CAR_Public/170822.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, August 22, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 165



                            Headlines

ABBA BAIL: Must Pay $2.3K Sanction in " Van Hulten" Labor Suit
ACT FAST: Court Conditionally Certifies Delivery Drivers' Class
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Faces "Gross" Suit in M. Dist. of Florida
ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Has Until Sept. 15 to File Motion to Dismiss
ALLY FINANCIAL: Loses Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Johnson"

ALMAR SALES: Court Approves Settlement in "Medina"
AMBRY GENETICS: Hamil Files Class Action in Del. Chancery Ct.
APPLE INC: California Court Narrows Claims in "Kalcheim"
APPLE INC: "Ward" Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Consumer
AQUINAS LLC: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Gennings" Suit Says

ATLANTIC CREDIT: Faces "Crocombe" Suit in E.D. of New York
AUDI: Former 'Clean Diesel' Owners/Lessees File Lawsuit
BARCLAYS BANK: Court Dismisses "Doherty" TCPA Suit w/o Prejudice
BRAD L. COULTER: Bid to Certify Class Denied in "Kaminksi" Suit
BURG SIMPSON: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Casey" Suit

CAIN INDUSTRIES: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Dixie Suit Claims
CALIFORNIA: Water Resources Dept. Sued Over Spillway Emergency
CAMDEN OPERATIONS: Faces "Edwards" Suit in W.D. of Arkansas
CENTURYLINK: "Craig" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. La.
CHC GROUP: Kirby McInerney Proposes Settlement of Class Suit

CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Aug. 25 Continued Deposition in "Robinson"
CIRCLE K STORES: Faces "Kramer" Suit over Sweetened Beverage Tax
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Antitrust Suits
COUSIN VINY'S: "Brandenburg" Suit Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
CWGS ENTERPRISES: Court Remands "Rios" Suit to State Court

DOLLAR GENERAL: Motor Oil Class Suit to Continue in Missouri
DOLGEN LLC: "Fielding" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
DR. REDDY'S: U.S Law Firms Explore Claims
EDUCATIONAL FINANCIAL: Oct11 Case Mngt. Conference in "Cabiness"
EMERY FEDERAL: Court Certifies Class in "Palombaro"

ENCANA OIL: 2008 Royalty Suit Settlement Authorizes Arbitration
EVO PAYMENTS: Faces Central Florida Liquidation Suit in NY
FARMERS INSURANCE: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Class
FCA US: Michigan Court Dismisses "Beck" Suit with Prejudice
FLORIDA: Livingston Parish Leaders File New Suit Over Flooding

FORD MOTOR: Faces "Boatner" Suit in Alabama
FRAGRANCENET.COM: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Racial Discrimination
GENERAL MOTORS: Accuses Bankruptcy Trust of Secret $1B Stock Plot
GENUINE TITLE: Court Awards $200K Attorney's Fees in "Fangman"
GLOBALSCAPE: Faces "Giovagnoli" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report

GOURMET FACTORY: Obtains USDA Seal After Class Action Suit
HEFFLER RADETICH: Pa. Statutes of Limitations Apt in "Oetting"
HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Settles TCPA Suit for $1.3MM in Gift Cards
INTERNATIONAL GRILL: Chicas Seeks OT Pay under Labor Code
JACKSON COUNTY, KS: Inmate Sues Over Prison Lax Security

JPAY INC: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of "McCune"
KELLY SERVICES: $6.7MM Settlement in "Hillson" Has Final Approval
KOHL'S CORP: Court Severs Claims in ADA Suit
LA SALLE COUNTY, CA: Responds to Federal SAFE Suit
MACY'S INC: Acosta Sues over ERISA Violations

MICHIGAN: State Reverses 44,000 Jobless Fraud Cases
MONSANTO CO: Faces "Prince" Suit over Herbicide Roundup
MONTGOMERY, AL: Faces "Johnson" Suit in M.D. of Alabama
MUTUAL SECURITIES: Court Partly Reverses Ruling in "Milliner"
MYLAN NV: Can't Duck Securities Fraud Suit, Investors Say

NISSAN NORTH: Court Dismisses "Heuer" Suit without Prejudice
NORTHLAND GROUP: Kalmenson Files Suit in E.D.N.Y.
OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Hall" Suit Over Inaccurate Credit Report
OCWEN LOAN: Illinois Court Dismisses "Taylor"
OKLAHOMA: Class Certification Sought in "Greer" Suit

OUT OF SITE: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in "Mendenhall" OK'd
PIER 1 IMPORTS: MERS Allowed to Amend Securities Fraud Suit
PORSCHE AG: To Pay for Sunglasses in Class-Action Lawsuit
PURDUE PHARMA: Connecticut Towns Consider Suit Over Opioid Crisis
PURDUE PHARMA: Settles Opioid Suit w/ 10 Canadian Provincial Govts

QUALITY RESOURCES: Grants Toney's Motion for Class Certification
RMG SUNSET: "Stern" Suit Moved to Southern District of California
SALSA AND BEER: "Velasquez" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
SC ELECTRIC: Faces Suit Over Negligence in Construction Project
SCICLONE PHARMA: Faces "Daley" Suit Over Proposed Company Sale

SOCIAL FINANCE: Faces Sexual Harassment Class Action Suit
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC: Sued Over Nuclear Negligence
SOUTH CAROLINA: "Mance" Suit Moved to Federal District Court
SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Sued in Oklahoma Over Proposed Simmons Merger
ST. JUDE'S: New Suit Over Defibrillators Filed in Canada

ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Denies Reopening of Deposition in "Furlow"
STEPTOE & JOHNSON: Strikes Back Ex-Associate's Bias Suit
SUSHI YAMA: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wage under FLSA
SYNCHRONY BANK: Court Grants Bid to Stay "Campbell" TCPA Suit
SYSTEM4 LLC: Bid to Vacate Arbitration Award in "Ribeiro" Denied

TEJAS COURIER: "Armstrong" Suit Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
TURKISH BATH: Faces "Pereira" Suit in S.D. of Fla.
THINK CONSTRUCTION: "Cromartie" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT
TROPICANA PRODUCTS: Meza Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
UNITED AIRLINES: "Pumputyte" Suit Seeks Certification of Class

UNITED GROUP: "Fernandez" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
UNITED STATES: Suit to Give Medicare Srs. Rights on Hospital Stay
UNITED STATES: Trump Accused of Saying Teens Have Gang Ties
VCG HOLDING: Adult Dancers Loses Bid to File Surreply
VELOCITY EXPRESS: C. Chambers Dismissed as Defendant in "Flores"

VOESTALPINE AG: Faces Class Suit Over Black Dust in Homes
VOLKSWAGEN: Faces Class Action Over CC Model Cars Design Defect
WALGREENS BOOTS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Generic Meds
WALMART STORES: Faces Class Action Over FCRA Violations
WALT DISNEY: CDD Files Suit Over Mobile Apps for Kids

WELLS FARGO: Peters Sues over Debt Collection Practices
YNIGO LANDSCAPING: Faces "Estevez" Suit in S.D. of Fla.






                            *********


ABBA BAIL: Must Pay $2.3K Sanction in " Van Hulten" Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ADAM VAN HULTEN, Plaintiff, v. ABBA BAIL
BONDS, et al., Defendants, No. 2:16-cv-02459 TLN CKD( E.D. Cal.),
Judge Carolyn K. Delaney of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to
compel and impose monetary sanctions on the Defendants.

Plaintiff Hulten was employed by Defendant Abba Bail as a bail
agent in the Sacramento office.  Co-defendant Un is the owner of
Abba Bail Bonds.  The Plaintiff purports to bring a class action
on behalf of former and current Abba employees under the Federal
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and California labor law.  On July 5,
2017, the district judge extended the deadline for the Plaintiff
to file his class certification motion to Sept. 21, 2017 and the
Court's precertification deadline to Sept. 11, 2017.

After an informal discovery conference on June 28, 2017, Judge
Delaney ordered that no later than seven days from the date of the
order, the Defendants will serve supplemental responses to the
Plaintiff's requests for production and interrogatories.  Failure
to timely respond will result in sanctions.  The Defendants'
counsel, John Valentine states that he has made multiple efforts
before and after the July 5th deadline to obtain the Defendants
compliance with the Court's order but has not been successful in
doing so.  That motion is set for hearing Sept. 7, 2017.

The Plaintiff's attorney Deason declares that the numerous
telephone calls, emails, review of frivolous objections,
appearance at the informal teleconference, preparing the motion,
and other efforts to obtain discovery have cost needless
attorney's fees in the amount of $2,250.  On Aug. 9, 2017, the
Court held a hearing on the Plaintiff's motion to compel and for
sanctions against the Defendants.

Judge Delaney granted the Plaintiff's motion to compel and impose
monetary sanctions on the Defendants.  The Defendants will serve
supplemental responses to the Plaintiff's First Set of Requests
for Production of Documents and Interrogatories, including
production of all responsive documents, no later than Aug. 16,
2017.  Failure to do so may result in issue sanctions.  The
sanctions are imposed against the Defendants and must be paid to
the Plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $2,250 by Aug. 16, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jZMQyl from Leagle.com.

Adam Van Hulten, Plaintiff, represented by David Douglas Deason --
David@yourlaborlawyers.com -- Deason & Archbold.

ABBA Bail Bonds, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Valentine,
Jr. -- jvalentine@valentinelawla.com -- Law Offices of John
Valentine.

Jane Un, Defendant, represented by John Valentine, Jr., Law
Offices of John Valentine.


ACT FAST: Court Conditionally Certifies Delivery Drivers' Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, Beckley Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and
Hoffman-La Roche Notice in the case captioned ERIC YOUNG,
Plaintiff, v. ACT FAST DELIVERY OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:16-cv-09788 (S.D.W. Va.).

The Plaintiff, Eric Young, brought this purported class action
against Defendants Act Fast Delivery of West Virginia, Inc.; Act
Fast Delivery, Inc.; Home Care Pharmacy, LLC, doing business as a
variety of entities including but not limited to Omnicare of Nitro
and/or Omnicare of Nitro, West Virginia; Compass Health Services,
LLC doing business as a variety of entities including but not
limited to Omnicare of Morgantown and/or Omnicare of Morgantown,
West Virginia; Omnicare, Inc.; and other John Doe Defendants.
The Plaintiff seeks to bring a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The FLSA permits employees with claims for unpaid minimum wages or
unpaid overtime compensation to bring actions against the employer
on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees.

The Plaintiff argues that he has made a sufficient factual showing
for the Court to conditionally certify the class and issue notice
to delivery drivers who were employed by the Defendants in West
Virginia. He attached a proposed notice of claim and consent form
to be mailed to potential plaintiffs, explaining the grounds for
the lawsuit and the procedure and consequences of the decision to
opt-in.

The Defendants contend that conditional certification is not
appropriate. Both the Act Fast Defendants and the Omnicare
Defendants contend that the Plaintiff has failed to establish the
light burden of showing that putative class members are similarly
situated, and has failed to establish a common scheme or policy
that violates the FLSA.

The Court finds that a potential class of similarly situated
employees exists. Mr. Young and five other employees of the
Defendants from both the Morgantown and Nitro locations provided
declarations indicating that the Defendants maintained such
control over the delivery drivers that they should have been
classified as employees, rather than independent contractors.
These declarations further indicate that this incorrect
classification allowed the Defendants not to pay the drivers
minimum wage during some weeks, and further not to pay the drivers
overtime pay despite working in excess of forty (40) hours per
week.

The Court finds that the Act Fast and Omnicare Defendants'
arguments are without merit.  The Plaintiff's complaint and the
attached declarations provide sufficient detail to satisfy the
"fairly lenient standard to determine whether the plaintiffs are
similarly situated.

Thus, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification should
be granted.

The Court has carefully reviewed the Plaintiff's proposed notice
and finds it to be fair and appropriate. The Act Fast Defendants
object to the Plaintiff's request for sensitive personal
information, such as social security numbers, dates of birth, and
email addresses. The Court finds that the Plaintiff's proposed
method of sending the notice and consent forms by first class mail
and e-mail is appropriate, and therefore finds that names, last
known addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses should be
provided to the Plaintiff.

The Court orders that the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification and Hoffman-La Roche Notice be granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 10, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/y6urvhxwfrom Leagle.com.

Eric Young, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie Goodwin Fenwick,
GOODWIN & GOODWIN.

Eric Young, Plaintiff, represented by James A. Kirby, III, GOODWIN
& GOODWIN, Lucas R. White, GOODWIN & GOODWIN, Susan C. Wittemeier,
GOODWIN & GOODWIN & Thomas R. Goodwin, GOODWIN & GOODWIN.

Act Fast Delivery of West Virginia, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Eric E. Kinder -- eric@spilmanlaw.com -- SPILMAN,THOMAS &
BATTLE, John B. Hardison -- jhardison@spilmanlaw.com -- SPILMAN
THOMAS & BATTLE & Joseph V. Schaeffer -- jschaefer@spilmanlaw.com
-- SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE.

Act Fast Delivery, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric E. Kinder,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, John B. Hardison, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE
& Joseph V. Schaeffer, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE.

Home Care Pharmacy, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bethany Swaton
Wagner -- Bethany.Wagner@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS, Mariah
Haller McGrogan -- Mariah.McGrogan@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON
LEWIS & Marla N. Presley -- Marla.Presley@jacksonlewis.com --
JACKSON LEWIS.

Compass Health Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bethany
Swaton Wagner, JACKSON LEWIS, Mariah Haller McGrogan, JACKSON
LEWIS & Marla N. Presley, JACKSON LEWIS.

Omnicare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bethany Swaton Wagner,
JACKSON LEWIS, Mariah Haller McGrogan, JACKSON LEWIS & Marla N.
Presley, JACKSON LEWIS.

Home Care Pharmacy, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Bethany
Swaton Wagner, JACKSON LEWIS, Mariah Haller McGrogan, JACKSON
LEWIS & Marla N. Presley, JACKSON LEWIS.

Compass Health Services, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by
Bethany Swaton Wagner, JACKSON LEWIS, Mariah Haller McGrogan,
JACKSON LEWIS & Marla N. Presley, JACKSON LEWIS.

Omnicare, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Bethany Swaton
Wagner, JACKSON LEWIS, Mariah Haller McGrogan, JACKSON LEWIS &
Marla N. Presley, JACKSON LEWIS.

Act Fast Delivery of West Virginia, Inc., Cross Defendant,
represented by Eric E. Kinder, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, John B.
Hardison, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE & Joseph V. Schaeffer, SPILMAN
THOMAS & BATTLE.

Act Fast Delivery, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eric E.
Kinder, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, John B. Hardison, SPILMAN THOMAS
& BATTLE & Joseph V. Schaeffer, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE.


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Faces "Gross" Suit in M. Dist. of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Disposal
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas Gross, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Advanced Disposal Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-
01920-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla., August 14, 2017).

Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. together with its consolidated
subsidiaries, as a consolidated entity, is a nonhazardous solid
waste services company providing collection, transfer, recycling
and disposal services to customers in the South, Midwest and
Eastern regions of the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, PA, Suite 400
   600 N Pine Island Rd
   Plantation, FL 33324
   Tel: (954) 318-0268
   Fax: (954) 333-3515
   Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com

      - and -

   C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, PA
   20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
   Orlando, FL 32801-4624
   Tel: (407) 420-1414
   Fax: (407) 245-3401
   Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

      - and -

   Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, Tampa P.A.
   7th Floor
   One Tampa City Center
   201 N Franklin Street
   Tampa, FL 33602-5157
   Tel: (813) 223-5505
   Fax: (813) 257-0572
   Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Has Until Sept. 15 to File Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ASIA MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLEN
COUNTY COUNCIL, ALLEN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, and ALLEN
COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00402-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Theresa L. Springmann
entered an order:

   1. denying with leave to refile, Plaintiffs' first
      amended motion for class certification; and

   2. granting Defendants until September 15, 2017, to file their
      motion to dismiss.

The Court said, "Upon review of the parties' briefing, the Court
notes that the Defendants' Objection is entirely premised on the
basis of the Named Plaintiffs' lack of Article III standing. (See
Defs' Obj., ECF No. 57.) Moreover, the Defendants state that they
intend to file a Motion to Dismiss on the same point."

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


ALLY FINANCIAL: Loses Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Johnson"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum denying Defendant's Motion to
Strike Class Allegations in the case captioned JAYLA JOHNSON,
Plaintiff v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC., Defendant, Civil Action No.
1:16-CV-1100 (M.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff Jayla Johnson commenced this action against defendant
Ally Financial Inc. under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
47 U.S.C. Section 227. Before the court is Ally Financial's motion
to strike the class allegations in Johnson's amended complaint.

Ally Financial is a debt collection company.  Johnson contends
that Ally Financial called her cell phone number at least 34 times
to collect a consumer debt she never incurred.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the court may strike
from a pleading any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.

Johnson argues that Ally Financial's motion to strike is an
improper procedural device and that the court cannot consider
arguments concerning class qualifications until Johnson submits a
motion for class certification.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit counsels
against striking class allegations if discovery may reveal a
certifiable class.

Ally Financial contends that the court should strike Johnson's
allegations regarding the proposed autodialer subclass because the
class is defined through the lens of consent.

The District Court concludes that Ally Financial has not
demonstrated Johnson's autodialer subclass is facially
uncertifiable. The subclass is properly defined with reference to
objective criteria.  The subclass specifically references Ally
Financial's business records which may (with discovery) reveal an
ascertainable subclass. The records constitute factual criteria
outside of the legal requirements of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The District Court also finds that there is a reliable and
administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether
putative class members fall within the class definition. Ally
Financial's business records may very well obviate the need for a
series of "mini-trials" or extensive, individualized findings of
fact.

Ally Financial asserts that the wrong number subclass is also
prima facie uncertifiable because it is facially overbroad and
lacks commonality.

Ally Financial's arguments fail to consider the primary question
underlying the commonality inquiry, to wit: whether members of
Johnson's putative subclass have suffered the same injury. The
District Court concludes that discovery is necessary to determine
whether Johnson's proposed subclass satisfies Rule 23's
commonality threshold. Johnson alleges a subclass whose members
share a common, essential injury, namely receiving telephone calls
from Ally Financial yet not the person Ally Financial intended to
call.

The District Court cannot, however, conclude that this subclass is
facially uncertifiable at this juncture.  The court will
accordingly deny Ally Financial's motion to strike Johnson's wrong
number class allegations.

The District Court will deny Ally Financial's motion to strike
Johnson's class allegations.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 10, 2017
Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/y96pfkpbfrom
Leagle.com.

Jayla Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur Stock --
astock@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice.

Jayla Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Shanon J. Carson --
scarson@bm.net Berger & Montague, P.C., Jarrett L. Ellzey, Hughes
Ellzey, LLP, 2700 POST OAK BLVD.Suite 1120, Houston, TX 77056,
pro hac vice, Lane L. Vines -- lvines@bm.net Berger & Montague,
PC, pro hac vice & W. Craft Hughes, Hughes Ellzey, LLP, 2700 POST
OAK BLVD, Suite 1120, Houston, TX 77056

Ally Financial Inc., Defendant, represented by Divya S. Gupta --
gupta.divya@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, pro hac vice, Eric
J. Troutman -- troutman.eric@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
pro hac vice, Scott D. Goldsmith -- goldsmith.scott@dorsey.com --
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, pro hac vice, John F. Yaninek --
jyaninek@tthlaw.com -- Thomas Thomas & Hafer LLP & Matthew
Clayberger -- mclayberger@tthlaw.com -- Thomas, Thomas & Hafer,
LLP.


ALMAR SALES: Court Approves Settlement in "Medina"
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order approving parties' joint
application to approve their settlement in the case captioned
MANUELA MEDINA, Plaintiff, v. ALMAR SALES CO., INC., et al.,
Defendants, No. 16 Civ. 4107 (HBP) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff formerly worked for defendants and seeks, by this
action, to recover allegedly unpaid overtime premium pay. The
action is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Plaintiff alleges that she was employed to clean defendants'
office space. Plaintiff claims that she worked nine and one-half
hours per day, five days a week for a weekly salary of $400.00 and
was not paid any overtime premium pay. Accordingly, she initially
claimed that she is owed $95,340.75 in unpaid overtime premium
pay, liquidated damages, statutory damages and attorneys' fees.

In Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F.Supp.2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y.
2012), the Honorable Jesse M. Furman, United States District
Judge, identified five factors that are relevant to an assessment
of the fairness of an FLSA settlement:

First, after deduction of attorneys' fees and costs, the net
settlement represents approximately 54% of plaintiff's total
damages. Given the risks of litigation, as discussed in more
detail below, the settlement amount is reasonable.

Second, the settlement will entirely avoid the burden, expense and
aggravation of litigation.

Third, the settlement will enable plaintiff to avoid the risks of
litigation.

Fourth, because Magistrate Henry Pittman presided over the
settlement conference that preceded the settlement, he knows that
the settlement is the product of arm's-length bargaining between
experienced counsel.

Fifth, there are no factors here that suggest the existence of
fraud. The settlement was reached after a mediation before the
Court, further negating the possibility of fraud or collusion.

Finally, the settlement agreement provides that, after deduction
of out-of-pocket costs, approximately 34% of the total settlement
amount will be paid to plaintiff's counsel as a contingency fee.

Accordingly, Magistrate Pittman approves the settlement in this
matter, without the re-employment provision.

A full-text copy of the Magistrate's August 10, 2017 Opinion and
Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yd7f2je9from Leagle.com.

Manuela Medina, Plaintiff, represented by William Cafaro, Sr., Law
Offices of William Cafaro, 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New
York, NY 10018

Manuela Medina, Plaintiff, represented by Amit Kumar, The Law
Offices of William Cafaro.

Almar Sales Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Dweck,
-- Jeffrey@dweckny.com -- The Law Firm of Jeffrey S. Dweck, P.C..
Raymond Ashkenazie, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Dweck,
The Law Firm of Jeffrey S. Dweck, P.C..

Jack Ashkenazie, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Dweck, The
Law Firm of Jeffrey S. Dweck, P.C.


AMBRY GENETICS: Hamil Files Class Action in Del. Chancery Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ambry Genetics
Corporation. The case is styled as George Harrison Hamil,
Plaintiff v. Ambry Genetics Corporation, Bruce Dunlop, Charles
L.M. Dunlop, Kelly Boyd, Konica Minolta Geno., Inc., Konica
Minolta PM., Inc., Konica Minolta, Inc., Mark Pian and Paul
Balalis, Defendants, Case No. 2017-0587-AGB (Del. Ch., August 14,
2017).

Ambry Genetics Corp. provides clinical diagnostics testing
services for genetic diseases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   J Clayton Athey, Esq.
   Tel: (302) 888-6500
   Fax: (302) 658-8111

      - and -

   Elizabeth M McGeever, Esq.
   Tel: (302) 888-6500
   Fax: (302) 658-8111

      - and -

   Samuel L Closic, Esq.
   Prickett Jones & Elliott
   1310 King St Box 1328
   Wilmington, DE 19899
   Tel: (302) 888-6517
   Email: slclosic@prickett.com


APPLE INC: California Court Narrows Claims in "Kalcheim"
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned MITCH KALCHEIM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC; and DOES 1-100, Defendant, Case No. 16-
cv-09324-0DW(RAO) (C.D. Cal), and granted Plaintiff leave to amend
the complaint.

Plaintiff Mitch Kalcheim brings this putative class action lawsuit
against Defendant Apple, Inc.  Plaintiff purchased from Apple a
MacBook Pro and an extended warranty for the device.  The
warranty's coverage period commenced before Plaintiff actually
received the MacBook Pro, and thus Plaintiff alleges that Apple
shorted his warranty coverage.

Apple now moves to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint.

Apple is a technology company that manufactures and sells a range
of electronic devices, including the MacBook, MacBook Pro, iPhone,
iPad, iWatch, and others.

Plaintiff alleges that he purchased both a MacBook Pro and
AppleCare on October 27, 2016) Plaintiff did not receive the
MacBook Pro until November 15, 2016; however, Plaintiff received
an e-mail from Apple stating that his warranty would expire on
November 11, 2019, thus indicating that the warranty period began
no later than November 11, 2016. Thus, under Plaintiff's theory,
his coverage was "shorted" by four days.

Plaintiff asserts the following claims: (1) violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) violation of the
California False Advertising Law (FAL); (4) breach of contract;
(5) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6)
money had and received; and (7) unjust enrichment.

In the Court's view, Apple's conduct, as alleged by Plaintiff,
reduced the value of the warranty that Plaintiff purchased, which
is sufficient to form the basis for standing.  The four days of
coverage that Plaintiff gained at the front-end of the coverage
period came at the expense of four days of coverage at the back-
end of the coverage period.

The Court therefore declines to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint
based on lack of standing.

Apple seeks to dismiss Plaintiff's CLRA, UCL, and FAL claims,
arguing that Plaintiff failed to plead fraud with particularity in
accordance with Rule 9(b). In actions alleging fraud, "the
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with
particularity.

Plaintiff does not disagree with Apple that his claims sound in
fraud, and indeed does not even address Apple's argument that he
has failed to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading
requirements. The Court agrees with Apple that Plaintiff has not
done so.

Thus, the Court dismisses these claims with leave to amend to cure
this deficiency.

Plaintiff does not identify the contract term or even the contract
that Apple allegedly breached; Plaintiff simply states that
Plaintiff and the class members have entered into certain
contracts with Apple.  Plaintiff also does not identify any other
contract (written, oral, or implied) that could form the basis of
this claim.

The Court therefore dismisses this claim. However, because it is
not certain that Plaintiff could not bring any breach of contract
claim whatsoever, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend.

The covenant is limited to assuring compliance with the express
terms of the contract, and cannot be extended to create
obligations not contemplated by the contract. The Court has
determined that Plaintiff did not properly state a breach of
contract claim, and thus Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim for
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The Court therefore dismisses this claim with leave to amend.

Apple moves to dismiss Plaintiff's unjust enrichment and money had
and received claims on grounds that they are duplicative of
Plaintiff's other legal claims. Plaintiff does not respond to this
argument. The failure to substantively oppose arguments in a
motion to dismiss can be "construed as a waiver or abandonment of
those issues [thus] warranting dismissal of [those] claims.

The Court therefore dismisses these claims without leave to amend.

The Court granted in part and denies in part Apple's Motion to
Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court August 10, 2017 Memorandum
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y96pfkpbfrom Leagle.com.

Mitch Kalcheim, Plaintiff, represented by Perry C. Wander --
pcwlaw@msn.com -- Law Offices of Perry C Wander.

Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by David M. Walsh --
WalshD@jacksonlewis.com -- Morrison and Foerster LLP, Claudia
Maria Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster LLP &
Matthew James Cave -- mcave@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster LLP.


APPLE INC: "Ward" Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Consumer
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ZACK WARD and THOMAS BUCHAR, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
APPLE INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:12-cv-05404-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
Zack Ward and Thomas Buchar will move the Court on February 6,
2018, for an order:

   1. certifying a class of consumers:

      "all persons, other than Apple and AT&T and their
      employees, who purchased an iPhone anywhere in the United
      States at any time from October 19, 2008, through April 8,
      2012, and who purchased voice and data service for their
      iPhones from AT&T";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP ("Wolf
      Haldenstein") as Lead Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that Apple violated the antitrust laws by
agreeing and conspiring with AT&T to eliminate competition for
aftermarket voice and data service for the iPhone, Apple's
revolutionary cellular phone first sold to the public on June 29,
2007. At its core, this case agreement that bound all iPhone
consumers to AT&T for voice and data services beyond the agreed-
upon two-year term of their WSAs constitutes an unlawful
monopolization of the iPhone voice and data aftermarket.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jyj95OSa

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239 4599
          E-mail: rickert@whafh.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          Randall S. Newman, Esq.
          Michael Liskow, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212 545 4600
          E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com
                  newman@whafh.com
                  liskow@whafh.com


AQUINAS LLC: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Gennings" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nadine Gennings, on behalf of herself individually and as class
representative of other employees similarly situated v. Aquinas
LLC d/b/a "Senior Helpers", Glen Galka and John Does #1-10, Case
No. 1:17-cv-06032 (S.D.N.Y., August 9, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay home health aides' overtime
wages for work more than 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate an in-home care services company at
353 West 48th Street, 4th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10036. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Coudert Rand, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
      501 Fifth Ave. 15th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 286-1425
      Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
      E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


ATLANTIC CREDIT: Faces "Crocombe" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Credit &
Finance, Inc. The case is styled as Jeroleum Crocombe, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atlantic
Credit & Finance, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04750 (E.D.
N.Y., August 14, 2017).
Atlantic Credit & Finance purchases and manages unsecured and
consumer-distressed assets. It also purchases various consumer-
distressed asset types, including credit card receivables, retail
credit card receivables, automotive deficiencies, healthcare
receivables, telecommunication receivables, and utilities
receivables. In addition, the company offers compensation and
benefits packages, as well as manages consumer accounts. Atlantic
Credit & Finance, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Roanoke, Virginia with branch offices in Roanoke and Richmond,
Virginia; and Phoenix, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AUDI: Former 'Clean Diesel' Owners/Lessees File Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that former
owners and lessees of Audi and Volkswagen "clean diesel" vehicles
have filed a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging they weren't
included in the settlements over illegal emissions in 2-liter and
3-liter diesel vehicles.

Most U.S. consumer litigation has been taken care of in federal
multidistrict litigation with three resulting consumer class-
action settlements.

The first settlement involved 2-liter models and was given final
approval on October 25, 2016. The second settlement involved 3-
liter models and was given final approval on May 17, 2017. The
third settlement resolved all claims for all affected diesel
vehicles against parts supplier Robert Bosch and was given final
approval on May 17, 2017.

According to the new lawsuit, the settlements did not compensate
consumers who sold or leased the illegal vehicles but got rid of
them before September 18, 2015.

The plaintiffs say they might have not experienced any lost resale
values, but they still suffered the same primary harm as those
compensated by the settlements because they never received the
clean emissions performance Volkswagen promised.

Some of those owners and lessees had the illegal diesel vehicles
for as long as six years, but they say they got scammed just as
everyone else.

All three consumer settlements allegedly excluded tens of
thousands of owners who suffered harm when they sold their cars or
terminated the leases.

The consumers allegedly left out of the settlements owned or
leased the following vehicles:

2.0-Liter Diesel Vehicles

2009-2015 Volkswagen Jetta
2009-2014 Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen
2012-2015 Volkswagen Beetle
2012-2015 Volkswagen Beetle Convertible
2010-2015 Audi A3
2010-2015 Volkswagen Golf
2015 Volkswagen Golf SportWagen
2012-2015 Volkswagen Passat
3.0-Liter Diesel Vehicles

2009-2016 Volkswagen Touareg
2014-2016 Audi A6 Quattro
2014-2016 Audi A7 Quattro
2014-2016 Audi A8
2014-2016 Audi A8L
2014-2016 Audi Q5
2009-2016 Audi Q7

Former owners who purchased (not leased) the new vehicles were
allegedly harmed even more because those consumers paid premium
prices to have a brand new vehicle.

The lawsuit says this new vehicle premium is a well-known fact in
the auto industry and that Kelley Blue Book values indicate new
cars typically lose about 20 percent of their value the moment
they're driven off the lot. The plaintiffs say this new vehicle
premium cannot be recouped when the vehicle is sold or traded.

Through the sale and lease of vehicles that did not comply with
emissions standards, Volkswagen allegedly unjustly and
fraudulently made hundreds of millions of dollars from these
consumers.

Once again, the lawsuit includes all persons and entities who
owned or leased any of the affected vehicles and who "no longer
owned, held an active lease for, or otherwise had a legal
interest" in the vehicles on September 18, 2015.

The Audi and Volkswagen emissions lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division -- Nemet et al v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc. et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
and the Paynter Law Firm, PLLC. [GN]


BARCLAYS BANK: Court Dismisses "Doherty" TCPA Suit w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted the parties' Joint Motion
and Stipulation for Dismissal of the case captioned DOHERTY v.
BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE, Case No. 3:16-cv-01131-AJB-NLS(S.D. Cal.)
with prejudice as to the Plaintiff and without prejudice as to the
class.  Each party is to bear its own fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/SHPKDP from Leagle.com.

Michael Doherty, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel G. Shay --
DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com -- Law Offices of Daniel G. Shay.

Michael Doherty, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas J. Campion --
Doug@DJCampion.com -- Law Offices of Douglas J Campion.

Barclay's Bank Delaware, Defendant, represented by Raymond Y. Kim
-- rkim@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, LLP & Travis A. Sabalewski --
tsabalewski@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, pro hac vice.


BRAD L. COULTER: Bid to Certify Class Denied in "Kaminksi" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CHARLES H. KAMINKSI, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. BRAD L. COULTER, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-
12810-GAD-RSW (E.D, Mich.), the Hon. Judge Gershwin A. Drain
entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion to adjourn hearings;

   2. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify class without
      prejudice; and

   3. staying case until the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
      issues a mandate.

The Court said, "Plaintiffs have moved for rehearing in the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals, the mandate will not issue until their
request for rehearing is resolved. While the Court retains
jurisdiction over Defendants Brad L. Coulter, City of Lincoln
Park, Christopher Dardzinski, Mario DeSanto, Lisa Griggs, Thomas
Murphy, Elliot Zelenak, Frank Vaslo, and Mark Kandes, the Court
finds that judicial economy favors staying the instant matter
until the Sixth Circuit has resolved the Plaintiffs' request for
rehearing."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Azt98WUA


BURG SIMPSON: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Casey" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge David R. Herndon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, East St. Louis Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case captioned JESSICA CASEY, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. ROGER DENTON, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00521(S.D. Ill.).

On May 16, 2017, Defendants Michael S. Burg and Burg, Simpson,
Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, P.C. ("Burg Simpson") removed this
action to the U.S. States District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois from the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County,
Illinois.

The original action was filed as a putative class action for one
count of legal malpractice by Plaintiffs Casey, Melody Edwards,
and Debbie Foster against numerous defendants stemming from
actions involving the multidistrict litigation, In re Yasmin and
YAZ (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation, MDL 2100, No. 3:09-md-02100-DRH-CJP.  Among
the Defendants are Lead and/or Liaison counsel (and their
respective law firms) appointed by the Court to help aid in the
efficient running of the MDL and the Plaintiffs' individually
retained attorneys in the underlying action and their individual
law firms.  The Yaz MDL consolidated personal injury lawsuits
relating to various Plaintiffs' use of Bayer Corp.-manufactured
oral birth control, including YAZ, Yasmin, and the generic
equivalent, Gianvi.  According to the MDL Plaintiffs, these
contraceptives caused their varying injuries as a result of
thrombotic events triggered by the components used to make the
drugs.

In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege claims of legal
malpractice under Illinois common law that concern the duties
imposed on Lead and/or Liaison counsel in a federal multi-district
litigation.  Specifically, they bring suit due to the purported
failure of the Lead/Liaison counsel and individually retained
counsel to respond to a Dec. 17, 2015 motion to dismiss ("MTD")
filed by Bayer, which led to the Plaintiffs' and the putative
class' dismissals with prejudice.  According to the Plaintiffs,
Lead/Liaison counsel held duties of trust, confidence, and loyalty
to the putative class members, and that those duties were breached
by failing to respond to the MTD.

Consequently, the putative class is defined as all individuals who
were prescribed, obtained and consumed Bayer-manufactured Yaz
and/or its generic, Bayer-manufactured counterparts from Jan. 1,
1999 up to and including the present and whose cases against Bayer
were dismissed with prejudice in the U.S. District Court by its
order of Jan. 7, 2016 for failure to comply with that Court's
standing Case Management Order No. 79.

Defendants Burg and Burg Simpson removed this action, arguing that
the Court has original jurisdiction because it is a civil action
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States.  The Plaintiffs object to the removal and moved to remand
the action on June 9, 2017, arguing that the Class Action Fairness
Act ("CAFA") governs here and that removal was improper because
the mass action filed by the Plaintiffs fails to meet
jurisdictional requirements of more than 100 Plaintiffs as
required by the CAFA.

Judge Herndon finds that original jurisdiction exists over the
federal question of what fiduciary relationship exists between the
MDL leadership counsel and the Individual Plaintiffs in the MDL
lawsuit.  That federal issue is necessarily raised by the
complaint, actually disputed by the parties, substantial to the
lawsuit, is capable of resolution in federal court without
disrupting the federal-state court balance approved by Congress.
Because federal question jurisdiction is found, supplemental
jurisdiction is also proper over the malpractice claims against
the Plaintiffs' individually retained attorneys due to the
allegations arising from the same case or controversy.  Thus, he
denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/XTcqeP from Leagle.com.

Jessica Casey, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin B. Rogers --
kevin@kevinrogerslaw.com -- Law Office of Kevin Rogers.

Melody Edwards, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin B. Rogers, Law
Office of Kevin Rogers.

Debbie Foster, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin B. Rogers, Law
Office of Kevin Rogers.

Roger C. Denton, Defendant, represented by Michael J. Nester,
Donovan Rose Nester PC.

Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, L.L.P., Defendant, represented by
Michael J. Nester, Donovan Rose Nester PC.

Michael S. Burg, Defendant, represented by Christopher P.
Montville -- montville@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler, Trigg et al.,
Michael L. O'Donnell -- odonnell@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler, Trigg et
al., Thomas J. Palazzolo -- palazzolo@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler,
Trigg O'Donnell LLP & Peter W. Herzog, III -- pherzog@wtotrial.com
-- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP.

Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, P.C., Defendant,
represented by Christopher P. Montville, Wheeler, Trigg et al.,
Michael L. O'Donnell, Wheeler, Trigg et al., Thomas J. Palazzolo,
Wheeler, Trigg O'Donnell LLP & Peter W. Herzog, III, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP.

Michael A. London, Defendant, represented by James R. Mendillo,
Freeark, Harvey et al..

Douglas & London, P.C., Defendant, represented by James R.
Mendillo, Freeark, Harvey et al..

Mark R. Niemeyer, Defendant, represented by Michael J. Nester,
Donovan Rose Nester PC.

Niemeyer, Grebel & Kruse, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael
J. Nester, Donovan Rose Nester PC.

Daniel P. Massey, Defendant, represented by Jeannine S. Gilleran -
- gilleran@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP & Mitchell H.
Frazen -- frazen@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP.

Daniel Massey Law Firm, P.C., Defendant, represented by Jeannine
S. Gilleran, Litchfield Cavo LLP & Mitchell H. Frazen, Litchfield
Cavo LLP.

David M. Peterson, Defendant, represented by James M. Brodzik --
jbrodzik@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Mark D.
Bauman -- mbauman@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Peterson & Associates, P.C., Defendant, represented by James M.
Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw &
Culbertson.

Gregory McEwen, Defendant, represented by A.J. Bronsky --
ajbronsky@bjpc.com -- Brown & James & Todd A. Lubben --
tlubben@bjpc.com -- Brown & James.

McEwen Law Firm, Ltd., Defendant, represented by A.J. Bronsky,
Brown & James & Todd A. Lubben, Brown & James.


CAIN INDUSTRIES: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Dixie Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dixie Plumbing Specialties, Inc., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Cain
Industries, Inc. and John Does 1-5, Case No. 2:17-cv-01095-JPS
(E.D. Wis., August 9, 2017), seeks to put an end to the
Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles without
prior express invitation or permission.

Cain Industries, Inc. is a designer and producer of combustion
exhaust heat transfer products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CALIFORNIA: Water Resources Dept. Sued Over Spillway Emergency
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Greenwood, writing for CBS Sacramento, reports that a class
action lawsuit was filed on August 11 against the Department of
Water Resources by evacuees who were forced to leave their homes
during the Oroville Dam Spillway emergency.

The suit could include close to 200,000 potential plaintiffs.

The lines of traffic stretched for miles, as folks frantically
fled on that Sunday night in February. Oroville Dam's emergency
spillway was on the brink of failure, and officials worried its
waters could wipe away homes in multiple cities downstream, so
they ordered 188,000 people to evacuate the area.

Now, three of those evacuees are suing the state. Attorneys say
the Department of Water Resources has to be held responsible,
claiming for years it failed to adequately maintain the Oroville
Dam, which led not only to the crisis, but now the concern of
residents, who are still worried about a future disaster, as well
as property values.

The class action follows a legal claim filed by JEM Farms in
Oroville, which claims dozens of acres of its walnut trees were
washed away when officials opened floodgates during the dam crisis
with no warning to surrounding residents and businesses. [GN]


CAMDEN OPERATIONS: Faces "Edwards" Suit in W.D. of Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camden Operations,
LLC. The case is styled as Addie Edwards as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Ozie Edwards and on behalf of the
wrongful death beneficiaries of Ozie Edwards and all other
similarly situated Estate of Ozie Edwards, Plaintiff v. Camden
Operations, LLC doing business as: Ouachita Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center, Camden Progressive Eldecare Services, Inc.
doing business as: Ouachita Nursing and Rehabilitation Center,
Camden II Operations, LLC doing business as: Pine Hills Health and
Rehabilitation Center, Progressive Eldercare Services, Inc., Sub-
Ten Holdings, LLC, Advanced Practice Solutions, LLC, Procare
Therapy Services, LLC, Southern Administrative Services, LLC,
Ponthie Holdings, LLC, Professional Nursing Solutions, LLC, Care
Plus Staffing, LLC, Ross Ponthie, John Ponthie, JEJ Investments,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01054-SOH (W.D. Ark., August 14,
2017).

Camden Operations is a privately held company in Camden, AR and is
a single location business. Categorized under Mental Retardation
Hospitals, it was established in 2013 and incorporated in
Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brian D. Reddick, Esq.
   Reddick Moss, PLLC
   1 Information Way, Suite 105
   Little Rock, AR 72202
   Tel: (501) 907-7790
   Fax: (501) 907-7793
   Email: brian@reddickmoss.com


CENTURYLINK: "Craig" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. La.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on June 22, 2017, captioned
Benjamin Craig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Centurylink, Inc., Glen F. Post, III and R. Stewart
Ewing, Jr., Case No. 1:17-cv-04740, was transferred on August 9,
2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana (Monroe). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-01005-RGJ-JPM to the proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

Centurylink, Inc. is an integrated communications company engaged
primarily in providing an array of services to residential and
business customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam M. Apton, Esq.
      Nicholas Ian Porritt, Esq.
      LEVI & KORINSKY
      1101 30th St NW Ste 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      E-mail: AApton@zlk.com
              nporritt@zlk.com


CHC GROUP: Kirby McInerney Proposes Settlement of Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED SHARES OF CHC GROUP LTD. ("CHC")
COMMON STOCK IN THE JANUARY 16, 2014 IPO AND/OR IN THE OPEN MARKET
DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 16, 2014 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JULY
10, 2014.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"District Court") and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, that a hearing will be held at 4:00 p.m. on October 2,
2017 before the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, United States District
Court Judge, in Courtroom 21B, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York,
10007 for the purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed
settlement of the Consolidated Action for the principal amount of
$3,850,000, plus accrued interest, should be approved by the
District Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the
Final Approval Order and Judgment should be entered by the
District Court dismissing the Consolidated Action with prejudice;
(3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable,
and adequate and, therefore, should be approved; and (4) whether
the Fee and Expense Application should be approved.  In connection
with the Fee and Expense Application, Lead Counsel will request
attorneys' fees not to exceed one-third (33.33%) of the Settlement
Fund, plus expenses (exclusive of administration costs) not to
exceed $55,000.

If you purchased CHC common stock in the January 16, 2014 IPO
and/or in the open market during the period from January 16, 2014
through and including July 10, 2014, your rights may be affected
by the settlement of the Consolidated Action.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Settlement of Class Action and
Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion For an Award of Attorneys'
Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice") and a
copy of the Claim Form, you may obtain copies by writing to
Rudman, et al. v. CHC Group, Ltd., et al., c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.,
P.O. Box. 170700, Milwaukee, WI 53217, by emailing the Claims
Administrator at -- info@chcgroupsecuritieslitigation.com, -- by
calling toll free 866-905-8103, visiting the settlement website on
the internet at http://www.chcgroupsecuritieslitigation.com,or
from Lead Counsel's website at www.kmllp.com.  If you are a
Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form, postmarked
or submitted online no later than November 2, 2017, establishing
that you are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion postmarked no later than September
11, 2017, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice
referred to above.  All members of the Settlement Class who have
not timely and validly requested exclusion from the Settlement
Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Consolidated
Action pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of June
16, 2017.  If you properly and timely exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to
share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to any aspect of the proposed Settlement, the
proposed Plan of Allocation or Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be
filed with the Court and delivered to designated representative
Lead Counsel and counsel for the Defendants such that they are
received no later than September 11, 2017, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact
Lead Counsel [GN]


CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Aug. 25 Continued Deposition in "Robinson"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case SHAON ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE,
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-05421-RS (KAW)(N.D. Cal.), Judge
Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Defendant additional 10 hours
in Mr. Robinson's continued deposition noticed for Aug. 25, 2017,
and may seek relief from him should additional time be required to
explore all of Mr. Robinson's claims.

On Aug. 11, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter concerning the
Defendant's request for an extension of time beyond the seven-hour
limit to depose the Named Plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 30.  The Defendant provides that it was unable to
complete the examination of the class action claims during the
first deposition, and did not even begin to examine the Plaintiff
regarding his individual claims.

Mr. Robinson is the putative class representative of a class
action involving eight causes of action for various wage and hour
claims.  Additionally, he has alleged seven individual causes of
action alleging race and disability discrimination and harassment,
failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive
process.  The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class
certification is Aug. 31, 2017.  The Defendant's opposition is due
on Oct. 5, 2017.

The Defendants have stated that they will try to complete the
Plaintiff's deposition in one-seven-hour day, but will not waive
their right to seek an extension of time for good cause following
meet and confer efforts.  The Plaintiffs then offered one
additional day of deposition, so long as the Defendant agreed not
to seek additional time unless it believed that that Plaintiff's
obstructionist misconduct at the second day of deposition
prevented the Defendant from completing the Plaintiff's deposition
within one more day of seven hours.

Judge Westmore finds that it is unreasonable that the Plaintiffs
would seek to condition the further examination of a Named
Plaintiff, particularly in light of the large number of class and
individual claims, on agreeing not to seek relief for additional
time.

Accordingly, the Defendant is permitted the additional 10 hours of
time originally offered by the Plaintiffs, and may seek relief
from him should additional time be required to explore all of Mr.
Robinson's claims.  Additionally, given the looming class
certification briefing schedule, the Plaintiff will sit for seven
hours on the first day and three hours on the second day.

Lastly, Mr. Robinson's continued deposition is noticed for Aug.
25, 2017.  The Defendant claims that the Plaintiff refuses to sit
for his deposition on that date.  The Plaintiffs did not address
Mr. Robinson's availability on the noticed date in their portion
of the joint letter.  The parties are reminded of their obligation
to meet and confer regarding the scheduling of depositions, so the
Court is confident that the parties can identify mutually
agreeable dates, several weeks before the Defendant's opposition
to the motion for class certification is due, without further
court intervention. See generally Northern District Guidelines for
Professional Conduct Section 9.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/f72PV1 from Leagle.com.

Shaon Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Robert Hoffman -
- mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com -- Hoffman Employment Lawyers
LLC.

Shaon Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Leonard Thomas Emma --
lemma@employment-lawyers.com -- Hoffman Employment Lawyers LLC &
Stephen Noel Ilg -- silg@employment-lawyers.com -- Hoffman
Employment Lawyers.

The Chefs' Warehouse, Defendant, represented by Raymond A. Cardozo
-- rcardozo@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Aaron Mitchell
Rutschman -- arutschman@constangy.com -- Julia Yenha Trankiem --
jtrankiem@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Michele Jane Beilke --
mbeilke@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, LLP, Sonya Devorah Goodwin --
sgoodwin@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Zaher Lopez --
zlopez@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Ian Andrew Wright --
iwright@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.


CIRCLE K STORES: Faces "Kramer" Suit over Sweetened Beverage Tax
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE KRAMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CIRCLE K STORES, INC., MAC'S
CONVENIENCE STORES LLC, CIRCLE K, and CIRCLE K MIDWEST, the
Plaintiff, the Defendants, Case No. _____ (Ill. Cir. Ct., Aug. 16,
2017), seeks to recover overcharges of sales tax imposed by
Defendants.

The case is a consumer class action relating to the unlawful
double taxation of sweetened beverages by Defendants. The
Plaintiff brings this action for violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Circle K is an international chain of convenience stores, founded
in 1951 in El Paso, Texas, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel R. Seidman, Esq.
          SEIDMAN MARGULIS & FAIRMAN, LLP
          20 S. Clark St., Ste. 700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 781 1977
          Facsimile: (224) 603 8345
          E-mail:dseidman@seidmanlaw.net


COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the cases captioned ALFRED BANKS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Defendant, MICHAEL THATCHER, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Defendant, CHARLENE HARRIS,
ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, Defendant,
JACQUELYNNE M. CLARK-RUSSELL, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA, Defendant, Case Nos. 16-CV-04455-YGR, 16-CV-4781-YGR, 16-
CV-4795-YGR, 16-CV-4816-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

The putative class actions have been brought by plaintiffs against
defendant counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, and
Alameda for alleged Sherman Act antitrust and Section 1983
violations related to exclusive grants of telephone servicing
contracts inside county prison facilities that have allegedly
resulted in grossly excessive commissions for these services.

Now before the Court are motions to dismiss from each of the
defendants in the actions.  Defendants argue that dismissal is
appropriate based on the following theories: (i) pre-emption
pursuant to the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1341 (TIA);
(ii) failure to join indispensable parties, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7); and (ii) failures to state a
claim under either the Sherman Act or Section 1983, pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6).

Plaintiffs allege generally that they are charged grossly unfair
and excessive phone charges, which are nothing but money-making
schemes to force family members desperately trying to maintain
contact with their inmate husbands, parents, and children to pay
for totally unrelated jail expenses or give up their primary
lifeline of communication.

Defendants have raised several arguments in support of their
motions to dismiss.  First, defendants argue that the complaints
should be dismissed in their entirety because (a) the actions are
wholly pre-empted by the Tax Injunction Act and (b) plaintiffs
failed to join indispensable parties, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(7).  Second, defendants contend that
plaintiffs have also failed to state a claim with respect to each
of their causes of action, further warranting dismissal of the
complaints.

The Ninth Circuit has established three primary factors in
determining whether a certain charge or assessment constitutes a
tax for the purposes of the TIA, namely whether: (i) the entity
that imposes the assessment is a legislative body; (ii) the group
upon whom the assessment is imposed is broad; and (iii)
assessments are treated as general revenues and are paid into the
state's general fund.

First, an assessment imposed directly by the legislature is more
likely to be a tax than an assessment imposed by an administrative
agency. The parties agree that the counties' boards of supervisors
are the bodies that impose the assessment here, by virtue of their
authority to negotiate and enter into contracts with the
telecommunications companies.

The District Court finds that none of the parties provides support
for their position. The Court's own review of the case law
indicates that a county's awarding of a contract is, at least, a
quasi-legislative act. Accordingly, the Court finds that this
factor weighs in favor of a finding that the commissions
associated with the contracts here are taxes under the TIA.

Second, an assessment imposed upon a broad class of parties is
more likely to be a tax than an assessment imposed upon a narrow
class.  The Court finds that this factor weighs against finding
that the commissions constitute taxes under the TIA as the
assessment only concerns the limited groups who use the ICS.

Finally, assessments treated as general revenues and paid into the
state's general fund are taxes, whereas an assessment placed in a
special fund and used only for special purposes is less likely to
be a tax.  Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor weighs
against a finding that the fees constitute a tax for purposes of
TIA.

Thus, the balance of the factors weighs against the application of
the TIA, given that the fees here are imposed on a narrow class of
users and are used specifically for the inmate welfare fund,
rather than general state or county revenue. No allegation has
been made to the contrary. Therefore, the Court denies defendants'
motion to dismiss on this ground.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the entire action for failure to
join the telecommunication companies, GTL and Securus. Rule
12(b)(7) permits a defendant to move for dismissal on the ground
that the plaintiff failed to join a required party under Rule 19.
Defendants have failed to satisfy their burden. They have failed
to demonstrate that the telecommunication companies have claimed
an interest in this litigation, which is dispositive.

The Court held that Defendants have provided no authority and the
Court is aware of non-supporting the proposition that
participation in other matters with potentially similar issues
satisfies the requirement that the absent party has claimed an
interest for the purposes of joinder.

Sherman Act Antitrust Claim

As a threshold matter, defendants contend that plaintiffs' claims
under the Sherman Act are wholly barred by the state action
doctrine, which bars antitrust claims against state actors.
The defendants' uncontested authority to enter into monopolistic
contracts coupled with the legislature's recognition that such
contracts lead to rebates and commissions demonstrates that the
legislature "contemplated the kinds of actions alleged to be
anticompetitive, namely the charging of allegedly high commissions
that results in higher telephone prices. The complaints do not
allege the legislature intended to limit the authority of the
counties in their ability to set the terms of the contracts with
the telephone providers or to collect commissions.

Therefore, the Court finds that the state action doctrine bars
plaintiffs' antitrust claim against defendants. Accordingly, the
Court grants defendants' motion on this claim.

Section 1983 Claims

First Amendment - Right to Communicate

Plaintiffs also challenge the commissions charged by defendants as
a violation of their First Amendment rights. Specifically,
plaintiffs argue that the Ninth Circuit has recognized a First
Amendment right to telephone access.

Within that context, the Ninth Circuit held that allegations
regarding the inmate's mother, who was forced to cancel her phone
service as a result of overcharges thereby "preventing her from
making phone calls to the prison," were insufficient to raise a
constitutional claim under the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth
Amendments.

The Court finds that no such deprivation of communication has been
alleged here. Plaintiffs have not alleged the imposition of any
regulations or restrictions that prevent them from using the
telephone for communications, nor have they alleged that the rates
are "so exorbitant as to deprive [inmates] of access altogether."
That the commissions charged may result in higher phone rates,
which, in turn, may reduce the frequency and length of phone calls
made, does not constitute a governmental restriction on
plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

The Court grants defendants' motion in this regard.

Fifth Amendment Takings and Unconstitutional Conditions

First, with respect to takings, the Ninth Circuit engages in a
two-step process to determine whether a taking has occurred,
namely whether: (i) the subject matter is property within the
meaning of the Fifth Amendment; and (ii) there has been a taking
of that property for which compensation is due.

Second, the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions holds that the
government ordinarily may not grant a benefit on the condition
that the beneficiary surrender a constitutional right, even if the
government may withhold that benefit altogether.

Plaintiffs have failed to allege any unconstitutional condition,
and the Court finds that no set of facts consistent with
plaintiffs' pleading could make out such a claim. The counties are
not here denying or granting any benefits on the condition that
plaintiffs surrender a constitutional right.

Accordingly, because the Court finds that amendment as to the
Fifth Amendment claims would be futile, the Court grants
defendants' motion.

Fourteenth Amendment - Equal Protection

Plaintiffs raise this claim only with respect to the Call
Recipient Class rather than the Inmate Class, claiming two bases
in support of this cause of action: First, the fee is being
imposed on the Call Recipient Class in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause because there is no rational basis for
distinguishing between that class and the public-at-large; and
second, an Equal Protection Clause claim exists because the fee
violates the First Amendment.

Thus, plaintiffs must show that the county is somehow
discriminating against certain types or contents of speech.
Plaintiffs attempt to argue that the limitation here is not
content neutral because it limits and burdens speech associated
with those accused or convicted of a crime. However, plaintiffs
fail to explain how such is content-based discrimination. The
cases upon which plaintiffs rely offer no support for that
position.

Here, everyone, regardless of the views they wish to express, is
treated similarly by the county prison systems vis-a-vis the phone
services they provide. Thus, an Equal Protection claim based on a
First Amendment violation cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the Court grants defendants' motion as to this claim.

The Court grants in part defendants' motion and dismisses with
prejudice all claims in these actions, except for plaintiffs'
First Amendment claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 10, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ycaoplmtfrom Leagle.com.

Alfred Banks, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Stephen Litt --
blitt@kmbllaw.com -- Kaye McLane Bednarski Litt LLP.

Alfred Banks, Plaintiff, represented by Carol Strickman, Legal
Services for Prisoners With Children, Michael Steven Rapkin
msrapkin@gmail.com  Ronald Owen Kaye info@kmbllaw.com -- Kaye
McLane Bednarski LLP & Scott Brian Rapkin, Esq. --
scottrapkin@rapkinesq.com -- Rapkin Associates, LLP.

Shirley Lawrence-Banks, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Stephen
Litt, Kaye McLane Bednarski Litt LLP, Carol Strickman, Legal
Services for Prisoners With Children, Michael Steven Rapkin,
Ronald Owen Kaye, Kaye McLane Bednarski LLP & Scott Brian Rapkin,
Rapkin Associates, LLP.

County of San Mateo, Defendant, represented by Adam Wells Ely, San
Mateo County Counsel's Office, David Abraham Silberman, San Mateo
County Counsel's Office, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP &
Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

County of Santa Clara, Interested Party, represented by Mark R.
Conrad mconrad@conradmetlitzky.com Conrad & Metlitzky LLP.
County of Alameda, Interested Party, represented by Gregory J.
Rockwell, Boornazian Jensen & Garthe, & Gregory B. Thomas,
Boornazian, Jensen Garthe.,555 12th St # 1800, Oakland, CA 94607,
USA


COUSIN VINY'S: "Brandenburg" Suit Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled THOMAS BRANDENBURG, et al., On Behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COUSIN
VINY'S PIZZA, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-00516-WHR-MJN (S.D. Ohio.), the Hon. Judge Walter H. Rice
entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all of Defendants' current and former delivery drivers who
      were employed in such a capacity at some point during or
      after February 23, 2014;

   2. directing Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs' counsel a
      computer-readable list of the names and contact information
      of all putative collective members within 15 days of this
      entry;

   3. directing Plaintiffs' counsel that may transmit, at
      Plaintiffs' cost, notice of the lawsuit to putative
      collective members via electronic mail and first-class U.S.
      mail or equivalent means; and

   4. directing Defendants to post copies of the notice at all of
      its places of business in locations where employees would
      reasonably be expected to see the Notice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IdF7jmNW


CWGS ENTERPRISES: Court Remands "Rios" Suit to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROY RIOS, Plaintiff, v. CWGS ENTERPRISES,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-10
inclusive, Defendant, No. CV 17-03614 RSWL-AFMx(C.D. Cal.), Judge
Ronald S.W. Lew of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
and denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to Change Venue.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has denied him and other
blind and visually-impaired individuals access to the services and
information made available through www.campingworld.com.  On May
5, 2017, he filed this Action in the Superior Court of California
for the County of Los Angeles against the Defendant in state court
alleging a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California
Civil Code Section 51.  In his Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks a
preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the Defendant to
take the necessary steps to make its website readily accessible to
visually-impaired individuals and statutory damages as set forth
by California Civil Code Section 52(a).

On May 12, 2017, the Defendant removed the case to the Court on
the basis of federal question jurisdiction.  On June 12, 2017, the
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand.  The Defendant filed
its Opposition on June 20, 2017 and the Plaintiff's Reply followed
on June 27, 2017.  On June 30, 2017, the Defendant filed a Motion
to Change Venue to the Northern District of California.  On July
18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed his Opposition to the Defendant's
Motion to Change Venue and the Defendant's Reply followed on July
25, 2017.

The Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of five
Central District of California orders by Judges Kronstadt, Hatter,
Carney, and Fitzgerald pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 201.
It is unnecessary to take judicial notice of opinions from other
courts because the Court can consider other legal authorities
without judicially noticing the opinions.  While he can consider
these decisions as non-binding precedent, Judge Lew denied the
Plaintiff's request for judicial notice of the decisions.

As to the Plaintiff's motion to remand, Judge Lew finds it clear
that the Plaintiff did not directly allege a federal cause of
action and federal law does not create the cause of action in the
instant case.  Therefore, federal question jurisdiction is not
appropriate on this basis.

With respect to the Defendant's Motion to Change Venue, the Judge
explains that the ADA does not preempt state law claims regarding
discrimination based on a disability.  Accordingly, the Defendant
must prove that the Plaintiff's federal question is necessary,
disputed, and substantial to confer federal question jurisdiction.
However, the Defendant has failed to show that website
accessibility is a disputed and substantial federal question.

For these reasons, and because he must resolve all ambiguities in
favor of remand, Judge Lew granted the Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand and remanded the action back to the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District, Case
No. BC657201.  He denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to Change
Venue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/GpXhQu from Leagle.com.

Roy Rios, Plaintiff, represented by Scott J. Ferrell --
sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com -- Pacific Trial Attorneys APC.

Roy Rios, Plaintiff, represented by Victoria C. Knowles --
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com -- Pacific Trial Attorneys APC.

CWGS Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, represented by Martin H. Orlick
-- MOrlick@jmbm.com -- Jeffer Mangels Butler and Mitchell LLP &
Stuart K. Tubis -- STubis@jmbm.com -- Jeffer Mangels Butler and
Mitchell LLP.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Motor Oil Class Suit to Continue in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Dollar General motor oil class-action lawsuit will continue in a
Missouri courtroom as the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ruled it is a good location for a judge to hear
arguments that say the motor oil is dangerous to modern cars.

At least 18 class-action lawsuits are consolidated under one
courthouse roof, all that allege Dollar General uses deceptive and
misleading tactics to sell its own brand of motor oils labeled "DG
Auto" that are obsolete and harmful to today's vehicles.

According to the plaintiffs, the oil is positioned next to more
expensive motors oils manufactured by other companies, such as
PEAK, Pennzoil, and Castrol, but Dollar General fails to tell
shoppers that buying the cheaper oil is an alleged mistake.

Many Dollar General stores are located where there are many low-
income and fixed-income households, so the cheaper oils allegedly
look like good deals compared to the more expensive brands.

The DG Auto line includes three types of motor oils: DG Auto SAE
10W-30, DG Auto SAE 10W-40 and DG Auto SAE 30 motor oils that
allegedly fail to protect modern-day engines, and in some cases
will damage those engines.

The small print located on the back of the bottles says the DG
Auto SAE 10W-30 and DG Auto SAE 10W-40 motor oils are "not
suitable for use in most gasoline powered automotive engines built
after 1988" and "may not provide adequate protection against the
build-up of engine sludge."

On the back of the DG Auto SAE 30 motor oil container is small
print that says the motor oil is:

"not suitable for use in most gasoline powered automotive engines
built after 1930," and that its "use in modern engines may cause
unsatisfactory engine performance or equipment harm."

The class-action lawsuit says it's obvious Dollar General is
trying to conceal the true nature of the oil by placing the print
in small letters on the back labels. In addition, Dollar General
allegedly further conceals the facts about the obsolete oil by
placing the small print below a message that allegedly presents a
misleading impression of the oil.

For the DG SAE 10W-30 and DG SAE 10W-40 products, that message
reads:

"SAE 10W-30 motor oil is an all-season, multiviscosity, heavy duty
detergent motor oil recommended for gasoline engines in older
model cars and trucks. This oil provides oxidation stability,
anti-wear performance, and protection against deposits, rust and
corrosion."

For DG Auto SAE 30 motor oil, the message reads:

     "DG Quality SAE 30 is a non-detergent motor oil designed for
use in older engines where consumption may be high and economical
lubricants are preferred."

The plaintiffs say the DG oils are a waste of money because few
consumers drive cars for which the oils are safe, considering the
oils are not safe for any vehicles manufactured within the past 27
years. And in the case of the SAE 30 oil, that isn't safe for any
vehicle built in the past 85 years.

According to the multidistrict litigation, Dollar General makes a
hefty profit by deceiving a great number of customers into
believing the motor oils can safely be used in vehicles
manufactured in the past 27 years.

Dollar General argues the lawsuits should be obsolete because the
motor oils come with warranties. In addition, the company says
consumers didn't read about the products before buying them
because the details are there for all to see. Dollar General also
says the plaintiffs don't mention how much they were overcharged
for the oils.

Dollar General asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the
word "Caution" is printed on every bottle, but the judge ruled the
company must face charges of violating marketing and consumer
protection laws. The judge also said many objections raised by the
company can come into play later, but it's too early at this stage
to rule on the arguments.

The Dollar General motor oil class-action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Wood
et. al., v. Dollar General Corporation, et, al.

In addition to the consolidated lawsuit in Missouri, a similar
lawsuit was filed in June 2017 by New Mexico Attorney General
Hector Balderas. That lawsuit claims Dollar General sold
"obsolete" motor oils in New Mexico stores from 2010 to February
2017. [GN]


DOLGEN LLC: "Fielding" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Elleana Fielding, on behalf of herself and all other employees
similarly situated v. Dolgen, LLC, t/a Dolgencorp, LLC and Anthem
Health Plans of Virginia, Case No. 3:17-cv-00561-JAG (E.D. Va.,
August 9, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorney fees, and other relief pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dolgen, LLC operates a network of retail stores under the name
Dollar General. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Theuer, Esq.
      JAMES R. THEUER, PLLC
      555 E. Main St., Suite 1212
      Norfolk, VA  23510
      Telephone: (757) 446-8047
      Facsimile: (757) 446-8048
      E-mail: jim@theuerlaw.com


DR. REDDY'S: U.S Law Firms Explore Claims
-----------------------------------------
Bloomberg Quint reports that law firms in the U.S. seem to be
working to build grounds for a class-action suit against Indian
durgmaker Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd.

A few are seeking Dr. Reddy's shareholders who suffered losses on
account of regulatory action against the company, and others are
investigating potential securities claims "resulting from
allegations that Dr. Reddy's may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public."

Four law firms announced on August 11 in separate press releases
that they have started investigating potential claims against the
Indian drugmaker.

Khang & Khang: Investigating claims concerning possible violations
of federal securities laws.

Glancy Prongay & Murray: Investigating possible violations of
federal securities laws by company & its officers.

Goldberg Law: Probing whether Dr Reddy's and certain of its
officers and/or directors violated federal securities laws.

Faruqi & Faruqi: Encourages investors who suffered losses
exceeding $100,000 Investing in Dr Reddy's to contact the firm.
That takes the number of law firms investigating the Hyderabad-
based drugmaker to eight. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, Levi &
Korsinsky, Rosen Law Firm, and Pomerantz had announced their
probes on August 10.

Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, had announced
that it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Dr. Reddy's.

All the law firms have cited the same two instances when Dr.
Reddy's stock fell due to adverse regulatory news as the reason
for their investigations.

November 6, 2015: U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued warning
letter for inadequate quality control standards at three of the
company's manufacturing plants in India.

August 10, 2017: German drug regulator didn't renew Good
Manufacturing Practices compliance certificate for the
manufacturing unit 2 at Bachupally in Hyderabad.

Analysts that BloombergQuint spoke to said the probes are unlikely
to have an impact on the company. Law firms initiated similar
probes in 2015 but nothing came of out them, they said.

Dr. Reddy's had "nothing to say" on the reports, Calvin Printer,
the company's spokesman, said in response to BloombergQuint's
queries.

Shares of the drugmaker fell 5 percent on August 10, before
rebounding to close 3.4 percent higher at Rs 2,011 apiece on
August 11. The stock has declined 34.3 percent so far in 2017,
compared to the 17 percent decline in the NSE Nifty Pharma Index.
[GN]


EDUCATIONAL FINANCIAL: Oct11 Case Mngt. Conference in "Cabiness"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WINIFRED CABINESS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EDUCATIONAL
FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC DBA CAMPUS DEBT SOLUTIONS, Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-1109-JST( N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (i)
continued for 45 days to Oct. 5, 2017 the deadline for the
Plaintiff to file her Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement; (ii) took the Aug. 23, 2017 Case Management Conference
off calendar, and rescheduled 45 days later to Oct. 11, 2017, at
2:00 p.m., or on another date that is convenient for the Court;
and (iii) vacated the continued Case Management Conference if the
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement is filed by Oct. 5,
2017.

On June 5, 2017, the Parties attended private mediation in the
matter with the Judge Peter D. Lichtman (Ret.) at JAMS.  The
Parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding at mediation to
resolve the matter based off of certain class statistical data.
Due to the need to confirm putative class related statistical data
requiring technical consultation as to the size of the putative
class, they are still working to finalize the resolution of this
matter to conclude their settlement.  Despite their best efforts,
the Parties require additional time in order to confirm the
putative class size to complete the process of resolving the
matter.

The Court previously set a deadline of Aug. 21, 2017 for the
Plaintiff to file her Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement.  It set a Case Management Conference for Aug. 23, 2017
to be vacated should the Plaintiff file her Motion for Preliminary
Approval by the Aug. 21, 2017 deadline.

The Parties agree and believe that a 45-day continuance for the
Plaintiff to file her Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement and a 45-day continuance of the Case Management
Conference (should such a conference be necessary) will be a
sufficient amount of time for them to complete the additional work
necessary to resolve these pending issues (which time frame also
considers the intervening Jewish holidays in September that will
impact some of the attorneys' schedules next month).  They have
not previously requested that the Court continue any dates or
deadlines with respect to this Motion or Case Management
Conference.

The case continues to be stayed for all other purposes.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/cSXq2R from Leagle.com.

Winifred Cabiness, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Kemnitzer,
Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg, LLP.

Winifred Cabiness, Plaintiff, represented by Sharon Djemal, East
Bay Community Law Center, Elliot Jason Conn -- elliot@kbklegal.com
-- Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg, LLP & Kristin A. Kemnitzer,
Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg, LLP.

Educational Financial Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by
James Harold Vorhis -- jvorhis@nossaman.com -- Nossaman LLP, Beth-
Ann Ellenberg Krimsky -- beth-ann.krimsky@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon
Marder, PA, pro hac vice & Jessica Brooke Alhalel --
jessica.alhalel@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, PA, pro hac vice.


EMERY FEDERAL: Court Certifies Class in "Palombaro"
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Western Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned Frank A. and Shelly Palombaro, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs,
v. Emery Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-792
(S.D. Ohio).

Plaintiffs allege that, Genuine Title, LLC (Genuine Title),
pursuant to an agreement, paid kickbacks to Emery employees in
exchange for referrals in connection with loan settlement
services.  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.

Ascertainability

For a class to be sufficiently defined, the court must be able to
resolve the question of whether class members are included or
excluded from the class by reference to objective criteria.

Plaintiffs propose the following class definition:

     "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."

Plaintiffs attach to their Motion spreadsheets produced by both
Emery and by Genuine Title identifying loans that were referred to
Genuine Title by Emery.  These lists include the loan dates, names
of borrowers, and property addresses.  Plaintiffs also attach a
list of the Matched Class Loans that Plaintiffs contend will
represent the bulk of the borrowers in this class.  The parties do
not appear to dispute that the Matched Class Loans are federally
related mortgage loans as that term is used in the proposed class
definition and as defined by statute.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated
that their proposed class is ascertainable.

Numerosity (Rule 23(a)(1))

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be so numerous that joinder
of all members is impracticable. While the numerosity requirement
is not tied to any fixed numerical threshold, substantial numbers
usually satisfy this requirement.  Defendant does not challenge
the numerosity requirement and the Court finds that the
approximately 4,000-5,000-member class envisioned here satisfies
Rule 23(a)(1).

Commonality (Rule 23(a)(2))

Rule 23(a)(2) requires plaintiffs to show that "there are
questions of law or fact common to the class. Plaintiffs should be
able to demonstrate that the members of the class have suffered
the same injury.

Emery also advances three, additional brief arguments related to
commonality. First, it argues that Plaintiffs have not fully
corroborated the alleged kickback payments with evidence thereof.
Second, it argues that Plaintiffs' class would to include twenty-
seven Emery branches for which there is no evidence of the
wrongdoing alleged.

The Court finds these to be unwarranted invitations to pass on the
merits of Plaintiffs' case, which is not necessary at this point
in litigation. Plaintiffs maintain that the Matched Class Loan the
bulk of those covered under their proposed class definition
implicate only thirteen Emery branches. To the extent that this
remains a question of fact to be determined, the Court does not
find that this cuts against granting class certification in the
context of commonality at this stage.

Third, Defendant argues that varying damages among class members
destroys commonality. It does not. The statutory framework for
damages under RESPA ties penalties to the total settlement charges
and not to the amount of each particular kickback.  While a degree
of individual inquiry is necessary, it would not overwhelm the
proceedings and damages could be determined easily by reference to
objective, available evidence, class members' HUD-1s.

Typicality (Rule 23(a)(3))

Typicality is satisfied if the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of
the class.

Emery appears to be arguing as to the class's over-breadth, but
this does not undercut that named Plaintiffs are typical of other
class members who suffered the same damages related to the alleged
conduct. As to the former, the kickback scheme does not appear to
vary significantly from Emery employee to Emery employee.

Differences in the form or amount of the kickback are not relevant
to whether Emery's overall conduct, if otherwise uniform and
proven, is culpable. Particularly in view of case law suggesting
liberal interpretation of this factor, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the experience of the named
Plaintiffs relative to the alleged RESPA violations and
concealment thereof are typical of the proposed class.

Adequacy (Rule 23(a)(4))

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that named Plaintiffs fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).
Courts examine two criteria to determine adequacy: (1) the
representative must have common interests with unnamed members of
the class, and (2) it must appear that the representatives will
vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified
counsel.

These requirements are met. Emery does not dispute this element,
and the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the
named Plaintiffs' interests are aligned with those of the class as
a whole and that Plaintiffs' counsel have the experience and
competence to carry out the litigation.

Rule 23(b) Requirements

Under Rule 23(b)(3), a court may certify a class if Rule 23(a) is
satisfied and if questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Predominance

Predominance tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently
cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. To meet the
predominance requirement, a plaintiff must establish that issues
subject to generalized proof and applicable to the class as a
whole predominate over those issues that are subject to only
individualized proof.

Plaintiffs point to available documentation regarding the
purported class members' loans as providing much of the
information needed to determine whether a loan is covered by
RESPA. While Emery cites one example of where this may prove
ineffective due to inconsistent testimony by a putative class
member, and speculates as to other reasons, the Court believes
that this could be a simple and effective solution for a majority
of the purported class members.

Superiority

Rule 23(b)(3) includes a non-exhaustive list of factors to be
considered in determining the superiority of proceeding as a class
action compared with other methods of adjudication:

     (A) the class members' interests in individually controlling
the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and
nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun
by or against class members; (C) the desirability or
undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in
the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing
a class action.

The Court is convinced that the predominance of common issues and
the efficiencies achieved by trying such issues in one proceeding
make certification of this class superior to maintaining separate
actions. While certain Sixth Circuit precedent suggests that
statutes providing financial incentives for private action may
weigh against class treatment, the Court does not find that this
avenue has been foreclosed, as explained in Powers. Based upon the
allegations and evidence before it, the Court finds that the
widespread, purposefully concealed scheme between Genuine Title
and Emery is well-suited for class adjudication.

The Court hereby grants Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for
Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 10, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yddtxmnbfrom Leagle.com.

Edward J. Fangman, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Michael
Utter, Esq. -- gmutter@kmklaw.com -- Keating Muething & Klekamp.

Edward J. Fangman, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa L. English -
menglish@sgs-law.com -- pro hac vice, Michael Paul Smith --
mpsmith@sgs-law.com -- Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, pro hac vice,
Sarah A. Zadrozny -- szadrozny@sgs-law.com -- Smith, Gildea &
Schmidt, LLC, pro hac vice, Timothy Francis Maloney --
tmaloney@jgllaw.com -- Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, pro hac vice
& Veronica Byam Nannis -- vnannis@jgllaw.com -- Joseph Greenwald
and Laake PA, pro hac vice.

Vickie Fangman, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Michael Utter --
gmutter@kmklaw.com --  Keating Muething & Klekamp, Melissa L.
English, pro hac vice, Michael Paul Smith, Smith Gildea and
Schmidt LLC, pro hac vice, Sarah A. Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea &
Schmidt, LLC, pro hac vice, Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph
Greenwald and Laake PA, pro hac vice & Veronica Byam Nannis,
Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, pro hac vice.

Damon M. Oliver, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Michael Utter,
Keating Muething & Klekamp, Melissa L. English, pro hac vice,
Michael Paul Smith, Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, pro hac vice,
Sarah A. Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC, pro hac vice,
Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, pro hac
vice & Veronica Byam Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, pro
hac vice.

Betty M. Howard, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Michael Utter,
Keating Muething & Klekamp, Melissa L. English, pro hac vice,
Michael Paul Smith, Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, pro hac vice,
Sarah A. Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC, pro hac vice,
Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, pro hac
vice & Veronica Byam Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, pro
hac vice.

Clayton J. Anthony, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Michael
Utter, Keating Muething & Klekamp, Melissa L. English, pro hac
vice, Michael Paul Smith, Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, pro hac
vice, Sarah A. Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC, pro hac
vice, Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, pro
hac vice & Veronica Byam Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA,
pro hac vice.

Janice M. Manuel, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Michael Utter,
Keating Muething & Klekamp, Melissa L. English, pro hac vice,
Michael Paul Smith, Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, pro hac vice,
Sarah A. Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC, pro hac vice,
Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, pro hac
vice & Veronica Byam Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, pro
hac vice.

Eric L. Haynes, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Michael Utter,
Keating Muething & Klekamp, Melissa L. English, pro hac vice,
Michael Paul Smith, Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, pro hac vice,
Sarah A. Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC, pro hac vice,
Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, pro hac
vice & Veronica Byam Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, pro
hac vice.

Joseph J. Quinn, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Michael Utter,
Keating Muething & Klekamp, Melissa L. English, pro hac vice,
Michael Paul Smith, Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, pro hac vice,
Sarah A. Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC, pro hac vice,
Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, pro hac
vice & Veronica Byam Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, pro
hac vice.

Deloris F. Woods, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Michael Utter,
Keating Muething & Klekamp, Melissa L. English, pro hac vice,
Michael Paul Smith, Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, pro hac vice,
Sarah A. Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC, pro hac vice,
Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, pro hac
vice & Veronica Byam Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, pro
hac vice.

Emery Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by Carolyn Ann
Taggart ctaggart@porterwright.com Porter Wright Morris & Arthur,
LLP, David M. Souders souders@thewbkfirm.com Weiner Brodsky Kider
PC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Paul Blackwood blackwood@thewbkfirm.com
Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, pro hac vice & Michael Yaakov Kieval
kieval@thewbkfirm.com Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, pro hac vice.
Jennifer L McAlpin, Defendant, represented by Gregory Michael
Utter, Keating Muething & Klekamp.


ENCANA OIL: 2008 Royalty Suit Settlement Authorizes Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Colorado, Division II, issued an Opinion
affirming the trial court's Order granting Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned EnCana Oil & Gas (USA),
Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sally Miller; Barclay Farms, LLC;
Joan Elaine Brehon; David Furlong and Joyce Furlong, as Co-
Trustees for the Janette Foote Estate; Niles Miller; White River
Royalties, LLC; Whitney Brace, as Trustee for the T.E. McClintlock
Trust; and Helen Nelson, as Trustee for the Edwin Miller Trust,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 16CA1979 (Colo. App.).

A certified class of Colorado oil and gas royalty owners (the
Class) and EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. (EnCana), were involved in
litigation beginning in 2005 over EnCana's alleged underpayment of
royalties on natural gas it produced.

EnCana quickly filed a new case in district court asserting that
(1) the Class ceased to exist when the 2005 case was dismissed
with prejudice in 2008 and (2) the 2008 settlement agreement did
not authorize arbitration on a class-wide basis.

The district court issued an order finding that the Class had not
ceased to exist, deciding that the claims between EnCana and the
Class should be resolved in class-wide arbitration, and entering
summary judgment against EnCana. EnCana now appeals the district
court's September 2016 order.

EnCana asserts that the district court's September 2016 order
lacked sufficient C.R.C.P. 23(c)(1) analysis regarding (1) the
named representatives' current ability to adequately represent the
Class; (2) the current composition of the Class; and (3) the
alleged unilateral substitutions of Class counsel. EnCana also
argues that Class counsel did not provide sufficient notice of the
arbitration demand to Class members.

For two reasons, the Colorado appellate court determines that the
Class survived the 2008 dismissal.  The appellate court also
concludes that EnCana's remaining arguments regarding Rule 23 and
Class counsel fail.

First, the district court's dismissal order incorporated the
settlement agreement and reserved jurisdiction to implement,
administer, and enforce the Settlement and any award or
distribution from the Settlement Funds and to address "other
matters related or ancillary to said agreement. Because compliance
with the settlement agreement became a part of the order of
dismissal, the district court retains jurisdiction to give effect
to the agreement.

Second, the obligations placed on the settling parties did not end
with the 2008 dismissal. Rather, the agreement continues for the
respective lives of the Leases or Royalty Agreements covered by
the settlement agreement and expressly benefits and burdens
successors and assigns of the Parties.

The appellate court rejects EnCana's claim that, if the Class
survived the dismissal, the district court had an unending and
unfulfilled duty under C.R.C.P. 23(c)(1) to rigorously analyze the
Class' satisfaction of C.R.C.P. 23's requirements. The settlement
agreement effectively endorsed the certified Class by creating, in
section 10, geographically based subclasses to resolve any
prospective royalty payment disputes. By accepting the six
subclasses in the agreement, EnCana expressly agreed to work with
those subclasses for the life of each Lease.

The district court's ruling did nothing more and nothing less than
give effect to the settlement agreement, the appellate court held.
Thus, there is no error.

Next, EnCana argues that the district court erred in determining
that the settlement agreement contains a contractual basis to
conclude that EnCana and the Class agreed to class arbitration.
EnCana contends that, because the arbitration clause is silent on
the matter of class arbitration, the district court should have
presumed that the parties agreed to bilateral arbitration only.

If EnCana and the Class had wanted the arbitration clause to refer
to bilateral arbitration, the clause could have specified any or
all of the following: (1) the subject disputes would be between
EnCana and an individual Class member; (2) the individual parties
involved in such a dispute would attempt to agree on an
arbitrator; (3) both Parties would expressly waive class
arbitration; or (4) the arbitration would be conducted in
accordance with the AAA rules then in effect with regard to
bilateral arbitration and exclude the rules on class arbitration
(the current AAA rules have been in effect since 2003, almost five
years before the parties entered into the 2008 settlement
agreement.

Because the settlement agreement's language and context evidence
the parties' contemplation of class arbitration, the appellate
court agrees with the district court that summary judgment was
proper on the issue of class arbitration because there was no
genuine issue of material fact and Owners were entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.

The judgment is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's August 10, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yc2ucb39from Leagle.com.

Welborn Sullivan Meck & Tooley, P.C., Jens Jensen, Brian S. Tooley
-- btooley@wsmtlaw.com -- Samuel S. Bacon -- sbacon@wsmtlaw.com --
Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Law Offices of George A. Barton, P.C., Stacy A. Burrows, George A.
Barton, Robert G. Harken, 7227 Metcalf AvenueSuite 301Overland
Park, KS 66204 for Defendants-Appellees.


EVO PAYMENTS: Faces Central Florida Liquidation Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evo Payments
International, LLC.  The case is styled as Central Florida
Liquidation and Sales, LLC and L & M Enterprises USA, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Evo Payments International, LLC and Evo Merchant
Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04507-JMA-GRB (E.D.
N.Y., August 1, 2017).

EVO Payments provides electronic payments processing and acquiring
services for merchants and independent sales organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   E. Adam Webb, Esq.
   Webb, Klase&Lemond, LLC
   1900 The Exchange Se, Suite 480
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 444-0773
   Fax: (770) 271-9950
   Email: adam@webbllc.com


FARMERS INSURANCE: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAVID DELUCA AND BARRY FRANCIS individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of
the general public, the Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and FARMERS
SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-
cv-00034-EDL (N.D. Cal.), the Court conditionally certifies the
collective of all current or former special investigators, senior
special investigators, and general special investigators, other
than those in the "Nationals" group, who worked for Farmers
Insurance Exchange within the past three years.

The Court orders that judicial notice be distributed as follows:
Defendant has elected to have a third-party administrator
distribute notice, under the terms provided for at the hearing on
the Motion. Specifically, Defendant shall bear the cost of an
administrator, and the statute of limitations shall be tolled for
all putative collective members from the 14 days after the date of
this order until the date that notice is first mailed. Defendant
shall select an administrator and provide the class list to the
administrator within 14 days from the date of this order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8UVkP2L9


FCA US: Michigan Court Dismisses "Beck" Suit with Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, dismissed with prejudice
the case captioned DONALD J. BECK, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-10267(E.D. Mich.).

Beck brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated persons who purchased or leased a model year 2013 through
2016 Dodge Ram 1500 or a model year 2014 through 2016 Dodge
Durango, all of which were designed, manufactured, and distributed
by FCA.

Unlike an electronic "monostable shifter" or the more traditional
feeling of a "polystable shifter," the class vehicles are equipped
with a "rotary shifter."  Beck alleges that the rotary shifter
system in the class vehicles is defective for two reasons: (i) it
wrongly indicates, via the illuminated informational displays,
that cars are in Park when they are not, and (ii) it fails to
include a safety override that would automatically put the vehicle
in Park or engage a parking brake when a driver attempts to exit
the vehicle when it is not in Park.  According to Beck, these
defects have resulted in numerous accidents and vehicle rollaways
as a result of drivers not knowing which gear their transmission
is in and/or exiting their vehicle without the vehicle in Park.

Beck alleges that FCA knew, or should have known, of the defective
rotary shifter system and the associated safety risks.  Despite
this knowledge, FCA failed to notify consumers of the defect or
provide a remedy to protect consumers from the associated safety
risks.  He further alleges that FCA knowingly made
misrepresentations and omissions about the quality, reliability,
safety, characteristics and performance of the class vehicles.

Notably, Beck is seeking only economic damages related to the
allegedly defective rotary shifter system.  He claims that, had he
and the class members known of the defect, they would have either
(i) paid substantially less for the vehicles, (ii) required an
immediate remedy that restored the vehicles to the conditions
bargained for, or (iii) not purchased or leased the class
vehicles.

On Jan. 26, 2017, Beck filed the instant class-action complaint,
asserting five claims: (i) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act ("MMWA"); (ii) violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law ("UCL"); (iii) violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (iv) fraudulent concealment under
California law; (v) breach of implied warranty of merchantability
under California Commercial Code Section 2314; (vi) breach of
express warranty under California Commercial Code Section 2313;
and (vii) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

In its motion to dismiss, FCA first argues that, under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction regarding Beck's second theory of defect predicated
on the lack of a safety-override feature because Beck lacks
standing.  FCA then argues that, under Rule 12(b)(6), the
remainder of Beck's complaint should be dismissed because Beck has
failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Judge Goldsmith held that because Beck lacks standing to pursue
the distinct theory that the class vehicles were defective for
lacking a safety-override feature, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over that particular theory.  This portion of FCA's
motion is granted.

As to Beck's affirmative misrepresentation claims under both the
UCL and the CLRA, the Judge held that Beck has only filed one
complaint, which still remains operative.  Thus, his notice to FCA
continues to be post-filing of the complaint.  Beck also fails to
state a claim under the UCL for any affirmative misrepresentation.
Therefore, Judge Goldsmith dismissed Beck's affirmative
misrepresentation claims under both the UCL and the CLRA.

The Judge also held that Beck's failure to allege facts that FCA
had a duty to disclose requires dismissal of his omission claim
under the UCL.  This portion of FCA's motion is granted.  Because
the elements for a duty to disclose based on active concealment
are also required to state claim for fraudulent concealment under
California law, Beck's claim for fraudulent concealment is
dismissed in its entirety.

In addition, there are no allegations that Beck ever brought his
vehicle to an authorized dealer for warranty service, which
explains why there no allegations that FCA breached its express
warranties to cover the costs for parts and labor regarding
certain types of repairs.  As such, Beck has failed to
sufficiently plead that FCA breached either of the express
warranties for his 2015 Ram 1500.  Judge Goldsmith therefore
granted this portion of FCA's motion, and Beck's express warranty
claims are dismissed.

In the complaint, Beck alleges that he still owns his vehicle.
But, as FCA correctly points out, there is no indication in the
complaint that, despite the safety concerns, he has actually
stopped driving his vehicle.  The lack of such an allegation
warrants dismissal of his implied warranty claims.  This portion
of FCA's motion is granted, and Beck's implied warranty claims are
dismissed.

Finally, in count one of the complaint, Beck brings a claim under
the MMWA.  The Judge finds that Beck failed to adequately allege
his state warranty claims.  Thus, his MMWA claim fails.  This
portion of FCA's motion is granted, and Beck's MMWA claim is
dismissed.

For these reasons, Judge Goldsmith granted FCA's motion to dismiss
and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/N0aEvk from Leagle.com.

Donald J. Beck, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt --
dal@millerlaw.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

Donald J. Beck, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph H. Meltzer --
jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Peter A.
Muhic -- pmuhic@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP,
Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm,
P.C., Tyler S. Graden -- tgraden@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP & E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- The
Miller Law Firm.

FCA US, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amanda J. Hettinger --
ahettinger@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, Kathy A.
Wisniewski -- kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn
LLP, Larry J. Saylor, Miller -- saylor@millercanfield.com --
Canfield & Stephen A. D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com --
Thompson Coburn LLP.


FLORIDA: Livingston Parish Leaders File New Suit Over Flooding
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Hardy, writing for The Advocate, reports that a class action
lawsuit filed decades ago that argued the state built Interstate
12 in such a way as to exacerbate flooding in the Florida parishes
led to a $91.8 million damage award.

But even though not a dime has been paid, new legal action has
been filed with similar claims about the part I-12 played in
damming up water and contributing to last year's floods -- this
time relating to the interstate's median wall and an embankment.

Leaders in Livingston Parish, which filed one of the two new class
action suits against the state, say it's not so much money they
are after as it is getting the state to act to prevent what
happened in August from being repeated.

He just wants DOTD to take down or modify the barriers along the
interstate median so water can flow through, and to make the state
do a better job next time it does highway construction.

"The reality is we just need some remediation done so this never
happens again," said Livingston School Superintendent Rick
Wentzel.

Many of the arguments are similar to those brought up by
Tangipahoa residents after widespread flooding in 1983. Their suit
concerned a bridge the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development had built over the Tangipahoa River that residents
complained worsened flooding.

The judges in that case wrote that had the state of Louisiana done
a better job building Interstate 12, "water would have passed
through the floodplain" as the river began to rise.

"There is ample evidence. DOTD's erection of Interstate 12
violated the natural servitude of drainage," judges from the First
Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in their decision.

Since the 1980s, the original $92 million that was due, has likely
swollen to more than $200 million with interest that has
accumulated over the years, said attorney Eric Nowak, who is
representing Tangipahoa residents in a new class-action suit that
involves flooding in March and August 2016.

The plaintiffs involved in the current round of lawsuits against
the state have little to lose, since their attorneys are working
for a cut of the payout -- assuming there is one this time.

According to the contract with the city of Walker, which initiated
the Livingston Parish suit, their lawyers are not being
compensated up front and are absorbing court fees. They will claim
one third of any damages ultimately recovered, though.

"(If) you're the local politician you've got to be seen as doing
something," he said. "This is gold for the politicians -- they're
fighting for the people."

Denham Springs Mayor Gerard Landry said he hopes the suit will
emphasize the need for changes to the interstate.

"If the governor wanted to fix it I'm sure he could," Landry said.

While improving the interstate is the top priority, the mayor
noted one major difference between the 1983 flood lawsuit and the
current one in Livingston.

In the ongoing lawsuit, parish authorities have also sued the
contractors who submitted plans and performed construction during
the "Geaux Wider" campaign to add extra lanes to I-12 that began
in 2009. Though it isn't the primary goal, Landry said, residents
may be able to claim some relief if the contractors are found to
be at fault.

Attorneys representing several firms involved did not return calls
for comment this week. So far, at least one company has petitioned
the court to be removed from the case, noting the extreme rarity
of the August flooding event and saying that it can't be held
liable because it followed DOTD specifications.

Richards, the law professor, said the court could find that all --
or nearly all -- of the fault lies with DOTD if the state agency
was last ones to actually review the plans.

That doesn't mean the state will abide by any rulings on damages,
though.

"If they don't want to pay, you're not going to get paid,"
Richards said.

Still, a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision has added a fresh
wrinkle to the matter. If a state causes flooding, it's akin to
"temporary taking," the high court ruled in that decision. That
makes it similar to eminent domain -- the process the government
uses to seize land for public projects like building a highway --
and federal courts can compel states to pay up on takings cases,
Richards said.

First, the courts will have to decide whether the statute of
limitations has passed. The Tangipahoa suit -- which combines
flooding from March and August caused by an I-12 embankment -- is
currently before the state Supreme Court. They're trying to
determine whether to start the timer when construction plans were
approved or when the flooding occurred.

The legal argument is technical, but Nowak, the plaintiffs'
attorney, said that they should be allowed to sue because flooding
is not an "intentional or necessary" consequence of building the
embankment.

Whether suing will get them anywhere is another issue entirely.

The suit following the 1983 flood "is a terrible precedent for
us," Nowak acknowledged.

Not only have residents not received their payouts, the underlying
infrastructure problems haven't been fixed, he continued.

"There's a reason for why these lawsuits happen and the judgments,
and the state should live up to its responsibilities. These people
deserve their remedy," Nowak said.

Byard "Peck" Edwards represented the plaintiffs in the 19880s and
in the current suit. The legislature has been willing to pay out
the old class action settlement, but governors "wouldn't go along
with it," he said.

He's hopeful that John Bel Edwards -- his cousin -- will be more
receptive, joking that "he'll pay or I'll take him down to the
swamp and feed him to the alligators."

Peck Edwards said he's also looking at ways to get the federal
government to step in and square the debt though declined to
discuss his legal strategy for doing so.

He's still sore at the DOTD for the 1983 flooding, calling the
state officials "dumbasses" for not doing proper engineering and
backwater flooding studies.

Last year, he counted his friends and neighbors among those who
flooded and decided to take up the cause again, self-funding the
suit.

"I saw what caused the flood, and I just felt like it was my duty,
my responsibility to make sure those people got compensated." [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Faces "Boatner" Suit in Alabama
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company.
The case is styled as Mary Boatner, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ford Motor Company,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00519-SRW (M.D. Ala., August 1, 2017).

Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automaker
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was
founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam J Levitt, Esq.
   Grant &Eisenhofer PA
   30 N LaSalle St-Ste 2350
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 214-0000
   Fax: (312) 214-0001
   Email: alevitt@gelaw.com

      - and -

   Andrew England Brashier, Esq.
   Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.
   218 Commerce Street
   Montgomery, AL 36104
   Tel: (334) 269-2343
   Fax: (334) 954-7555
   Email: Andrew.Brashier@BeasleyAllen.com

      - and -

   Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
   Grant &Eisenhofer PA
   30 N LaSalle St-Ste 2350
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 214-0000
   Fax: (312) 214-0001
   Email: dferri@gelaw.com

      - and -

   Henry Clay Barnett , III, Esq.
   Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles
   218 Commerce St
   Montgomery, AL 36104
   Tel: (334) 269-2343
   Email: Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com

      - and -

   Joseph Allen Schreiber, Esq.
   Burke Harvey, LLC
   3535 Grandview Parkway
   Suite 100
   Birmingham, AL 35243
   Tel: (205) 930-9091
   Fax: (205) 930-9054
   Email: aschreiber@burkeharvey.com

      - and -

   Lauren E. Miles, Esq.
   Burke Harvey
   3535 Grandview Parkway
   Birmingham, AL 35243
   Tel: (205) 747-1903

      - and -

   Wilson Daniel Miles , III, Esq.
   Beasley Allen Crown Methvin Portis & Miles PC
   PO Box 4160
   Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
   Tel: (334) 269-2343
   Fax: (334) 954-7555
   Email: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com


FRAGRANCENET.COM: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Alvarez, Oscar Blanco, Francisco Claros, Sonia Gonzalez,
Ana Martinez, Carlos Fajardo, Gladis Gillen, Luz Hernandez, Telma
Rivera, and Norma Romero v. Fragrancenet.com, Inc., Case No. 1:17-
cv-04678 (E.D.N.Y., August 9, 2017), is an action for damages as a
result of the Defendant's discriminatory practices based on
national origin.

Fragrancenet.com, Inc. is an online retailer of genuine, brand
name fragrances, skincare, makeup, haircare, aromatherapy and
candles at discounted prices. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Vagnini
      Matthew L. Berman
      VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
      600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7180
      E-mail: jvagnini@vkvlawyers.com
              mberman@vkvlawyers.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Accuses Bankruptcy Trust of Secret $1B Stock Plot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Larson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that General
Motors Co. accused the trust set up to handle its bankruptcy
claims of secretly plotting with plaintiffs' attorneys to make it
pay $1 billion in stock as part of a $15 million class-action
settlement.

The accord, revealed at a hearing on August 11 in federal court in
New York, will pit GM against the "Old GM" General Unsecured
Creditors Trust for the first time since the 2009 bankruptcy sale
created the split to save the company.

The settlement between the plaintiffs and the trust for old GM is
due to be signed Aug. 15, attorney Steve Berman said in a phone
call. The deal will resolve hundreds of personal-injury cases
stemming from GM's faulty ignition switches, as well as a class-
action suit over millions of vehicles that allegedly lost value
due to a series of recalls in 2014, he said.

Under the accord, which requires a judge's approval, the trust
will pay plaintiffs $15 million and accept $10 billion in
previously disputed claims, thus pushing total approved claims in
the case beyond a critical threshold of $35 billion, Berman said.
That would then trigger a provision of the 2009 sale that would
force GM to contribute $1 billion in stock to help pay the claims,
he said.

GM, based in Detroit, is balking. The trust is only accepting the
$10 billion in claims in order to trigger the provision requiring
GM to pay stock, it said. GM has long said the remaining demands
are bogus.

"This contrived scheme won't work," the company said in a
statement. "We will aggressively protect our rights and our
shareholders, and will work to hold the GUC Trust and plaintiffs
accountable for their bad faith and improper actions."

Berman said his team has plenty of evidence that the claims are
genuine and said GM knew what it was doing when it agreed to the
$35 billion claims threshold.

"This is what GM bargained for" as part of the 2009 bankruptcy
sale, when it "got away from all these liabilities," Berman said.
"It's working exactly the way it's supposed to work."

The dispute comes weeks after GM won another federal trial over
the ignition switches. The devices in the initial recall were
linked to more than 100 deaths, with GM paying at least $870
million to settle claims and an additional $900 million to the
Department of Justice to resolve a criminal probe. [GN]


GENUINE TITLE: Court Awards $200K Attorney's Fees in "Fangman"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
issued a Memorandum Order granting Settlement Counsels' Petition
for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in the case captioned EDWARD J.
AND VICKI FANGMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENUINE TITLE, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. RDB-14-0081 (D. Md.).

In Settlement Counsels' Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses,
Settlement Counsel requested an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses in an amount equal to 25% of the Common Fund, to be paid
in addition to, and not out of, the Common Fund.

Plaintiffs Edward J. and Vicki Fangman brought this class action
against Defendant Genuine Title, LLC alleging, inter alia,
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA),
12 U.S.C. Sectrion 2607(a),(b).

Settlement Counsel have requested an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses in an amount equal to 25% of the Common Fund, or
$249,282.01 PNC objects to any award in excess of 20% of the
Common Fund.

District courts in this circuit have analyzed the following seven
factors: (1) the results obtained for the class; (2) the quality,
skill, and efficiency of the attorneys involved; (3) the risk of
non-payment; (4) objections by members of the class to the
settlement terms and/or fees requested by counsel; (5) awards in
similar cases; (6) the complexity and duration of the case; and
(7) public policy.

The most critical factor in calculating a reasonable fee award is
the degree of success obtained.

The Common Fund totals approximately $997,128.03. As this Court
observed in Singleton, 976 F. Supp. 2d at 683, the fact that no
objections have been filed further suggests that the result
achieved is a desirable one.

The Court notes that Settlement Counsel are experienced litigators
who went to great lengths to prosecute this action and obtained a
quick and substantial settlement for the PNC Class. Lead Counsel,
Mr. Michael Paul Smith, has represented plaintiffs for 24 years
and has tried over 50 cases in state and federal courts,including
numerous complex civil cases in the areas of commercial
litigation, fraud and banking/real estate issues.

Mr. Smith and the law firm of Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC, have
significant experience preparing and trying complex civil cases,
including Mosaic Lounge v. BCR, Case No.: 03-C-14-00449, in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore County and Possidente v. GBMC, Case
No. 03-C-10-003295, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.

The attorneys of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A., are also
experienced plaintiffs' counsel. Mr. Timothy Maloney has
represented plaintiffs for 30 years and has tried over 100 cases
in state and federal courts. Mr. Maloney regularly tries complex
civil cases in the areas of commercial litigation, fraud and
constitutional violations" and has served as plaintiffs' counsel
in several class action cases before this Court.

In determining the reasonableness of an attorneys' fee award,
courts consider the relative risk involved in litigating the
specific matter compared to the general risks incurred by
attorneys taking on class actions on a contingency basis.
Settlement Counsel correctly note that several courts have
dismissed similar RESPA claims in recent years.
Objections

No objections were filed. The lack of objections tends to show
that at least from the class members' perspective, the requested
fee is reasonable for the services provided and the benefits
achieved by class counsel.

Fees awarded under 'the percentage-of-recovery' method in
settlements under $100 million have ranged from 15% to 40%.

This Court in Singleton, 976 F. Supp. 2d at 685 (citing Stoner v.
CBA Information Services, 352 F.Supp.2d 549, 553 (E.D. Pa. 2005)),
found that a percentage fee award of 25% fell within the range of
awards deemed fair and reasonable by courts within the Fourth
Circuit.

Settlement Counsels' Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses is
granted but in the reduced amount of $199,425.61, an award equal
to 20% of the estimated value of the Common Fund.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 10, 2017,
Memorandum Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yapmvldlfrom
Leagle.com.

Smith, Gildea & Schmidt LLC, In Re, represented by Sarah A.
Zadrozny -- szadrozny@sgs-law.com -- Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC.
Sarah A. Zadrozny, In Re, represented by Sarah A. Zadrozny, Smith,
Gildea & Schmidt, LLC.

Michael Paul Smith, In Re, represented by Sarah A. Zadrozny,
Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC.

Edward J. Fangman, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Paul Smith --
mpsmith@sgs-law.com -- Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, Timothy
Francis Maloney -- tmaloney@jgllaw.com -- Joseph Greenwald and
Laake PA, Melissa Lynn English -- menglish@sgs-law.com -- Smith
Gildea & Schmidt LLC, Sarah A. Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt,
LLC, Timothy L. Creed -- tcreed@jgllaw.com -- Joseph, Greenwald &
Laake, P.A. & Veronica Byam Nannis -- vnannis@jgllaw.com -- Joseph
Greenwald and Laake PA.

Vickie Fangman, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Paul Smith,
Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph
Greenwald and Laake PA, Melissa Lynn English, Smith Gildea &
Schmidt LLC, Sarah A. Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC,
Timothy L. Creed, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. & Veronica Byam
Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA.

Damon M. Oliver, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Paul Smith,
Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph
Greenwald and Laake PA, Melissa Lynn English, Smith Gildea &
Schmidt LLC, Sarah A. Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC,
Timothy L. Creed, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. & Veronica Byam
Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA.

Betty M. Howard, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Paul Smith,
Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph
Greenwald and Laake PA, Melissa Lynn English, Smith Gildea &
Schmidt LLC, Sarah A. Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC,
Timothy L. Creed, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. & Veronica Byam
Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA.

Clayton J. Anthony, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Paul Smith,
Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph
Greenwald and Laake PA, Melissa Lynn English, Smith Gildea &
Schmidt LLC, Sarah A. Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC,
Timothy L. Creed, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. & Veronica Byam
Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA.

Janice M. Manuel, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Paul Smith,
Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph
Greenwald and Laake PA, Melissa Lynn English, Smith Gildea &
Schmidt LLC, Sarah A. Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC,
Timothy L. Creed, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. & Veronica Byam
Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA.

Eric L. Haynes, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Paul Smith,
Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph
Greenwald and Laake PA, Melissa Lynn English, Smith Gildea &
Schmidt LLC, Sarah A. Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC,
Timothy L. Creed, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. & Veronica Byam
Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA.

Brandon Glickstein, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ari Karen  --
akaren@offitkurman.com -- Offit Kurman & Gregory P. Currey, Offit
Kurman.

Competitive Advantage Media Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Ari Karen, Offit Kurman & Gregory P. Currey, Offit Kurman.
Dog Days Marketing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Ari Karen,
Offit Kurman & Gregory P. Currey, Offit Kurman.

West Town Bank & Trust, Defendant, represented by Brian L. Moffet
-- bmoffet@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles & Stockbridge, P.C.,
Dwight W. Stone, II -- dstone@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles &
Stockbridge P.C. & Zachary Schultz --
zschultz@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles & Stockbridge P.C..
Emery Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by David M.
Souders -- souders@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC,
Jeffrey Paul Blackwood  -- blackwood@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner
Brodsky Kider PC & Michael Yaakov Kieval, -- kieval@thewbkfirm.com
-- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC.

PNC Mortgage, Defendant, represented by Daniel Joseph Tobin --
TOBINJ@BALLARDSPAHR .COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP & Robert A. Scott,
Office of the Attorney General.

Metlife Home Loans, LLC, Defendant, represented by Leslie Paul
Machado -- leslie.machado@leclairryan.com -- LeClair Ryan PC.
Metlife Bank N.A., Defendant, represented by Leslie Paul Machado,
LeClair Ryan PC.

Eagle National Bank, Defendant, represented by Dennis Edward Boyle
-- dennis.boyle@boylefrost.com -- Boyle & Frost, George J. Krueger
-- gkrueger@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP, pro hac vice,
Lawrence Joseph Quinn -- lquinn@tydingslaw.com -- Tydings and
Rosenberg LLP & Ryan T. Becker -- rbecker@foxrothschild.com -- Fox
Rothschild LLP, pro hac vice.

Jay Zukerberg, Interested Party, represented by Michael Edward
Rowan, -- mrowan@shumakerwilliams.com -- Shumaker Williams PC.
Brent Erickson, Interested Party, represented by Michael Edward
Rowan, Shumaker Williams PC.

Christopher Casazza, Interested Party, represented by Michael
Edward Rowan, Shumaker Williams PC.

Mr. William J. Peterson, III, Interested Party, represented by
Richard Melvin Karceski, Law Offices of Richard M Karceski. 305
Washington Ave, Suite 410, Towson, MD 21204-4740

Leticia Mejia, Claimant, Pro Se.


GLOBALSCAPE: Faces "Giovagnoli" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Giovagnoli, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Globalscape, Inc., Matthew C. Goulet, and
James W. Albrecht, Jr., Case No. 5:17-cv-00753 (W.D. Tex., August
9, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

According to the case, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose that (i) Global overstated the
reported amounts of accounts receivable as of December 31, 2016,
and license revenue for the three months and year ended December
31, 2016, by approximately $403,000 and $396,000, respectively,
resulting in the overstatement of the Company's revenues for those
periods by the same amounts; (ii) the Company's total current
assets and total assets were overstated by $292,000; (iii) the
Company's total stockholder equity and total liabilities and
stockholders' equity were overstated by $217,000 and $292,000,
respectively; (iv)  the Company lacked adequate internal controls
over financial reporting; and (v) that as a result of the
foregoing, Global's publicly disseminated financial statements
were materially false and misleading.

Globalscape, Inc. develops and sells computer software that
provides secure information exchange, file transfer and file
sharing capabilities for enterprises and consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Kendall, Esq.
      Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
      KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
      3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Telephone: (214) 744-3000
      Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
      E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
              jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

          - and -

      Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
      Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
      Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com
              Jason@blockesq.com
              Bradley@blockesq.com


GOURMET FACTORY: Obtains USDA Seal After Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Aisha Al-Muslim, writing for Newsday, reports that Gourmet Factory
is hoping a big investment in its future will pay off.

The Hauppauge wholesaler of oils and Mediterranean foods invested
nearly a year and more than $200,000 to obtain a voluntary USDA
quality monitoring seal designed to assure consumers its olive oil
is authentic.

Gourmet Factory took the costly step after making a $2 million
payment to settle a class-action lawsuit charging the company with
deceptive labeling. The April 2013 lawsuit filed in U.S. District
Court in Manhattan alleged that consumers were overcharged for
oils labeled "100 percent pure olive oil" when the product
actually contained olive pomace, which is chemically processed
from olive pits, skins and pulp.

A separate federal lawsuit, filed in February 2013 also in
Manhattan, by the North American Olive Oil Association trade
group, charged the company with deceptive advertising for
marketing the product as 100 percent pure although it contained
pomace. The company reached a settlement in which it did not admit
wrongdoing. Terms were not disclosed.

And in June 2014, Gourmet Factory filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
to determine liability related to the class-action lawsuit, settle
with creditors and minimize legal bills. In December 2014, a
bankruptcy judge approved its reorganization plan.

Now, with the USDA seal in place, Gourmet Factory chief executive
Themis Kangadis says the company is ready to move forward to build
on the legacy pioneered by his father and mother, Aristidis and
Andromahi Kangadis.

"We wanted to differentiate ourselves from our competitors" with
the seal, Kangadis said. "We wanted to be leaders in transparency
and honesty."

The lawsuits stemmed from "strictly a labeling issue," he said;
the seal "kind of silences the critics."

Gourmet Factory's origins date to 1969, when Kangadis' Greek
immigrant parents opened a grocery market in Astoria, Queens. They
soon started importing food products and olive oil, and eventually
formed Gourmet Factory

The company packs more than 100 products, mostly olive, soybean,
canola and corn oils, that it sells to supermarkets and
restaurants. It sells oils under various brand names, including
Capatriti, Porto, Olio Villa, Kivotos, Lakonia, Sevilla Mia and
Pureola. Gourmet Factory does about $50 million in annual sales
and employs about 65 people.

"To me, olive oil is like a fine wine," said Kangadis, 50, of Port
Washington, who took over the company from his father 10 years
ago. "I am very passionate about what I do."

At the 74,000-square-foot packing plant, oil is delivered in
6,000-gallon containers and packaged in tin, glass or plastic
containers ranging from 16 ounces to 128 ounces for retail sales,
to industrial 35-pound containers and totes that hold 2,000 pounds
of oil. The company imports olive oil from nine countries and
processes more than a million pounds of oil a week.

Gourmet Factory obtained the quality seal last year from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Quality Monitoring Program for both
its Capatriti brand extra virgin and pure olive oils, as well as
its Lakonia extra virgin olive oil and Kivotos Greek extra virgin
olive oil. Containers will bear a round black and white seal that
says USDA Quality Monitored.

Companies choose to enroll in the user-fee service program,
described by the USDA as a "rigorous review and evaluation
process." Other participants include Pompeian Inc. in Baltimore,
Maryland, and Sunset Olive Oil LLC in Montebello, California.

Under the program, the USDA conducts unannounced monthly plant
visits to review operating procedures, record keeping and
labeling. The USDA gathers samples for chemical testing at a USDA
lab to verify the quality, purity and age of the olive oil,
according to the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service, which
oversees the program. Samples also are sent to a flavor panel made
up of 12 taste experts. The company will pay fees for ongoing
visits and testing to maintain the seal.

"The verification makes consumers question the product next to
them that doesn't have the seal," said Darren Seifer, food and
beverage industry analyst for the NPD Group, a Port Washington
market research company. "It is fair for the consumers to ask,
'What is wrong with the other products that don't have that
certification?' It kind of bullies other companies to get the
certification."

But Nancy Harmon Jenkins, a Mediterranean-diet expert based in
Maine and author of "Virgin Territory: Exploring the World of
Olive Oil," is skeptical that the USDA has any real policing power
over olive oil.

"The USDA has a lot more critical food safety issues to deal with
than olive oil," Jenkins said.

The olive oil industry has struggled with consumer perception that
many olive oils are not authentic, after a highly publicized 2010
study by the University of California-Davis Olive Center found
that 69 percent of imported olive oil samples from supermarkets
and 10 percent of California oils labeled "extra virgin olive oil"
failed to meet international standards.

Olive oil is considered "extra virgin" when it has been produced
by simply pressing olives and meets a test for low acidity. "Pure"
olive oil, which can be extracted using heat or chemicals, is
refined and usually mixed with a small amount of extra virgin
olive oil, according to the USDA.

Some olive oil suppliers add other less expensive oils like canola
oil or sunflower oil, USDA officials said. They may even add
soybean oil, a very cheap commodity that doesn't have flavor. The
USDA said a chemical analysis will detect these other oils.

U.S. consumers use 90 million gallons of olive oil annually -- the
largest market outside of the European Community, according to the
American Olive Oil Producers Association in Clovis, California.

Now, Gourmet Factory is planning to spend about $250,000 to build
its own in-house lab to test its olive oil for quality control.
The company, which sources its olive oil from Argentina, Chile,
Egypt, Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Spain, Tunisia and Turkey, is also
looking to buy a farm in California.

"I don't believe that you can make an extra virgin olive oil if
you are importing olive oil from all over the place," said
Jenkins, who owns an olive tree farm in Tuscany, Italy, where
about 100 liters of extra virgin olive oil are produced a year for
her family.

After earning the USDA seal, Capatriti Olive Oil launched a new
slogan, "Honest Olive Oil," and hired celebrity chef Roble Ali,
owner of the Brooklyn restaurant Streets, to showcase Capatriti's
extra virgin olive oil in recipe videos on social media.

"The USDA is saying this product is 100 percent real," Ali said.
"It is insurance that you are getting what you pay for . . . You
want to make sure you are getting the best possible ingredient
when you are cooking. You are putting this stuff into your body.
It needs to be legit." [GN]


HEFFLER RADETICH: Pa. Statutes of Limitations Apt in "Oetting"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jan E. Dubois of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania concluded that Pennsylvania's statute of
limitations, the Missouri savings statute, and Missouri
substantive law are applicable in the captioned case JAMES
OETTING, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HEFFLER, RADETICH & SAITTA, LLP, EDWARD J.
SINCAVAGE, EDWARD J. RADETICH, JR., and MICHAEL T. BANCROFT,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 11-4757, (E.D. Pa.).

This case involves claims asserted by Plaintiff Oetting on behalf
of himself and a certified class of similarly situated individuals
who received payments from a settlement fund in a long-running
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri.  This case was originally filed as a
separate action in that district but was transferred to the
Pennsylvania Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) by Order
dated July 25, 2011.  The Plaintiff seeks damages from the
Defendants for harm suffered by the class due to fraudulent claims
made on the settlement fund by a former employee of Defendant
Heffler, that were authorized by the Defendants.  The Plaintiff
asserts claims for negligence, accountant malpractice, breach of
fiduciary duty, and fraud.

The Court ultimately certified the class of all individuals and
entities who are or were members of one of the NationsBank classes
in In re BankAmerica Securities Litigation, Multidistrict
Litigation Number 1264, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, who (i) filed valid claims for
distribution(s) from the NationsBank settlement fund, (ii)
received payment on their claims from the NationsBank settlement
fund, and (iii) are eligible for any additional distributions from
the NationsBank settlement fund.

Pursuant to the Third Amended Scheduling Order dated Nov. 3, 2016,
motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions were scheduled to
be filed on or before Jan. 13, 2017.  On Dec. 2, 2016, counsel for
the Defendants submitted to the Court a letter to request a
scheduling conference for the purpose of addressing an "as-yet
undetermined choice of law issue."  The Court held a scheduling
conference on Dec. 14, 2016, and, recognizing that the parties had
not previously raised choice of law issues, ordered the parties to
brief all such issues.

Following an initial round of briefing, on June 1, 2017, the Court
ordered the parties to file supplemental memoranda of law
addressing (i) the applicable statute of limitations, (ii) the
applicability of equitable tolling, and (iii) the applicability of
the Missouri and Pennsylvania savings statutes, and the parties
did so.  In addition, it held a telephone conference on Aug. 4,
2017, at which counsel for the parties agreed that all choice of
law issues, including the applicable statute of limitations, had
been fully briefed and were ripe for decision.

Judge Dubois declined to apply the law of the case doctrine
because it only applies to issues that were actually decided by
the court.  The Missouri district court did not actually decide
that Missouri law applied; it only stated that the parties were
"in agreement" on that issue.

Although the Defendants have not formally challenged the
timeliness of the Plaintiff's claims, the parties seek a
determination of what state's statute of limitations applies to
the claims in this case.  Judge Dubois concluded that under the
Missouri borrowing statute, the claims in this case accrued in
Pennsylvania, and therefore the Pennsylvania statute of
limitations applies to the case.  He further concluded that the
Missouri savings statute is also applicable.

The Missouri borrowing statute requires that the court borrows not
only the statute of limitations of the state in which the claims
"accrued," but also any of that state's applicable tolling
provisions.  Therefore, the Judge next considered whether any
Pennsylvania tolling provisions or the Missouri savings statute
apply to save the Plaintiff's claims.  He concluded that the
Missouri savings statute -- which gives a plaintiff a one-year
extension of time to refile a case that was timely commenced and
subsequently dismissed without prejudice -- is applicable under
the facts of this case.

As with the statute of limitations discussion, the parties agree
that because this case was originally filed in Missouri, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), Missouri choice of law rules apply.
Based on the contacts listed in Section 6 and the factors
described in Section 145, Judge Dubois concluded that Missouri has
a stronger connection to this case than any other state.  Missouri
is where the underlying MDL was litigated and continues to be
adjudicated; it is where the Plaintiff initially attempted to file
this case; it is where the MDL Court coordinated and oversaw the
relationship between class members and defendants; and applying
Missouri law avoids the "draconian results" of the affidavit or
certificate of merit requirement, and would serve to protect
justified expectations pursuant to Section 6(d).  Although
Pennsylvania and New Jersey have a connection to this case, he
concluded that Missouri has the strongest connection of any state.
The Court therefore concluded that Missouri substantive law
applies to all claims in this case.

For these reasons, Judge held that the claims in this case accrued
in Pennsylvania and that, pursuant to the Missouri borrowing
statute, Pennsylvania's statute of limitations is applicable to
the case.  He also concludes that the Missouri savings statute
applies.  The Plaintiff's claims thus survive and will be allowed
to proceed -- they are not barred by the expiration of
Pennsylvania's two-year statute of limitations.  He further ruled
that the Missouri substantive law governs the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/6iHvln from Leagle.com.

JAMES OETTING, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID P. OETTING.

JAMES OETTING, Plaintiff, represented by FRANK H. TOMLINSON --
jweston@sackslaw.com -- TOMLINSON LAW LLC & JOHN K. WESTON, SACKS
WESTON DIAMOND LLC.

HEFFLER, RADETICH & SAITTA, LLP, Defendant, represented by HOWARD
D. SCHER -- howard.scher@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY
PC, JOHN J. POWELL -- john.powell@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL &
ROONEY PC & THOMAS P. MANNING -- thomas.manning@bipc.com --
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY P.C..

EDWARD J. SINCAVAGE, Defendant, represented by HOWARD D. SCHER,
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC, JOHN J. POWELL, BUCHANAN INGERSOLL
& ROONEY PC & THOMAS P. MANNING, BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY P.C..

EDWARD J. RAEDETICH, JR., Defendant, represented by HOWARD D.
SCHER, BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC, JOHN J. POWELL, BUCHANAN
INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC & THOMAS P. MANNING, BUCHANAN INGERSOLL &
ROONEY P.C..

MICHAEL T. BANCROFT, Defendant, represented by HOWARD D. SCHER,
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC, JOHN J. POWELL, BUCHANAN INGERSOLL
& ROONEY PC & THOMAS P. MANNING, BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY P.C.


HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Settles TCPA Suit for $1.3MM in Gift Cards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports that a proposed
Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against Hooters
based on a single text message sent by the restaurant chain will
settle for about $1.3 million in gift cards distributed to
recipients of the text, according to a motion filed in Georgia
federal court.

Hooters of America LLC agreed to settle lead plaintiff Michael
Etzel's TCPA suit and certify the class after lengthy litigation
and discussions that began more than a year ago, according to
Etzel's preliminary settlement approval motion submitted on August
9 to U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May.

"HOA will be forever enjoined from sending a text message to the
class members, without having received an express written consent
for such contact provided after the date of this settlement
agreement," the motion said. "This prohibits HOA from sending any
further messages to the class members, halting forever any illegal
text communications that force the consumer to incur charges,
deplete a cellphone's battery, invade privacy . . . .  and waste
the consumer's time or cause the risk of personal injury due to
interruption and distraction."

The $1.3 million will fund $50 gift cards redeemable at all
Hooters restaurants to a first tier of class members who submit
valid claims and $20 cards to second-tier members, according to
the motion. In addition, Hooters has agreed to pay attorneys' fees
and costs of up to $444,000, separate from the class settlement,
and Etzel will be awarded up to $10,000, the motion said.

However, Hooters in agreeing to the settlement denied in the
preliminary approval motion that the message violated the TCPA,
that the company used an autodialer, or that it did not have
requisite consent to send.

Judge May on Nov. 15 declined to toss the case, holding that
sending a single message that violates the TCPA is sufficient to
give the text recipient standing. The judge wasn't swayed by
Hooters' contention that Etzel had merely asserted a bare-bones
violation of the TCPA, rather than the sort of concrete and
particularized harm required by the U.S. Supreme Court's Spokeo
Inc. v. Robins ruling in order to proceed with claims of statutory
violations.

The U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark May 2016 decision in Spokeo
addressed the question of when "a bare procedural violation of a
statutory right" constitutes an injury in fact sufficient for
standing to bring suit in federal court, ruling that a consumer
could not sue Spokeo Inc. for mere technical violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act. But the ruling left the door open for
plaintiffs in other cases to use statutory violations to establish
standing.

In the Hooters suit, Judge opined that an injury doesn't have to
be tangible to be concrete under Spokeo, adding that Congress
can't totally do away with the injury requirement, but can, by
statute, turn a previously non-concrete injury into one that is
concrete and thus sufficient to provide standing.

"With respect to the TCPA, the Eleventh Circuit had held that
Congress intended to create injury where the statute was
violated," Judge May said, pointing to the appeals court's 2015
ruling in Palm Beach Golf Center Boca Inc. v. Jon G. Sarris DDS,
PA. "This means that if the plaintiff has been personally affected
by the conduct that violates the statute, standing exists."

Etzel filed his complaint in April 2015 after Hooters on Jan. 28,
2015, sent a text message both to him and each of the class
members, according to court filings. The text message said:
"Hooters Fans: Our mClub has moved! Don't worry, you'll still
receive exclusive news, just from a new number. Reply STOP to
unsubscribe Msg&Data Rates may apply."

For six years prior to that message, Hooters had engaged in a
marketing campaign that requested customers to opt in with a short
code, "36832," to receive advertising or telemarketing text
messages about offers and discounts, according to court filings.
At one point, Etzel and the class had opted in to the text
program, but before the date of the infringing message, they had
opted out and revoked their consent, filings say.

Etzel's legal counsel W. Pitts Carr declined to comment on August
11.

Representatives for Hooters didn't immediately return a request
for comment on August 11.

Etzel is represented by W. Pitts Carr, Esq. -- pcarr@wpcarr.com --
and Alex D. Weatherby, Esq. -- aweatherby@wpcarr.com -- of Carr &
Weatherby LLP, Nicholas P. Panayotopoulos, Esq. --
npanayotopoulos@wwhgd.com -- and Nancy F. Rigby, Esq. --
nrigby@wwhgd.com -- of Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial LLC,
and David Ghattas, Esq. of the Law Office of David Ghattas.

Hooters is represented by Alisa P. Cleek, Esq. --
acleek@taylorenglish.com -- of Taylor English Duma LLP and Becca
J. Wahlquist, Esq. -- bwahlquist@swlaw.com -- of Snell & Wilmer
LLP.

The case is Michael Etzel v. Hooters of America LLC, case number
1:15-cv-01055, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. [GN]


INTERNATIONAL GRILL: Chicas Seeks OT Pay under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO CHICAS, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL GRILL, INC., a
California Corporation; HACOP M. BAGHDASSARIAN, an individual; and
DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC672605 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Aug. 16, 2017), seeks to recover overtime and minimum
wage under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have uniformly and
systematically failed and continue to fail to pay overtime wage
for all overtime hours worked; failed and continue to fail to pay
minimum wage for all hours worked; failed and continue to fail to
authorize or permit meal periods; failed and continue to fail to
authorize or permit all rest breaks; failed and continue to fail
to timely furnish complete and accurate itemized wage statements;
willfully failed to pay, without abatement or reduction, all final
wages owed; and committed and continue to commit unfair business
practices.

The Plaintiff has worked as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee at
Defendant Grill, an owner and operator of multiple restaurants in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 761 5484
          Facsimile: (818) 561 3938
          E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com

               - and -

          Ashkan Shakouri, Esq.
          SHAKOURI LAW FIRM
          11601 Wilshire Blvd, Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 575 1827
          Facsimile: (310) 575 1872
          E-mail: ash@shakourilawfirm.com


JACKSON COUNTY, KS: Inmate Sues Over Prison Lax Security
--------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hendricks, writing for Kansas City Star, reports that Saili
Prado endured at least two brutal beatings, his attorneys say, at
the hands of fellow jail inmates because of lax security at the
Jackson County Detention Center in 2016.

And because of broken plumbing and poor sanitation in the jail,
the now-21-year-old Kansas City man alleges that he was forced to
live in filth while incarcerated for months before being sentenced
to probation for robbery last year.

Similar complaints have been lodged in a number of lawsuits and
acknowledged by county officials and others in the past year.

But Prado's attorney, David R. Smith, Esq. of Adam Leitman Bailey
PC and attorneys at two other law firms have gone a step further
in filing a newly amended federal complaint this week.

They want a U.S district court judge in Kansas City to declare
that Jackson County violated the constitutional rights of Prado
and countless others awaiting trial or transfer to state prison.

And they are asking Judge Beth Phillips to order the county to
take steps to address the jail's dirty and dangerous conditions.

In addition to seeking unspecified monetary damages, the class-
action litigation asks Phillips to issue an injunction requiring
the county to better train correctional officers in recognizing
prisoners' constitutional rights to equal protection under the law
and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

Also, the suit asks for a judicial order requiring the county to
alleviate overcrowding in the red-brick jail at 1300 Cherry St.
and "immediately remedy the inhumane conditions."

While far from being the first lawsuit filed citing security
lapses and insanitary conditions at the detention center, the
complaint filed late April 10 is the first to ask for systemic
changes on behalf of current and former jail inmates as a group.

If successful, it would be the third time in the last four decades
that the jail could be under some form of federal supervision.

The county does not comment on pending litigation, a spokeswoman
said.

But Prado's attorney said he hopes the lawsuit will lead to needed
changes at the jail, where four out of five detainees are awaiting
trial and can't make bail.

"We just wish that our prisoners were treated as humanely as the
animals in the animal shelter," said Smith, of the Smith Lawrence
law firm.

He is getting assistance in the litigation from Michael Yonke,
Esq. at Yonke Law LLC and two lawyers at the Edgar Law Firm LLC,
John F. Edgar, Esq. and Dylan M. Long, Esq.

The litigation comes amid rising calls for improvements in both
the jail's operations and physical condition. An outside auditor
hired by the county legislature told legislators that
understaffing at the jail has become "a crisis situation," with
too few corrections officers to ensure the safety of inmates and
their jailers.

The consultant from CRA Inc., Jim Rowenhorst, also cited the
"atrocious" sanitary conditions he encountered on his first visits
to the detention center this year, citing sewage backups and other
plumbing problems that both he and the county say have since been
fixed.

The county has been making improvements within the facility over
the past year, spending $2.9 million on fixing 488 broken cell
doors, replacing hundreds of mattresses and spending $58,000 on
plumbing issues.

On August 7, the legislature will consider spending another
$100,000 to hire three union painters to paint inmate living
areas.

But a 40 percent turnover rate in corrections officers remains a
serious concern, with Rowenhorst reporting instances of only two
corrections officers at times supervising as many as 190
detainees.

Legislators have asked County Executive Frank White to come up
with a plan by August 14 on how to address the issue for the short
term and to develop long-term solutions by the end of the month.
White's spokeswoman said he will comply.

While higher pay may ultimately lead to a more stable workforce in
the long term, short-term fixes could include hiring an outside
firm to transport prisoners and shortening visiting hours so that
more guards can be in the housing units.

Prado was one of four teen-agers arrested in February 2016 after a
two-day crime spree, and was the only one who got probation
instead of a prison sentence.

Initially, he was housed on the detention center's third floor,
known by guards and inmates alike as "the thunder dome" because of
the many fights that break out there.

Prado was moved to another floor after a couple of weeks when he
was nearly jumped by a group of inmates led by the brother of one
of his co-defendants, the lawsuit says.

But he didn't escape violence for long. After a month in
protective custody on the jail's seventh floor, he was moved to
the fourth floor, which he feared would make him appear to be a
"snitch."

Prado's concerns were borne out on April 19, 2016, when he endured
two beatings -- once in the early morning hours and once in the
evening -- at the hands of a half dozen other inmates who called
themselves "the towelaban" because they wrapped their faces in
towels to hide their identities.

In both instances, the beatings occurred, he alleges, after his
assailants blocked the lens of video surveillance cameras with
brooms that he alleges inmates were allowed to keep in their
living areas, despite their potential for being used as weapons.

The suit alleges that the guards would have noticed that the
lenses were blocked had they been paying attention.

"Because the camera lens was covered with a broom," the suit says,
"the other pretrial detainees believed they could assault and
batter plaintiff without fear of punishment."

Smith filed a limited lawsuit on Prado's behalf back in June, but
the complaint was amended to include additional allegations about
jail conditions and the proposal to represent all pre-trial
detainees and inmates. The class-action suit is just the latest in
a number of challenges the county has faced this year with regard
to the detention center.

The county paid out more than $700,000 in settlements this year to
former inmates who said they were harmed due to negligence or
outright brutality at the hands of the jail's corrections
officers.

In January, the county legislature approved a $275,000 payout to
settle a claim by a former inmate who alleged her rape by another
detainee was due to security lapses.

Then last month, the county paid $437,500 to a man who suffered
serious injuries when beaten by guards on July 4, 2015.

The four guards accused of beating a defenseless James J. Ramirez
are now facing federal felony charges.

Other pending lawsuits include one filed by former inmate Davonta
Sweate, who said he was roughed up by guards after suffering a
seizure. In another suit, Ryan Dumas said a guard did nothing to
stop him from being raped by a fellow inmate and accused her of
furnishing inmates with illegal drugs.

Two inmates sued separately in the spring claiming they lived in
filthy, unsanitary conditions. [GN]


JPAY INC: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of "McCune"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura of the United States District
Court for Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an
initial screen Recommendation and Report dismissing the action
styled AMES STEPHEN McCUNE, Plaintiff, v. JPAY, INC., et al.,
Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-670. (S.D. Ohio), for failure
to assert any claim over which this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction.

This matter is before the United States Magistrate Judge for the
initial screen of Plaintiff's, James Stephen McCune, Complaint
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims
and to recommend dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint, or any
portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Plaintiff is alleging that Defendant's, JPay, Inc. (Jay), JP5s 7
tablet and/or the programs for the tablet were defectively
designed.  Plaintiff alleges that he purchased his JP5s tablet for
"over $100.00, he has had many problems with his device."

Now, Plaintiff asserts that it no longer works. As such, he cannot
use the around 200 songs, 3 E-Books, or 35 video games that he
purchased.

Plaintiff's Complaint seeks to assert defective products claims
against JPay and also against ODRC on the theory they it has a
duty to ensure that these products are free from defects. However,
these allegations do not amount to alleged violations of federal
statutes or alleged deprivations of constitutional rights. This
leaves diversity jurisdiction under Section 1332(a) as the only
potential basis for this Court's jurisdiction.

Plaintiff's allegations are also insufficient to support diversity
jurisdiction. First, complete diversity does not exist, as
Plaintiff identified ODRC as a citizen of the state.

Second, even if complete diversity existed between the parties,
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to adequately plead facts upon which
the Court could rely to conclude that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. Although he requests $500,000.00 in damages, his
allegations fail to support such a request.

Plaintiff's purchases come nowhere close to the requisite $75,000
amount in controversy. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently
plead diversity jurisdiction.

The Undersigned also notes that because Plaintiff is a non-
attorney proceeding pro se, he cannot adequately represent a
class. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff sought to assert claims
on behalf of a class, it further recommended that those class-
action claims be dismissed.

In sum, it is recommended that the Court dismiss this action for
failure to assert any claim over which this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Magistrate's August 10, 2017 Report and
Recommendation is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7cqz7klfrom
Leagle.com.

James Stephen McCune, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


KELLY SERVICES: $6.7MM Settlement in "Hillson" Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LASANDRA HILLSON, STEVEN BOHLER, and ASHLEY
SCHMIDT, individually and as proposed representatives of a class,
Plaintiffs, v. KELLY SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-
10803 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Laurie J. Michelson of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division,
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
attorney's fees, costs, and class representative service payments;
and granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of
class action settlement.

When the Named Plaintiffs applied for a job with the Defendant,
they were asked to sign a form that disclosed to them that Kelly
might obtain a consumer report to assess their employability.  But
the form also included a waiver and disclaimer.  The Plaintiffs
say that by including this information on the form, Kelly violated
the "stand-alone disclosure" provision of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA").  That provision of the FCRA prohibits
employers from procuring consumer reports unless they first
disclose that fact in a document that consists solely of the
disclosure.  They further maintain that thousands of people who
submitted applications to Kelly were asked to sign a similar form.
They thus seek to represent a class of 221,221 individuals.

Following some formal discovery, two mediation sessions (with two
retired federal judges), and additional negotiations, the
Plaintiffs and Kelly have reached a settlement.  Under their
agreement, Kelly will provide the Plaintiffs and the class with
several benefits.

The primary one is that Kelly will create a settlement fund of
$6,749,000, none of which will revert to Kelly.  The settlement
agreement contemplates that up to 33% of the settlement fund will
go to class counsel for fees.  Costs, class-administration
expenses, and representation payments to the Plaintiffs will also
be deducted from the fund.  In addition, Kelly has agreed to
remove the waiver and disclaimer language from its disclosure
forms for a period of five years (or until a material change in
the law) and to provide, upon request, each class member (and
Kelly temporary employees) a copy of the consumer report that
Kelly obtained.

In January 2017, the Court preliminary found the settlement
agreement to be fair.  Since the Court issued its preliminary
approval opinion, the period for opting out, objecting, and making
claims has closed.  And Plaintiffs have formally petitioned the
Court for attorney's fees, costs, settlement administration
expenses, and representative service payments.  They have also
filed a motion for final approval of the settlement and the Court
has held the final approval hearing on Aug. 2, 2017.

Judge Michelson finally certified the class, for purposes of
settlement, described as all persons on whom the Defendant
procured a consumer report pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting
Act during the period from July 18, 2012 through Jan. 23, 2014,
and whose initial hire date with the Defendant was during the
period of time when it was providing new applicants with a
disclosure form that contained a liability release.

Having considered all the factors that bear on the fairness of the
settlement, the Judge finally approved the Settlement Agreement
and the Settlement contemplated thereby, and directed its
consummation pursuant to its terms and conditions and the terms
and conditions of the Order.  He further approved the Class
Counsel's application for $1,454,206.52 in attorney's fees and
$40,864.60 in out-of-pocket litigation expenses, and for a service
award to Plaintiffs Hillson, Bohler, and Schmidt in the amount of
$1,200 each.  It also approved the payment of up to $243,216 plus
the cost of postage to the Settlement Administrator.  These
amounts will be paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount.

Judge Michelson dismissed this Action and all claims with
prejudice, without costs to any party, except as expressly
provided for in the Settlement Agreement and the order.  He
ordered that this final approval Order and forthcoming separate
judgment will constitute a final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 54 that is binding on the Parties and the
Settlement Class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Cexg3c from Leagle.com.

LaSandra Hillson, Plaintiff, represented by Eleanor Michelle Drake
-- emdrake@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C..

LaSandra Hillson, Plaintiff, represented by Ian B. Lyngklip --
IanLyngklip@Att.Net -- Lyngklip Assoc Consumer Law Center, PLC &
Paul J. Lukas, Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Steven Bohler, Plaintiff, represented by Eleanor Michelle Drake,
Berger & Montague, P.C., Ian B. Lyngklip, Lyngklip Assoc Consumer
Law Center, PLC & Paul J. Lukas -- lukas@nka.com -- Nichols
Kaster, PLLP.

Ashley Schmidt, Plaintiff, represented by Eleanor Michelle Drake,
Berger & Montague, P.C., Ian B. Lyngklip, Lyngklip Assoc Consumer
Law Center, PLC & Paul J. Lukas, Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Kelly Services Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerald L. Maatman,
Jr. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, David J.
Rowland -- drowland@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Laura Jean
Maechtlen --  lmaechtlen@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Michael Williams Stevens -- bstevens@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, Michael L. Weissman -- mweissman@fwslaw.com -- Finkel,
Whitefield, Pamela Q. Devata --  pdevata@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw & Shireen Y. Wetmore -- swetmore@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw LLP.

Lenora Mosier, Objector, Pro Se.


KOHL'S CORP: Court Severs Claims in ADA Suit
--------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Equal Rights Center, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Kohl's Corporation and Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 14 C 8259(N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, retained the claim alleged by the Plaintiff Devora
Fisher, by and through Sheila Fisher.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, seek
to hold the Kohl's liable for purported violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New York Human
Rights Law based on alleged inaccessible counters, restrooms,
fitting rooms, and inadequate accessible parking.  The Court
granted in part Kohl's first motion to strike the class
allegations on the ground that Plaintiffs failed to properly
allege ascertainability, and the Plaintiffs were granted leave to
file an amended complaint.

Kohl's again sought to strike the class allegations and dismiss
Count II of the amended complaint, which alleges violations of the
ADA.  The Court denied that motion, then suspended consideration
of the Plaintiff's then-pending class certification motion so the
parties could discuss settlement, which was unsuccessful.  The
Court subsequently denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and the Seventh Circuit denied the Plaintiff's
petition for permission to appeal the class certification ruling.
The Court then directed the parties to file position papers on
whether the six Named Plaintiffs should be severed.

As an initial matter, now that class certification has been
denied, it is not clear that joinder of the Plaintiffs is proper
under Rule 20(a)(1) given that their claims do not arise out of
the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences.  In any event, Kohl's asks the Court to sever the
Plaintiffs' claims under Rule 21, but retain each of the severed
cases on its docket given the Court's familiarity with the
relevant issues.

As discussed in the ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and as set forth in detail in Kohl's position
statement, each of the Individual Plaintiffs complains of
different barriers (such as limited parking spots, difficulty
accessing merchandise or restrooms due to items blocking the
aisles or entries, and counters that are too high, among other
things) at different stores at different times.  Both parties
acknowledge that severance is appropriate under these
circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to await the results of
the parties' discussions regarding the non-aisle width claims
before making any decision on severance, so that if the parties do
resolve the non-aisle width claims between themselves, the Court
can then decide the aisle-width claim, including whether Kohl's
Shopability Standards are achievable under the ADA.  The Court
does not perceive that waiting for a potential resolution to the
non-aisle width claims to be a worthwhile endeavor at this point
in time.

Therefore, the Court concluded that based on the varying facts and
circumstances underlying each of the Plaintiffs' claims, and in
the interests of moving this case forward and facilitating
possible settlement on an individual basis, severance of the
Plaintiffs' claims is appropriate.  The claim alleged by the
Plaintiff Devora Fisher, by and through Sheila Fisher, her legal
guardian, who is the first-named Individual Plaintiff and resides
in Illinois, remained on the Court's docket.  The remaining
Plaintiffs' claims are severed, with the Court declining to retain
the severed cases on its docket.

The Clerk is directed to provide new case numbers for each of the
severed Plaintiffs' (i.e., Equal Rights Center, Monica Kamal, Jean
Ryan, Regina Lee, Eugene Kelly, and Patricia Thomas) claims and
assign those cases to judges pursuant to the District Court's
operating procedures.  The Clerk is further directed to use the
instant Memorandum Opinion and Order as the initiating document in
each of the newly-created cases and to file the second amended
class action complaint in the instant case as document number 2 in
each of the newly-created cases.

Any requests by the Severed Plaintiffs to file amended complaints
will be directed to the newly-assigned judge.  Tolling of the
statute of limitations is unnecessary.  To the extent any of the
severed plaintiffs wish to seek transfer to another jurisdiction,
they may do so after their case has been reassigned.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/qgAquC from Leagle.com.

Devora Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Deepa Goraya --
deepa_goraya@washlaw.org -- Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil
Rights and Urban Affa.

Devora Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Tracy Ellen Stevenson --
TStevenson@rsplaw.com -- Law Offices of Tracy E. Stevenson, P.C.,
Andres Javier Gallegos -- AGallegos@rsplaw.com -- Robbins, Salomon
& Patt, Ltd., Jennifer Lundy Sender -- JSender@rsplaw.com --
Robbins, Salomon & Patt, Ltd. & Matthew K. Handley --
matthew_handley@washlaw.org -- Washington Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights, pro hac vice.

Kohl's Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joel Griswold, Baker
& Hostetler, LLP, Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Baker & Hostetler LLP,
Brian C. Blair, Baker & Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice & John
Conlaeth McIlwee, Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel
Griswold -- jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP,
Bonnie Keane DelGobbo -- bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP, Brian C. Blair -- bblair@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice & John Conlaeth McIlwee, Baker &
Hostetler LLP.


LA SALLE COUNTY, CA: Responds to Federal SAFE Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Mywebtimes.com, reported that an attorney
is arguing two plaintiffs, who were stopped by the SAFE anti-drug
unit, waited too long to lodge their lawsuit against La Salle
County.

Alyssa Larson, of Torrington Conn., and Jeffrey R. Straker, of
Nevada City, Calif., filed suit in June in U.S. District Court for
Northern Illinois, saying their constitutional rights were
violated during traffic stops by the State's Attorney's Felony
Enforcement unit. They are seeking class-action status for their
suit.

Larson and Straker named La Salle County, former La Salle County
State's Attorney Brian Towne and SAFE officers as defendants.
Towne formed the unit in 2011, saying SAFE's purpose was to make
drug arrests and seize drug money on Interstate 80.

Towne suspended SAFE in 2015 after the Third District Appellate
Court ruled the unit was illegal. The Illinois Supreme Court then
heard arguments on the matter, and also ruled June 29 the unit was
not authorized.

Chicago lawyer Kevin M. Casey, Esq. -- kcasey@stradley.com -- of
Stradley Ronon, who represents La Salle County, filed a response
on August 11 to the suit, contending the suit should be dismissed,
because it was filed after the two-year statute of limitations had
expired.

Larson was stopped by SAFE in October 2012 and Straker in December
2014; their suit was lodged June 2, 2017. Casey said there was no
reason Larson and Straker couldn't have filed their suit within
two years.

Casey further argued plaintiffs failed to say how the SAFE
officers caused them emotional distress. The emotional distress
claim also should sink, because it had only a one-year statute of
limitations, in Casey's view. In addition, the suit is damaged by
the fact neither Larson nor Straker alleged money was confiscated
from them during the traffic stops, Casey contended.

Larson and Straker are represented by the Chicago firm of Wexler
Wallace, and by Lake Bluff lawyer Jack Boehm, Esq --
jboehm@proptax.com -- of Fisk Kart Katz and Regan, Ltd. [GN]


MACY'S INC: Acosta Sues over ERISA Violations
---------------------------------------------
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, Secretary of Labor, the Plaintiff, v. MACY'S,
INC., ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY,
CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE NSURANCE COMPANY, and the MACY'S, INC.,
and WELFARE BENEFITS PLAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00541-
TSB (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 16, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from
violating the provisions of Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

According to the complaint, from July 1, 2008, through June 30,
2012, Macy's used its Summary Plan Description and Summary Plan
Description Addenda as governing Health Plan Documents. From July
1, 2008, through June 30, 2012, the Health Plan was also governed,
in part, by the "Federated Department Stores, Inc. Welfare
Benefits Plan (No. 941)", which states that amendments to or
terminations of the Health Plan, "[S]hall be in the form of a
written action approved by the Chief Executive Officer, or any
officer of the Company to whom he delegates such authority as he
deems appropriate, and shall be effective on the date stated in
such written action. Any documents implementing the amendment or
termination may be executed by any officer of the Company, or such
other person given the authority by the Chief Executive Officer."
The Health Plan's health care benefits were partly self-funded and
partly insured. The Health Plan's expenses were funded by
employee, employer, and COBRA contributions. The contributions for
the self-funded benefits were forwarded to a Health Plan trust
account to be used to pay approved Health Plan claims and
administrative expenses of the Health Plan. The contributions for
the fully-insured benefits were forwarded to insurance companies
to obtain health plan coverage to pay Health Plan claims. For the
self-funded portion of the Health Plan, Macy's determined which
reimbursement methodologies were used to determine and pay
approved, out-of-network claims. The only documents governing the
Health Plan where Macy's identified which method would be used to
determine the reimbursement rates for out-of-network claims were
the Summary Plan Description Addenda. For the self-funded portion
of the Health Plan, Macy's contracted with third-party claims
administrators Cigna and Anthem to determine and pay Health Plan
claims.

Macy's, Inc., originally Federated Department Stores, Inc., is an
American holding company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Peter Nessen, Esq.
          Kevin M. Wilemon, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
          230 South Dearborn Street, Eighth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 353-6973
          E-mail: wilemon.kevin@dol.gov
                  nessen.peter@dol.gov


MICHIGAN: State Reverses 44,000 Jobless Fraud Cases
---------------------------------------------------
David Eggert, writing for Mining Journal, reports that the state
of Michigan said on August 11 it has reversed at least 44,000
unemployment benefit fraud cases covering a two-year period and is
refunding nearly $21 million after a computer system wrongly
accused people of collecting excessive benefits.

The figures were released as part of a review that began in
January, after an astounding 93 percent error rate was discovered
in an examination of thousands of cases.

The Unemployment Insurance Agency said it has now reviewed more
than 62,000 cases in which claimants were assessed a fraud penalty
and did not appeal -- at least 9,000 more than previously
disclosed. Of the 40,000 resolved solely by the troubled computer
program, 85 percent were reversed. Of the 22,000 cases that were
flagged by the Michigan Integrated Data Automated System (MiDAS)
and referred to a human investigator, 44 percent were overturned -
- which mirrors the overall reversal rate in the normal appeals
process, said state spokesman Dave Murray.

Another 5,000 cases were resolved through appeals.

Wanda Stokes, director of the Talent Investment Agency -- which
houses the Unemployment Insurance Agency -- said changes have been
made to ensure residents "are treated fairly and get the benefits
they need during a stressful time. Our initial focus was on a
painstaking review of all the cases in question so we have the
clearest picture of what we have to do to make things right and
restore public trust in the system."

The state has repaid all but about $2 million of the $20.8 million
being refunded to people, Murray said, and is trying to locate
those who are still owed money.

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder's administration has been under fire
for the fiasco. Last month, the state announced it was dropping
criminal charges against 186 people accused of illegally
collecting benefits.

Over a two-year period, the state mostly relied on the computer
system to flag people who were accused of collecting excessive
unemployment benefits based on discrepancies in reported earnings,
hours worked and other information. They were hit with penalties,
wage garnishments and lost tax refunds -- before the state
admitted it was wrong.

The agency said that for most of the reversals in the latest
review, residents got benefits to which they were not entitled but
they did not intend to commit fraud. In other cases, employers
reported quarterly wages to the agency, which later found that the
wages had not been earned during the weeks the claimants filed for
benefits.

Jennifer Lord, Esq. an attorney who has been leading a class-
action lawsuit against the state, said on August 11 that the
review is a "limited, positive step forward. But we are concerned
that the dollars are not adding up. The state's own audited
financial statements demonstrate that tens of millions more were
seized from the citizens of Michigan. It is critical that the
state and the agency be fully transparent so that confidence in
the agency is restored."

Lord also called for the administration to specify how and why
"this debacle happened."

Stokes has previously said lawmakers should consider reducing what
are the country's highest financial penalties for unemployment
fraud. Democrats in the GOP-led Legislature have introduced bills
in response to the scandal, and a bipartisan workgroup is meeting.

The agency said it is improving the computer program, staff
interaction with residents and letters sent to claimants. It has
received help from national experts on "best practices" and
recently began a second phases of organizational changes.

But Democrats continued their criticism on August 11, saying it
has taken too long to fix problems and contending that those
accused of fraud often incurred other costs that the state does
not plan to reimburse.

"Families went into bankruptcy, marriages were ruined and
properties were lost because residents, by no fault of their own,
were robbed by the Snyder administration," said Senate Minority
Leader Jim Ananich of Flint. [GN]


MONSANTO CO: Faces "Prince" Suit over Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------
William M. Prince, the Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04737-VC (E.D.N.C., Aug. 16, 2017),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Ward, Jr., Esq.
          McGowan Hood & Felder, LLC
          321 Wingo Way, Suite 103
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 388 7202
          Facsimile: (843) 388 3194
          E-mail: jward@mcgowanhood.com


MONTGOMERY, AL: Faces "Johnson" Suit in M.D. of Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Montgomery.
The case is styled as Jeremy Lamar Johnson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. City of
Montgomery, a municipality organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Alabama, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00552-MHT-WC
(M.D. Ala., August 14, 2017).

Montgomery is the capital city of Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Carey Brian Meadors, Esq.
   Meadors Law Firm
   1556 Laurens Street
   Birmingham, AL 35242
   Tel: (205) 873-9599

      - and -

   Jeffrey Paul Mauro, Esq.
   Baddley& Mauro, LLC
   2545 Highland Avenue, Suite 100
   Birmingham, AL 35205
   Tel: (205) 939-0090
   Fax: (205) 939-0064
   Email: jpmauro@baddleymauro.com

      - and -

   John Parker Yates, Esq.
   Baddley Mauro & Yates
   850 Shades Creek Pkwy-Ste 310
   Birmingham, AL 35209
   Tel: (205) 939-0090
   Email: parker@baddleymauro.com

      - and -

   Thomas Edmund Baddley, Jr., Esq.
   Baddley& Mauro, LLC
   2545 Highland Avenue, Ste. 100
   Birmingham, AL 35205
   Tel: (205) 939-0090
   Fax: (205) 939-0064
   Email: tbaddley@baddleymauro.com


MUTUAL SECURITIES: Court Partly Reverses Ruling in "Milliner"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHARLOTTE B. MILLINER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MUTUAL SECURITIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03354-TEH
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Thelton E. Henderson granted in part and denied
in part the Defendant's motion for partial reconsideration.

This class action is related to another class action separately
filed in the Court: Milliner v. Bock Evans Financial Counsel,
Ltd., No. 15-cv-1763 TEH.  The Bock Evans Class Action was brought
by the same Plaintiffs as the present class action, to challenge
the "one size fits all" investment approach implemented by their
investment advisor, Defendant Bock Evans Financial Counsel, Ltd.
("BEFC").

The Plaintiffs brought the present class action against MSI
because of its relationship with BEFC.  They allege Bock and Evans
were dually registered as registered representatives and
commissioned brokers of MSI and as investment advisors and
principals of BEFC.  The Plaintiffs allege BEFC placed 100% or
nearly 100% of their assets in high risk and highly speculative
foreign mining stocks.

In its March 18, 2017 Order, the Court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment and established that MSI
breached its duty to determine suitability under FINRA Rules.
Following that Order, MSI filed a motion to amend its prior
responses to the Plaintiffs' Requests for Admission, and a motion
seeking leave to file the present motion for partial
reconsideration of the Court's March 18, 2017 Order.  The Court
granted both of these motions and clarified that, under FINRA
rules, the actions of Bock and Evans may be imputed to MSI.  At
the same time, the Court explained that while Bock and Evans'
actions in determining the suitability of the Plaintiffs'
transactions may be imputed to MSI, this does not absolve MSI of
further responsibility.

Subsequently, MSI submitted amended responses to the Plaintiffs'
Requests for Admission to deny that it did not determine the
suitability of any investment recommendations and advice' made in
connection with the Plaintiffs' Trust Account[s].  In light of
these amended responses, MSI asks the Court to reconsider its
prior holding that MSI did not make any suitability determinations
for transactions linked to either of the Plaintiffs' accounts,'
and to enter partial summary judgment finding that MSI did make
suitability determinations for transactions linked to the
Plaintiffs' accounts.

Judge Henderson finds that MSI's responses to the Plaintiffs'
Requests for Admissions have been consistent with its theory of
the case.  MSI's initial response that it did not determine the
suitability of the challenged transactions was consistent with its
position that Bock and Evans were communicating with the
Plaintiffs in their capacities as Investment Advisers of BEFC, not
as Registered Representatives of MSI.  Once the Court rejected
that position and made it clear that Bock and Evans' actions were
imputed to MSI, MSI promptly filed a motion to alter its
responses.  In sum, he finds that Mary Evans' declaration creates
a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether MSI determined
the suitability of the transactions at issue in this case.

Because the Court's March 18 Order conclusively established that
MSI failed to determine suitability, the Plaintiffs did not have a
need to propound further discovery on this issue.  To deny the
Plaintiffs the ability to do so at this juncture would be unfair
and prejudicial to them.  Accordingly, Judge Henderson denied
without prejudice MSI's request for partial summary judgment in
its favor.  If MSI wishes to do so, it may seek summary judgment
by filing its own motion at a later time.

For these reasons, Judge Henderson granted in part and denied in
part, MSI's request for partial reconsideration.  He vacated the
Court's prior holding that MSI failed to determine the suitability
of the transactions linked to Plaintiffs' account.  To the extent
there are any inconsistencies between the Order and the Court's
March 18, 2017 Order, the Order supersedes the previous one.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/cdWxwJ from Leagle.com.

Charlotte B. Milliner, Plaintiff, represented by David Sturgeon-
Garcia -- dsglaw@comcast.net -- The Law Offices of David Sturgeon-
Garcia.

Joanne Brem, Plaintiff, represented by David Sturgeon-Garcia, The
Law Offices of David Sturgeon-Garcia.

Mutual Securities, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy W.
Fredricks -- fredricks.t@wssllp.com -- Winget Spadafora &
Schwartzberg LLP, Brandon S. Reif -- reif.b@wssllp.com -- Winget
Spadafora & Schwartzberg LLP, Nazanin Afshar --
afshar.n@wssllp.com -- Winget Spadafora & Schwartzberg LLP &
Shelly C. Yoo, Winget Spadafora & Schwartzberg LLP.


MYLAN NV: Can't Duck Securities Fraud Suit, Investors Say
---------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hill, writing for Law360, reports that investors in EpiPen
maker Mylan NV have pushed back against the pharmaceutical
company's bid to toss their securities fraud proposed class
action, telling a New York federal court that Mylan hasn't even
challenged two of the categories of misstatements alleged in their
complaint.

The investors said on August 8 that those allegedly misleading
omissions -- about the government's communication with and
subsequent investigation of Mylan over its classification of
EpiPen as a generic drug -- will now move forward as a result,
while the rest of Mylan's attempt to scuttle the suit has fared no
better.

"Plaintiffs' remaining categories all emerge from this motion
similarly unscathed -- defendants' arguments to dismiss them
ignore critical, well-pleaded facts, fundamental, controlling law,
or both," the investors told the court.

Mylan -- whose highly profitable anti-allergy injection known as
the EpiPen has been the subject of a $465 million settlement, a
federal probe, antitrust suits and criticism by U.S. lawmakers --
in May urged the court to dismiss the suit brought by the
investors, who have accused the company of misleading them about
its "rampant corrupt activity" aimed at overcharging Medicaid for
the injector pens, stifling competition and fixing the prices of
certain generic drugs.

According to Mylan, the investors "shoehorned" their allegations
of wrongdoing into a securities fraud complaint in an effort to
"capitalize on other proceedings that have nothing at all to do
with Mylan's disclosures."

"These are not securities issues," Mylan said in May. "They are,
if anything, regulatory and antitrust issues that other courts and
agencies are considering in due course, under applicable,
nonsecurities laws."

But the investors argued on August 8 that this is a false
dichotomy. Although the company's "massive and wide-reaching
wrongdoing" did break federal regulations and antitrust laws,
investors said, it also constituted "egregious violations" of
securities laws.

"Mylan made numerous statements throughout the class period
covering all of the areas of activity in which it committed
wrongdoing, yet failed to disclose the wrongdoing, as defendants
were required to do in order to make these statements to the
investing public not misleading," the investors said. "By
misleading the investing public, Mylan caused billions of dollars
of losses to plaintiffs, losses that cannot be recovered through
any other causes of action. Securities laws are not redundant."

The investors, some of whom are Israeli entities that bought Mylan
shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, also fired back at Mylan's
bid to have an Israeli law claim cut from the suit on
jurisdictional grounds. Although Mylan argued in part that the New
York court should leave the claim to the Israeli courts -- where,
as Mylan put it, "nearly identical securities claims have been
asserted" -- the investors argued that a New York court is
actually a better venue for the litigation.

"[T]here is no doubt that this court can more conveniently dispose
of the litigation than an Israeli court," the investors said. "All
significant witnesses and evidence are located in the U.S. where
Mylan is headquartered, and the substantive content of only U.S.
securities law will be applied."

Counsel for the investors did not immediately return a request for
comment on August 11.

Representative for Mylan were also not immediately available for
comment on August 11.

The investors are represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. --
jlieberman@pomlaw.com -- and Austin P. Van, Esq. --
avan@pomlaw.com -- of Pomerantz LLP, Steven J. Toll, Esq. --
stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. --
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- Laura Posner, Esq. --
lposner@cohenmilstein.com -- and Times Wang, Esq. --
twang@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
and Jacob Sabo of Law Office of Jacob Sabo.

The defendants are represented by Sandra C. Goldstein, Esq. --
sgoldstein@cravath.com  -- and Kevin J. Orsini, Esq. --
korsini@cravath.com -- of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP.

The case is In re Mylan NV Securities Litigation, case number
1:16-cv-07926, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. [GN]


NISSAN NORTH: Court Dismisses "Heuer" Suit without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida dismissed without prejudice the case
captioned Neil Heuer, Plaintiff, v. Nissan North America, Inc.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-60018-Civ-Scola(S.D. Fla.).

Heuer owns a 2009 Nissan GT-R which he purchased in October 2008.
Around June 2016, the dashboard in Heuer's GT-R began to crack and
melt, causing the harsh glare.  Heuer brought his car to a Nissan
dealership and asked that they replace the dashboard.  The
dealership refused to replace the melting dashboard free of charge
or at a reduced rate, despite allegedly being aware of the recent
class action, Sanborn v. Nissan North America, Inc., in which
owners of a different Nissan model were entitled to have their
melting dashboards replaced at a steeply reduced rate.

Heuer alleges that Nissan has known the existence of their
defective dashboards since at least 2006.  He also alleges that
Nissan failed to disclose the defect and the safety issues
associated with it to consumers, and actively concealed the same
from consumers, who would have either not purchased the cars or
paid a far lower price for them had they been aware of the defect.
Alternately, Heuer pleads unjust enrichment predicated on this
same conduct.

Heuer purports to represent a class of all Florida purchasers or
lessors of Nissan GT-Rs produced from 2008 to the present.  Heuer
filed an amended class action complaint bringing a claim under the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") and a
claim of unjust enrichment.  The Defendant moves to dismiss the
Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and
under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing.  Heuer filed a response,
and Nissan filed a reply.

Nissan moves to dismiss Heuer's complaint in part because Heuer's
claims are time-barred by the four-year statute of limitations
prescribed by section 95.11(3)(f) and (3)(k), Florida Statutes
(2008).  Judge Scola finds that the dates in the complaint make it
clear that the causes of action accrued in 2008, and so are time-
barred under the four-year statute of limitations in section
95.11(3)(f) and (k) unless Heuer alleges facts plausibly
supporting the tolling of the statute.  Heuer's allegations that
Nissan falsely downplayed the defects and instructed its dealers
not to replace the defective dashboards are, without more,
insufficient to satisfy either the plausibility requirements of
Rule 8(a) or the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b).  As a
result, he granted Nissan's motion to dismiss because, as
currently pleaded, the statutes of limitations bar Heuer's causes
of action.

Heuer's allegation that all Nissan GT-Rs are the same product
regardless of the year they were made must be taken as true for
the purposes of the motion to dismiss.  Thus, at this juncture,
Judge Scola held Heuer has standing to pursue his claims.

As to Heuer's unjust enrichment claim, the Judge noted that the
Eleventh Circuit has stated that it is generally true that
equitable remedies are not available under Florida law when
adequate legal remedies exist.  However, that rule does not apply
to unjust enrichment claims.  Thus, notwithstanding that Heuer's
unjust enrichment claim stems from the same factual predicates as
his FDUTPA claim, Heuer is not precluded from asserting in the
alternative a claim for unjust enrichment.

For these reasons, Judge Scola granted Nissan's motion to dismiss
and dismissed the action without prejudice.  Heuer is given leave
to file a second amended complaint addressing the deficiencies
noted in the Order, to the extent the deficiencies may be cured.
Heuer must file the second amended complaint by Aug. 18, 2017 and
Nissan must respond no later than Sept. 1, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Nodk4X from Leagle.com.

Neil Heuer, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine E. Anderson --
canderson@gslawny.com -- Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart,
LLP.

Neil Heuer, Plaintiff, represented by Oren Giskan --
ogiskan@gslawny.com -- Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart LLP,
Ross Adam Appel, Komlossy Law P.A. & Emily Cornelia Komlossy,
Komlossy Law P.A..

Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Devi M. Rao,
Jenner & Block, LLP, pro hac vice, John Carl Seipp, Jr. --
john.seipp@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke, LLP, Monika
N. Kothari -- mkothari@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, LLP, pro hac
vice, Peter J. Brennan -- pbrennan@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block
LLP, pro hac vice & Jessica Rachel Garrity --
jessica.garrity@bowmanandbrooke.com -- BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Kalmenson Files Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group Inc.
The case is styled as Josef Kalmenson, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Northland
Group Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04521 (E.D. N.Y., August
1, 2017).

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

Plaintiff appeared PRO SE.


OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Hall" Suit Over Inaccurate Credit Report
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kellie A. Hall and Geoffrey S. Hall, individually on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ocwen
Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Nationstar
Mortgage LLC, & Experian Information Solutions, LLC, Case No.
1:17-cv-01927-CBS (D. Col., August 9, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
for falsely reporting that the Plaintiffs' and other borrowers'
mortgage loans were "included in or discharged in bankruptcy",
despite the fact that their loans were never included in their
bankruptcy; violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act ("RESPA"), for breach of contract for falsely assessing legal
fees for the supposed filing of "proofs of claims" in borrower
bankruptcy proceedings where such "proofs of claim" were never
actually filed at all; and for breaches of contract against
Defendants Ocwen and Nationstar regarding the loss of one of the
Hall's monthly mortgage payments, resulting in the Halls
overpaying Nationstar by a full month (under protest) so as to
avoid wrongful threats of foreclosure/collections.
Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC and Ocwen Financial Corporation are
licensed to service mortgage loans in all fifty states, including
California, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC does business and services loans secured
by real property located throughout the United States, including
in the State of Colorado.

Experian Information Solutions, LLC operates a credit reporting
service company located at 475 Anton Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92626.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
      WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
      3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 213-0675
      Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
      E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
              ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


OCWEN LOAN: Illinois Court Dismisses "Taylor"
---------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
Illinois, Rock Island Division, issued an Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ROBERT L. TAYLOR
and ROBIN A. TAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-
04167-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.).

Before the Court are Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim, and its motion for leave
to reply to Plaintiffs' response.

Plaintiffs Robert and Robin Taylor obtained a loan from a company
called Pinnfund USA, and mortgaged their home as collateral.
The Taylors filed suit and amended their complaint. They allege
violations of (I) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961-68, Am. Compl.
19-23; (II) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15
U.S.C. Sections 1692-1692p, Am. Compl. 23-24; (III) the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), 810
ILCS 505/1-505/12, Am. Compl. 25-26; and also allege state law
(IV) fraudulent inducement, Am. Compl. 26, and (V) unjust
enrichment claims.

Ocwen argues that the Taylors do not sufficiently allege a RICO
enterprise. RICO aims to punish and deter criminal conduct that
co-opts otherwise-legitimate businesses for criminal purposes.
The prototypical RICO case is one in which a person bent on
criminal activity seizes control of a previously legitimate firm
and uses the firm's resources, contacts, facilities, and
appearance of legitimacy to perpetrate more, and less easily
discovered, criminal acts than he could do in his own person, that
is, without channelling his criminal activities through the
enterprise that he has taken over.

The Court held that these allegations fail to depict a RICO
enterprise for two reasons. First, the entities alleged, and the
relationships between them, do not amount to an enterprise.
Second, the description is too vague.

The Taylors do not allege that officials from any of the (unnamed)
SPVs involved themselves in Ocwen's affairs, or vice versa. Unlike
Bible, the Taylors allege no exclusivity of dealing between Ocwen
and the SPVs, or indeed any other sort of collusion or attempt to
carry out a joint purpose. All the Taylors allege is a sometime-
coincidence of interests, and some apparently independent efforts
by Ocwen to inflate the amount of an outstanding loan balance.
The Taylors' lack of specific factual allegations is symptomatic
of their claim's second major defect -- its vagueness. No specific
SPV is identified. Ocwen's role in the purported enterprise,
beyond benefitting from inflating outstanding loan balances, is
not identified. Nowhere do the Taylors suggest which entities
direct and which follow, or the particular means by which fraud is
planned, coordinated, and executed. What the Taylors have alleged,
as Ocwen suggests, is a "run-of-the-mill commercial relationship"
between Ocwen and the SPVs and, at most, a run-of-the-mill attempt
to defraud the Taylors.

The RICO enterprise element has not been sufficiently alleged, and
so the RICO claim itself must be dismissed.

The allegedly illegal communications were attempts to collect on
disputed debts. Here, the Taylors claim not that Ocwen tried to
collect on a debt it knew or should have known to be invalid, but
that Ocwen sent them and credit reporting agencies accurate
descriptions of a debt they had contracted for with Ocwen. Recall
that the Taylors claim they were fraudulently induced to sign the
loan modification agreement, not that the agreement itself did not
exist, or that Ocwen's subsequent descriptions were untruthful
depictions of this agreement.

The Taylors claim that Ocwen's communications about their debt had
the natural consequence to harass, oppress, or abuse [them] in
connection with the collection of a debt, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692d;
that the notices to them were false representations of the
character, amount, or legal status of the debt.

But all that the notices sent to the Taylors are alleged to have
done was state the outstanding balance on the loan the Taylors had
been induced to take out. These letters were not harassing in any
conceivable sense nor did they contain false information. They did
not seek to deceive the Taylors into paying, because, in the
Taylors' version of events, the deception had already been
accomplished.

Because none of the communications that can form the basis of a
timely FDCPA claim could be shown to violate the statute, the
FDCPA claim must be dismissed.

Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied, and its motion for leave
to file a reply, denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 10, 2017, Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ycuq8j2efrom Leagle.com.

Robert L. Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Seth Richard Lesser,
KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, Two International Place, Rye Brook, NY
10573

Robert L. Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Marshall
Delbaum, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER INC., Eleanor Michelle Drake
-- emdrake@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE PC, John G. Albanese --
jalbanese@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE PC, Stuart Todd Rossman,
NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER & Joel Deutsch --
joel@joeldeutschlaw.com -- DEUTSCH & DEUTSCH.

Robin A. Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Seth Richard Lesser,
KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, Charles Marshall Delbaum, NATIONAL
CONSUMER LAW CENTER INC., Eleanor Michelle Drake, BERGER &
MONTAGUE PC, John G. Albanese, BERGER & MONTAGUE PC, Stuart Todd
Rossman, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER & Joel Deutsch, DEUTSCH &
DEUTSCH.

Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, defendant, represented by William P.
Pipal -- william.pipal@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS
LLP.


OKLAHOMA: Class Certification Sought in "Greer" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TRAVIS LEMARR GREER, the Plaintiff, v.
MARY FALLIN, Governor, State of Oklahoma, et al., the Defendants,
Case No. 5:14-cv-01066-M (W.D. Okla.), Plaintiff asks the court to
grant Plaintiff's motion requesting certification as class action
and appointment of class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


OUT OF SITE: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in "Mendenhall" OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JASON MENDENHALL, Plaintiff, v. OUT OF SITE
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-4996
(E.D. Penn.), Judge Joel H. Slomsky of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Out of Site
Infrastructure and Out of Site Infrastructure Inc., Retirement
Plan's Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings.

On Aug. 27, 2014, the Plaintiff instituted this action against the
Defendants, alleging that all Defendants breached their fiduciary
duty to him and to his retirement savings plan by failing to pay
money into his account.  An Answer to the Complaint was filed on
Sept. 23, 2014.

During the next two years, the parties exchanged electronic and
paper discovery and attempted to settle the case through mediation
before Chief Magistrate Judge Emeritus Carol Sandra Moore Wells.
At the close of fact discovery and during mediation with Judge
Wells, the Plaintiff sought to expand the scope of this litigation
to include all Plan members.  As a result, on January 20, 2017,
Out of Site Infrastructure filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings.  On Jan. 23, 2017, Out of Site Infrastructure Inc.,
Retirement Plan requested to join in that Motion.  On Feb. 21,
2017, the Plaintiff responded in opposition to the Motions.  On
Feb. 28, 2017, the Defendants replied. (Doc. No. 70.)

Judge Slomsky held that regardless of whether the provisions of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are required to be applied to
an action brought pursuant to Section 502(a)(2) on behalf of a
plan, at the very least, the Third Circuit has noted that a
litigant must make an attempt to comply with some form of the Rule
23 mandates.  In considering this notion, the Plaintiff simply has
failed to allege that he is an adequate representative of absent
Plan participants.  As the Judge noted, the Plaintiff has failed
to take any action that would indicate that any of the precepts
found in Rule 23 applies to him in his representative capacity,
and for this reason he cannot proceed on behalf of the Plan.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff will not be permitted to proceed with a
Section 502(a)(2) claim in his representative capacity.  In
addition, due to the limited funds available and the breadth of
recovery sought, the Plaintiff's representative capacity claim
creates serious issues of claim preclusion, proper fund
disbursement, and improper adjudication of absentee party rights.

In the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendants' Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings, he requests that the Court grants him leave to
amend his Complaint.  Judge Slomsky finds that at this stage in
the litigation, granting leave to amend would cause undue delay.
Additionally, denying leave to amend will not end this litigation.
The Plaintiff may pursue his claims against the Defendants in his
individual capacity.  Furthermore, any absent participants in the
Plan, whether current or past members, will not be prejudiced
because they can bring their own action against the Defendants
regarding their membership in the Plan.  Therefore, Judge Slomsky
denied the Plaintiff's request to amend the Complaint to reflect
that he is proceeding in a representative capacity.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/dpS8QY from Leagle.com.

JASON MENDENHALL, Plaintiff, represented by JOSHUA P. RUBINSKY --
office@brodierubinsky.com -- BRODIE & RUBINSKY, JESSICA L.
MACKNER, BRODIE & RUBINSKY PC & LOUIS AGRE, LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS
AGRE.

OUT OF SITE INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendant,
represented by CHRISTOPHER JAMES AMENTAS -- chris@carosella.com --
ARMSTRONG & CAROSELLA PC.

OUT OF SITE INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, represented by
FREDERICK P. SANTARELLI -- fpsantarelli@elliottgreenleaf.com --
ELLIOT GREENLEAF & SIEDZIKOWSKI P.C..

PAUL VERNA, Defendant, Pro Se.

JOHN TADDEI, Defendant, Pro Se.


PIER 1 IMPORTS: MERS Allowed to Amend Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned TOWN OF
DAVIE POLICE PENSION PLAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PIER 1 IMPORTS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-3415-D (S.D. Ohio), with
prejudice to the Plaintiff filing an amended complaint.

This putative class action alleges claims for securities fraud, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections78j(b) and 78t(a),
and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Retirement System of Michigan (MERS) brings this putative class
action against defendants alleging in its consolidated class
action complaint that defendants committed securities fraud, in
violation of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, by, inter alia,
misrepresenting and concealing from the market that Pier 1 had
acquired excess inventory that far exceeded consumer demand,
thereby creating a substantial risk that it would be necessary for
Pier 1 to engage in costly price markdowns and incur other
significant expenses associated with storing, tracking, and
transporting the excess inventory.

Defendants now move to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).

In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court evaluates
the sufficiency of the complaint by accepting all well-pleaded
facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.

Because MERS's complaint alleges fraud, MERS must plead the
elements of its claims with the heightened particularity required
by Rule 9(b), the Court held.  At a minimum, Rule 9(b) requires
allegations of the particulars of time, place, and contents of the
false representations, as well as the identity of the person
making the misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby, the
Court pointed out.

In support of MERS's contention that defendants misrepresented
that Pier 1's inventory was "clean" and did not carry a
significant or substantial markdown risk, it relies on the
following allegations of its complaint:

     On December 19, 2013, Smith claimed that Pier 1's inventories
were always well controlled; Pier 1 claimed that it was focused on
strategically managing its inventory purchases and monitoring its
inventory levels to correspond with consumer demand; and Smith
claimed that our inventory levels are running now at sort of
historical lows and not fluctuating very much, because we have
such great processes for taking our mark-downs and clearing
through the slow merchandise.

The court concludes that MERS's allegations are insufficient to
plausibly allege that defendants used the term "clean" in the way
MERS describes. The allegations in the complaint, which refer to
markdowns, discounts, and clearance, at most suggest that
defendants had in the past used the term "clean" to refer to the
inventory that remained after Pier 1 used markdowns to sell
inventory that could not otherwise be sold. None of the statements
MERS describes in footnote 1 supports the reasonable inference
that "clean" refers to inventory that was "not excessive" or that
"corresponded with actual demand.

To establish scienter in a securities fraud case, a plaintiff must
show that the defendant made a misrepresentation or omission with
an intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud, or that the
defendant acted with severe recklessness. Severe recklessness is
limited to those highly unreasonable omissions or
misrepresentations that involve not merely simple or even
inexcusable negligence, but an extreme departure from the
standards of ordinary care, and that present a danger of
misleading buyers or sellers which is either known to the
defendant or is so obvious that the defendant must have been aware
of it.

First, MERS has failed to adequately plead that Smith or Turner
had a motive to mislead the public during the Class Period.

Second, it is undisputed that, for each quarter and fiscal year
during the Class Period, Pier 1's financial statements accurately
disclosed the amount of Pier 1's inventory, that Pier 1's
inventory levels were steadily increasing, and that Pier 1 had
made investments to improve its ability to store and handle its
increasing inventories.

Third, MERS alleges that, even though Pier 1 had excess inventory
on day one of the Class Period, it continued to purchase inventory
throughout the Class Period.

Fourth, the timing of Pier 1's disclosure of unplanned supply
chain expenses, incremental distribution center costs that affect
our gross profit," and a failure to adequately forecast" finances,
and, that Pier 1 was "engaged in heavy discounting and that
markdowns were negatively impacting its margins, does not support
a strong inference of scienter.

Fifth, neither Turner's resignation nor Smith's resignation
supports a strong inference of scienter. Smith's resignation, one
month after Plaintiff detailed Smith's personal role in the fraud
in its Complaint, and nine months after Smith's announcement that
the Company's inventories had been out of sync with sales for 18
months, do not support a strong inference that these defendants
knew that their representations regarding Pier 1's "clean"
inventory or lack of a significant or substantial markdown risk
were false when made.

Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. The court grants MERS 45
days from the date this memorandum opinion and order is filed to
file an amended complaint that complies with the PSLRA and Rule
9(b) and states a plausible claim on which relief can be granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 10, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/y799tqvwfrom Leagle.com.

Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, Plaintiff, represented by James
M. McCown, Nesbitt Vassar & McCown LLP. 15851 Dallas Parkway,
Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75001

Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, Plaintiff, represented by Adam
H. Wierzbowski -- adam@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman LLP, pro hac vice, Angus Ni, Bernstein --
angus.ni@blbglaw.com -- Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac
vice, Avi Josefson, Bernstein -- avi@blbglaw.com -Litowitz Berger
& Grossman LLP, pro hac vice, David Folsom, Jackson Walker LLP,
David T. Moran, Jackson Walker LLP, Gerald H. Silk --
jerry@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, pro
hac vice, Michael D. Blatchley -- Michael@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, pro hac vice & Salvatore J.
Graziano -- sgraziano@blbg.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice.

Pier 1 Imports Inc, Defendant, represented by Stephen B. Crain --
Stephen.crain@bracewell.com -- Bracewell & Giuliani, Bradley J.
Benoit -- brad.benoit@bracewell.com -- Bracewell & Giuliani &
Joseph M. Cox -- joe.cox@bracewell.com -- Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP.
Alexander W. Smith, Defendant, represented by Stephen B. Crain,
Bracewell & Giuliani, Bradley J. Benoit, Bracewell & Giuliani &
Joseph M. Cox, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.

Charles H. Turner, Defendant, represented by Stephen B. Crain,
Bracewell & Giuliani, Bradley J. Benoit, Bracewell & Giuliani &
Joseph M. Cox, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.

Kathleen D. Kenney, Movant, represented by William B. Federman --
wbf@federmanlaw.com -- Federman & Sherwood.

James Greenshields, Movant, represented by William B. Federman,
Federman & Sherwood.

Janis Su, Movant, represented by William B. Federman, Federman &
Sherwood.

Employees' Retirement System of the Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority, Interested Party, represented by W. Kelly Puls --
mark@pulshaney.com -- Puls Haney Kaiser PLLC, Atara Hirsch,
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP, 180 W 80th StNew York, NY 10024
USA, Jeffrey S. Abraham --  jabraham@aftlaw.com -- Abraham
Fruchter & Twersky LLP, Mark A. Haney -- mark@pulshaney.com --
Puls Haney PLLC, Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Abraham Fruchter & Twersky
LLP & Philip T. Taylor -- philip@chaitons.com -- Abraham Fruchter
& Twersky LLP.

Municipal Employees' Retirement System of Michigan, Interested
Party, represented by James M. McCown, Nesbitt Vassar & McCown
LLP, Adam H. Wierzbowski, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman
LLP, pro hac vice, Angus Ni, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, pro hac vice, Avi Josefson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman LLP, pro hac vice, Charles L. Babcock, Jackson Walker
LLP, David Folsom, Jackson Walker LLP, David T. Moran, Jackson
Walker LLP, Gerald H. Silk, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael D. Blatchley, Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossman LLP, pro hac vice & Salvatore J. Graziano, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice.


PORSCHE AG: To Pay for Sunglasses in Class-Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Khalil Bouguerra, writing for Motor1, reports that as far a legal
battles go, it's a bit unusual.

Porsche customers in the United States have come together to wage
a fierce legal battle against the German manufacturer. Are there
more emission scandals afoot? Is there an airbag issue? Could some
horsepower be mysteriously missing from certain Porsche models?

No, it seems this group of owners are unhappy because the
dashboards in some models are simply too dazzling to handle,
reflecting into the windshield in such a manner -- especially in
bright sunlight -- that they had to wear shades.

Motor Trend reports the people behind
DashboardGlareClassAction.com claim this problem can cause
accidents and that the manufacturer must take the necessary steps
to solve this problem. For its part, Porsche refuted this problem,
claiming that no accident had been caused by this alleged glare.
However, to avoid a lengthy and costly legal battle against its
customers, the prestigious builder decided, with the agreement of
its customers, to reimburse people for the cost of sunglasses.
This compensation amounts to anywhere between $50 and $175,
because apparently Porsche drivers don't wear cheap sunglasses.

The settlement took place last December, with a deadline of
September 21 for people to submit reimbursements for their
sunglasses and a deadline of June 25, 2018 for other claims. The
settlement applies to owners of any Porsche produced between 2007
and 2016 equipped with interiors of the following colors: Luxor
Beige, Cognac, Natural Brown, Platinum Gray, or Sand Beige.

Apparently, brightly colored interiors either before or after
these production dates are not a concern. [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Connecticut Towns Consider Suit Over Opioid Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kym Soper, writing for Journal Inquirer, reports that much like
states took on tobacco companies some 20 years ago, Connecticut
municipalities are now considering a class-action lawsuit against
the makers of narcotic painkillers over the current opioid
pandemic.

Tolland Town Manager Steven R. Werbner said his town is
researching the benefits of joining a suit the city of Waterbury
plans to file in the coming weeks.

"Obviously it's a very, very serious issue that is impacting
Tolland and the county very heavily," Werbner said. "We're
extremely concerned about the rapid increase of opioid use and the
number of incidents that our EMS and public safety is having to
respond to."

The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities is helping Waterbury
Mayor Neil O'Leary find co-litigants for the suit. In July,
Waterbury retained the New York law firm, Simmons, Hanly, and
Conroy, to represent Connecticut "cities and towns for free in a
joint-action lawsuit against the pharmaceutical companies
responsible for destroying the lives of our residents each and
every day," O'Leary wrote in a memo to CCM towns.

CCM is circulating the memo to its municipal members. Besides
Tolland, others considering joining the suit are Hartford and New
Haven, Bristol, Groton, Milford, New London, Portland, Torrington,
and Southington.

"Any time our municipal leaders want to take a real leadership
role on a topic that deeply impacts their community, we are going
to be supportive of their effort," CCM spokesman Kevin Maloney
said. "These mayors are dealing with it right on the front lines."
In the trenches

According to federal numbers, an average of 142 Americans die
every day of drug overdoses.

In Connecticut, opioid abuse claimed the lives of 623 residents
last year, and accounted for more than 67 percent of all drug-
related deaths, according to data from the chief medical examiner.
From 2012 to 2016, the number of opioid-linked intoxication deaths
in the state rose by roughly 254 percent.

Many, including Werbner, think those numbers are "understated," as
stigma is still a major issue for some families dealing with
addiction.

In an August 8 press briefing on how the Trump administration
plans to address the mounting issue, Health and Human Services
Secretary Tom Price noted that some have analogized the lawsuits
against pharmaceutical companies with the Tobacco Master
Settlement Agreement.

"There are a couple of suits that are out there right now that
have already begun, and I think that this gives voice and
punctuates the damage and the harm that people have felt because
of this crisis," Price said, adding that the administration has no
position on the lawsuits at this point. "But, it has clearly
gotten the attention of the pharmaceutical companies."

In the mid-1990s the attorneys general from 46 states successfully
sued the four big tobacco companies, claiming taxpayers shouldn't
be forced to pay for treating smoking-related diseases such as
lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, or low-birth-weight babies.
Tobacco companies agreed to stop creating ads aimed at children
and to a $246 billion settlement that was to be used for smoking
cessation and prevention programs.

Lawsuits against big-pharma contend that drug makers similarly got
rich marketing large doses of heavily addictive narcotic
painkillers, such as oxycontin, claiming it was safe to take long
term. Now, municipalities say they are left dealing with the
aftermath as many of those patients got hooked after being given
more than what was required, and eventually transitioned to the
much cheaper and more easily available illegal street drugs when
doctors stopped writing prescriptions for the pills.
Litigation as an answer

Werbner said that one basis for the legal action that's being
looked into is that over-prescribing created the addiction problem
that towns are now having to respond to.

"It's a growing national concern and we have to explore all
avenues," he said, adding, "It's not so much about money, although
the impact on our public safety departments has been an issue. But
this is more about the well-being of our citizens, and the impact
it's having on our residents.

"It's a problem that doesn't seem to be going away," he said.
Waterbury officials claim that drug companies who manufactured
opioids and told doctors it was safe to prescribe should pay for
the city's emergency response to overdoses, drug treatment and
prevention campaigns, as well as other related social problems,
like burglary or assault crimes.

The National Institutes of Health identified drug companies'
"aggressive marketing" as a major contributor to the nation's
opioid-abuse problem, the city's lawyers note on their website.
"Their deceptive and fraudulent marketing campaigns misrepresented
the safety and efficacy of long-term use."

Nearly 254 million opioid prescriptions have been issued since
1999 -- enough to medicate every U.S. adult around the clock for
one month -- despite a lack of scientific evidence to support its
use for long-term pain management, the law firm states.
The firm now represents municipal entities in Illinois, Louisiana,
Texas, and eight New York counties in ongoing litigation against
pharmaceutical companies and physicians over opioid marketing and
prescribing methods. [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Settles Opioid Suit w/ 10 Canadian Provincial Govts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Gruben and Louise Belanger-Hardy, writing for The Star,
report that this past week, all 10 provincial governments accepted
a class-action settlement with Purdue Pharma, the maker of
OxyContin. The settlement concerns the misleading claims Purdue
Pharma allegedly made to physicians about the addictive nature of
the drug. These claims may have contributed to Canada's current
epidemic of opioid addiction.

The settlement of $20 million, including $2 million to the
provinces, is widely considered to be insufficient to address the
costs associated with this epidemic. If all courts approve the
settlement, as an Ontario court did last month, Canadians will be
responsible for covering the mounting costs associated with opioid
addiction.

                            So why settle?

One reason the provinces have accepted this inadequate settlement
is because they were lumped into a class action lawsuit brought by
a group of Canadians addicted to OxyContin.

Although it may be too late to change the outcome in this case, we
propose two solutions to increase pharmaceutical manufacturers'
accountability to Canadians and their governments. Indeed, if
provincial governments have more latitude to sue and patients have
an easier access to the courts, the Canadian legal climate may
more efficiently deter drug manufacturers from making unfounded
claims about their products.

The first proposal is to pass provincial legislation across the
country giving the government legal authority to bring an action
against pharmaceutical companies (or drug manufacturers) to
collect hospital, medical and other costs resulting from illnesses
related to a company's actions.

The provinces can look to the provincial tobacco recovery laws for
guidance which allow a provincial government to collect hospital,
medical and other costs resulting from tobacco-related illnesses
such as cancer, heart disease and stroke. The laws set out a
number of evidential and procedural rules facilitating recovery of
compensation for such costs. For instance, they can provide for a
reverse burden of proof so that it is up to the defendant
manufacturer to prove its actions did not give rise to the disease
for which the province claims expenditures.

Although certain aspects of these laws would have to be modified,
the key principle would be the same: the province could directly
start a legal action to recover the cost of health care costs
related to the wrongful actions of drug manufacturers The Supreme
Court of Canada confirmed the constitutionality of tobacco
recovery laws in 2005.

The second proposal is to make it easier for more Canadians to
succeed in class action lawsuits. Class actions allow claimants to
join together to sue a party and as a result, reduce individual
litigation costs. Quebec, the country's most progressive province
regarding consumer protection, has made class actions more
accessible by lowering the burden imposed on claimants who wish to
bring a class action for harm they have suffered.

Unlike the common law provinces, Quebec's procedural rules make it
easier for claimants to achieve class action status. Claimants
need only demonstrate that they have an arguable case and it is
assumed that the facts they allege are true.

There is a strong history of successful class actions in Quebec.
Indeed, a Quebec court recently awarded $15 billion in damages to
members of two class actions launched against the tobacco industry
for its failure to warn consumers about the health effects of its
products.

What's needed across Canada now is a legal regime that has real
consequences for pharmaceutical companies. Until we raise the
costs associated with wrongdoing in Canada, companies will
continue to act with impunity -- with real-life consequences. And
Canadians will be left to pick up the health care tab. [GN]


QUALITY RESOURCES: Grants Toney's Motion for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SARAH TONEY, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUALITY RESOURCES, INC., et
al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00042 (N.D. Ill.), the Court grants Toney's
motion for class certification for the reasons previously advanced
by Toney in her original motion and in her reply.

The Court said, "Indeed, there is really no need to repeat here
the arguments powerfully presented in both those submissions.
Finally, the scheduling of further proceedings in the case will be
left to the computer-designated assignee judge."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wbMF8n2b


RMG SUNSET: "Stern" Suit Moved to Southern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Scott Stern, an individual; on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. RMG Sunset, Inc., a California corporation; PB
Cantina, LLC, a California limited liabilty party; Cabo Cantina
L.A., LLC, a California limited liability company; Does 1 through
100; and inclusive Boardwalk F&B, LLC, Case No. 37-02016-00019511-
CU-BT-CTL., was removed on August 16, 2017 from the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01646-JLS-NLS to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Janis L.
Sammartino.

RMG Sunset is doing business in the management services industry.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lacy N. Wells, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325 0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325 0496
          E-mail: LWells@nicholaslaw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          David Dworsky, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 617 5452
          E-mail: ddworsky@sheppardmullin.com


SALSA AND BEER: "Velasquez" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MOISES VELASQUEZ, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SALSA AND
BEER RESTAURANT, INC.; SALSA AND BEER, INC.; NOE PATINO; PATRICIA
PATINO; DIONISIO PATINO; and ISMAEL PATINO, the Defendants, Case
No. 5:16-cv-00655-D (E.D.N.C.), Moises Velasquez moves the Court
for an order to:

   1. conditional certify this action as a representative
      collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. approve the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
      consent form;

   3. direct the Defendants to produce names, last known mailing
      addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers, email
      addresses, last four digits of their Social Security
      numbers, and dates of employment of all Class Members;

   4. post the Notice, along with the consent forms, in both
      English and Spanish at each of Defendants' restaurant
      locations, via text/email, and by notice by publication in
      a Spanish language daily newspaper and via Hispanic
      community organizations; and

   5. certify this action as a class action under Rule 23(a) and
      (b)(3) for the Northern California Walking Horse
      Association claims.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rkQ4iEIE

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


SC ELECTRIC: Faces Suit Over Negligence in Construction Project
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thad Moore, writing Post and Courier, reports that a lawsuit filed
late August 11 accuses S.C. Electric & Gas of mismanaging more
than $1 billion of its customers' money in the power company's bid
to build two nuclear reactors near Columbia that have since been
scuttled.

The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, says the
utility hid financial problems at the V.C. Summer nuclear power
plant from its customers, even as costs spiraled and delays
mounted. It's the first of its kind to be brought against the
power company since the project was abandoned.

The case was filed in Richland County circuit court by LeBrian
Cleckley, a Columbia man who says he and thousands of other
ratepayers paid more than $1 billion for a project that may never
generate a single kilowatt of electricity.

If it's approved as a class-action case, the lawsuit would cover a
massive swath of South Carolinians: SCE&G has 709,000 electric
customers across the state.

A spokeswoman for SCE&G declined to comment, saying the power
company doesn't discuss pending litigation.

SCE&G customers have been paying for the project for nearly a
decade thanks to a 2007 state law that allows electric companies
to charge ratepayers for the cost of building power plants before
they come online. SCE&G and its partner, Santee Cooper, sunk some
$9 billion into the project before pulling the plug.

"Plaintiff and all other SCE&G customers will not receive the
benefit of the nuclear plant promised by SCE&G in exchange for the
customers' massive investment," the lawsuit says.

Customers haven't yet paid for the full sum of the work -- SCE&G
ratepayers have paid roughly $1.4 billion so far -- but they're
expected to be on the hook for decades.

SCE&G, for instance, has asked state regulators for permission to
charge its customers another $2.2 billion over the next 60 years,
a request being challenged by House Speaker Jay Lucas and the
state Office of Regulatory Staff.

SCE&G raised its rates nine times to pay for the project, while
Santee Cooper increased customers' bills five times. Santee Cooper
voted on August 11 to cancel two more rate increases tied to the
reactors.

Cleckley isn't challenging those rate increases, the lawsuit says.
Instead, it accuses SCE&G of "mismanaging the project and
cancelling construction."

"We certainly hope that SCE&G is going to be transparent and allow
their ratepayers that we represent to know the full story and have
complete access to all of the figures and accounting records,"
said Terry Richardson, a Barnwell attorney whose firm brought the
case. The lawsuit was first reported by The Associated Press.

The scope of the cost to customers raised the scorn of state
lawmakers and Gov. Henry McMaster, who has scrambled in recent
days to revive the project. McMaster has floated the possibility
of selling state-owned Santee Cooper if it would ensure at least
one reactor is finished.

SCE&G and Santee Cooper bailed on the project after months of
analysis found that moving forward with the project would cost at
least $21 billion -- roughly double their initial estimates.
Santee Cooper decided to back out first, a move that SCE&G would
later say forced its hand.

They also faced growing risks: Lead contractor Westinghouse
Electric filed for bankruptcy protection earlier this year under
the weight of the V.C. Summer expansion and a twin project in
Georgia. That wiped out promises of a fixed price for the reactors
and meant the utilities would be on their own if they moved
forward.

Those risks have cast doubt on the future of the reactors, even as
lawmakers seek to revive at least one of them. Kevin Marsh, the
chief executive of SCE&G's parent company, said on August 10 that
he wasn't sure his company would take the project back up, even if
a new partner came forward to share its costs.

"If someone says they're interested, that's not something that
will happen overnight," Marsh said. "There are a lot of bridges
that have to be crossed before we would get there." [GN]


SCICLONE PHARMA: Faces "Daley" Suit Over Proposed Company Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Daley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sciclone Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jon S. Saxe, Friedhelm
Blobel, Nancy T. Chang, Richard J. Hawkins, Gregg Anthony
Lapointe, Simon Li, Case No. 3:17-cv-04563 (N.D. Cal., August 9,
2017), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of SciClone
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to enjoin the Defendants' attempt to sell
the Company to affiliates of GL Capital Management GP Limited,
Bank of China Group Investment Limited, CDH Investments, Ascendent
Capital Partners, and Boying Investments Limited for a total value
of approximately $605 million.

According to the complaint, Sciclone filed a Form PREM14A
Preliminary Proxy Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, which recommends that Sciclone stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction.  However, the Proxy omits or
misrepresents material information about the facts and
circumstances that led up to the Proposed Transaction, as well as
material information concerning the Company's financial
projections, which were prepared by Company management and relied
upon by Lazard Freres & Co. LLC, the Company's financial advisor,
who used such information to support its opinion on the fairness
of the Proposed Transaction. Without this material information,
SciClone stockholders will be asked to vote on the Proposed
Transaction based upon materially incomplete and misleading
information.

Sciclone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical
company with substantial commercial business in China that focuses
on products designed to address issues relating to oncology,
infectious diseases, and cardiovascular disorders. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 291-2420
      Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
      E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com


SOCIAL FINANCE: Faces Sexual Harassment Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Popperaug, writing for New York Times, reports that a
former employee of Social Finance, better known as SoFi, said in a
lawsuit filed on August 11 in a California state court that he had
witnessed female employees being harassed by managers and was
fired after he reported it.

The former employee who filed the suit, Brandon Charles, worked at
SoFi for only a few months this year. But the lawyer handling the
case, Robert Ottinger, said that he expected to file another
lawsuit claiming broader mistreatment of other SoFi employees and
seek class-action status.

"There appears to be a large groundswell of intense employee
dissatisfaction at SoFi," Mr. Ottinger said.

A spokesman for SoFi, Jim Prosser, said that the claims by Mr.
Charles were "investigated in depth by the company and found to
have no merit. We will vigorously defend ourselves against any
claims otherwise."

The last few months have brought a wide array of complaints about
unethical behavior within the technology industry, which was
previously known for its friendly working environments and
generous employee perks.

Big start-ups like Uber and venture capital firms like 500
Startups have been forced to part ways with top executives after
their companies dealt with accusations of sexual harassment.

SoFi is best known for refinancing student loans and offering
mortgages to young borrowers who are referred to within the
company as Henrys -- an acronym for High Earners Not Rich Yet.

That focus has helped turn SoFi into one of the most successful
financial start-ups of the last decade, and investors have valued
the company at more than $4 billion, according to Fortune.

In a letter to investors this month, SoFi's chief executive, Mike
Cagney, said that the company was experiencing record loan growth
and profit, and would most likely move toward an initial public
offering, according to The Wall Street Journal.

As it has grown, SoFi has gained a reputation for its aggressive
business and marketing approach. Many financial start-ups have
been eager to play down their competition with traditional
financial firms, but SoFi has taken them on with its tagline
"Don't Bank. SoFi."

Mr. Cagney himself was a trader at Wells Fargo before he went to
Stanford Business School and founded SoFi in 2011 with three
partners.

SoFi has also gained renown for its willingness to market itself
in ways that traditional banks have not. The company, for
instance, helps organize singles events for its customers, and Mr.
Cagney has had dinners for customers at his home.

Mr. Charles, the plaintiff in the lawsuit filed on August 11,
worked at the company's loan processing office in Healdsburg,
Calif., north of San Francisco.

In addition to the claims about sexual harassment, the lawsuit
said that Mr. Charles saw managers improperly recording loans in
order to bolster their pay. The suit says that in some cases,
managers canceled loan applications rather than report internal
errors and hurt their performance metrics.

In the current atmosphere in Silicon Valley, though, the claims
about sexual harassment and mistreatment of employees could
resonate more widely.

Mr. Charles said that he saw his manager inject "explicit sexual
innuendo and statements into normal workplace communications," and
that he would also refer to one female employee "by way of lewd,
sexualized gestures intended to emphasize her physical
appearance."

The lawsuit says that Mr. Charles emailed three supervisors about
the harassment he had witnessed in May.

A few weeks later, the suit says, the managers fired him after
telling him that they viewed his complaints as "devoid of merit"
and that alerting his supervisors was outside his "appropriate
duties." [GN]


SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC: Sued Over Nuclear Negligence
-----------------------------------------------------
Wtop reports that a South Carolina power company was negligent in
charging its customers more than $1 billion to build nuclear
reactors that have now been abandoned, according to a lawsuit
filed late August 11 afternoon.

The lawsuit obtained by The Associated Press accuses South
Carolina Electric and Gas Co. of mismanaging the finances of the
project at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station and concealing money
problems from its customers.

Plaintiff LeBrian Cleckley is seeking class action status.

State-owned utility Santee Cooper and SCE&G decided July 31 to
halt construction on two new reactors they'd already jointly spent
$10 billion to build, much of that paid by customers. The project
was already years behind schedule and billions over budget when
lead contractor Westinghouse declared bankruptcy in March, which
voided fixed-price contracts aimed at stopping the escalation.

Executives of both utilities said they were forced to give up
after determining the price tag for completing the project,
budgeted at $11 billion total in 2008, had soared beyond $20
billion.

The whole deal, the lawsuit says, leaves SCE&G "in possession and
ownership of hundreds of millions -- if not billions -- of
dollars-worth of improved real property, personal property, and
cash gained at the expense of the Plaintiff . . . and thousands of
other SCE&G customers."

But neither Cleckley nor any other of the utility's customers
"will receive the nuclear power services promised by SCE&G, and
funded by customer investment," according to the lawsuit.

A spokeswoman for SCE&G's parent company said it didn't comment on
pending lawsuits.

Pete Strom, a lawyer for Cleckley, told AP the utility had wronged
its customers for too long.

"The project has been mismanaged, and the customers want their
money back," Strom said. "They owe a duty to their customers that
they borrowed from, just like they would owe to their shareholders
if they squandered their investment. The customers didn't get to
decide if they wanted to invest."

According to the suit, SCE&G has more than 700,000 electricity
customers in South Carolina and more than 350,000 natural gas
customers.

Some customers may get somewhat of a reprieve. On August 11,
Santee Cooper's board dropped plans for two consecutive rate
hikes, canceling the approval process for average increases of 3.5
percent in 2018 and 3.9 percent in 2019. A vote on the requested
hikes had been set for December.

The scuttled nuclear project already accounts for 18 percent of
SCE&G's residential electricity bills and more than 8 percent of
Santee Cooper's. SCE&G is seeking permission from state regulators
to recoup an additional $5 billion over 60 years. Those regulators
approved all nine of SCE&G's rate hike requests since 2009.

Bakari Sellers, a lawyer for Cleckley and former state
representative who voted on the nuclear project, said on August 11
he and others had hoped the utility would do right by its
customers.

"We were very hopeful SCE&G would be good stewards of the
ratepayers, and that proved to be false," he told AP.

Gov. Henry McMaster said that he's talking with other utilities
about the possibility of buying out Santee Cooper's 45 percent
share of the project or even buying the state-owned utility
outright as a way to renew construction and complete at least one
of the partly built reactors. [GN]


SOUTH CAROLINA: "Mance" Suit Moved to Federal District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Johnny Mance, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Robert
Lee, M.D., in His Individual, And/Or Official Capacity As Agent,
Servant And/Or Employee of the South Carolina Department of
Corrections; Elizabeth Holcomb, in Her Individual And/Or Official
Capacity As Agent, Servant And/Or Employee of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections; and South Carolina Department of
Corrections, Case No. 2017-CP-18-01203, was removed on Aug. 16,
2017 from the Dorchester County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina (Florence). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-02179-TMC-TER to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Timothy M.
Cain.

The South Carolina Department of Corrections is the agency
responsible for corrections in the U.S. state of South
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Cole Mayer, Esq.
          MAYER LAW LLC
          18 Carolina Street, Suite B
          Charlestosn, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 225 7240
          E-mail: aaron@mayerlawpractice.com

               - and -

          James Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP
          219 N Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546 2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546 9604
          E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael C Tanner, Esq.
          MICHAEL C TANNER LAW OFFICE
          PO Box 1061
          Bamberg, SC 29003
          Telephone: (803) 245 9153
          Facsimile: (803) 245 9154
          E-mail: michaelctannerllc@bellsouth.net


SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Sued in Oklahoma Over Proposed Simmons Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Bergman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southwest Bancorp Inc., Mark W. Funke, Russell W.
Teubner, James E. Berry II, Thomas D. Berry, John M. Cohlmia,
David S. Crockett, Jr., Steven C. Davis, Patrice Douglas, James M.
Johnson, Larry J. Lanie, James M. Morris II, and Kayse M. Shrum,
D.O., Case No. 5:17-cv-00852-HE (W.D. Ok., August 9, 2017), is
brought on behalf of all public holders of the common stock of
Southwest Bancorp Inc., to enjoin the proposed merger between
Southwest and Simmons First National Corporation for $26.09 per
share of Southwest common stock.

According to the complaint, Southwest filed a Form S-4
Registration Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, which recommends that Southwest stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction.  However, the Proxy omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) financial projections for the Company; (ii) the valuation
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Keefe,
Bruyette & Woods, Inc. ("KBW"), in support of its fairness
opinions; and (iii) the fees KBW earned from both Southwest and
Simmons. The failure to adequately disclose such material
information constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as
stockholders need such information in order to cast a fully-
informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction.  The
Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest
Southwest's public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets
without fully disclosing all material information concerning the
Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy the
Defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such
problems are remedied.

Southwest Bancorp Inc. is a financial holding company that focuses
on providing a range of commercial and consumer banking services,
including commercial and consumer lending, deposit and investment
services, specialized cash management, and other financial
services and products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Michael Copeland, Esq.
      Jack L. Brown, Esq.
      JONES, GOTCHER & BOGAN, P.C.
      3800 First Place Tower 15
      East Fifth Street
      Tulsa, OK 74103-4309
      Telephone: (918) 581-8200
      E-mail: jbrown@jonesgotcher.com
              mcopeland@jonesgotcher.com

         - and -

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


ST. JUDE'S: New Suit Over Defibrillators Filed in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Craig, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that
thousands of Canadians and American cardiac arrhythmia patients
with implantable defibrillators powered by faulty ion batteries
and manufactured by St. Jude's Medical Inc. and St. Jude's Medical
Canada are or will soon be eligible to join class actions suits in
Canada and the US.

Attorney Paul Miller, Esq. -- pmiller@hshlawyers.com -- from the
Toronto law firm of Howie, Sacks & Henry has filed a class action
in Canada that is awaiting certification. Similar class action
cases involving the St. Jude's ICD defibrillators are being
prepared in the US.

"We understand there are probably about 8,000 people in Canada
that have these defibrillators," says attorney Miller.

Altogether, approximately a quarter million of the devices were
sold in the United States and Canada. They include St. Jude's
Medical Fortify, Unify, and Assura and Unify Quadra Implantable
Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICD) and Cardiac Resynchronization
Therapy Defibrillators (CRT-D).

The devices are implanted under the skin and use an electrical
charge to regulate or "pace" hearts that beat either too slow or
too fast.

The lead plaintiff in the Canadian class action is Shirley Houle
from Port Hope, Ontario.

According to the statement of claim filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, on January 31, 2014 Houle's cardiac surgeon
implanted a Fortify Assura defibrillator under the skin in her
chest and connected it to her heart muscle. Almost immediately
Houle began to have "fainting spells". In the fall of 2015 she
experienced further erratic heart rhythms and underwent "semi-
emergency lead revision surgery".

In the documents, the lead plaintiff alleges that by 2015, St.
Jude's Medical Inc. had or should have had knowledge of a Duke
University Medical Center Study from 2014 that identified problems
with some of the lithium batteries in the device like the one
Houle was depending on to keep her heart going. However, the
lawsuit alleges, St. Jude's kept quiet.

"My understanding is that there is no predicting which devices
have batteries that will fail but they are all part of a warning
for premature battery depletion," says Miller.

In October, 2016, St. Jude's medical issued a voluntary recall in
the US for the above devices manufactured between 2010 and 2015
due to the risk of premature battery depletion caused by a buildup
lithium clusters.

The FDA swiftly followed and issued its most serious type of
recall, a Class I recall, for the device. Class I recalls are the
most serious type reserved for situations that may cause death or
serious injury.

US Food and Drug Administration, FDA, St. Jude Medical Inc.
In October, 2016, at the time of St. Jude's Medical recall and the
FDA recall, Shirley Houle was informed by healthcare providers in
Ontario that her device was one of those affected and subject to
battery failure at any time without notice. She became extremely
anxious and went in what the documents describe as "analogous to
post-traumatic shock". Five months later Houle's defibrillator was
replaced with a non-recalled device and she was released from the
hospital in Toronto three days later.

The defendants in the case are St. Jude's Medical Inc., and St.
Jude's Medical Canada. St. Jude's did not respond to a request for
comment in time for the deadline.

Plaintiffs in the Canadian class action are represented by Paul
Miller from the firm of Howie, Sacks & Henry and the Waddell
Phillips Professional Corporation both of Toronto. [GN]


ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Denies Reopening of Deposition in "Furlow"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case DWAYNE FURLOW, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JON BELMAR, et
al., Defendants, No. 4:16-CV-00254 JAR(E.D. Mo.), Judge John A.
Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part
Motion to Compel Responses to Requests Directed at Third-Party
REJIS and to Reopen Deposition.

This putative class action was filed over 18 months ago.  On June
7, 2016, the Court issued a Case Management Order: Phase I to
apply to discovery of information material to the issue of class
certification and to the merits of the Plaintiffs' individual
claims.  The discovery in this case has been ongoing for several
months; to date, the Case Management Order has been amended five
times.  Under the current Case Management Order, the deadline for
completing all Phase I discovery was Aug. 4, 2017.

With respect to the discovery the Plaintiffs seek from REJIS, on
Dec. 30, 2016, the Plaintiffs issued a subpoena to REJIS to
testify at a deposition and produce documents.  On March 30, 2017,
the Plaintiffs' counsel emailed a list of 14 additional document
requests to counsel for REJIS; on April 2, 2017, the Plaintiffs'
counsel emailed three additional document requests.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel on July 28,
2017, asserting that they have yet to receive any documents from
REJIS in response to these 17 requests.  On Aug. 1, 2017, the
Plaintiffs moved to stay the Phase 1 deadlines set in the current
Case Management Order pending the Court's ruling on their motion
to compel.  On Aug. 3, 2017, the Court denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to stay and set the motion to compel for hearing.  It noted
the previous Case Management Order setting an Aug. 4, 2017
discovery deadline was clear, yet the Plaintiffs waited until July
28, 2017 to file their motion.

On Aug. 10, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs'
motion to compel.  At that time, the Court denied their motion as
it related to their first emailed request for an electronic report
of every Wanted, Stop Order, Person of Interest, and Temporary
Wanted created by REJIS users within the St. Louis County Police
Department based on REJIS' representation that such a report does
not exist.  REJIS cannot be compelled to create, on their request,
documentary evidence which is not already in existence in some
form.

The Court also indicated its intent to order REJIS to use their
best efforts to produce to the Plaintiffs, to the extent they
exist, the remaining 16 documents requested in the Plaintiffs'
March 30, 2017 and April 2, 2017 emails as they relate to St.
Louis County, or alternatively, to respond that said documents do
not exist.  Upon further consideration, however, it appears to the
Court that in some instances, the Plaintiffs' requests have no
relationship to the initial subpoena, whereas in other instances,
it remains unclear.  In any event, the Court can only compel
production of items identified in a properly issued subpoena or
request for production of documents.  While the parties have
attempted to work together on production of some records in
response to the Plaintiffs' emails, non-party REJIS has not had an
opportunity to pose a legal objection to any particular requested
item for the Court's ruling.  Thus, if REJIS has any legal
objection, other than that the request is overly burdensome, the
Court allowed REJIS to assert it.

Lastly, the Plaintiffs have failed to assert a sufficient basis
for reopening the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of REJIS, and the Phase
I discovery deadline has passed.  The Court therefore denied the
Plaintiffs' request to reopen the deposition.

The Court ordered that if non-party REJIS has any legal objections
to the Plaintiffs' email document requests, those objections will
be asserted no later than Aug. 16, 2017.  If non-party REJIS has
any other documents responsive to the original subpoena not
heretofore produced, then REJIS will produce then within 10 days
of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/6asC0O from Leagle.com.

Dwayne Furlow, Plaintiff, represented by Blake Alexander Strode --
bstrode@archcitydefenders.org -- ARCHCITY DEFENDERS.

Dwayne Furlow, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Alan Stone --
estone@paulweiss.com -- PAUL AND WEISS, Jay Cohen --
jaycohen@paulweiss.com -- PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON
LLP, Michael-John Voss -- mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org -- ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey -- tharvey@archcitydefenders.org --
ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Charles Jordan Hamilton --
chamilton@paulweiss.com -- PAUL AND WEISS, Darius Charney, CENTER
FOR HEALTH CARE LAW, Elizabeth J. Grossman --
egrossman@paulweiss.com -- PAUL AND WEISS, Emily Beth Goldberg --
egoldberg@paulweiss.com -- PAUL AND WEISS, Nathaniel Richard
Carroll -- ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org -- ARCHCITY DEFENDERS,
Omar Ahmed Farah, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS & Timothy James
Holland -- tholland@paulweiss.com -- PAUL AND WEISS.

Ralph Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Alan Stone, PAUL AND
WEISS, Jay Cohen, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP,
Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS, Charles Jordan Hamilton, PAUL AND WEISS, Darius
Charney, CENTER FOR HEALTH CARE LAW, Elizabeth J. Grossman, PAUL
AND WEISS, Emily Beth Goldberg, PAUL AND WEISS, Nathaniel Richard
Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Omar Ahmed Farah, CENTER FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS & Timothy James Holland, PAUL AND WEISS.

Harold Liner, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Alan Stone, PAUL AND
WEISS, Jay Cohen, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP,
Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS, Charles Jordan Hamilton, PAUL AND WEISS, Darius
Charney, CENTER FOR HEALTH CARE LAW, Elizabeth J. Grossman, PAUL
AND WEISS, Emily Beth Goldberg, PAUL AND WEISS, Nathaniel Richard
Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Omar Ahmed Farah, CENTER FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS & Timothy James Holland, PAUL AND WEISS.

Jon Belmar, Defendant, represented by Michael E. Hughes, ST. LOUIS
COUNTY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE.

County of St. Louis, Missouri, Defendant, represented by Michael
E. Hughes, ST. LOUIS COUNTY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE.

Kevin Walsh, Defendant, represented by Michael E. Hughes, ST.
LOUIS COUNTY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE.

Christopher Partin, Defendant, represented by Michael E. Hughes,
ST. LOUIS COUNTY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE.

Unknown Clements, Defendant, represented by Michael E. Hughes, ST.
LOUIS COUNTY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE.

Regional Justice Information Service Commission, Movant,
represented by Raymond B. Flojo, ST. LOUIS CITY LAW DEPARTMENT -
POLICE SECTION.


STEPTOE & JOHNSON: Strikes Back Ex-Associate's Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Daily Report Online, reports that
firing back at gender bias allegations filed by a former
associate, Steptoe & Johnson forcefully denied on August 10 that
it has a pay disparity between women and men and urged a Los
Angeles federal judge to send a suit against the firm to
arbitration.

Steptoe lodged a motion to compel arbitration as its first
substantive filing since former associate Ji-In Houck accused the
firm of discriminating against female lawyers in a class action
complaint filed on June 23.

The firm -- defended in the suit by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
labor and employment head David Reis and partner Dipanwita Deb
Amar, both of whom are based in San Francisco -- argued that
Houck's claims should be sent to arbitration because she had twice
"signed written agreements to arbitrate any disputes she might
ever have with the firm." Steptoe also maintained that those
agreements prohibit Houck from pursuing a class action against the
firm.

Beyond the push to arbitrate, Steptoe's defense team criticized
the allegations levied by Houck, who joined the firm as a contract
lawyer in 2013 and was later elevated to a partner-track associate
position. Steptoe's lawyers wrote on August 10 that Houck's path
at the firm was unusual, adding that it has "strictly gender-
neutral" pay and promotion practices for both contract lawyers and
associates.

Houck's "attempt to conflate her dissatisfaction with her own
atypical career at the firm with the sweeping conclusion that
Steptoe is a place where women lawyers are paid less and receive
fewer opportunities than their male counterparts is both unfair
and unsupported," wrote the firm's defense team. "The firm remains
committed to gender equity and will continue to pursue practices
and initiatives to advance that goal. If this case is allowed to
continue, the evidence will flatly refute plaintiff's claims."

Lori Andrus, a former partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein and now a name partner at San Francisco-based Andrus
Anderson, is representing Houck in the suit. Andrus did not
immediately return a request for comment on August 11.

Houck, a 2011 graduate from the Georgetown University Law Center
now working as a litigator at the Stalwart Law Group in Los
Angeles, alleged in her complaint that she did similar work as
male and other associates at Steptoe, but received a salary that
fell short of her peers.

After joining Steptoe in May 2013 as a contract lawyer in Century
City, California, Houck made $85,000 per year, according to her
suit against the firm. In June 2014, Steptoe designated her as an
associate and raised her pay to $130,000 per year. She
subsequently received another salary bump to $160,000.

By that point, Houck's complaint claims that her counterparts at
Steptoe who joined the firm as full-fledged associates would have
been making $210,000 per year. Shortly before Houck left Steptoe
in March 2016, the firm gave her another raise to $200,000, which
was retroactive to the start of that year.

Houck's complaint alleged that Steptoe subjected women to unequal
pay "despite paying lip-service to diversity in its workforce, and
even counseling the firm's own clients on policies to avoid pay
discrimination." Steptoe, which opened its Century City office in
2006, is accused by Houck of violating the federal Equal Pay Act
and California state laws.

When Houck sued in June, it marked the latest in a string of
gender bias cases filed against large law firms. A trio of other
recent suits filed in 2016 and 2017 by current and former partners
has targeted Chadbourne & Parke, Proskauer Rose and Sedgwick.

The Sedgwick case, which was sent to arbitration after it was
filed, settled quietly earlier this year. The suits against
Proskauer and Chadbourne -- the latter now part of Norton Rose
Fulbright after a combination that became official in June --
remain ongoing in federal court. [GN]


SUSHI YAMA: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wage under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
SARAHI BIEL HERNANDEZ, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. SUSHI YAMA
JAPANESE RESTAURANT, INC., a Florida profit corporation d/b/a
MOSHI MOSHI; TOSHIO FURITHATA, an individual; and MUTSUHIKO
YUHARA, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-23130-MGC
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 16, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages to
redress the deprivation of rights secured to Plaintiff under both
the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the
Defendants as a nonexempt server at the restaurant. The Plaintiff
mostly only received tips as her compensation; with the exception
of some occasional and very small amounts, she did not receive
wages from Defendants. In the course of her employment with
Defendants, Plaintiff worked the number of hours required of her,
but was not paid FLSA-mandated minimum wage or time and one-half
for all hours and parts of hours worked in excess of 40 during a
workweek. Specifically, at all times relevant to this Complaint,
Defendants deliberately implemented a policy whereby Defendants
failed to maintain accurate time records of the actual start
times, actual stop times, and actual total hours worked each week
by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff was forced to work overtime hours
without overtime compensation.

Defendants own and operate the corporate Defendants as "Moshi
Moshi," a popular Japanese restaurant in Miami Beach, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dion J. Cassata, Esq.
          CASSATA LAW, P.A.
          Boca Crown Centre
          7999 N. Federal Highway, Suite 200
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (954) 364 7803
          Facsimile: (954) 251 4787
          E-mail: dion@cassatalaw.com


SYNCHRONY BANK: Court Grants Bid to Stay "Campbell" TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Daniel J. Stewart of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York granted the Defendant's Motion to
Stay the case captioned ROY CAMPBELL, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. SYNCHRONY BANK,
Defendants, Civ. No. 1:17-CV-080 (MAD/DJS)(N.D. N.Y.).

This matter was commenced on Jan. 25, 2017, as a putative class
action alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA").  The Plaintiff amended his Complaint, as of right,
on April 7, 2017, in order to replace Defendants J.C. Penney Co.,
Inc., and J.C. Penney Corp., Inc., with Synchrony Bank as the sole
Defendant.  The Amended Complaint, the operative pleading, alleges
that Synchrony made automated telephone calls to the wireless
telephone number of the Plaintiff and other Class members and that
these phone calls were made without their prior express consent
and were not made for emergency purposes.

The Defendant has appeared and, by Motion, now moves to stay the
preceding.  As the basis for its Motion, the Defendant notes that
there is presently a case pending in the D.C. Circuit -- ACA Int'l
v. Federal Communication Commission, Case No. 15-CV-1211 -- that
involves issues central to the present lawsuit, namely, (i) the
proper definition of an automatic telephone dialing system under
the TCPA, and (ii) whether a caller has prior express consent for
purposes of the TCPA when a subscriber had consented to be called
on a wireless number and that same number (without the caller's
knowledge) was then reassigned to another subscriber who did not
consent.

The Plaintiff opposes the stay.  His counsel notes that not all of
the issues presented in this case will be decided in the ACA
International matter.

The Defendant's counsel has cited to extensive case law in support
of the proposition that it is both within the authority of this
Court and appropriate to stay discovery in a TCPA case pending the
Appellate Court decision in ACA International.

Judge Stewart finds the authority cited by the Defense counsel to
be persuasive, particularly two decisions from the Western
District of New York -- Dimarco v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and
Reynolds v. Time Warner Cable.  Like the present case, the
Reynolds matter involved allegations of both automated dialing and
pre-recorded messages.  Therein, Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson
concluded that a stay was appropriate because the parties' and the
court's interests would be promoted by the clarification of issues
that the decision in ACA International would provide, as well as
the potential for narrowing the scope of discovery.  He agrees
with the reasoning of the Reynolds decision, adopts it, and finds
that a limited stay in this matter is appropriate.

Therefore, Judge Stewart granted the Defendant's Motion to Stay
and ordered that the answer deadline will continue to be adjourned
without date pending a decision from the D.C. Circuit in the ACA
International matter.  The Defendant will file a status report on
Dec. 11, 2017, advising the Court of the status of the D.C.
Circuit matter.  In the event a decision is rendered by the D.C.
Circuit prior to that time, a status report will be filed within
seven days of the issuance of such decision.

Pursuant to FED R. CIV. P. 72(a), the parties have 14 days within
which to file written objections to the foregoing discovery order.
Such objections will be filed with the Clerk of the Court.  As
specifically noted in Rule 72(a) a party may not assign as error a
defect in the order not timely objected to."

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2017 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/H8ths7 from Leagle.com.

Roy Campbell, Plaintiff, represented by Sergei Lemberg, Lemberg
Law, LLC.

Roy Campbell, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen F. Taylor, Lemberg
Law, LLC.

Synchrony Bank, Defendant, represented by Julia B. Strickland --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock, Stroock Law Firm, pro hac
vice, Julieta Stepanyan -- jstepanyan@stroock.com -- Stroock,
Stroock Law Firm, pro hac vice, Marcos D. Sasso --
msasso@stroock.com -- Stroock, Stroock Law Firm, pro hac vice &
Raymond A. Garcia -- rgarcia@stroock.com -- Stroock, Stroock Law
Firm.


SYSTEM4 LLC: Bid to Vacate Arbitration Award in "Ribeiro" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SYSTEM4, LLC, v. LUIS RIBEIRO, Civil Action
No. 17-10455-RWZ(D. Mass.), Judge Rya W. Zobel of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied System4's
Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award, denied its request for
attorneys' fees and costs, and allowed Ribeiro's Cross Motion to
Confirm.

This arbitration arose against the backdrop of a complicated
procedural history.  In 2010, a putative class action suit was
filed in Norfolk Superior Court against System4 on behalf of
cleaning workers who were unit franchisees and who claimed to have
been misclassified as independent contractors by System4, the
master franchisor, and NECCS, Inc., d/b/a System4 of Boston, LLC
("NECCS"), the master franchisee, in violation of the
Massachusetts Wage Act.  The case made its way to the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") twice.  Central to
the issues is the SJC's later decision, which addressed System4's
motion to compel the Plaintiffs to individual arbitration under
the Franchise Agreement that each Plaintiff entered into with
NECCS.  The SJC held that System4 could compel the cleaning worker
franchisees to bring their claims against System4 in individual
arbitration.

Accordingly, following the Court's decision in 2015, respondent
Ribeiro, who was a putative class member of the suit, filed a
demand for arbitration against System4 with the American
Arbitration Association ("AAA") to challenge his employment status
under the Wage Act.  The AAA appointed arbitrator Jessica Block to
oversee the proceedings, which concluded two years after Ribeiro
filed his demand.

On Oct. 7, 2015, after receiving briefing by both parties, the
arbitrator issued a memorandum of decision and held that she would
apply the AAA Employment Rules because Ribeiro was likely to
succeed on the merits of his Wage Act claim, and ordered System4
to advance the cost of the arbitration proceedings.

On Aug. 23, 2016, the arbitrator issued a memorandum of decision
on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment on liability.
She found that Ribeiro was not barred by the statute of
limitations because he was part of the putative class and the
class action tolling doctrine applied to his arbitration demand.
Accordingly, she found that the statute of limitations was tolled
until April 13, 2015, when the SJC ruled in Machado that System4
could compel arbitration, and Ribeiro timely filed his demand for
arbitration two months later on June 12, 2015.  She also
ultimately found that Ribeiro should have been classified as an
employee -- not an independent contractor -- under the Wage Act.

System4 filed a motion for reconsideration of the arbitrator's
decision on liability, which she denied because it failed to meet
the standard for reconsideration.  Subsequently, System4 filed
three additional motions relating to sanctions against Ribeiro's
counsel for allegedly violating the confidentiality provision of
the Agreement and motion for attorneys' fees and costs.  The
arbitrator denied each motion and issued separate decisions that
set forth her reasons.  On Feb. 16, 2017, the arbitrator issued
her final decision containing the Award, which awarded Ribeiro
damages in an amount stipulated to by the parties, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.  System4 now moves under section 10 of
the Federal Arbitration Act to vacate the Award and the six
related decisions.

Judge Zobel explains that in scrutinizing the facts, the
arbitrator found that System4 designed and implemented a structure
that unlawfully attempted to exempt itself from the wage statute
by special contract and other means.  System4 argues that the
arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law by refusing to follow
the holding in Depianti v. Jan-Pro, which also involved a three-
tier franchise system and in which the master franchisor was not
found to be an employer under the Wage Act.  Depianti v. Jan-Pro,
however, the Judge finds, is not controlling law that the
arbitrator was required to follow.  Even assuming that it was and
that the arbitrator misapplied the law, that error is not of the
kind that would permit this court to overturn the Award.
Accordingly, this Award is supported in reason and fact, and not
so palpably faulty that no judge, or group of judges, could ever
conceivably have made such a ruling.  Therefore, Judge Zobel
denied System4's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award, denied its
request for attorneys' fees and costs, and allowed Ribeiro's Cross
Motion to Confirm.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2017 Memorandum of
Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/bKzJYx from
Leagle.com.

System4, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Karp --
ekarp@wkwrlaw.com -- Witmer, Karp, Warner & Ryan.

System4, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Ari N. Stern --
astern@wkwrlaw.com -- Witmer Karp Warner & Ryan LLP.

Luis Ribeiro, Defendant, represented by Shannon E. Liss-Riordan --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.


TEJAS COURIER: "Armstrong" Suit Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled HENRY ARMSTRONG, CHELI ARMSTRONG, CORDELL
COLEMAN, EDWIN SIMON, NATASHA ARMSTRONG, MATTIREE EWING, ANGEQUAN
WALKER, JENICE TAVORN, BRANDON BEASLEY, DONALD BROWNING, MARK
OSBORNE, BRENSLEY SMITH, KALILAH WALKER, CHAT ROGERS, DOUGLAS
HANSFORD, MARCUS POOLE, CHRIS BARNARD, RENE REVILLA, MATTHEW HURT,
MATTHEW WATSON, ELBERT HURT, QUDUS ODUSANYA, CALVIN DAVIS and
TOMMY SWAMEY, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TEJAS COURIER, LLC, and
MARK VARGAS, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01521 (S.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act:

   "each individual who (a) worked for Tejas Courier, LLC
   ("Tejas"), as a "courier" or "driver" under Tejas's agreement
   with Amazon any time after May 17, 2014, (b) never
   subcontracted any of his or her Amazon delivery work for Tejas
   or otherwise hired anyone to perform part or all of his or her
   work, and (c) performed his or her regular Amazon delivery
   work for Tejas for more than forty hours per week in at least
   one work week."

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs, like other drivers,
performed their duties in company vehicles, delivered Amazon
packages, were treated the same for tax purposes during
the same periods of time. They were all paid a flat day rate for
their work without any overtime premium.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lionel Martin, Esq.
          Melissa G. Martin, Esq.
          GARCIA-MARTIN & MARTIN, P.C.
          12946 S. Dairy Ashford Road, Suite 220
          Sugar Land, TX 77478
          Telephone: (281) 277 3066
          Facsimile: (281) 277 3067
          E-mail: Lmartin@mgmartinlaw.com
                  Mmartin@mgmartinlaw.com


TURKISH BATH: Faces "Pereira" Suit in S.D. of Fla.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Turkish Bath,
Inc.  The case is styled as Carlos A. Pereira and other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. The Turkish Bath, Inc. and
Boris Tuberman, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22897-
CMA (S.D. Fla., August 1, 2017).

The Turkish Bath Inc. is a privately held company in Miami Beach,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
   Zandro E. Palma, P.A.
   9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1500
   Miami, FL 33156
   Tel: (305) 446-1500
   Fax: (305) 446-1502
   Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


THINK CONSTRUCTION: "Cromartie" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------
Ezza Cromartie, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Think Construction LLC,
Matthew Moss, and Tim Moss, the Defendants, Case No. 515954/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 16, 2017), seeks to recover maximum
liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and unpaid wages
including unpaid overtime and non-overtime wages and wage
deductions under the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and class of similarly-
situated individuals defined as current and former employees who
worked for the Defendants as manual workers within the State of
New York were not paid their non-overtime and/or overtime wages
weekly.

Think Construction is a full-service general contractor and
construction-management firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



TROPICANA PRODUCTS: Meza Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO MEZA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TROPICANA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.;
TROPICANA PRODUCTS INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC672737 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 16, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

The case is a class action lawsuit seeking unpaid wages and
interest thereon for unpaid wages for all hours worked at minimum
wage and overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay due to
Defendants policy, practice, and/or procedure of rounding down or
shaving down employees' daily hours worked to the nearest quarter
of an hour; failure to authorize or permit a first meal period
prior to employees' sixth hour of work; statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements; waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment;
injunctive relief and other equitable relief; reasonable
attorney's fees pursuant to California Labor Code sections 226(e)
and 1194; costs; and interest brought on behalf of Plaintiff and
others similarly situated.

Tropicana Products is an American multinational company which
primarily makes fruit-based beverages. It was founded in 1947 by
Anthony T. Rossi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001

              - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609 0892


UNITED AIRLINES: "Pumputyte" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled NERINGA PUMPUTYTE, et al., the Plaintiffs v.
UNITED AIRLINES INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04868 (N.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action;

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

   3. approving Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VG1chgdU

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vladimir Gorokhovsky, Esq.
          GOROKHOVSKY LAW OFFICE, L.L.C.
          6045 N Green Bay Ave No. 2A
          Glendale, WI 53209


UNITED GROUP: "Fernandez" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled YOVANY L. FERNANDEZ, and other
similarly situated non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED
GROUP HOME LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and Jose
Debenito, Individually, Case No. 16-008626 CA 01, was removed on
Aug. 16, 2017 from 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-23125-
CMA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Cecilia M. Altonaga.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Candace Diane Cronan, Esq.
          Joshua Michael Entin, Esq.
          ENTIN & DELLA FERA, P.A.
          633 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 761 7201
          Facsimile: (954) 764 2443
          E-mail: candace@entinlaw.com
                  joshentin@comcast.net


UNITED STATES: Suit to Give Medicare Srs. Rights on Hospital Stay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Freeman, writing for Naples News, reports that Connie Ragonesi
spent seven days in a hospital bed in Florida with a fractured
ankle, and it set in motion years of heartache.

The 88-year-old was cared for under "observation status," a
Medicare policy that became a nightmare and contributed to her
having to sell her home in Wellington, on the state's east coast,
according to her daughter, Carol Taylor.

"It certainly changed her life," Taylor, 60, said. "It's very
tricky, and it's very deliberately misleading."

The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Medicare Advocacy, which
focuses on seniors' rights, was recently granted class action
status in a lawsuit against the federal government regarding the
policy. The issue is whether patients should have the right to
appeal to Medicare when they are placed by a hospital on the
outpatient-based observation designation, as opposed to admitted.

Patients on observation status are covered by Medicare Part B with
a deductible and 20 percent co-payment.

What's more alarming, Medicare does not cover a nursing home stay
afterward, and patients face paying out of pocket. Medicare policy
requires someone to be admitted, as an inpatient-based
designation, for at least three midnights for skilled nursing to
be covered right after a hospitalization.

The original purpose of the observation status was to give
hospitals time to evaluate a patient's condition, to determine the
need or not for inpatient care. Usage of the classification has
escalated for a variety of reasons, including audits of hospital
admissions and penalties for having too many 30-day readmissions,
the consumer's group said.

There is no estimate yet of how many seniors on Medicare could be
part of the class in the lawsuit, or the long-term benefit if they
prevail and gain the right to appeal the observation designation.

"The class could be hundreds of thousands of people, if not more,"
Alice Bers, the group's litigation director, said. "We know
hundreds of thousands of people are put on observation status
every year."

Florida beneficiaries could play a big role because of the state's
huge Medicare population. The U.S. District Court in Connecticut
certified the class as all Medicare beneficiaries who have
received or will receive observation services from Jan. 1, 2009,
going forward.

"I think (Florida) could be a very significant part of the class
because so many Medicare beneficiaries are in Florida," Bers said.

Bills have been filed in recent years in Congress to address the
issue of nursing home coverage and observation status, and one of
the co-sponsors is Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida. The aim is for
observation stays to count toward the three-night stay for
Medicare to pay for nursing home stays afterward.

The court's decision July 31 allowing a class action suit is the
latest twist in a protracted legal battle on observation status
since 2011. The consumer's group argues the designation forces
severe financial and health consequences on patients and their
families, and it initially tried to get observation status
eliminated. After that effort failed, the focus turned to the
narrower appeal issue.

If patients gain the right to appeal their observation designation
while still in the hospital, it could prevent families from facing
the nursing home coverage nightmare later, Bers said.

Taylor and her family considered their own lawsuit when they faced
the observation predicament with her mother two years ago. Now
they will support the consumer group's case if they can, she said.

"You have to force change, and this has to change," Taylor said.
"I could not believe we did not have an appeal process."

When families face an elderly loved one being hospitalized, they
assume their loved one has been admitted, Taylor said. That's
especially the case when the stay is several days or longer and
there's a bevy of diagnostics and treatment.

Earlier this year, Medicare began requiring hospitals to inform
patients with written notice when they are placed on observation
status. The catch is that patients and their family generally are
stressed and not comprehending the implications, said Deborah
Franklin, senior director of quality affairs for the Florida
Health Care Association, the industry organization for nursing
homes.

When Medicare a few years ago began imposing penalties to
hospitals for higher-than-expected 30-day readmissions, use of
observation status climbed because it avoids an admission and
therefore, a readmission, Franklin said.

Nursing homes can have social workers at the hospital to check on
a patient's admission status before coming to the nursing home to
help avoid the coverage pitfall, but that's not always the case.

"It can be three or four days in the rehabilitation stay before it
is discovered," Franklin said.

At the publicly operated Lee Health System in Lee County, the
elected board of directors last year requested a report on its
observation numbers. A snapshot from February 2016 through April
2016 showed there were 3,515 patients who were observation status
at some point during their stay. Of that, 1,418 were inpatient at
the time of their discharge and 2,097 were observation status at
discharge.

"Lee Health takes great care in following (federal) rules when
determining if a patient's status should be considered observation
or inpatient and in keeping patients informed on how it may impact
them," hospital spokeswoman Mary Briggs said in a statement. "It
is important to note that patients receive the medical care and
treatment necessary for their condition, whether their status is
observation or inpatient."

The NCH Healthcare System in Collier, like all other hospital
systems, is tasked with following Medicare guidelines and criteria
to determine when a patient can be admitted or placed on
observation status, said Dr. Allen Weiss, president and chief
executive officer.

"Observation means the current medical condition can either be
treated in a short amount of time or the reason for your medical
condition has yet to be determined," he said.

Taylor said her mother, a widow living alone in Wellington, in
western Palm Beach County, fell in her home and a neighbor came to
her aid and called an ambulance. Her mother was taken to the
emergency room of a Wellington hospital she had used before for a
shoulder injury. She was a known fall risk. Her mother stayed in
the hospital seven days. Taylor's daughter was living nearby and
was at the hospital every day.

Shortly before her mother was being discharged, perhaps the same
day, Taylor learned her mother had never been admitted. There was
no way her mother could go home because she could not be weight-
bearing, and she couldn't use a walker because of her prior
shoulder injury, Taylor said.

Taylor said the hospital turned a blind eye and wouldn't listen to
the family's concerns. The hospital wanted Taylor or her daughter
to sign a form that they would take responsibility for her mother,
Taylor said. At one point, the hospital threatened to put her
mother in a cab with a nurse to send her home, she said.
Ultimately, her mother went to a nursing home and paid the $8,000
bill out of pocket.

"And that started a chain reaction that resulted in her having to
sell her home," Taylor said. Her mother, now 90, is living in an
assisted living center facility.

Medicare patients have the right to appeal when they believe they
are being discharged too early, but there is no right to fight the
observation designation, said Bers, the litigation director for
the consumer group.

"This has been carved out of the appeals' rights," Bers said. "The
relief would be to appeal while still in the hospital, within a
day or so and get answers, just like they can expect a decision on
a discharge too early. Medicare's position is there is no right
for a beneficiary to appeal designation as observation status."

Extensive use of observation status and its pitfalls came to the
consumer group's attention starting about 15 years ago, Bers said.
Complaint calls from families grew steadily as hospitals became
more fearful of Medicare audit contractors scrutinizing
admissions, she said. Reimbursement is higher to hospitals when
patients are admitted versus the observation designation, even
though there is often no difference in the services being
provided.

"Hospitals started running scared and started putting more people
on observation status," she said.

In 2015, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission explored options
for counting time spent in observation status toward meeting the
three-day requirement for a nursing home stay to be covered,
according to the American Health Care Association, the national
organization for nursing homes.

About 30 national organizations in health care industries and
beneficiary groups are backing legislation to allow two days as
observation status to count toward the inpatient requirement,
according to the nursing home group. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Trump Accused of Saying Teens Have Gang Ties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Gonzalez, writing for NPR, reports that the ACLU has filed a
class-action lawsuit alleging that the Trump administration is
falsely accusing immigrant teens of gang affiliations in a
concerted effort to deport them.

The American Civil Liberties Union says the federal government is
illegally detaining immigrant teens from Suffolk County, N.Y., in
"jail-like facilities," based on unsubstantiated claims that they
are members of transnational street gangs.

The civil rights group also says the young immigrants were
detained without notice to their parents or lawyers, and without
giving them a chance to challenge the allegations.

According to the lawsuit, the Latino teens are being "profiled as
gang members based on the neighborhoods they live in and their
countries of origin."

"We're talking about teens who were picked up for play-fighting
with a friend, or for showing pride in their home country of El
Salvador," Stephen Kang, an attorney with the ACLU Immigrants'
Rights Project, said in a statement. "The Office of Refugee
Resettlement is accepting wholesale that young immigrants should
be kept behind bars because of what they look like or where they
come from."

The lawsuit names Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement and the federal Office of Refugee
Resettlement.

"During the Attorney General's visit to El Salvador, he repeatedly
heard of efforts by MS-13 and other transnational gangs to prey on
and recruit children as young as eight years old," Devin M.
O'Malley with the Department of Justice said in an email. "We will
absolutely defend the President's lawful authority to keep
Americans safe and protect communities from gang violence."

A spokesman with Immigration and Customs Enforcement declined to
comment on the lawsuit, citing the pending litigation.

President Trump gave a speech in Suffolk County about his
administration's crackdown on MS-13 gang members. MS-13 started in
California and spread across the country, especially as gang
members were deported to El Salvador and came back across the
border into the U.S.

In interviews with NPR, local and federal officials have stood
behind their enforcement efforts. [GN]


VCG HOLDING: Adult Dancers Loses Bid to File Surreply
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Corrected Motion For Leave to
File Surreply to Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Stay
Discovery or Dismiss and Motion for Court Facilitated Discovery
Conference in the case captioned GEORGINA SANTICH, JANEL ANDERSON,
JESSICA SAULTERS ARCHULETTA, ADRIANNE AXELSON, EMILY BACHELDER,
ALENA BAILEY, RACHEL BERRY, NICOLE BUJOK, BRANDI CAMPBELL, TALITA
CATTO, MELISSA CHAVEZ, ARIEL CLINE, MEGAN FITZGERALD, AMANDA
GABRIEL, AMY GLINES, JOHANNA GRISSOM, AMANDA LIVINGSTON, ARIELLE
MANSFIELD, CHADA MANTOOTH, KARLA MARTINEZ, CHRISTINA MASSARO,
ALEXIS NAGLE, LAPORTIA OAKLEY, GALE RAFFAELE, AMRICA TERRELL,
PENNY WATKINS, CASANDRA WINDECKER, MELANIE TRACY, PORSCHA GREEN,
AMANDA SHAFER, ASHLEY WOZNEAK, REBECCA RAIL, ANDREA ABBOTT, and
KIMBERY HALE, all individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VCG HOLDING CORP., LOWRIE
MANAGEMENT, LLLP, TROY LOWRIE, MICHAEL OCELLO, DENVER RESTAURANT
CONCEPTS LP d/b/a PTs Showclub, KENKEV II, INC. d/b/a PTs Showclub
Portland, INDY RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC. d/b/a PTs Showclub Indy,
GLENARM RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a Diamond Cabaret, GLENDALE RESTAURANT
CONCEPTS, LP d/b/a The Penthouse Club, STOUT RESTAURANT CONCEPTS,
INC. d/b/a La Boheme, and VCG RESTAURANTS DENVER, INC. d/b/a PT's
All Nude, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-cv-00631-RM-MEH. (D.
Colo.).

Plaintiffs seek permission to file a surreply to Defendants' Reply
in Support of its Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration.

Plaintiffs -- thirty-four adult dancers -- initiated this
collective action. In an Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert that
Defendants improperly treated them as independent contractors in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state wage
acts.

The Court denies Plaintiffs' request for a surreply, because
Defendants' arguments and evidence respond directly to the
arguments Plaintiffs make in their response. First, the Court
notes that Plaintiffs do not seek a surreply to incorporate
information learned through their recent discovery requests.
that Defendants submitted new evidence to rebut Plaintiffs'
affidavits does not entitle Plaintiffs to a surreply. Where the
reply affidavit merely responds to matters placed in issue by the
opposition brief and does not spring upon the opposing party new
reasons for [granting the motion], reply papers -- both briefs and
affidavits -- may properly address those issues.

Permitting a surreply to respond to rebuttal evidence would create
endless briefing where each party would get another opportunity to
respond to the opposing party's recently submitted evidence.

The Tenth Circuit's concern that an opposing party would not have
an opportunity to respond to material submitted in support of the
moving party's arguments does not apply here. Plaintiffs had an
opportunity to respond to each of Defendants' affirmative
arguments when they filed their response brief.

Plaintiffs' Corrected Motion For Leave to File Surreply to
Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Stay Discovery or
Dismiss and Motion for Court Facilitated Discovery Conference is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 10, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y9dbajxhfrom Leagle.com.

Georgina Santich, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph McNulty,
AMcNulty@KLN-law.com Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP.

Georgina Santich, Plaintiff, represented by Darold W. Killmer
DKillmer@KLN-law.com Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP, Eudoxie Dickey
DDickey@KLN-law.com Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP, Liana Gerstle
Orshan LOrshan@KLN-law.com Killmer Lane & Newman, LLP & Mari Anne
Newman, MNewman@KLN-law.com Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP.

Amanda Livingston, Plaintiff, represented by Liana Gerstle Orshan,
Killmer Lane & Newman, LLP & Mari Anne Newman, Killmer Lane &
Newman, LLP.

Rebecca Rail, Plaintiff, represented by Liana Gerstle Orshan,
Killmer Lane & Newman, LLP & Mari Anne Newman, Killmer, Lane &
Newman, LLP.

Amanda Gabriel, Plaintiff, represented by Liana Gerstle Orshan,
Killmer Lane & Newman, LLP & Mari Anne Newman, Killmer, Lane &
Newman, LLP.

Casandra Windecker, Plaintiff, represented by Liana Gerstle
Orshan, Killmer Lane & Newman, LLP & Mari Anne Newman, Killmer,
Lane & Newman, LLP.

Gale Raffaele, Plaintiff, represented by Liana Gerstle Orshan,
Killmer Lane & Newman, LLP & Mari Anne Newman, Killmer, Lane &
Newman, LLP.

Adrianne Axelson, Plaintiff, represented by Liana Gerstle Orshan,
Killmer Lane & Newman, LLP & Mari Anne Newman, Killmer, Lane &
Newman, LLP.

Amanda Shafer, Plaintiff, represented by Liana Gerstle Orshan,
Killmer Lane & Newman, LLP & Mari Anne Newman, Killmer, Lane &
Newman, LLP.

Brandi Campbell, Plaintiff, represented by Liana Gerstle Orshan,
Killmer Lane & Newman, LLP & Mari Anne Newman, Killmer, Lane &
Newman, LLP.

VCG Holding Corp., Defendant, represented by Allan Stephen Rubin -
- RubinA@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., Melisa Hallie
Panagakos -- Melisa.Panagakos@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis,
P.C. & Ryan Paul Lessmann -- LessmannR@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis, P.C..

Lowrie Management, LLLP, Defendant, represented by Allan Stephen
Rubin, Jackson Lewis, P.C., Melisa Hallie Panagakos, Jackson
Lewis, P.C. & Ryan Paul Lessmann, Jackson Lewis, P.C..

Denver Restaurant Concepts LP, Defendant, represented by Allan
Stephen Rubin, Jackson Lewis, P.C., Melisa Hallie Panagakos,
Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Ryan Paul Lessmann, Jackson Lewis, P.C..

Troy Lowrie, Defendant, represented by Melisa Hallie Panagakos,
Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Ryan Paul Lessmann, Jackson Lewis, P.C..
Michael Ocello, Defendant, represented by Melisa Hallie Panagakos,
Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Ryan Paul Lessmann, Jackson Lewis, P.C..

Kenkev II, Inc., Defendant, represented by Melisa Hallie
Panagakos, Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Ryan Paul Lessmann, Jackson
Lewis, P.C..

Indy Restaurant Concepts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Melisa
Hallie Panagakos, Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Ryan Paul Lessmann,
Jackson Lewis, P.C..

Glenarm Restaurant LLC, Defendant, represented by Melisa Hallie
Panagakos, Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Ryan Paul Lessmann, Jackson
Lewis, P.C..

Glendale Restaurant Concepts LP, Defendant, represented by Melisa
Hallie Panagakos, Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Ryan Paul Lessmann,
Jackson Lewis, P.C..

Stout Restaurant Concepts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Melisa
Hallie Panagakos, Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Ryan Paul Lessmann,
Jackson Lewis, P.C..

VCG Restaurants Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Melisa
Hallie Panagakos, Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Ryan Paul Lessmann,
Jackson Lewis, P.C.


VELOCITY EXPRESS: C. Chambers Dismissed as Defendant in "Flores"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PHILLIP FLORES, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
VELOCITY EXPRESS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 12-cv-05790-
JST(N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Charles Chambers for Failure to Prosecute.

This case is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and a putative class action pursuant to California's
Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law.  The Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants misclassified their delivery drivers as independent
contractors when they were, in fact, employees.  Because of this
misclassification, they allege that Velocity Express failed to pay
their minimum wages and overtime.

On June 3, 2013, the Court conditionally certified a collective
action under the FLSA.  On April 16, 2015, it granted partial
summary judgment for the Plaintiffs on the issue of successor
liability as to Defendants TransForce and Dynamex, but denied
their motion for partial summary judgment as to the Defendants'
joint-employer status.

The parties proposed, and the Court approved, a process for
selecting Bellwether Plaintiffs -- the members of the collective
whose trials would proceed first.  Under this process, each of the
Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the Court were to select one of
the Bellwether Plaintiffs.  The Defendants selected James Mack and
the Plaintiffs selected Claude Boconvi as Bellwether Plaintiffs.
On Jan. 11, 2017, the Court selected Charles Chambers, one of two
other candidates identified by the Defendants, as the third
Bellwether Plaintiff.

By all accounts, Mr. Chambers was an active participant in the
litigation.  He completed a Plaintiff Questionnaire (PQ) in
January 2016, and sat for a deposition in October 2016.  In
February 2017, the Plaintiffs' counsel contacted Mr. Chambers to
let him know that he had been selected as a Bellwether Plaintiff,
and that the trial would likely be set for June or July of 2017.
Mr. Chambers informed the Plaintiffs' counsel that he may be
unavailable at that time due to extenuating family circumstances.
The Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Defendants and the Court of
Mr. Chambers' unavailability.  On April 24, 2017, the Court
granted summary judgment as to Bellwether Plaintiffs Mack,
Boconvi, and Chambers on the issues of misclassification and
willfulness, leaving only the damages amount to be determined.  On
May 2, 2017, the Court set a bench trial on damages in the Boconvi
and Mack cases for June 12, 2017.

Despite multiple calls, e-mail messages, and letters, the
Plaintiffs' counsel has been unable to contact Mr. Chambers since
their February phone conversation.

Upon consideration of the relevant factors, Judge Tigar finds that
this case should be dismissed.  He granted summary judgment on the
issues of misclassification and willfulness, and all that Mr.
Chambers had to do was to attend a trial on damages, which he
failed to do.  And neither Mr. Chambers nor the Plaintiffs'
counsel has provided any reasonable explanation for Mr. Chambers'
apparent abandonment of his claims.

The Judge Court finds that they would be prejudiced by having to
wait for Mr. Chambers to reappear, particularly when there is no
guarantee he will ever do so.  Thus, the Court finds that the
first three factors -- (i) the public's interest in expeditious
resolution of litigation, (ii) the Court's need to manage its
docket, and (iii) the risk of prejudice to the Defendants --
support dismissal.  These factors outweigh the public policy
favoring disposition of cases on their merits, particularly given
that none of the proposals before him provide a predictable path
toward such disposition.

Accordingly, Judge Tigar granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
for failure to prosecute is granted.  Plaintiff Chambers is
dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/MtTqHL from Leagle.com.

Phillip Flores, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy J. Becker --
TBECKER@JOHNSONBECKER.COM -- Johnson Becker, PLLC.

Phillip Flores, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker --
aleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice,
Charles R. Ash -- cash@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C.,
pro hac vice, Christopher Paul Ridout --
christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, David H.
Grounds -- DGROUNDS@JOHNSONBECKER.COM -- Johnson Becker, PLLC,
Jacob R. Rusch -- JRUSCH@JOHNSONBECKER.COM -- Johnson Becker,
PLLC, Jason J. Thompson -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers
Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Jesse L. Young --
jyoung@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Molly Elizabeth
Nephew -- MNEPHEW@JOHNSONBECKER.COM -- Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro
hac vice & Neil B. Pioch, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice.

Darah Doung, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy J. Becker, Johnson
Becker, PLLC, Caleb Marker, Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice,
Charles R. Ash, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Christopher
Paul Ridout, Zimmerman Reed LLP, David H. Grounds, Johnson Becker,
PLLC, Jacob R. Rusch, Johnson Becker, PLLC, Jason J. Thompson,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Jesse L. Young, Sommers
Schwartz, P.C., Molly Elizabeth Nephew, Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro
hac vice & Neil B. Pioch, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice.

Velocity Express, LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert G. Hulteng
-- rhulteng@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Alexander Hurd
Scherbatskoy, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Andrew Michael Spurchise --
-- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Aurelio Jose
Perez, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Blair Amelia Copple, Littler
Mendelson, Byung-Kwan Park, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Emily Erin
O'Connor -- eoconnor@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..

TransForce, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert G. Hulteng,
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Alexander Hurd Scherbatskoy, Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Andrew Michael Spurchise, Littler Mendelson,
P.C., Aurelio Jose Perez, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Blair Amelia
Copple, Littler Mendelson, Byung-Kwan Park, Littler Mendelson,
P.C. & Emily Erin O'Connor, Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Dynamex Operations East, LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert G.
Hulteng, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Alexander Hurd Scherbatskoy,
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Andrew Michael Spurchise, Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Aurelio Jose Perez, Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Blair Amelia Copple, Littler Mendelson & Byung-Kwan Park, Littler
Mendelson, P.C..

Ms. Elsa Lazarte, Miscellaneous, represented by Daniel Martinez de
la Vega, Law Offices of Daniel Vega.


VOESTALPINE AG: Faces Class Suit Over Black Dust in Homes
---------------------------------------------------------
Kristv reports in Portland, the legal battle continues over
mysterious black dust found on the homes of some residents as
attorneys for both sides met in court.

The issue on the table concerns claims from around 250 residents
that a mysterious black dust was found on their homes and
properties. That dust, they claimed, came from Voestalpine's
nearby industrial plant.

The company repeatedly said it did not have enough information to
confirm or deny claims that the dust came from its plant.
Residents responded by filing a class action lawsuit.

In court on August 11 there was discussion on whether the case
should proceed as a class action suit or if the cases should be
tried individually.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs also asked the judge to inspect the
Voestalpine plant.

A trial date is expected to be set next March. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN: Faces Class Action Over CC Model Cars Design Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Grant, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
nationwide owners and lessees of the Volkswagen CC model cars
filed a class action lawsuit claiming a known design defect in the
alignment has for years caused uneven wear and degradation of
tires, known as tire cupping.

The suit filed on August 10 in the Southern District of Florida
alleges that since 2010 at least 50,000 of the luxury midsize
sedans have been manufactured and sold with the defect, requiring
drivers to replace the tires prematurely at their own expense.
Roy Altman, a partner at Podhurst Orseck in Miami representing the
nationwide class, said many owners and lessees of the cars often
have been forced to pay thousands of dollars over a period of
years to get replacement tires that they otherwise would not have.
The 77-page complaint asks for compensatory and punitive damages,
a return of the purchase or lease price of the cars, a
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, an enjoinment from "further
deceptive distribution" and other remedies in a complaint that
offers up plaintiffs who each say they lost money on their
vehicles.

None of the plaintiffs named in the complaint, hailing from at
least eight states including Florida, allege they were injured
because of the alleged design defect, described as a "common,
uniform defect" of "faulty suspensions, shocks and struts" Still,
the suit alleges "tire cupping" is a "serious safety hazard,"
regardless.

"The alignment defect, which is unrepairable, is not simply an
economic or aesthetic concern," the complaint states. "It is also
a serious safety hazard. A 2009 study performed by the National
Highway Safety Transportation Administration . . . showed that
tire-related crashes were far more likely when the tire's tread is
worn down or degraded, which is precisely the kind of damage the
alignment defect presents."

The lawsuit assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Scola in Miami
also alleges Volkswagen knew of the alleged defect for years but
actively concealed it.

"The defendants concealed the defect from the public while
continuing to advertise its products as safe and reliable, showing
a blatant disregard for public welfare and safety," the complaint
says. "Moreover, the defendants violated their affirmative duty,
imposed under the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability and Documentation Act (the "TREAD Act"), to
promptly advise customers about known defects."

The complaint in Lila Wilson v. Volkswagen, alleges 18 counts
against defendants Volkswagen Group of America Inc. and Volkswagen
AG. They include the nationwide federal claim of violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and common law and state law claims
including fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranty and
unjust enrichment.

Pietro Zollino, a spokesman for Volkswagen in the U.S., did not
return a call seeking comment.

A spokeswoman for Podhurst Orseck on August 10 predicted the
lawsuit will be the "next big carmaker defect class action."
Altman said, "Volkswagen has been in the news for having defrauded
costumers and the federal government, and unfortunately we've
uncovered at least 50,000 of its vehicles of this different model
which have been purchased by people who were led to believe the
car was one thing when it was another."

"That raises concerns of endemic problems at Volkswagen," he said.
He added a similar lawsuit would be filed on August 11 in federal
court in New Jersey to "protect our clients' legal rights." [GN]


WALGREENS BOOTS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Generic Meds
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Grabstald, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Case No.
1:17-cv-05789 (N.D. Ill., August 9, 2017), is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendant's fraudulent scheme to
overcharge for certain generic pharmaceuticals, specifically by
charging customers who use their insurance more for the Affected
Drugs as compared to customers who pay cash or simply don't use
their insurance and overcharging customers by collecting "co-pays"
that, unbeknownst to the customers, exceed the pharmacists' price
and profit.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. owns and operates approximately
8,175 retail stores throughout the United States and is one of the
world's largest purchasers of prescription drugs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
              jerrodp@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
      Chicago, IL 60611
      Telephone: (708) 628-4960
      Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
      E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
      Martin Woodward, Esq.
      STANLEY LAW GROUP
      6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (214) 443-4300
      Facsimile: (214) 443-0358
      E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com
              mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com


WALMART STORES: Faces Class Action Over FCRA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR News, reports that Walmart faces a
class action lawsuit that claims the retail giant allegedly
violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and
California law by using unauthorized background checks on job
applicants and employees without properly obtaining legal
authorization, according to a Top Class Actions report.

Top Class Actions reports that lead plaintiff Randy Pitre claims
Walmart obtained a background check on him without legal
authorization under the FCRA, and argues that the company "failed
to provide adequate notice of the consumer report as well as
failed to secure legal authorization to obtain it."

Walmart has "a policy and practice of procuring investigative
consumer reports or causing investigative consumer reports to be
procured for applicants and employees without properly and legally
obtaining authorization as it included other extraneous
information other than the disclosure," the lawsuit states.

Top Class Actions reports that the class action lawsuit claims
that Walmart also failed to notify for applicants and employees of
"their right to request a summary of their rights under the FCRA
at the same time as the disclosure explaining that an
investigative consumer report may be made."

Pitre claims Walmart violated the FCRA by not providing a "clear
and conspicuous" disclosure notifying job seekers about the
background checks, and that the background check disclosures were
"embedded with extraneous information" and "not clear and
unambiguous disclosures in stand-alone documents."

Under the FCRA, it is unlawful to procure or caused to be
procured, a consumer report or investigative consumer report for
employment purposes unless the disclosure is made in a document
that consists solely of the disclosure and the consumer has
authorized, in writing, the procurement of the report.

Top Class Actions reports "the plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide Class of current, former, and prospective job
applicants with Walmart who were subject to an unauthorized
background check within the past five years. Pitre also seeks to
represent a California subclass for alleged violations of state
law."

The lawsuit is Randy Pitre v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Case No. 8:17-
cv-01281-DOC-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. The complete story is at:
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-
news/815025-walmart-class-action-says-background-checks-violate-
federal-law/.  [GN]


WALT DISNEY: CDD Files Suit Over Mobile Apps for Kids
-----------------------------------------------------
Nathan Birch, writing for Comic Book, reports that at this point,
most grown-up mobile gamers are aware and willing to accept the
fact that their gameplay habits are being tracked to varying
degrees and the data gained may be used by developers and
advertisers. It's just the way things work these days. That said,
things get murkier when companies are found to be tracking the
patterns and behavior of children without their parents' consent.

The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) prohibits
companies from collecting and sharing data from those under the
age of 13, and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) has filed a
class-action lawsuit against Disney (and mobile developers
Upsight, Unity and Kochava) alleging 42 of their mobile apps based
on movies like Frozen, Moana, and Toy Story, do exactly that. CDD
director Jeffrey Chester explained why they felt it was important
to launch the suit.

Of course, Disney denies the allegations, saying they're in full
compliance with COPPA.

Despite Disney's defiant tone, the corporation has run afoul of
COPPA before. Back in 2011 Disney subsidiary Playdom was fined $3
million under COPPA for allowing children to sign up for various
online games without parental permission.

Without further ado, here's the full list of Disney mobile apps
allegedly collecting data from minors:

AvengersNet
Beauty and the Beast
Perfect Match
Cars Lightening League
Club Penguin Island
Color by Disney
Disney Color and Play
Disney Crossy Road
Disney Dream Treats
Disney Emoji Blitz
Disney Gif
Disney Jigsaw Puzzle!
Disney LOL
Disney Princess: Story Theater
Disney Store Become
Disney Story Central
Disney's Magic Timer by Oral-B
Disney Princess: Charmed Adventures
Dodo Pop
Disney Build It Frozen
DuckTales: Remastered
Frozen Free Fall
Frozen Free Fall: Icy Shot
Good Dinosaur Storybook Deluxe
Inside Out Thought Bubbles
Maleficent Free Fall
Miles from Tomorrowland: Missions
Moana Island Life
Olaf's Adventures
Palace Pets in Whisker Haven
Sofia the First Color and Play
Sofia the First Secret Library
Star Wars: Puzzle DroidsTM
Star WarsTM: Commander
Temple Run: Oz
Temple Run: Brave
The Lion Guard
Toy Story: Story Theater
Where's My Water?
Where's My Mickey?
Where's My Water? 2
Where's My Water? Lite/Where's My Water? Free
Zootopia Crime Files: Hidden Object

It will be interesting to see where this case goes. If Disney
loses, it will definitely shake up the mobile gaming scene in a
big way. WWG will keep you updated on new developments in this
case! [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Peters Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PETERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-04367-DMR (N.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2017),
seeks to enjoin Wells Fargo from continuing unlawful practices.

According to the complaint, Wells Fargo violated Section 392.303
of the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA) by engaging in unfair and
unconscionable means to collect post-payment interest from
Plaintiff that was not expressly authorized by the note or legally
chargeable to Plaintiff under 24 C.F.R. section 203.558. Post-
payment interest was not expressly authorized by the note or
legally chargeable to Plaintiff because Wells Fargo did not first
disclose the charge and how to avoid it through providing
Plaintiff with the Payoff Disclosure or other Housing and Urban
Development-approved form.

Plaintiff suffered an injury-in-fact from Wells Fargo's conduct in
the form of paying interest that he was not required to pay under
HUD regulations or the terms of his note. To this day, Wells Fargo
has engaged and continues to engage in unfair and unconscionable
debt collection practices by keeping the post-payment interest
that it collected in violation of the form HUD note and federal
law, and failing to inform Plaintiff and Class members of its
illegal practices.  As a direct and proximate cause of Wells
Fargo's practices, Plaintiff and Class members have suffered
actual damages in that they have paid interest that they did not
owe. Under TDCA Section 392.403(b), a person who successfully
maintains an action for injunctive relief or actual damages is
entitled to attorney's fees reasonably related to the amount of
work performed, and costs.

Wells Fargo is an American international banking and financial
services holding company headquartered in San Francisco,
California, with "hubquarters" throughout the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Susan S. Brown, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: 650 784 4040
          Facsimile: 650 784 4041
          E-mail: mram@robinskaplan.com
                  sbrown@robinskaplan.com

              - and -

          Adam L. Hoipkemier, Esq.
          Kevin E. Epps, Esq.
          EPPS HOLLOWAY DELOACH & HOIPKEMIER, LLC
          1220 Langford Drive, Bldg. 200
          Watkinsville, GA 30677
          Telephone: 706 508 4000
          Facsimile: 706 842 6750
          E-mail: adam@ehdhlaw.com
                  kevin@ehdhlaw.com

              - and -

          Samuel Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 209
          Madison, WI 53703-3515
          Telephone: 608 237 1774
          Facsimile: 608 509 4423
          E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com


YNIGO LANDSCAPING: Faces "Estevez" Suit in S.D. of Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ynigo Landscaping
and Lawn Services, Inc.  The case is styled as Luid D. Estevez,
and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Ynigo
Landscaping and Lawn Services, Inc. and Pedro Ynigo, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22895-UU (S.D. Fla., August 1, 2017).

YNIGO LANDSCAPING provides landscaping and lawn maintenance
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
   Zandro E. Palma, P.A.
   9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1500
   Miami, FL 33156
   Tel: (305) 446-1500
   Fax: (305) 446-1502
   Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com





                             *********


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  * * *