"CVS has not overcharged patients for prescription copays, and we
will vigorously defend against these baseless allegations,"
DeAngelis said.

Such clawbacks are not uncommon, according to the National
Community Pharmacists Association. About 83 percent of pharmacists
surveyed by the association earlier this year said they had
witnessed such copay clawbacks at least 10 times in a month,
though two-thirds of those surveyed said not all pharmacy benefit
managers engage in the practice.

According to that survey, pharmacy benefit managers sometimes also
impose "gag clauses" that forbid pharmacists from volunteering to
customers when it might be cheaper to pay for a drug outright than
with insurance.

Attempts to reach the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association,
which represents pharmacy benefit managers, were not immediately
successful. [GN]


WAL-MART STORES: Files Petition for Review in S.C. of Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Petition for Review in Supreme Court of Pa. has been filed in
the case styled as Wal-Mart Stores. Inc., Petitioner v. Brian
Farneth, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Respondent, Defendant, Case No. 60-WM-2017 (Pa., August 11, 2017).

Wal-Mart Stores operates retail stores in various formats
worldwide.  The Company operates discount stores, supermarkets,
supercenters, hypermarkets, warehouse clubs, cash and carry
stores, home improvement stores, specialty electronics stores,
apparel stores, drug stores, convenience stores, and membership
only warehouse clubs; and retail Websites, such as walmart.com and
samsclub.com, as well as mobile commerce applications. It offers
grocery products, including meat, produce, natural and organics,
deli and bakery, dairy, frozen foods, alcoholic and nonalcoholic
beverages, floral and dry grocery.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

   Watterson, Kim M., Esq.
   Reed Smith LLP
   225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 288-3131

The Respondent is represented by:

   Salpietro, Frank Gugliotta, Esq.
   Rothman Gordon, P.C.
   310 Grant St 3rd Fl
   Pittsburgh, PA 15219
   Tel:(412) 338-1185


WELLS FARGO: Multidistrict Litigation Sought in Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
B. Colby Hamilton, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that,
have crisis, will see class actions. That's the fate befalling
Wells Fargo (again) after news broke that it inappropriately
charged some 800,000 auto loan customers with insurance that they
didn't want. The move forced tens of thousands into delinquency,
according to an internal report.

Little surprise, then, that class action suits have started
popping up all over the country, including one more recently filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. One of those suits is looking to make the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York home to the
disparate actions.

The latest suit, brought by Robins Kaplan and led by assistant
managing partner in the New York office Hollis Salzman, is on
behalf of Kaylani Ross and Dee Lenz, two Wisconsin Wells Fargo
customers that took out an auto loan in 2014. They allege that the
bank continued to bill them for forced insurance, despite the pair
having their own and requesting that the duplicative insurance be
dropped. The failure of the bank to do so ultimately resulted in
financial trouble and repossession of their vehicle.

The suit, Ross v. Wells Fargo 17-cv-04498, brings RICO claims on
behalf of the class, as well as federal Sherman Act antitrust and
California Unfair Competition Law claims.

"This is the story of thousands of people out there, who
ultimately saw themselves charged, tried to get it taken care of
unsuccessfully, and, as we allege, Wells Fargo was doing it all
along to earn extra profits," said Robins Kaplan partner Kellie
Lerner, who, along with Salzman, is leading the litigation from
the firm's New York office.

"Wells Fargo's continued promises to do right by their customers
ring hollow when it knew about this particular problem for months
and did not take any action until The New York Times published a
story about it," she added.

The Ross suit is likely to fall under the multidistrict litigation
request filed by Dicello Levitt & Casey name attorney Adam Levitt.
Chicago-based Levitt is currently steering Jacob v. National
General Insurance 17-cv-05806, another class action suit against
Wells Fargo that also names the bank's subsidiary insurance
provider.

In a supporting brief filed Aug. 2 with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, Levitt noted that two other actions--
Hancock v. Wells Fargo 17-cv-04324 filed and Preston v. Wells
Fargo 17-cv-04346, both filed in the Northern District of
California--face the common set of facts, defendants, and are
early enough in the process to consolidate the actions to the
Southern District of New York.

"The Southern District of New York is an appropriate and
convenient forum to handle this litigation given that one of the
Defendants is located just steps from the courthouse, and the
judge in the Jacob Action is well-suited to oversee these actions
as her inaugural multidistrict case," the brief argued.
A panel hearing on the motion to transfer is scheduled in Boston
on Sept. 28. [GN]


WOOD RIVER: Settles Pollution Class Action for $4.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lynsey Whitaker and Doug Jenkins, writing for WBGZ Radio, report
that Alton law firm Simmons Hanly Conroy has announced a
settlement of nearly four and a half million dollars covering more
than 183 properties in the Roxana area. The settlement comes from
pollutants underground from the Wood River Refinery. A lawsuit was
filed back in April of 2012 by shareholders of Simmons Hanly
Conroy, with multiple alleged violations including high
contaminant levels found in some local neighborhoods.

The highest level of contamination was found in the village Public
Works Yard, where it registered some 26,000 times the allowed
limit at certain depths. Residents and property owners in Roxana
who meet the class requirements are automatically eligible to
receive an equal portion of the settlement. If you are not willing
to participate in the settlement, you must opt out. The refinery
experienced 18 spills within 25 years of dangerous toxins. [GN]


X1 BUILDERS: Faces "Ajtun" Suit Alleging Non-payment of OT Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
HUGO AJTUN and JUAN MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, VS. X1 BUILDERS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02438-CM-GEB (D. Kan., August 1,
2017), alleges that Defendant has had a policy and practice of
failing and refusing to compensate its Hourly Employees overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week.

X1 Builders LLC is in the new construction, single-family houses
business. Plaintiff Juan Martinez was employed as an Hourly
Laborer for Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael Hodgson, Esq.
     THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
     6 NW Main St.
     Lee's Summit, MO 64063
     Phone: (913) 890-3529
     Email: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Paul "Pablo" Mose, Esq.
     MOSE LAW LLC
     3111 Strong Avenue
     Kansas City, KS 66106
     Phone: (913) 432-4484
     Fax: (913) 432-4464
     Email: Pablo@moselaw.com


XACTLY CORPORATION: Court Grants Stipulation Dismissing "Berg"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of California,
Oakland Division, issued an Order granting parties' stipulation to
dismiss the case captioned ROBERT BERG, On Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. XACTLY CORPORATION,
CHRISTOPHER W. CABRERA, JOHN P. WARD, JR., DAVID W. PIDWELL, NEAL
DEMPSEY, GERALD S. CASILLI, EARL E. FRY, CAROL MILLS, LAUREN
FLAHERTY, SCOTT McGREGOR, EXCALIBUR PARENT LLC, EXCALIBUR MERGER
SUB, INC., AND VISTA EQUITY PARTNERS FUND VI, L.P., Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-cv-3783-HSG (N.D Cal.).

Plaintiff Robert Berg (Plaintiff Berg), individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, commenced the action against
defendants Xactly, Christopher W. Cabrera, John P. Ward, Jr.,
David W. Pidwell, Neal Dempsey, Gerald S. Casilli, Earl E. Fry,
Carol Mills, Lauren Flaherty, Scott McGregor (Individual
Defendants and with Xactly, the Xactly Defendants), Excalibur
Parent LLC, Excalibur Merger Sub, Inc., and Vista Equity Partners
Fund VI, L.P (Defendants).

Plaintiff Berg alleges that the Xactly Defendants violated Section
14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The parties sought and obtained the Court's approval of a
stipulation providing the following:

   * Plaintiff Berg voluntarily dismisses the Berg Action with
prejudice, as to himself, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a), and the Berg Action will be so dismissed. The
dismissal is as to the named Plaintiff only and has no effect upon
the absent members of the putative class.

   * This Court retains jurisdiction over the parties to the
Actions solely for the purposes of further proceedings related to
the adjudication of Plaintiffs' potential Fee Petition.

   * If Plaintiff Berg makes a Fee Petition, the Fee Petition will
be made with the cooperation of, and also on behalf of the
plaintiff in the related De Palo Action and his counsel.

   * If the parties are unable to resolve Plaintiffs' counsel's
claim for attorneys' fees and expenses, Plaintiffs will file a
petition and supporting papers seeking such relief, with the
hearing to be noticed in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yal8rk72from Leagle.com.

Robert Berg, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Long - brl@rl-
legal.com - Rigrodsky & Long, P.A..

Robert Berg, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas, Levi &
Korsinsky LLP. 1 California Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, CA,
94111

Xactly Corporation, Defendant, represented by Catherine Eugenia
Moreno, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati., 650 Page Mill Rd, Palo
Alto, CA 94304

Christopher W. Cabrera, Defendant, represented by Catherine
Eugenia Moreno, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

John P. Ward, Jr., Defendant, represented by Catherine Eugenia
Moreno, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

David W. Pidwell, Defendant, represented by Catherine Eugenia
Moreno, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Neal Dempsey, Defendant, represented by Catherine Eugenia Moreno,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Gerald S. Casilli, Defendant, represented by Catherine Eugenia
Moreno, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Earl E. Fry, Defendant, represented by Catherine Eugenia Moreno,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Carol Mills, Defendant, represented by Catherine Eugenia Moreno,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Lauren Flaherty, Defendant, represented by Catherine Eugenia
Moreno, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Scott McGregor, Defendant, represented by Catherine Eugenia
Moreno, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

* Trump Seeks 18 Month Delay on Retirement Savings Rules
--------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that the Trump administration is moving
to further delay part of an Obama-era rule to require brokers who
offer retirement advice to put their customers' interests ahead of
their own.

The U.S. Department of Labor said in a court filing that it has
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a proposal to
postpone parts of the so-called fiduciary rule for an additional
18 months. If approved, Wall Street firms would have until July
2019 to make adjustments to the most contentious parts of a rule
that they say could open them up to a wave of lawsuits.

The Labor Department measure, the first major overhaul of
retirement savings rules since the 1970s, was released last year
over strong objections from the financial industry and Republican
lawmakers. President Barack Obama's administration said at the
time that requiring brokers to put customers first would help
eliminate biased advice that costs retirement savers billions of
dollars annually in high fees and commissions.

Financial firms and industry groups have argued that the new rules
would prompt brokerages to drop clients with small amounts of
savings and limit customers' investment options. The U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and other groups have sued to overturn the fiduciary
standard, which they've termed "deliberately unworkable." A delay
could help financial firms by giving regulators time to make
tweaks to the rule that the industry would like to see.

                    Substantial Rewrite

"While this delay was widely expected, it is a positive for the
industry nonetheless," said Issac Boltansky, an analyst at Compass
Point Research & Trading. "This delay sets the stage for a
substantial rewrite."

The industry fought especially hard to tweak what's known as the
best interest contract exemption, which allows clients to join
together in class-action lawsuits against financial firms.

President Donald Trump set his sights on the fiduciary rule early
in his presidency by signing an executive order in February to
delay its implementation. While Wall Street firms had hoped that
action would lead to the rule being scrapped, Labor Secretary
Alexander Acosta disappointed them earlier this year when he said
the rule would be implemented. As a result, the bulk of the
provisions took effect in June. Others were delayed until January
2018 and now could be further delayed to July 2019.

"The regulation is already harming retirement savers," James
Szostek, a vice president at the American Council of Life
Insurers, said in a statement. "The department needs to act as
quickly as it can to reverse course to correct this regulation."

The delay plan was disclosed in documents submitted by the Labor
Department as part of a lawsuit filed in Minnesota. Three
provisions of the fiduciary rule, including the part permitting
class-action suits, are currently set to take effect in January.

"Given the importance and implementation requirements, we
recognize the regulated community will need time to make the
changes necessary to be compliant with the remaining
requirements," Laura Edling, a spokeswoman for Vanguard Group,
said in a statement. She said Labor should delay the rule to allow
a realistic timeframe for financial institutions to comply with
the outstanding provisions. [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  * * *