CAR_Public/170830.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, August 30, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 171



                            Headlines

ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Mass. Over False Company Reports
ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
AK CAFE: Faces "Perez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA, NYLL
APPLE INC: Bag-Search Class Action Now in Calif. Supreme Court
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Faces "Abouzied" Securities Class Suit

APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
ARYZTA LLC: Barnes Sues Over Unlawful Use Over Biometric Data
ASJ CONSTRUCTION: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Lopez" Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Exclusive Stock Loan Market Control
BANK OF AMERICA: Large Investment Banks Sued Over Collusion

BARCLAYS BANK: Sept. 22 FX Settlement Approval Hearing Set
BAY AREA: Faces "David" Suit Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work
BLUE APRON: Bottini & Bottini Files Securities Class Action
BROWN HARRIS: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CARECENTRIX INC: Bid to Permit Class Discovery in "Hapka" Denied

CDI CORP: Faces "Scarantino" Suit Over Proposed Nova Merger
CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Hertzovitz" Suit in E.D. of New York
CHH BEAUTY: Faces "Kebede" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CJ & J: Faces "Bowman" Suit Alleging Improper Classification
CLUBCORP HOLDINGS: Sued Over Proposed Sale to Constellation

CLUBCORP HOLDINGS: Bronstein, Gewirtz Sues Over Sale
COMPREHENSIVE HOME: Advanced Rehab Alleges Violation of JFPA
CONSOLIFI: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Vaccaro" Suit Claims
CONVERGYS CORP: 5th Cir. Denies Bid to Enforce NLRB's Order
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Faces "Zamora" Suit Over Automated Calls

CREDICO (USA): "Rodriguez" Suit Plaintiffs Seek to Issue Notice
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Da Silva Says
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: "Kryszkiewicz" Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
DENNY'S BEER: Faces "Bailey" Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Laws
DEUTSCHE BANK: Nov. 9 Euroyen Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Orbea Files Class Action in New Jersey
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: To Pay at Least $7.5MM in ERISA Row
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Faces "Bettis" Suit Under Securities Act
FANEUIL INC: Faces "Marshall" Class Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
FERGUSON, MO: Court Disqualifies Counsel in Jailing Practices Suit

FERGUSON, MO: City's Law Firm DQ'd for Conflict of Interest
FORD MOTOR: Settles Sexual Harassment Claims at Chicago Plants
FORTERRA INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
FULL TILT: Lawsuit Refiled in California After Federal Dismissal
FUNDBOX INC: Faces TCPA Class Action

GENE BY GENE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cole" Class Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Won" Suit in N.Y. Over Defective Vehicles
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: November 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GOLDMAN SACHS: Hit With Class CA Over Racial Discrimination
HAJOCA CORP: Faces "Tinoco" Suit in C.D. of Calif.

HUMANA INSURANCE: Removes "Wiener" Class Suit to W.D. Kentucky
INDIANAPOLIS: Faces Class Action Over Ban Targeting Homeless
JACOBS ENGINEERING: "Kritch" Suit Removed to C.D. California
JAMOS FUND: Oct. 26 Final Settlement Hearing Set
JC PENNEY: Seeks 10th Circuit Review of Orders in "Cavlovic" Suit

LA PARK: Faces "Leisner" Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
LAMI PRODUCTS: Wins Joint Bid to Facilitate Notice in Vaughn Suit
LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Faces "Mey" Suit in N.D. of West Va.
LOTUS BY JOHNNY: Faces "Nguyen" Class Suit in C.D. California
MARYLAND: Court Dismisses Medicaid Eligibility Suit

MDL 2795: Asks JPML to Transfer 8 Class Suits to Minnesota
MERSCORP INC: Dismissal of Recording Statutes Suit Affirmed
MIDLAND CREDIT: Hernandez Renews Bid to Certify Class Under FDCPA
MONSANTO COMPANY: Court Narrows Claims in "Rawa"
MUNGER FARMS: Faces "Covington" Employment Suit in California

NAVIENT CORP: Faces "Travis" Suit in E. Dist. of New York
NEDBANK: South African Banks Could Face R60MM Class Action Suit
NESTLE WATERS: Faces Suit Over 'Spring Water' Labeling
NETFLIX: Price Hike Sparks CA Lawsuit From Quebec Law Firm
NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Demasco" Suit in E.D. of New York

OUT OF SITE: Judgment on Pleadings in "Mendelhall" Granted
RAYONIER ADVANCED: Robbins Geller Files Class Action
RESORT MARKETING: Settles Free Cruise Robocall Class-Action
ROCKET FUEL: Faces "Bushansky" Lawsuit Over Sale to Sizmek Inc.
RP MARTIN: November 10 Euroyen Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

PATRIOT DRILLING: "Woloszyn" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: 7th Cir. affirmed bankruptcy court judgment
PRECISION DEMOLITION: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Castro" Suit
PRESTONE PRODUCTS: Faces CA Over Vehicle Damage Caused by Product
PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC: Hit With Potential Class Action

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: McCracken Appeals D. Colo. Order to 10th Cir.
PW BISHOP: Knepp Seeks to Recover OT and Minimum Wages Under FLSA
ROTOR HOLDINGS: Cohn Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
ROYAL PLAINVIEW: Romero Files Class Suit in E.D. of New York
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Appeals Order in "Benoit" PFOA Suit

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Beture Sues Over Galaxy Note 4 Defects
SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Faces "Pike" Suit in C.D. of Cal.
SCICLONE PHARMA: Faces "Sciabacucchi" Suit Over Silver Merger
SELECT STAFFING: Faces "Joseph III" Suit in C.D. of Calif.
SENIOR LIFESTYLE: Illegally Uses Biometric Data, Suit Says

SHERWIN WILLIAMS: Faces "Lafferty" Suit in New Jersey
SIBANYE GOLD: Silicosis CA Lawsuit 'Being Handled' Out Of Court
SK FOODS: Court Issues Final Judgment as to Ingomar, Los Gatos
SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Nassiri"
STRATEGIC HOTELS: Faces "White" Suit in N.D. of Calif.

SUPPORTBUDDY INC: Accused by "Ramirez" Suit of Placing Malwares
SYMPHONY HEALTHCARE: Illegally Uses Biometric Data, Suit Claims
THYME & BASIL: "Rolando" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
U.S. BANCORP: Dodges Proposed Class Action Over Pay
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to Settle 'Refer-A-Friend' Class Action

WAFFLE HOUSE: 11th Cir. Vacates Denial of Arbitration in "Jones"
WANTAGH BAGELS: Faces "Garcia" Suit in E.D. of New York
WELLS FARGO: Preston Sues Over Forced, Unnecessary Auto Insurance
WEST LIBERTY: Daniels Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Data
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces "Andreozzi" Suit Over "Defective" Joists

WILSON COUNTY, KS: Oct. 25 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WRIGHT TREE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Merriman" Suit Says
XEROX BUSINESS: 9th Cir. Certifies Question to Wash. High Court
ZTO EXPRESS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action


                            *********


ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Mass. Over False Company Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hui Zhang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Acacia Communications, Inc., Murugesan Shanmugaraj,
and John F. Gavin, Case No. 1:17-cv-11518 (D. Mass., August 16,
2017), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Specifically, says the complaint, Defendants failed to disclose:
(1) that the Company was experiencing declining demand for its
products from important customers; (2) that the Company's
manufacturing quality control system was inadequate; (3) that, as
a result, the Company's manufacturing process was causing certain
of the Company's units to be unsaleable; and (4) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Acacia's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

Acacia Communications, Inc. is engaged in the business of
delivering high-speed coherent optical interconnect products that
transform communications networks, relied upon by cloud
infrastructure operators and content and communication service
providers, through improvements in performance and capacity and a
reduction in associated costs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey C. Block, 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

         - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com
              clinehan@glancylaw.com


ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Acacia Communications,
Inc. (NASDAQ:ACIA) ("Acacia" or the "Company") securities during
the period between August 11, 2016, and July 13, 2017, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  Investors who wish to become proactively
involved in the litigation have until October 13, 2017 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.

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

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Acacia's
manufacturing and quality control processes were deficient and
were likely to disrupt the Company's manufacturing and impact
revenues.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Acacia securities purchased on or after August 11, 2016 and
held through the revelation of negative information during and/or
at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-
6616.

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


AK CAFE: Faces "Perez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
EFRAIN BATEN PEREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against AK CAFE OF NEW YORK LLC (d/b/a
BABYLON HOOKAH LOUNGE), ALI BABA'S TERRACE INC. (D/B/A ALI BABA'S
TERRACE), ALI BABA'S TURKISH CUISINE INC. (D/B/A ALI BABA'S
TURKISH CUISINE), and ALI RIZA DOGAN, Defendants, Case No: 1:17-
cv-05931 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff
performed non-delivery, non-tipped functions in addition to his
regular duties.

Plaintiff allegedly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week, without receiving the applicable minimum wage or
appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he
worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

Babylon Hookah Lounge is a bar/restaurant owned by Ali Riza Dogan.
Plaintiff was employed as a kitchen helper and dishwasher and
ostensibly as a delivery worker.[BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: Bag-Search Class Action Now in Calif. Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Corfield, writing for The Register, reports Apple may have
to pay its employees extra for time it spends rifling through
their personal belongings at work, if it loses a long-running
lawsuit that is now in front of the Californian Supreme Court.

The American state's Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is kicking the
thorny question of whether employees are entitled to pay while
they stand around waiting for the firm's bag-fondlers -- defined
as shop managers and security staff -- to poke around in their
belongings.

According to the appeals court's latest ruling, handed down on
August 16, the key question that the state supremes must answer is
this:

     Is time spent on the employer's premises waiting for, and
undergoing, required exit searches of packages or bags voluntarily
brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees
compensable as "hours worked" within the meaning of California
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7?

Apple employees have long complained about Cupertino's policy of
rummaging through their belongings each and every time they leave
the firm's shops. In 2013 hacked-off shop floor workers Amanda
Friekin, Taylor Kalin, Aaron Gregoroff, Seth Downling and Debra
Speicher filed the class action suit against Apple, complaining
that Tim Cook's firm's treatment of them was "embarrassing",
"demeaning" and "disturbing".

Shop staff were required to clock off before finding a manager or
a security guard to go through their belongings in the hope of
discovering stolen iStuff. The policy is intended to reduce
"shrinkage", the well-known phenomenon where commodity goods are
stolen by staff in the supply and distribution chain.

"Employees receive no compensation for the time spent waiting for
and undergoing exit searches, because they must clock out before
undergoing a search. Employees who fail to comply with the Policy
are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including
termination," noted the appeals court, which explained:
"California law provides no clear answer to the certified
question."

Apple concedes that its staff are under its "control" in the time
between clocking off and letting their bosses poke through their
handbags and so on but says this does not amount to "hours worked"
for employment law purposes. It also says that the search is not
compulsory "because the employees may avoid a search by declining
to bring a bag or package to work".

The case is due to be certified in the California Supreme Court
within the next week. As Californian appeal judges Susan Graber,
Michelle Friedland, and Consuelo Marshall said in their judgement,
"the consequences of any interpretation of the Wage Order will
have significant legal, economic, and practical consequences for
employers and employees throughout the state of California." [GN]


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Faces "Abouzied" Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MONA ABOUZIED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS, INC., CHIHHSIANG
(THOMPSON) LIN, and STEFAN J. MURRY, Defendants, Case No: 4:17-cv-
02399 (S.D. Tex., August 5, 2017), was filed on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock
and/or call options of Applied Optoelectronics or sold put options
of Applied Optoelectronics from July 13, 2017 through August 3,
2017, both dates inclusive.

Defendants allegedly violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act
by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) a major customer was reducing its purchases of
the Company's 40G receivers; (2) the loss of this major customer's
business would have a severe negative impact on the Company's
financial performance; and (3) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Defendant Applied Optoelectronics develops and manufactures
advanced optical products which are the building blocks for
broadband and fiber access networks primarily for
Internet data center, cable television (CATV), and fiber-to-the-
home (FTTH) networking endmarket.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
     STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC
     12720 Hillcrest Rd, Suite 1045
     Dallas, TX 75230
     Phone: (972) 387-4040
     Fax: (972) 387-4041
     Email: dean@stecklerlaw.com

        - and -
.
     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A
     275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
            lrosen@rosenlegal.com


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Ludwig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang Lin, and
Stefan J. Murry, Case No. 4:17-cv-02512 (S.D. Tex., August 16,
2017), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies.

Specifically, notes the complaint, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) a
major customer was reducing its purchases of the Company's 40G
receivers; (ii) the loss of this major customer's business would
have a severe negative impact on the Company's financial
performance; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Optoelectronics' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. develops and manufactures advanced
optical products which are the building blocks for broadband and
fiber access networks primarily for Internet data center, cable
television (CATV), and fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) networking end
market. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
      THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
      3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 600
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Telephone: (214) 643-6011
      Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
      E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail:  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


ARYZTA LLC: Barnes Sues Over Unlawful Use Over Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamel Barnes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Aryzta, LLC and Automatic Data Processing, Inc., Case
No. 2017-CH-11312 (Ill. Cir. Ct., August 17, 2017), seeks to put a
stop to Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of the
Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive biometric data.

Aryzta, LLC is a global supplier of baked foods for the
foodservice, retail, and restaurant industries.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. is a provider of human resource
management software and services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Sydney Janzen, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              sjanzen@edclson.com

         - and -

      David Fish, Esq.
      John Kunze, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Telephone: (630) 355-7590
      Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
      E-mail: dtish@fishlawfinn.com
              jkunze@fishlawfinn.com


ASJ CONSTRUCTION: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Lopez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned LIDIO LOPEZ, on behalf of
himself and other persons similarly situated v. ASJ CONSTRUCTION
GROUP, LLC and ALFONSO SANCHEZ, Case No. 2:17-cv-02241-SM-KWR
(E.D. La.), moves for conditional class certification, judicial
notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of potential
"opt-in" plaintiffs.

The action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or
practice" pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KMlZ14UM

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534-5005
          E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
                  whbeaumont@gmail.com
                  eaw@beaumontcostales.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Exclusive Stock Loan Market Control
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System, Orange County Employees
Retirement System, and Sonoma County Employees' Retirement
Association, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Bank Of America Corporation; Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Merrill Lynch L.P. Holdings, Inc.;
Credit Suisse AG; Credit Suisse Group AG; Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC; Credit Suisse First Boston Next Fund, Inc.; The Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC; Goldman Sachs
Execution & Clearing, L.P.; J.P. Morgan Chase & CO.; J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC; J.P. Morgan Prime, Inc.; J.P. Morgan Strategic
Securities Lending Corp.; J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Morgan
Stanley; Morgan Stanley Capital Management, LLC; Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC; Prime Dealer Services Corp.; Strategic Investments I,
Inc.; UBS Group AG; UBS AG; UBS Americas Inc.; UBS Securities LLC;
UBS Financial Services Inc.; Equilend LLC; Equilend Europe
Limited; and Equilend Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-06221
(S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2017), arises from the Defendants' and
others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to
prevent the emergence of efficient
all-to-all electronic trading platforms in the stock loan market,
to boycott emerging platforms and force customers to boycott them,
to cut off emerging platforms' access to clearing organizations,
to jointly purchase and mothball emerging platforms and their
intellectual property, and to jointly prohibit real-time price
disclosures.

The Defendants operate a financial service company in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 838-7797
      Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
      E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
      Julie G. Reiser, Esq.
      Richard A. Koffman, Esq.
      David A. Young, Esq.
      Robert W. Cobbs, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
      E-mail: kpierson@cohenmilstein.com
              jreiser@cohenmilstein.com
              rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com
              dyoung@cohenmilstein.com
              rcobbs@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
      Sascha N. Rand, Esq.
      Steig D. Olson, Esq.
      Thomas J. Lepri, Esq.
      Thomas Popejoy, Esq.
      QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
      51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
      New York, NY 10010
      Telephone: (212) 849-7000
      Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
      E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
              sascharand@quinnemnuel.com
              steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
              thomaslepri@quinnemanuel.com
              thomaspopejoy@quinnemanuel.com

         - and -

      Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq.
      QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
      865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 443-3000
      Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
      E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Large Investment Banks Sued Over Collusion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Hardy, writing for Des Moines Resgister, reports that Iowa's
biggest public employee pension plan is among three plaintiffs
suing some of the nation's largest investment banks, claiming the
Wall Street giants have colluded to maintain exclusive control of
the $1-trillion-plus stock loan market.

Together with the Orange County Employees Retirement System and
the Sonoma County Employees Retirement Association, the Iowa
Public Employees' Retirement System filed a federal class action
suit on August 16 in the Southern District of New York.

Known as IPERS, the Iowa fund has more than 350,000 members,
including state, city, county and school district employees, plus
former Iowa public employees and retirees.

The lawsuit claims that six investment banks -- Bank of America,
Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and UBS --
"took collective, illegal action to boycott, attack and acquire
multiple entities who tried to increase competition and lower
costs in the stock loan market."

When contacted by the Des Moines Register on August 17, each of
the six banks declined to comment on the lawsuit. IPERS officials
would not comment on the litigation but did release a statement on
August 17.

"IPERS is proud of its role in leading this lawsuit and its
efforts to get compensation for investors damaged by the lack of
competition and transparency in the stock lending market,"
spokeswoman Judy Akre said in a statement. "IPERS has a fiduciary
duty to advocate for IPERS' participants and beneficiaries, and
protecting them from investment banks' collusion and anti-
competitive behavior is in accordance with that duty."

The suit contends that since at least 2009 the banks violated
antitrust laws by conspiring to overcharge investors and
obstructing efforts to create competitive electronic exchanges
that would benefit stock lenders and borrowers.

Plaintiff's attorney Michael Eisenkraft, Esq. --
meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein said the banks
have colluded to pocket higher profits, depriving "investors of
money that should flow to retirees, families and other hard-
working Americans."

"This retirement fund supports thousands of thousands of retirees.
So anything that hurts the fund hurts them," Eisenkraft told the
Register. "The pension funds are making money. They're just not
making as much money as they should because of this practice."

Unlike other financial markets, the suit claims that the stock
loan market has not kept up with technological advancements.
Without a central marketplace, borrowers and lenders face an
"opaque" system that requires intermediaries, known as prime
brokers.

The six investment banks named in the suit are the nation's
dominant prime brokers, it claims, controlling 60 percent of
revenues in that market. The suit says the IPERS fund has "lent
significant volumes of stock," to the defendants and their stock
borrower clients since 2009.

The suit says banks have prevented participants from accessing
marketplaces where they could benefit from direct trading and
secure the best prices. Borrowers and lenders are essentially
trading securities blindly, he said, in the dark on the true cost
of transactions and fees.

"All you know is what the middleman is going to give you or charge
you," Eisenkraft said.

Neither IPERS nor the plaintiff's attorney would say which party
identified the issue with Iowa's pension funds. But attorneys say
the class action case has the potential to spark wider reform of
the nation's financial markets.

"I can tell you that we've been investigating this case for months
and months and months," Eisenkraft said. [GN]


BARCLAYS BANK: Sept. 22 FX Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Notice

To All Persons in Canada Who, Between January 1, 2003 and December
31, 2013, Entered Into an FX Instrument*, Either Directly or
Indirectly Through an Intermediary, and/or
Purchased or Otherwise Participated in an Investment or Equity
Fund, Mutual Fund, Hedge Fund, Pension Fund Or Any Other
Investment Vehicle that Entered into an FX Instrument.

*FX Instruments includes FX spot transactions, outright forwards,
FX swaps, FX options, FX futures contracts, options on FX futures
contracts, and other instruments traded in the FX Market
Settlements May Affect Your Rights. Please Read this Notice
Carefully

This notice is about class actions relating to Foreign
Exchange ("FX") transactions.

The Plaintiffs, Joseph S. Mancinelli, Carmen Principato, Douglas
Serroul, Luigi Carrozzi, Manuel Bastos, and Jack Oliveira in their
capacity as The Trustees of the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central
and Eastern Canada and Christopher Staines, in Ontario,
and the Plaintiff Christine Beland, in Quebec, have undertaken
legal procedures under applicable laws related to class actions
against the following defendants: Bank of America Corporation,
Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Canada, Bank of America,
National Association, Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., Bank of
Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ (Canada), Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital
Inc., Barclays Capital Canada Inc., BNP Paribas Group,
BNP Paribas North America, Inc., BNP Paribas (Canada), BNP
Paribas, Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citibank Canada,
Citigroup Global Markets Canada Inc., Credit Suisse Group AG,
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Credit Suisse AG, Credit
Suisse Securities (Canada) Inc, Deutsche Bank AG, The Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs
Canada Inc., HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC North America
Holdings Inc., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Bank Canada, JPMorgan
Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Bank Canada, J.P. Morgan Canada,
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Morgan Stanley, Morgan
Stanley Canada Limited, Royal Bank of Canada, RBC Capital Markets
LLC, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, RBS Securities Inc.,
The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., and The Royal Bank of Scotland
plc., Societe Generale S.A., Societe Generale (Canada), Societe
Generale, Standard Chartered plc, UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC and
UBS Bank (Canada).

The Ontario action is brought on behalf of anyone in Canada, while
the Quebec action is brought on behalf of anyone in Quebec who,
between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013, entered into an FX
Instrument either directly or indirectly through an intermediary,
and/or purchased or otherwise participated in an
investment or equity fund, mutual fund, hedge fund, pension fund
or any other investment vehicle that entered into an FX Instrument
(the "Class").  An "FX Instrument" includes FX spot transactions,
outright forwards, FX swaps, FX options, FX futures contracts,
options on FX futures contracts, and other instruments
traded in the FX Market.

What are the settlements benefits?
Settlements have been reached with Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays
Capital Inc. and Barclays Capital Canada Inc. (collectively,
"Barclays"); HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC North America
Holdings Inc., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Bank Canada
(collectively, "HSBC"); The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, RBS
Securities Inc., The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., and The Royal
Bank of Scotland plc. (collectively, "RBS"); Standard Chartered
plc ("Standard Chartered"); The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ,
Ltd., Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ (Canada) (collectively,
"BTMU"); and Societe Generale S.A., Societe Generale (Canada) and
Societe Generale (collectively, "SocGen" and, together with
Barclays, HSBC, RBS, Standard Chartered, and BTMU the "Settlement
Agreements").  The Settlement Agreements, if approved and their
conditions fulfilled, will settle, extinguish and bar all claims
relating in any way to or arising out of the Proceedings against
Barclays, HSBC, RBS, Standard Chartered, BTMU, and SocGen.

If the Settlement Agreements are approved, Barclays has agreed to
pay $19,677,205.88, RBS has agreed to pay $13,220,000, HSBC has
agreed to pay $15,500,000, Standard Chartered has agreed to pay
$900,000, BTMU has agreed to pay $450,000, and SocGen has agreed
to pay $1,800,000 (the "Settlement Amounts") to settle the class
action and to provide cooperation to the plaintiffs in order to
continue the case against the other defendants.  The settlements
are a compromise of disputed claims and Barclays, RBS, HSBC,
Standard Chartered, BTMU, and SocGen do not admit any wrongdoing
or liability.

Prior settlements with UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC and UBS Bank
(Canada) (collectively, "UBS"); BNP Paribas Group, BNP Paribas
North America, Inc., BNP Paribas (Canada), and BNP Paribas
(collectively, "BNP"); and Bank of America Corporation, Bank of
America, N.A., Bank of America Canada, and Bank of America
National Association (collectively "Bank of America"), The Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Canada Inc.
(collectively, "Goldman Sachs"); JPMorgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan
Bank Canada, J.P. Morgan Canada, JPMorgan
Chase Bank National Association (collectively, "JPMorgan"); and
Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citibank Canada, and Citigroup
Global Markets Canada Inc. (collectively, "Citi") totalling
$55,200,000 were approved by the courts.

At this time, the Settlement Amounts will not be distributed to
the Class. Rather, the Settlement Amounts will be paid into an
interest bearing account for the benefit of the Class and may be
used in part to fund the disbursements and any adverse costs
awards made in the case.

What is this case about?
These actions allege that beginning at least as early as 2003 and
continuing through 2013, the Defendant Banks conspired with each
other to fix prices in the FX Market.  It is alleged that the
Defendant Banks communicated directly with each other to
coordinate their: (i) fixing of spot prices; (ii) controlling or
manipulating FX benchmark rates; and (iii) exchanging key
confidential customer information in an effort to trigger client
stop loss orders and limit orders.  It is alleged that the
Defendant Banks' alleged conspiracy affected dozens of currency
pairs, including the U.S. and Canadian dollar (USD/CAD) currency
pair, which is one of the world's highest volume trading currency
pairs. Due to the importance of spot prices, it is alleged that
the Defendant Banks' alleged conspiracy impacted all manner of FX
Instruments, including those trading both over-the-counter and on
exchanges.

Are you included?
You are included in this lawsuit if:

   -- you are a Person in Canada who, between January 1, 2003 and
December 31, 2013, entered into an FX Instrument[1] either
directly or indirectly through an intermediary, and/or purchased
or otherwise participated in an investment or equity fund, mutual
fund, hedge fund, pension fund or any other investment vehicle
that entered into an FX Instrument and you did not opt-out of the
action on or before December 5, 2016.

[1] "FX Instruments" includes FX spot transactions, outright
forwards, FX swaps, FX options, FX futures contracts, options on
FX futures contracts, and other instruments traded in the FX
Market.

Who are the lawyers who represent the class?
The law firms of Sotos LLP, Koskie Minsky LLP, Siskinds LLP, and
Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman represent the Plaintiffs and the
class in the Ontario action and Siskinds Desmeules, s.e.n.c.r.l.
represent the Plaintiff and the class in the Quebec action ("Class
Counsel").  The lawyers will be paid on a contingency
fee basis.

Hearing to Approve Settlement Agreements and
Disbursements Reimbursement Request
Hearings will be held during which Class Counsel will seek the
Court's approval of the Settlement Agreements (The "Approval
Hearings").  Class Counsel will not be seeking approval of its
fees at this time but will do so at a later stage in the
litigation.  The hearing before the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice will be held on September 18, 2017 at 10:00AM (ET) at
Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario.  The
hearing before the Quebec Superior Court will be held on
September 22, 2017 at 10:00AM at the Quebec City Court house, 300,
Jean Lesage boulevard, Quebec City, Quebec.

At the Approval Hearings, the Courts will determine whether the
Settlement Agreements are fair, reasonable and in the best
interest of the Class.  At the hearings, Class Counsel will also
seek court approval of its request for expense reimbursement.
Class Counsel will be requesting the disbursements to be deducted
directly from the Settlement Amounts.

All members of the proposed Class may attend the Approval Hearings
and ask to make submissions regarding the proposed settlements.
Persons intending to object to one or more of the Settlement
Agreements should provide their objection in writing to Class
Counsel at the address below by September 8, 2017.

What are your options?
Take no Steps: You do not have to do anything to stay in the class
action.  The opt-out period has expired.  If you opted out, you
cannot rejoin the class action.  If any benefits, including
settlement funds, become available for distribution to the Class,
you will be notified about how to ask for a share. You will be
legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and you
will not be able to sue the Defendant about the legal claims in
this case.

Object to the Settlement Agreement or Class Counsel Disbursements:
If you want to object to the proposed settlements with Barclays,
RBS, HSBC, Standard Chartered, BTMU, and/or SocGen or the payment
of Class Counsel's expenses, you should do so
by setting out your objection in writing addressed to the
FX Class Counsel at the address below.

More Information?

Go to www.kmlaw.ca/fxclassaction or call toll-free 1-
855-595-2624 or write to Class Counsel at
fxclassaction@kmlaw.ca.

Interpretation
If there is a conflict between the provisions of this notice and
any of the Settlement Agreements, the terms of the Settlement
Agreement(s) will prevail with respect to that (these) Settling
Defendant(s).

DISTRIBUTION OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE AND BY THE QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT


BAY AREA: Faces "David" Suit Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work
-----------------------------------------------------------
EKUGBERE "DAVID" BAZUNU, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. BAY AREA REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, LLC, Defendant, Case No: 4:17-cv-02391 (S.D. Tex., August
4, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff and class members did not receive
bona fide meal break periods. Instead, they were required and
permitted to work off-the-clock for Defendant during their meal
break periods and were not paid for such time in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bay Area Regional Medical Center is a medical facility.  Plaintiff
and class members worked as hourly paid Registered Nurses.[BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

     Todd Slobin, Esq.
     Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
     SHELLIST, LAZARZ, SLOBIN LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 621-2277
     Fax: (713) 621-0993
     Email: tslobin@eeoc.net
            rprieto@eeoc.net


BLUE APRON: Bottini & Bottini Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bottini & Bottini, Inc., a law firm specializing in securities
class action litigation, has filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. pursuant to the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering. The lawsuit
-- pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York  -- seeks to recover damages under the
federal securities laws for those who purchased Blue Apron stock.

Investors who have incurred losses in are urged to contact the
firm immediately at fab@bottinilaw.com or (858) 914-2001. Bottini
& Bottini is representing clients on a contingency fee basis.  You
may obtain additional information concerning the action on our
website, www.bottinilaw.com.

If you purchased shares of Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. and would
like to assist with the case as a lead plaintiff, you must, no
later than October 16, 2017, request that the Court appoint you a
lead plaintiff of the proposed class.

The lawsuit charges that Blue Apron violated the Securities Act of
1933 because the Registration Statement failed to disclose that:
(1) rather than continue to significantly increase spending on
advertising, Blue Apron had already decided to significantly
reduce spending on advertising in Q2 2017, which would hurt sales
and profit margins in future quarters; (2) that Blue Apron was
already experiencing adverse on-time in-full rates, meaning orders
were not arriving on time or with all the ingredients needed,
which was hurting customer retention; and (3) that the Company had
run into delays in Q2 2017 with its new factory in Linden, New
Jersey.

Subsequent to the IPO, Blue Apron's stock declined immediately,
declining below $5 per share less than two months after the IPO --
a decline of 50% from the IPO price.

If you wish to join the litigation or discuss your interests in
this lawsuit, contact Frank A. Bottini of Bottini & Bottini at
(858) 914-2001 or -- fab@bottinilaw.com [GN]


BROWN HARRIS: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brown Harris Stevens
NYS, LLC. The case is styled as Steven Matzura and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brown Harris
Stevens NYS, LLC, Brown Harris Stevens Brooklyn, LLC and Terra
Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06356 (S.D. N.Y.,
August 22, 2017).

Defendants are engaged in the real estate industry.

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CARECENTRIX INC: Bid to Permit Class Discovery in "Hapka" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Kansas, issued an
Order denying Defendant's Motion to Permit Putative Class
Discovery in the case captioned SARAH HAPKA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CARECENTRIX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 16-2372-CM-KGG (D. Ks.).

Plaintiff alleges that Wage and Tax Statements belonging to her
and other employees of Defendant were stolen from Defendant by an
unknown third party.  Plaintiff contends that Defendant owed a
duty to Plaintiff and the Class to exercise reasonable care in
obtaining, securing, safeguarding, deleting and protecting
Plaintiff and Class members' personal and tax information within
its control from being compromised, lost, stolen, accessed and
misused by unauthorized persons.

A fraudulent tax return was subsequently filed in Plaintiff's
name. She contends she continues to be at a heightened risk for
tax fraud and identity theft.

The District Court previously denied Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss, finding that Plaintiff had sufficiently plead duty,
breach, and causation.

Defendant brings the present motion requesting permission to send
a simple, voluntary questionnaire to putative class members.
Defendant contends the information sought is relevant, necessary,
cannot be discovered without putative class member discovery, and
can be discovered without imposing any significant burden on the
putative class members.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure neither prohibited nor
sanctioned explicitly putative class discovery. The general rule
is that discovery requests to absent class members are generally
disfavored.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Defendant argues that it must be
allowed to conduct discovery into whether the injuries and damages
suffered by putative class members are similar to that suffered by
the proposed class. Defendant essentially contends this is
necessary to evaluate the typicality element of the certification
issue to determine if Hapka is typical of the class she claims to
represent.

Defendant's contention that it is necessary to be allowed
discovery at this stage in the proceedings regarding the damages
and potential fears of all putative class members is unfounded.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to establish the
necessity of receiving the requested information, particularly at
this stage of the proceedings. Defendant's motion is, therefore,
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 7, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ybpwuly7from Leagle.com.

Sarah Hapka, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander T. Ricke, Stueve
- ricke@stuevesiegel.com - Siegel Hanson LLP.

Sarah Hapka, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett J. Vahle -
vahle@stuevesiegel.com - Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, J. Austin Moore
- moore@stuevesiegel.com - Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Norman E.
Siegel -  siegel@stuevesiegel.com - Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

CareCentrix, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jacqueline M. Whipple
- jacqueline.whipple@gmail.com - Dentons US, LLP, Jason R.
Scheiderer - jason.scheiderer@dentons.com - Dentons US, LLP & Wade
P.K. Carr, Dentons US, LLP.


CDI CORP: Faces "Scarantino" Suit Over Proposed Nova Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Louis Scarantino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CDI Corp., Joseph L. Carlini, Michael J. Emmi, Walter
R. Garrison, Lawrence C. Karlson, Ronald J. Kozich, Anna M. Seal,
Albert E. Smith, Barton J. Winokur, Nova Intermediate Parent, LLC,
and Nova Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03700-MAK (E.D. Penn.,
August 17, 2017), is brought on behalf of all CDI Corp., to enjoin
Nova Intermediate Parent, LLC's tender offer to acquire all of
CDI's outstanding stock for $8.25 per share in cash.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends
that CDI's stockholders approve the Proposed
Transaction and tender their shares in the Tender Offer. However,
the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding,
among other things: material information regarding the Company's
financial projections and the analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor, Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc. ("Houlihan
Lokey"); material information regarding potential conflicts of
interest of the Company's Board members; and material information
regarding potential conflicts of interest of Houlihan Lokey.

The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest
CDI'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.

CDI Corp. and its subsidiaries are providers of solutions based on
skilled technical and professional talent. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com

          - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (484) 324-6800


CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Hertzovitz" Suit in E.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit
Services LLC. The case is styled as Howard Hertzovitz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Central Credit Services LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-04913 (E.D. N.Y., August 21, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CHH BEAUTY: Faces "Kebede" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Fantahun Kebede, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated individuals v. CHH Beauty, Inc., Chong Hwang, and Kyoung
Hwang, Case No. 8:17-cv-02352-PWG (D. Md., August 16, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay retail/sales
workers overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate beauty stores located at 1153 E.
University Boulevard; Takoma Park, Maryland and 6062 Greenbelt
Road; Greenbelt, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy D. Rachlin, Esq.
      JDKATZ, P.C.
      3 Bethesda Metro Center Suite 500
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (240) 743-5410
      Facsimile: (301) 951-0147
      E-mail: jeremy@jdkatz.com


CJ & J: Faces "Bowman" Suit Alleging Improper Classification
------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN BOWMAN and TATYANA HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, vs. CJ & J
DAVIS, INC., Defendant, Case No: 3:17-cv-01633-JJH (N.D. Ohio,
August 4, 2017), alleges that Defendant improperly classified
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals as independent
contractors, and did not withhold any state or federal taxes from
their compensation.  As a result of this improper classification,
Defendant also did not compensate Plaintiffs and the members of
the putative class for overtime hours at a rate of one and one-
half times their regular rate of pay.

The case was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well and
the applicable wage and hour laws and regulations set forth in
Ohio Revised Code.

Defendant is in the business of providing home healthcare
services. Defendant also owns and operates several group homes in
which they provide such services.  Plaintiff worked for Defendant
as a home health aide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

     John D. Franklin, Esq.
     Kera L. Paoff, Esq.
     WIDMAN & FRANKLIN, LLC
     405 Madison Avenue, Suite 1550
     Toledo, OH 43604
     Phone: 419.243.9005
     Fax: 419.243.9404


CLUBCORP HOLDINGS: Sued Over Proposed Sale to Constellation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ronald F. Kinsey, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Clubcorp Holdings, Inc., John A. Beckert,
Douglas H. Brooks, Eric L. Affeldt, Janet Grove, Jeff Lamb, Lou J.
Grabowsky, Emanuel R. Pearlman, Margaret Spellings, William E.
Sullivan, and Simon M. Turner, Case No. 2:17-cv-02198-RFB-PAL (D.
Nev., August 16, 2017), is brought on behalf of all public
stockholders of ClubCorp Holdings, Inc. to enjoin the proposed
sale of the Company to Constellation Club Parent, Inc. and
Constellation Merger Sub, Inc. and, together with Parent,
affiliates of Apollo Management VIII, L.P. for an equity value of
approximately $1.1 billion.

According to the complaint, Clubcorp filed a Proxy Statement on a
Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
which recommends that Clubcorp stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction.  However, the Proxy omits or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: material
information regarding the Company's financial projections, which
were prepared by Company management and relied upon by Jefferies
LLC and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, the Company's financial
advisors, the financial analysis performed by Jefferies and Wells
to support their opinions on the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, and the background of the Proposed Transaction.

The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest
Clubcorp's public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets
without fully disclosing all material information concerning the
Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy
defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such
problems are remedied.

Clubcorp Holdings, Inc. owns and operates private golf and country
clubs and private business clubs in North America. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Gayan, Esq.
      KEMP, JONES & COULTHARD LLP
      Wells Fargo Tower
      17th Floor 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
      Las Vegas, NV 89169
      Telephone: (702) 385-6000

         - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W. Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      E-mail: denright@zlk.com
              etripodi@zlk.com

         - and -

      Vincent S. Wong, Esq.
      VINCENT WONG LAW OFFICES
      39 East Broadway, Suite 304
      New York, NY 10002
      Telephone: (212) 349-4999


CLUBCORP HOLDINGS: Bronstein, Gewirtz Sues Over Sale
----------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District
Court for the District of Nevada against ClubCorp Holdings, Inc.
("ClubCorp" or the "Company") (NYSE: MYCC) for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed sale of the Company
to Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo").  Such investors are
encouraged to learn more about this case by visiting the firm's
site: http://www.bgandg.com/mycc.

             Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC

On July 9, 2017, ClubCorp "has entered into a definitive agreement
with affiliates of certain investment funds (the "Apollo funds")
managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC (together
with its consolidated subsidiaries, "Apollo") (APO), a leading
global alternative investment manager, pursuant to which the
Apollo funds will acquire all of the outstanding shares of
ClubCorp for $17.12 per share in cash, or approximately $1.1
billion. The all-cash transaction represents a premium of
approximately 30.7% over ClubCorp's closing stock price on July 7,
2017."

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

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


COMPREHENSIVE HOME: Advanced Rehab Alleges Violation of JFPA
------------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCED REHAB AND MEDICAL, P.C., a Tennessee corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. COMPREHENSIVE HOME HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC., a Tennessee corporation, AMEDISYS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, AMEDISYS SP-TN, L.L.C., AMEDISYS TENNESSEE,
L.L.C., , HHC, L.L.C. d/b/a AMEDISYS HEALTH CARE, Tennessee
limited liability companies, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case
No: 1:17-cv-01149-JDB-egb (W.D. Tenn., August 4, 2017), alleges
that Defendants have sent facsimile transmissions of unsolicited
advertisements to Plaintiff and the proposed Class in violation of
the Junk Fax Prevention Act, including, but not limited to, the
facsimile transmission of two unsolicited advertisements on or
about September 1, 2016 and December 28, 2016.[BN]

Comprehensive Home Healthcare Services, Inc. offers medicare home
care services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin C. Aaron, Esq.
     Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
     NEAL AND HARWELL, PLC
     1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Phone: 615-244-1713
     Fax: 615-726-0573
     Email: baaron@nealharwell.com
            cbarrett@nealharwell.com

        - and -

     Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
     Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
     ANDERSON + WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Phone: (847) 368-1500
     Fax: (847) 368-1501
     Email: Bwanca@andersonwanca.com
            rkelly@andersonwanca.com


CONSOLIFI: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Vaccaro" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
David Vaccaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Consolifi, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each
of them, Case No. 2:17-cv-06117 (C.D. Cal., August 17, 2017),
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of placing calls to the
Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services using an automatic
telephone dialing system without prior express consent.

Consolifi operates a debt consolidation company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com
              twheeler@toddflaw.com


CONVERGYS CORP: 5th Cir. Denies Bid to Enforce NLRB's Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, issued an
Opinion granting Convergys Corporation's application for review of
National Labor Relations Board order and denying the NLRB's
application for enforcement of the order in the appeals case
captioned CONVERGYS CORPORATION, Petitioner Cross-Respondent, v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Cross-Petitioner, No.
15-60860 (5th Cir.).

The National Labor Relations Board determined that Convergys
violated the National Labor Relations Act both by requiring job
applicants to sign a class and collective action waiver and by
subsequently seeking to enforce the waiver. Convergys seeks review
of the Board's determination, arguing that it conflicts with our
binding case law.

Convergys requires job applicants to sign an agreement that
includes the following waiver: I further agree that I will pursue
any claim or lawsuit relating to my employment with Convergys (or
any of its subsidiaries or related entities) as an individual, and
will not lead, join, or serve as a member of a class or group of
persons bringing such a claim or lawsuit.

Despite having signed this agreement, a Convergys employee brought
class and collective Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims
against the company in the District Court for the Eastern District
of Mississippi. Convergys sought to enforce the waiver agreement
by filing a motion to strike these claims.

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended a finding that
Convergys had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, relying on the
Board's prior decision in D. R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB 2277, No.
184 (2012).

Section 7 of the NLRA provides:

     Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have
the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title.

The court has already rejected the Board's position that Section 7
guarantees a right to participate in class or collective actions,
holding that the use of a class or collective action is a
procedure rather than a substantive right.

The opinion on which the dissenting opinion relies is Altex Ready
Mixed Concrete Corp. v. NLRB, 542 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1976). This
case provides an example of a concerted activity in the litigation
context, holding that a union's filing of a civil action is
protected by the NLRA. It does not hold that the phrase "other
concerted activities" contemplates participation in class and
collective actions.

Section 7's guarantee of the right to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of other mutual aid or protection, 29
U.S.C. Section 157, does not include a right to participate in
class and collective actions. Accordingly, abrogation of the
asserted right to participate in class and collective actions was
not abrogation of a Section 7 right and therefore does not
constitute an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1).
Contrary to the determination of the Board, Convergys did not
engage in an unfair labor practice for purposes of Section 8(a)(1)
by requiring applicants to sign a waiver or by seeking to enforce
the waiver.

The Fifth Circuit grants Convergys's application for review of the
NLRB order and deny the Board's cross-application for enforcement
of the order.

A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's August 7, 2017 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9xb6cpwfrom
Leagle.com.

Linda Dreeben, 1099 14th St. N.W.Washington, DC 20570-0001, for
Respondent Cross-Petitioner.

Martha Elaine Kinard, Nlrb819 Taylor St Rm 8 A24Fort Worth, TX,
76102-6107, for Respondent Cross-Petitioner.

Kira Dellinger Vol, 1015 Half St SE, Washington, DC 20570 for
Respondent Cross-Petitioner.

Lynda Hill, 150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1900, Nashville, Tennessee
37201,  for Petitioner Cross-Respondent.

Daniel L. Hubbel, 400 East Eighth St 4, Traverse City, MI 49686,
for Respondent Cross-Petitioner.

Richard F. Griffin, Jr., for Respondent Cross-Petitioner.

Rotimi Solanke, for Respondent Cross-Petitioner.

Mark A. Potashnick, for Respondent Cross-Petitioner.

Jennifer Rose Asbrock, for Petitioner Cross-Respondent.

Gregoire Sauter, for Respondent Cross-Petitioner.

George E. Yund, for Petitioner Cross-Respondent.


CREDENCE RESOURCE: Faces "Zamora" Suit Over Automated Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Denis Robert Zamora, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Credence Resource Management, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01985 (D. Col., August 17, 2017), is brought on behalf of all
persons within the United States who received any telephone call
from the Defendant or its agent or employee to said person's
cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone
dialing system or with an artificial or prerecorded voice, which
call was not made for emergency purposes or with the recipient's
prior express consent.

Credence Resource Management, LLC operates a collections and
business process services company in Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sarah T. McEahern, Esq.
      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      1525 Josephine St.
      Denver, CO 80206
      Telephone: (303) 731-5493
      Facsimile: (800) 635-6425
      E-mail: sm@westcoastlitigation.com
              josh@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Mike Cardoza, Esq.
      CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
      548 Market St # 80594
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 488-8041


CREDICO (USA): "Rodriguez" Suit Plaintiffs Seek to Issue Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deandre Stovall and Crystal Hamilton Peterson, two of the
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MANTE RODRIGUEZ, VALERIE
MORALES and DEANDRE STOVALL, and CRYSTAL HAMILTON PETERSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CREDICO (USA) LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-01221-LB (N.D. Cal.), move the
Court pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for notice to be
issued to similarly situated individuals of the Plaintiffs' claims
against Credico.

The Plaintiffs want to send notice to other workers, who have
provided face-to-face marketing services for Credico's clients
nationwide and were classified as employees, who may wish to
recover their wages in this collective action by notifying them of
the pendency of the case.  The Plaintiffs have brought the
collective action seeking to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 5, 2017, at 9:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CXNhVK8L

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Jill Kahn, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  jkahn@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew Carlson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          466 Geary St., Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 630-2651
          E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Da Silva Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENER DA SILVA, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC., a Florida Corporation; GMRI,
INC., a Florida Corporation; YARD HOUSE USA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; YARD HOUSE NORTHRIDGE LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:17-cv-05663-ODW-E (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2017), accuses the
Defendants of, among other things, failure to pay minimum wages
and overtime wages, and failure to provide required meal periods
and rest periods.

Based in Orlando, Florida, Darden Restaurants, Inc., through its
subsidiaries, owns and operates full-service restaurants in the
United States and Canada.  As of June 27, 2017, it owned and
operated approximately 1,700 restaurants under the Olive Garden,
LongHorn Steakhouse, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Yard House, The
Capital Grille, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze, and Eddie V's brands.

GMRI, Inc., formerly known as General Mills Restaurants Inc., owns
and operates a network of fresh grill and wine bars in the United
States.  GMRI's wine bars offer custom flatbreads, mini
indulgences, lunch and dinner menus, bar menus, private dining
services, chef's table menus, and alternative menus; and various
organic and biodynamic wines. GMRI, Inc.

YH USA is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Delaware.  YH Northridge is a Limited Liability
Company organized and existing under the laws of the state of
California.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Tagore Subramanian, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  tagore@maternlawgroup.com
                  dbass@maternlawgroup.com


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: "Kryszkiewicz" Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on July 7, 2017, captioned Jamie
Kryszkiewicz, individually and in her capacity as Next of
Friend of Natasha Bernd Kryszkiewicz v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.,
Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson, Inc.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-11252, was transferred on August 16, 2017 from
the District of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court Northern
District of Texas (Dallas). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:17-cv-02180-K to the proceeding.

The case asserts product liability claims.

The Defendants designed, developed, manufactured, marketed, and
sold the Pinnacle Hip Replacement System ("Pinnacle Device'), with
sales of the device beginning in 2001. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan A. Ciporkin, Esq.
      John Mark Dickison, Esq.
      LAWSON & WEITZEN, LLP
      88 Black Falcon Avenue, Suite 345
      Boston, MA 02210
      Telephone: (617) 439-4990
      Facsimile: (617) 439-3987
      E-mail: rciporkin@lawson-weitzen.com
              mdickison@lawson-weitzen.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Michael V. Powell, Esq.
      Seth Michael Roberts, Esq.
      LOCKE LORD BISSELL & LIDDELL LLP
      2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
      Dallas, TX 75201-6776
      Telephone: (214) 740-8520
      Facsimile: (214) 740-8800
      E-mail: mpowell@lockelord.com
              sroberts@lockelord.com

         - and -

     Jessica D. Miller, Esq.
     SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
     1440 New York Ave NW
     Washington, DC 20005
     Telephone: (202) 371-7850
     Facsimile: (202) 661-0525
     E-mail: Jessica.Miller@skadden.com


DENNY'S BEER: Faces "Bailey" Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
RACHAEL BAILEY, HILLARY MAGUIRE and DIANE KNEPP, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DENNY'S
BEER BARREL PUB, INC. d/b/a DENNY'S BEER BARREL PUB, DENNIS F.
LIEGEY, SR., and DENNIS F. LIEGEY, JR. Defendants, Case No: 3:17-
cv-00142-KRG (W.D. Pa., August 4, 2017), alleges that Defendants
utilized a tip credit with respect to Plaintiffs, and implemented
a mandatory tip pooling arrangement for Plaintiffs.
Defendants, however, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act,
related federal regulations and Pennsylvania wage and hour laws
with respect to the application of such tip credit and the
creation and application of the mandatory tip pool.

The case alleges violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, as well as
common law claims of conversion and unjust enrichment.

Denny's owned and operated a restaurant.  Ms. Bailey was employed
as a server at Denny's.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
     Larry A. Weisberg, Esq
     Steve T. Mahan, Esq.
     MCCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
     2041 Herr Street
     Harrisburg, PA 17103-1624
     Phone: (717) 238-5707
     Fax: (717) 233-8133
     Email: dcummings@mwcfirm.com
            lweisberg@mwcfirm.com
            smahan@mwcfirm.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Nov. 9 Euroyen Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Class Action Settlements

If you transacted in Euroyen-Based Derivatives1 from January 1,
2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive, then your rights will be
affected and you may be entitled to a benefit.  This Notice is
only a summary of the Settlements and is subject to the terms of
the Settlement Agreements2 and other relevant documents.

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of your rights in
connection with two separate proposed settlements with Settling
Defendants Deutsche Bank AG and DB Group Services (UK) Ltd.
(collectively, "Deutsche Bank") and with Settling Defendants
JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association,
and J.P. Morgan Securities plc (collectively, "JPMorgan") in the
actions titled Laydon v. Mizuho Bank Ltd., et al., 12-cv-3419
(GBD) (S.D.N.Y.) and Sonterra Capital Master Fund, Ltd., et al. v.
UBS AG, et al., 15-cv-5844 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.).  The separate
settlements with Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan (collectively, the
"Settlements") are not settlements with any other Defendant and
thus are not dispositive of any of Plaintiffs' claims against the
remaining Defendants.

The Settlements have been proposed in two class action lawsuits
concerning the alleged manipulation of the London Interbank
Offered Rate for Japanese Yen ("Yen LIBOR") and the Euroyen Tokyo
Interbank Offered Rate ("Euroyen TIBOR") from January 1, 2006
through June 30, 2011, inclusive.  The Settlements will provide
$148 million to pay claims from persons who transacted in Euroyen-
Based Derivatives from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011,
inclusive.  If you qualify, you may send in a Proof of Claim and
Release form to potentially get benefits, or you can exclude
yourself from the Settlements, or object to them.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312) authorized this
Notice.  Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a Fairness
Hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlements.

Who Is Included?

You are a member of the "Settlement Class" if you purchased, sold,
held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in Euroyen-Based
Derivatives at any time from January 1, 2006 through
June 30, 2011, inclusive.  Excluded from the Settlement Class are
(i) the Defendants and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent
of any Defendant or any co-conspirator whether or not named as a
defendant; and (ii) the United States Government.

Contact your brokerage firm to see if you purchased, sold, held,
traded, or otherwise had any interest in Euroyen-Based
Derivatives.  If you are not sure you are included, you can get
more information, including the Settlement Agreements, Mailed
Notice, Plan of Allocation, Proof of Claim and Release, and other
important documents, at www.EuroyenSettlement.com ("Settlement
Website") or by calling toll free 1-866-217-4453.

What Is This Litigation About?

Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant, from January 1, 2006
through June 30, 2011, inclusive, manipulated or aided and abetted
the manipulation of Yen LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the prices of
Euroyen-Based Derivatives.  Defendants allegedly did so by using
several means of manipulation.  For example, panel banks that made
the daily Yen LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR submissions to the
British Bankers' Association and Japanese Bankers Association
respectively (collectively, "Contributor Bank Defendants"), such
as Deutsche Bank AG and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., allegedly
falsely reported their cost of borrowing in order to financially
benefit their Euroyen-Based Derivatives positions.  Contributor
Bank Defendants also allegedly requested that other Contributor
Bank Defendants make false Yen LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR submissions
on their behalf to benefit their Euroyen-Based Derivatives
positions.

Plaintiffs further allege that inter-dealer brokers,
intermediaries between buyers and sellers in the money markets and
derivatives markets (the "Broker Defendants"), had knowledge of,
and provided substantial assistance to, the Contributor Bank
Defendants' foregoing alleged manipulations of Euroyen-Based
Derivatives in violation of Section 22(a)(1) of the Commodity
Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec 25(a)(1). For example, Contributor Bank
Defendants allegedly used the Broker Defendants to manipulate Yen
LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the prices of Euroyen-Based Derivatives
by disseminating false "Suggested LIBORs," publishing false market
rates on broker screens, and publishing false bids and offers into
the market.

Plaintiffs have asserted legal claims under various theories,
including federal antitrust law, the Commodity Exchange Act, the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and common
law.

Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan have consistently and vigorously denied
Plaintiffs' allegations.  Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan each entered
into a Settlement Agreement with Plaintiffs, despite believing
that it is not liable for the claims asserted against it, to avoid
the further expense, inconvenience, and distraction of burdensome
and protracted litigation, thereby putting this controversy to
rest and avoiding the risks inherent in complex litigation.

What Do the Settlements Provide?

Under the Settlements, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $77 million and
JPMorgan agreed to pay $71 million into separate Settlement Funds.
If the Court approves the Settlements, potential members of the
Settlement Class who qualify and send in valid Proof of Claim and
Release forms may receive a share of the Settlement Funds after
they are reduced by the payment of certain expenses. The
Settlement Agreements, available at the Settlement Website,
describe all of the details about the proposed Settlements.  The
exact amount each qualifying Settling Class Member will receive
from the Settlement Funds cannot be calculated until (1) the Court
approves the Settlements; (2) certain amounts identified in the
full Settlement Agreements are deducted from the Settlement Funds;
and (3) the number of participating Class Members and the amount
of their claims are determined.  In addition, each Settling Class
Member's share of the Settlement Funds will vary depending on the
information the Settling Class Member provides on their Proof of
Claim and Release form.

The number of claimants who send in claims varies widely from case
to case.  If less than 100% of the Settlement Class sends in a
Proof of Claim and Release form, you could get more money.

How Do You Ask For a Payment?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you may seek to
participate in the Settlements by submitting a Proof of Claim and
Release to the Settlement Administrator at the address provided on
the Settlement Website postmarked no later than January 23 2018.
You may obtain a Proof of Claim and Release on the Settlement
Website or by calling the toll-free number referenced above.  If
you are a member of the Settlement Class but do not timely file a
Proof of Claim and Release, you will still be bound by the
releases set forth in the Settlement Agreements if the Court
enters an order approving the Settlement Agreements.

If you timely submitted a Proof of Claim and Release pursuant to
the class notice dated June 22, 2016 ("2016 Notice") related to
the $58 million settlements with Defendants R.P. Martin Holdings
Limited, Martin Brokers (UK) Ltd., Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A.,
Citibank Japan Ltd., Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc., HSBC
Holdings plc, and HSBC Bank plc, you do not have to submit a new
Proof of Claim and Release to participate in these Settlements
with Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan.  Any member of the Settlement
Class who previously submitted a Proof of Claim and Release in
connection with the 2016 Notice will be subject to and bound by
the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreements with Deutsche
Bank and JPMorgan, unless such member submits a timely and valid
request for exclusion, explained below.

What Are Your Other Options?

All requests to be excluded from the Settlements must be made in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement
Notice and must be postmarked to the Settlement Administrator no
later than October 5 2017.  The Settlement Notice, available at
the Settlement Website, explains how to exclude yourself or
object.  All requests for exclusion must comply with the
requirements set forth in the Settlement Notice to be honored.  If
you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be
bound by the Settlement Agreements and can independently pursue
claims at your own expense. However, if you exclude yourself, you
will not be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Funds or
otherwise participate in the Settlements.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing in these cases on
November 9 2017, to consider whether to approve the Settlements
and a request by the lawyers representing all members of the
Settlement Class (Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C.) for an
award of attorneys' fees of no more than one-fourth of the
Settlement Funds for investigating the facts, litigating the case,
and negotiating the settlement, and for reimbursement of their
costs and expenses in the amount of no more than approximately
$300,000.  The lawyers for the Settlement Class may also seek
additional reimbursement of fees, costs, and expenses in
connection with services provided after the Fairness Hearing.
These payments will also be deducted from the Settlement Funds
before any distributions are made to the Settlement Class.

You may ask to appear at the Fairness Hearing, but you do not have
to. For more information, call toll free 1-866-217-4453 or visit
the website www.EuroyenSettlement.com.

1 "Euroyen-Based Derivatives" means (i) a Euroyen TIBOR futures
contract on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME"); (ii) a
Euroyen TIBOR futures contract on the Tokyo Financial Exchange,
Inc. ("TFX"), Singapore Exchange ("SGX"), or London International
Financial Futures and Options Exchange ("LIFFE") entered into by a
U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the
U.S.; (iii) a Japanese Yen currency futures contract on the CME;
(iv) a Yen LIBOR- and/or Euroyen TIBOR-based interest rate swap
entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a
location within the U.S.; (v) an option on a Yen LIBOR and/or
Euroyen TIBOR-based interest rate swap ("swaption") entered into
by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within
the U.S.; (vi) a Japanese Yen currency forward agreement entered
into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location
within the U.S.; and/or (vii) a Yen LIBOR- and/or Euroyen TIBOR-
based forward rate agreement entered into by a U.S. Person, or by
a Person from or through a location within the U.S.

2 The "Settlement Agreements" means the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement with Deutsche Bank entered into on July 21, 2017 and
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with JPMorgan entered
into on July 21, 2017.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Orbea Files Class Action in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Orbea, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic
Recovery Solutions, LLC and LVNV Funding, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-06250-SDW-LDW (D. N.J., August 18, 2017).

Dynamic is a full service debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph K. Jones
   Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC
   375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
   Fairfield, NJ 07004
   Tel: (973) 227-5900
   Fax: (973) 244-0019
   Email: jkj@legaljones.com


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: To Pay at Least $7.5MM in ERISA Row
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on August 16 said that Edison International was
liable for breaching its fiduciary obligations under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act to workers who claimed that the
utility chose unnecessarily expensive retirement plans, accepting
an agreement that leaves Edison on the hook for at least $7.5
million in damages.

U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson found that Edison
International was liable for the actual loss in excessive fees
paid in a suit from a class of employees of Midwest Generation
LLC, a subsidiary of Edison International unit Edison Mission
Group Inc. The workers said that Edison chose 17 mutual funds in
connection with the workers' 401(k) plan, but purposely selected
the more expensive "retail class" fund shares instead of the
wholesale "institutional class" shares, which come at a lower cost
to the investor.

Edison and the plaintiffs agreed that $7.5 million in damages is
owed for the period between 2001 and January 2011, the order said,
adding that damages covering 2011 to the present will be
calculated according to the plan's overall returns.

The judge wrote that a prudent fiduciary would have invested in
the lower cost institutional class shares for all the 17 funds at
issue. The judge rejected the utility's argument that it could
choose the higher cost shares that had revenue sharing  --  which
helped offset the defendants' administration fees  --  because it
notified the plan participants that revenue sharing was available.

"The court finds that no prudent fiduciary would purposefully
invest in higher cost retail shares out of an unsubstantiated and
speculative fear that if the plan settlor were to pay more
administrative costs it may reallocate all such costs to plan
participants," the judge wrote.

The decision on August 16 came after 10 years of litigation,
including a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court. Along the way, the
former 10-count excessive fee suit was winnowed, with Judge Wilson
dismissing all of the claims except plaintiffs' allegations that
certain mutual funds were chosen to maximize the amount of revenue
sharing for the benefit of the company and not that of plan
participants.

The ERISA suit made its way back to the trial court via a December
decision by an en banc Ninth Circuit that vacated a ruling by
Judge Wilson saying that the workers' claims were time-barred,
because the funds at issue were selected by Edison prior to the
six-year statute of limitations on the ERISA claims. Judge
Wilson's decision was initially affirmed by a three-judge panel of
the Ninth Circuit, but then vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court held in May 2015 that plan fiduciaries have a
continuing duty to monitor investments and that claims coming
within six years of an alleged breach of that duty are valid.

Jerome J. Schlichter of Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP, an
attorney for the plaintiffs, told Law360 on August 17 that he was
pleased that on the 10th anniversary of the lawsuit's filing, the
court ruled that the plaintiffs can get damages under the formula
they suggested.

"This case has gone through the unanimous favorable ruling in the
Supreme Court, and then a unanimous en banc ruling in the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, and we will continue as long as we have
to," he said.

Edison and Southern California Edison, another defendant in the
suit, said in a statement that they are reviewing the judgment.

"The funds in question have not been part of the offerings for
employees since 2011 and the litigation has not raised any
questions regarding the appropriateness of the current portfolio
of funds," the statement said. "Edison International and Southern
California Edison understand the importance of their 401(k) plan
to employees' retirement goals. We have consistently provided a
wide array of high-quality investment options in the 401(k) plan."

The plaintiffs are represented by Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. --
jschlichter@uselaws.com --  Michael A. Wolff, Esq. --
mwolff@uselaws.com -- and Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. --
kstruckhoff@uselaws.com -- of Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP.

Edison is represented by Brian D. Boyle, Esq. --
brianboyle@omm.com -- Catalina J. Vergara, Esq. --
catalinavergara@omm.com -- and Christopher B. Craig, Esq. --
christophercraig@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

The case is Glenn Tibble et al. v. Edison International et al.,
case number 2:07-cv-05359, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. [GN]


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Faces "Bettis" Suit Under Securities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY W. BETTIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION
f/k/a ENVISION HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., CHRISTOPHER A. HOLDEN,
WILLIAM A. SANGER, CLAIRE M. GULMI, and RANDEL G. OWEN,
Defendants, Case No: 3:17-cv-01112 (M.D. Tenn., August 4, 2017),
is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Envision securities between March 2, 2015 and
July 21, 2017, both dates inclusive.

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

Envision Healthcare Corporation provides health care services. The
Hospital offers surgery, pharmacy, medical imaging, emergency
care, and other related health care services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

     Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
     Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
     BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
     40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
     P. O. Box 150734
     Nashville, TN 37215
     Phone: 615.248.2828
     Fax: 866.816.4116
     Emails: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
             Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com

        - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
     Email: ahood@pomlaw.com

        - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Fax: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


FANEUIL INC: Faces "Marshall" Class Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Marshall and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated v. Faneuil Inc., a Delaware corporation,
ALJ Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2017-00216580-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July
31, 2017), is brought over alleged employment-related issues.

Faneuil, Inc., a Delaware corporation, provides outsourcing
support services to public and private sector clients.  The
Company offers technology-enabled in-person and automated
services.  ALJ Holdings Inc. is a Delaware corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Drexler, Jr., Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW, APC
          1875 Century Park E, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com


FERGUSON, MO: Court Disqualifies Counsel in Jailing Practices Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Knef, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that U.S. District
Judge Audrey Fleissig has disqualified a law firm representing the
city of Ferguson in a proposed class action involving the city's
policies and practices of jailing individuals for failure to pay
money owed from traffic and other municipal offenses.

Fleissig found that attorneys at Pitzer Snodgrass have a conflict
of interest because the firm hired attorney Ryan McGinty, Esq. --
mcginty@pspclaw.com -- who had previously represented the
plaintiffs in municipal matters that form the basis of the current
litigation, the Aug. 7 ruling states.

The ruling further notes that the city also is represented by
attorneys at Lewis Rice in St. Louis and stayed proceedings for 21
days to allow Ferguson time to obtain new counsel "if it so
desires."

According to the ruling, attorneys at ArchCity Defenders and
others filed suit on behalf of plaintiffs on Feb. 8, 2015. At the
time, McGinty was employed as an attorney with ArchCity Defenders
and worked there through Jan. 5 of this year.

The plaintiffs presented evidence that McGinty represented at
least four of the 11 named plaintiffs while working at ArchCity
Defenders in matters at the city's municipal court, including the
particular matters that involve the current claims.

The Pitzer firm had entered its appearance on behalf of Ferguson
on March 2, 2015, and it hired McGinty on April 6 of this year.

While the Pitzer firm presented evidence that McGinty has worked
exclusively in the firm's asbestos litigation group, a practice
group "totally separate" from the municipal practice group, that
he was "totally excluded" from accessing the files related to the
city litigation and that computer records showed that he did not
access or attempt to access the city files, Fleissig nonetheless
disqualified Pitzer attorneys Peter Dunne, Esq. --
dunne@pspclaw.com -- Robert Plunkert, Esq. -- plunkert@pspclaw.com
-- and Jessica Diamond, Esq. -- diamond@pspclaw.com --.

"[A]lthough the Court does not lightly enter this decision to
partially deprive the City of its choice of counsel, the Court has
a duty 'to maintain public confidence in the legal profession and
to ensure the integrity of judicial proceedings,'" Fleissig wrote.
[GN]


FERGUSON, MO: City's Law Firm DQ'd for Conflict of Interest
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order granting
the Motion to Disqualify Defense Counsels in the case captioned
KEILEE FANT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF FERGUSON,
Defendant, No. 4:15-CV-00253-AGF (E.D. Mo.).

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion to
disqualify defense counsel, Peter J. Dunne, Robert T. Plunkert,
Jessica L. Diamond, and their law firm of Pitzer Snodgrass, P.C.
(Pitzer firm), based on a conflict of interest.  The motion to
disqualify arises from the Pitzer firm's hiring of attorney Ryan
McGinty, who previously represented Plaintiffs in municipal
matters giving rise to the current litigation.

The 11 named Plaintiffs in this putative class action assert
claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, arising out of the City's
policies and practices of jailing individuals for failure to pay
money owed from traffic and other municipal offenses.

Plaintiffs have presented evidence that McGinty represented at
least four of the 11 named Plaintiffs during this time in matters
in the City's municipal court, including the particular municipal
matters giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims in the case.

McGinty was hired by the Pitzer. The Pitzer firm has presented
evidence that McGinty has been employed exclusively in the firm's
asbestos litigation group, a practice group "totally separate"
from the municipal practice group in which Dunne and Plunkert are
employed and which has been handling this putative class action.

The decision to grant or deny a motion to disqualify an attorney
rests in the discretion of the district court. However, because
courts also have the duty to maintain public confidence in the
legal profession and to ensure the integrity of judicial
proceedings, any legitimate doubts must be resolved in favor of
disqualification.

To establish a conflict of interest: a movant must prove: "(1) the
attorney had a former attorney-client relationship with the
movant; (2) the interests of the attorney's current client are
materially adverse to the movant's interests; and (3) the current
representation involves the same or a substantially related matter
as the attorney's former representation of the movant.

There is no dispute with respect to the first and second elements.
The Court finds, and McGinty has not disputed, that McGinty had an
attorney-client relationship with at least four of the named
Plaintiffs in the municipal matters giving rise to the Plaintiffs'
claims in this case against the City, and the City's interests are
materially adverse to Plaintiffs' interests.

Regarding the third element, neither McGinty nor the City has
contested that this case and the municipal matters in which
McGinty represented Plaintiffs are "substantially related." Given
that Plaintiffs' claims in this case arise directly from, and are
based on the City's conduct in, the municipal matters, the Court
concludes that a substantial relationship exists.

Therefore, McGinty would be prohibited from representing the City
here, the Court concludes.

Imputation of McGinty's Conflict to the Pitzer Firm: Rule 4-
1.10(a)

A literal reading of Rule 4-1.10(a) precludes any of the Pitzer
firm's lawyers from representing the City because McGinty alone
would be prohibited from doing so by Rule 4-1.9(a), the Court
says.  The premise of Rule 4-1.10(a) is that a firm of lawyers is
essentially one lawyer for purposes of the rules governing loyalty
to the client [and] that each lawyer is vicariously bound by the
obligation of loyalty owed by each lawyer with whom the lawyer is
associated." Rule 4-1.10 cmt. [2].

Neither the text of the rule nor any comment thereto indicates
that an ethical wall or screen would alter the rule's application.
Indeed, the only time a wall or screen is mentioned is in Comment
[4] to the rule, which states that the rule does not apply where
the person prohibited from involvement in the matter is a non-
lawyer, such as a paralegal or legal secretary, but that such
persons ordinarily must be screened from any personal
participation in the matter to avoid communication to others in
the firm of confidential information that both the non-lawyers and
the firm have a legal duty to protect. This comment does not
suggest that a wall or screen would limit the imputation of a
lawyer's conflict to his firm.

Plaintiffs' motion to disqualify Peter J. Dunne, Robert T.
Plunkert, Jessica L. Diamond, and the law firm of Pitzer
Snodgrass, P.C., from representing Defendant in this matter is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 7, 2017 Memorandum
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y95kne5jfrom
Leagle.com.

Keilee Fant, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis,
CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS.

Keilee Fant, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ernest Tomback  -
andrew.tomback@whitecase.com - WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice,
Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, John J.
Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Michael-John Voss,
ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Alice
Tsier - atsier@whitecase.com - WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake
Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE
AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz -
larry.cranemoscowitz@whitecase.com - WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice,
Margaret Jane Spicer - margaret.spicer@whitecase.com - WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS,
Sonia Williams Murphy - smurphy@whitecase.com - WHITE AND CASE,
pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice.

Roelif Carter, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G.
Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake
Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE
AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE,
pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice,
Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams
Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice.

Allison Nelson, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G.
Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake
Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE
AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE,
pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice,
Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams
Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice.

Herbert Nelson, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G.
Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS C>, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE
AND CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake
Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE
AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE,
pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice,
Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams
Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice.

Alfred Morris, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G.
Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake
Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE
AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE,
pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice,
Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams
Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice.

Anthony Kimble, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G.
Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake
Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE
AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE,
pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice,
Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams
Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice.

Donyale Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G.
Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake
Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE
AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE,
pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice,
Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams
Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice.

Shameika Morris, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G.
Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake
Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE
AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE,
pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice,
Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams
Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice.

Daniel Jenkins, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G.
Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake
Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE
AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE,
pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice,
Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams
Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice.

Ronnie Tucker, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G.
Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake
Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE
AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE,
pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice,
Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams
Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice.

Tonya DeBerry, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G.
Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake
Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE
AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE,
pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice,
Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams
Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice.

City of Ferguson, Missouri, Defendant, represented by Aarnarian
(Apollo) D. Carey - acarey@lewisrice.com - LEWIS RICE, LLC,
Maurice B. Graham, GRAY AND RITTER, P.C. & Ronald A. Norwood -
rnorwood@lewisrice.com - LEWIS RICE, LLC.


FORD MOTOR: Settles Sexual Harassment Claims at Chicago Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexia Elejalde-RuizContact, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports
that Ford Motor Co. has agreed to pay up to $10.1 million to
settle racial and sexual harassment claims at two Chicago-area
plants, a move that could allow it to avoid a class-action lawsuit
being pursued in federal court.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced the
settlement after an investigation gave it reasonable cause to
believe that Ford personnel harassed female and black employees at
its Chicago assembly and stamping plants, and retaliated against
them when they complained. Such conduct violates the Civil Rights
Act, the agency said.

Ford said in a statement that it "chose to voluntarily resolve
this issue without any admission of liability with the EEOC to
avoid an extended dispute," and is committed to a "zero-tolerance,
harassment-free work environment" at all its facilities.

"Ford conducted a thorough investigation and took appropriate
action, including disciplinary action up to and including
dismissal for individuals who violated the company's anti-
harassment policy," the statement read.

But Chicago attorney Keith Hunt, who is representing more than 30
women in a harassment lawsuit against the carmaker, is incensed by
what he calls a "backroom deal" to circumvent the class-action
process.

"I don't think it goes far enough, and I don't think that it has
provided any meaningful change in the plant environment and will
do nothing to protect women," Hunt said of the EEOC agreement.

His lawsuit, filed in 2014 in Chicago federal court, seeks to
certify a class that would include all women who worked at the
plants since 2012. The two plants have about 1,500 female
employees currently, he said. [GN]


FORTERRA INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP filed a class action on behalf of
investors who purchased Forterra, Inc. ("Forterra" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: FRTA) securities between October 18, 2016 and
August 14, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Forterra
investors have until October 13, 2017 to file a lead plaintiff
motion. To obtain information or participate in the class action,
please visit the Forterra page on our website at
www.glancylaw.com/case/forterra-inc.

Investors suffering losses on their Forterra investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal
rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to --
shareholders@glancylaw.com. --

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that
the Company's initiatives were not producing organic growth; (2)
that, as such, the Company was not likely to experience organic
growth; (3) that the Company was experiencing increased pricing
pressures, operational problems at manufacturing plants, and
rising bad debt expenses; (4) that the Company had material
weaknesses in internal controls over inventory accounting; (5)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
Forterra's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Forterra during the Class Period you
may move the Court no later than October 13, 2017 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to --
shareholders@glancylaw.com, -- or visit our website at
http://glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]


FULL TILT: Lawsuit Refiled in California After Federal Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Hintze, writing for Flushdraw, reports that from the annals
of pernicious attorneys trying to wrest money from defendants by
fatiguing said defendants and the US legal system in general comes
the latest filing -- or rather, re-filing -- of a class-action
suit against the original Full Tilt Poker and several prominent
individuals long associated with that site.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two defendants, former Full
Tilt Poker players Lary Kennedy and Greg Amatoy. This latest
lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Los Angeles on Monday, August 14th. The lawsuit was
filed by California attorney Cyrus Sanai, who has represented
Kennedy and Amatoy while continuing to file class-action lawsuits
against the collected Full Tilt entities, corporate and
individual, stretching all the way back to 2009.

Named as defendants in this rendition of the same ol' damned
lawsuit are Chris Ferguson, Howard Lederer, Phil Gordon, Andy
Bloch, Phil Ivey, John Juanda, Erick Lindgren, Erik Seidel, Mike
Matusow, Allen Cunningham, Gus Hansen, Patrik Antonius, all part-
owners of the original Full Tilt Poker's various corporate
entities.

Many of those entities are re-named here as corporate defendants,
including: Tiltware LLC, Pocket Kings Ltd., Kolyma Corporation
A.V.V., Pocket Kings Consulting Ltd., Filco Ltd., Vantage Ltd.,
Ranston Ltd., Mail Media Ltd., Oxalic Ltd., and Orinic Ltd. These
are included despite the reality that they haven't existed for
years, all assets of the former Full Tilt Poker having been seized
by the US government and sold to then-PokerStars parent Rational
Group in 2012, as part of that site's settlement with US
authorities.

Also named as defendants in this latest action are California
attorney Ian Imrich, the Law Offices of Ian Imrich APC, law firm
Cozen O'Connor, French investor Bernard Tapie, and Tapie's
umbrella investment entity, Group Bernard Tapie. Several of these
defendants and corporate entities were added as defendants years
after the filing of the first case on behalf of Kennedy and
Omotoy, back in 2009.

The lawsuit seeks $900 million in damages, plus interest dating
back to last decade. The monetary claims include specific amounts
of $10 to Omotoy and $120,000 to Kennedy, who years ago was
involved in a controversial situation involving the banning of her
account and the confiscation of funds therein. The remainder of
the $900 million-plus would be awarded to the presumptive class,
less significant attorney's fees payable to Sanai.

There is, however, a lot more to this story. The filing of this
case in California comes after the nearly-identical federal case
was dismissed just over one month ago, on July 14th. Sanai, the
attorney representing Kennedy and Omotoy, also filed a motion on
August 11th to have the federal case's presiding judge, George H.
Wu, to alter his own judgment in the case, which was to dismiss
the case. Wu's ruling duly noted that while Full Tilt Poker had
indeed conducted illegal online gambling business, the lawsuit
offered no specificity as to any damages.

Wrote Wu, "In the end, the Court still finds the TAC deficient for
the reasons stated in its July 6th Tentative Ruling and in its
earlier decisions. Specifically, the Court is unpersuaded that
moving Defendants directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs'
injuries through 'rake' collection underlying the allegedly
illegal gambling business, based on factual allegations in the
Third Amended Complaint. The injuries directly and proximately
linked to any "illegal gambling business" were criminally
prosecuted, successfully so, and were the subject of civil
forfeiture action in alternative forums -- and even there the
civil RICO claims were dismissed for lack of direct and proximate
causation."

In response, Sanai not only filed the federal motion asking Wu to
vacate his own order, and then order new briefings and oral
arguments. The case was moved to federal court in 2010 and has
since seen over 220 filings, the large majority being motions,
joinders and memoranda of various sorts filed by Sanai.

Here's the kicker: The third amended complaint (TAC) in the
federal case is almost identical to the state-level case filed by
Sanai in California earlier this week. The plaintiffs, defendants,
and damages sought are exactly the same; in fact, the latest
California filing includes page after page after page of
allegations copied word for word from the federal case in which Wu
ruled last month.

Given that that federal case is in essence the same case that was
removed from California to the US's federal system back in 2010,
this very arguably is an attempt by Sanai to retry a case already
ruled upon in California via its removal to the federal system.
While it is technically true that some defendants were added to
the original case after its removal to the federal system, the
original California filing allowed for that via its inclusion of
up to 60 "John Doe" defendants.

Another supposed difference might be that the federal case lists
six causes of action, including a federal RICO (racketeering)
allegation, whereas the latest California filing lists just five.
However, that's comically transparent: Action causes five and six
of the just-ruled-upon federal case, including the RICO
allegations, were simply combined, word for word, as Count Five
(Relief Under California Business and Professions Code Section
17200) in the Cali case.

This latest California filing still includes comical present-tense
allegations regarding various aspects of the original Full Tilt
Poker's operations. While it's easy to see that stuff being
carried forward in the federal matter, it's . . . oh  . . . six
years out of date in this week's California filing.

Whether this is as quickly tossed out as it deserves to be remains
to be seen, and that's despite the widespread antipathy and
disgust much of the poker world (including this writer) has for
the majority of the people behind the Full Tilt Poker.

Cyrus Sanai, the attorney representing Kennedy and Omotoy, has
been in trouble for similar legal shenanigans on other occasions.
Sanai and his younger brother, Fredrik, both faced sanctions in a
case involving the Sanais' parents and the sale of disputed
property following what must have been a highly bitter separation.

Fredrik Sanai ended up being disbarred in two states (Washington
and Oregon) over the pair's ongoing and frivolous filings, which
angered multiple judges forced to preside over the case. Older
brother Cyrus, being licensed to practice in California, was not
officially involved in the case, but repeatedly and in conjunction
with Fredric, violated the judge's orders.

A lengthy opinion offered during Fredric Sanai's disbarment
proceedings before the Washington State Supreme Court  --  written
and agreed to by four of that court's judges  --  is a marvel of
insight into how the Sanais have conducted their legal business.
It is absolutely worth a read by anyone seeking to understand the
motivations behind this continuing case.

Some excerpts:

"Fredric obtained his license to practice law in Washington so
that he could represent his mother. His brother, Cyrus Sanai, is
also a lawyer and has also represented Viveca. While only
Fredric's conduct is before us, Fredric and Cyrus have often
worked together even when instructed not to do so. As Judge Joseph
A. Thibodeau of the Thurston County Superior Court observed,
'although Cyrus and Fred[]ric have never been permitted to be part
of this particular case, and that ruling has been upheld in a
number of appellate courts, that they're, in essence, acting in
concert with each other.'"

"On behalf of [their mother] Viveca and others, Fredric and Cyrus
filed multiple complaints alleging wiretap violations by [their
father] Sassan in state and federal courts in Washington and
California. All of these claims were dismissed as baseless. In the
wiretap claims they sought over $9 million in damages and, based
upon that claim for damages, attempted to get prejudgment
injunctive relief to enjoin the sale of the very same property
upon which they had been filing baseless lis pendens. Judge Zilly,
among other things, observed that 'Fredric Sanai's failure to
properly serve the subpoena was willful and in bad faith' and
noted that the plaintiffs had, amongst them, already been
sanctioned around $130,000 in both federal and state courts. Ex.
252 at 5, 14. Judge Zilly stated, '[h]owever, Plaintiffs persist
in their misconduct. Plaintiffs' conduct shows that they will not
respond to sanctions. Clearly no other sanction the Court might
impose, except dismissal itself, would be effective in remedying
this misconduct.' Ex. 252, at 14. On November 4, 2005, the case
was dismissed and Viveca and Fredric were sanctioned a total of
$273,437."

"In another unchallenged finding of fact, the discipline board
found that Fredric and Cyrus (among others) sued their father in
federal and state courts for allegedly wiretapping their calls.
Initially, they asked for $1 million in damages; that ballooned to
$16 million after the case had been dismissed or transferred
multiple times. Fredric and Cyrus used that suit as a basis to
file lis pendens on their father's property, even after being told
in no uncertain terms by Judge Zilly that they were not to do so.
FOF 103 ("`Each of the plaintiffs herein shall cease and desist
from taking any further action whatsoever to delay or obstruct the
sale of the aforesaid real property.'" (quoting Ex. 207)). Merely
five days later, Fredric filed another lis pendens. In ordering
contempt sanctions, Judge Zilly wrote that Fredric and Cyrus 'have
made a mockery and are making a mockery of the legal system.'"

"Fredric has an unprecedented record of engaging in abusive and
vexatious practices by filing baseless lawsuits and endless
motions and appeals (often in direct violation of court orders) in
courts up and down the West Coast."

Here's another marvel of a read, this one more directly involving
Cyrus.

Subjectively, this latest refiling, of what is essentially the
same action in the Full Tilt Poker matter, appears to be another
example of the same familial behavior. It's also worth noting that
Sanai served as attorney representing yet another plaintiff in a
large case involving Full Tilt Poker, that brought on behalf of
Florida-based Cardroom International back in 2010. [GN]


FUNDBOX INC: Faces TCPA Class Action
------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Penn Record, reports that a Pennsylvania
man alleges a San Francisco company has been unlawfully calling
him for telemarketing purposes.

James Everett Shelton filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on July 24 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Fundbox Inc. alleging
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff received a telemarketing
call on his cellphone from the defendant on June 21 and again on
June 23.

The plaintiff holds Fundbox Inc. responsible because the defendant
allegedly used an automatic telephone dialing system and contacted
the plaintiff without his prior express written consent.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks to enjoin the
defendant, damages, court costs and any further relief the court
grants. He is represented by Clayton S. Morrow of Morrow & Artim
PC in Pittsburgh.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case
number 2:17-cv-03301-RBS [GN]


GENE BY GENE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cole" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael Cole filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Michael Cole v. Gene by Gene, Ltd., Case No. 1:14-
cv-00004-SLG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Alaska, Juneau.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Michael Cole
purchased a DNA testing kit from http://www.familytreedna.com/,a
Web site operated by Gene by Gene.  Testing kits include a cheek
swab used to collect DNA samples and an optional release form to
authorize the sharing of the customer's name and e-mail address
with his or her genetic matches.  When testing is complete, Family
Tree e-mails its customers a web link where they may view their
results, locate genetic matches, and research their ancestral
origins.  Months later, after receiving excessive junk e-mail, Mr.
Cole searched the Internet for his e-mail address and found it on
a Web site called "Rootsweb."  He alleges that he then learned his
DNA test results had been publicly disclosed.  Mr. Cole initiated
this action alleging that its sharing of his DNA test results
violated Alaska's Genetic Privacy Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Cole v. Gene by Gene,
Ltd., Case No. 17-80160, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner MICHAEL COLE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          John Aaron Lawson, Esq.
          Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle St.
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-9730
          E-mail: alawson@edelson.com
                  randrews@edelson.com

Defendant-Respondent GENE BY GENE, LTD., a Texas limited liability
company, DBA Family Tree DNA, is represented by:

          Matthew Wojcik, Esq.
          Holly Brauchli, Esq.
          BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1810
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 292-8930
          E-mail: Matt.wojcik@bullivant.com
                  holly.brauchli@bullivant.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Won" Suit in N.Y. Over Defective Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jones Won, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings LLC, and
General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-04819 (S.D.N.Y., August 16,
2017), seeks redress for the defective vehicles the Defendants
sold and the deceptive manner in which the Defendants have
marketed and continues to market them.

The Defendants operate a company that designs, manufactures,
markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells
financial services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: November 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP regarding the Genworth
Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YOR

In re GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC.
CLASS ACTION
SECURITIES LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.

Master File No. 1:14-cv-02392-AKH

CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PURCHASERS OF THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF GENWORTH
FINANCIAL, INC. ("GENWORTH") DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 3,
2011 THROUGH APRIL 17, 2012, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on November 15, 2017, at 4:00 p.m., before
the Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge,
at the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street, Courtroom 14D, New York, NY 10007-1312, for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the
claims in the Litigation for the principal amount of
$20,000,000.00, plus accrued interest, should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered
by the Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) whether
the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate
and should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Class
Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses and Class
Representatives' expenses in connection with this Litigation
should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF GENWORTH DURING
THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 3, 2011 THROUGH APRIL 17, 2012,
INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
LITIGATION.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to
Genworth Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC,
P.O. Box 404003, Louisville, KY 40233-4003, or on the internet at
www.Genworth2017SecuritiesSettlement.com.  If you are a Class
Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by
mail postmarked no later than November 22, 2017, or submitted
electronically no later than November 22, 2017, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery.

If you are a Class Member and you desire to be excluded from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
postmarked no later than October 25, 2017, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice referred to above.  All members
of the Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from
the Class in response to the Notice will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation of
settlement proceeds, or the fee and expense application must be
mailed or delivered to each of the following recipients,
postmarked no later than October 25, 2017:

To the Court:
CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312

To Class Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
DOUGLAS BRITTON
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

To Defendants' Counsel:
DENTONS US LLP
REID L. ASHINOFF
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020

To Defendants' Counsel:

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Class Counsel at the address listed above or by an e-
mail to Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP at djr@rgrdlaw.com or
Labaton Sucharow LLP at settlementquestions@labaton.com. The
Claims Administrator also maintains a website with copies of
settlement-related documents, pleadings, and other documents filed
in the Litigation at www.Genworth2017SecuritiesSettlement.com.

DATED: August 22, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


GOLDMAN SACHS: Hit With Class CA Over Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Weissner, writing for Reuters, reports that a black banker
in Goldman Sachs Group Inc's (GS.N) personal wealth management
unit filed a lawsuit on August 16 accusing the firm of steering
top clients to her white colleagues and denying her promotions
because of her race.

Rebecca Allen in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan
said Goldman's virtually all-white senior leadership team favors
white bankers for promotions and lucrative accounts, so they earn
more than black coworkers.

"Simply put, Goldman Sachs does virtually nothing to hire, promote
or develop black talent, instead focusing its efforts on retaining
and promoting white employees to positions of leadership," Allen
said in the complaint.

Goldman in a statement said the claims were meritless.

"Our success depends on our ability to maintain a diverse employee
base and we are focused on recruiting, retaining and promoting
diverse professionals at all levels," the company said.

Allen, who was hired in 2012, said that last year she was removed
from an account she had worked on for three years by a Goldman
partner, Christina Minnis. Allen says her supervisor met with
Minnis about the decision and said she made racist and anti-
Semitic comments about Allen, who is also Jewish.

Minnis is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Allen's lawyers at New York City law firm Wigdor said in a
statement that they believed other black Goldman employees would
come forward with similar claims.

"We can expose what is really happening behind the closed doors
with regard to the denial of opportunity for entrance and
advancement for qualified black individuals," the lawyers said.

Wigdor is also representing a group of non-white current and
former employees of Fox News Network LLC (FOXA.O) who say in a
lawsuit in New York state court that they were belittled and
marginalized because of their race. Fox has denied the claims.

Allen's lawsuit comes as Goldman Sachs is facing proposed class
action claims in the same court in Manhattan accusing the firm of
discriminating against women in pay and promotions. Goldman has
denied the claims and in June appealed a judge's decision
rejecting its bid to dismiss part of the case.

In August 16's lawsuit, Allen says her male colleagues were
assigned to more lucrative accounts. But her legal claims stem
only from alleged discrimination based on her race and religion.

The case is Allen v. Goldman Sachs Group Inc, U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:17-cv-06195. [GN]


HAJOCA CORP: Faces "Tinoco" Suit in C.D. of Calif.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hajoca Corporation.
The case is styled as Jose Tinoco, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hajoca
Corporation and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-04924 (C.D. Cal., August 21, 2017).

Hajoca Corporation engages in the distribution of plumbing,
heating, and industrial supplies in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HUMANA INSURANCE: Removes "Wiener" Class Suit to W.D. Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------------
Humana Insurance Company removed on July 31, 2017, the lawsuit
captioned RUSSEL L. WIENER v. HUMANA INSURANCE COMPANY from the
Jefferson Circuit Court, Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00458-JHM-DW to the proceeding.

On June 26, 2017, Plaintiff Russel Wiener filed a Class Action
Complaint in the Jefferson Circuit Court, Kentucky.  According to
the Complaint, the Plaintiff's claim arises out Humana's alleged
denial of coverage for treatment services his son received at an
outdoor behavioral therapeutic program.  Specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges that Humana's denial breaches the protections of
the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.

Humana is a corporation whose principal place of business is in
DePere, Wisconsin.  Humana provides life, health, and accident
insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert R. Sparks, Esq.
          STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA
          150 E. Fourth Street, 4th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 629-9417
          Facsimile: (513) 241-8259
          E-mail: rrsparks@strausstroy.com

               - and -

          Jordan Lewis, Esq.
          JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
          4473 NE 11th Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
          Telephone: (954) 616-8995
          Facsimile: (954) 206-0374
          E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Angela L. Edwards, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP
          101 South Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 581-8017
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: angela.edwards@dinsmore.com

               - and -

          Andrew M. Federhar, Esq.
          Jessica A. Gale, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          2425 E. Camelback Road, Suite 850
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 333-5430
          Facsimile: (602) 333-5431
          E-mail: afederhar@spencerfane.com
                  jgale@spencerfane.com


INDIANAPOLIS: Faces Class Action Over Ban Targeting Homeless
------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News, reports that a
homeless man represented by the American Civil Liberties Union
sued Indianapolis on August 17 over the city's recent declaration
of an emergency and prohibition on lying on the public sidewalk or
congregating under certain underpasses.

On Aug. 4, the city of Indianapolis allegedly distributed a notice
around the city and under four underpasses where homeless people
tend to congregate declaring an emergency.

The notice also stated that all belongings had to be cleared from
the underpasses within four days, according to a lawsuit filed on
August 17 in Indianapolis federal court by lead plaintiff Maurice
Young.

Approximately 67 homeless people regularly slept under these
underpasses, the complaint states, until city personnel physically
removed them and their possessions on Aug. 8.

Since then, Indianapolis police officers have allegedly informed
homeless persons standing or sitting under the subject overpasses
that they are not allowed to congregate there due to the declared
emergency.

Young, a homeless man, says he was told by police that he could
not sit under the railroad bridges, but claims that other non-
homeless persons have congregated under the same overpasses
without police interference.

His class-action lawsuit alleges that the homeless ban violates
the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S.
Constitution. He is represented by attorneys with the ACLU of
Indiana.

"Maurice Young, who is frequently in the Indianapolis downtown
area, would like to be able to stand or sit on these sidewalks,
without in any way obstructing pedestrian or other traffic, to
rest and obtain shelter from the elements," the complaint states.

Young asserts that the city's use of the term "emergency" is so
vague that it cannot support the infringement of homeless persons'
right to sit or stand on public city sidewalks.

"He is now prohibited from doing so inasmuch as the City of
Indianapolis has prohibited homeless persons from even stopping in
these areas because of its declaration of an emergency," the
complaint continues.

Young is represented by Kenneth Falk, Gavin Rose and Jan Mensz
with the ACLU of Indiana.

A spokesperson for the city of Indianapolis did not immediately
respond on August 17 to an email request for comment sent after
business hours.

The ACLU's Falk said in a statement that, "The Supreme Court has
repeatedly invalidated attempts to prohibit persons from gathering
for innocent purposes."

"The right to do so does not depend on a person's housing status.
The Constitution guarantees everyone equal protection under the
law," he said. [GN]


JACOBS ENGINEERING: "Kritch" Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit titled James Kritch v. Jacobs
Engineering Group, Inc., et al., Case No. BC665997, was removed on
July 31, 2017, from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-05666-SVW-MRW
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from alleged employment discrimination.

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. provides technical, professional,
and construction services.  The Company offers project services
that include engineering, architectural, interiors, design,
planning, and related services, as well as planning, scheduling,
procurement, estimating, cost engineering, project accounting and
delivery, safety, and other support services.[BN]

Plaintiff James Kritch, as an individual on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, is represented
by:

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

               - and -

          Michael Ross Parker, Esq.
          M R PARKER LAW PC
          21700 Oxnard Street Suite 2080
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 334-5711
          Facsimile: (818) 394-6448
          E-mail: michael@mrparkerlaw.com

Defendant Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
is represented by:

          Betsy Johnson, Esq.
          Ted Allan Gehring, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
          E-mail: betsy.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com
                  ted.gehring@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Thomas B. Song, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          Park Tower
          695 Town Center Drive, Suite 1500
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 800-7900
          Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
          E-mail: thomas.song@ogletreedeakins.com


JAMOS FUND: Oct. 26 Final Settlement Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------
In the action entitled, Bailey, et al. v. JAMOS Fund I, LP, et al,
Case No. 10-CI-03403, which is pending in Division Six of the
Jefferson Circuit Courthouse, the Court has set a hearing date for
final approval of the parties' settlement for October 26, 2017, at
8:30 a.m. in Division 6 of the Jefferson Circuit Courthouse.  The
Court will consider whether to approve the Settlement and award
attorneys' fees and costs.

JAMOS Fund I, LP, and Jamos Capital, LLC, purchased certificates
of delinquency on properties where the owner failed to timely pay
taxes, and the Jamos Entities retained the Attorney Defendants to
collect the debt owed to pay off the certificate.  In collecting
this debt, attorneys' fees and interest were charged that the
Class Representatives allege were unearned, unreasonable, and in
violation of the law. The Jamos Entities and the Attorney
Defendants deny the allegation and any wrongdoing, and the Court
has not made a final decision either way.

Plaintiffs believe the Class might have won more money than the
settlement amount had the case gone to trial, but substantial
delays and risks would have occurred, including the risk of the
suit not being certified as a class action. The Jamos Entities and
the Attorney Defendants believe that the claims asserted in the
case are without substantial merit and that the Plaintiffs may
have recovered nothing if there had been a trial, but there has
been no trial.

Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. That way, they avoid
the cost and uncertainty of a trial and appeal, and the people
affected will get compensation and other settlement benefits
promptly. The Class Representatives and the Class Counsel believe
that the settlement is best for all Class Members.

The "Settlement Class" includes the following subclasses:

     -- Damages Subclass

        All persons who, at any time during the Class Period from
October 13, 2008, through the present day, had a certificate of
delinquency against his, her or its property within the
Commonwealth of Kentucky purchased by the Jamos Entities, or a
subsidiary, agent, partner or assignor thereof, as to which the
Jamos Entities assessed (1) the statutory maximum of prelitigation
attorneys' fees; and/or (2) interest for the month in which the
certificate of delinquency was purchased, and who actually paid
such fees and/or interest.

     -- Injunctive Relief Subclass

        All persons who, at any time during the Class Period from
October 13, 2008, through the present day, had a certificate of
delinquency purchased against his, her or its property within the
Commonwealth of Kentucky by the Jamos Entities, or a subsidiary,
agent, partner or assignor thereof, as to which the Jamos Entities
assessed (1) the statutory maximum of prelitigation attorneys'
fees; and/or (2) interest for the month in which the certificate
of delinquency was purchased, and who did not pay such fees or
interest, but against whom a claim for such fees or interest
remains outstanding.

To resolve claims of all Settlement Class Members, the Attorney
Defendants have agreed to pay approximately $1 million to the
Settlement Class, and the Jamos Entities have agreed to cease any
attempts to collect additional unpaid amounts, which total
approximately $1.5 million.

Defendants also will make a payment of $10,000.00 to each of the
Class Representatives to resolve their claims and also in
recognition of their efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class.

Class Counsel:

     Ballinger Law, PLLC
     3610 Lexington Road
     Louisville, KY 40207
     Tel: 502-426-3215

          - and -

     The Poppe Law Firm
     8700 Westport Road, Suite 201
     Louisville, KY 40242
     Tel: 502-895-3400

Settlement Administrator:

     Bailey v. JAMOS Fund Settlement
     c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
     P.O. Box 170500
     Milwaukee, WI  53217-8091
     Tel: 866-217-4459

Additional information on the Settlement is available at:

                http://www.jamosfundsettlement.com/


JC PENNEY: Seeks 10th Circuit Review of Orders in "Cavlovic" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., appeals from (i) the
Magistrate Judge's July 14, 2017 Order denying J.C. Penney's
Corporation, Inc.'s Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel
Arbitration, and (ii) the District Court's August 8, 2017 Order
denying J .C. Penney Corporation, Inc.'s Motion for Review of
Magistrate Judge's Order Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(a) in the lawsuit titled Ann Cavlovic v. J.C. Penney
Corporation, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02042-JAR-TJJ, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brings the putative class action against the Defendant, asserting
claims for violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act and
unjust enrichment.  She alleges the Defendant's advertisements of
its "original," "regular," "former," and "sale" prices and their
corresponding price discounts are fraudulent and deceptive.

The appellate case is captioned as Ann Cavlovic v. J.C. Penney
Corporation, Inc., Case No. 17-3174, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Ann Cavlovic is represented by:

          Ashley Scott Waddell, Esq.
          WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
          2600 Grand, Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 914-5365
          Facsimile: (816) 817-8500
          E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Bryce B. Bell, Esq.
          Mark W. Schmitz, Esq.
          BELL LAW, LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 886-8206
          Facsimile: (816) 817-8500
          E-mail: bryce@BellLawkc.com
                  ms@belllawkc.com

               - and -

          Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          12 East California Avenue, Suite 200
          Oklahoma City, OK 73104
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200
          Facsimile: (713) 659-2204
          E-mail: reagan.bradford@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          6810 FM 1960 West
          Houston, TX 77069
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200
          Facsimile: (713) 659-2204
          E-mail: wml@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
          Scott B. Goodger, Esq.
          REX A. SHARP, PA
          5301 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                  rhudson@midwest-law.com
                  sgoodger@midwest-law.com

Defendant-Appellant J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., is represented
by:

          Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq.
          Christopher Chorba, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN, & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-7658
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6658
          E-mail: bhamburger@gibsondunn.com
                  cchorba@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Perry, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 887-3667
          Facsimile: (202) 530-9696
          E-mail: MPerry@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Christina M. Pyle, Esq.
          Michael S. Hargens, Esq.
          Taylor Brooke Concannon, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          4801 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 983-8000
          Facsimile: (816) 983-8080
          E-mail: christina.pyle@huschblackwell.com
                  michael.hargens@huschblackwell.com
                  taylor.concannon@huschblackwell.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Smith, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105-3441
          Telephone: (314) 480-1836
          Facsimile: (314) 480-1505
          E-mail: chris.smith@huschblackwell.com


LA PARK: Faces "Leisner" Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Leisner, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. La Park La Brea A, LLC, Apartment Investment and
Management Company d/b/a Aimco, Inc., Case No. BC672796 (Cal.
Super. Ct., August 17, 2017) arises out of the Defendants'
unlawful practice of misrepresenting the quality and type of
amenities, including free gym classes and a gourmet coffee bar,
provided at their apartment complexes in order to induce consumers
into renting apartments at a premium rate, when in fact they have
no intention to continue delivering the Amenities during the terms
of the consumers' leases once entered into.

The Defendants operate an apartment community in the Miracle Mile
District, Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


LAMI PRODUCTS: Wins Joint Bid to Facilitate Notice in Vaughn Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joan A. Lenard granted the parties' joint motion to
facilitate notice & reschedule mediation in the lawsuit styled
KATHLEEN VAUGHN, individually & On behalf of all similarly
situated v. LAMI PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-20326-JAL (S.D.
Fla.).

The Joint Motion is granted as follows:

   (1) The Court's Order Referring Plaintiff's Motion for
       Conditional Certification to Magistrate Judge Jonathan
       Goodman is vacated;

   (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and
       Facilitation of Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to
       29 U.S.C. Section 216 is granted;

   (3) Pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
       the Court appoints Plaintiff's counsel from the law firm
       of Morgan & Morgan to serve as class counsel;

   (4) Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), the Court approves
       the "Notice" attached as Exhibit "A" to the Joint Motion;

   (5) Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel within
       14 days a list of all putative class members as defined by
       the parties in a readable electronic format;

   (6) Plaintiffs shall mail the agreed notice via U.S. Mail
       within 14 days of receiving the list of the putative class
       members;

   (7) The putative class members shall have 45 days to join the
       action;

   (8) Defendant shall provide class data to Plaintiffs' counsel
       within 30 days of the close of the opt-in period;

   (9) The mediation presently scheduled for August 31, 2017, in
       Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with Hunter Hughes, Esq., shall
       be rescheduled until a date to be determined no later than
       sixty (60) days after the close of the notice period;

  (10) Plaintiff's counsel shall file with the Court an Amended
       Proposed Order Scheduling Mediation within ten (10) days
       of the close of the notice period;

  (11) Defendant's Motion to Strike Opt-in Notices Filed by
       Sandra Darrow and Ramon Vaughn is denied without
       prejudice;

  (12) Defendant's Motion to Strike Opt-in Notice filed by
       Jeannie Parks is denied without prejudice;

  (13) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Rule
       12(b)(1) for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is denied
       without prejudice; and

  (14) In the event that the Parties' mediation does not result
       in a settlement, Defendant may refile its Motions within
       14 days following the mediation.

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


LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Faces "Mey" Suit in N.D. of West Va.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Livefree Emergency
Response, Inc.  The case is styled as Diana Mey, individually and
on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Livefree Emergency Response, Inc. doing
business as: Life Beacon and MMHTC Medwatch Limited doing business
as: Medwatch USA, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00131-FPS (N.D.
W.V., August 18, 2017).

LiveFree Emergency Response Inc. develops a GPS powered medical
alarm system for seniors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Anthony Paronich, Esq.
   Broderick & Paronich, P.C.
   99 High Street, Suite 304
   Boston, MA 02110
   Tel: (617) 738-7080
   Email: anthony@broderick-law.com

      - and -

   Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
   Broderick & Paronich, P.C.
   99 High Street, Suite 304
   Boston, MA 02110
   Tel: (617) 738-7080
   Email: ted@broderick-law.com

      - and -

   John W. Barrett, Esq.
   Bailey & Glasser, LLP - Charleston
   209 Capitol St.
   Charleston, WV 25301
   Tel: (304) 345-6555
   Fax: (304) 342-1110
   Email: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com

      - and -

   Jonathan R Marshall, Esq.
   Bailey & Glasser LLP
   209 Capitol Street
   Charleston, WV 25301
   Tel: (304) 345-6555
   Fax: (304) 342-1110
   Email: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

      - and -

   Matthew P McCue, Esq.
   Law Office of Matthew P. McCue
   1 South Avenue, Suite 3
   Natick, MA 01760
   Tel: (508) 655-1415
   Fax: (508) 319-3077
   Email: mmccue@massattorneys.net

      - and -

   Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq.
   Bailey & Glasser, LLP - Charleston
   209 Capitol St.
   Charleston, WV 25301
   Tel: (304) 345-6555
   Fax: (304) 342-1110
   Email: rdonovan@baileyglasser.com


LOTUS BY JOHNNY: Faces "Nguyen" Class Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Long Nguyen, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated and the General Public, Thuy Tran, and Luong Tran, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated and the
General Public v. Lotus by Johnny Dung Inc., formerly known as:
Jade Lotus Way, Inc., a California corporation, Case No. 8:17-cv-
01317-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2017), is brought over fraud-
related claims.

Lotus by Johnny Dung Inc., formerly known as Jade Lotus Way, Inc.,
is a California corporation headquartered in Fountain Valley,
California.  The Company sells and distributes Lotus cosmetic and
dietary supplement products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dennis P. Riley, Esq.
          Rena E. Kreitenberg, Esq.
          MESISCA RILEY AND KREITENBERG LLP
          800 West 6th Street, 16th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 623-2300
          Facsimile: (213) 623-6600
          E-mail: dpriley@mrklawyers.com
                  rek@mrklawyers.com

               - and -

          Mike N. Vo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MIKE N. VO
          17910 Skypark Circle, Suite 103
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 221-8238
          Facsimile: (844) 394-0129
          E-mail: mvo@mikevolaw.com


MARYLAND: Court Dismisses Medicaid Eligibility Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Maryland, issued a
Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Subject Matter Jurisdiction the case captioned WICOMICO NURSING
HOME, as assignee and/or authorized representative of Margaret
Smith, Peggy Outten, Ruby Bounds, Shirley Hackett, Carol Snyder,
and William Soil, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LOURDES R. PADILLA, in
her Official Capacity as Secretary of the Maryland Department of
Human Services, and DENNIS R. SCHRADER, in his Official Capacity
as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Health, Defendants,
Civil Action No. RDB-16-1078 (D. Md.).

Pending before this Court is defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in
the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Defendants' Motion).

In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that defendants have
violated federal law by failing to timely issue Medicaid
eligibility determinations as required under the federal Medicaid
Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1396(a)(8) and 1396(a)(1), and its
implementing regulations, 42 C.F.R. Section 435.912 and 42 C.F.R.
Section 435.930. Plaintiffs also allege that the "systematic
unjustified delays in processing of Medicaid applications at MDHS
and MDH constitutes unlawful discrimination" in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Section 12101.
Defendants assert that they are entitled to state sovereign
immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States
Constitution and, thus, that this Court is without subject matter
jurisdiction over this action.

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

When a governmental entity challenges jurisdiction under Rule
12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that subject
matter jurisdiction exists. The district court is to 'regard the
pleadings' allegations as mere evidence on the issue, and may
consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the
proceeding to one for summary judgment.

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes
the dismissal of a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The purpose
of Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of a complaint and not
to resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim,
or the applicability of defenses.

The Eleventh Amendment provides that, the Judicial power of the
United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law
or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United
States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of
any Foreign State. U.S. Const. amend. XI. The Eleventh Amendment
immunizes states, state agencies, state instrumentalities, and
state officials sued in their official capacities from suit by
private parties in federal court.

This exception to sovereign immunity is based on the notion, that
a State officer who acts in violation of the Constitution is
stripped of his official or representative character and is
subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual
conduct. Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. at 160, 28 S.Ct. 441.
Notwithstanding the Facilities' assertion that they are seeking
prospective relief, they are unable to demonstrate how the relief
sought in this suit on behalf of these residents can be
characterized as prospective" so as to fall within the Young
exception.

In sum, as the relief which the Facilities seek is not prospective
in nature, they are unable to avail themselves of the Young
exception, and the Secretary Defendants are entitled to state
sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction must be granted.

Defendants argue that even if they were not entitled to state
sovereign immunity, the Facilities have not alleged a plausible
claim that the residents' due process rights were violated.
While the Facilities challenge the manner in which defendants
processed the residents' applications, it cannot be said that a
meaningful opportunity to challenge defendants' actions was
unavailable to the residents so as to give rise to a possible due
process violation.

To the contrary, the First Amended Complaint alleges that four of
the resident Margaret Smith, Shirley Hackett, Carol Snyder, and
William Soil -- did avail themselves of the state administrative
process.

The fact that these residents (or the other residents who did not
file administrative appeals) did not seek further relief through
the state administrative and judicial processes does not give rise
to a procedural due process claim in federal court.

Thus, even if plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint were properly
before this Court which it is no they fail to state a plausible
claim that their due process rights were violated.

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 7, 2017 Memorandum
Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y95kne5jfrom
Leagle.com.

Wicomico Nursing Home, Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen C.
Morris, Schutjer Bogar. 116 Defense Highway, Suite 300Annapolis,
MD 21401-7047.

Wicomico Nursing Home, Plaintiff, represented by Katie Z. Van
Lake, pro hac vice.

Oakview SNF, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen C. Morris,
Schutjer Bogar & Katie Z. Van Lake, SB2, pro hac vice.

Anchorage Nursing, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen C.
Morris, Schutjer Bogar & Katie Z. Van Lake, SB2, pro hac vice.

Brooke Grove Foundation, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen
C. Morris, Schutjer Bogar & Katie Z. Van Lake, SB2, pro hac vice.

Lourdes R. Padilla, Defendant, represented by Hilma J. Munson,
Maryland Office of the Attorney General.

Dennis R. Schrader, Defendant, represented by Michael Lee Bouyea,
Office of the Attorney General.


MDL 2795: Asks JPML to Transfer 8 Class Suits to Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc., and some of its commonly-managed subsidiaries
-- the Defendants in the multidistrict litigation styled In re:
CenturyLink Residential Customer Billing Disputes Litigation, MDL
No. 2795 -- move the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
enter an order: (1) transferring to a single district court
certain actions, as well as any lawsuits that may be subsequently
filed, asserting identical or related claims, and (2)
consolidating those actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

CenturyLink recommends that the Panel transfer and consolidate
these matters to the Hon. Michael J. Davis of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, who is currently presiding
over one of the nine actions.

CenturyLink is the third-largest phone carrier in the U.S.,
providing phone, Internet and video services to millions of
customers.

The Motion is filed on behalf of these eight CenturyLink
Defendants: CenturyLink Communications, LLC; Embarq Minnesota,
Inc., wrongly named as CenturyLink Embarq Minnesota Inc.;
CenturyLink, Inc.; CenturyLink Public Communications, Inc.;
CenturyLink Sales Solutions, Inc.; CenturyTel of Idaho, Inc.;
CenturyTel of the Gem State, Inc.; and Embarq Florida, Inc.

The CenturyLink Defendants are parties to nine virtually identical
class-action lawsuits filed in nine different states, asserting
claims based on similar billing disputes, brought by the same law
firm in California on behalf of 14 plaintiffs.  The actions were
filed in nine federal courts: (1) District of Arizona, (2) Central
District of California, (3) District of Colorado, (4) Middle
District of Florida, (5) District of Idaho, (6) District of
Minnesota, (7) District of Nevada, (8) District of Oregon, and (9)
Western District of Washington.

Fourteen plaintiffs, all alleging to be phone and Internet service
customers of CenturyLink, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries
have filed overlapping class-actions lawsuits alleging
overcharging and improper billing.  The actions allege the same
core facts: that CenturyLink had a uniform policy or practice to
increase customer bills by charging for services customers did not
order.

The CenturyLink Defendants contend that consolidation will (1)
avoid encumbering multiple federal courts (and counsel) with
duplicative work, including the same affirmative defenses,
discovery efforts, and class-action issues, and will (2) avoid the
risk of inconsistent results.[BN]

Defendants CenturyLink, Inc. and its Subsidiaries are represented
by:

          Douglas P. Lobel, Esq.
          David A. Vogel, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          11951 Freedom Drive
          Reston, VA 20190-5656
          Telephone: (703) 456-8000
          Facsimile: (703) 456-8100
          E-mail: dlobel@cooley.com
                  dvogel@cooley.com


MERSCORP INC: Dismissal of Recording Statutes Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Geauga County,
issued an Opinion affirming the lower court's dismissal of the
complaint captioned STATE OF OHIO ex rel. JAMES R. FLAIZ,
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO, et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. MERSCORP, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, No.
2016-G-0079 (Ohio App.).

Appellants, James R. Flaiz, et al., appeal from the judgment of
the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas dismissing their complaint
filed against appellees, MERSCORP, Inc., et al., for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Geauga County, Ohio and Brown County, Ohio, filed suit against
appellees, MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration
System, Inc. (MERS) alleging appellees violated Ohio law by
failing to record assignments in Ohio county recorders' offices
when they assigned mortgages as part of their securitization
process, thereby avoiding Ohio's alleged mandatory recording
statutes.

The trial court issued its judgment granting appellees' motion to
dismiss.

In rendering its decision, the court analyzed the language of both
R.C. 5301.25  provides, in relevant part:

     "A mortgage may be assigned or partially released by a
separate instrument of assignment or partial release, acknowledged
as provided by section 5301.01 of the Revised Code. The separate
instrument of assignment or partial release shall be recorded in
the county recorder's official records. The county recorder shall
be entitled to charge the fee for that recording as provided by
section 317.32 of the Revised Code for recording deeds."

The court went on to observe that "the purpose of recordation has
never been understood to supplement property taxes by making every
landowner, mortgagee, pay a fee for a service he doesn't want.
Recording is a valuable service, provided usually for a modest fee
but provided only to those who think the service worth the fee.

In light of these, the appellate court holds that neither R.C.
5301.25 nor R.C. 5301.32 impose a duty to record mortgages or
assignments. The appellate court recognizes, however, the trial
court found that recordation was not mandatory because the subject
statutes failed to state who must record the document and when it
shall be recorded.

Implicit in the recording statutes at issue is the recognition
that the mortgagee or the assignee would be the party to record
the instrument because recordation functions to protect these
parties. To wit, if the purpose of the recording statute is to
give notice to the public of liens and, as a result, protect and
prioritize the lien holder, it follows the lien holder would be
the individual who has the burden of filing, if it chooses to
enjoy the security of public filing.

Moreover, it also follows that a mortgagee or assignee who desires
the protection and security of recordation would file the
respective lien as efficiently as possible to obtain the statutory
protections that result from placing the public on notice of its
interest.

As a result, the appellate court finds the trial court's rationale
in dismissing appellants' complaint to be wanting; because,
however, the appellate court concludes the language, purpose, and
context of the statutes under consideration demonstrate appellees
were not obligated to record the instruments, the appellate court
agrees with the trial court's conclusion that appellants have
failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Appellants' remaining issues, relating to the trial court's
dismissal of their unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and public
nuisance claims are all based on the entitlement to fees and are
therefore moot and without merit.

For these reasons, the judgment of the Geauga County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's August 7, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y85ojhylfrom Leagle.com.

James R. Flaiz, Geauga County Prosecutor; Bridey Matheney and
Katherine A. Jacob, Assistant Prosecutors, Courthouse Annex, 231
Main Street, Suite 3A, Chardon, OH 44024 (For Plaintiff-Appellant,
James R. Flaiz, Prosecuting Attorney of Geauga County, Ohio).

Jeffrey S. Goldenberg - jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com -  Goldenberg
Schneider, LPA, 1 West Fourth Street, 18th Floor, Cincinnati, OH
45202; Christian A. Jenkins, Minnillo & Jenkins Co., LPA, 2712
Observatory Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45208; and Patrick J. Perotti,
Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., 60 South Park Place, Painesville,
OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellant, Jessica Little, Prosecuting
Attorney of Brown County, Ohio).

Jeremy Gilman and Kari B. Consiglio - kbconiglio@vorys.com -
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, LLP, 200 Public Square,
#2300, Cleveland, OH 44114; and Robert M. Brochin -
bobby.brochin@morganlewis.com - Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 200
South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300, Miami, FL 33131 (For
Defendants-Appellees, Merscorp, Inc., and Mortgage Electronic
Registration System, Inc.).

Nelson M. Reid - nreid@bricker.com - and Daniel C. Gibson -
dgibson@bricker.com - Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., 100 South Third
Street, Columbus, OH 43215; and Mary Beth Hogan -
mbhogan@debevoise.com - Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, 919 Third
Avenue, New York, NY 10022 (For Defendant-Appellee, JP Morgan
Chase Bank, N.A.).

Dale H. Markowitz - DMarkowitz@tddlaw.com - and Todd C. Hicks,
Thrasher - THicks@tddlaw.com - Dinsmore & Dolan, 100 Seventh
Avenue, #150, Chardon, OH 44024 (For Defendant-Appellee, Home
Savings & Loan of Youngstown).

Thomas M. Hefferon and Joseph F. Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter, 901
New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20001; and Bryan T. Kostura
- bkostura@mcglinchey.com - and Barbara F. Yaksic -
byaksic@mcglinchey.com - McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC, 25550 Chagrin
Boulevard, Suite 406, Cleveland, OH 44122 (For Defendants-
Appellees, Bank of America Corporation; Bank of America, N.A.,
Individually and as Successor-By-Merger to Lasalle Bank National
Association; CCO Mortgage Corporation; RBS Citizens, N.A.; RBS
Securities, Inc.; and Everbank).

Amanda Martinsek - amanda.martinsek@icemiller.com - and Marquettes
D. Robinson - mrobinson@trzlaw.com - Thacker Robinson Zinz, LPA,
2330 One Cleveland Center, 1375 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH
44114; and Thomas Panoff - tpanoff@mayerbrown.com - and Lucia Nale
- lnale@mayerbrown.com - Mayer Brown, LLP, 71 South Wacker Drive,
Chicago, IL 60606 (For Defendants-Appellees, Citigroup, Inc.;
Citibank, N.A.; and Citimortgage, Inc., Individually and as
Successor-By-Merger to Principal Residential Mortgage, Inc.).
Hugh E. McKay - hmckay@porterwright.com. - Porter, Wright, Morris
& Arthur LLP, 950 Main Ave., Suite 500, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For
Defendant-Appellee, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company).

Daniel R. Warren - dwarren@bakerlaw.com - and Brett A. Wall -
bwall@bakerlaw.com - Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., 3200 PNC Center,
1900 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44114; and Patrick T. Lewis
- plewis@bakerlaw.com - Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., 3200 National
City Center, 1900 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For
Defendants-Appellees, Fifth Third Bank; The Huntington National
Bank, N.A.; and Keybank National Association).

Thomas J. Lee - tlee@taftlaw.com - Stephen M. O'Bryan -
sobryan@taftlaw.com - and William S. Dornette -
dornette@taftlaw.com - Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., 3500
BP Tower, 200 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44114; and R. Bruce
Allensworth - bruce.allensworth@klgates.com - Brian M. Forbes -
brian.forbes@klgates.com  and Ryan Tosi - ryan.tosi@klgates.com -
K&L Gates, LLP, State Street Financial Center, One Lincoln Street,
Boston, MA 02111 (For Defendants-Appellees, Goldman Sachs Mortgage
Company and GS Mortgage Securities Corp.).

David A. Wallace, Esq., Carpenter Lipps & Leland, LLP, 280 Plaza,
Suite 1300, 280 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43215; and Phillip
R. Perdew - rperdue@lockelord.com - Locke Lord LLP, 111 South
Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606 (For Defendants-Appellees, GMAC
Mortgage LLC and U.S. Bank National Association).


MIDLAND CREDIT: Hernandez Renews Bid to Certify Class Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DANIEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-11179 (N.D. Ill.), filed with
the Court his amended and renewed motion for class certification.

Mr. Hernandez asks the Court to certify that his Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act claims may proceed on behalf of the class
defined within his accompanying memorandum.  He also asks the
Court to name him as class representative, and to appoint his
lawyers as counsel for the class.

A copy of the Amended and Renewed Motion is available at no charge
at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mJa1OXA4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.,
          Land Title Building, Suite 1902
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Roger Zamparo, Jr., Esq.
          ZAMPARO LAWGROUP, P.C.
          2300 Barrington Road, Suite 140
          Hoffman Estates, IL 60169
          Telephone: (224) 875-3202
          Facsimile: (312) 276-4950
          E-mail: roger@zamparo.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Court Narrows Claims in "Rawa"
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri,
Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part
and denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
complaint for failure to state a claim in the case captioned
JOSHUA RAWA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:17CV01252 AFG (E.D. Mo.).

This putative class action filed under the Missouri Merchandise
Practices Act (MMPA) is before the Court on Defendant Monsanto
Company's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to
state a claim.

In the spring of 2016, Plaintiff purchased a 35.2oz container of
Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate (Super Concentrate).
On the front of the container near the top, a small separate label
stated, "Makes Up to 23 Gallons." Near the bottom of the main
front label, appeared the statement, KILLS THE ROOTS GUARANTEED.

Plaintiff purchased and used the product without opening the back
booklet label, instead relying on the dilution rate provided by
the circular diagram on the front of the booklet label, 2-1/2 fl
oz Per Gallon of Water. Plaintiff obtained 14.08 gallons of the
solution, not approximately 23 gallon as represented on the front
of the container. Defendant sells Super Concentrate in other
sizes, as well as Roundup Concentrate Plus in various sizes. All
of these products have essentially the same labelling scheme as
the container Plaintiff purchased.

Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that he and the other putative
class members have suffered an ascertainable loss within the
meaning of the MMPA, because the actual value of the Roundup
Concentrate they purchased was less than the value of the product
as represented.

Motion to Dismiss Standard

For a plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to  state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Threadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice. The reviewing court must accept the
plaintiff's factual allegations as true and construe them in the
plaintiff's favor, but the court is not required to accept the
legal conclusions the plaintiff draws from the facts alleged.

MMPA Claims

The MMPA, in relevant part, declares unlawful the use of any
deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise,
misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment,
suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with
the sale or advertisement of any merchandise.

Missouri courts have explained the pleading requirements as
follows:

     The MMPA protects consumers by expanding the common law
definition of fraud to preserve fundamental honesty, fair play and
right dealings in public transactions. To prevail on a claim under
the MMPA, a plaintiff must plead and prove he or she (1) purchased
merchandise (which includes services) from defendants; (2) for
personal, family or household purposes; and (3) suffered an
ascertainable loss of money or property; (4) as a result of an act
declared unlawful under the Merchandising Practices Act.

The Court believes that the Missouri Supreme Court would hold that
it cannot be said as a matter of law that Super Concentrate's
labelling was not deceiving.

The Makes Up to 23 Gallons label on the front of Super Concentrate
may well put a reasonable consumer on notice to check elsewhere on
the container's labelling for mixing directions to obtain that
yield. And indeed, mixing directions were provided on the circular
diagram on the front of the back booklet label. But those
directions, if followed, would result in much less than 23 gallons
of weed killer.

Significantly, the front of the booklet label did not direct a
consumer to check the inside of the booklet label for other mixing
options; nor did any part of the labelling on the front of the
container. And the front of the back label did not qualify that
the listed ratio was for the strongest solution, with more diluted
options available.

Under these circumstances, the Court find persuasive Plaintiff's
argument that a fact question is presented as to whether a
reasonable consumer would open the booklet label to search for a
mixing option that would yield 23 gallons of weed killer.

FIFRA Pre-emption

FIFRA requires all pesticides, such as Roundup, to be registered
with the EPA prior to sale or distribution. 7 U.S.C. Section
136a(a). The EPA will not register a pesticide if it is misbranded
a pesticide is misbranded if, inter alia, its labelling bears any
statement, design, or graphic representation relative thereto or
to its ingredients which is false or misleading in any particular.
A case against Defendant now pending in California district court,
raising, under California's consumer protection statute, identical
claims as those raised here, the district court rejected the pre-
emption argument now advanced by Defendant in this case. The court
stated that Defendant failed to demonstrate that the California
statue, which is analogous to the MMPA, imposed any labelling or
packaging requirements that were "in addition to or different from
those required under FIFRA.

This Court believes the Missouri Supreme Court would likewise
reject Defendant's FIFRA pre-emption argument.

Ascertainable Loss

Here, Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the value of the Super
Concentrate he purchased was less than the value of the products
as represented because he believed the dilution instructions on
the front of the booklet label would yield 23 gallons of solution,
but the actual yield was significantly less. Plaintiff also
sufficiently alleged that his product purchasing decision was
dependent on the quantity of solution the product would yield.

Standing

Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not have standing to bring
claims related to Concentrate Plus because he did not purchase it.
Plaintiff contends that he has standing because the Concentrate
Plus labelling and alleged injury are substantially similar those
related to Super Concentrate.

The District Court believes that the Missouri Supreme Court would
hold that Plaintiff may not bring a claim under the MMPA for
products he did not purchase. Plaintiff's allegations involving
Concentrate Plus will be disregarded, with leave granted to amend
the complaint to add a representative purchaser of Concentrate
Plus.

Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to
state a claim is granted in part, and denied in part. The
complaint is dismissed with respect to individual and class claims
related to Roundup Concentrate Plus, and denied in all other
respects.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 7, 2017 Memorandum
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9gtt59ufrom
Leagle.com.

Joshua Rawa, Plaintiff, represented by John Joseph Fitzgerald, IV,
- jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com - The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald,
PC, pro hac vice.

Joshua Rawa, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin J. Dolley, LAW
OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC, 2726 S Brentwood Blvd, Brentwood,
MO 63144, USA, Sidney Warren Jackson, III, JACKSON AND FOSTER LLC,
75 St. Michael St.Mobile, AL 36602 pro hac vice & Thomas A. Canova
-  tom@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD,
PC, pro hac vice.

Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Erik L. Hansell --
erik.hansell@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP & John J.
Rosenthal - jrosenthal@winston.com - WINSTON AND STRAWN, LLP, pro
hac vice.


MUNGER FARMS: Faces "Covington" Employment Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shinesha Covington on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Munger Farms LLC,
Case No. Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2017-0007938 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., July 31, 2017), arises from employment-related
issues.

Based in Delano, California, Munger Farms, a partner in Naturipe
Farms, produces blueberries, pistachios and almonds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121-2410
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com


NAVIENT CORP: Faces "Travis" Suit in E. Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navient Corporation.
The case is styled as Marie Travis, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Navient Corporation and
Navient Solutions, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04885 (E.D.
N.Y., August 18, 2017).

Navient Corporation is a student loan servicer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
   Reese LLP
   100 West 93rd Street
   16th floor
   New York, NY 10025
   Tel: (212) 643-0500
   Fax: (212) 253-4272
   Email: mreese@reesellp.com


NEDBANK: South African Banks Could Face R60MM Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phathu Luvhengo, writing for Destiny Connect, reports that South
African largest banks including Nedbank, Absa, FirstRand and
Standard Bank could be facing a R60 billion claim related to their
conduct in attaching and selling the home of defaulting customers
at prices below market value.

Advocate Douglas Shaw has filed an application for direct access
at the Constitutional Court on behalf of 219 people. About 100 000
homes have been repossessed by banks and sold in execution since
1994. It is estimated that 10% of these homes were sold for close
to market value, with 90% of them sold below prevailing market
values.

South African banks reportedly sell property five times more
frequently than the international norm and in some instances, for
only 50% of market value. It has also been argued that going
through the primary courts would be inappropriate, as the case was
brought by people who were exceptionally poor.

The court papers list Nedbank, Absa, FirstRand, Standard Bank,
Changing Tides 17 -- a trustee of the SA Home Loans Guarantee
Trust -- Investec, the National Credit Regulator, the South
African Human Rights Commission, the Rules Board, the Minister of
Justice and constitutional development as respondents.

Advocate Shaw told Moneyweb that there were about 219 people in
this case whose houses have been sold in execution -- repossessed
by the bank and sold for a small percentage of the value.

"Now, on average, the banks sell these properties for 50% of their
value sometimes, which is terrible because in other countries 90%-
95% is normal. But, even worse, in some of these transactions, the
banks have sold the properties for R100 or R1 000, which happens
nowhere else in the world," he said.

Shaw's papers reveal the average house price in today's money is
about R1 million and the average discount that properties have
been sold for appears to be around 50% of market price. Thus, the
damage done to these 100 000 people is R50 billion.

The maximum damages that could be awarded if every person affected
since 1994 joined the claim would be R60 billion, equivalent to
around a year's income generated by the big four banks. The papers
reportedly refer to one case in which a bank attached and sold as
property thought to have been financed by a R300 000 loan, when
the actual loan amount was only R30 000.

The applicants also want the court to order that no debt shall be
reclaimable from a creditor when a property is sold for less than
the value of the bond.

Representatives from FNB and Standard Bank have told Moneyweb
allegations would be reviewed and addressed once tabled before a
court. [GN]


NESTLE WATERS: Faces Suit Over 'Spring Water' Labeling
------------------------------------------------------
Lori Valigra, writing for Mainebiz, reports that Nestle Waters
North America Inc., the parent of Poland Spring Water Co., is the
subject of a class-action lawsuit by 11 individuals alleging a
number of claims, including deceptive product labeling, Poland not
being the source of the water and that some of its water
collection sites are not from spring water.

The 325-page lawsuit, filed Aug. 15 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut, where Switzerland-based Nestle has
its U.S. headquarters in Stamford, Conn., asks for a jury trial.
It also lists $5 million as the amount on the lawsuit but does not
list specific damages. The $5 million is the minimal amount for
such a class-action lawsuit and could potentially go much higher,
a lawyer familiar with the case said.

A Poland Spring spokeswoman said on August 17 morning that the
company has not yet been served regarding the case, but said it is
without merit and the company is "highly confident in our legal
position."

If and when it is served, the normal practice is to file responses
to the complaint, a lawyer familiar with the case said. He added
that he doesn't know if any of the plaintiffs directly filed any
complaints prior to filing the lawsuit to the company's customer
service hotline regarding concerns about the source and labeling
of the water.

The plaintiffs also brought claims on behalf of a nationwide class
on fraud and breach of contract, as well as various claims brought
on behalf of the state sub-class including the states of New
Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.

A spokesperson for Nestle, which sells 15 different brands of
bottled waters, said Poland Spring is the largest selling bottled
water in the Northeast United States. The company did not release
figures for the amount of water it bottles annually, but a 2014
article by Mainebiz noted that Nestle's net sales of bottled water
in 2012 were $3.9 billion, and it was the largest bottled water
company and third-largest U.S. non-alcoholic beverage company by
volume.

The company also sells Perrier, S. Pelligrino and Pure Life
waters.

What alleged violations in Maine claim

The Maine claim was for violations of the Maine Unfair Trade
Practices Act and the Maine Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The lawsuit noted that 30 days before filing the complaint,
plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to Nestle Waters in compliance
with Maine Revised Statutes, Title 5, 213-1-A, demanding relief,
identifying the claimant and reasonably describing the unfair and
deceptive act or practice relied up and the injuries suffered.
Among the claims, the plaintiffs allege that the "Evergreen
Spring" site in Fryeburg fails the FDA's spring quality standard
of identity because the well is not hydraulically connected to a
genuine natural spring, the water collected by the well is not
from the same underground strata as the groundwater that
discharges into the alleged spring, the water does not have the
same chemical and physical composition as the water discharging
into the alleged springs, and the well draws from surface waters.
The plaintiffs' suit was filed by representatives of Alexander H.
Schmidt in New Jersey; Izard, Kindall & Raabe in West Hartford,
Conn.; Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in Burlingame, Calif., and in

"The claims made in the lawsuit are without merit and an obvious
attempt to manipulate the legal system for personal gain. Poland
Spring is 100% spring water," Brian Nurse, vice president and
associate general counsel for Nestle and Poland Spring, told
Mainebiz.

He added that the lawsuit was an attempt to manipulate the trust
of consumers in the brand and in Maine's natural resources.
A company statement added, "It meets the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration regulations defining spring water, all state
regulations governing spring classification for standards of
identity, as well as all federal and state regulations governing
spring water collection, good manufacturing practices, product
quality and labeling. We remain highly confident in our legal
position."

Nestle has been the target of other lawsuits in the past,
including a 2003 lawsuit in Connecticut challenging the source of
Poland Spring water. The suit was settled with Nestle not
admitting to the allegations that the water is not from springs
but heavily treated ground water, but offering $10 million in
discounts to consumers and charitable donations for the five years
after the suit was settled in September 2003.

What bottled water labels mean

U.S. consumers can buy at least 100 different types of bottled
waters, according to industry estimates, which makes the profit on
a case of water just pennies, Nestle told Mainebiz in 2014.
The FDA's definitions quickly go into the weeds on the definitions
of bottled water, including mineral content. Nestle said each
state must meet the FDA standards, and some go above. Maine's
Division of Environmental Health, which listed more than 18
bottled water plants, handles the compliance in the state. [ ]
Poland Spring also publishes a water quality report on its
website.

The case comes at a time when bottled water sales by volume
outpaced those of soda in 2016. Research firm Beverage Marketing
Corp. of New York found Americans each drank an average of 39.3
gallons of bottled water in 2016 and 38.5 gallons of carbonated
soft drinks. That compares with 36.5 gallons of bottled water in
2015 and 39 gallons of soda.

Poland Spring has been expanding its water sources, having on Aug.
16 inked a 15-year agreement with the Rumford Water District to
draw up to 150 million gallons of water annually from two of the
district's wells. [GN]


NETFLIX: Price Hike Sparks CA Lawsuit From Quebec Law Firm
-----------------------------------------------------------
BNN reports that a Quebec man wants millions in compensation from
Netflix on behalf of subscribers in the province, alleging the
company violated strict consumer rights rules when it upped their
fees.

The class action document filed in Quebec Superior Court seeks
permission to sue the popular video streaming service for
allegedly charging higher fees unilaterally.
"They had to send a notice which mentions exclusively the rate
that the people were paying and the new rate," said lawyer Pierre
Boivin, who represents the consumers.

"They also have to mention that the consumer would have 30 days to
cancel the contract if they don't agree with this increase, and
that's not what Netflix sent. They did not respect this provision
of the Consumer Protection Act."

Boivin's Montreal law firm, Kugler Kandestin, is acting on behalf
of Frederic Seigneur and other Quebecers -- an estimated 1.45
million subscribers in the province.

The action has not yet been given the go-ahead by a judge, but
Boivin said he hopes to have it in a few months time.

A public relations firm that deals with the company said on August
17 that Netflix does not comment on ongoing litigation.

Earlier this month, it announced it was hiking prices for new
members, effective immediately, and would do the same for existing
users after notifying them by email in the coming weeks.
Netflix has invested heavily in producing its own original content
in recent years, including "House of Cards," "Ozark" and in a
slate of feature films bought at international film festivals.
The Quebec suit would extend to any rate hike by Netflix since
Aug. 11, 2014, and Boivin said there appears to have been just
one, in 2016.

Because the suit argues on the basis of Quebec legislation, other
Canadian users are exempted, he said, adding Quebec subscribers
wouldn't have to do anything to take part in the suit.

The class action seeks a reimbursement of the fees paid since the
2016 hike -- $1 to $2 a month depending on the subscription.

Boivin said that works out to roughly $14 million as of now, with
lawyers seeking an additional $7.5 million in punitive damages.
"When a company wants to do business in Quebec, it must minimally
respect the law -- in this case, the Consumer Protection Act," he
said. "They had to send a notice of the rate hike, which we argue
they did not do." [GN]


NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Demasco" Suit in E.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group,
Inc. The case is styled as Hope M. Demasco, Jennifer Hertzovitz,
Jaime Abreu, Robert J. Paulson, James M. Caruso, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Northland Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04903 (E.D.
N.Y., August 21, 2017).

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

The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE.


OUT OF SITE: Judgment on Pleadings in "Mendelhall" Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, issued an Order granting Defendant Out of Site
Infrastructure, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the
case captioned JASON MENDENHALL, Plaintiff, v. OUT OF SITE
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., et al., Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-4996
(E.D. Pa.).

Defendant Out of Site Infrastructure, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings granted on Counts II and III in regard to
Plaintiffs claim that he is a proper representative in the case to
represent the Plan and its members, current and former, and that
the case may proceed as a class action.

Defendant Out of Site Infrastructure Inc. Retirement Plan's Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted on Counts II and III in
regard to Plaintiffs claim that he is a proper representative in
the case to represent the Plan and its members, current and
former, and that the case may proceed as a class action.

All claims Plaintiff purports to make as representative of the
Plan or its participants are dismissed.

The only remaining claims against Defendants Out of Site
Infrastructure, Inc. and Out of Site Infrastructure Inc.,
Retirement Plan in Counts II and III involve Plaintiffs individual
retirement account.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 7, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yb4fmxhqfrom Leagle.com.

JASON MENDENHALL, Plaintiff, represented by AMY GALER --
office@brodierubinsky.com - BRODIE & RUBINSKY.

JASON MENDENHALL, Plaintiff, represented by JOSHUA P. RUBINSKY -
office@brodierubinsky.com - BRODIE & RUBINSKY, JESSICA L. MACKNER
- office@brodierubinsky.com - 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.


RAYONIER ADVANCED: Robbins Geller Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on August 18 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor on behalf of purchasers of Rayonier Advanced Materials
Inc. ("Rayonier") (NYSE:RYAM) common stock during the period
between October 29, 2014 and August 19, 2015 (the "Class Period").
This action was filed in the Middle District of Tennessee and is
captioned City of Warren General Employees' Retirement System v.
Rayonier Advanced Materials, Inc., No. 17-cv-01167.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 17. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman
or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a
member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as
filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/rayonier/.Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Rayonier and certain of its officers and/or
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Rayonier manufactures cellulose specialty products that are sold
throughout the world to companies for use in various industrial
applications and to produce a wide variety of products, including
cigarette filters, foods, pharmaceuticals, textiles and
electronics.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose adverse information regarding Rayonier's business and
outlook. Specifically, the complaint alleges that, despite the
Company's claims during the Class Period that in 2015 Rayonier
"will be able to maintain or increase [its] share of volume at
each of [its] top 10 customers," since 2013, one of its top three
customers, Eastman Chemical Company ("Eastman"), had been
informing Rayonier of its competitors' pricing and had requested
that Rayonier respond to declines in market pricing, leading to a
protracted dispute between Rayonier and Eastman over the "meet and
release" provision of their agreement. As a result of defendants'
false statements and/or omissions, Rayonier common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices, reaching a Class Period high of more
than $30 per share.

Then, on August 18, 2015, the Company filed a form 8-K with the
SEC informing investors that the Company had filed an action
against Eastman regarding its "chemical cellulose specialty
products contract with Eastman." On August 19, 2015, the Company
issued a press release further explaining the dispute with
Eastman. Specifically, the release stated that the language in the
contract at issue involved the "meet or release" provisions of the
agreement, which allow Eastman to obtain "third party offers that
meet the requirements of the Supply Agreement for similar
cellulose specialties products, and would require [Rayonier] to
either meet such price or release the volume, thereby allowing
Eastman to purchase the volume from the third party." In addition,
the release disclosed that on August 12, 2017, Eastman had filed
an action against Rayonier regarding the same "meet or release"
provisions in their contract. In reaction to these announcements,
the price of Rayonier common stock fell $6.01 per share, or 44%,
to close at $7.62 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume.

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

Robbins Geller is widely recognized as a leading law firm advising
and representing U.S. and international investors in securities
litigation and portfolio monitoring. With 200 lawyers in 10
offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history. For the third
consecutive year, the Firm ranked first in both the total amount
recovered for investors and the number of shareholder class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report. Robbins Geller attorneys
have shaped the law in the areas of securities litigation and
shareholder rights and have recovered tens of billions of dollars
on behalf of the Firm's clients. Robbins Geller not only secures
recoveries for defrauded investors, it also implements significant
corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial
markets for investors worldwide.

         David A. Rosenfeld
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel No: 800-449-4900
         E-mail: djr@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


RESORT MARKETING: Settles Free Cruise Robocall Class-Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABC 7 reports that there's a potentially big payout for people who
received a robocall offering free cruises during a certain period
of time.

The money is from the settlement of a class-action lawsuit against
Resort Marketing Group. The suit claims RMG broke the law when it
robocalled consumers without permission of cruise lines.

Anyone getting calls from 2009 through 2014 may be eligible for up
to $900.

To determine if you are eligible, go to
https://www.rmgtcpasettlement.com/Home.aspx.

Follow the instructions on the File A Claim page to plug in your
phone number and see if you qualify.  [GN]


ROCKET FUEL: Faces "Bushansky" Lawsuit Over Sale to Sizmek Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY and MENDEL ZAKS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. ROCKET FUEL INC., E.
RANDOLPH WOOTTON III, MONTE ZWEBEN, RICHARD A. FRANKEL, SUSAN L.
BOSTROM, RONALD E. F. CODD, WILLIAM W. ERICSON, CLARK M. KOKICH,
and JOHN J. LEWIS, Defendants, Case No: 3:17-cv-04454-JD (N.D.
Cal., August 4, 2017), was brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Rocket Fuel Inc. against Rocket Fuel and its Board
of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act
and to enjoin the expiration of a tender offer, pursuant to which
Rocket Fuel will be acquired by Sizmek Inc., an affiliate of
Vector Capital IV, L.P. and Vector Capital V, L.P., and Sizmek's
wholly owned subsidiary Fuel Acquisition Co.

The Tender Offer commenced on August 2, 2017, and was scheduled to
expire at 12:00 midnight, New York City time, at the end of August
29, 2017. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $145
million.

According to the complaint, Rocket Fuel filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule that allegedly
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among
other things: (i) the data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by
the Company's financial advisor, Needham & Company, LLC; and (ii)
Rocket Fuel insiders' potential conflicts of interest.

Rocket Fuel is a technology company. The Company's core service
offerings are organized around two platforms: Demand Side Platform
and Data Management Platform.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Phone: 310/208-2800
     Fax: 310/209-2348

        - and -

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: 212/682-3025
     Fax: 212/682-3010


RP MARTIN: November 10 Euroyen Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Class Action Settlements

If you transacted in Euroyen-Based Derivatives1 between January 1,
2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive, then your rights will be
affected and you may be entitled to a benefit.

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of your rights in
connection with the proposed settlements with Settling Defendants
R.P. Martin Holdings Limited and Martin Brokers (UK) Ltd.
(collectively, "R.P. Martin"), Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A.,
Citibank Japan Ltd., and Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc.
(collectively, "Citi"), and HSBC Holdings plc and HSBC Bank plc
(collectively, "HSBC") in the actions titled Laydon v. Mizuho Bank
Ltd. et al., 12-cv-3419 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.) and Sonterra Capital
Master Fund, Ltd. et al. v. UBS AG et al., 15-cv-
5844 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.). The settlements with R.P. Martin, Citi, and
HSBC (collectively, the "Settlements") are not a settlement with
any other Defendant and thus are not dispositive of any of
Plaintiffs' claims against remaining Defendants.

The Settlements have been proposed in a class action lawsuit
concerning the alleged manipulation of the London Interbank
Offered Rate for the Japanese Yen ("Yen-LIBOR") and the Tokyo
Interbank Offered Rate ("Euroyen TIBOR") from January 1, 2006
through June 30, 2011, inclusive.  The Settlements will provide
$58 million to pay claims from persons who transacted in Euroyen-
Based Derivatives from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011,
inclusive.

If you qualify, you may send in a Proof of Claim form to
potentially get benefits, or you can exclude yourself from the
Settlements, or object to them.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312) authorized this
Notice.  Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a Fairness
Hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlements.

Who Is Included?
You are a "Settlement Class Member" if you purchased, sold, held,
traded, or otherwise had any interest in any Euroyen-Based
Derivatives at any time from January 1, 2006 through June 30,
2011, inclusive.  Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i)
Defendants and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or agent of any
Defendant; (ii) the Released Parties; and (iii) any Class
Member who files a timely and valid request for exclusion. Contact
your brokerage firm to see if you purchased, sold, or held
Euroyen-Based Derivatives.  If you are not sure you are included,
you can get more information, including the Settlement Agreements,
Mailed Notice, Plan of Allocation, Proof of Claim and other
important documents, at www.EuroyenSettlement.com ("Settlement
Website") or by calling toll free 1-866-217-4453.

What Is This Litigation About?
Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant, between January 1, 2006
through June 30, 2011, inclusive, manipulated or aided and abetted
the manipulation of Yen-LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the prices of
Euroyen-Based Derivatives.  Defendants allegedly did so by using
several means of manipulation.  For example, panel banks that made
the daily Yen-LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR submissions to the
British Bankers' Association and Japanese Bankers Association
(collectively, "Contributor Bank Defendants"), such as Citi and
HSBC, allegedly falsely reported their cost of borrowing in order
to financially benefit their Euroyen-Based Derivatives positions.
Contributor Bank Defendants also requested that other Contributor
Bank Defendants make false Yen-LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR submissions
on their behalf to benefit their Euroyen-Based Derivatives
positions.

Plaintiffs further allege that inter-dealer brokers,
intermediaries between buyers and sellers in the money markets and
derivatives markets (the "Broker Defendants"), such as R.P.
Martin, had knowledge of, and provided substantial assistance to,
the Contributor Bank Defendants' foregoing alleged manipulations
of Euroyen-Based Derivatives in violation of 22(a)(1) of the
Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 25(a)(1).  For example,
Contributor Bank Defendants used the Broker Defendants to
manipulate Yen-LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the prices of Euroyen-
Based Derivatives by disseminating false "Suggested LIBORs,"
publishing false market rates on broker screens, and publishing
false bids and offers into the market.

Plaintiffs have asserted legal claims under various theories,
including federal antitrust law, the Commodity Exchange Act, the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
and common law.

Citi, R.P. Martin, and HSBC have consistently and vigorously
denied Plaintiffs' allegations.

What Do the Settlements Provide?
Under the Settlements, Citi agreed to pay $23 million and HSBC
agreed to pay $35 million into a Settlement Fund.  If the Court
approves the Settlements, potential Settlement Class Members who
qualify and send in valid Proof of Claim forms may receive a share
of the Settlement Fund after it is reduced by the payment of
certain expenses.  The Settlement Agreements, available at the
Settlement Website, describe all of the details about the proposed
Settlements.  The exact amount each qualifying Settlement Class
Member will receive from the Settlement Fund cannot be calculated
until (1) the Court approves the Settlements; (2) certain amounts
identified in the full Settlement Agreements are deducted from the
Settlement Fund;
and (3) the number of participating Class Members and the amount
of their claims are determined.  In addition, each Settlement
Class Member's share of the Settlement Fund will vary depending on
the information the Settlement Class Member provides on their
Proof of Claim form.

The number of claimants who send in claims varies widely from case
to case.  If less than 100% of the Settlement Class sends in a
Proof of Claim form, you could get more money.

R.P. Martin, in order to resolve the claims against them, agreed
to provide cooperation (including documents, audio tapes,
transaction data, and other cooperation) to Plaintiffs' counsel
for the benefit of the Class.

How Do You Ask For a Payment?
If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may seek to participate
in the Settlements by submitting a Proof of Claim to the
Settlement Administrator at the address below postmarked no
later than January 24, 2017.  You may obtain a Proof of Claim on
the Settlement Website or by calling the toll-free number
referenced above.  If you are a Settlement Class Member but do not
file a Proof of Claim, you will still be bound by the releases set
forth in the Settlement Agreements if the Court enters an order
approving the Settlement Agreements.

What Are Your Other Options?
All requests to be excluded from the Settlements must be made in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement
Notice and must be postmarked to the Settlement Administrator no
later than October 6, 2016.  The Settlement Notice, available at
the Settlement Website, explains how to exclude yourself or
object. If you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
will not be bound by the Settlement Agreements and can
independently pursue claims at your own expense.  However, if you
exclude yourself, you will not be eligible to share in the
Net Settlement Fund or otherwise participate in the Settlements.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing in these cases on
November 10, 2016, to consider whether to approve the Settlements
and a request by the lawyers representing all Settlement Class
Members (Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C.) for an award of
attorneys' fees of no more than one-fourth of the Settlement Fund
for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating
the settlement, and for reimbursement of their costs and expenses
in the amount of no more than approximately $1,000,000. The
lawyers for the Settlement Class may also seek additional
reimbursement of fees, costs, and expenses in connection with
services provided after the Fairness Hearing.  These payments will
also be deducted from the Settlement Fund before any distributions
are made to the Settlement Class.

You may ask to appear at the Fairness Hearing, but you do not have
to.

For more information, call toll free 1-866-217-4453, visit the
website www.EuroyenSettlement.com.

1 "Euroyen-Based Derivatives" means (i) a Euroyen TIBOR futures
contract on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME"); (ii) a
Euroyen TIBOR futures contract on the Tokyo Financial Exchange,
Inc. ("TFX"), Singapore Exchange ("SGX"), or London International
Financial Futures and Options Exchange ("LIFFE") entered into by a
U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the
U.S.; (iii) a Japanese Yen currency futures contract
on the CME; (iv) a Yen-LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR based interest
rate swap entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or
through a location within the U.S.; (v) an option on a Yen-LIBOR
and/or Euroyen TIBOR based interest rate swap ("swaption") entered
into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location
within the U.S.; (vi) a Japanese Yen currency forward agreement
entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a
location within the U.S.; and/or (vii) a Yen-LIBOR and/or Euroyen
TIBOR based forward rate agreement entered
into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location
within the U.S.


PATRIOT DRILLING: "Woloszyn" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Woloszyn, individually and for others similarly situated v.
Patriot Drilling Fluids, Q'Max Solutions, and Q'Max America, Inc.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01076-NBF (W.D. Penn., August 16, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an oil and natural gas exploration and
production company operating throughout the United States,
including Ohio and Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412)766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

         - and -

      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 352-1100
      Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
      E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
              adunlap@mybackwages.com

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: 7th Cir. affirmed bankruptcy court judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court in favour
of Defendant Ira Bodenstein, Chapter 7 trustee in the case
captioned IN RE: PEREGRINE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Debtor. SECURE
LEVERAGE GROUP, INC., et al., Appellants, v. IRA BODENSTEIN,
Appellee, and COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Intervenor-
Appellee. IN RE: PEREGRINE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Debtor, ROBERT
MILLER, et al., Appellants, v. IRA BODENSTEIN, Trustee of Estate
of Peregrine Financial Group, Inc., Appellee. Nos. 16-3424, 16-
3425. (7th Cir.)

This is a consolidated appeal from judgments entered by the
bankruptcy court and affirmed by the district court in favor of
Ira Bodenstein, the Chapter 7 trustee of the estate of Peregrine
Financial Group (Peregrine).

After an adversary proceeding was terminated, another group of
customers including Robert Miller and others (Miller plaintiffs),
filed a class action adversary proceeding against Bodenstein,
alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
conversion, and seeking the imposition of a constructive trust.
As that claim was filed two years after the bar date for proofs of
claim, and involved claims based on facts unrelated to the timely
filed contract-based claims, the bankruptcy court dismissed the
action as untimely.

On appeal, the plaintiffs in this consolidated action challenge
the decisions of the bankruptcy court and the district court. The
Secured Leverage plaintiffs assert, inter alia,  that their funds
were held in a resulting trust and therefore were not included in
the bankruptcy estate; the forex and spot metal contracts
constituted commodity contracts under the similar contracts
clause, 11 U.S.C. Section 761(4)(F)(i).

The Seventh Circuit held that in a thorough and well-reasoned
opinion, the district court properly resolved all of those
challenges, and nothing that is argued in the briefs to the
Seventh Circuit leads it to disagree with the district court's
analysis.

Because the Seventh Circuit agrees with the reasoning and
conclusions of the district court as to all of the issues raised
on appeal, it adopts the district court's opinion set forth at
Secure Leverage Grp., Inc. v. Bodenstein, 558 B.R. 226, 231 (N.D.
Ill. 2016) as its own in this appeal.

The decision of the district court as to both appeals is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's August 7, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yadg45ztfrom Leagle.com.

Robert M. Fishman - rfishman@shawfishman.com - for Appellee.

Michael John O'Rourke, 4940 Beach Blvd, Jacksonville, FL 32207-
4858, for Appellant.

Michael C. Moody, 55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1400Chicago, IL
60601 for Appellant.

Terence G. Banich - tbanich@shawfishman.com - for Appellee.

Anne Stukes, 1700 K St NW, Washington, DC 20006 USA  for
Intervenor-Appellee.

Carrie Ellen Davenport, 321 N Clark St Ste 800 Chicago, IL 60654-
4766 for Appellee.

Kavita Kumar Puri - KAVITA.KUMAR.PURI@APORTER.COM - for
Intervenor-Appellee.

Vivian R. Drohan 575 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022 for
Appellant.

John Patrick Drohan, III, 575 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022
for Appellant.


PRECISION DEMOLITION: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Castro" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Arturo Castro filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Arturo Castro v. Precision Demolition, L.L.C., et
al., Case No. 3:15-CV-213, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged failure
to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The appellate case is captioned as Arturo Castro v. Precision
Demolition, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 17-10895, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ARTURO CASTRO, and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b), is represented by:

          Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
          6310 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
                  josh.a.petersen@gmail.com
                  rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net

Defendants-Appellees PRECISION DEMOLITION, L.L.C.; PRECISION
DEMOLITION, L.P.; HOLFORDS PRAIRIE PARTNERS, L.L.C.; RAYMOND D.
RICKER, III; and AARON SMITH are represented by:

          Darrell W. Smith, Esq.
          CUTLER-SMITH PC
          12750 Merit Drive
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Telephone: (214) 219-0800
          Facsimile: (214) 219-0854
          E-mail: darrell@cutler-smith.com


PRESTONE PRODUCTS: Faces CA Over Vehicle Damage Caused by Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that a
St. Louis consumer has filed a class-action lawsuit against a
vehicle maintenance products manufacturer, citing alleged false
representations.

Paul Weishaar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint in the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit
Court against Prestone Products Corp. alleging that the defendant
violated the Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in 2010, he
purchased the defendant's windshield wiper fluid, which was
advertised to protect vehicle wiper fluid systems from freezing
temperature. The plaintiff claims the wiper fluid froze and did
not perform as intended.

As a result, Weishaar and others claim they were forced to make
repairs to their vehicles to remedy the issues caused by freezing
windshield wiper fluid. They also claim they were at an increased
risk of accidents due to poor visibility.

The plaintiff holds Prestone Products responsible because the
defendant's product allegedly failed to perform as advertised, the
company allegedly omitted or suppressed material facts regarding
the product and made false promise and misrepresentation as the
product failed to protect down to the freezing temperature as
advertised and marketed for sale to the public.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment
individually and on behalf of the other members of the class, his
expenses, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest and for other relief that may be just and proper. He is
represented by Ryan P. Horace, Esq. -- ryan@swmwlaw.com -- of SWMW
Law, LLC in St. Louis and Steven J. Stolze, Esq. --
sstolze@allfela.com -- of Holland Law Firm in St. Louis.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC10829
[GN]


PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC: Hit With Potential Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Ryan Smith, writing for Insurance Business Magazine, reports that
Progressive Insurance is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit
accusing it of sharing clients' personal information.

The lawsuit accused Progressive Classic Insurance Co., a
progressive subsidiary, and debt-collection agency Kohn Law Firm,
of sharing people's driver's license numbers in court documents, a
violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The lead
plaintiff, Jeffrey George, accused the companies of putting his
unredacted driver's license number on court documents filed with
the Eu Claire County, Wisc., Circuit Court in 2014.

"The disclosure of plaintiff's unredacted driver's license number
amounts to an ongoing, unabated public nuisance under Wisconsin
law, as it constitutes unreasonable behavior and actions that
interfere substantially with plaintiff's use of the public
roadways," the lawsuit said.

The trouble began when George was involved in a car accident with
a Progressive customer. Progressive Classic initiated legal action
against him and won a judgment. Kohn Law Firm, acting on behalf of
Progressive Classic, notified the Wisconsin Department of Motor
Vehicles of the unpaid judgment using forms that contained
George's driver's license number.

The lawsuit is intended to represent a class whose driver's
license numbers the companies shared in court filings over the
last four years.

The lawsuit argued that the company "poses a public threat by
placing at risk, through publication of private information, the
safety and security of those with whom it does not have
contractual relations." [GN]


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: McCracken Appeals D. Colo. Order to 10th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Brenda McCracken and Christa Hecht filed an appeal from
a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled McCracken, et al. v.
Progressive Direct Ins. Co., et al., Case No. 1:17-CV-00114-CMA-
STV, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado -
Denver.

The lawsuit arose from insurance-related issues.

The appellate case is captioned as McCracken, et al. v.
Progressive Direct Ins. Co., et al., Case No. 17-1285, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of
      appearance were due August 28, 2017, for Christa Hecht
      and Brenda McCracken; and

   -- Notice of appearance were due on August 28, 2017, for
      Progressive Direct Insurance Company and Progressive
      Preferred Insurance Company.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants BRENDA MCCRACKEN and CHRISTA HECHT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
          Patricia A. Meester, Esq.
          Jonathan Steven Parrott, Esq.
          Keith R. Scranton, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014-0000
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          Facsimile: (303) 759-5203
          E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com
                  meesterp@fdazar.com
                  JParrott@fdazar.com
                  scrantonk@fdazar.com

               - and -

          Tonya L. Melnichenko, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES
          5536 Library Lane
          Colorado Springs, CO 80918-0000
          Telephone: (719) 527-8000
          E-mail: melnichenkot@fdazar.com

               - and -

          Bradley A. Levin, Esq.
          Susan S. Minamizono, Esq.
          Nelson Andrew Waneka, Esq.
          LEVIN SITCOFF
          1512 Larimer Street, Suite 650
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 575-9390
          E-mail: bal@robertslevin.com
                  ssm@levinsitcoff.com
                  naw@levinsitcoff.com

Defendants-Appellees PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY and
PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by:

          Casie D. Collignon, Esq.
          Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
          Sammantha Jeannine Tillotson, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street, Suite 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-0600
          E-mail: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com
                  pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com
                  jtillotson@TillotsonLaw.com


PW BISHOP: Knepp Seeks to Recover OT and Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KNEPP and other similarly situated non-exempt employees v.
P.W. BISHOP DAIRY, INC. a Florida Profit Corporation and HAMILTON
L. BISHOP, Individually, Case No. 2017-018372-CA-01 (Fla. Cir.
Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., July 31, 2017), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid overtime and minimum wages, as well as an additional amount
as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

P.W. Bishop Dairy, Inc., has its main place of business in Miami
Dade County, Florida.  The Defendant operated as an organization,
which sells and markets its dairy services and goods to customers
throughout the United States.  Hamilton L. Bishop is a corporate
officer of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattomeys.com
                  bshulman@rgpattorneys.com


ROTOR HOLDINGS: Cohn Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY COHN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. ROTOR HOLDINGS, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, and PAUL
TUROVSKY. Individually, Case No. 2:17-cv-00438-UA-CM (M.D. Fla.,
July 31, 2017), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages,
liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Rotor Holdings, Inc., doing business as LTO, is a Florida Profit
Corporation with a principal place of business in Fort Myers,
Florida.  Paul Turovsky, a resident of Lee County, Florida,
manages and operates LTO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bill B. Berke, Esq.
          BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A.
          4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
          Cape Coral, FL 33904
          Telephone: (239) 549-6689
          E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com


ROYAL PLAINVIEW: Romero Files Class Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Royal Plainview Car
Wash Inc. The case is styled as Alexander Romero as assignee of,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Royal Plainview Car Wash Inc. and Qin Hu Qu, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-04859 (E.D. N.Y., August 18, 2017).

Royal Plainview Car Wash Inc. is engaged in the cash wash
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Appeals Order in "Benoit" PFOA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., and Honeywell
International Inc., filed an appeal from a District Court order
entered on August 2, 2017, in the lawsuit styled as THELMA BENOIT
AND DAVID BENOIT v. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP., AND
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-930, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York.

The appellate case is captioned as THELMA BENOIT AND DAVID BENOIT
v. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP., AND HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL INC., Case No. 17-2494, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Defendants-Appellants want the Second Circuit to determine
whether:

   * under Caronia v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 22 N.Y.3d 439, 446
     (2013), an asymptomatic plaintiff may state a claim in tort
     for medical monitoring damages by alleging accumulation of
     an allegedly harmful substance in the plaintiff's body; and

   * under 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia
     Center, Inc., 96 N.Y.2d 280 (2001), a plaintiff may state a
     claim in tort for economic harm alone in the form of
     diminution of property value without alleging physical
     injury to the subject property.

The action concerns the presence of perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA"), a hazardous substance, in groundwater in Hoosick Falls,
New York.  PFOA is a compound that repels oil, grease, and water,
and was widely used by many companies for decades to manufacture
numerous products, including food packaging, clothing, furniture
fabrics, and cookware.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents THELMA BENOIT AND DAVID BENOIT are
represented by:

          Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
          Tate J. Kunkle, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (844) 230-7676
          E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com
                  tkunkle@napolilaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner Saint- Gobain Performance Plastics
Corporation is represented by:

          Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq.
          Mark S. Cheffo, Esq.
          Douglas E. Fleming, III, Esq.
          Patrick D. Curran, Esq.
          Lincoln Davis Wilson, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
          51 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com
                  markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com
                  douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com
                  patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com
                  lincolnwilson@quinnemanuel.com

Defendant-Petitioner Honeywell International Inc. is represented
by:

          Michael D. Daneker, Esq.
          Elissa J. Preheim, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 942-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
          E-mail: Michael.Daneker@aporter.com
                  Elissa.Preheim@aporter.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Beture Sues Over Galaxy Note 4 Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------
ERMIAS BETURE, ELISHA POLOMSKI, and JAMES SAMUELSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, Defendant, Case No: 2:17-cv-05757-
SRC-CLW (D.N.J., August 4, 2017), is a consumer suit brought by
Plaintiffs who allege that Samsung concealed a known material
defect in Samsung Galaxy Note 4 and Galaxy Note 4 Edge
smartphones.  The defective component is the eMMC (embedded
MultiMediaCard) memory, which prematurely fails, rendering Galaxy
Note 4 smartphones inoperable, says the complaint.

Defendant allegedly knew or should have known about the eMMC
memory defect, and despite this knowledge, it failed to disclose
the defect to purchasers of Note 4 phones. Defendant then unjustly
profited on this omission by routinely refusing to provide repairs
free of charge, the complaint adds.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics
and digital products in the United States. Plaintiffs purchased
Galaxy Note 4 phones.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gary "Graifman, Esq.
     KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
     210 Summit Avenue
     Montvale, NJ 07645
     Phone: (201) 391-7000

        - and -

     Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
     Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
     MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
     412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302
     Washington, DC 20002
     Phone: (202) 470-3520


SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Faces "Pike" Suit in C.D. of Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of San
Bernardino. The case is styled as Penny Pike and David Denkin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
County of San Bernardino a legal subdivision of the State of
California and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-
01680 (C.D. Cal., August 18, 2017).

County of San Bernardino a legal subdivision of the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


SCICLONE PHARMA: Faces "Sciabacucchi" Suit Over Silver Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Sciabacucchi, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Sciclone Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jon S. Saxe,
Friedhelm Blobel, Nancy T. Chang, Richard J. Hawkins, Gregg
Anthony Lapointe, Simon Li, Silver Biotech Investment Limited, and
Silver Delaware Investment Limited, Case No. 4:17-cv-04799-JSW
(N.D. Cal., August 17, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction
announced on June 8, 2017, pursuant to which SciClone
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. will be acquired by Silver Biotech
Investment Limited and its wholly owned subsidiary, Silver
Delaware Investment Limited and together with Parent, which were
formed by a consortium consisting of entities affiliated with GL
Capital Management GP Limited, Bank of China Group Investment
Limited, CDH Investments, Ascendent Capital Partners, and Boying
Investment Limited for $11.18 in cash for each share of SciClone.

According to the complaint, Sciclone filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A 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 concerning, among other things:
(i) the Company's unlevered free cash flows to be generated by
each of the Company's products and product candidates, estimated
future net cash, and the estimated future general and
administrative expenses, as well as the line items used to
calculate the unlevered free cash flows; (ii) the inputs and
assumptions underlying the discount rate range of 9.5% to 11.5%;
(iii) Lazard's bases for applying each of the terminal growth rate
ranges for each of the Company's products and product candidates,
and the estimated future general and administrative expenses; (iv)
the exit multiples implied from the analysis; and (v) the
Company's estimated cash balance as of July 30, 2017, as used by
Lazard in its analysis. The Complaint says the Proposed
Transaction will unlawfully divest Sciclone'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.

Sciclone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a revenue-generating, specialty
pharmaceutical company with a substantial commercial business in
China and a product portfolio spanning major therapeutic markets
including 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

         - and -

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com


SELECT STAFFING: Faces "Joseph III" Suit in C.D. of Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Select Staffing. The
case is styled as Edward Joseph III, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Select Staffing, Insight
Worldwide, Inc. and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-06134 (C.D. Cal., August 18, 2017).

Select Staffing is a provider of temporary staffing and employment
services in the U.S., with nationwide operations across multiple
contingent staffing sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SENIOR LIFESTYLE: Illegally Uses Biometric Data, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Gutierrez and Jessica Arreola, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Senior Lifestyle Corporation, and
SLH North Shore Management, LLC, and Automatic Data Processing,
Inc., Case No. 2017-CH-11314 (Ill. Cir. Ct., August 17, 2017),
seeks to put a stop to the Defendants' unlawful collection, use,
and storage of the Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class's sensitive
biometric data.

Senior Lifestyle Corporation and SLH North Shore Management, LLC
operate a retirement and assisted living facilities in the State
of Illinois.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. is a provider of human resource
management software and services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Sydney Janzen, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              sjanzen@edclson.com

         - and -

      David Fish, Esq.
      John Kunze, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Telephone: (630) 355-7590
      Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
      E-mail: dtish@fishlawfinn.com
              jkunze@fishlawfinn.com


SHERWIN WILLIAMS: Faces "Lafferty" Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Sherwin Williams
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Brad Lafferty in their
capacity of Guardians Ad Litem of their minor daughter, EL, a
minor, Christen Lafferty in their capacity of guardians ad litem
of their minor daughter, el, a minor, Corrine Procajlo, Lauren
Procajlo, Sandra Keating, Michael Digiovanni, Spencer Pope, Lisa
Digiovanni, Gina Tartaglia, Anthony Tartaglia, Scott Littlefield
in their capacity of Guardians Ad Litem of their minor daughter,
LL, a minor, Kristen Littlefield, in their capacity of Guardians
Ad Litem of their minor daughter, LL, a minor, Dawn D'Orazio, Gina
Hyndman in their individual capacity and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Sherwin Williams Company,
Inc and John Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-06321-JHR-AMD (D. NJ., August 22, 2017).

The Sherwin-Williams Company is engaged in the development,
manufacture, distribution and sale of paint, coatings and related
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig R. Mitnick, Esq.
   35 KINGS HIGHWAY EAST
   Haddonfield, NJ 08033
   Tel: (856) 427-9000


SIBANYE GOLD: Silicosis CA Lawsuit 'Being Handled' Out Of Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Masa Kekana, writing for Eye Witness News, reports that the mining
companies facing a class action lawsuit to compensate miners who
contracted lung cancer have provisionally set aside between $30
million and $100 million for a possible settlement.

They say the matter is being handled out of court.

The companies involved include Sibanye Gold, Harmony Gold Mining,
African Rainbow Minerals, Anglo American South Africa, Anglo Gold
Ashanti and Gold Fields.

The mining companies involved, known as the industry working
group, say they do not believe they are liable in respect of the
claims brought.

However, the companies say they're committed to finding solutions
to what they've called "a legacy issue" in the sector.

The group is appealing the 2013 Johannesburg High Court ruling for
them to compensate workers who contracted silicosis at work.

The 2013 ruling found that if the person is already deceased,
their dependents should be compensated.

But spokesperson for the working group representing the six
companies, Allen Sine, says that the companies don't agree with
aspects of the ruling.

"They all believe they have a legitimate case to make. However,
neither the companies or claimants believe it would be best to
pursue this through the courts for the next 10 to 15 years."

The case will be heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal in March.
[GN]


SK FOODS: Court Issues Final Judgment as to Ingomar, Los Gatos
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, Sacramento Division, issued final judgment Order as to
Defendants Ingomar Packaging Company, Gregory Pruett, Los Gatos
Tomato Products and Stuart Woolf in the case captioned FOUR IN ONE
COMPANY, INC., DIVERSIFIED FOODS & SEASONINGS, INC., BRUCE FOODS
CORPORATION, and CLIFFSTAR CORPORATION, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SK FOODS, L.P.,
INGOMAR PACKING COMPANY, LOS GATOS TOMATO PRODUCTS, SCOTT SALYER,
STUART WOOLF and GREG PRUETT, Defendants, Case No. 08-CV-3017 KJM
EFB (E.D. Cal.).

The Court entered an Order granting Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement with Defendants Ingomar Packing Company and Greg
Pruett (Ingomar) and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement with Los Gatos Tomato Products and Stuart Woolf (Los
Gatos). The Order specified the approved manner that the claims
administrator was to provide Class Notice to the Settlement Class.

The Court dismisses on the merits and with prejudice the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint as to Ingomar Packing Company,
Greg Pruett, Los Gatos Tomato Products and Stuart Woolf.

If the Settlement Agreement becomes null and void pursuant to the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Final Judgment will be
deemed vacated and will have no force or effect whatsoever as to
that Settlement Agreement.

Without affecting the finality of the Final Judgment in any way,
the Court reserves continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the
parties, including all Class members, and the execution,
consummation, administration, and enforcement of the terms of the
Settlement Agreements.

The Court finds there is no just reason for delay in the entry of
final judgment as to Defendants Ingomar Packing Company, Greg
Pruett, Los Gatos Tomato Products and Stuart Woolf, and therefore
directs the Clerk to enter the Final Judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 7, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y7vvhn2gfrom Leagle.com.

Four in One Company, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N.
Bailey, - abailey@hausfeldllp.com - Hausfeld LLP.

Four in One Company, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Dana Statsky
Smith, - Dsmith@bernlieb.com - Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, pro hac
vice, Donald A. Ecklund, Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi
Stewart & Olstein, 5 Becker Farm RoadRoseland, NJ 07068 pro hac
vice, James E. Cecchi, Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi,
Stewart and Olstein, pro hac vice, Joey Dean Horton -
jdhorton@quinnemanuel.com -  Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan
LLP, Ronald J. Aranoff - raranoff@wmd-law.com - Wollmuth Maher &
Deutsch LLP, pro hac vice, Stanley D. Bernstein -
Bernstein@bernlieb.com - Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Steig D. Olson
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, pro hac vice, Stephaine M. Beige -: Beige@bernlieb.com -
Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen R. Neuwirth -
stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver &
Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice & Tania T. Taveras, Bernstein Liebhard,
LLP, pro hac vice.

Cliffstar Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N. Bailey,
Hausfeld LLP, Steig D. Olson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, pro hac vice, Allan Steyer - asteyer@stayerlaw.com - Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Holly Joy Stirling -
hstirling@cov.com - Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith,
LLP, Lucas E. Gilmore - Lucas.Gilmore@blbglaw.com - Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP & Bruce L. Simon, Pearson, Simon,
Warshaw & Penny.

SK Foods, L.P., Defendant, represented by Paul Robert Griffin,
- pgriffin@winston.com -  Winston & Strawn LLP, Robert Bernard
Pringle - rpringle@winston.com -  Winston and Strawn & Jonathan E.
Swartz, Winston and Strawn LLP.

Randall Rahal, Defendant, represented by David Warren Dratman, -
dwdratman@aol.com  - David W. Dratman, Attorney at Law.
Intramark USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Warren
Dratman, David W. Dratman, Attorney at Law.

Scott Salyer, Defendant, represented by Malcolm S. Segal, Segal &
Associates, PC. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2550, Sacramento, CA
95814, Tel. (916) 441-0886

Bradley D. Sharp, Chapter 11 Trustee for SK Foods, LP, Defendant,
represented by Gregory C. Nuti - gnuti@nutihart.com -  Nuti Hart
LLP & Kevin W. Coleman, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP.
United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Sean C.
Flynn, United States Attorney's Office.

US Department of Justice, Intervenor, represented by Anna Tryon
Pletcher, US DOJ/Antitrust Division, Richard B. Cohen, Department
of Justice/Antitrust Division & Tai Snow Milder, U.S. DOJ -
Antitrust Division.

Bruce Foods Corporation, Neutral, represented by Alexandra S.
Bernay - xandb@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Bonny E. Sweeney - bsweeney@hausfled.com - Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman and Robbins LLP, Carmen Anthony Medici -
cmedici@rdrglaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Christopher L. Lebsock - clebsock@hausfeld.com - Hausfeld Llp,
Craig C. Corbitt -  ccorbitt@zelle.com - Zelle Hofmann Voelbel &
Mason, LLP, Hilary K. Ratway, Hausfeld, LLP, Allan Steyer -
asteyer@steyerlaw.com - Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez &
Smith LLP, Arthur N. Bailey - abailey@hausfeld.com - Hausfeld LLP,
Holly Joy Stirling - hstirling@cov.com -Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith, LLP, Kimberly Ann Kralowec,
- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com -  The Kralowec Law Group, Lucas E.
Gilmore, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP & Roger M.
Schrimp, Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva.
Diversified Foods and Seasonings, Inc., Neutral, represented by
Arthur N. Bailey, Hausfeld LLP, Eric B. Fastiff -
efastiff@lchb.com - Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein & Joseph
R. Saveri - jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com - Saveri Law Firm.
Morning Star Packing Company, Neutral, represented by Alex James
Kachmar, Jr. - jkachmar@weintraub.com  - Weintraub Genshlea
Chediak Tobin & Tobin.

L'Ottavo Ristorante, et al., Neutral, represented by Jeff S.
Westerman -- jwesterman@jswlegal.com - Westerman Law Corp.


SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Nassiri"
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued Order granting the motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint filed by Defendants William Villasenor and Dulce
Sanchez in the case captioned MOHAMMAD NASSIRI, et al., Plaintiff,
Plaintiffs, v. NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social
Security, Social Security Administration; Supervisor Mary Hagar;
Duke Duc Tran; SSA Agent Nicholas Pilcher, SSA Agent Sundeep
Patel, William Villasenor, and Dulce Sanchez, Defendants, Case No.
15cv0583-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal.), and ordered the Plaintiffs to show
cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.

The matters before the Court are the motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint filed by Defendants William Villasenor and Dulce
Sanchez and the order to show cause why this case should not be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint (FAC).

Among other named Defendants, Plaintiffs brought suit against
unknown SSA Agents Nick, SSA-Agent 2, and other SSA Armed Agents
Plaintiffs alleged that agents of the Social Security
Administration (SSA) barged into their homes and questioned them
in retaliation for filing affidavits in Phan et al v. Colvin,
13cv2036-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal. 2013).  In Phan et al v. Colvin,
plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent a SSA administrative
law judge from conducting proceedings to suspend attorney
Alexandra Manbeck from practice of social security law.

Contentions of the Parties

Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez move the Court to dismiss the
claims against them on the grounds that the TAC fails to state any
factual or legal basis to support liability. Defendants Villasenor
and Sanchez contend that the allegation in the TAC that they are
investigators with the Los Angeles Cooperative Disability
Investigations Unit (CDI) fails to establish any connection with
the claim that federal agents questioned Plaintiffs about the
authenticity and accuracy of affidavits in retaliation for filing
affidavits in the Phan, et al v. Colvin case.

Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez further assert that they are
entitled to absolute immunity for any acts alleged in the TAC.

Plaintiffs contend that the TAC sufficiently alleges that
Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez appeared at the home of
Plaintiff Thai in January 2014 for the purpose of interfering with
Thai's attorney-client relationship in retaliation for the filing
of Thai's affidavit in the Phan et al v. Colvin case. Plaintiffs
assert that absolute immunity does not apply under the allegations
of the TAC.

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, Plaintiffs
must show that (1) Defendants acted under color of state law and
(2) Defendants caused them to be deprived of a right secured by
the constitution and laws of the United States.

In this case, the Court finds that the TAC does not allege
sufficient facts to support allegations that Defendants Villasenor
and Sanchez acted under color of state law. The Court grants the
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Villasenor
and Sanchez on the grounds that the allegations of the TAC do not
support the exercise of jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, 42 U.S.C.

Section 1985 and the California Constitution, civil rights
statutes and common law based on the fact that the state agents
conspired with SSA to deprive plaintiffs of their civil rights and
access to courts" as alleged in the TAC.

The motion to dismiss the TAC filed by Defendants William
Villasenor and Dulce Sanchez is granted.

The Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of
proving that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims
brought under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Federal Torts
Claims Act, and the Social Security Act. The Court says it has
repeatedly concluded that Plaintiffs' allegations are not
sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and
1985.

The Court concludes that it is required at this stage in the
proceedings to order Plaintiffs to show cause whether the
remaining Defendants can be sued for damages under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971) in light of Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S.Ct. 1843 (2017).

The motion to dismiss the third amended complaint filed by
Defendants William Villasenor and Dulce Sanchez is granted.

Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause why this case should not be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 7, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yabu69m7from Leagle.com.

Mohammad Nassiri, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck,
Law Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck. 4531 University Avenue, San
Diego, CA 92105.

Diep Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck,
Law Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck.

Anh Van Thai, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck, Law
Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck.

Duc Huynh, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck, Law
Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck.

Trai Chau, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck, Law
Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck.

Hoi Cuu Quan Nhan VNCH, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T.
Manbeck, Law Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck.

Roes 1-100, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck, Law
Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck.

United States of America, Defendant, represented by Daniel Everett
Butcher, US Attorneys Office Southern District of California &
Valerie Torres, U.S. Attorney's Office.

William Villasenor, Defendant, represented by Christie Bodnar
Swiss -- cswiss@ccmslaw.com -- Collins Collins Muir and Stewart
LLP, Tomas Antonio Guterres -- tguterres@ccmslaw.com -- Collins
Collins Muir & Stewart & Megan K. Lieber -- mlieber@ccmslaw.com --
Collins Collins Muir Stewart.

Dulce Sanchez, Defendant, represented by Christie Bodnar Swiss,
Collins Collins Muir and Stewart LLP, Tomas Antonio Guterres,
Collins Collins Muir & Stewart & Megan K. Lieber, Collins Collins
Muir Stewart.


STRATEGIC HOTELS: Faces "White" Suit in N.D. of Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strategic Hotels &
Resorts, LLC. The case is styled as Patrick White, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
Strategic Hotels & Resorts, LLC and Four Seasons Hotels Limited, a
Canada corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04867 (N.D. Cal.,
August 22, 2017).

Strategic Hotels & Resorts is an American REIT in the hospitality
industry.  It was publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange
as BEE. The company owns 18 luxury hotels, 17 of which are located
in the United States and one of which is in Germany.[BN]

The Plaintiff appear PRO SE.


SUPPORTBUDDY INC: Accused by "Ramirez" Suit of Placing Malwares
---------------------------------------------------------------
TARA RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUPPORTBUDDY INC. and JOHN DOES #1-10, said names
being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown, Case
No. 7:17-cv-05781-VB (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2017), accuses the
Defendant of engaging in an unfair and deceptive online scam in
which it markets a solution to a computer problem it created.

Specifically, Ms. Ramirez alleges, the Defendant causes or assists
in malware to be present and active on the computers of Internet
users when they are online, thereby, taking control of the
operation of the Users' computers and Web browsers.  The Malware
essentially renders the User's computer inoperable and provides a
telephone number for the Defendant, which the Internet Users use
to contact the Defendant.  The Defendant then charges the Users
exorbitant rates to remove its Malware from their computers and to
remedy the problems its Malware caused, the Plaintiff further
alleges.

SupportBuddy Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the
state of California and its headquarters are located in
Bakersfield, California.  The Defendant is a for-hire, third-party
computer technical support provider. The true names of the Doe
Defendants are presently unknown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  ggranade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          HALUNEN LAW
          1650 IDS Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com


SYMPHONY HEALTHCARE: Illegally Uses Biometric Data, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marquita McDonald, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Symphony Healthcare LLC and Symphony
Bronzeville Park LLC, Case No. 2017-CH-11311 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Augst
17, 2017), seeks to put a stop to the Defendants' unlawful
collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiffs' and the proposed
Class's sensitive biometric data.

The Defendants operate a network of post-acute care facilities
with over twenty locations throughout the State of Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Sydney Janzen, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              sjanzen@edclson.com

         - and -

      David Fish, Esq.
      John Kunze, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Telephone: (630) 355-7590
      Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
      E-mail: dtish@fishlawfinn.com
              jkunze@fishlawfinn.com


THYME & BASIL: "Rolando" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Rolando and Benito Garcia, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Thyme & Basil, Inc. d/b/a Columbus
Natural Food, Columbus Natural Food Inc. d/b/a Columbus Natural
Food, Anne Cottavoz, PAUL Cottavoz and John Does 1-10, Case No.
1:17-cv-06194 (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a health market/restaurant doing
business as Columbus Natural Food located at 725 Columbus Avenue,
New York, New York 10025. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


U.S. BANCORP: Dodges Proposed Class Action Over Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, reports that an Ohio federal
judge shut down a proposed class action bringing breach of
contract claims against U.S. Bank for allegedly underpaying
nonexempt workers, ruling on August 17 that the plaintiff didn't
provide definite proof he had a binding employment contract with
the financial institution.

Debt collector Louis Hopkins accused U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank
National Association of breaching compensation agreements by
paying hourly workers for only 2,080 hours across 24 pay periods
annually, even if there were more work hours based on a year that
had 365 or 366 days.

But U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Black said Hopkins couldn't
bring a breach of contract claim because no contract had been
reached between Hopkins and U.S. Bank. The terms of the alleged
agreement at the time of his job offer were too indefinite to be a
binding contract, Judge Black said.

"Plaintiff's own retelling of the alleged agreement confirms that
there was no agreement as to the exact wage plaintiff would be
paid, the most essential term of an employment contract," Judge
Black said.

Judge Black also said that even if there was an unwritten contract
where Hopkins agreed to be paid $15 per hour, the bank wouldn't
have breached its contract with him based on what he was paid.

"Even at plaintiff's lowest salary, 2,080 hours at $15.68 per hour
is greater pay than the 2096 hours at $15 per hour that plaintiff
has alleged he was promised," Judge Black said. "Defendant more
than adequately compensated plaintiff even if the oral agreement
alleged by plaintiff is considered a binding contract."

The order dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

In his suit, Hopkins says he earned between $15 and about $19 an
hour working as a debt collector for U.S. Bank starting in July
2012 through mid-June 2015. He claimed that the bank didn't pay
nonexempt employees for all hours worked  --  compensating them
for 2,080 hours worked divided into 24 pay periods, even though
the years contained either 2,088 or 2,096 work hours.

The case was initially filed in May 2016, but Judge Black ordered
the plaintiffs to amend their complaint in September. At that
time, Judge Black said Hopkins failed to specifically identify or
describe the circumstances under which a contractual arrangement
was reached, according to court records.

The amended complaint, filed in October, added details that said
Hopkins was told he would be paid about $15 an hour when he was
offered a job at his initial interview. He also said he received a
letter with a conditional offer of employment, according to the
court's history of the case.

U.S. Bank's latest motion to dismiss, filed in October, said
Hopkins was paid in accordance with his offer letter and
consistent terms  --  and that he failed to establish any
plausible evidentiary foundation for a breach of contract claim.

In addition to ruling that Hopkins' description of an offer
agreement was too indefinite, Judge Black also said on August 17
that the letter he received with a conditional offer "expressly
disavowed the creation of a contract" and "cannot itself be the
basis for any alleged contract to pay plaintiff hourly."

Representatives for the parties didn't immediately respond to
requests for comment on August 17.

Hopkins is represented by Carlos V. Leach, Esq. and C. Ryan
Morgan, Esq. of Morgan & Morgan PA and Barry D. Levy, Esq. and W.
Matthew Nakajima, Esq. of O'Connor Acciani & Levy LPA.

U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank National Association are represented by
Tracy Stott Pyles, Esq. -- tpyles@littler.com -- Andrew J. Voss,
Esq. -- avoss@littler.com -- and Anthony de Sam Lazaro, Esq --
alazaro@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC.

The case is Hopkins v. U.S. Bancorp et al., case number 1:16-cv-
00552, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to Settle 'Refer-A-Friend' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Uber
is moving toward a $20 million settlement of a class action
lawsuit by a group accusing the ride-hailing company of breaking
federal law in how it sent "Refer-A-Friend" promotional messages
to prospective new customers.

In a motion filed Aug. 11 in federal court in Chicago, lawyers for
a putative class asked U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin to
sign off on a preliminary approval of class action settlement with
Uber Technologies Inc. The agreement would wrap up more than two
years of litigation in courts across the country as well as
mediated negotiations by establishing a $20 million common fund
for settlement classes and Uber agreeing to stop sending text
messages alleged to violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Under terms of the agreement, lawyers for the plaintiffs -- the
Chicago office of McGuire Law P.C., and the Washington, D.C., firm
of Tycko & Zavareei LLP -- asked to be certified as class counsel
and indicated they would ask for one third of the settlement fund,
a maximum of $6.6 million.

In the motion, the plantiffs' attorneys said the settlement
represents "an extraordinary result" that "would bring meaningful
relief to consumers as well as certainty and closure to what has
been, and likely would continue to be, highly contentions and
costly litigation."

According to the motion, the underlying issue is Uber's Refer-A-
Friend program. Through its text messaging vendor, Twilio Inc.,
Uber asked its clients to authorize sending messages to their
contacts to advertise both the ride-sharing service and the
opportunity to be a paid Uber driver. The plaintiffs said Uber
gives referral fees of $250 to $500 to current drivers who help
conscript new drivers.

But, the motion noted, "many Refer-a-Friend messages have been
received by individuals who have no connection to Uber or the
referring individual, and thus did not provide their prior express
consent to receive such messages." Further, even for those text
recipients who did have a connection to Uber, the company "failed
to adopt sufficient measures to obtain valid prior express
consent."

Beyond that, the plaintiffs said Uber's system didn't adequately
recognize or honor requests to stop sending messages, even in
instances where people sent repeatedly asked to stop being sent
solicitations. The original complaint cited one Federal Trade
Commission complaint in which a person said Uber "texted me on
Christmas Eve at 1:44 a.m. and 4:10 a.m. I returned texts saying
STOP. I wrote them an email asking them to remove my number from
their lists. And I'm still getting text messages."

The plaintiffs also said Uber's process for establishing an
account lacks sufficient procedures to confirm the accuracy of
information its prospective users submit, meaning many of the
numbers that end up in the company's database are incorrect,
compounding the issue of text messages going to people who have no
desire to be an Uber customer or driver.

With complaints filed in Illinois and California, Uber and the
plaintiffs began exploring a settlement. According to the
plaintiffs' lawyers, both sides consented to mediation on May 23
in hopes a settlement would help avoid the uncertainties of Uber's
motion for judgment in Illinois balanced against pending class
certification or summary judgment in California.

Former U.S. District Judge Layn R. Phillips oversaw the full day
of negotiations resulting in the agreed-upon conditions, executing
a term sheet on June 14. If Durkin allows, the settlement would
establish three classes  --  one for anyone who got a Refer-a-
Friend text; a second for those who started but did not complete
the driver application process; and a third for those who had no
contact with Uber but nonetheless got any sort of non-emergency
text message from the company.

Uber also would completely discontinue the Refer-a-Friend program
on cellphones it issues to requesting drivers, "maintain the
robust opt-out protocol" instituted after plaintiffs filed their
original complaints and take several steps to reduce incidence of
contacting incorrect phone numbers, including automatic deletion
from its rolls of any unverified numbers.

Uber was represented in the action by attorneys with the firms of
Morrison & Foerster LLP, of New York; Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
of San Francisco; and Ellis Legal P.C., of Chicago. [GN]


WAFFLE HOUSE: 11th Cir. Vacates Denial of Arbitration in "Jones"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, issued an
Opinion vacating the district court's denial of Waffle House,
Inc.'s motion to compel in the appeals case captioned WILLIAM
JONES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC., a Georgia corporation,
WH CAPITAL, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, Defendants-
Appellants, THE SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA, L.P., a foreign limited
partnership doing business as Publicdata.com, et al., Defendants,
No. 16-15574 (11th Cir.), and remanded the case with instructions
to stay the case pending arbitration.

In this appeal, Waffle House challenges the denial of its motion
to compel arbitration.

William Jones applied for a job at a Florida Waffle House in
Ormond Beach in December 2014 but was rejected by the store. Jones
sued Waffle House and various data-reporting companies in federal
district court, claiming that the defendants violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by failing to give him a copy of the
background checks that were run on him in connection with his job
application and by failing to give him an opportunity to dispute
those background checks.  Jones also sought class relief, seeking
to represent a class of United States residents who applied for
employment or were employed with Waffle House in the preceding
five years against whom Waffle House took adverse employment
actions based on a background check.

Later on, Jones applied for and gained employment at a Waffle
House store in Kansas City, Missouri. In connection with his
employment, Jones signed an arbitration agreement that covered all
claims and controversies, past, present, or future, arising out of
any aspect of or pertaining in any way to his employment.
The agreement also included a delegation provision requiring that
the Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or
agency, shall have authority to resolve any dispute relating to
the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of
the Agreement.

After careful review, the Eleventh Circuit concludes that the
district court erred in denying Waffle House's motion to compel
arbitration.  The arbitration agreement contains a broad, valid,
and enforceable delegation provision that expresses the parties'
clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate gateway questions of
arbitrability, including questions concerning the interpretation,
applicability, enforceability, and formation of the agreement. In
the face of the Federal Arbitration Act's clear preference for and
presumption in favor of arbitration, we are obliged to enforce the
parties' clear intent to arbitrate these issues.

The Eleventh Circuit likewise rejects Jones's claims that the
arbitration agreement improperly interfered with the district
court's managerial authority over class actions or that the
agreement amounted to an improper ex parte communication with a
represented party.

Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit vacates the district court's
denial of Waffle House's motion to compel and remand with
instructions to stay the case pending arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's August 7, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycbbt8j5from Leagle.com.

Richard Wade Smith, for Defendant-Appellant.

Ronald I. Raether, Jr. - ronald.raether@troutmansanders.com -  for
Defendant-Appellant.

Thomas Holland Loffredo - tom.loffredo@gray-robinson.com - for
Defendant-Appellant.

Alexandria Kachadoorian - Alexandria@counselonegroup.com - for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

John C. Lynch - john.lynch@troutmansanders.com -  for Defendant-
Appellant.

David Michael Gettings - david.gettings@troutmansanders.com  - for
Defendant-Appellant.

Joshua H. Eggnatz -  JEggnatz@ElpLawyers.com - for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Michael James Pascucci - MPascucci@ELPLawyers.com - for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Anthony J. Orshansky - antohony@counselonegroup.com - for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Justin Kachadoorian - justin@counselonegroup.com - for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Mark C. Mao - mark.mao@troutmansanders.com -  for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Timothy St. George - tim.stgeorge@troutmansanders.com -  for
Plaintiff-Appellee.


WANTAGH BAGELS: Faces "Garcia" Suit in E.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wantagh Bagels Inc.
The case is styled as Ismael Antonio Hernandez Garcia, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wantagh
Bagels Inc., Wantagh Bagels, Ralph Facchini and Peter Casella,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04924 (E.D. N.Y., August 21, 2017).

Wantagh Bagels Inc. is engaged in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


WELLS FARGO: Preston Sues Over Forced, Unnecessary Auto Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH PRESTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY AND WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
D/B/A WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES, Case No. 3:17-cv-04346-JD (N.D.
Cal., July 31, 2017), arises from the Defendants' practice of
forcing hundreds of thousands of borrowers to pay for unnecessary
and expensive auto insurance.

Beginning as early as 2006, Wells Fargo Dealer Services required
its direct auto loan customers to have comprehensive and collision
auto insurance for the vehicle that was the subject of the loan,
according to the complaint.  If the customer did not have such
insurance or did not provide evidence of it, Wells Fargo purchased
it for the customer, at the customer's expense.  Wells Fargo
referred to this as Collateral Protection Insurance.

Wells Fargo & Company is incorporated in Delaware with its
principal place of business in San Francisco, California.  Wells
Fargo & Company is a financial services company with $2 trillion
in assets, and provides banking, insurance, investments, mortgage,
and consumer and commercial finance through more than 8,500
locations, 13,000 ATMs, and the Internet.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is a national banking association
chartered under the laws of the United States with its primary
place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.  Wells Fargo
Bank provides Wells Fargo & Company personal and commercial
banking services, and is Wells Fargo & Company's principal
subsidiary.

Wells Fargo Bank, doing business as Wells Fargo Dealer Services,
provided the auto lending services that are the subject of the
action.  Wells Fargo Dealer Services is Wells Fargo's auto lending
business and part of its Consumer Lending division.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          801 Garden Street, Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
          E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Alison S. Gaffney, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  agaffney@kellerrohrback.com


WEST LIBERTY: Daniels Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Daniels, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. West Liberty Foods, L.L.C., Case No. 2017-
CH-11308 (Ill. Cir. Ct., August 17, 2017), seeks to put a stop to
the Defendant' unlawful collection, use, and storage of the
Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class's sensitive biometric data.

West Liberty Foods, L.L.C. operates a meat processing company in
the State of Iowa. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Sydney Janzen, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              sjanzen@edclson.com

         - and -

      David Fish, Esq.
      John Kunze, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Telephone: (630) 355-7590
      Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
      E-mail: dtish@fishlawfinn.com
              jkunze@fishlawfinn.com


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces "Andreozzi" Suit Over "Defective" Joists
---------------------------------------------------------------
LOU ANDREOZZI and LISA ANDREOZZI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No: 2:17-cv-05763-MCA-SCM (D.N.J., August 4,
2017), arises out of alleged damages sustained by Plaintiffs and
the Class that were proximately caused by Weyerhaeuser's defective
Joists used in the construction of Plaintiffs' and proposed Class
members' homes and other structures.  The joists allegedly emit
noxious and toxic gases that are harmful to humans. The Joists'
"Flak Jacket" coating includes a formaldehydebased resin that
results in the "off-gassing" of formaldehyde far in excess of
acceptable levels and causes other serious air quality issues.

Weyerhaeuser is one of the world's largest forest products
companies.  The Plaintiffs signed contracts to purchase homes or
other structures located in the State of New Jersey and across the
United States in which Weyerhaeuser's TJI Joists with Flak Jacket
Protection are or were installed.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     Russell D. Paul, Esq.
     Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
     E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
     Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 875-4656
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     Email: scarson@bm.net
            rpaul@bm.net
            ldeutsch@bm.net
            emdrake@bm.net
            jpolakoff@bm.net


WILSON COUNTY, KS: Oct. 25 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has given her
approval to a deal in a lawsuit filed against the Wilson County
sheriff over his jail's policy of allowing inmates to receive and
send only postcards in the mail. U.S. District Judge Julie
Robinson preliminarily approved the class action settlement that
would allow inmates to receive letters at the southeast Kansas
jail. The jail houses an average of 40 people daily.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and the Social
Justice Law Collective sued Sheriff Pete Figgins last year
alleging the policy violated the free speech and due process
rights of prisoners and the people who write to them.

A fairness hearing on the settlement is set for Oct. 25 in the
federal courthouse in Kansas City, Kansas.[GN]


WRIGHT TREE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Merriman" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Merriman, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated v. Wright Tree Service, Inc., Case No. 0:17-cv-00085-HRW
(E.D. Ken., August 16, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek.

Wright Tree Service, Inc. provides vegetation management, storm
restoration, and work planning services to utility companies and
their communities across the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      333 W Vine St Ste 1200
      Lexington, KN 40507
      Telephone: (859)286-8368
      E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


XEROX BUSINESS: 9th Cir. Certifies Question to Wash. High Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an Order
certifying to the Washington Supreme Court the dispositive
question of state law in the appeals case captioned TIFFANY HILL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC; LIVEBRIDGE
INC., an Oregon Corporation; AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES INC., a
Delaware Corporation; AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellants, No. 14-36029
(9th Cir.).

This case arises from a dispute between Tiffany Hill (Hill) and
Xerox Business Services, LLC, and its predecessor companies
(Xerox), over the method by which Xerox calculated wages owed to
Hill and others similarly situated. Hill brought a state-wide
class action lawsuit against Xerox for unpaid wages under the
Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA)and the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.

This interlocutory appeal involves only Hill's claims under the
MWA.

They dispute whether Hill was an hourly employee or a piecework
employee.  Hill claims that she was an hourly employee and
therefore Xerox violated the MWA by determining her hourly wage
based on a workweek, as opposed to a per-hour, calculation. Xerox,
in contrast, contends that Hill was a piecework employee and
therefore its work-week calculations were sanctioned by Washington
Administration Code Section 296-126-021.

In the district court, Xerox moved for partial summary judgment on
this issue, which the district court denied, stating that Xerox
was not paying its employees on a piecework basis, and therefore
summary judgment was inappropriate.

After denying a motion to reconsider, the district court certified
Xerox's request for an immediate interlocutory appeal of its
denial of partial summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit granted
Xerox's request, and this appeal followed.  The Ninth Circuit has
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).

During Hill's entire tenure and until mid-2014, Xerox paid its
call agents under the Achievement Based Compensation (ABC) Plan.
Under the ABC Plan, all employees' pay derived from three
different sources: (1) ABC Pay, (2) Additional Pay, and (3)
Subsidy Pay. As the system is somewhat complex, a description of
the three sources follows.

First, Xerox primarily used ABC Pay to compensate its employees.
ABC Pay was an incentive-based model rewarding agents who were
efficient at dealing with customer issues. The ABC Plan required
employees to track all of their time expended on certain
activities -- ranging from receiving calls to performing follow-up
work. Some of these activities such as receiving inbound calls --
were paid on a per minute basis, and each minute [was] referred to
as a 'production minute.

Second, Xerox used Additional Pay to compensate its agents for
some tasks that were not covered by ABC Pay. These defined
activities included (1) training, (2) meeting/coaching, (3) work
shortages, (4) system down time, (5) non-ABC Pay tasks or special
projects, and (6) break pay.

Third, Xerox used Subsidy Pay to supplement an agent's wages if
Xerox determined that the employee's hourly rate did not comply
with minimum wage. To determine whether this supplement was
necessary, Xerox took the Subsidy Pay rate (the minimum wage) and
multiplied it by the total hours worked in a given week to
calculate an employee's minimum pay.

Because it is necessary to ascertain the local law of this state
in order to dispose of this appeal, Wash. Rev. Code Section
2.60.020, the Ninth Circuit certifies to the Washington Supreme
Court the following question: whether an employer's compensation
plan, which includes as a metric an employee's production minutes,
qualifies as a piecework plan under Wash. Admin. Code Section 296-
126-021?

The clerk of court is ordered to transmit to the Washington
Supreme Court, under official seal of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a copy of the order and all
relevant briefs and excerpts of record pursuant to Washington
Revised Code Sections 2.60.010, 2.60.030 and WRAP 16.16.  The
record contains all matters in the pending case deemed material
for consideration of the local law question certified for answer.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 7, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ycplw43ufrom Leagle.com.

Todd L. Nunn - todd.nunn@klgates.com - and Patrick M. Madden -
Patrick.madden@klgates.com - K&L Gates LLP, Seattle, Washington,
for Defendants-Appellants.

Marc C. Cote - marc@benoit-cote.com - and Toby J. Marshall -
tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com - Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie
PLLC, Seattle, Washington; Jon W. MacLeod, MacLeod LLC, Seattle,
Washington; Daniel F. Johnson, Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC,
Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiff-Appellee.


ZTO EXPRESS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has filed a federal
securities class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased the common stock of ZTO Express (Cayman),
Inc. (NYSE:ZTO) ("ZTO") pursuant to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering ("IPO"). The lawsuit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York and seeks to
recover damages under the federal securities laws for those who
purchased or otherwise acquired ZTO Express' stock pursuant or
traceable to its October 27, 2016 IPO.

Investors who have incurred losses in ZTO Express (Cayman), Inc.
are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com
or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information concerning the action on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have purchased shares of ZTO Express (Cayman), Inc. and
would like to assist with the litigation process as a lead
plaintiff, you may, no later than October 16, 2017, request that
the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.

The lawsuit charges that ZTO, certain of its directors and
officers, and underwriters of its IPO violated Sections 11, 12,
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Defendants priced ZTO's IPO
shares at $19.50 per share.  Through the IPO, defendants issued
and sold over 72 million ADSs, generating over $1.36 billion for
defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the IPO Registration Statement and
Prospectus contained materially false and misleading information,
and failed to disclose that ZTO was improperly inflating its
stated profit margins by keeping certain low-margin segments of
its business out of its financial statements. ZTO failed to
disclose that it used a system of "network partners" to handle
lower-margin pickup and delivery services, while maintaining
ownership of core hub operations.  By keeping the "network
partners" businesses off its own books, the Company allegedly was
able to exaggerate its profit margins to investors.

Subsequent to the IPO, ZTO Express' stock declined immediately.
As of August 16, 2017, the stock was trading at just $13.57 -- a
decline of over 30% from the IPO price.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: -- gstone@whafh.com -- or -- classmember@whafh.com --
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]



                             *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *