CAR_Public/170905.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Tuesday, September 5, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 175



                            Headlines

1360 W. TOUHY: January 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ABC CORP: "Hernandez" Seeks Spread-of-Hours, Overtime Pay
AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA: Class Action Grows to Up to AUD40 Million
ALERE INC: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss "Godinez" Suit
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Sued Over Illegal Time Barred Debt Collection

AMERICAN BLUE: "Corliss" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
AMERICAN REALTY: Judge Expects to OK Class Period
AMERICARE INC: "Heredia" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
ANZ SECURITIES: SCOTUS Imposes Strict Filing Deadline on CAs
APPRISS INC: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Whitaker" Suit

AR RESOURCES: Faces "Molina" Suit in District of New Jersey
AREA WIDE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended "Fosbrink" Suit
ASPEN PROPERTIES: Court Dismisses "Hayles" FDCPA Suit
BAKED BY MELISSA: Faces "Wu" Suit in S.D. of New York
BANK OF AMERICA: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

BAYER AG: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Goldman" Class Suit
BLUEMERCURY INC: Sept. 18 Due to Reply to 2nd Amended Class Suit
BMW: Judge Approves Class Settlement, $1.2MM Attorney's Fees
CABLE NETWORK: Attorney Plotting 'Legal Takedown' for 'Fake News'
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "McCamey" Suit Over Time-Barred Debt

CATAMARAN HEALTH: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Graham" Suit
CENTURYLINK INC: "Denniston" Sues Over Unjust Service Charges
CENTURYLINK: "Lucero" Suit Transferred to New Mex. Dist. Ct.
COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Court Denies Bid to Stay Securities Suit
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Ambulance Chasers' Class Action Not Strong

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement Ruling in Fuel Temp. Suit Affirmed
DE BEERS: October 27 Diamond Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
DEUTSCHE BANK: Judge Approves Law Firms for Class-Action Suit
DEUTSCHE BANK: Ramanathan Appeals Orders in Securities Suit
DJ'S INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Lin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

DOS TOROS: Faces "Wu" Suit in Eastern District of New York
EMMANUEL PACQUIAO: Judge KO's Case from Mayweather-Pacquiao Fight
ERICK FLOWBACK: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Michalik" Suit Claims
ESTATE INFORMATION: Faces "Magay" Suit in E.D. of New York
DR REDDY'S: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Statements

FCA US: Illinois Court Narrows Claims in "Flynn"
FERRARA CANDY: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Decision in "Waters" Suit
FIELDTRUF USA: Faces City of Fremont Suit in N.D. of California
FIRST BITCOIN: CA Lawsuit Ensues Following SEC's Suspension
FIRST POTOMAC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Suit

FORD: Hit With Class Action Over Swollen Lug Nuts
FORTERRA INC: "Disayawathana" Hits IPO Flop, Info Non-disclosure
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces Class Action Over Robocalling Scheme
GC SERVICES: Denial of Class Certification in "Dickens" Vacated
GENERAL MILLS: Wolosyzn Appeals Decision in Glyphosate Litigation

GENERAL PLASTICS: Faces "North" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GEODIS LOGISTICS: Faces "Luna" Suit in C. Dist. of Calif.
GFI GROUP: Court Certifies Class in "Gross" Securities Suit
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Morgan Sues for Invasion of Privacy
GLOBUS MEDICAL: Escapes Securities Class Action

GOOD HANDS: Faces "Keyes" Suit in N. Dist. of Ohio
GOOGLE INC: SF Republican Attorney Suggests Possible Class-Action
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Golden" Suit in E.D. of California
ISLAND CONSTRUCTION: "McBroom" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Knodel" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2738

KONAMI GAMING: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Consumer Reports
LIVINGSTON CORRECTIONAL: Fired Biondolillo for Being Pregnant
LOGITECH INTERNATIONAL: Faces CA Over Defective Security System
MICROSOFT: To End Brazen Windows 10 Forced Upgrades
MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: Judge OKs $8 Million Class Deal

MINNEAPOLIS, MN: City's Judgment on Pleadings in "Stewart" Denied
MONINI NORTH AMERICA: Jessani Appeals Judgment to Second Circuit
NEW BRITAIN FINANCIAL: Faces "Madar" Suit in E.D. of New York
NOODLES & COMPANY: SELCO Appeals D. Colo. Ruling to Tenth Circuit
OAKDALE PROPERTIES: October 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

PACIFIC INVESTMENT: "Hampton" SEC Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
PETMED EXPRESS: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Lawsuit
PLANET FITNESS: NJ Court Issues Show Cause Order in "Truglio"
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Stewart" Suit in E.D. of New York
PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Kuzich" Suit in Arizona

RADEGAST HALL: Faces "McFadden" Suit in E. Dist. of New York
RAYONIER ADVANCED: Warren City Fund Sues Over Inflated Stock Price
RESORT MARKETING: April 4 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
ROSS STORES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Jacobo" Class Suit
SCHAEFFLER GROUP: November 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

SCICLONE PHARMA: "Consoli" Seeks to Halt Vote on Merger Deal
SCOTTRADE INC: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Kuhns"
SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
SHECHTMAN HALPERIN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Jenner" Suit Claims
SHELL OIL: "Long" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Faces CA Over Cancer-causing Toxic Waste
STAFFWORKS LLC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in "Armenta" Suit
STEPTOE & JOHNSON: Ex Associate Slams Bid to Arbitrate Gender Suit
SUBWAY: Appeals Court Dismisses Foot-long Class Action
TARGET CORP: Judge Dismisses Suits Over Parmesan Cheese

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: October 23 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
TEX-TRUDE LP: Hit With CA Over Fair Labor Standards Act Violations
TOP SHIPS: Pomerantz Files Class Action Lawsuit
TRIBE APP: "Horsely" TCPA Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ex-Staff Fights for Workers' Right to Pursue CA

UNITED PHARMACY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Merentie" Suit Says
US STEEL: Hit With Class Action Over Clairton Coke Plant Emissions
VOLVO: Full Refund Offer Doesn't Negate Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Charged Unauthorized Insurance Premiums, Suit Says
WELLS FARGO: Wants Court to Toss Overdraft Lawsuits

WELLS FARGO: To Pay $3.5MM to Settle Training-Fee Repayment CA
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Faces "Gabadze" Suit in New Jersey
WINDHAM PROFESSIONALS: Faces "Yushuvayev" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
YORK INT'L: Amended Settlement in "Dickerson" Has Final Approval
ZILLOW INC: Court Dismisses "Patel" Suit

* U.S. Targeting Class-Action Provision of DOL Rule





                            *********


1360 W. TOUHY: January 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
AND FINAL FAIRNESS AND APPROVAL HEARING

Rivard-Hoster et al v. Covaci et al, Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois County Department, Chancery Division
No. 2016-CH-04421.

TO: ALL TENANTS OR PROSPECTIVE TENANTS OF THE FOLLOWING CHICAGO
APARTMENT BUILDINGS BETWEEN MARCH 29, 2014 AND JUNE 12, 2017:

1646 W. Pratt, Chicago, Illinois 1360 W. Touhy Ave., Chicago,
Illinois
RE: SECURITY DEPOSIT SUMMARY LAWSUIT.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. THIS NOTICE COULD AFFECT YOUR
LEGAL RIGHTS.

I. INTRODUCTION. You are receiving this notice because it has
been determined that you may be entitled to receive a payment of
$100 from a lawsuit filed on your behalf.  You may be eligible for
a payment if you submit the attached claim form as detailed below.

A class action lawsuit was filed against William Covaci and 1360
W. Touhy, LLC ("Defendants") by Rivard-Hoster et al ("Plaintiffs")
alleging a violation of the Chicago Residential Landlord and
Tenant Ordinance ("RLTO") concerning the failure to attach a copy
of the then-current separate summary describing the respective
rights, obligations and remedies of landlords and tenants with
respect to security deposits that was prepared by the Chicago
commissioner of the department of housing (the "RLTO Security
Deposit Summary").

After negotiations and without any admissions of liability by the
Defendants, the parties have agreed to a settlement. That way,
both sides avoid the risks and costs of trial, and the tenants
affected will be entitled to compensation.  The Court did not
decide for either side, and the defendants deny having violated
the RLTO.

On August 09, 2017, the Court preliminarily approved a Settlement
Agreement requesting an award as summarized in Section II of this
Notice.  If you leased an apartment in one of the buildings listed
above between March 29, 2014 and June 12, 2017, you may be
eligible to participate in this lawsuit.

The purpose of this Notice is to advise you of how your rights may
be affected by this suit, and to instruct you on the procedure for
submitting a claim regarding this suit.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT AND SETTLEMENT. On March 29, 2016,
Plaintiffs sued Defendants, both for themselves and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, a/k/a the Class stated here.
Plaintiffs alleged in the lawsuit that the Defendants violated the
provisions of the RLTO by failing to give tenants the RLTO
Security Deposit Summary. A Settlement Agreement has been
preliminarily approved by the Court. Under the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, each Class Member who submits a valid claim
form will receive a single settlement payment check of $100.00. If
multiple claim forms are received from co-tenants, then a single
payment check of $100.00 will be made payable to the co-tenants
who submitted a claim form. Payments for undisputed claims will be
mailed approximately forty-nine (49) days after January 09, 2018.
Any settlement payment check that has not been presented to a bank
for payment within 90 days of issuance will be void and will not
be reissued.

Eligible Class Members include those persons who satisfy the
following requirements:

Person(s) who, between March 29, 2014 and June 12, 2017, were a
tenant of either of the Buildings identified above, who were
offered a rental agreement, either written or oral, by or on
behalf of the Landlords, for either a new rental or renewal
thereof, and whose new or renewal rental agreement did not have
attached to it the then current version of the RLTO Security
Deposit Summary.

If you did not receive the RLTO Security Deposit Summary, you are
entitled to a payment if you submit a claim form.  It does not
matter whether or not you paid a security deposit.

Under the Settlement Agreement, except for Class Members who
submit a timely request for exclusion from the Class, upon entry
of the Final Order and Dismissal in the Litigation, each and every
Class Member, including the Class Representative, shall be deemed
to have, and by operation of the Final Order and Dismissal shall
have, fully, finally and forever released, relinquished and
discharged each and all of the Released Parties from any and all
claims alleged in this Litigation through June 12, 2017.

III. YOUR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS SETTLEMENT. If
you fit the criteria above, you may request payment pursuant to
the settlement by signing and mailing a Claim Form to the Claims
Administrator at the following address:

         Attn: Rivard-Hoster Class Action
         5410 W Roosevelt Rd Ste 222
         Chicago, IL 60644-1479

The Claim Form must be completed, signed and returned to the
Claims Administrator no later than January 10, 2018.  Any
completed claim form that is returned and is postmarked after
January 10, 2018 will not be accepted or processed.  You may
request a claim form by contacting Class Counsel identified in
Paragraph VI below.

IV YOUR RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF THIS SETTLEMENT. Any person
who is eligible to participate in this lawsuit or who receives a
Notice of Class Settlement may request to be excluded from the
Class by submitting a request to JS Law at the mailing addresses
stated below.  Any such request must include the claimant's name,
address, phone number and statement requesting that he or she be
excluded from the Rivard-Hoster Class Action. Such requests to opt
out will be timely only if sent by mail no later than December 20,
2017.  If you choose to opt out, you are free to file your own
lawsuit, subject to the laws, including the statute of limitations
provisions, applicable to claims for violations of the RLTO.  If
you do not submit a timely request to opt out, you will be bound
by the settlement and will be barred from seeking any future
recovery based on alleged RLTO violations or the claims alleged in
this action with respect to your rental of an apartment in any of
the buildings identified above during
the times identified above.

V. YOUR RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THIS SETTLEMENT. Any Class
Member wishing to object to the approval of this settlement shall
inform the Court and Class Counsel in writing of his or her intent
to object by submitting a written objection postmarked no later
than December 20, 2017.  Any written objection must specify the
basis for the objection, and must be sent to Class Counsel at the
address specified below, and filed with the Chancery Division of
the Circuit Court, Richard Daley Center, Room 802, 50 W.
Washington, Chicago,
IL 60602.

Any Class Member who fails to mail to Class Counsel and file with
the Court a timely written statement of an intention to object
shall be foreclosed from making any objections to this settlement,
unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

VI. YOUR LEGAL REPRESENTATION AS A MEMBER OF THE CLASS. Unless you
opt out, your interests will be represented by the named
Plaintiffs through their attorneys, as counsel for the class.

Counsel for the Class are:

          JS Law
          29 E. Madison St., Ste. 1000
           Chicago, IL 60602
           Phone: (312) 756-1330
           Email: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com

VII. FINAL FAIRNESS AND APPROVAL HEARING. On January 09,
2018 a Final Fairness and Approval Hearing shall be held before
the Court in order to review the Settlement Agreement and
determine whether the Court should give it final approval; and to
consider any timely objections made and responses by the Parties
to such objections.  At the Final Fairness and Approval Hearing,
the Parties shall ask the Court to grant final approval to this
Agreement.  If the Parties' request for final approval is granted,
a Final Order Approving Settlement of Class Action and Dismissal
with Prejudice subject to full compliance with the Settlement
Agreement shall be entered.

VIII. FURTHER INFORMATION. You may obtain further information
about this Notice, filing a Claim Form, or answers to questions
concerning this lawsuit by writing or calling Class Counsel at the
number and address stated above in Section

VI. Please do not contact the Parties, other counsel or the Court
for more information.

Dated: August 23, 2017


ABC CORP: "Hernandez" Seeks Spread-of-Hours, Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Hernandez and Enrique Maldonado, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gary Sikka, Sanjay
Goyal, Madhu Goyal and ABC Corp. d/b/a Mint Garden City, John Doe
s/h/a "Sonny," John Doe No. 2 s/h/a "Joel," Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-04792 (E.D. N.Y., August 16, 2017), seeks unpaid wages for
overtime work performed, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
interest and all costs and disbursements associated with this
action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as spread
of hours wages under New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate "The Corp.," a restaurant serving Indo-Asian
cuisine in Garden City. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as
salad and food preparers from August 2012 until March 16, 2017.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
      MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
      91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
      Hempstead, NY 11550
      Telephone: (516) 280.4600
      Facsimile: (516) 280.4530
      Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com


AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA: Class Action Grows to Up to AUD40 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Trask, writing for Canberra Times, reports that a mounting
class action against Airservices Australia could represent "the
largest underpayment of workers by a Commonwealth body corporate
in Australian history".

Centred on alleged shortfalls in superannuation and redundancy
entitlements, the lawsuit is believed to affect as many as 600
former government employees and 150 current managers.

Rory Markham, the director of employment and risk management at
Chamberlains Law, said the total value of the claim could be
between AUD25 and AUD40 million.

"If we are correct in this position, this claim will be the
largest underpayment of workers by a Commonwealth body corporate
in Australian history," he said.

"[It] will demonstrate that not even the public service is immune
from underpayments and breaches of basic employment conditions."

The scale and systemic nature of the alleged breach has been
compared to the 7-Eleven wage scandal, which resulted in total
compensation of more than AUD100 million spread across thousands
of workers.

"What remains of more concern on a policy level is that the above
quantum does not involve the imposition of a regulatory penalty,
which under the Fair Work Act 2009 can amount to AUD52,000 per
contravention for a corporation such as Airservices," Mr Markham
said.

Airservices Australia is the government entity responsible for air
traffic control, fire fighting and navigation services at a number
of federally-leased airports across the country.

Lawyers said the suit stemmed from the use of "personal management
contracts" when staff were promoted following the introduction of
the 2009 Fair Work Act.

Staff allegedly signed away the terms of their existing enterprise
agreements and their rights to better leave entitlements,
redundancy payments and superannuation contributions.

Mr. Markham said affected claimants were believed to include level
3 and 4 managers from the past six years, air traffic control line
managers, senior air traffic controllers and even the senior
executive group of Airservices.

One of the former employees believed to be impacted is Canberra
resident Stuart Allman, who joined Airservices from the Royal
Airforce in 2005 and moved to an individual management contract in
2010.

"It's not like I knew there was any problem with the contract at
the time," he said.

"It was like if you wanted the promotion you had to sign the
contract. If you didn't sign you didn't get the job."

Mr. Allman's payment shortfall as a result of taking the contract
is believed to include AUD174,000 in lost redundancy entitlements
and AUD40,000 in lost superannuation.

The typical shortfall for staff not made redundant was likely to
be between AUD30,000 and AUD60,000, Mr Markham said.

A spokeswoman for Airservices Australia said the agency was
working through "a number of issues" as part of the legal process.

"Airservices Australia is, and always has been, a responsible
employer and we ensure that every employee's rights and
entitlements are met and protected," the spokeswoman said.

"We have a total commitment to our duty of care for all
Airservices' employees.

"As The Canberra Times is fully aware, a number of issues have
been foreshadowed as part of potential legal actions and these
issues will be examined and determined as part of that process."
[GN]


ALERE INC: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss "Godinez" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JUDITH GODINEZ, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALERE INC., NAMAL
NAWANA, JAMES F. HINRICHS, and CARLA R. FLAKNE, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 16-10766-PBS(D. Mass.), Judge Patti B. Saris of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' supplemental and amended consolidated class action
complaint.

The Plaintiffs sued Alere and three of its corporate officers
alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.  The suit also
brings derivative claims against the officers, CEO Namal Nawana,
CFO James Hinrichs, and Chief Accounting Officer Carla Flakne,
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Two related cases have
been consolidated with this one.

The Plaintiffs advance four categories of conduct to support the
allegation of securities fraud: (i) Alere had material weaknesses
in its internal controls related to revenue recognition but only
made limited disclosures of what the corporation knew; (ii) Alere
failed to disclose the need to recall INRatio products; (iii)
Alere failed to disclose billing "improprieties" in two of its
divisions; and (iv) Alere failed to disclose that its foreign
offices regularly engaged in conduct that violated the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act.  To support the allegations of scienter,
the Plaintiffs highlight the decision by Alere executives to sell
the company and the fact that Nawana and Hinrichs stood to receive
change-of-control payments totaling $29 million if Alere was
acquired.

Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' supplemental and amended consolidated class action
complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").  At its core, the resolution of
the motion hinges on whether or not the complaint meets the
PSLRA's heightened pleading standard for scienter.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Court should not examine the factual
premises for each materially false and misleading statement or
omission separately.  Instead, they urge the Court to examine
whether all of the facts alleged, taken collectively, give rise to
a strong inference of scienter, not whether any individual
allegation, scrutinized in isolation, meets that standard.  Their
argument rests on the fact that nearly all of the allegations stem
from a general inability to implement adequate internal controls,
albeit in disparate areas of a large corporation's reporting
structure.  In their view, the accounting errors, FCPA violations,
billing irregularities, and more, fit into a general pattern
reflecting a lack of internal controls.  They also argue that
although an individual government investigation, standing alone,
may not support a strong inference of scienter, here there were
numerous government investigations across many departments.

Judge Saris concludes that there is no denying that a steady
drumbeat of negative information about Alere was disclosed to the
market beginning soon after the merger announcement.  2016 was a
bad year for Alere.  However, most of the internal control
problems involved far-flung operations all over the world and very
different kinds of government regulatory problems facing different
subsidiaries.  With the exception of the problems related to
INRatio, the complaint does not support a strong inference of
prior knowledge on the part of senior management.  Thus, even
considering the non-INRatio related allegations holistically, the
complaint does not give rise to a strong inference of scienter on
the part of senior management.

Moreover, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act imposes joint and
several liability on persons in control of entities that violate
securities laws.  A section 20(a) claim is derivative of an
underlying violation of the securities laws.  Because she
dismissed the claims under Rule 10b-5, Judge Saris also dismissed
the section 20(a) claims except with respect to the INRatio
allegations.

For these reasons, Judge Saris denied the motion to dismiss as to
the alleged materially false and misleading statements and
omissions related to INRatio.  She granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss as to all other alleged materially false or misleading
statements or omissions.  Furthermore, she dismissed Carla Flakne
as to all claims, as the Plaintiffs did not pursue any theory of
Flakne's individual liability.  The parties will propose a joint
scheduling statement within 30 days.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/2fEi2S from Leagle.com.

Michael P. Breton, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Leviton --
jason@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP.

Judith Godinez, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Leviton, Block
& Leviton LLP.

Saratoga Advantage Trust James Alpha Multi Strategy Alternative
Income Portfolio, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Leviton,
Block & Leviton LLP.

Alere Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah S. Birnbach --
dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP, Jane B. O'Brien
-- jobrien@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison, LLP, pro hac vice, Katherine G. McKenney --
ckenney@goodwinlaw.com  -- Goodwin Procter, LLP & Richard A. Rosen
-- rrosen@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison, pro hac vice.

Ron Zwanziger, Defendant, represented by Deborah S. Birnbach,
Goodwin Procter, LLP, Jane B. O'Brien, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison, LLP, pro hac vice, Katherine G. McKenney,
Goodwin Procter, LLP & Richard A. Rosen, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison, pro hac vice.

Namal Nawana, Defendant, represented by Deborah S. Birnbach,
Goodwin Procter, LLP, Jane B. O'Brien, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison, LLP, pro hac vice, Katherine G. McKenney,
Goodwin Procter, LLP & Richard A. Rosen, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison, pro hac vice.

David Teitel, Defendant, represented by Deborah S. Birnbach,
Goodwin Procter, LLP, Jane B. O'Brien, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison, LLP, pro hac vice, Katherine G. McKenney,
Goodwin Procter, LLP & Richard A. Rosen, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison, pro hac vice.

James F. Hinrichs, Defendant, represented by Deborah S. Birnbach,
Goodwin Procter, LLP, Jane B. O'Brien, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison, LLP, pro hac vice, Katherine G. McKenney,
Goodwin Procter, LLP & Richard A. Rosen, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison, pro hac vice.

OFI Asset Management, Movant, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, Andrew J.
Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, pro hac vice, Edward F. Haber
-- ehaber@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, Thomas G.
Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, Todd
Kammerman -- tkammerman@aftlaw.com -- Abraham, Fruchter & Twesky,
LLP, pro hac vice & Vincent Roger Cappucci -- vcappucci@entwistle-
law.com -- Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, pro hac vice.

NECA-IBEW Pension Trust Fund, Movant, represented by Theodore M.
Hess-Mahan -- thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com -- Hutchings,
Barsamian, Cross and Mandelcorn, LLP, Adam M. Stewart, Shapiro
Haber & Urmy LLP & Todd Kammerman, Abraham, Fruchter & Twesky,
LLP, pro hac vice.

Boilermakers' National Benefit Fund (Canada), Movant, represented
by Garrett C. Bradley -- gbradley@tenlaw.com -- Thornton Law Firm.

Glazer Capital Management, L.P., Movant, represented by Adam M.
Stewart, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, Edward F. Haber, Shapiro Haber
& Urmy LLP, Jeffrey S. Abraham, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP,
pro hac vice, Lawrence D. Levit, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP,
pro hac vice, Matthew E. Guarnero, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, pro
hac vice, Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Todd
Kammerman, Abraham, Fruchter & Twesky, LLP, pro hac vice.

Glazer Enhanced Fund, L.P., Movant, represented by Adam M.
Stewart, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, Edward F. Haber, Shapiro Haber
& Urmy LLP, Jeffrey S. Abraham, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP,
pro hac vice, Lawrence D. Levit, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP,
pro hac vice, Matthew E. Guarnero, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, pro
hac vice, Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Todd
Kammerman, Abraham, Fruchter & Twesky, LLP, pro hac vice.

Glazer Enhanced Offshore Fund, Ltd., Movant, represented by Adam
M. Stewart, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, Edward F. Haber, Shapiro
Haber & Urmy LLP, Jeffrey S. Abraham, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky,
LLP, pro hac vice, Lawrence D. Levit, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky,
LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew E. Guarnero, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP,
pro hac vice, Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Todd
Kammerman, Abraham, Fruchter & Twesky, LLP, pro hac vice.

Glazer Offshore Fund, Ltd., Movant, represented by Adam M.
Stewart, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, Edward F. Haber, Shapiro Haber
& Urmy LLP, Jeffrey S. Abraham, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP,
pro hac vice, Lawrence D. Levit, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP,
pro hac vice, Matthew E. Guarnero, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, pro
hac vice, Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Todd
Kammerman, Abraham, Fruchter & Twesky, LLP, pro hac vice.

Highmark Limited, Movant, represented by Adam M. Stewart, Shapiro
Haber & Urmy LLP, Edward F. Haber, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP,
Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Todd Kammerman,
Abraham, Fruchter & Twesky, LLP, pro hac vice.


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Sued Over Illegal Time Barred Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Loveday, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Allied Interstate LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-12755-SFC-EAS
(E.D. Mich., August 22, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of attempting to collect a time barred debt, using a form
letter, without informing the debtor that they cannot be sued on
the debt because of the age of the debt.

Allied Interstate LLC operates a debt collection firm located at
40600 Ann Arbor Rd. E., Ste. 201, Plymouth, MI 48170. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
      WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
      350 S. Northwest HWY, Ste. 300
      Telephone: (847) 701-5290
      E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal

         - and -

      John A. Evancek, Esq.
      KELLEY & EVANCHECK PC
      43695 Michigan Ave.
      Canton, MI 48188
      Telephone: (734) 397-4540
      E-mail: john@kelawpc.com


AMERICAN BLUE: "Corliss" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
David Corliss and Matthew St. Pierre, Plaintiffs, v. American Blue
Ribbon Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01169 (M.D.
Tenn., August 17, 2017), seeks to recover overtime and all relief
available under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, on behalf of
and all current and former Assistant Managers, including Beverage
Managers, Kitchen Managers and Service Managers who worked at any
of Defendant's Ninety Nine restaurant locations in the United
States.

Defendant is a diversified food services company that owns and
operates a casual restaurant under the tradename "Ninety Nine."

Corliss was employed by Defendant as a Managers-In-Training from
approximately August or September 2014 to January 2015 in Vernon,
Connecticut and then as an AM from approximately January 2015 to
March 2016, at Defendant's restaurants in Massachusetts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
      YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
      2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Tel: (615) 250-2000
      Fax: (615) 250-2020
      Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com

             - and -

      Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
             aquiles@shavitzlaw.com

             - and -

     Michael Palitz, Esq.
     830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (800) 616-4000
     Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com


AMERICAN REALTY: Judge Expects to OK Class Period
-------------------------------------------------
William Gorta, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge indicated that he was likely to approve the entire class
period of a putative shareholder class action against American
Realty Capital Properties Inc. but warned that no decision on
certification is final until he puts it in writing.

In a marathon hearing, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein
indicated that the factors for approving the class period were
met, including efficiency in the market in regards to ARCP stock.

"Intuitively, if things excite analysts and analysts excite price
movement, there is a degree of efficiency in the market," the
judge said.

After having checked off all the requirements to establish the
class period for common stock of ARCP, Judge Hellerstein said he
agreed with the plaintiffs' expert and could see his way to
certifying the class vis-Ö-vis common stock for the period from
May 9, 2012, through Oct. 29, 2014.

"From all of this, I feel it's appropriate with regard to common
stock to certify the class for the entire period," he said.

The judge felt there was not "proof sufficient to go backwards in
time" to include preferred stock in the certification, but he said
there would be "time later in the case to fine-tune the class."

In a move bound to chill Law360 readers, Judge Hellerstein, using
a technique he said was developed in the Australian courts, took
the lawyers out of the equation for some of the testimony and had
the experts debate among themselves on the record.

The defense's expert, Christopher James, sat in the witness box,
and the plaintiffs' expert, Steven Feinstein, sat in the nearest
part of the jury box as Judge Hellerstein encouraged them to argue
back and forth the merits of their positions. While they reached
no agreement on the methodology for establishing the class period,
they did agree that the face-to-face debate was worthwhile.

"Good idea or bad idea?" the judge asked.

"It was good," came the answer.

The judge said he hoped to have a certification decision out
within two weeks. From the bench, he denied a defense motion to
strike two proposed class representatives.

The parties return to court Sept. 11 for a discovery fight over
privileged documents.

TIAA and a host of other investors filed complaints against ARCP -
- now known as Vereit Inc. -- over the 36 percent drop in its
stock price that came after the trust in October 2014 retracted
information from about 18 months of financial reports and pushed
out its chief financial officer and chief accounting officer for
allegedly making intentional errors connected to an approximately
$22.8 million overstatement of adjusted funds from operations,
which is a key metric used by real estate investment trusts for
measuring income.

Ten putative class actions were consolidated into the instant
proceeding in February 2015, and a 129-page operative third
amended complaint was filed in September 2016.

In January, then-U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, Esq. filed a motion
to allow the government to intervene in the consolidated
proceeding and a related derivative suit against ARCP, and he
asked Judge Hellerstein to stay the cases besides document
discovery until the conclusion of a criminal trial against ex-ARCP
CFO Brian Block. Block was convicted in June of securities fraud,
two counts of filing false SEC reports, two counts of filing false
certifications and one count of related conspiracy.

The plaintiffs are represented by Darren J. Robbins, Esq. --
drobbins@rgrdlaw.com -- Michael J. Dowd, Esq. -- mdowd@rgrdlaw.com
-- Daniel S. Drosman, Esq. -- ddrosman@rgrdlaw.com -- Debra J.
Wyman, Esq. -- dwyman@rgrdlaw.com -- Jessica T. Shinnefield, Esq.
-- jshinnefield@rgrdlaw.com --Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. --
srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- and Robert M. Rothman, Esq. --
rrothman@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

ARCP is represented by Scott A. Edelman, Esq. --
sedelman@milbank.com -- and Antonia M. Apps, Esq. --
aapps@milbank.com -- of Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP.

The case is In re American Realty Capital Properties Inc.
Litigation, case number 1:15-mc-00040, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. [GN]


AMERICARE INC: "Heredia" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Esthefany Heredia, Eslaini Fernandez, and Estela Taveras,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Americare, Inc., Martin Kleinman and John
Does #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06219 (S.D. N.Y., August
16, 2017), seeks an award of unpaid wages, spread of hours wages,
overtime and minimum wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
New York Labor Law, New York common law and the NY Health Care
Worker Wage Parity Act, liquidated and/or punitive damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this
action together with reasonable attorney's and expert fees and
such other and further relief.

Plaintiffs were home health aides who were employed by the
Defendant, an employment agency that employs home health aides in
New York City. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANZ SECURITIES: SCOTUS Imposes Strict Filing Deadline on CAs
------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Bettigole, Harry S. Pangas and Payam Siadatpour  of
Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, writing for Lexology, wrote on June
26, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion on
California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities,
Inc., No. 16-373, ruling that actions involving securities
offerings and sales are subject to a three-year statute of repose,
which is an absolute deadline that cannot be tolled. The Court's
opinion was based upon its interpretation of the interplay between
Sections 11 and 13 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities
Act). Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court,
in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas,
Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stephen Breyer,
Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined.

Background

In 2007 and 2008, the California Public Employees' Retirement
System (CalPERS), a public pension fund, acquired securities
issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. through a series of public
securities offerings. In 2008, a putative class action, of which
CalPERS was a part, was filed against various financial firms in
the Southern District of New York alleging liability under Section
11 of the Securities Act for material misstatements or omissions
in the registration statements relating to the Lehman Brothers
securities offerings.

In February 2011, more than three years after the Lehman Brothers
securities offerings, CalPERS filed a separate complaint against
the various financial firms in the Northern District of
California. CalPERS' individual complaint alleged the same
violations as those cited in the class action. The financial firms
moved to dismiss the separate complaint filed by CalPERS on the
grounds that the action was untimely since it was brought more
than three years after the Lehman Brothers offering. CalPERS
argued that the three-year period should be tolled as a result of
the class action filing. The trial court, the US Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court ruled
against CalPERS, holding that the principle of tolling was
inapplicable to the three-year time limit imposed by Section 13.

The CalPERS Decision

Section 11 of the Securities Act generally provides that
purchasers of securities in a registered offering shall have a
right of action against the issuer, the underwriter of the
securities and certain other individuals for any untrue statement
of a material fact in, or a material omission from, a registration
statement. The civil liabilities imposed by Section 11 are limited
by Section 13 of the Securities Act, which requires any such
action to be brought by a claimant within a specified time period.
In part, Section 13 provides that any Section 11 action must be
brought "within one year after the discovery of the untrue
statement or the omission, or after such discovery should have
been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence." Importantly,
the second sentence in Section 13 imposes an additional time limit
on any action under Section 11 by providing that "[i]n no event
shall any such action be brought . . . more than three years after
the security was bona fide offered to the public ...."

The Supreme Court's decision in the CalPERS case was based upon
the majority's view that the three-year time limit set forth in
the second sentence in Section 13 constitutes a statute of repose
rather than a statute of limitations. In the decision, Justice
Kennedy distinguished the two categories of time limits as
follows: statutes of limitations are designed to encourage
plaintiffs "to pursue diligent prosecution of known claims," while
statutes of repose explicitly protect defendants by effecting "a
legislative judgment that a defendant should be free from
liability after the legislatively determined period of time."

The majority of the Justices were not persuaded by the various
arguments that CalPERS presented in favor of tolling the three-
year period. For example, CalPERS argued that filing the class
action complaint within three years should also satisfy the
statutory time limit with regard to any future suit filed by
individual parties that comprise the class because the defendants
were effectively on notice that each individual member could bring
an action. CalPERS also argued that by declining to allow for
tolling, the Supreme Court's decision will create inefficiencies
in the courts by inducing members of a class action to file
duplicative individual cases.

The dissenting Justices were sympathetic to CalPERS' equity-based
arguments, and warned that the majority's ruling would jeopardize
the Constitutional right of individual investors (particularly
unsophisticated class members) to opt out of a class settlement
because class certification decisions often are not made until two
to three years after securities class actions are filed. As a
result, the three-year period of repose could easily pass before
such investors were asked to decide whether they wanted to opt out
of a class settlement. But the majority held that the plain
language in Section 13 makes it evident that the three-year time
limit is a statute of repose, which cannot be extended by a court
on the basis of equitable principles. As a result, actions under
Section 11 must be brought within three years of the issuer's bona
fide offer to the public.1

Looking Ahead

The Supreme Court's decision in the CalPERS case will likely have
a significant impact on how plaintiffs pursue civil actions under
Section 11 of the Securities Act. While issuers and underwriters
will benefit from the firm three-year time limit, it is likely
that any class action under Section 11 will be accompanied by an
increased number of identical individual actions. And both class
counsel and the district courts may well heed the admonition of
the dissenting Justices that class members should be notified of
the "consequences of failing to file a timely protective claim."
[GN]


APPRISS INC: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Whitaker" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rachel A. Whitaker and Richard L. Dunkin filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit entitled
Rachel Whitaker, et al. v. Appriss, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-00826-
RLM-MGG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division.

The appellate case is captioned as Rachel Whitaker, et al. v.
Appriss, Inc., Case No. 17-2679, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet was due August 30, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before September 25, 2017,
      for Richard L. Dunkin and Rachel A. Whitaker.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants RACHEL A. WHITAKER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and RICHARD L. DUNKIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Andrew B. Miller, Esq.
          STARR, AUSTEN & MILLER, LLP
          201 S. Third Street
          Logansport, IN 46947-3102
          Telephone: (574) 722-6676
          Facsimile: (574) 753-3299
          E-mail: miller@starrausten.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          DICELLO, LEVITT & CASEY, LLC
          Ten N. Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee APPRISS, INC., is represented by:

          Anthony David Gill, Esq.
          DLA PIPER US LLP
          500 Eighth Street N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004-0000
          Telephone: (202) 799-4562
          Facsimile: (202) 799-5562
          E-mail: anthony.gill@dlapiper.com


AR RESOURCES: Faces "Molina" Suit in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AR Resources, Inc.
The case is styled as Francillia Molina, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AR
Resources, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06573 (D. N.J.,
August 30, 2017).

AR Resources is a full service accounts receivable management and
collection company serving creditors throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AREA WIDE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended "Fosbrink" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WILLIAM FOSBRINK, on behalf of himself and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AREA
WIDE PROTECTIVE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-1154-T-30TBM
(M.D. Fla.), Judge James S. Moody Jr. of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida denied the Defendant' motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint and strike the class allegations.

The Plaintiff applied to work as a traffic control specialist for
the Defendant in February 2016.  As a condition of his employment,
the Defendant made the Plaintiff sign a form authorizing Defendant
to receive periodic background checks on him.  While employed, the
Plaintiff alleges the Defendant did obtain a background check on
him.  The Defendant allegedly terminated him in March 2017 because
"something came up on his background check."

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant's actions violated the FCRA in
the following three ways: (i) the form the Defendant required him
to sign authorizing the background checks violated 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) because the form was not a stand-alone
FCRA disclosure (Count I); (ii) the Defendant violated 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii) by conducting a background check on him
without receiving proper authorization (Count II); and (ii) the
Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(3)(A) by failing to
provide him with a copy of the background check before the
Defendant relied on it to take an adverse employment action
against him (Count III).

The Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of himself and two
classes of similarly situated persons.  Specifically, as to Counts
I and II, the Plaintiff brings the claims on behalf of the all
employees and job applicants in the United States of the Defendant
who were the subject of a consumer report that was procured by
Area Wide within five years of the filing of the complaint through
the date of final judgment in the action as required by 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681b(b)(2)(A).

As to Count III, he brings the claim on behalf of all employees
and prospective employees in the United States of the Defendant
against whom adverse employment action was taken by Area Wide,
based, in whole or in part, on information contained in a consumer
report obtained within five years of the filing of this complaint
through the date of final judgment in the action, and who were not
provided the proper pre-adverse notice as required under 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681b(b)(3)(A).

Now, the Defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint or
strike the class action allegations.

Judge Moody held that the Defendant's request to deny
certification of the proposed classes is premature.  The
allegations in the Amended Complaint are not so facially defective
to allow the Court to deny certification without the Plaintiff
being allowed to take discovery to try to satisfy the requirements
of rule 23.  So the Judge concludes the Motion should be denied,
although the Defendant is free to raise the arguments again once
the Plaintiff moves for class certification.

Accordingly, Judge Moody denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint and Renewed Motion to Strike Class Allegations.
The Defendant will respond to the Amended Complaint within 14 days
from the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/E58Snj from Leagle.com.

William Fosbrink, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch --
afrisch@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, PA.

William Fosbrink, Plaintiff, represented by C. Ryan Morgan --
rmorgan@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, PA & Marc Reed
Edelman -- MEdelman@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, Tampa
P.A.

Area Wide Protective, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cary Alan
Cash, Brasfield, Freeman, Goldis & Cash, PA & Darren M. Caputo,
Brasfield, Freeman, Goldis & Cash, PA.


ASPEN PROPERTIES: Court Dismisses "Hayles" FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
case captioned GREGORY HAYLES, Plaintiff, v. ASPEN PROPERTIES
GROUP, LLC and WALDMAN, SAGGINARIO & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Defendants,
No. 16 Civ. 8919 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Gregory Hayles (Hayles) brings a putative class action
against defendants Aspen Properties Group, LLC (Aspen) and
Waldman, Sagginario & Associates, PLLC (Defendants), alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692 (FDCPA).

Hayles claims that Defendants violated provisions of the FDCPA
through communications he received. Defendants now move, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), to dismiss the
complaint.

In evaluating claims under the FDCPA, courts use an objective
standard based on whether the 'least sophisticated consumer' would
be deceived by the collection practice. Because the least
sophisticated consumer standard is objective, the determination of
how the least sophisticated consumer would view language in a
defendant's collection letter is a question of law.

Defendants' Alleged Violations of Section 1692g

Hayles claims that Waldman and Aspen violated Section 1692g by
virtue of their communications with him Section 1692(a) requires
that, within five days of an initial communication with a consumer
made in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt
collector must provide the consumer with written notice of the
amount of the debt and the procedure and timeline for disputing
the validity of the debt, among other pieces of information. 15
U.S.C. Section 1692g(a).

As an initial matter, Hayles alleges that Waldman and Aspen are
debt collectors within the statutory definition. Moreover, the
parties agree that the November 2015 Letter constitutes the
initial communication from Waldman.

The Allegations Do Not Show That Waldman Violated section 1692g

The Court finds that Hayles' allegations also fail to establish
that the amount of late charges in the November 2015 Letter $800
is inaccurate. According to the complaint, the note and security
agreement provided for a late charge of $16 for any delayed
monthly payment.  According to the November 2015 Letter, Hayles
failed to make monthly payments beginning on August 1, 2011. Fifty
months (i.e., the number of months between August 2011 and
November 2015) multiplied by $16 equals $800. Thus, Hayles'
allegations do not establish that the amount of late charges in
the November 2015 Letter was inaccurate.

Accordingly, Hayles fails to state a claim that Waldman violated
section 1692g.

The Allegations Do Not Show That Aspen Violated Sec. 1692g By
Sending the June 22 Letter

Here, the June 22 Letter lacks many of the characteristics that
the Second Circuit emphasized in Carlin and Hart. It did not
direct Hayles to make payments to a specific address, refer to the
FDCPA by name, or inform Hayles of the timeline for disputing the
debt's validity. Instead, viewed objectively, the June 22 Letter
featured language directed toward presenting a "2nd Mortgage
Modification Offer" rather than attempting to undertake debt
collection.

In fact, the June 22 Letter shares only one characteristic with
the communications at issue in Carlin and Hart. Namely, the final
sentence on the last page of the June 22 Letter states, in bold:
"This Communication is from a Debt Collector and any information
obtained will be used for that purpose. The Second Circuit has
identified the presence of similar statements as an important
consideration in determining whether a communication is connected
to the collection of a debt.

Here, the Court concludes that Hayles has not plausibly alleged
that a consumer receiving the June 22 Letter could reasonably
interpret it as being sent in connection with the collection of a
debt, because the June 22 Letter contains clear language regarding
a mortgage modification offer and lacks three of the four
characteristics that the Second Circuit has identified as relevant
to the inquiry.

Accordingly, Hayles fails to state a claim that Aspen violated
section 1692g through the June 22 Letter.

Hayles' Claims That Waldman Violated sections 1692e and 1692f Are
Dismissed

Hayles advances no independent allegations or arguments in support
of his claims under sections 1692e or 1692f. Instead, the first
count of the complaint directed against Waldman merely recites the
language of the statutory sections and provides no specific
factual allegations supporting false, deceptive, or misleading
behavior under section 1692e or unfair or unconscionable behavior
under section 1692f. Such claims lack facial plausibility because
they omit factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.

Accordingly, Hayles fails to state a claim to relief under
sections 1692e and 1692f with facial plausibility and his claims
must be dismissed.

Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint are granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 21, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yctjwbuafrom
Leagle.com.

Gregory Hayles, Plaintiff, represented by Abraham Kleinman,
Kleinman LLC.,  626 RXR Plaza, Uniondale, NY 11556, USA
Gregory Hayles, Plaintiff, represented by Tiffany Nicole Hardy,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC. 20 S Clark St Ste 1500,
Chicago, IL 60603-1824, United States.

Aspen Properties Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by George
Vergos, Williams - george.williams@unsw.edu.au - Ristoff, Proper &
Bloom.

Waldman, Sagginario & Associates, PLLC, Defendant, represented by
George Vergos, Williams, Ristoff, Proper & Bloom.


BAKED BY MELISSA: Faces "Wu" Suit in S.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baked By Melissa,
LLC. The case is styled as Kathy Wu and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Baked By Melissa, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06612 (S.D. NY, August 30, 2017).

Baked by Melissa, LLC owns and operates bakery shops.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BANK OF AMERICA: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Fernandez, an individual, Alex Yong, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Bank of America, N.A. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-06104 (N.D. Cal., August 17, 2017), seeks unpaid
minimum and overtime wages and interest thereon, redress for
failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment and
failure to maintain time-keeping records, injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest resulting from Unfair Business Practices and Unfair
Competition in violation of California Business and Professions
Code, California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.
[BN]

Fernandez and Yong were employed by Defendant as a mortgage
brokers and loan originators at Defendant's Valencia branch in the
County of Los Angeles, State of California.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
      Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
      HAFFNER LAW PC
      445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 514-5681
      Fax: (213) 514-5682
      Email: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
             gl@haffnerlawyers.com

             - and -

      Paul Stevens, Esq.
      STEVENS, L.C.
      700 S. Flower Street, Suite 660
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 270-1211
      Facsimile: (213) 270-1223
      Email: pstevens@stevenslc.com


BAYER AG: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Goldman" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Daniel Goldman filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Daniel Goldman v. Bayer AG, et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-00647-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants misrepresented the number of
multivitamins that are contained in bottles of One A Day
VitaCraves chewable vitamin supplements.

The appellate case is captioned as Daniel Goldman v. Bayer AG, et
al., Case No. 17-16697, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 22, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on October 23, 2017;

   -- Appellant Daniel Goldman's opening brief is due on
      December 1, 2017;

   -- Appellees Bayer AG, Bayer Corporation and Bayer Healthcare,
      LLC's answering brief is due on January 2, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant DANIEL GOLDMAN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: rickert@whafh.com

Defendants-Appellees BAYER AG, BAYER CORPORATION and BAYER
HEALTHCARE, LLC, are represented by:

          Ryan M. Sandrock, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1715
          Telephone: (415) 772-1200
          E-mail: rsandrock@sidley.com

Defendants-Appellees BAYER CORPORATION and BAYER HEALTHCARE, LLC,
are represented by:

          Jonathan F. Cohn, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1501 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 736-8110
          Facsimile: (202) 736-8711
          E-mail: jcohn@sidley.com


BLUEMERCURY INC: Sept. 18 Due to Reply to 2nd Amended Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captiolned SANDRA ESPINOSA, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLUEMERCURY, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; MACY'S, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-07202-
JST(N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted the parties'
stipulated order extending the Defendants' time to file an answer
and/or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint from Sept. 1, 2017 up to and including Sep. 18, 2017.

This extension will not alter the date of any event or any
deadline already fixed by the Court order.  No other extensions
have been requested with respect to filing a responsive pleading
to the Second Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/4SUBNp from Leagle.com.

Sandra Espinosa, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Sandra Espinosa, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Scott Leviant --
scott@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & Thomas Alistair Segal
-- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- etareh Law Group.

Bluemercury, Inc., Defendant, represented by David S. Bradshaw --
BradshawD@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Nathan Wade
Austin -- AustinN@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.

Macy's, Inc., Defendant, represented by David S. Bradshaw, Jackson
Lewis P.C. & Nathan Wade Austin, Jackson Lewis P.C.


BMW: Judge Approves Class Settlement, $1.2MM Attorney's Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge has approved a settlement agreement that will
provide drivers of defective BMW 6-series convertibles with
roughly $8.6 million in compensation.

U.S. District Judge William J. Martini of the District of New
Jersey also signed off on nearly $1.2 million in attorney fees for
lawyers representing the plaintiffs. Those lawyers originally
requested up to $1.87 million in fees, which would have been just
over 20 percent of the settlement value.

The settlement resolves claims over defective convertible top
mechanisms in BMW 6-series cars for the 2004 through 2010 model
years.

Owners or entities who leased or owned the qualifying cars will
each receive a software upgrade from a BMW garage that addresses
the convertible top defect, a one-year unlimited mileage extended
warranty, and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses for up to
two previous repair attempts.

"The settlement is reasonable in light of the best possible
recovery and the attendant risks of litigation," Martini wrote in
his opinion issued Aug. 24. He added, "Importantly, the settlement
does not preclude future claims against BMW for personal injury or
subrogation arising from the conduct subject to this litigation."
The settlement, however, was not universally supported and some
class members objected.

One family, the Oettings, claimed they lacked faith in BMW's
ability to repair their 2005 E64. They asked to be compensated for
the total value of the car over the six years they owned it.
But Martini explained that litigants can't always get everything
they want.

"Perhaps an ideal settlement would provide additional monetary
compensation and additional relief for the Oettings' frustration,
but settlements are by definition the product of compromise, and
the possibility 'that a settlement could have been better . . .
does not mean the settlement presented was not fair, reasonable or
adequate,'" the judge said.

Additionally, Gary Sibley, who BMW referred to as a "notorious
serial objector," took issue with just about everything in the
settlement from the notice period to the compensation to attorney
fees. Martini shot down each of Sibley's objections in turn.
Matthew Mendelsohn of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman in Roseland
represents the class members. He did not return a call for comment
on the settlement approval.

Christopher Dalton of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney in Newark
represents BMW and did not return a call seeking comment.
BMW did not respond to a request for comment. [GN]


CABLE NETWORK: Attorney Plotting 'Legal Takedown' for 'Fake News'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Stockman, writing for Law Newz, reports that a group,
headed by Ohio attorney Joni Turner, Esq. --
Joniturnerattorney@gmail.com -- is organizing a class action civil
lawsuit which they claim will be a "legal takedown" of CNN for
"defaming," and spreading "fake news." Turner announced the effort
on Periscope, and has since set up a website asking for class
action members to sign up. #OurTakeDown claims that "it is time to
hold CNN accountable."

Within a few hours of launching the website, Turner said she
already had 621 people sign up to be part of the class action.

"I am using every avenue available to Legally go after CNN for
using their "Fake" News Platform to 'Defame' "Bully" "Target" and
"Destroy" Conservative Americans," Turner wrote.

In a Periscope video that was watched by thousands, she told her
viewers that she was rooting for CNN to say "worse things,"
especially taking aim at Don Lemon for his reporting.  She said
that after a lot of research, she has determined that they may
have violated a number of laws including 18 USC 2385 by advocating
the overthrow of the government.

"What do you think Kathy Griffin holding the bloody head of Donald
Trump meant?" Turner said. "That was a CNN independent contractor
that they keep on their payroll that was advocating the beheading
in the Islamic terrorist way of beheading . . . she knew what she
was doing."  CNN has since cut ties with Griffin, who apologized
for a joke that she admitted "crossed the line." The Secret
Service reportedly investigated the situation, but "completely
exonerated" her and "closed the case."

As for any legal case against CNN, Ms. Jones will likely have a
tough time, as commentary and opinion (especially comedy) has
generally been protected by the First Amendment and through plenty
of Supreme Court case law.

Since joining Periscope eight days ago, Turner has garnered more
than 150,000 likes, and has been watched by thousands. LawNewz.com
confirmed she is an attorney in the State of Ohio with an active
bar license. According to records, Turner had her license
suspended in 2003, and again in 2006. We reached out to her for
comment, and will update this article when we get it. [GN]


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "McCamey" Suit Over Time-Barred Debt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosita McCamey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Capital Management Services, LP and Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-01429-UJH-VEH (N.D. Ala., August
22, 2017), arises out of the Defendants' attempts to collect upon
a time-barred debt, without adequate disclosure that the debt at
issue was time-barred.

The Defendants operate a nationwide debt collection business and
attempts to collect debts from consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


CATAMARAN HEALTH: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Graham" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case captioned Kenneth Graham, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
Catamaran Health Solutions LLC, formerly known as Catalyst Health
Solutions, formerly known as Healthextras Inc.; Healthextras LLC;
Alliant Services Houston Inc., Defendants, Stonebridge Life
Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee, Virginia Surety Company
Inc., Defendant, No. 16-1161(8th Cir.), Judge Michael Joseph
Melloy of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
affirmed the district court's order granting the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss.

At issue in the present suit are allegations that a marketing
entity, HealthExtras, along with other entities, including
different insurers, conspired to skirt the practical and statutory
group-policy protections.  In broad strokes, Graham alleges
HealthExtras solicited names from credit-card issuers and
advertised group accidental disability policies to card holders
even though these card holders were not members of any stand-alone
group created for a purpose apart from obtaining insurance.
HealthExtras then sold group policies to the interested card
holders and billed card holders through recurring charges on their
cards.

According to Graham, the policies at issue were void ab initio
because the insurers failed to comply with an Arkansas statute
defining permissible and qualifying "groups."  He also alleges the
Defendants illegally failed to comply with a statutory
registration requirement.  Graham's complaint, read as a whole,
alleges in the alternative that, to the extent the policies were
not void, they actually provided very little coverage at a vastly
inflated price.

Graham purchased coverage in 2001 and continued paying for
coverage until policy termination in December 2014.  On Oct. 6,
2014, Graham filed the present class-action complaint, naming as a
proposed class persons who had purchased policies marketed by
HealthExtras between 1999 and the time of filing, subject to
certain exclusions.  Graham named as Defendants the marketing
organizations that spearheaded the insurance program and two
insurance companies that served as underwriters, Virginia Surety
and Stonebridge.  The complaint raised four counts: violation of
the Arkansas Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, conversion,
and civil conspiracy.

In November 2014, after Graham filed his suit, the Defendants
canceled the group policy via letter, effective Dec. 31, 2014,
stating the respective insurance coverages in the HealthExtras
Program, underwritten by Stonebridge and Virginia Surety are
terminating.

In December 2014, the marketing organizations and both insurance
companies filed separate motions to dismiss, challenging Graham's
standing and challenging the sufficiency of his pleadings.

On Jan. 7, 2015, Graham filed a first amended complaint in the
present case, eliminating his claim under the Arkansas Trade
Practices Act and raising instead a breach-of-contract claim.  He
asserted the Defendants' termination of the policy was a breach of
contract and alleged Stonebridge had sent the termination letter.

On Jan. 26, 2015, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
first amended complaint.  They renewed the arguments from their
first round of motions to dismiss and again challenged Graham's
standing.

In briefing, the parties placed primary emphasis on the question
of whether the Arkansas saving statute applied.  The district
court held the statute applied and prevented the policy from being
deemed void ab initio.  In addition, the district court, in the
alternative, dismissed all claims as time barred without
additional explanation.  The Plaintiffs appeal.

Judge Melloy concludes that, if the policy is deemed void ab
initio due to non-compliance with state law, then Graham will have
suffered a compensable economic injury fairly traceable to the
Defendants' actions.  Whether the policies actually were void goes
to the merits, not the threshold standing analysis.  Turning to
Graham's breach-of-contract claim, the allegedly wrongful act was
the termination itself.  The Judge says this act occurred in
November or December 2014, after Graham filed his original
complaint but before he filed his first amended complaint.  This
claim, added after the initial filing of suit and based on an act
that occurred after the initial filing, cannot be deemed time
barred.  Lastly, the parties' arguments as to breach-of-contract
claims are somewhat misplaced.  Graham himself, in the district
court, submitted a Stonebridge policy as an attachment to his Feb.
16, 2015 "Consolidated Response in Opposition to Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint."  That
policy unambiguously grants the insurer the same termination
rights as the National Union policy, and by Graham's own
allegations, Stonebridge provided the requisite 30 days' notice.
Judge Melloy concludes Graham's breach-of-contract claim fails as
a matter of law.  For these reasons, he affirmed the judgment of
the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/YVWCY4 from Leagle.com.

Robert L. Jones, III -- rlj@beggslane.com -- for Defendant.

Byron Freeland -- bfreeland@mwlaw.com -- for Defendant.

James M. Simpson -- simpson@fridayfirm.com -- for Defendant.

Edwin L. Lowther, Jr. -- elowther@wlj.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Denny Paul Petty, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Harvey Kurzweil -- hkurzweil@winston.com -- for Defendant.

Martin Aaron Kasten, for Defendant.

Roger L. Mandel -- rlm@lhlaw.net -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gary D. Marts, Jr. -- gmarts@wlj.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Kerri E. Kobbeman -- kkobbeman@cwlaw.com -- for Defendant.

Amber Prince -- aprince@cwlaw.com -- for Defendant.

Aaron Craig Hemmings -- ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jay Aughtman, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Patrick J. Murphy, for Defendant.

Paul Louis Langer -- paul.langer@quarles.com -- for Defendant.

James David Brown, for Defendant-Appellee.

Stephen Roy Clarke, for Defendant-Appellee.

Tom Van Arsdel -- tvanarsdel@winstead.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Kelly Librera -- klibrera@winston.com -- for Defendant.

Neal Marder -- nmarder@akingump.com -- for Defendant.

Bruce E. Bagelman, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


CENTURYLINK INC: "Denniston" Sues Over Unjust Service Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Denniston and Jon Lodestein, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CenturyLink, Inc.,
CenturyLink Communications, LLC, CenturyLink Public
Communications, Inc., CenturyLink Sales Solutions, Inc., Qwest
Corporation and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 6:17-
cv-01309, (D. Iowa, August 16, 2017), seeks actual, consequential,
statutory and incidental losses and damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded,
costs of suit and such other and further relief resulting from
unjust enrichment and consumer fraud.

Plaintiffs are CenturyLink customers for their internet service.
They claim to be unjustly charged for services that they did not
avail of and/or did not agree to.

CenturyLink is a global communications and IT services company
focused on network and data systems management, big data
analytics, managed security services, hosting, cloud and IT
consulting services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
     Anne T. Regan, Esq.
     Nicholas S. Kuhlmann, Esq.
     Jason Raether, Esq.
     HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
     8050 West 78th Street
     Edina, MN 55439
     Telephone: (952) 941-4005
     Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
     Email: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com
            aregan@hjlawfirm.com
            nkuhlmann@hjlawfirm.com
            jraether@hjlawfirm.com

            - and -

     Roxanne Barton Conlin, Esq.
     ROXANNE CONLIN & ASSOCIATES, PC
     3721 SW 61st St., Suite C
     Des Moines, IA 50321
     Telephone: (515) 283-1111
     Facsimile: (515) 282-0477
     Email: Roxlaw@aol.com


CENTURYLINK: "Lucero" Suit Transferred to New Mex. Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 11, 2017, captioned
Richard Lucero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Centurylink, Inc., Case No. D-202-CV-2017-05833, was
transferred from the State of New Mexico Second Judicial District
Court, County of Bernalillo to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico on August 24, 2017. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00873-LF-SCY to the proceeding.

Centurylink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in
the United States. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

      Eric R. Burris, Esq.
      Cassandra R. Malone, Esq.
      BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
      201 Third Street NW, Suite 1800
      Albuquerque, NM 87102
      Telephone: (505) 244-0770
      Facsimile: (505) 244-9266
      E-mail: eburris@bhfs.com
              crmalone@bhfs.com


COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Court Denies Bid to Stay Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE COBALT INTERNATIONAL ENERGY, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. H-14-3428(S.D. Tex.),
Judge Nancy Friedman Atlas of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas denied the Defendants' Motion to
Reconsider the Court's Memorandum and Order Granting Class
Certification; and the Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery
Pending Appeal of Class Certification Order.

On Nov. 30, 2014, Plaintiffs St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund and Fire and Police Retiree
Health Care Fund of San Antonio filed the Class Action lawsuit.
By Orders entered March 3, 2015, the Court consolidated all
pending securities lawsuits against Cobalt into the St. Lucie case
and appointed lead plaintiffs, lead counsel, and liaison counsel.
On May 1, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint.

On March 15, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint.  They assert a claim under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5;
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; Section 20A of the Exchange
Act; Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act");
Section 15 of the Securities Act; and Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act.  The Plaintiffs moved for class certification,
appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class
counsel.  The Court granted the requests by Memorandum and Order
entered June 15, 2017.

The Defendants filed a petition pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, seeking to appeal the Court's class
certification ruling.  The Fifth Circuit granted the petition on
Aug. 4, 2017.

The Defendants also moved in the Court for reconsideration of
specific issues, and for a stay of all discovery pending their
appeal of the Court's class certification order.

Relying on the recent Supreme Court decision in Cal. Pub. Emp.
Ret. Sys. v. ANZ Sec. ("CalPERS"), the Defendants seek
reconsideration of the class certification ruling in connection
with the February 2012 Offerings.  They argue that the Securities
Act claims of unnamed class members were not filed individually
within the three-year statute of repose.  Again relying on
CalPERS, they also seek reconsideration of the class certification
ruling, based on an argument that class members' Exchange Act
claims based on purchases before June 15, 2012, are likewise
barred by the statute of repose.

Judge Atlas held that there is nothing in the Supreme Court's
decision in CalPERS that suggests that the putative class action,
filed within the three-year statute of repose, does not protect
putative class members who remain in the class and do not opt out
to pursue individual lawsuits.  Indeed, the majority and
dissenting opinions both rely on a presumption that the plaintiff
was a proper class member and could have pursued his claims as a
member of the class even though the class was not certified within
the statute of repose.  As a result, there is nothing in the
CalPERS decision that suggests a timely-filed class "action" does
not satisfy the statute of repose for class members who do not opt
out.  Moreover, there is nothing in the CalPERS decision that
suggests class certification in a timely-filed putative class
action is precluded once the statute of repose expires.  She
accordingly denied the Defendants' Motion to Reconsider based on
the CalPERS decision.

The Defendants seek reconsideration of the class certification
ruling regarding Cobalt noteholders based on a recent decision
from the Second Circuit in In re Petrobras Sec..  Judge Atlas
concludes that nothing in the Second Circuit's decision in
Petrobras leads her to reconsider its prior ruling.  She therefore
denied the Motion to Reconsider based on the Second Circuit's
Petrobras ruling.

As to the Defendants' request that the Court revises the class
definition to make clear that the class members whose claims the
Court already dismissed are not included in the class definition,
Judge Atlas denied it.  She explains that the class definition
includes purchasers of certain Cobalt securities during the Class
Period who "were damaged" by those purchases.  A class member may
have purchased a variety of Cobalt securities.  Such a class
member may, therefore, have both live claims and dismissed claims.
The class member may not recover based on dismissed claims, but
the existence of the dismissed claims does not preclude the
purchaser from being a class member as to the live claims.

Finally, the Judge has carefully considered each of the factors
that are relevant to a stay pending appeal.  She finds that none
of the factors favors a stay of discovery in the case.  As a
result, she denied the Motion to Stay.

Based on these reasons, Judge Atlas denied the Defendants' Motion
to Reconsider and Motion to Stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/3Hl0fA from Leagle.com.

St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by David R. Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com
-- Bernstein Litowitz et al.

Fire and Police Retiree Health Care Fund, San Antonio, Plaintiff,
represented by Gerald T. Drought -- gdrought@mdtlaw.com -- Martin
& Drought PC.

Universal Investment Gesellschaft m.b.h., Plaintiff, represented
by Matthew Christopher Matheny, Provost Umphrey, Christopher
Francis Moriarty -- cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC &
David R. Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz et
al.

Sjunde AP-Fonden, Plaintiff, represented by Johnston de Forest
Whitman, Jr. -- jwhitman@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Naumon A. Amjed -- namjed@ktmc.com --
Stuart L. Berman -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, pro hac
vice, Stuart L. Berman, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice & David R. Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz et al.

GAMCO Global Gold, Natural Resources & Income Trust, lead
plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Brandon Marsh --
brandon.marsh@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan H. Beemer -- jbeemer@entwistle-law.com
-- Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Vincent R. Cappucci, Entwistle &
Cappucci, Andrew J. Entwistle -- aentwistle@entwistle-law.com --
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, David R. Stickney, Bernstein Litowitz et
al, pro hac vice, Jonathan D. Uslaner -- jonathanu@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP & Thomas Robert Ajamie -
- tajamie@ajamie.com -- Ajamie LLP.

GAMCO Natural Resources, Gold & Income Trust, lead plaintiff,
Plaintiff, represented by Brandon Marsh, Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan H. Beemer, Entwistle &
Cappucci LLP, Vincent R. Cappucci, Entwistle & Cappucci, Andrew J.
Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, David R. Stickney, Bernstein
Litowitz et al, pro hac vice, Jonathan D. Uslaner, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP & Thomas Robert Ajamie, Ajamie
LLP.

Joseph H Bryant, Defendant, represented by Karl S. Stern --
karlstern@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan,
David Gerger -- davidgerger@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP & Emily McLemore Smith --
emilysmith@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan.

James W Farnsworth, Defendant, represented by Daniel David, Baker
Botts LLP, David D. Sterling -- david.sterling@bakerbotts.com --
Baker Botts LLP, Amy Pharr Hefley -- amy.hefley@bakerbotts.com --
Baker Botts, Paul R. Elliott -- paul.elliott@bakerbotts.com --
Baker Botts LLP & Russell Carter Lewis --
russell.lewis@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP.

John P Wilkirson, Defendant, represented by Daniel David, Baker
Botts LLP, David D. Sterling, Baker Botts LLP, Amy Pharr Hefley,
Baker Botts, Paul R. Elliott, Baker Botts LLP & Russell Carter
Lewis, Baker Botts LLP.

Peter R Coneway, Defendant, represented by David D. Sterling,
Baker Botts LLP, Amy Pharr Hefley, Baker Botts, Daniel David,
Baker Botts LLP, Paul R. Elliott, Baker Botts LLP & Russell Carter
Lewis, Baker Botts LLP.

Henry Cornell, Defendant, represented by Daniel David, Baker Botts
LLP, David D. Sterling, Baker Botts LLP, Amy Pharr Hefley, Baker
Botts, Paul R. Elliott, Baker Botts LLP & Russell Carter Lewis,
Baker Botts LLP.

Jack E Golden, Defendant, represented by Daniel David, Baker Botts
LLP, David D. Sterling, Baker Botts LLP, Amy Pharr Hefley, Baker
Botts, Paul R. Elliott, Baker Botts LLP & Russell Carter Lewis,
Baker Botts LLP.

N John Lancaster, Defendant, represented by Daniel David, Baker
Botts LLP, David D. Sterling, Baker Botts LLP, Amy Pharr Hefley,
Baker Botts, Paul R. Elliott, Baker Botts LLP & Russell Carter
Lewis, Baker Botts LLP.

Jon A Marwill, Defendant, represented by Daniel David, Baker Botts
LLP, David D. Sterling, Baker Botts LLP, Amy Pharr Hefley, Baker
Botts, Paul R. Elliott, Baker Botts LLP & Russell Carter Lewis,
Baker Botts LLP.

Kenneth W Moore, Defendant, represented by Daniel David, Baker
Botts LLP, David D. Sterling, Baker Botts LLP, Amy Pharr Hefley,
Baker Botts, Paul R. Elliott, Baker Botts LLP & Russell Carter
Lewis, Baker Botts LLP.

J Hardy Murchison, Defendant, represented by Daniel David, Baker
Botts LLP, David D. Sterling, Baker Botts LLP, Amy Pharr Hefley,
Baker Botts, Paul R. Elliott, Baker Botts LLP & Russell Carter
Lewis, Baker Botts LLP.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Ambulance Chasers' Class Action Not Strong
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pascoe, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the proposed Maurice Blackburn/IMF Bentham class action against
the Commonwealth Bank may not have nearly as much going for it as
the highly publicised launch on August 23 would have us believe.

Part of the pressure on companies to settle -- and these sorts of
actions are almost always settled -- comes from the publicity the
case generates. Maurice Blackburn was certainly successful in
achieving plenty of that.

It's a reasonable suspicion the threat of the class action, of
shareholders suing themselves, played a role in the CBA share
price underperforming on August 24 -- a quick own-goal for the
potential class.

In trying to entice shareholders to sign up for the class, beating
the bushes for clients, Maurice Blackburn painted its case as
pretty much a sure thing -- no surprise about that.

CBA's breathtaking tactics bring on class action
But a funds manager who is regularly called upon to offer an
opinion on such actions thinks otherwise.

The expert is a fan of class actions, saying they have been good
for the market, forcing companies to release information faster
and thus have greatly reduced the opportunities for insiders to
profit. Thanks to the threat of class actions, companies tend to
inform the market at the slightest hint of trouble.

Speaking on a background basis, the source said there are two
immediate tests:

By submitting your email you are agreeing to Fairfax Media's terms
and conditions and privacy policy.

Was the information generally known? The answer here is clearly
"no" in the proposed window of August 17, 2015, to August 3, 2017.
That's a tick for Maurice Blackburn.

Was it material? Arguably, not. A tick for CBA.

"The courts ascribe to the efficient market hypothesis, that the
market immediately or very quickly discounts all available
information into the share price. CBA will argue this vigorously,"
the source said.

On August 2, CBA shares closed at $84.23. They opened at $84.09 on
August 3, the day the news broke, and closed at $83.97 -- a
negligible movement.

On August 4, with headlines everywhere screaming about the money
laundering, CBA shares opened at $82.51 -- down 1.7 per cent.
That's not exactly a big deal in the market's general gyrations.

"The plaintiff of course will argue it took some time for the
market to understand the gravity. In my experience, that is a very
hard argument. Courts will generally hesitate to accept it," the
source goes on.

On August 22, the day before Maurice Blackburn called its media
conference, CBA's shares closed at $78.66. Anyone who bought below
that price -- and a quick look at a chart of the CBA share price
shows that was most buyers -- had not suffered a loss.

"The other argument is the time period. CBA will argue they were
in commercial discussions right up to the bell. They expected a
non-material slap on the wrist," says the source.

Back in August, 2015, that would have been a fair expectation,
hence disclosure was not required.

And we're yet to see how dim a view the courts will take of CBA's
failures. It's possible that the fine still won't be material in
the context of CBA's total business.

But don't let any of that stop ambulance chasers starting a case -
- the plaintiff normally settles. [GN]


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement Ruling in Fuel Temp. Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nancy Mortiz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit affirmed the district court's approval of the 10
settlement agreements that Alkon has demonstrated standing to
challenge and affirmed the district court's order refusing to
allow Costco to adopt the terms of the Stipulation under Section
4.7 of the Costco Agreement in the motor fuel temperature sales
practices litigation.

Several individuals in multiple states brought class action
lawsuits against various fuel retailers, the Defendants, based on
the Defendants' failure to control for, or at least disclose, the
effects of temperature on fuel.  In 2007, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these cases and designated
the District of Kansas as the transferee district.

After years of legal wrangling, several of the parties entered
into settlement agreements, which the district court ultimately
approved.  These appeals arise from (i) the district court's
approval of those settlement agreements and (ii) its
interpretation of one of them.  The Court consolidated the appeals
for procedural purposes.

The first Defendant to settle was Costco.  Under Sections 4.2 and
4.3 of the Costco Agreement, Costco agreed to convert pumps at its
existing gas stations in certain states to Automatic Temperature
Control ("ATC") pumps, and to install ATC pumps at its new gas
stations in certain states.

But these requirements weren't absolute.  Section 4.7 of the
Costco Agreement contains, among other things, that if at any time
prior to the completion of conversion and installation of ATC, the
Class Counsel and the Class Representatives agree to enter into
any agreement with any person or company to resolve any action or
any other pending or threatened claim concerning ATC that is
materially more favorable to that person or company than the
Amended Settlement Agreement is to Costco, they agree to notify
Costco promptly of the terms of such agreement.  At Costco's sole
discretion, it may adopt the materially more favorable terms in
any such agreement in place of its obligations under Section 4.4.

The district court approved the Costco Agreement on April 24,
2012.  Nearly two years later, several of the Plaintiffs agreed,
via a "Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice," to dismiss their
individual claims against several other Defendants.  And unlike
the Costco Agreement, the Stipulation didn't require any of those
other Defendants to implement ATC at all, let alone to do so by a
certain date and on a certain schedule.  Costco filed notice of
its intent to invoke its rights under Section 4.7 and then asked
the district court to grant Costco leave to adopt the "terms" of
the Stipulation and to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims against
Costco with prejudice.

The district court denied both requests.  Accordingly, it refused
to let Costco adopt the "terms" in the Stipulation, or to dismiss
the claims against Costco with prejudice.

In the meantime, the Plaintiffs negotiated settlement agreements
with 28 other Defendants.  Only nine of those settlement
agreements (plus the Costco Agreement) are at issue here: the
Plaintiffs' settlement agreements with Defendants BP, Chevron,
Citgo, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sinclair, Sunoco, and
Valero.  These 10 settlement agreements fall into two general
categories, which the Court refers to as conversion settlements
and fund settlements.

The Costco and Valero settlements are conversion settlements.
Much like Costco, Valero agreed to convert existing pumps in
certain states to ATC and to install ATC pumps at new stations in
certain states.  The remaining settlement agreements are fund
settlements.  They require BP, Chevron, Citgo, ConocoPhillips,
ExxonMobil, Shell, Sinclair, and Sunoco each to pay a certain sum
-- ranging from $61,000 to $5,000,000 -- into a common fund.
Under the terms of the settlement agreements, portions of that
fund may be used to (i) reimburse fuel retailers for expenses they
incur if they convert to ATC; and (ii) defray costs that state
agencies incur if those states agree to permit or require ATC at
resale.  Neither the conversion settlements nor the fund
settlements provide any money to class members.

Two groups of objectors lodged objections to some or all of the
relevant settlement agreements.  The first group of objectors,
comprising class members Amy Alkon, Nicolas Martin, Theodore H.
Frank, Melissa Holyoak, and Adam Schulman ("Alkon").  The second
group of objectors, comprising non-settling defendants QuikTrip
Corp., 7-Eleven,  Inc., Circle K Stores, Inc., Kum & Go, L.C.,
Marathon Petroleum Company LP, Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Pilot Travel
Centers, LLC, Flying J, Inc., PTCAA Texas, LP, RaceTrac Petroleum,
Inc., Sheetz, Inc., Speedway LLC, The Pantry, Inc., and Wawa, Inc.
("Speedway").

Alkon objected to the settlement agreements on numerous grounds,
arguing that (i) approval of the settlement agreements violates
the First Amendment; (ii) approval of the settlement agreements
violates separation-of-powers principles; (iii) ATC conversion
harms some class members and confers no benefit on others; (iv)
the settlement agreements afford preferential treatment to class
counsel by paving the way for excessive attorney's fees; and (v)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)'s superiority requirement precludes class
certification.

Speedway advanced similar objections, arguing that approval of the
settlement agreements (i) violates the First Amendment; (ii)
violates Article III of the United States Constitution; and (iii)
poses separation-of-powers problems.  The district court addressed
and rejected these objections and ultimately approved the
settlement agreements.

Costco now appeals the district court's order refusing to allow it
to exercise its rights under Section 4.7 of the Costco Agreement.
Alkon and Speedway both appeal the district court's order
approving the remaining settlement agreements, and Alkon
additionally appeals the district court's order approving the
Costco Agreement.

Judge Mortiz held that taken together, the three aspects of
Section 4.7 demonstrate that the parties never intended to allow
Costco to replace its obligations regarding whether to implement
ATC under Sections 4.2 and 4.3 with more favorable terms.
Instead, they only intended to allow Costco to replace its
obligations regarding how to implement ATC under Section 4.4 with
such terms.  And because that intent is evident from the actual
words the parties used in Section 4.7, she declined to look beyond
those words to the parties' subjective intent.  Accordingly, she
affirmed the district court's order denying Costco's motion to
invoke its rights under Section 4.7.

The Judge also notes that the district court concluded that
Speedway's objections based on class membership weren't properly
before the court because Speedway failed to comply with the
district court's notice requirements.  And Speedway makes no
attempt in its opening brief to argue that such a decision was
beyond the bounds of the district court's discretion.  Under these
circumstances, Judge Mortiz won't disturb the district court's
ruling that Speedway's objections weren't properly before it.
Accordingly, she declined to consider Speedway's objections to the
settlement agreements.

As to Alkon's challenges to the 10 settlement agreements, the
Judge held (i) that the district court's approval of the
settlement agreements doesn't constitute state action and doesn't
violate Article III; (ii) that the attorney's fees don't render
the district court's approval of the settlement agreements an
abuse of discretion; and that (iii) that the district court didn't
abuse its discretion in certifying the class.

The settlement agreements at issue are unusual.  But the decision
to approve them rests with the sound discretion of the district
court.  Under the unique facts of this case, Judge Mortiz can't
say the district court abused that discretion.  Accordingly, she
affirmed.

The case is captioned IN RE: MOTOR FUEL TEMPERATURE SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION. ZACHARY WILSON; MATHEW COOK; BRENT
DONALDSON; SAMANTHA BAYLARD; CRAIG MASSEY; RICHARD GALAUSKI;
WILLIAM BOYD; LISA McBRIDE; TAMARA MILLER; HEARTLAND LANDSCAPE
GROUP LLC; TEAM TRUCKING; JAMES ANLIKER; DENNIS K. MANN; PHYLLIS
LERNER; HERB GLASER; STEVEN RUBIN; MAX CANDIOTTY; FRED AGUIRRE;
JAMES JARVAIS; MARA REDSTONE; RAPHAEL SAGALYN; J.C. WASH; JEAN W.
NEESE; CECIL R. WILKINS; WAYNE BYRAM; GARY KOHUT; DEBRA BERG; TIA
GOMEZ; SHONNA S. BUTLER; BEN DOZIER; MARK SCIVNER; BARBARA CUMBO;
JAMES GRAHAM; KENNEDY G. KRAATZ; MELISSA D. MURRAY; MICHAEL A.
WARNER; CLINTON J. DAVIS; STEVEN R. RUTHERFORD; LISA ANN LEE;
BRENT CRAWFORD; DIXCEE MILLSAP; CARL RITTERHOUSE; SAMUEL ELY;
VICTOR RUYBALID; HADLEY BOWER; KRISTY DEANN MOTT; CHARLES
COCKRELL, JR.; WILLIAM RUTTHERFORD; JAN RUTHERFORD; MARK WYATT;
DAWN LALOR; GERALD PANTO, JR.; EDGER PAZ; CHARLES D. JONES;
MICHAEL GAUTHREAUX; JOANN KORLESKI; JEFF JENKINS; SARA TERRY;
JACOB STEED; MARVIN BRYAN; JOHN TELLES; CHRISTOPHER PAYNE; SCOTT
CAMPBELL; JONATHAN CHARLES CONLIN; PRISCILLA CRAFT; ROBERT HICKS;
RICHARD PATRICK; JESSICA HONIGBERG; RAYSHAUN GLANTON; GARLAND
WILLIAMS; ANNIE SMITH; BOBBY ROBERSON; SAM HOTCHKISS; ANNA
LEGATES; ANDREA FRAYSER; MELVIN ELLISON; CECIL WILKINS; BETTY
CHERRY; JOY HOWELL; ALLEN RAY KLEIN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
CIRCLE K STORES, INC.; PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC; KUM&GO, L.C.;
QUICKTRIP CORPORATION; MURPHY OIL USA, INC.; RACE TRAC PETROLEUM,
INC.; MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC; THE PANTRY, INC.; SPEEDWAY
SUPERAMERICA, LLC; SHEETZ, INC.; WAWA, INC.; FLYING J INC.; 7-
ELEVEN, INC.; PTCAA TEXAS, LP; Defendants-Appellants, v. CHEVRON
USA, INC.; CASEY'S GENERAL STORE, INC.; SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION;
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; ESSO VIRGIN ISLANDS, INC. MOBIL OIL GUAM,
INC.; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendants-Appellees, and BP
CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA, INC.; CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION;
CONOCO PHILLIPS COMPANY; VALERO MARKETING AND SUPPLY COMPANY;
SUNOCO CORPORATION; EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a SHELL OIL
PRODUCTS COMPANY, LLC; MOTIVA ENTERPRISES, LLC; TESORO REFINING
AND MARKETING COMPANY; SAM'S CLUB; LOVE'S TRAVEL STOP & COUNTRY
STORES, INC.; G AND M OIL COMPANY, INC.; UNITED EL SEGUNDO, INC.;
WORLD OIL CORPORATION; M.M. FOLWER, INC.; DANSK INVESTMENT GROUP,
INC.; B-B OIL COMPANY, INC.; PORT CITIES OIL LLC; FLASH MARKET,
INC; J&P FLASH, INC.; MAGNESS OIL COMPANY; COULSON OIL COMPANY,
INC.; DIAMOND STATE OIL, LLC; EZ MART STORES, INC.; THORNTONS,
INC., Defendants. IN RE: MOTOR FUEL TEMPERATURE SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION ZACHARY WILSON; MATHEW COOK; BRENT DONALDSON; SAMANTHA
BAYLARD; CRAIG MASSEY; RICHARD GALAUSKI; WILLIAM BOYD; LISA
McBRIDE; TAMARA MILLER; HEARTLAND LANDSCAPE GROUP LLC; TEAM
TRUCKING; JAMES ANLIKER; DENNIS K. MANN; PHYLLIS LERNER; HERB
GLASER; STEVEN RUBIN; MAX CANDIOTTY; FRED AGUIRRE; JAMES JARVAIS;
MARA REDSTONE; RAPHAEL SAGALYN; J.C. WASH; JEAN W. NEESE; CECIL R.
WILKINS; WAYNE BYRAM; GARY KOHUT; DEBRA BERG; TIA GOMEZ; SHONNA S.
BUTLER; BEN DOZIER; MARK SCIVNER; BARBARA CUMBO; JAMES GRAHAM;
KENNEDY G. KRAATZ; MELISSA D. MURRAY; MICHAEL A. WARNER; CLINTON
J. DAVIS; STEVEN R. RUTHERFORD; LISA ANN LEE; BRENT CRAWFORD;
DIXCEE MILLSAP; CARL RITTERHOUSE; SAMUEL ELY; VICTOR RUYBALID;
HADLEY BOWER; KRISTY DEANN MOTT; CHARLES COCKRELL, JR.; WILLIAM
RUTTHERFORD; JAN RUTHERFORD; MARK WYATT; DAWN LALOR; GERALD PANTO,
JR.; EDGER PAZ; CHARLES D. JONES; MICHAEL GAUTHREAUX; JOANN
KORLESKI; JEFF JENKINS; SARA TERRY; JACOB STEED; MARVIN BRYAN;
JOHN TELLES; CHRISTOPHER PAYNE; SCOTT CAMPBELL; JONATHAN CHARLES
CONLIN; PRISCILLA CRAFT; ROBERT HICKS; RICHARD PATRICK; JESSICA
HONIGBERG; RAYSHAUN GLANTON; GARLAND WILLIAMS; ANNIE SMITH; BOBBY
ROBERSON; SAM HOTCHKISS; ANNA LEGATES; ANDREA FRAYSER; MELVIN
ELLISON; CECIL WILKINS; BETTY CHERRY; JOY HOWELL; ALLEN RAY KLEIN,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CIRCLE K STORES, INC; PILOT TRAVEL
CENTERS, LLC; KUM&GO, L.C.; QUICKTRIP CORPORATION; MURPHY OIL USA,
INC.; RACE TRAC PETROLEUM, INC.; MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC;
THE PANTRY, INC.; SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA, LLC; SHEETZ, INC.; WAWA,
INC.; FLYING J INC.; 7-ELEVEN, INC.; PTCAA TEXAS, LP, Defendants-
Appellants, CHEVRON USA, INC.; CASEY'S GENERAL STORE, INC.;
SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION; EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; ESSO VIRGIN
ISLANDS, INC.; MOBIL OIL GUAM, INC.; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA
INC., Defendants-Appellees, and BP CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA,
INC.; CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; CONOCO PHILLIPS COMPANY; VALERO
MARKETING AND SUPPLY COMPANY; SUNOCO CORPORATION; EQUILON
ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY, LLC; MOTIVA
ENTERPRISES, LLC; TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY; SAM'S
CLUB; LOVE'S TRAVEL STOP & COUNTRY STORES, INC.; G AND M OIL
COMPANY, INC.; UNITED EL SEGUNDO, INC.; WORLD OIL CORPORATION;
M.M. FOLWER, INC.; DANSK INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.; B-B OIL COMPANY,
INC.; PORT CITIES OIL LLC; FLASH MARKET, INC; J&P FLASH, INC.;
MAGNESS OIL COMPANY; COULSON OIL COMPANY, INC.; DIAMOND STATE OIL,
LLC; EZ MART STORES, INC.; THORNTONS, INC., Defendants. IN RE:
MOTOR FUEL TEMPERATURE SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. ZACHARY WILSON;
MATHEW COOK; BRENT DONALDSON; SAMANTHA BAYLARD; CRAIG MASSEY;
RICHARD GALAUSKI; WILLIAM BOYD; LISA McBRIDE; TAMARA MILLER;
HEARTLAND LANDSCAPE GROUP LLC; TEAM TRUCKING; JAMES ANLIKER;
DENNIS K. MANN; PHYLLIS LERNER; HERB GLASER; STEVEN RUBIN; MAX
CANDIOTTY; FRED AGUIRRE; JAMES JARVAIS; MARA REDSTONE; RAPHAEL
SAGALYN; J.C. WASH; JEAN W. NEESE; CECIL R. WILKINS; WAYNE BYRAM;
GARY KOHUT; DEBRA BERG; TIA GOMEZ; SHONNA S. BUTLER; BEN DOZIER;
MARK SCIVNER; BARBARA CUMBO; JAMES GRAHAM; KENNEDY G. KRAATZ;
MELISSA D. MURRAY; MICHAEL A. WARNER; CLINTON J. DAVIS; STEVEN R.
RUTHERFORD; LISA ANN LEE; BRENT CRAWFORD; DIXCEE MILLSAP; CARL
RITTERHOUSE; SAMUEL ELY; VICTOR RUYBALID; HADLEY BOWER; KRISTY
DEANN MOTT; CHARLES COCKRELL, JR.; WILLIAM RUTTHERFORD; JAN
RUTHERFORD; MARK WYATT; DAWN LALOR; GERALD PANTO, JR.; EDGER PAZ;
CHARLES D. JONES; MICHAEL GAUTHREAUX; JOANN KORLESKI; JEFF
JENKINS; SARA TERRY; JACOB STEED; MARVIN BRYAN; JOHN TELLES;
CHRISTOPHER PAYNE; SCOTT CAMPBELL; JONATHAN CHARLES CONLIN;
PRISCILLA CRAFT; ROBERT HICKS; RICHARD PATRICK; JESSICA HONIGBERG;
RAYSHAUN GLANTON; GARLAND WILLIAMS; ANNIE SMITH; BOBBY ROBERSON;
SAM HOTCHKISS; ANNA LEGATES; ANDREA FRAYSER; MELVIN ELLISON; CECIL
WILKINS; BETTY CHERRY; JOY HOWELL; ALLEN RAY KLEIN, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. BP CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA, INC.; CITGO PETROLEUM
CORPORATION; CONOCO PHILLIPS COMPANY; COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION; EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION;
VALERO MARKETING AND SUPPLY COMPANY; SUNOCO CORPORATION; EQUILON
ENTERPRISES, LLC., d/b/a SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY, LLC; MOTIVA
ENTERPRISES, LLC; TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY; SAM'S
CLUB; LOVE'S TRAVEL STOP & COUNTRY STORES, INC.; G AND M OIL
COMPANY, INC.; UNITED EL SEGUNDO, INC.; WORLD OIL CORPORATION;
M.M. FOLWER, INC.; J&P FLASH, INC.; DANSK INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.;
CIRCLE K STORES, INC; KUM&GO, L.C.; MURPHY OIL USA, INC.; MARATHON
PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC; FLYING J INC.; 7-ELEVEN, INC.; PTCAA
TEXAS, LP; PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC; QUICKTRIP CORPORATION; RACE
TRAC PETROLEUM, INC.; THE PANTRY, INC.; SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA,
LLC; SHEETZ, INC.; WAWA, INC.; B-B OIL COMPANY, INC.; COULSON OIL
COMPANY, INC.; PORT CITIES OIL LLC; FLASH MARKET, INC.; J&P FLASH,
INC.; DIAMOND STATE OIL, LLC; MAGNESS OIL COMPANY; THORNTON'S,
INC., Defendants, and CHEVRON USA, INC.; EZ MART
STORES, INC.; CASEY'S GENERAL STORE, INC., Defendants-Appellees,
v. MELISSA HOLYOAK; ADAM SCHULMAN; AMY ALKON; NICOLAS S. MARTIN;
THEODORE H. FRANK, Objectors-Appellants. IN RE: MOTOR FUEL
TEMPERATURE SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION ANNIE SMITH; CHRISTOPHER
PAYNE; PHYLLIS LERNER; HERB GLAZER; MARA REDSTONE; BRENT CRAWFORD;
VICTOR RUYBALD; ZACH WILSON; LISA McBRIDE; RAPHAEL SAGALYN; BRENT
DONALDSON; GARY KOHUT; RICHARD GAULAUSKI; CHARLES BYRAM; JEAN
NEESE; SHONNA BUTLER; GERALD PANTO, JR.; JOANN KORLESKI; TAMARA
MILLER; PRISCILLA CRAFT; JEFF JENKINS; JAMES GRAHAM, Class
Representatives, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, and BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA
INC.; BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC; CASEY'S GENERAL STORES, INC.;
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; EQUILON
ENTERPRISES LLC, d/b/a Shell Oil Products US; MOTIVA ENTERPRISES
LLC; EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; MOBIL OIL GUAM, INC.; ESSO VIRGIN
ISLANDS, INC.; SAM'S EAST, INC.; SAM'S WEST, INC.; WAL-MART
STORES, INC.; WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP; SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION;
VALERO MARKETING AND SUPPLY COMPANY; CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.; SUNOCO,
INC. (R&M); B-B OIL COMPANY, INC.; COULSON OIL COMPANY, INC.;
DIAMOND STATE OIL, LLC; FLASH MARKET, INC.; J&P FLASH, INC.;
MAGNESS OIL COMPANY; PORT CITIES OIL, LLC; E-Z MART STORES, INC.;
LOVE'S TRAVEL STOP & COUNTRY STORES, INC.; WR HESS COMPANY; M.M.
FOWLER, INC., d/b/a Family Fare; DANSK INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.,
f/k/a USA Petroleum Corporation; TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING
COMPANY; THORNTONS, INC.; G&M OIL COMPANY, INC.; G&M OIL CO., LLC;
UNITED EL SEGUNDO, INC.; WORLD OIL CORPORATION, Defendants, v.
SPEEDWAY LLC; 7-ELEVEN, INC.; CIRCLE K STORES, INC; KUM & GO,
L.C.; MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LP; MURPHY OIL USA, INC.; PILOT
TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC; FLYING J INC.; PTCAA TEXAS, LP; RACETRAC
PETROLEUM, INC.; QUIKTRIP CORPORATION; SHEETZ, INC.; THE PANTRY,
INC.; WAWA, INC., Objectors, Nos. 15-3221, 15-3227, 15-3228, 15-
3254(10th Cir.),

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/gtpSoT from Leagle.com.

Tristan L. Duncan -- tlduncan@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon,
L.L.P., Kansas City, Missouri, (William F. Northrip --
wnorthrip@shb.com -- and Sarah Lynn Baltzell -- slynn@shb.com --
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Kansas City, Missouri, Stephen R.
McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, P.A., Lawrence,
Kansas, and Jonathan S. Massey -- jmassey@masseygail.com -- Massey
& Gail, LLP, Washington, D.C., with her on the briefs) for
Speedway LLC, 7-Eleven, Inc., Circle K Stores, Inc., Kum & Go,
L.C., Marathon Petroleum Company LLC, Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Pilot
Travel Centers LLC, Flying J, Inc., The Pantry, Inc., QuikTrip
Corporation, RaceTrac, Petroleum, Inc., Sheetz, Inc., and Wawa,
Inc., Defendant-Appellants.

Theodore H. Frank, Competitive Enterprise Institute Center for
Class Action Fairness, Washington, D.C. (Anna St. John and Adam E.
Schulman, Competitive Enterprise Institute Center for Class Action
Fairness, Washington, D.C., with him on the brief) for Amy Alkon,
Theodore H. Frank, Melissa Holyoak, Nicolas S. Martin, and Adam
Schulman, Objector-Appellants.

Joseph R. Palmore -- jpalmore@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster,
LLP, Washington, D.C. (David F. McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com --
and Purvi G. Patel -- ppatel@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster, LLP,
Los Angeles, California, and Bryan J. Leitch -- bleitch@mofo.com -
- Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Washington, D.C., with them on the
briefs), for Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Daniel V. Dorris -- ddorris@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Huber,
Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., and
Robert A. Horn, Horn Aylward & Bandy, LLC, Kansas City, Missouri
(Thomas V. Bender -- TBENDER@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters Bender
Strohbehn & Vaughn, P.C., Kansas City, Missouri, Joseph A.
Kronawitter -- jkronawitter@hab-law.com -- Horn, Aylward & Bandy,
LLC, Kansas City, Missouri, David C. Frederick --
dfrederick@kellogghansen.com -- and Amelia I.P. Frenkel --
afrenkel@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans
& Figel, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., with them on the briefs), for
Plaintiff-Appellees.


DE BEERS: October 27 Diamond Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Did you purchase a Gem Grade Diamond between January 1, 1994 and
October 14, 2016? If so, you may be affected by a class action
settlement with De Beers Canada Inc. and related entities.

Pursuant to the settlement, De Beers has agreed to pay $9,400,000
for the benefit of settlement class members, which consists of all
purchasers of Gem Grade Diamonds in Canada (including residents of
Saskatchewan).  The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims
and is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing by De Beers.

The settlement must be approved by the Ontario, British Columbia
and Quebec courts.  Settlement class members may express their
views about the proposed settlements to the courts.  If you wish
to do so, you must act by October 20, 2017.  Settlement class
members may also opt-out of (exclude yourself from) the class
proceedings.  If you wish to do so, you must send an opt-out form
by email to diamondsclassaction@cfmlawyers.ca by October 27, 2017.

For more information, visit www.cfmlawyers.ca
email: diamondsclassaction@cfmlawyers.ca or call 1-800-689-2322


DEUTSCHE BANK: Judge Approves Law Firms for Class-Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dugan, writing for The New York Post, reports a Manhattan
federal court judge on August 24 approved three law firms to lead
a class-action lawsuit accusing Wall Street banks of rigging the
US Treasury.

Quinn Emmanuel, Cohen Milstein and Labaton Sucharow will act as
co-lead counsel, the judge ruled.

The potentially lucrative suit accuses 26 banks and financial
firms, including Goldman Sachs, of manipulating the auctions that
sell US debt.

The order came just days after The Post published an article on
lawyers grousing about the year-long stretch since the last
hearing in the case.

The lawyers called the period of near inactivity "unprecedented."
The designation of the lead law firms was an important step in
having the case move forward.

Goldman has been the focus of a Justice Department probe into the
alleged rigging.

Washington is scrutinizing chats sent to traders at Deutsche Bank,
Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS, BNP Paribas, and Morgan Stanley, The
Post has reported. [GN]


DEUTSCHE BANK: Ramanathan Appeals Orders in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Warren Ramanathan and Andrei Sfiraiala, two of the Plaintiffs in
the consolidated lawsuit titled IN RE DEUTSCHE BANK
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 16-cv-3495, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City), filed an appeal from District Court orders dated June
28, 2017, and August 16, 2017.

The other Plaintiffs are James Ranson, Damon Knauss, Essam
Hamouda, Brad Bjorklund, Barbara Priscus and Chester County
Employees Retirement Fund.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, James Ranson
commenced a purported class action lawsuit on May 10, 2016,
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants'
alleged violations of the federal securities laws, and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Deutsche
Bank has serious and systemic failings in its controls against
financing terrorism, money laundering, aiding against
international sanctions, and committing financial crimes; (2)
Deutsche Bank's internal control over financial reporting and its
disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and (3) as
a result, Deutsche Bank's public statements were materially false
and misleading.

Defendant Deutsche Bank provides investment, financial, and
related products and services worldwide.

The appellate case is captioned as IN RE DEUTSCHE BANK
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 17-2560, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Andrei Sfiraiala and Warren Ramanathan are
represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellshaft, Anshuman
Jain, John Cryan and Marcus Schenck are represented by:

          Charles Gilman, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          80 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 701-3403
          Facsimile: (212) 378-2195
          E-mail: cgilman@cahill.com


DJ'S INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Lin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Qian Xiong Lin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. DJ'S International Buffet Inc., Ding Chen, David Liang and
Shirley Kin Bi, Case No. 2:17-cv-04994-JS-AYS (E.D.N.Y., August
24, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1100
Stewart Avenue in Garden City, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ricardo R. Morel, Esq.
      39-15 Main Street - Suite 318
      Flushing NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 939-8880
      Facsimile: (718) 939-8881

DOS TOROS: Faces "Wu" Suit in Eastern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dos Toros LLC. The
case is styled as Kathy Wu and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dos Toros LLC, Dos Toros Holdings
LLC and Dos Toros Grand Central LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
05121 (E.D. N.Y., August 30, 2017).

Dos Toros LLC owns and operates Dos Toros Restaurants in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EMMANUEL PACQUIAO: Judge KO's Case from Mayweather-Pacquiao Fight
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ritter, writing for Miami Herald, reports that a federal judge
in California knocked out a class-action lawsuit on August 25 that
had been filed on behalf of fight fans and pay-per-view
subscribers upset that boxer Manny Pacquiao of the Philippines
wasn't 100 percent healthy for his May 2015 fight with Floyd
Mayweather Jr. in Las Vegas.

In dismissing a consolidated batch of lawsuits, U.S. District
Judge R. Gary Klausner in Los Angeles nevertheless said he has
sympathy for fans around the country who felt deceived that
Pacquiao didn't disclose he had a shoulder injury until about
three hours before the fight.

Mayweather won a 12-round decision in an event that drew record
cable TV viewership and criticism that the matchup between two of
the best fighters of a generation failed to live up its billing.

The judge ruled that fans still got what cable TV providers said
viewers paid more than $400 million to see -- a boxing match
between Pacquiao and Mayweather.

"Plaintiffs had no legally protected interest or right to see an
exciting fight, a fight between two totally healthy and fully
prepared boxers, or a fight that lived up to the significant pre-
fight hype," Klausner wrote in his 11-page order.

"The reason that competitive sports is so compelling is precisely
because the outcome is always at least somewhat uncertain," the
judge said. "Allowing sports fans to sue . . . could destroy the
very thing that makes sports fandom so special."

The ruling came one day before another big pay-per-view event -- a
Saturday fight in Las Vegas between Mayweather and mixed martial
arts star Conor McGregor that was drawing pay-per-view comparisons
with the Mayweather-Pacquiao event.

The complaint filed in 2015 involved dozens of plaintiffs in
states including New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Arizona,
Nevada, Florida, Maryland and Texas.

Mark Tratos, Esq. -- tratosm@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig
LLP, an attorney in Las Vegas for Floyd Mayweather Jr., said the
judge decided the fans weren't damaged and had no standing to sue.

Hart Robinovitch, Esq. -- hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com -- of
Zimmerman Reed Attorneys, a Scottsdale, Arizona, attorney
representing more than two dozen clients in 13 states,
characterized plaintiffs as "down, but not out."

He said he may appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
San Francisco.

"There were a lot of angry people," Robinovitch told The
Associated Press. "Not only the guy who paid $100 for pay-per-
view, but anyone who paid for this without knowing the facts."
[GN]


ERICK FLOWBACK: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Michalik" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kris Michalik, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Erick Flowback Services LLC, New Source Energy
Partners, L.P, Ericks Holdings, LLC, and Mark Snodgrass, Case No.
5:17-cv-00898-M (M.D. Ok., August 22, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay flow testers' overtime wages for
work more than 40 hours in a workweek.

The Defendants provide field services to the oil and gas industry.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amber L. Hurst, Esq.
      HAMMONS,GOWENS,HURST &ASSOCIATES
      325 Dean A. McGee Avenue
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102
      Telephone: (405) 235-6100
      Facsimile: (405) 235-6111
      E-mail: amberh@hammonslaw.com

         - and -

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      William M. Hogg, Esq.
      KENNEDYHODGES, L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com
              whogg@kennedyhodges.com


ESTATE INFORMATION: Faces "Magay" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Estate Information
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Valeriy Magay, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Estate
Information Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05134
(E.D.N.Y., August 30, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
   337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


DR REDDY'S: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Viswanath Pilla, writing for Moneycontrol News, reports that Rosen
Law Firm, a New York based investor rights law firm, said it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Dr Reddy's
Laboratories shares between June 17, 2015 and August 10, 2017.

"The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Dr Reddy's investors
under the federal securities laws," said the law firm in a press
release.

The lawsuit alleged that the defendant (Dr Reddy's), throughout
the above-mentioned period, made false or misleading statements
and failed to disclose the lack of an effective corporate quality
system.

"As a result, defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages," the law suit alleged.

In a class action lawsuit, one or several persons sue on behalf of
a larger group of persons, referred to as the class, if a dispute
is common to all and the number of affected persons is large.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

Dr Reddy's is yet to respond to the development, and phone calls
and messages sent by Moneycontrol to the company remained
unanswered at the time of publishing the story.

In 2015, Dr Reddy's was threatened with class action lawsuits by
two different law firms on similar grounds of issuing misleading
information.

Lundin Law and Khang and Khang, both California-based law firms,
said they were investigating claims against Dr Reddy's about
whether the company and its executives violated securities laws by
issuing misleading information to investors.

The company had then refuted the allegations and called it
"advertorial press releases by law firms".

However, earlier this month, there were news reports about various
law firms threatening to file class action lawsuits against Dr
Reddy's for non-disclosure of quality-related lapses at its Indian
facilities.

Dr. Reddy's has been worst hit due to US FDA regulatory actions.
The company received warning letter in November 2015 against three
of its facilities including two API plants in Srikakulam, Andhra
Pradesh and Miryalaguda in Telangana, and an injectable plant in
Duvvada, Andhra Pradesh for violations of good manufacturing
practices.

Moreover, the company's German subsidiary Betapharm Arzneimittel
received communication from the Regulatory Authority of the
Germany about not having renewed the GMP (good manufacturing
practices) compliance certificate of the company's formulations
manufacturing unit-2 in Bachupally near Hyderabad, post its recent
inspection of the plant.

The company was just able to resolve Miryalaguda, while the other
two plants are still reeling under the impact of the US FDA
warning letter. The warning letter cost the company dearly with
new approvals getting blocked. Since then the company has lost
over half of its market value.

Dr Reddy's shares gained 2.88 percent to close at Rs. 2087.90 on
BSE on August 24. [GN]


FCA US: Illinois Court Narrows Claims in "Flynn"
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendants' motions to dismiss the case captioned
BRIAN FLYNN, GEORGE BROWN, KELLY BROWN, and MICHAEL KEITH, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC doing business as CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,
and HARMON INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
15-cv-0855-MJR-DGW (S.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs Brian Flynn, Michael Keith, and George and Kelly Brown
filed this putative class action against Defendants FCA US LLC
(Chrysler) and Harmon International Industries, Inc., alleging a
number of claims related to a design flaw in the uConnect system,
manufactured by Harmon and installed in some of Chrysler's 2013-
2015 vehicles.

According to Plaintiffs, the uConnect system allows integrated
control over phone, navigation, and entertainment functions in
certain vehicles, and it is vulnerable to hackers seeking to take
remote control of one of the affected vehicles, as reported in a
2015 WIRED magazine article.

The Court granted Defendants leave to file new motions to dismiss
directed at the Browns' remaining claims, which they did together
with memoranda in support thereof.

Defendants raise multiple jurisdictional and standing challenges.
Chrysler argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to order a
recall of affected vehicles. The Court has already ruled that
Flynn and Keith cannot pursue declaratory relief ordering
Defendants to remedy defects in the affected vehicles or to refund
the purchase price and now extends that ruling to the Browns'
claims.

Accordingly, the Court declines to order a pre-emption-based
dismissal of this declaratory request at this time.

Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

According to Defendants, Counts XVI (first), XVII (first), XVIII,
XIX, and XX of the amended complaint fail to state a claim.  A
complaint must include enough factual content to give the opposing
party notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.

Similarly, Defendants argue that the Browns' MMPA claim is
deficient in that it does not allege that the Browns read or heard
the alleged misrepresentations and, as a result, the claim does
not allege that there is a causal relationship between Defendants'
unlawful practices and their injury. The MMPA empowers private
citizens to act as 'private attorneys general' for purposes of
enforcing it.

The issue is whether a plaintiff's loss is caused by a defendant's
unlawful practice, not whether a plaintiff's purchase is caused by
the unlawful practice. Defendants' emphasis on the Browns' alleged
lack of reliance or pre-purchase knowledge of misrepresented or
concealed material facts is misplaced, the Court held.  The Browns
have put forth sufficient allegations that they suffered an
ascertainable loss as a result of a deceptive practice by
defendants.

Accepting the allegations in the amended complaint as true, the
Browns' MMPA claim satisfies the heightened pleading requirements
of Rule 9 by alleging that misrepresentations by the defendants
and material facts that they concealed and suppressed caused an
ascertainable loss to them. Defendants rely on undeveloped
arguments and arguments directed at the Browns' common law fraud
claims that are unpersuasive in showing why the Browns' MMPA claim
runs afoul of Rule 9.

Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted in part and denied in
part.

Counts I, II, VII, VIII, XIV (first), XV (first), XXI, and XXII
have been dismissed without prejudice.

Counts III, IV, V, XII, XVII (first), XVIII, XIX, XIV (second), XV
(second), and XVI (second) have been dismissed with prejudice due
to the economic loss doctrine.

Count XI has been dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead
reliance;

Counts VI, IX, X, XIII, XVI (first), XX, XXIII, and
XVII (second) remain pending.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 21, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybykbhwj
from Leagle.com.

Brian Flynn, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D. Baucom -
cbaucom@armstrongteasdale.com - Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Brian Flynn, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher F. Cueto, Law
Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,  7110 West Main St. Belleville,
IL 62223. Emily Buckley - ebuckley@armstrongteasdale.com  -
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, IJay Palansky -
ipalansky@armstrongteasdale.com - Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac
vice, Lloyd M. Cueto - cuetolm@cuetolaw.com - Law Office of Lloyd
M. Cueto, P.C., Lucas T. Pendry - pendry@armstrongteasdale.com -
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Stephen R. Wigginton -
swigginton@armstrongteasdale.com - Armstrong Teasdale LLP &
Michael J. Gras, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD., 7110 West
Main St. Belleville, IL 62223.

George Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D. Baucom,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Emily Buckley, Armstrong Teasdale LLP,
IJay Palansky, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, Lloyd M.
Cueto, Law Office of Lloyd M. Cueto, P.C., Lucas T. Pendry,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Stephen R. Wigginton, Armstrong Teasdale
LLP & Michael J. Gras, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD.

Kelly Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D. Baucom,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Emily Buckley, Armstrong Teasdale LLP,
IJay Palansky, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, Lloyd M.
Cueto, Law Office of Lloyd M. Cueto, P.C., Lucas T. Pendry,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Stephen R. Wigginton, Armstrong Teasdale
LLP & Michael J. Gras, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD.

Michael Keith, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D. Baucom,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Michael J. Gras, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD & Stephen R. Wigginton, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathy A. Wisniewski -
kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com - Thompson Coburn, Stephen A.
D'Aunoy - sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com - Thompson Coburn, Scott H.
Morgan - smorgan@thompsoncoburn.com - Thompson Coburn LLP & Sharon
B. Rosenberg - srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com - Thompson Coburn.

Harman International Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Andrew Blair Fromm - afromm@foley.com - Foley & Lardner LLP,
Elizabeth Mazzocco - emazzocco@foley.com - Foley & Lardner, LLP,
John R. Trentacosta - jtrentacosta@foley.com - Foley & Lardner
LLP, Michael D. Leffel - mleffel@foley.com - Foley & Lardner,
Vanessa L. Miller - vmiller@foley.com - Foley & Lardner LLP &
William J. McKenna, Jr. - wmckenna@foley.com - Foley & Lardner.


FERRARA CANDY: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Decision in "Waters" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Ferrara Candy Co. filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Jaclyn Waters v. Ferrara Candy Co., Case No.
4:17-cv-00197-NCC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri - St. Louis.

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

The appellate case is captioned as Jaclyn Waters v. Ferrara Candy
Co., Case No. 17-2812, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

The Clerk of the Appeals Court has entered an order stating that:

   -- Parties are to file simultaneous briefs within 30 days
      unless they agree to extend time limit for resolving
      appeal;

   -- If parties agree the court will set a briefing schedule and
      schedule the case for oral argument;

   -- Parties are requested to advise the court with 14 days
      whether they intend to submit simultaneous briefs or agree
      to extend time limit for this appeal.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Jaclyn Waters, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated in Missouri, is represented by:

          Matthew Hall Armstrong, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM
          8816 Manchester Road
          Brentwood, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 258-0212
          E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          142 57th Street, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 964-9600
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Naomi B. Spector, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 340
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (760) 795-8529
          E-mail: nspector@kamberlaw.com

Defendant-Appellant Ferrara Candy Co. is represented by:

          Troy Bozarth, Esq.
          Charles Noah Insler, Esq.
          HEPLERBROOM LLC
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 2700
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 241-6160
          E-mail: tbozarth@heplerbroom.com
                  cni@heplerbroom.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Hawk, Esq.
          HOGAN & LOVELLS US LLP
          4085 Campbell Avenue, Suite 100
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 463-4008
          Facsimile: (650) 463-4199
          E-mail: robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          David J. Robbins, Esq.
          HOGAN & LOVELLS US LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 374-2324
          Facsimile: (415) 374-2499
          E-mail: david.robbins@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Eugene Alexis Sokoloff, Esq.
          HOGAN & LOVELLS US LLP
          Columbia Square
          555 13th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004-0000
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
          E-mail: eugene.sokoloff@hoganlovells.com


FIELDTRUF USA: Faces City of Fremont Suit in N.D. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FieldTurf USA, Inc.
The case is styled as The City of Fremont, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FieldTurf USA, Inc. a
Florida corporation, FieldTurf, Inc. a Canadian corporation and
FieldTurf Tarkett SAS a French corporation, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-05053-MEJ (N.D. Cal., August 30, 2017).

Fieldturf engages in manufacturing and installation of infield
artificial turf systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam E. Polk, Esq.
   Girard Gibbs LLP
   601 California Street, 14th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94108
   Tel: (415) 981-4800
   Fax: (415) 981-4846
   Email: aep@girardgibbs.com


FIRST BITCOIN: CA Lawsuit Ensues Following SEC's Suspension
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bitcoin.com reports that the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) has suspended the trading of a Bitcoin-focused
firm's shares after their prices rose almost 7,000% this year.
Following the Commission's suspension, some law firms started
their own investigations on behalf of shareholders, including a
class action lawsuit.

SEC Suspension

The SEC announced on August 23 the temporary suspension of trading
in the securities of First Bitcoin Capital Corp (BITCF). The
Canadian corporation's trading suspension began on August 24 at
9:30 a.m. EDT and will end on September 7 at 11:59 a.m. The SEC
wrote:

The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of
BITCF because of concerns regarding the accuracy and adequacy of
publicly available information about the company including, among
other things, the value of BITCF's assets and its capital
structure.

SEC Suspends Trading of Bitcoin Firm's Shares After 7000% Price
JumpFirst Bitcoin Capital Corp's stated goal "is to acquire
Bitcoin start-ups," and to "raise funding and invest in companies
that are developing Bitcoin software or hardware applications,"
its website describes. The company plans to operate in a number of
segments in the cryptocurrency space, including investing in
bitcoin mining equipment and providing liquidity to bitcoin
exchanges globally. It also plans to develop online stores that
only accept bitcoin.

In addition, the company has a wholly-owned subsidiary called
Coinqx.com which is a digital currency exchange that plans to
offer a cryptocurrency wallet, its website details.

Price Jumped (approx.)7000% in 2017

The Vancouver-based BITCF is listed over-the-counter, on OTC
Markets under the symbol BITCF. The shares were trading at $1.79
at the time of suspension. However, they were trading at $0.37 on
August 1, before skyrocketing to $3.15 on August 14 briefly. A few
days later, they fell below $1. At the beginning of 2017, they
were trading at $0.045, for which the August all time high price
of $3.15 represents almost a 7,000% increase.

SEC Suspends Trading of Bitcoin Firm's Shares After 7000% Price
Jump

As an OTC security, BITCF is not required to file information with
the SEC. However, OTC Markets' electronic inter-dealer quotation
system called "OTC Link" is registered with the Commission as a
broker-dealer and as an alternative trading system. OTC Link is
also a member of the U.S. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(FINRA).

Class Action Lawsuit Ensues
Following the SEC's suspension, two law firms started investing
First Bitcoin Capital Corp. Rosen Law Firm, specializing in global
investor rights, announced on August 24 that it is investigating
potential securities claims on behalf of BITCF shareholders. This
investigation resulted from allegations that the company "may have
issued materially misleading business information to the investing
public," the firm wrote, adding that:

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by First Bitcoin investors.
This class action lawsuit applies to anyone who purchased BITCF
shares on or before August 23, 2017.

Another law firm, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, has also
announced that it is investigating potential claims on behalf of
BITCF purchasers. "The investigation concerns whether First
Bitcoin and certain of its officers and/or directors have violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,"
the firm wrote.

By press time, a third law firm which specializes in national
securities laws, Faruqi & Faruqi, also announced its investigation
into potential claims against First Bitcoin Capital Corp. "As a
result of the suspension of the company's securities, shares of
First Bitcoin Capital are illiquid," the firm stated. [GN]


FIRST POTOMAC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, case No. 1:17-cv-02214, on behalf of
shareholders of First Potomac Realty Trust ("First Potomac" or the
"Company") (NYSE:FPO) who have been harmed by First Potomac's and
its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed merger of the
Company with Government Properties Income Trust ("Government
Properties").

On June 27, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Proposed Transaction") under which
each share of First Potomac common stock will be exchanged for
$11.15 in cash. The shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction
is expected to occur on September 26, 2017.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/FPOnotice.

The complaint alleges that the Preliminary Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A (the "Proxy") filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on July 31, 2017, violates Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially
incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the
Proposed Transaction, including information concerning the
Company's financial projections and analysis, on which the Board
relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to First
Potomac shareholders.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California,
Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

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

Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (877) 247-4292
Tel: (212) 983-9330
E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
        jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN]


FORD: Hit With Class Action Over Swollen Lug Nuts
-------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com reports that Ford
swollen lug nuts have caused a proposed class-action lawsuit that
alleges the lug nuts swell, crack and delaminate to the point
special tools are needed to remove the lug nuts.

The lawsuit alleges the swollen lug nuts are installed on the Ford
Fusion, Escape, Flex, Focus, F-150 and F-350.

Instead of solid steel nuts, the plaintiffs say Ford sells its
vehicles with lug nuts that have a steel core with chrome,
aluminum or stainless steel caps attached to improve the
appearance of the visible part of the lug nuts.

The caps allegedly swell, crack and delaminate to the point where
the lug nuts cannot be removed with the lug wrench provided by
Ford. This leaves owners and lessees who get flat tires often
stranded on the roads without the ability for even tow truck
drivers to remove the swollen lug nuts. This means a tow to the
shop just to have the lug nuts removed and the tire replaced.

Ford allegedly chooses not to use one-piece lug nuts because one-
piece stainless steel or other alloy lug nuts cost more than the
two-piece "capped" lug nuts.

However, the plaintiffs claim they didn't know about the lug nut
issues because when new, the capped lug nut is virtually identical
in appearance to the one-piece stainless lug nut, especially since
the steel core is not visible when the lug nut is snugged up to
the wheel.

The plaintiffs say the changes to the lug nuts occur with
temperature swings, moisture and road vibrations, changing the
appearance of the capped lug nuts.

Plaintiff Robert Desotelle says he and other owners must pay to
replace the swollen and cracked lug nuts, and then cover the labor
costs to remove the bad lug nuts. Desotelle says he paid $58.28 in
repair and replacement costs for just one of the four wheels on
his Ford Fusion.

The lawsuit references complaints from Ford owners about the lug
nut problems, and CarComplaints.com has heard from some of these
owners.

"Had a flat a few months ago. AAA had major trouble getting the
lug nuts off as I now recall. Took car to dealer for routine
service today. Dealer said lug nuts were swollen and needed
replacing. Only way to remove sometimes is to destroy the nut." -
2014 Ford Escape owner / Rocky River, Ohio

Another Escape owner talks about how a warranty didn't help at
all.

"They [Ford dealer] found the lug nuts (all20) to be "swollen.
Service rep said it is due to the two dissimilar metals the lug
nuts are made of. They charged $8 each, so $160 plus tax to
replace all. Even though we have the "extended warranty" there is
no coverage from Ford. The vehicle has never been in snow or ice,
no salted roads. The new lug nuts are exactly the same as the old
ones." - 2014 Ford Escape owner / Tampa, Florida

According to the plaintiffs, Ford has known about the lug nut
problems for years based on reports from consumers and dealers.
When dealers observe swollen lug nuts on vehicles, technicians
must use special wrenches and tools to remove the failed lug nuts
and owners and lessees are required and advised to buy replacement
lug nuts.

But according to the lawsuit, some dealers suggest their customers
buy non-Ford lug nuts because they know any replacement Ford lug
nuts will fail and become unusable.

The plaintiffs say they never expected to buy replacement lug nuts
within the first years of owning the vehicles, yet Ford left them
no choice. In addition, the lawsuit alleges Ford does not replace
for free its allegedly defective two-piece lug nuts, even when
they fail during the new vehicle warranty period.

Instead, Ford allegedly shifts its warranty obligations onto its
customers, requiring owners and lessees to spend hundreds of
dollars for new lug nuts and the labor to install them.

The proposed class-action lawsuit includes millions of current and
former owners and lessees of Ford's Fusion, Escape, Flex, Focus,
F-150 and F-350 vehicles equipped with two-piece lug nuts.

The Ford swollen lug nuts lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan - Josh Wozniak, Angel
Castaneda, Raj Chauhan, Robert Desotelle, Samantha Ellis, Donald
Lycan and David Mathias, et. al, vs. Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman, and the Miller
Law Firm, PC. [GN]


FORTERRA INC: "Disayawathana" Hits IPO Flop, Info Non-disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Supanin Disayawathana, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Forterra, Inc., Jeffrey
Bradley, William Matthew Brown, Lori M. Browne, Kyle S. Volluz,
Kevin Barner, Robert Corcoran, Samuel D. Loughlin, Clint
Mcdonnough, John Mcpherson, Chris Meyer, Jacques Sarrazin,
Chadwick Suss, Grant Wilbeck, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc. and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04824 (E.D. N.Y., August 16, 2017),
seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 in
connection with Forterra's October 21, 2016 initial public stock
offering (IPO).

Forterra is a manufacturer of pipes and various precast products
for water-related infrastructure applications, including water
transmission, distribution and drainage. It operates 96
manufacturing facilities located across North America.

Forrester alleges that Forterra failed to disclose that organic
sales in its drainage and water segments had significantly
declined in the months leading up to the IPO, that the Company was
relying on highly-leveraged, expensive acquisitions to make up for
those lost sales, that the Company was experiencing increased
pricing pressure to significantly lower prices due to competition,
that its concrete and steel pipe business softened, accounting for
10% of its annual sales, that Forterra had not accrued expenses in
the months leading up to the IPO, thus understating its expenses
and overstating its profits and control deficiencies related to
physical inventory counts.

Forterra common stock is trading below $5 per share, a decline of
approximately 75% from the IPO price, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      230 Park Ave., Suite 530
      New York, NY 10169
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

             - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, 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
      Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

             - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces Class Action Over Robocalling Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Hate robocalls?

How about mortgage company telemarketers?

If you said Yes to either or both, you're not alone, and

Two victims of Freedom Mortgage's massive illegal robocalling
scheme are fighting back with the filing of a class action lawsuit
on behalf of themselves and up to ten thousand other victims.

The Law

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (and related FCC
regulations) says you can't robocall (this is a computerized
autodialer that delivers a pre-recorded message and/or connects
you with a telemarketing call center) people without their express
written permission (typically found in credit card fine print and
such); and

If you DO call someone and they ask to be on your do-not-call
list, you can't call them again.

Or - you face the TCPA penalties and fines.

Facts Alleged in Complaint

Freedom Mortgage reps robocalled, without even an inference of
permission, victims who were then connected with one of several
hundred Freedom Mortgage call center "loan officers" who were
hustling refinancing;

When victims asked to be on the Do Not Call list, Freedom deleted
their Do Not Call requests nightly assuring more calls to the same
victims.

Quotes from the Plaintiffs' lawyer, author Brian Mahany (known for
his record $16.65 Billion win against Bank of America for mortgage
misconduct):

"3 things that everyone dislikes are:
    * Robo Calls
    * Overly Aggressive Telemarketers, and
    * Bankers Who Believe they are Above the Law.

With Freedom Mortgage you have a Trifecta of illegal conduct."

Mr. Mahany also points out that Freedom Mortgage last year got hit
with a $113 million False Claims Act penalty for shoddy mortgage
underwriting, "You would think Freedom would have learned their
lesson but they seem to be getting more aggressive than ever."

One elderly victim, for example, was so tortured by Freedom's
telemarketers he had to change his phone number because they would
not stop calling, according to Mr. Mahany.

A copy of the Freedom Mortgage Complaint is available at:

  http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W4xA5iNH


GC SERVICES: Denial of Class Certification in "Dickens" Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case captioned RONNIE E. DICKENS, On Behalf Of
Himself And Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GC
SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant-Appellee, No. 16-
17168(11th Cir.), Judge Beverly B. Martin of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's
damages determination and denial of class certification, and
remanded for proceedings consistent with her opinion.

GC Services mailed a letter to Dickens seeking to collect a debt
on behalf of Synchrony Bank.  Dickens filed suit against GC
Services alleging that the letter failed to comply with the FDCPA.
The complaint further alleged that these violations rendered the
letter "false, deceptive, or misleading" in violation of 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692e.

Dickens sought to represent a class under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3).  The putative class consisted of (a)
all persons with a Florida address, (b) to whom GC Services mailed
an initial debt collection communication that stated: (i) if they
do dispute all or any portion of the debt within 30 days of
receiving the letter, GC Services will obtain verification of the
debt from their client and send it to them, and/or (ii) if within
30 days of receiving the letter they request the name and address
of the original creditor, GC Services will provide it to them in
the event it differs from their client, (c) in the one year
preceding the date of the complaint,  (d) in connection with the
collection of a consumer debt.  Notably, the complaint sought only
statutory damages.  The complaint demanded a jury trial.  Dickens
moved for class certification under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), as well as for summary judgment on GC
Services' liability.

The district court sua sponte ordered the parties to submit
briefing on the extent of the putative class's damages.  After
briefing, but before discovery was completed, the court granted
Dickens's motion for summary judgment as to GC Services'
liability, but denied the motion for class certification.
Although no motion for summary judgment had been filed as to
damages and no trial on statutory damages had been conducted, the
district court also assessed Dickens's individual entitlement to
statutory damages.  The district court weighed the factors
identified in 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(b)(1) and entered judgment
for Dickens in the amount of one dollar.  In denying the class
certification motion, the district court determined that the case
satisfied three of the four Rule 23(a) prerequisites for class
certification: numerosity, commonality, and typicality. The court
concluded, however, that Dickens failed to meet Rule 23(a)'s
adequacy requirement, because he sought only statutory -- and not
actual -- damages, while some class members may have suffered
actual damages.  The court ruled that the possibility of actual
damages defeated adequacy notwithstanding its finding that GC
Services' FDCPA violations were likely benign in effect and had
the practical effect to save debtors time and trouble when
disputing their debts.

The district court further concluded that Dickens failed to
satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s superiority requirement because the cost
of administering a class action would likely dwarf the nominal
statutory damages to which the class would be entitled.  It
therefore denied Dickens's motion for class certification and
entered judgment in his favor in the amount of one dollar.
Dickens now appeals the district court's determination of his
statutory damages and its denial of his motion for class
certification.

Judge Martin finds that the district court applied the factors
identified in 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(b) for determining statutory
damages, including the frequency and persistence of noncompliance
by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the
extent to which such noncompliance was intentional.  Citing the
declaration of Mark Schordock, GC Services' Executive Vice
President of Operations, the district court concluded that GC
Services' non-compliance with the FDCPA was unintentional and
benevolent.  But without full discovery, the Judge concludes that
Dickens was deprived of the opportunity to develop evidence
regarding these factors or to challenge Schordock's declaration.
This was error.

As to the district court's denial of class certification, Judge
Martin finds that given its determination that Dickens would
adequately prosecute the action, the district court abused its
discretion in concluding that Dickens was an inadequate
representative in the absence of a significant conflict of
interest between Dickens and the class.  The district court relied
exclusively on irrelevant or unimportant factors while failing to
appropriately assess the import of its finding that class members
will likely be entitled only to nominal statutory damages.

Judge Martin therefore vacated the district court's award of
nominal damages to Dickens and denial of class certification, and
remanded the case to the district court for a new class
certification determination employing the proper legal standards
and considering the factors she has identified.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/GvJ4lr from Leagle.com.

Joelle C. Sharman -- Joelle.Sharman@lewisbrisbois.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Aaron D. Radbil -- aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Michael L. Greenwald -- mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

William S. Helfand -- bill.hefland@lewisbrisbois.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

James L. Davidson -- jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Michael Shelby Sperounes -- michael.sperounes@lewisbrisbois.com --
for Defendant-Appellee.


GENERAL MILLS: Wolosyzn Appeals Decision in Glyphosate Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mary Wolosyzn, Edward Salamanca and Yesenia Nuez filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled In re: General
Mills Glyphosate Litigation, Case No. 0:16-cv-02869-MJD, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis.

The appellate case is captioned as Mary Wolosyzn, et al. v.
General Mills, Inc., Case No. 17-2797, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 19,
2017, Judge Michael J. Davis granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the case because the Plaintiffs failed to assert a
plausible claim.

On Dec. 8, 2016, the Court granted a motion to consolidate
multiple glyphosate cases brought against the Defendant.  On
January 9, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint against the Defendant.  The Consolidated Class Action
Complaint asserts, among other things, violation of the Minnesota
Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota Unlawful Trade
Practices Act and the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices
Act.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Mary Wolosyzn, Edward Salamanca and Yesenia
Nuez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          Bryce Daniel Riddle, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 S. Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  bryce.riddle@zimmreed.com

               - and -

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

Defendant-Appellee General Mills, Inc., is represented by:

          Emily A. Ambrose, Esq.
          Jerry Blackwell, Esq.
          Benjamin Winters Hulse, Esq.
          BLACKWELL BURKE PA
          431 S. Seventh Street, Suite 2500
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 343-3263
          E-mail: eambrose@blackwellburke.com
                  blackwell@blackwellburke.com
                  bhulse@blackwellburke.com

               - and -

          David Taro Biderman, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          180 Townsend Street, Third Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94107-1909
          Telephone: (415) 344-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 344-7050
          E-mail: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Charles C. Sipos, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          700 13th Street, N.W., Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20005-3960
          Telephone: (202) 654-6200
          E-mail: CSipos@perkinscoie.com


GENERAL PLASTICS: Faces "North" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
McDonald North, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. General Plastics and Composites, LP, Case
No. 4:17-cv-02610 (S.D. Tex., August 24, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

General Plastics and Composites, LP is a manufacturer of
engineered components and turnkey products including composites,
elastomers and metal for oilfield service companies worldwide.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Defreitas, Esq.
      THE DEFREITAS FIRM
      Williams Tower
      2800 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 4100
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (832) 794-6792
      Facsimile: (281) 784-3777
      E-mail: a.defreitas@lawyer.com


GEODIS LOGISTICS: Faces "Luna" Suit in C. Dist. of Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geodis Logistics
LLC. The case is styled as Jose Rios Luna on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Geodis Logistics LLC a
Tennessee limited liability company and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01755 (C.D. Cal., August
30, 2017).

GEODIS is a Supply Chain Operator.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


GFI GROUP: Court Certifies Class in "Gross" Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Pauley III of the District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class in the case captioned BENJAMIN GROSS, Plaintiff, v. GFI
GROUP, INC. et al., Defendants, No. 14cv9438 (S.D. N.Y.).

Plaintiff Gross brings this securities class action on behalf of
himself and similarly situated holders of the Defendant stock,
alleging that GFI board members made material misstatements about
the benefits of a proposed merger that GFI's shareholders later
rejected.  Gross moves to certify a class of all individuals and
entities who sold shares of GFI common stock between July 30, 2014
and Sept. 8, 2014.  GFI opposes certification solely on the
grounds that Gross is an inadequate class representative under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) because Jack Zwick, co-
lead counsel for the putative class, is Gross's brother-in-law and
close personal friend.

On Feb. 20, 2015 the Court granted the unopposed motion to appoint
Gross as the Lead Plaintiff and the two law firms as the Lead
Counsel for the putative class -- Scott + Scott LLP and Jack I.
Zwick, Esq.  At Gross's deposition in June 2017, however, GFI
learned that Gross and Zwick have been related by marriage for 27
years.  Gross testified that he has known Zwick since they met on
a playground when they were 11 or 12 years old, and that the two
became brothers-in-law around 1990.  According to Gross, he and
Zwick socialize often and typically spend holidays together.
Gross also testified that, as with any relative, he would like to
see Zwick and his family (i.e. Gross's sister and her children)
financially secure.

Although the Lead Counsel represents that there is no formal fee-
splitting arrangement between Scott + Scott and Zwick, the
retainer agreement between Gross and the Lead Counsel provides for
a contingency fee for class counsel of up to 1/3rd of any
recovery.  Gross claims not to know how much Zwick stands to earn
from his involvement in this case, but speculated that any fee
would likely exceed $100,000 -- far more than the $400 or $500 in
actual damages that Gross allegedly suffered.

The Court notes that securities litigation appears to be something
of a family business for Gross and Zwick; Gross previously filed
four securities class actions with Zwick's former law firm, Weiss
& Yourman, after Zwick introduced Gross to the firm's name partner
and served as Gross's "point of contact" with the firm.  There is
no indication that Gross or his counsel disclosed the relationship
between Gross and Zwick in any of these prior cases.

Judge Pauley finds that the record reveals no arrangement among
Scott + Scott, Zwick, and Gross suggesting that Gross has an
interest in any potential fee Zwick stands to earn.  Although
Gross admitted that he would like to see his immediate family
members happy and financially secure (a wholly unsurprising
sentiment), any conflict of interest raised by this testimony is
too speculative to bar class certification.  Indeed, the most that
he can say is that Gross and the class' interests are aligned;
surely both would like to see the maximum possible recovery for
the class.  Any issues with the fairness of settlement terms can
be resolved by the Court pursuant to the rigorous court-approval
requirement of FRCP 23(e).  A passing review of prior opinions
should assure the parties that the Court has no qualms about
prioritizing the interests of the class over those of class
counsel in any settlement.  Accordingly, Judge Pauley finds that
Gross is an adequate class representative.

For these reasons, Gross has satisfied the requirements of FRCP 23
and the Judge certified the putative class of all individuals and
entities who sold shares of GFI common stock between July 30, 2014
and Sept. 8, 2014, both dates inclusive, and who were damaged
thereby.  Gross is appointed as the Class Representative.  Judge
Pauley directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending
at ECF No. 80.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/1jmHpI from Leagle.com.

Benjamin Gross, Lead Plaintiff, represented by David R. Scott --
david.scott@scott-scott.com -- Scott and Scott LLP, pro hac vice.

Benjamin Gross, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jack I. Zwick, Jack
I Zwick -- jack@zwickfirm.com -- Joseph Peter Guglielmo --
jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- Scott + Scott, L.L.P., Stephen J.
Teti -- steti@scott-scott.com -- ScottScott, Attorneys At Law, LLP
& Jonathan M. Rotter -- jrotter@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP.

GFI Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by John F. Lynch --
JLynch@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Paul K. Rowe,
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Warren R. Stern --
WRStern@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Joshua Jeffrey
Card -- JJCard@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Michael
Steven Popok, Cantor Fitzgerald & Nirav Sanjay Shah, Cantor
Fitzgerald.

Colin Heffron, Defendant, represented by Christopher Daniel
Kercher -- christopherkercher@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

Michael Gooch, Defendant, represented by Christopher Daniel
Kercher, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.


GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Morgan Sues for Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------
Diane Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Global Payments Check Services, Inc., Case No. 2:17-
cv-01771-JAM-CMK (E.D. Cal., August 24, 2017), is an action for
damages against the Defendant for willfully employing and causing
to be employed certain recording equipment in order to record the
telephone conversations of the Plaintiff without the knowledge or
consent of the Plaintiff, thereby invading the Plaintiff's
privacy.

Global Payments Check Services, Inc. is a third-party payment
processor that offers paper and electronic check
guarantee/verification services to a variety of industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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 -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

GLOBUS MEDICAL: Escapes Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Brad Perriello, writing for Mass Device, reports Globus Medical
(NYSE:GMED) on August 23 escaped a purported class-action lawsuit
alleging that it misled investors about its plans to ditch one of
its distributors and take those sales in house.

The lawsuit involves Vortex Spine, the exclusive Globus
distributor for parts of Louisiana and Mississippi from 2004 until
April 2014, according to court documents. The distribution deal
was slated to expire in December 2013, but the companies inked a
4-month extension to cover early 2014.

During that time, according to the documents, Globus established
its own sales operation to cover the Vortex territory and ended
the relationship around April 18, 2014. In the meantime the
company twice issued financial guidance called for earnings per
share of 90õ to 92õ on sales of $480 million to $486 million. That
changed in August 2014, when Globus cut its sales outlook to $460
million to $465 million, attributing the shift to end of Vortex
deal and prompting investors to pare -17.9% from GMED's share
price.

Plaintiff Mark Silverstein sued Audubon, Pa.-based Globus in
September 2015 on behalf of investors who owned GMED shares
between Feb. 26 and August 5, 2014, alleging that the company's
management hid its plan to end the relationship with Vortex Spine
and misled investors about the move's financial impact. The U.S.
District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania dismissed the case in
August 2016 and denied Silverstein's bid for reconsideration;
Silverstein then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd
Circuit.

Writing for the appeals court on August 23, Judge Anthony Scirica
agreed with the Globus motion to dismiss the appeal, noting that
the company ultimately posted 2014 EPS of 97õ on sales of $474.4
million, "just 1.17% below the initial projection made in February
2014 and earnings per share exceeded the projection by 5.4%."

The plaintiff failed to show that the initial revenue projections
were false and that the company's warnings about the potential
impact of losing a distributor were inadequate.

"Further, at the end of the fiscal year, Globus achieved $474.4
million in sales -- just less than its initial projection of $480
million to $486 million -- and earnings of 97õ per share --
compared to an initial projection of 90õ to 92õ," Scirica wrote.
"While the ultimate touchstone is whether the projections were
false or misleading when made, plaintiffs' claim that the
projections were impossible to achieve is undermined by the fact
that the company ultimately substantially achieved the challenged
projections." [GN]


GOOD HANDS: Faces "Keyes" Suit in N. Dist. of Ohio
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Good Hands Home Care
& Adult Services LLC. The case is styled as Eboni Keyes, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Good
Hands Home Care & Adult Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01823-DAP (N.D. Ohio, August 30, 2017).

Good Hands Home is a provider of Home Health Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
   Lazzaro Law Firm
   920 Rockefeller Bldg.
   614 Superior Avenue, W
   Cleveland, OH 44113
   Tel: (216) 696-5000
   Fax: (216) 696-7005
   Email: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com

      - and -

   Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
   Lazzaro Law Firm
   920 Rockefeller Bldg.
   614 Superior Avenue, W
   Cleveland, OH 44113
   Tel: (216) 696-5000
   Fax: (216) 696-7005
   Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com

      - and -

   Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
   Lazzaro Law Firm
   920 Rockefeller Bldg.
   614 Superior Avenue, W
   Cleveland, OH 44113
   Tel: (216) 696-5000
   Fax: (216) 696-7005
   Email: chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com


GOOGLE INC: SF Republican Attorney Suggests Possible Class-Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Barmann, writing for Sfist, reports the latest in the story of
fired Google engineer James Damore is that he's hired a prominent
conservative lawyer from San Francisco who was shortlisted for a
possible post in President Trump's Justice Department. She is
Harmeet Dhillon, and as Wired reports, she's seeking other
potential plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Google over their
liberal bias and anti-conservative discrimination. Specifically,
on her firm's website, she says she's seeking other Google
employees who were "written up for 'un-Googly conduct' for
refusing to comply with the political orthodoxy at the company" or
anyone who has been "Defamed/slandered/smeared/blacklisted at
Google for your political views, or views about affirmative action
at Google."

Dhillon has not confirmed what type of legal action she may be
taking at this juncture, but as the Chronicle notes, "Dhillon has
taken on other cases that push back against the Bay Area's
progressive tendencies." In one of those cases, she is
representing the California Bail Agents Association "fighting a
class-action lawsuit alleging that San Francisco's bail system
discriminates against poor people who can't afford to post bond
while awaiting trial in criminal cases."

About his choice of lawyer, Damore tells Wired, "I felt like it
would be good to have someone that's at least ideologically driven
in some ways. I wouldn't want someone that was against me and was
only doing it to get the most money or something."

Damore lost his dream job at Google after penning a widely
circulated internal memo that, among other things, perpetuated a
theory that women are biologically less well suited to be
engineers. Damore reportedly wrote the memo on a plane, angry
after having to attend a seminar on diversity and inclusion. After
an outcry among employees and in the media, the company chose to
terminate Damore on the basis that his memo violated Google's code
of conduct by perpetuating gender stereotypes. The ensuing outcry
in conservative media circles has made Damore a new hero in the
anti-political-correctness crusade.
Dhillon, a frequent invited commentator on Fox News, is helping to
sue UC Berkeley on behalf of the Berkeley College Republicans and
the Young America's Foundation over actions the university has
taken to "restrict and stifle the speech of conservative students
whose voices fall beyond the campus political orthodoxy." That
lawsuit, which you can see here, was filed in April, and accuses
university officials of engaging "in a pattern and practice of
enforcing a recently adopted, unwritten and unpublished policy
that vests in University officials the unfettered discretion to
unreasonably restrict the time, place, and manner of any campus
event involving 'high-profile speakers'." [GN]


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Golden" Suit in E.D. of California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc. The case is styled as Clyde Golden, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Home Depot
U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-at-00907 (E.D. Cal., August
30, 2017).

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. owns and operates The Home Depot retail
stores throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Keth L. Altman, Esq.
   Keith Altman, Excolo Law PLLC
   26700 Lasher Road, Suite 401
   Southfield, MI 48033
   Tel: (516) 456-5885
   Email: kaltman@lawampmmt.com


ISLAND CONSTRUCTION: "McBroom" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Coy McBroom, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Island Construction LLC and Shawn Longaker, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00481-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., August 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, minimum wages, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company located at
16205 S Tamiami Trail 2, Fort Myers, FL 33908. [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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Knodel" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2738
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on July 18, 2017 captioned Brian
Knodel, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate
of Elaine M. Knodel; Steven Knodel, and David Knodel v. Johnson &
Johnson; Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.; Imerys Talc
America, Inc., f/k/a Luzenac America, Inc.; Personal Care Products
Council f/k/a Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01743 was transferred on August 22, 2017, from the
District of Colorado to the District of New Jersey.  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06356 to the proceeding.

The case is being consolidated with MDL 2738. According to an
order entered by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, it appears that the actions in the litigation involve
questions of fact that are common to the actions previously
transferred to the District of New Jersey. The lead case is 3:16-
md-02738-FLW-LHG.

The case asserts product liability claims.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical and consumer packaged
goods manufacturing company in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin S. Hannon
      THE HANNON LAW FIRM LLC
      1641 Downing Street
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (303) 861-8800
      E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com


KONAMI GAMING: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Consumer Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Nelsen, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Konami Gaming, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02248-APG-NJK
(D. Nev., August 24, 2017), is an action for damages as a result
of the Defendant's unlawful acquisition and use of consumer and
investigative consumer reports to conduct background and credit
checks on the Plaintiff and other prospective and current
employees without first making proper disclosures in the format
required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Konami Gaming, Inc. is a designer and manufacturer of slot
machines and casino management systems for the global gaming
market. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christian Gabroy, Esq.
      Kaine Messer, Esq.
      GABROY LAW OFFICES
      The District at Green Valley Ranch
      170 South Green Valley Parkway, Suite 280
      Henderson, NV 89012
      Telephone: (702) 259-7777
      Facsimile: (702) 259-7704
      E-mail: christian@gabroy.com
              kmesser@gabroy.com

         - and -

      Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
      Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
      THIERMAN BUCK LLP
      7287 Lakeside Drive
      Reno, NV 89511
      Telephone: (775) 284-1500
      Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
      E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
              josh@thiermanbuck.com


LIVINGSTON CORRECTIONAL: Fired Biondolillo for Being Pregnant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Biondolillo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Livingston Correctional
Facility, Tamara Kennedy, New York State Department of Corrections
and Community Supervision, Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-06576,
(W.D. N.Y., August 17, 2017), seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, front pay, compensatory, nominal and punitive damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York State Human Rights
Law, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Age Discrimination in
Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Biondolillo was hired by Defendant Livingston Correctional in June
2016 as a nurse. Biondolillo was wrongfully terminated because of
her pregnancy-related absences from her shift, the complaint says.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
      Chantal Khalil, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON &GARBER, LLP
      445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Tel: (914) 298-3283
      Fax: (914) 824-1561


LOGITECH INTERNATIONAL: Faces CA Over Defective Security System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
Logitech faces a class action complaint from an Illinois resident
who says the company's old home video security system was
defective and that it took several steps to keep customers from
making warranty claims.

James Anderson, of Orland Park, filed a complaint Aug. 22 in
federal court in Chicago, saying the cameras in Logitech's high-
definition Alert systems routinely failed and the proprietary
software was "rife with bugs and glitches that made the systems
reliable and inoperable."

Logitech, based in Newark, Calif., "refused to honor its
warranties to remedy the defects while customers' warranty periods
lapsed," according to Anderson's complaint, until the company
discontinued the product, leaving customers without replacement
parts or cameras.

Anderson cited Logitech's advertising for its systems, which said
a "video security system is only as good as the video it
captures," promoted features such as weatherproofing and night
vision and included customer-submitted videos of thwarting
burglaries in progress, catching thieves and one involving a
possible wild black bear intrusion. He said products started at
$300 for a master camera, with each extra camera costing at least
$200 and the annual subscription running $80.

He also referenced the company's online customer forum where other
users "inundated" the boards "with complaints about the
functionality and efficacy" of the systems, rendering them
"inoperable and unable to provide reliable security services."
Customers had difficulty installing and setting up the system,
keeping them powered on and connected, reported micro SD card
failures, overheated components, faulty or inoperable motion
sensors, delayed or failed alerts and serious software bugs.

Anderson further detailed the manner in which he alleged Logitech
purposefully avoided satisfying warranty terms, such as requiring
customers to undergo "repetitive, time-consuming, cumbersome and
unsuccessful troubleshooting processes," failing to supply
replacement parts until warranty periods lapsed or telling
customers systems were on back order, sending defective
replacement parts, promising hardware and software fixes that
never materialized and failing to provide refunds.

According to the complaint, Logitech decided in the last quarter
of 2012 to stop making and selling the systems by 2014, but kept
that decision from customers until July 22, 2014, meaning the
company "knew internally for nearly two full years that it had
given up on the defective alert systems but continued to sell its
remaining stock to unsuspecting customers who would eventually be
stuck with significant investments in defective products."

In moving for class certification, Anderson referenced other
litigation involving Logitech for similar reasons in federal court
in California and New Jersey. He also said Logitech should not be
able to find protection with statutes of limitation because of the
alleged concealments that gave rise to the complaint.

Formal allegations include fraudulent business practices,
violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment
and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

In addition to class certification and a jury trial, Anderson
wants the court to award actual, treble and punitive damages of at
least $5 million, restitution and disgorgement of profits and
legal fees.

Representing Anderson in the matter is Gary L. Specks, Esq. --
gspecks@kaplanfox.com -- of Highland Park, and the San Francisco
firm Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP. [GN]


MICROSOFT: To End Brazen Windows 10 Forced Upgrades
---------------------------------------------------
Paul Lilly, writing for Hot Hardware, reports that operating under
the premise that it is better to beg for forgiveness than to ask
for permission, Microsoft for a long time bullied Windows 7 and
Windows 8/8.1 users into upgrading to Windows 10 through the use
the nag screens and other means. Microsoft was even so brazen as
to download Windows 10 upgrade files on PCs without the owner's
permission, which led to a class action lawsuit. The good news is
Microsoft has agreed to stop doing that.

Microsoft's response is to a cease-and-desist complaint filed by
Munich's Baden-WÅrtenberg consumer rights center
(Verbraucherschutz). After having lost in Munich courts on two
previous occasions, it then submitted a vow before the third (and
presumably final found) to stop forcibly downloading Windows 10
upgrade files onto customers' PCs without obtaining their consent.

The practice of downloading upgrade files without first getting
permission was one that did not sit well with consumers. Many felt
it could not possibly be legal to sneakily grab 6GB-8GB worth of
files from the internet and dump them on a user's hard drive. It
turns out it was not legal, at least in Munich, where Microsoft
was taken to task over its aggressive upgrade behavior.

Whether or not there will be any further repercussions remains to
be seen. Even if there are, Microsoft may feel as though its
approach was worth it in the end. According to Net Market Share,
Windows 10 is installed more than a quarter of all PCs (27.63
percent), making it the second most popular OS behind Windows 7
(48.91 percent). And back in May of this year, Microsoft announced
that Windows 10 installs had topped 500 million devices en route
to its goal of reaching 1 billion devices by the summer of next
year.

Windows 10 is intended to be the last monolithic version of
Windows ever. Going forward, Microsoft plans to dole out two major
updates per year. For 2017, those include the Creators Update
(already available) and the Fall Creators Update (due out later
this year). As such, it was willing to offer free upgrades to
Windows 10 for the first year, as the bigger play is to charge for
related services such as Office 365 and OneDrive. [GN]


MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: Judge OKs $8 Million Class Deal
----------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge has given final approval to an $8.25 million deal
struck among consumers, Whole Foods and a kombucha beverage maker
in a mislabeling suit over the product's antioxidant, alcohol and
sugar content, overruling objections to approximately $2 million
in attorneys' fees.

U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez on August 22 granted
motions for final approval of the class action settlement agreed
to by consumers led by Jonathan Retta in their suit against Whole
Foods Market Inc. and GT's Kombucha maker Millennium Products
Inc., saying that only four out of 173,000 class members objected
to the terms of the settlement that awards $2.063 million in
attorneys' fees and $18,121 in costs.

"This positive response is an indicator that the vast majority of
the class members find the settlement to be fair, reasonable and
adequate," Judge Gutierrez wrote. "Against the nationwide
distribution of the notice, the settlement prompted only four
objections. That is a miniscule percentage of the participating
class."

The judge noted that two of the objectors are "serial objectors,"
with Patrick Sweeney being well-known for "routinely filing
meritless objections to class action settlements for the improper
purpose of extracting a fee rather than to benefit the class," and
with Justin Ference "part of a family of professional objectors."

Judge Gutierrez last September denied a prior proposed deal, but
on Jan. 31 the judge signed off on the current agreement, which in
addition to the monetary payout to the class requires certain
labeling changes by the maker of the carbonated fermented tea
drink.

On August 22, the judge said he is satisfied that the ultimate
settlement of $8.25 million is reasonable because class counsel
estimated that the maximum recovery at trial could amount to $38
million.

"The settlement amount therefore represents approximately 21
percent of the estimated potential recovery, which falls well
within the range of possible approval," Judge Gutierrez said.

Retta, along with plaintiffs Kirsten Schofield and Jessica Manire,
had alleged in a fifth amended complaint that Millennium
mislabeled its GT's Kombucha product by using the term
"antioxidant" when the drink allegedly doesn't contain any, saying
the drink was "nonalcoholic" when it actually does contain alcohol
and understating the amount of sugar in the drink.

Their suit was consolidated in November with a related action in
which consumers Nina Pedro and Rosalind Lewis alleged that the
fermented beverage leaks and can explode because of inadequate
packaging and excessive carbonation. Judge Gutierrez on August 22
awarded Pedro and Lewis' counsel $140,080 in attorneys' fees and
$15,581 in costs.

Under the settlement, Millennium has agreed to stop ordering and
printing labels with the term "antioxidant," add a warning label
that the drink contains naturally occurring alcohol, add a warning
label that "contents are under pressure" and that a failure to
refrigerate can "increase pressure, causing product to leak or
gush," and also ensure the accuracy of sugar content
representation on the labels.

The judge's order also certified the consumer class. It appointed
Retta, Schofield and Manire as class representatives -- giving
each an $2,000 incentive award.

Between March 2011 and October 2016, Millennium sold nearly 275
million bottles of kombucha to distributors, according to court
filings. The certified class includes people in the U.S. who
purchased one or more of Millennium's kombucha drinks from March
11, 2011, to the notice date, which could comprise millions of
consumers.

Class member awards will be distributed as either cash payments or
product vouchers to all members who submit a timely and valid
claim form, Judge Gutierrez ruled. Claimants who don't have proof
of purchase may receive a $3.50 cash award for each product bought
during the class period, for a maximum of 10 claims amounting to
$35 in cash. Members who claim more than $35 in cash awards must
submit proof of purchase and may receive a cash award of up to
$60.

The complaint alleged violations of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law;
New York's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and General
Business Law; and other claims including fraud and unjust
enrichment.

Representatives for Millennium, Whole Foods and the consumer class
didn't immediately respond on August 24 to requests for comment.

The consumers are represented by Annick Marie Persinger, Esq. --
amLawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. -- ltimothy@bursor.com --  and
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com --  of Bursor
& Fisher PA, Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Esq. -- bhujwala@boucher.la --
of Boucher LLP, Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq. -- info@justice4you.com --
and Joshua H. Watson, Esq. -- info@justice4you.com --  of Clayeo
C. Arnold APC, and John A. Yanchunis, Esq.  of Morgan & Morgan
Complex Litigation Group.

Millennium is represented by Scott M. Voelz, Esq. --
svoelz@omm.com and Daniel J. Faria, Esq. -- dfaria@omm.com -- of
O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Whole Foods is represented by David A. Crane, Esq. --
david.crane@ltlattorneys.com -- Alexander H. Hu, Esq. --
Alexander.hu@ltlattorneys.com --  and James M. Lee, Esq. --
james.lee@ltlattorneys.com -- of LTL Attorneys LLP.

The case is Jonathan Retta et al. v. Millennium Products Inc. et
al., case number 2:15-cv-01801, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. [GN]


MINNEAPOLIS, MN: City's Judgment on Pleadings in "Stewart" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings in the case captioned Laurence Stewart, Plaintiff, v.
City of Minneapolis, Defendant, Civil No. 17-226(DSD/TNL)(D.
Minn.).

This employment action arises out of the City's termination of
Stewart's employment. The City hired Stewart as a construction and
maintenance laborer. Soon thereafter, he became an automotive
mechanic.  In October 2009, Stewart was injured on the job.  He
was cleared by his doctor to return to work the following year.
Because his physical restrictions precluded him from working as a
mechanic, he worked as an office support specialist. The City
determined that Stewart was permanently disabled and thus eligible
to participate in the Job Bank Program.  He was terminated
consistent with the Policy.

The City argues that the Union is a required party pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(1) and that this case should
be dismissed if Stewart persists in his refusal to join the Union.
The court agrees that the Union is a required party to this
action, but disagrees that dismissal is an appropriate remedy at
this time.

Stewart seeks an injunction enjoining the City from implementing
the Policy in its current form. Ordering that relief, should
Stewart prevail, would also directly affect the CBA and prejudice
the Union's rights thereunder, the Court rules.  The court will
not effectively vitiate or rewrite a contract, in whole or part,
without the involvement of all parties to that contract.

For the same reason, the court also finds that proceeding without
the Union would impede its ability to protect its rights under the
CBA.

Failing to join the Union would also subject the City to
inconsistent obligations and possibly liability vis-a-vis the
Union. For example, because the CBA contractually obligates the
City to do certain things in a prescribed way, a court order to
the contrary could subject the City to suit by the Union. As a
result, the court concludes that the Union is a required party and
orders that it be joined to this action pursuant to Rule 19(a)(2).

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 21, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yagyrtuufrom Leagle.com.

Laurence Stewart, Plaintiff, represented by Brian T. Rochel -
rochel@teskemicko.com - Teske Micko Katz Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP.
Laurence Stewart, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas L. Micko -
micko@teskemicko.com - Teske, Micko, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP,
Marisa C. Katz - katz@teskemicko.com - Teske Micko Katz Kitzer &
Rochel, PLLP & Vildan A. Teske - teske@teskemicko.com - Teske,
Micko, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP.

City of Minneapolis, Defendant, represented by Gregory P. Sautter,
Office of the City Attorney & Ivan M. Ludmer, City of Minneapolis.


MONINI NORTH AMERICA: Jessani Appeals Judgment to Second Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vinay Jessani and Wendy Burnett filed an appeal from the District
Court's memorandum endorsement dated August 3, 2017, and the
District Court's judgment dated August 8, 2017, in the lawsuit
titled Jessani v. Monini North America, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-3257,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on May 2, 2017.

Monini North produces and distributes olive oil.  The Company also
offers vinegars.  The company was founded in 2000 and is based in
Shelton, Connecticut.

The appellate case is captioned as Jessani v. Monini North
America, Inc., Case No. 17-2504, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellanta Vinay Jessani, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and Wendy Burnett, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Joshua David Arisohn, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com

Defendant-Appellee Monini North America, Inc., is represented by:

          Lawrence I. Weinstein, Esq.
          Jeffrey Warshafsky, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3240
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: lweinstein@proskauer.com
                  jwarshafsky@proskauer.com


NEW BRITAIN FINANCIAL: Faces "Madar" Suit in E.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Britain
Financial Services, LLC. The case is styled as Itschak Madar, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. New Britain Financial Services, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-05124 (E.D.N.Y., August 30, 2017).

New Britain Financial Services, LLC offers services in the
financial industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NOODLES & COMPANY: SELCO Appeals D. Colo. Ruling to Tenth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs SELCO Community Credit Union, KEMBA Financial Credit
Union, MidWest America Federal Credit Union, and Veridian Credit
Union filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuits
entitled SELCO Community Credit Union, et al. v. Noodles &
Company, Lead Civil Action No. 16-cv-02247-RBJ, Consolidated with
Nos. 16-cv-02497-RBJ and 16-cv-02632-RBJ, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado - Denver.

The appellate case is captioned as SELCO Community Credit Union,
et al. v. Noodles & Company, Case No. 17-1289, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 1,
2017, Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint.

In early 2016, hundreds of the Defendant's restaurants suffered a
cyberattack targeting customers' credit and debit card
information.  The Plaintiffs are four credit unions whose
cardholders' information might have been compromised by the data
breach.  They allege that because of the breach they have had to
cancel and reissue affected cards, close and reopen the
corresponding accounts, respond to cardholders' inquiries about
the breach, monitor accounts for fraudulent charges, investigate
such charges, and refund cardholders for any unauthorized charges
that went through.  They also claim to have lost revenue due to
their cardholders' decrease in credit and debit card usage after
the breach was publicized.

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

   -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of
      appearance were due on August 30, 2017, for KEMBA Financial
      Credit Union, MidWest America Federal Credit Union, SELCO
      Community Credit Union and Veridian Credit Union; and

   -- Notice of appearance was due on August 30, 2017, for Noodles
      & Company.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SELCO COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION is represented
by:

          Swathi Bojedla, Esq.
          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD, LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: sbojedla@hausfeld.com
                  jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

Plaintiffs-Appellants SELCO COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, MIDWEST
AMERICA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, VERIDIAN CREDIT UNION and KEMBA
FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION, on behalf of themselves and a class of
similarly situated financial institutions, are represented by:

          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
                  khriebel@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415-0000
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com
                  steti@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
                  glynch@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          80 South Eighth Street
          1100 IDS Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Charles Hale Van Horn, Esq.
          BERMAN FINK VAN HORN, P.C.
          3475 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 1100
          Atlanta, GA 30305-4802
          Telephone: (404) 261-7711
          Facsimile: (404) 233-1943
          E-mail: cvanhorn@bfvlaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellant KEMBA FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION, on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated financial
institutions, is represented by:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          CHESTNUT & CAMBRONNE, P.A.
          17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300
          Facsimile: (612) 336-2921
          E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com

Defendant-Appellee NOODLES & COMPANY is represented by:

          Xakema Henderson, Esq.
          Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street, Suite 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-0600
          E-mail: xhenderson@bakerlaw.com
                  pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com


OAKDALE PROPERTIES: October 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
Joyce v. Brown, et al., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
County Department, Chancery Division No. 15 CH 14315

TO: ALL POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS WHO WERE TENANTS OF KATHLEEN J.
BROWN, OAKDALE PROPERTIES
OR BROWN PROPERTIES
RE: RLTO SECURITY DEPOSIT LAWSUIT.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.
THIS NOTICE COULD AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS.

I. INTRODUCTION. A class action lawsuit was filed against
Kathleen J. Brown, Oakdale Properties and Brown Properties
("Brown" or "Defendants") alleging violations of the Chicago
Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance "RLTO" concerning
tenant security deposits.  After discovery and negotiations, the
parties have agreed to a settlement.  That way, both sides avoid
the risks and costs of trial, and the tenants potentially affected
will be entitled to compensation.  The Court did not decide for
the Plaintiff or the Defendants, and Defendants have not admitted
to having violated the RLTO.

On June 29, 2017, the Court preliminarily approved a Settlement
requesting an award as summarized in Section II of this
Notice.  If you leased an apartment from Defendants between
September 29, 2013, and September 29, 2015, you may be
eligible to participate in this lawsuit.

The purpose of this Notice is to advise you of how your
rights may be affected by this suit, and to instruct you on the
procedure for submitting a claim regarding this suit.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT AND SETTLEMENT. On
September 29, 2015, Bridget Joyce ("Joyce" or "Plaintiff") sued
Defendants in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Joyce
alleges that the Defendants violated the provisions of the RLTO
by commingling tenant security deposits with Brown's assets.
A Settlement Agreement has been preliminarily approved by
the Court. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the
Defendants agree to award each Class Member who timely
submits a valid claim form, a single payment equal to their
security deposit.

Eligible Class Members include those persons who satisfy the
following requirements: All persons who were a tenant of Defendant
Kathleen J. Brown, Oakdale Properties or Brown Properties, and who
provided a security deposit to Defendants between September 29,
2013 and September 29, 2015.

Defendants have also agreed to pay fees and costs of Class
Counsel in the amount of $80,000.00.  The fees and costs to be
paid by the Defendants are in addition to and do not reduce the
award to any Class Member.

III. YOUR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS SETTLEMENT. If you
fit the criteria above, you may request payment pursuant to the
settlement by signing and mailing a Claim Form to the following
address:

          TETZLAFF LAW OFFICES, LLC
          Attn: Joyce v. Brown Class Action
          227 West Monroe Street, Suite 3650
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          312-574-1000
          info@tetzlafflegal.com

The Claim Form must be completed, signed and returned to
Tetzlaff Law Offices, LLC no later than October 30, 2017.  Any
completed claim form that is returned and is postmarked after
October 30, 2017 will not be accepted or processed.  You may
request a claim form by contacting Class Counsel identified in
Paragraph VI below.

IV. YOUR RIGHT TO OPT-OUT OF THIS SETTLEMENT. Any
person who is eligible to participate in this lawsuit or who
receives a Notice of Class Settlement may request to be
excluded from the Class by submitting a request to opt-out.  Any
such request must include the claimant's name, address, phone
number and statement requesting that he or she be excluded
from the Class.  Such requests to opt-out will be timely only if
sent by mail no later than September 20, 2017.  If you choose
to opt-out, you are free to file your own lawsuit, subject to the
laws, including the statute of limitations provisions, applicable
to claims for violations of the RLTO.  If you do not submit a
timely request to opt-out, you will be bound by the settlement and
will be barred from seeking any future recovery based on the RLTO
violations alleged in this action with respect to your rental of
an apartment from Defendants during the times identified above.

V. YOUR RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THIS SETTLEMENT. Any Class
Member wishing to object to the approval of this settlement
shall inform the Court and the Parties in writing of his or her
intent to object by submitting a written objection filed with the
Court and postmarked no later than September 20, 2017.  Any
written objection must specify the basis for the objection, and
must be sent to Class Counsel at the address specified below,
and filed with the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court, Richard
Daley Center, Room 802, 50 W. Washington, Chicago, IL 60602.

Any Class Member who fails to file a timely written statement
of an intention to object shall be foreclosed from making any
objections to this settlement, unless otherwise ordered by the
Court.

VI. YOUR LEGAL REPRESENTATION AS A MEMBER OF THE CLASS. Unless you
opt-out, your interests will be represented by the named Plaintiff
through her attorneys, as counsel for the class.

Counsel for the class are:

          Kenneth D. Flaxman, Esq.,
          Jennifer L. Doherty, Esq., and
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          EDWARD T. JOYCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
          135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2200,
          Chicago, IL 60603,
          Phone (312) 641-2600

VII. FINAL FAIRNESS AND APPROVAL HEARING. On October
10, 2017 at 9:30 a.m., a Final Fairness and Approval Hearing
shall be held before the Court in order to review the Settlement
Agreement and determine whether the Court should give it
final approval; and to consider any timely objections made and
responses by the Parties to such objections.  At the Final
Fairness and Approval Hearing, the Parties shall ask the Court to
grant final approval to this Agreement.  If the Parties' request
for final approval is granted, a Final Order Approving Settlement
of Class Action and Dismissal with Prejudice subject to full
compliance with the Settlement Agreement shall be entered.

VIII. FURTHER INFORMATION. You may obtain further
information about this Notice, filing a Claim Form, or answers to
questions concerning this lawsuit by writing or calling
Plaintiff's counsel at the number and address stated above in
Section VI.

Please do not contact Defendants, their counsel or the Court for
more information.

Dated: July 20, 2017


PACIFIC INVESTMENT: "Hampton" SEC Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned William T. Hampton, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pacific Investment
Management Company LLC, Pimco Funds, E. Philip Cannon, J. Michael
Hagan, Brent R. Harris, Douglas Hodge, Ronald C. Parker, William
J. Popejoy and Does 1-20 Defendants, Case No. 30-2017-00929099
(Cal. Super., June 29, 2017), was removed to the United States
District Court for the Central District Of California on August
16, 2017, and assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-01412.

This SEC Complaint asserts claims on behalf of shareholders who
purchased shares of Pacific Investment who allege irregularities
involving several superficial changes to minimize explicit
references to misrepresentations and omissions under federal
securities law including claims of breach of contract, breach of
trust, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
aiding and abetting. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
      Kenneth A. Remson
      WESTERMAN LAW CORP
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 698-7450
      Fax: (310) 775-9777
      Email: jwesterman@jswlegal.com
             kremson@jswlegal.com

Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, Brent R. Harris and
Douglas M. Hodge are represented by:

      Abirami Gnanadesigan, Esq.
      DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
      333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 457-1800
      Fascimile: (213) 457-1850
      Email: agnanadesigan@dykema.com

             - and -

      John D. Donovan, Esq.
      ROPES & GRAY LLP
      Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street
      Boston, MA 02199
      Telephone: (617) 951-7000
      Fascimile: (617) 235-0023
      Email: john.donovan@ropesgray.com

             - and -

      John C. Ertman, Esq.
      Carly B. Baratt, Esq.
      ROPES & GRAY LLP
      1211 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 596-9000
      Fascimile: (646) 728-1519
      Email: john.ertman@ropesgray.com
             carly.baratt@ropesgray.com

             - and -

      Michelle L. Visser, Esq.
      ROPES & GRAY LLP
      3 Embarcadero Center
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 315-6300
      Fascimile: (415) 315-4875
      Email: michelle.visser@ropesgray.com

William J. Popejoy is represented by:

      Ronald Rus, Esq.
      Randall A. Smith, Esq.
      Leo J. Presiado, Esq.
      BROWN RUDNICK LLP
      2211 Michelson Drive, 7th Floor
      Irvine, CA 92612


PETMED EXPRESS: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP disclosed the filing of a class action
lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased PetMed Express, Inc.
("PetMed" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PETS) securities between May
8, 2017, and August 23, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").
PetMed investors have 60 days from the date of this notice to file
a lead plaintiff motion. To obtain information or participate in
the class action, please visit the PetMed page on our website at
www.glancylaw.com/case/petmed-express-inc.

Investors suffering losses on their PetMed 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.

On August 23, 2017, Aurelius Value published a report alleging
that the Company targets opioid users with Google ads and other
marketing techniques to facilitate the abuse of opiates.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.19 per share, more
than 8%, to close at $36.22 per share on August 23, 2017.

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 was marketing dangerous and addictive animal drugs to
humans; (2) that, as such, the Company is vulnerable to potential
civil or criminal liability, as well as other regulatory action;
(3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Google may halt the
Company's advertising activities; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about PetMed's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of PetMed during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice
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
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]


PLANET FITNESS: NJ Court Issues Show Cause Order in "Truglio"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued a Memorandum Order requiring Defendants to show cause why
subject-matter jurisdiction still exists under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. sections 1332(d) and 1453,
over Plaintiff's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice
Act ("TCCWNA") claim, on which the Court reserved decision in its
Opinion and Order granting in part Defendants' motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint.

Defendants filed two declarations along with a memorandum in
support of subject-matter jurisdiction in response to the Court's
order. Up to the date of this Memorandum Order, no response in
opposition to Defendants' declarations has been filed by
Plaintiff.

The Court finds that Defendants have established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that CAFA's amount-in-controversy
requirement is met because, based on the combined membership
number of 133,318 for the three gyms operated by Defendant Planet
Fitness and nine gyms operated by FTBT in New Jersey, an award of
$100 in statutory damages to each class member would result in an
aggregate award of more than $13 million, exceeding CAFA's $5
million threshold. Accordingly, there is subject-matter
jurisdiction over this case under CAFA.

There being jurisdiction in this Court, it is now appropriate to
consider Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's TCCWNA claim.
Defendants shall file their motion to dismiss Plaintiff's TCCWNA
claim.

The case is MARNI TRUGLIO, individually and as a Class
representative on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. PLANET FITNESS, INC.; FIT TO BE TIED II, LLC d/b/a PLANET
FITNESS; JOHN DOES 1-75; PLANET FITNESS FRANCHISES 1-75; AND XYZ
CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-7959 (FLW)(LHG)
(D.N.J.).

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 21, 2017
Memorandum Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yanslp9rfrom
Leagle.com.

MARNI TRUGLIO, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF,
Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC., 100 Park Avenue20th FloorNew York, NY
10017

MARNI TRUGLIO, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH K. JONES, Jones,
Wolf & Kapasi, LLC., 100 Park Avenue20th FloorNew York, NY 10017
PLANET FITNESS, INC., Defendant, represented by CRAIG R.
TRACTENBERG - ctractenberg@foxrothschild.com - Fox Rothschild LLP
& KURT MICHAEL MULLEN, NIXON PEABODY, LLP, 100 Summer Street,
Boston, MA 02110-2131

FIT TO BE TIED II, LLC, Defendant, represented by LOUIS A.
FELICETTA, CARLUCCIO LEONE, 9 Robbins Street, Toms River, NJ 08753


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Stewart" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as James Stewart, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05120
(E.D.N.Y., August 30, 2017).
Defendant operates a nationwide debt collection business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Kuzich" Suit in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primary Residential
Mortgage Incorporated. The case is styled as Katherine Kuzich, on
behalf of herself and All others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Primary Residential Mortgage Incorporated, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-02935-BSB (D. Ariz., August 30, 2017).

Primary Residential Mortgage, Inc. is a mortgage company in the
US.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Rowdy B Meeks, Esq.
   Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC
   8201 Mission Rd., Ste. 250
   Prairie Village, KS 66208
   Tel: (913) 766-5587
   Fax: (816) 875-5069
   Email: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com


RADEGAST HALL: Faces "McFadden" Suit in E. Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radegast Hall LLC.
The case is styled as Jason McFadden, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. Radegast Hall LLC
and Ivan Kohut in his individual and corporate capacity,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05118 (E.D. N.Y., August 30, 2017).

Radegast Hall LLC is engaged in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


RAYONIER ADVANCED: Warren City Fund Sues Over Inflated Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Warren General Employees' Retirement System, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc., Paul G. Boynton and Frank A.
Ruperto, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01167, (M.D. Tenn., August
17, 2017), seeks compensatory damages including interest,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including
counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Rayonier Advanced Materials manufactures and sells cellulose
specialty products in the United States, China, Japan, Canada,
Europe, Latin America, other Asian countries and internationally.

City of Warren General Employees' Retirement System purchased the
common stock of Rayonier Advanced Materials that were allegedly
traded at artificially inflated prices. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mario Alba Jr., Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             malba@rgrdlaw.com


RESORT MARKETING: April 4 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

Philip Charvat on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated,

Plaintiff

v.

Elizabeth Valente, Resort Marketing Group, Inc.,
Carnival Corporation & PLC,
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-05746
Judge Wood
Mag. Judge Rowland

A federal court authorized this Notice. It is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit claiming
that a travel agency called Resort Marketing Group, Inc. ("RMG"),
made automated telephone calls to consumers to offer a free cruise
with Carnival Corporation & PLC ("Carnival"), Royal Caribbean
Cruises, Ltd. ("Royal Caribbean"), and NCL (Bahamas), Ltd.
("Norwegian") (collectively "Cruise Defendants") (the
Settlement").  The lawsuit claims that RMG violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and that the Cruise Defendants
should be held vicariously liable for RMG's conduct.  RMG and the
Cruise Defendants deny the claims and deny they violated the TCPA.
The Court has not made a decision as to
who is right; rather, the parties resolved the dispute by
settlement.

The Settlement includes people who received pre-recorded telephone
calls between July 23, 2009 and March 8, 2014 on their residential
or cellular telephone lines initiated by RMG during which RMG
offered a free cruise with Carnival, Royal Caribbean, or Norwegian
cruise lines as a promotion ("Settlement Class Members").

What does the Settlement provide?

The Settlement provides cash payments to Settlement Class Members
who file valid Claim Forms. Defendants will create a Settlement
Fund of at least $7,000,000 (the "Floor") and up to $12,500,000
(the "Ceiling").  The final Settlement Fund amount will depend on
the number of Claim Forms filed.  The Settlement Fund will
be used to pay Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses, an
incentive award to the Class Representative, and notice and
administration costs, before making payments to Settlement Class
Members who file a valid Claim Form.

How much will my payment be?

Each RMG telemarketing call you received will have a maximum value
of $300.  You may file a claim for up to three calls per telephone
number included in the Call Records.  This means that your maximum
payment amount could be $900 per telephone number. Although
payment amounts could be $300-$900, actual payment amounts will be
based on the total number of calls and valid Claim Forms received.
For example:

   -- If, after deducting attorneys' fees and expenses, the
incentive award, and settlement administration costs, the amount
needed to pay all valid claims is less than the balance of the
Settlement Fund, then each Settlement Class Member who submits a
valid Claim Form will receive $300 per call for up to three calls,
and the remaining funds will be donated cy pres to the National
Consumer Law Center (www.nclc.org) or other approved recipient.

   -- If, after deducting attorneys' fees and expenses, the
incentive award, and settlement administration costs, the amount
needed to pay all valid claims is greater than the Settlement Fund
Ceiling, then each Settlement Class Member who submits a valid
Claim Form will receive a proportionately reduced payment amount,
meaning each Settlement Class Member will receive the same reduced
payment amount per call for up to three calls.

How do I receive a cash payment?
To receive a cash payment, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked
by November 3, 2017.  Claim Forms may be submitted online at
www.RMGTCPASettlement.com, or by mailing the completed Claim Form
to RMG TCPA Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 404022, Louisville,
KY 40233-4022. Claim Forms are available for printing from the
website or upon request by calling 1-855-636-6134.

When will I receive my payment?
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on April 4, 2018 to
decide whether to grant final approval to the Settlement. If the
Court approves the Settlement, there may be appeals. It is always
uncertain whether appeals will be filed and, if so, h ow long it
will take to resolve them. Settlement payments will be provided as
soon as possible, if and when the Court grants final approval to
the Settlement and after any appeals are resolved.

How do I get out of the Settlement?
To exclude yourself from the Settlement, you must mail a written
request for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator. Your letter
must include (1) your full name; (2) your current mailing address;
(3) your current telephone number; (4) the telephone number RMG
used to make pre-recorded telemarketing calls to you; (5) a
statement under penalty of perjury that you believe you are a
member of the Settlement Class and that the number you listed as
having received a call(s) from RMG is the one on which you
received the call(s); (6) a statement indicating you want to be
excluded from the Settlement Class in Charvat v. Resort Marketing
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-05746; and (7) the date and
your signature. Your request for exclusion must be mailed to the
Settlement Administrator at the address below and postmarked no
later than November 3, 2017:

     RMG TCPA Settlement Administrator Exclusions
     P.O. Box 404022
     Louisville, KY 40233-4022

How do I tell the Court that I do not like the Settlement?
If you are a Settlement Class Member, you can object to the
Settlement if you do not like it or a portion of it.  You can give
reasons why you think the Court should not approve it.  The Court
will consider your views. To object, you must submit a written
objection to the Court by November 3, 2017, with copies sent to
the Settlement Administrator, Class Counsel, and each of the
Cruise Defendants' Counsel postmarked by November 3, 2017. Your
objection must include (1) your full name, address, current
telephone number, the telephone number that was called by RMG; (2)
a statement under penalty of perjury that you believe you are a
member of the Settlement Class and that the number(s) you listed
as being called is the one on which you received a call from RMG;
(3) the reasons why you object to the Settlement, including a
detailed statement of the legal basis for your objection and any
supporting documents; (4) state whether your objection is made
only on your behalf or if it is made on behalf of others, provide
information identifying who they are; (5) the identity of all
QUESTIONS? CALL 1-855-636-6134 TOLL-FREE OR VISIT
WWW.RMGTCPASETTLEMENT.COM
witnesses, including their names, addresses and summary of
testimony, you intend to call at the Final Approval Hearing and
copies of all evidence you plan to provide; (6) a statement
indicating whether you and/or your attorney intend to appear at
the Court's Final Approval Hearing; and (7) your signature.  If
you plan to have your attorney appear at the Final Approval
Hearing, that attorney must enter an appearance with the Clerk by
November 3, 2017 and provide a list of all previous class action
cases in which they have represented an objector.

You must file your objection with the Court by November 3, 2017
either in person or by mailing it to:

     Clerk of Court
     United States District Court for the Northern District
     of Illinois
     Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse
    219 South Dearborn Street

You must also mail copies of your objection to all of the
addresses below postmarked no later than November 3, 2017:

SETTLEMENT
ADMINISTRATOR

RMG TCPA
Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 404022
Louisville, KY 40233-4022

CLASS COUNSEL

Matthew P. McCue
Law Office of Matthew P. McCue
1 South Avenue, Suite 3
Natick, MA 01760

CRUISE DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL

Jeffrey Becker
Swanson, Martin & Bell LLP
330 N. Wabash Ave., Ste. 3300
Chicago, IL 60611
Counsel for Carnival

AND

Catherine J. MacIvor
Foreman Friedman, PA
2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2300
Miami, Florida 33131
Counsel for Royal Caribbean
and Norwegian

When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
Settlement? The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing at 11:00
a.m. on April 4, 2018 at the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen United
States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.
At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is
fair, reasonable and adequate.  It will also consider whether to
approve Class Counsel's request for an award of attorney's fees
and expenses, as well as an incentive award for the Class
Representative.  If there are objections, the Court will
consider them.  Judge Wood will listen to people who have asked to
speak at the hearing.  After the hearing, the Court will decide
whether to approve the Settlement.

How do I get more information?
This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement.  Complete details
are provided in the Settlement Agreement.  The Settlement
Agreement and other related documents are available at
www.RMGTCPASettlement.com.

Additional information is also available by calling 1-855-636-6134
or by writing to RMG TCPA Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box
404022, Louisville, KY 40233-4022.  Publicly-filed documents can
also be obtained by visiting the office of the Clerk of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois or
reviewing the Court's online docket.


ROSS STORES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Jacobo" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jose Jacobo and Theresa Metoyer filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Jose Jacobo, et al. v. Ross
Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04701-MWF-AGR, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 15,
2017, the Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary
adjudication.  The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
denied as moot.

"Plaintiffs never relied on Ross' Comparable Value price tags, and
thus lack standing under California law to pursue any claims
stemming from Ross' use of that phrase.  Plaintiffs may have met
the minimal burden under California law to show that a reasonable
consumer would have been deceived by Ross' use of the term
'Compare At' on its price tags," Judge Fitzgerald stated.  "But
even so, Plaintiffs fail to show that they suffered economic harm
as a result, and their claim for injunctive relief is mooted by
Ross' adoption of the Comparable Value tags," Judge Fitzgerald
added.

Because the Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence that would
permit a jury to rule in their favor on the issue of economic
harm, the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, Judge Fitzgerald
opined.

The appellate case is captioned as Jose Jacobo, et al. v. Ross
Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-56241, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 14, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on October 16, 2017;

   -- Appellants Jose Jacobo and Theresa Metoyer's opening brief
      is due on November 24, 2017;

   -- Appellees Does and Ross Stores, Inc.'s answering brief is
      due on December 26, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSE JACOBO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and THERESA METOYER are represented
by:

          Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
          DOUGLAS CAIAFA, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 444-5240
          Facsimile: (310) 312-8260
          E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com

Defendant-Appellee ROSS STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          David Frank McDowell, Jr., Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 892-5383
          Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
          E-mail: dmcdowell@mofo.com


SCHAEFFLER GROUP: November 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

In Re: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
12-md-02311
Honorable Marianne O. Battani
In Re: BEARINGS CASES

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS
2:12-cv-00501-MOB-MKM
2:15-cv-12068-MOB-MKM

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF DIRECT
PURCHASER CLASS ACTION WITH SCHAEFFLER
DEFENDANTS AND HEARING ON SETTLEMENT APPROVAL
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED BEARINGS IN THE UNITED
STATES DIRECTLY FROM A DEFENDANT DURING THE PERIOD FROM
JANUARY 1, 2000 THROUGH MARCH 21, 2017.

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY LITIGATION NOW PENDING IN THIS COURT.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE AND WHY WAS IT SENT TO ME?
This Notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Orders of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.  The purpose
of this Notice is to inform you of a proposed settlement with
Defendants Schaeffler Group USA Inc., Schaeffler Technologies AG &
Co. KG (formerly Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG), and FAG
Kugelfischer GmbH (collectively, "Schaeffler" or the "Schaeffler
Defendants").  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the
Settling Defendants will pay a total of $21
million and provide cooperation to assist Plaintiffs in the
prosecution of the claims against the remaining Defendants.
This litigation, and the proposed settlement, relate to both
automotive and industrial machinery Bearings purchased directly
from a Defendant.  Bearings are friction-reducing devices that
allow one moving part to glide past another moving part.

If you purchased Bearings in the United States directly from any
of the Defendants identified below during the period from January
1, 2000 through March 21, 2017 (the "Class Period"), you are a
member of the Schaeffler Settlement Class and have the rights and
options summarized here:

   -- You may remain in the Schaeffler Settlement Class and be
eligible to share in the Schaeffler Settlement Fund under a claims
procedure that will be instituted in the future;

   -- You may exclude yourself from the Schaeffler Settlement
Class, in which case you will not be bound by the settlement and
will not be eligible to share in the Schaeffler Settlement Fund;

   -- If you do not exclude yourself from the Schaeffler
Settlement Class, you may object in writing to the proposed
Schaeffler settlement or to the request to use a portion of the
Settlement Fund to pay litigation expenses, and appear at the
hearing where the Court will determine whether the proposed
settlement should be approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable
and whether a portion of the Settlement Fund may be used to
pay litigation expenses; and

   -- You may enter an appearance in the litigation through your
own counsel at your own expense.

You do not need to take any action at this time if you wish to
remain in the Schaeffler Settlement Class.  You should
retain all of your records of Bearings purchases for use in the
claims procedure that will be instituted at a later date.

WHO IS IN THE SCHAEFFLER SETTLEMENT CLASS?
On July 26, 2017, the Court certified a Direct Purchaser
Schaeffler Settlement Class (the "Schaeffler Settlement
Class") for purposes of disseminating notice of the proposed
Schaeffler settlement, defined as follows:

All individuals and entities (excluding any Defendant and its
present and former parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates) that
purchased Bearings in the United States directly from one or more
Defendant from January 1, 2000, through March 21, 2017.

For purposes of the Schaeffler Settlement Class definition set
forth above, the following entities are Defendants: Schaeffler
Group USA Inc.; Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG (now
Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG); FAG Kugelfischer GmbH; JTEKT
Corporation; Koyo Corporation of U.S.A.; Koyo France SA; Koyo
Deutschland GmbH; Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.; Nachi America Inc.; Nachi
Technology, Inc.; Nachi Europe GmbH; NSK Ltd.; NSK
Americas, Inc.; NSK Europe Ltd.; NSK Corporation; AB SKF; SKF
GmbH; SKF USA Inc.; NTN Corporation; NTN USA Corporation; NTN
Walzlager GmbH; and NTN-SNR Roulements SA.  Plaintiffs DALC Gear &
Bearing Supply Corp., McGuire Bearing Company, and Sherman
Bearings, Inc. have been appointed by the Court to serve as Class
Representatives for the Schaeffler Settlement Class.  The Court
has appointed the law firms of Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC,
Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau &
Pachios LLP, and Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. to serve as Co-
Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Schaeffler
Settlement Class ("Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel").

WHAT IS THIS LITIGATION ABOUT?
Beginning in 2012, class action lawsuits were filed against
Defendants by Plaintiffs, who are direct purchasers of Bearings.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants entered into a conspiracy to
suppress and eliminate competition for Bearings by agreeing to
raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate
markets and customers for Bearings in violation of federal
antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs further allege that as a result of the
conspiracy, they and other direct purchasers of Bearings were
injured by paying more for those products than they would have
paid in the absence of the alleged illegal conduct, and they seek
recovery of treble damages, together with reimbursement of
costs and an award of attorneys' fees.

Schaeffler denies Plaintiffs' allegations and has agreed to settle
this matter in order to avoid the expense and
burden of further litigation.  The Court has not issued any
findings or rulings with respect to the merits of Plaintiffs'
claims or Defendants' defenses.  This is a settlement with
Schaeffler only. Plaintiffs are continuing to prosecute the
case against the remaining non-settling Defendants.

WHAT RELIEF DOES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Schaeffler Settlement Class, have
entered into a settlement with Schaeffler dated March 21, 2017,
under which Schaeffler has agreed to pay $21 million.  The
Settlement Agreement gives Schaeffler the right to reduce the
amount of the settlement, but under no circumstances to less than
$16 million, or to withdraw from the settlement, based on valid
and timely requests for exclusion by members of the Schaeffler
Settlement Class.

Schaeffler has also agreed to cooperate with Plaintiffs in the
prosecution of the lawsuit against the remaining Defendants. The
cooperation provided for under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement includes (a) the production of documents and data
potentially relevant to Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims; (b)
assistance in understanding information produced to Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs and facilitating the use of such information
at trial; (c) meetings between Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel
and the Settling Defendants' attorneys who will provide proffers
of information relevant to the claims in this litigation; (d)
witness interviews; (e) deposition testimony; (f) affidavits or
declarations; and (g) trial testimony.

Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel agreed to the proposed settlement
to ensure a fair and reasonable resolution to
this matter, and to provide benefits to the members of the
Schaeffler Settlement Class while recognizing the existence
of complex, contested issues of law and fact; the risks inherent
in such complex litigation; the likelihood that in the
absence of settlement, future proceedings would take several years
and be extremely costly; and the magnitude of
the benefits resulting from the settlement in light of the
possible range of recovery that could be obtained through
further litigation, including the risk of no recovery.  Co-Lead
Settlement Class Counsel believe that it is in the best
interests of the Schaeffler Settlement Class to enter into the
proposed settlement and resolve this litigation as to the
Schaeffler Defendants only.

This Notice is only a summary of the terms of the proposed
settlement.  The Settlement Agreement contains other important
provisions, including the release of certain claims against the
Schaeffler Defendants, and you are referred to the Settlement
Agreement, which is on file with the Clerk of Court and available
online at www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com, for the complete
terms of the settlement. The proposed settlement must receive
final approval by the Court to become effective.

If you are a member of the Schaeffler Settlement Class and the
proposed settlement is approved and becomes effective, you will be
bound by its terms, including the release provisions.  If you wish
to object to the settlement, you may do so, but only in accordance
with the procedures set forth below.  If you do not object to the
settlement, you do not need to take any action to indicate your
support for, or lack of objection to, the settlement.

HOW DO I REMAIN IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS AND WHAT HAPPENS IF I DO?
If you are a member of the Schaeffler Settlement Class as defined
above, you will automatically remain in the Schaeffler Settlement
Class unless you elect to be excluded.  If you wish to remain in
the Schaeffler Settlement Class, you do not need to take any
action, and your interests will be represented by the Class
Representatives and by Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel.  You will
have no responsibility to individually pay attorneys' fees or
expenses.  Any such fees and expenses will be paid solely from
amounts obtained from the Defendants, whether by settlement or
judgment, and must be approved by the Court after notice to you
and a hearing.  If you choose, you may also have your own attorney
enter an appearance on your behalf and at your expense.

If you remain in the Schaeffler Settlement Class and the final
judgment order dismissing Schaeffler from the litigation becomes
final and unappealable, you will be bound by that judgment.

As a member of the Schaeffler Settlement Class, you will be
eligible to share in the Schaeffler Settlement Fund pursuant to a
claims procedure that will begin at a later date.  Co-Lead
Settlement Class Counsel are not presently asking the Court to
distribute the Settlement Fund proceeds.  If you remain a member
of the Schaeffler Settlement Class, you will receive additional
notice at a later date, and you will have an opportunity to object
to and be heard in connection with the proposed plan of
distribution at that time.

Do not dispose of any document that reflects your purchases of
Bearings in the United States directly from any Defendant during
the period from January 1, 2000, to March 21, 2017.  You may need
those documents to complete a claim form in the future, which
would be subject to inquiry and verification if the settlement is
approved or if damages are otherwise recovered from Schaeffler or
another Defendant.

Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel are not seeking payment of
attorneys' fees at this time.  In connection with seeking final
approval of the settlement, Plaintiffs will seek permission from
the Court to use up to twenty percent (20%) of the settlement
amount to pay Plaintiffs' litigation expenses, including, but not
limited to, costs for experts, depositions, document reproduction
and review, and other costs incurred in prosecuting the case.

At a later date, Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel will ask the
Court for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
additional litigation expenses, as well as payment of incentive
awards to the Class Representatives for their service to the
class.  You will be sent notice and be given an opportunity to
object and be heard by the Court when Settlement Class Counsel
seek payment of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation
expenses, and incentive awards from the Schaeffler Settlement
Fund.


WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO REMAIN IN THE SCHAEFFLER SETTLEMENT
CLASS?
If you wish to exclude yourself from the Schaeffler Settlement
Class, you must send a request for exclusion in writing, via
certified mail, return receipt requested, postmarked no later than
October 2, 2017, to Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel and to
counsel for Schaeffler at the addresses set forth below, and to
the following address:

      Bearings Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
      P.O. Box 4230
      Portland, OR 97208-4230

Your request for exclusion must include the full name and address
of the purchaser (including any predecessor or successor entities
and any trade names).  You are also requested to identify the
Defendant(s) from which you purchased Bearings during the Class
Period, the Bearings purchased, and the dollar amount of those
purchases.  If you validly exclude yourself from the Schaeffler
Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any decision concerning
the Schaeffler settlement, and you may pursue individually any
claims you may have against Schaeffler, but you will not be
eligible to share in the Settlement Fund created by the Schaeffler
settlement.

WHEN WILL THE COURT DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT, AND
HOW CAN I TELL THE COURT WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT?
The Court will hold a hearing on November 8, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.,
at the Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette
Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, Courtroom 272, to determine whether
the proposed Schaeffler settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate.  The Court will also consider at the
hearing whether to approve Plaintiffs' request to utilize a
portion of the Schaeffler Settlement Fund to pay Plaintiffs'
litigation expenses.  The hearing may be postponed without further
notice to you.  If you do not exclude yourself from the Schaeffler
Settlement Class and you wish to object to the settlement or to
Plaintiffs' request to utilize a portion of the Schaeffler
Settlement Fund to pay Plaintiffs' litigation expenses, you must
do so in writing.  Your objection must include the caption of this
litigation, must be signed, and be filed no later than October 2,
2017, with the Clerk of Court, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231
West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, and mailed to the
following counsel, postmarked no later than October 2, 2017:

Steven A. Kanner
FREED KANNER LONDON
& MILLEN LLC
2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Telephone: (224) 632-4500

Joseph C. Kohn
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 238-1700

Gregory P. Hansel
PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU
& PACHIOS LLP
One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
Portland, ME 04112-9546
Telephone: (207) 791-3000

Eugene A. Spector
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF
1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300

Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Schaeffler Settlement
Class

Mark A. Ford
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000

Counsel for the Schaeffler Defendants

If you do not object to the proposed Schaeffler settlement or to
Plaintiffs' request to utilize a portion of the settlement
proceeds to pay Plaintiffs' litigation expenses, you do not need
to appear at the hearing or take any other action at this time.

WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I WANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR IF MY ADDRESS
CHANGES?
If this Notice reached you at an address other than the one on the
mailing label, or if your address changes, please send your
correct address to Bearings Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation,
P.O. Box 4230, Portland, OR 97208-4230.
The Settlement Agreement, Complaints, and other public documents
filed in this litigation are available for review during normal
business hours at the offices of the Clerk of Court, United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West
Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226 and through the Court's
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system
after registration and payment of a modest fee.  Copies of the
Settlement Agreement and certain other documents relevant to this
litigation are available at www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com.
Questions concerning the proposed Schaeffler settlement, this
Notice, or the litigation may be directed to any of the Co-Lead
Settlement Class Counsel identified above.

Please do not contact the Clerk of the Court or the Judge.
Dated: August 10, 2017

BY ORDER OF:
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division


SCICLONE PHARMA: "Consoli" Seeks to Halt Vote on Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Consoli, on behalf of himself all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. Sciclone Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Friedhelm Blobel,
Jon S. Saxe, Nancy T. Chang, Richard J. Hawkins, Gregg A. Lapointe
and Simon Li, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04761, (N.D. Cal.,
August 16, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of
SciClone by GL Capital Management.  The suit seeks rescissory
damages in case the merger pushes through, reasonable allowance
for Plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

GL Capital Management GP Limited, Bank of China Group Investment
Limited, CDH Investments, Ascendent Capital Partners and Boying
Investment Limited will acquire all of the outstanding shares of
SciClone for $11.18 in cash per share of SciClone common stock.
Transaction is valued at approximately $605 million.

Plaintiff and other SciClone shareholders claimed that the
transaction documents omitted material information concerning
financial projections prepared by the company management and
SciClone's management as well as the valuation analyses performed
by Lazard Freres & Co., the company's financial advisor. Certain
members of Company management have secured positions for
themselves following the completion of the merger, thus posing a
potential conflict of interest issue, says the complaint.

SciClone is a specialty pharmaceutical company with a substantial
commercial business and a product portfolio of therapies for
oncology, infectious diseases and cardiovascular disorders. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 208-2800
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2348.
      Email: jelkins@weisslawllp.com


SCOTTRADE INC: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Kuhns"
----------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming District Court judgment granting Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the appeals cases captioned Matthew Kuhns,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Scottrade, Inc., a Missouri
Corporation, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Nos. 16-3426, 16-
3542 (8th Cir.).

Hackers accessed the internal database of Scottrade, a securities
brokerage firm based in St. Louis, Missouri.  The hackers acquired
personal identifying information (PII) of over 4.6 million
Scottrade customers, including plaintiff Matthew Kuhns, and
exploited the information to operate a stock price manipulation
scheme, illegal gambling websites, and a Bitcoin exchange.
Kuhns and three others affected by the data breach brought
putative class actions against Scottrade. After the actions were
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. section
1332(d), asserting, as relevant here, claims of breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
declaratory judgment, and violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act (MMPA).

The district court concluded plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing because they had not suffered injury in fact and
dismissed the Consolidated Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The court's judgment dismissed the Consolidated
Complaint with prejudice.

Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint asserted that
Scottrade provided deficient cybersecurity in violation of its
"contractual and other obligations, resulting in a data breach by
people willing to use the information for any number of improper
purposes and scams, including making the information available for
sale on the black-market.

Scottrade filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

The Eighth Circuit has previously explained that a party to a
breached contract has a judicially cognizable interest for
standing purposes, regardless of the merits of the breach alleged.
In Carlsen v. GameStop, Inc., 833 F.3d 903, 908 (8th Cir. 2016), a
customer of an online video-game publisher sued the publisher for
breach of contract, alleging the publisher breached its
contractual privacy policy by sharing the customer's PII with
Facebook, and the customer suffered damages in the form of a
devaluation of his subscription. The district court dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding the alleged
overpayment was not injury in fact.

Though the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal because
plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim, the circuit court
reversed the district court's conclusion that plaintiff lacked
standing. Noting that it is crucial not to conflate Article I's
requirement of injury in fact with a plaintiff's potential causes
of action, the Eighth Circuit concluded plaintiff alleged a
concrete and particularized breach of contract and actual injury.

Gamestop is controlling here, the Eighth Circuit held.  Kuhns
alleged that he bargained for and expected protection of his PII,
that Scottrade breached the contract when it failed to provide
promised reasonable safeguards, and that Kuhns suffered actual
injury, the diminished value of his bargain. Whatever the merits
of Kuhns's contract claim, and his related claims for breach of
implied contract and unjust enrichment, he has Article III
standing to assert them.

Failure to State a Claim

To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a
Complaint must allege sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that Scottrade breached the
Brokerage Agreement because it did not comply with applicable laws
and regulations as described herein or otherwise adequately
safeguard or protect Plaintiffs' personal data from being accessed
and taken. Scottrade did not maintain sufficient security measures
and procedures to prevent unauthorized access.

First, representations of conditions Scottrade will maintain are
in the nature of contract recitals. If Scottrade misrepresented
those conditions, Kuhns might have a claim for fraud in the
inducement of the contract. But no such claim was asserted.
Indeed, there was no alleged misrepresentation, just bare
assertions that Scottrade's efforts failed to protect customer
PII.

Second, even if the security representations can be construed as
promises of contract performance, the lengthy Consolidated
Complaint fails to allege a specific breach of the express
contract. Plaintiffs do not identify a single applicable law and
regulation that Scottrade allegedly breached regarding its data
security practices.  Kuhns does not allege that Scottrade
affirmatively promised that its customer data would not be hacked,
and such a promise may not be plausibly implied.

Third, though the Eighth Circuit has concluded it alleged breach-
of-contract injury in fact, the Consolidated Complaint failed to
plausibly allege the actual damage that is an element of a breach
of contract claim.

The judgment of the district court dismissing the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint is affirmed. The Eighth Circuit denies
Kuhns's untimely motion to dismiss the appeal and the cross
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's August 21, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yd5pjjgefrom Leagle.com.

Thomas Edward Douglass - tdouglas@thompsoncoburn.com - for
Defendant-Appellee.

Anthony G. Simon, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

John G. Simon - john.simon@yale.edu - for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Christopher Martin Hohn - chohn@thompson@coburn.com - for
Defendant-Appellee.

Timothy G. Blood - tblood@bholaw.com - for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II - toreardon@bholaw.com - for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joseph Siprut - jsiprut@siprut.com - for Plaintiff-Appellant.
David Michael Mangian - dmangian@thompson@coburn.com - for
Defendant-Appellee.

Paula R. Brown, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Brandi L. Burke - bburke@thompsoncoburn.com - for Defendant-
Appellee.


SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Sequans Communications S.A. ("Sequans") (NYSE: SQNS)
between April 29, 2016 and July 31, 2017. You are hereby notified
that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
To get more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra-sba/sequans-communications-s-a?wire=2

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at --
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com -- or by telephone at (212) 363-7500,
toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company was improperly recognizing
revenue; and (2) as a result, certain public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August
1, 2017, Sequans revealed that its revenue in the second quarter
was negatively affected by a product return from an early 2016
sale related to the tablet business. When this news was announced,
shares of Sequans declined in value materially, which caused
investors harm.

If you suffered a loss in Sequans you have until October 10, 2017
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


SHECHTMAN HALPERIN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Jenner" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda A. Jenner, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Shechtman Halperin Savage, LLP, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00387-S-PAS (D.R.I., August 22, 2017), arises out of Shechtman's
attempts to collect on its clients' residential mortgage loans
beyond what is legally permitted, specifically sending debt
collection letters to non-borrowers and non-mortgagors.

Shechtman Halperin Savage, LLP is a Rhode Island-based law firm,
which devotes a substantial portion of its business to
representing lenders in connection with their efforts to collect
debts and conduct foreclosure sales of residential properties that
secure those underlying debts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Enright, Esq.
      ENRIGHT LAW LLC
      696 Reservoir Avenue
      Cranston, RI 02910
      Telephone: (401) 526-2620
      Facsimile: (401) 457-7117
      E-mail: tom@enrightlawoffice.com


SHELL OIL: "Long" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Long, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Shell Oil Company, Case No. 4:17-cv-02570 (S.D. Tex.,
August 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Shell Oil Company operates a global oil and gas exploration and
production company operating worldwide and throughout the United
States, including in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 325-1100
      Facsimile: (713) 325-3300
      E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
              litkin@mybackwages.com

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (710) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Faces CA Over Cancer-causing Toxic Waste
----------------------------------------------------------
Carol Comegno, writing for Courier Post Online, reports that a
group of Gibbsboro residents filed federal legal action on August
22 claiming disposal of toxic waste from a former paint factory
has caused a cancer cluster.

Nine families or individuals who live throughout Gibbsboro filed
the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Camden as a personal injury
class action against Sherwin-Williams.

The lawsuit alleges Sherwin-Williams, a Fortune 500 company,
contaminated the town's soil and groundwater with unsafe levels of
lead, arsenic and other carcinogens that have caused a cancer
cluster in the borough.

The plant, a paint burn site, a separate dump, Kirkwood Lake,
lakeside properties, and multiple connected streams and their
banks are part of a Superfund cleanup site that stretches for 1.5
miles through Gibbsboro and into Voorhees. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is overseeing the project.

Some members of the nine plaintiff families have been diagnosed
with cancer or other serious health conditions, including children
and one child as young as 3 months old, the suit contends. The
contamination has migrated to surrounding residences and
businesses within Gibbsboro, causing a cancer cluster within the
town, according to the lawsuit.

Most of the plaintiffs live outside the boundaries of the
designated Superfund sites.

"It is my firm belief that there has been contaminant migration
beyond some of the Superfund sites and that this has caused cancer
among some of the plaintiff adults and their children, including a
3-month-old baby," said Haddonfield lawyer Craig Mitnick, who
represents the residents.

"You have a company who claims to be an environmentally
responsible corporation yet what steps they have taken have been
superficial to residents thus far."

The lawsuit seeks an order requiring Sherwin-Williams to promptly
and completely remediate hazardous chemical levels to or below
state Department of Environmental Protection and EPA background
levels from class members' properties.

It also seeks testing, medical examination of all plaintiffs and
compensation, including for loss of a plaintiff's property value.

"The company just received the complaint and has no comment at
this time," Sherwin-Williams Communications director Mike Conway
said on August 23.

The residents are: Brad and Christen Lafferty and their daughter;
Corrine and Lauren Procajlo; Sandra Keating; Spencer Pope; Michael
and Lisa DiGiovanni; Gina and Anthony Tartaglia; Scott and Kirsten
Littlefield and their daughter; Dawn D'Orazaio and Gina Hyndham.

In 1999, the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services
and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry concluded
an urgent health hazard existed to children and adults who lived,
worked and visited the Sherwin-Williams Site areas.

But despite assessment, the lawsuit says, continued development on
contaminated land took place, including constructing public
walking trails and commercial establishments, opening new
restaurants and renovating existing residential properties.

The Sherwin-Williams facility was permanently closed Sept.1, 1978.
Developer Robert Scarborough bought the property in1981 and
rebuilt the former paint manufacturing plant into a robust
business complex known as the Paint Works Corporate Center, which
later was sold to Brandywine Realty trust.

Mitnick is one of the lawyers still involved in another personal
injury class action by thousands of professional football players
and which gained national attention.

The players sued and then tentatively settled with the National
Football League for $675 million to compensate them for brain
injuries they believed were caused by suffering blows to the head
during games. The settlement awarded them financial and medical
benefits. [GN]


STAFFWORKS LLC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in "Armenta" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Staffworks, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Flora Armenta v. Staffworks, LLC, Case No.
3:17-cv-00011-BAS-NLS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

The appellate case is captioned as Flora Armenta v. Staffworks,
LLC, Case No. 17-56233, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 1,
2017, Judge Cynthia Bashant denied the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration, strike class claims, and stay litigation.

The Plaintiff sought job placement through the Defendant, a
staffing agency that places applicants with various client
companies.

Prior to being assigned to work for a client company, applicants
visit the Defendant's office to fill out initial paperwork and
participate in a brief interview to determine the applicant's
skillset and desired employment.  When the Plaintiff visited the
Defendant's office, she received and signed a one-page Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement.

The Plaintiff later commenced this putative class and collective
action against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and California labor law.  At the heart of her claims is
the allegation that the Defendant failed to pay her and those
similarly situated, resulting in the underpayment of wages in
violation of the FLSA and California labor law.  Based on the
Agreement, the Defendant now moves to compel arbitration of the
Plaintiff's individual claims, strike her class claims, and stay
this action pending the outcome of arbitration.

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

   -- Appellant Staffworks, LLC's opening brief is due on
      October 16, 2017;

   -- Appellee Flora Armenta's answering brief is due on
      November 13, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee FLORA ARMENTA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Noam Glick, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          E-mail: noam@glicklawgroup.com

               - and -

          Craig Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.com

Defendant-Appellant STAFFWORKS, LLC, a California limited
liability company, is represented by:

          E. Joseph Connaughton, Esq.
          Aaron Buckley, Esq.
          Kara Siegel, Esq.
          PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP
          101 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101-8285
          Telephone: (619) 237-5200
          E-mail: jconnaughton@paulplevin.com
                  abuckley@paulplevin.com
                  rpaul@paulplevin.com


STEPTOE & JOHNSON: Ex Associate Slams Bid to Arbitrate Gender Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that a former Steptoe
& Johnson associate urged a Los Angeles federal court not to send
a proposed class action into private arbitration, arguing that
case law should prevent the firm from burying her gender bias
allegations in a secret proceeding.

Lawyers for former Steptoe associate Ji-In Houck -- a 2011
Georgetown University Law Center graduate now working as a
litigator at the Stalwart Law Group in Los Angeles -- filed a
brief on August 21 opposing Steptoe's motion to compel arbitration
of Houck's gender bias allegations.

The filing marks the latest in the case since Steptoe, on Aug. 10,
forcefully denied Houck's allegations that the firm has a pay gap
between men and women lawyers. Houck, who initially joined Steptoe
as a contract lawyer and later became an associate, alleges that
she was paid less than her male and other peers at the firm,
despite taking on similar work.

"If Steptoe is so certain that Ms. Houck's claims that a gender
pay gap exists are baseless, then why is it afraid to litigate
those claims in a public forum?" Houck's lawyers, led by Lori
Andrus of Andrus Anderson, wrote in the opposition brief.

Andrus was not immediately available for additional comment on
August 23. David Reis, head of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer's
labor and employment practice and one of Steptoe's lead defense
lawyers, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The
defense team also includes Arnold & Porter partner Dipanwita Deb
Amar.

Houck's opposition brief focuses much of its discussion on legal
precedent set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
in 2016's Morris v. Ernst & Young, which considered whether
businesses can force employees to sign arbitration agreements that
prevent them from bringing a class or collective action.

The Ninth Circuit held that those class action waivers violate the
National Labor Relations Act's (NLRA) collective bargaining
provisions. But various federal appeals courts are split on the
issue, and the U.S. Supreme Court has since agreed to look at the
issue of employee arbitration agreements and class action waivers.
Morris is among a trio of disputes in which the high court is
scheduled to hear arguments on Oct. 2.

In Houck's case, the former Steptoe associate signed employment
agreements that called for her to arbitrate disputes with the firm
on an individual, as opposed to a collective, basis. But while
both sides recognize the existence of the employment pacts, they
disagree on whether the arbitration provision can be enforced.

Steptoe maintained in its Aug. 10 filing that even though Houck's
case is in California federal court -- part of the Ninth Circuit's
jurisdiction -- the ruling in Morris shouldn't apply because the
former associate would qualify as a "supervisor" and not an
"employee" under the NLRA. To back that argument, Steptoe wrote
that Houck had the authority to delegate tasks to other staff
members at the team, including secretaries, and that she was even
evaluated on "supervision and management" as part of her annual
employment review.

As an alternative argument, the firm also urged the court to at
least put Houck's case on hold until the Supreme Court has a
chance to weigh in.

"Steptoe will suffer substantial hardship if it is required to
litigate while Morris is pending before the Supreme Court," the
firm's defense team at Arnold & Porter wrote on Aug. 10. "Absent a
stay, Steptoe will be forced to litigate and defend a putative
class and collective action that may be mooted."

Houck's lawyers countered in August 21's filing. They disputed
that she was a "supervisor" under the NLRA, and wrote that there's
no need to wait for Supreme Court guidance.

"Unfortunately for Steptoe, Morris is the law, and this court has
no authority to disregard it," Houck's lawyers wrote. "The
protections offered by the NLRA cover young lawyers, and this
matter should not be relegated to a secret proceeding, or shelved
for any period." [GN]


SUBWAY: Appeals Court Dismisses Foot-long Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan H. Adler, writing for Washington Post, reports that on
August 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit reversed
a district court's approval of a class-action settlement in a case
filed against Subway for allegedly shorting customers by
occasionally selling "foot-long" sandwiches that were not, in all
cases, actually one foot long.

Here is the introduction from Judge Diane Sykes's opinion for the
panel.

In January 2013 an Australian teenager measured his Subway
Footlong sandwich and discovered that it was only 11 inches long.
He photographed the sandwich alongside a tape measure and posted
the photo on his Facebook page. It went viral. Class-action
litigation soon followed. Plaintiffs' lawyers across the United
States sued Subway for damages and injunctive relief under state
consumer-protection laws, seeking class certification under Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The suits were
combined in a multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.

In their haste to file suit, however, the lawyers neglected to
consider whether the claims had any merit. They did not. Early
discovery established that Subway's unbaked bread sticks are
uniform, and the baked rolls rarely fall short of 12 inches. The
minor variations that do occur are wholly attributable to the
natural variability in the baking process and cannot be prevented.
That much is common sense, and modest initial discovery confirmed
it. As important, no customer is shorted any food even if a
sandwich roll fails to bake to a full 12 inches. Subway sandwiches
are made to order in front of the customer; meat and cheese
ingredients are standardized, and "sandwich artists" add toppings
in whatever quantity the customer desires.

With no compensable injury, the plaintiffs' lawyers shifted their
focus from a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) to a class claim
for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2). The parties thereafter
reached a settlement. For a period of four years, Subway agreed to
implement certain measures to ensure, to the extent practicable,
that all Footlong sandwiches are at least 12 inches long. The
settlement acknowledged, however, that even with these measures in
place, some sandwich rolls will inevitably fall short due to the
natural variability in the baking process. The parties also agreed
to cap the fees of class counsel at $525,000. The district court
preliminarily approved the settlement.

Theodore Frank objected. A class member and professional objector
to hollow class-action settlements, see, e.g., In re Walgreen Co.
Stockholder Litig., 832 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2016), Frank argued
that the settlement enriched only the lawyers and provided no
meaningful benefits to the class. The judge was not persuaded. He
certified the proposed class and approved the settlement. Frank
appealed.

We reverse. A class action that "seeks only worthless benefits for
the class" and "yields [only] fees for class counsel" is "no
better than a racket" and "should be dismissed out of hand." Id.
at 724.

That's an apt description of this case [GN]


TARGET CORP: Judge Dismisses Suits Over Parmesan Cheese
-------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for the National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge in Chicago on August 24 dismissed dozens of
class actions brought over "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" labels on
containers made by Kraft and sold through private labels at Target
and Wal-Mart.

Plaintiffs alleged consumers were duped into buying products that
said 100 percent parmesan cheese but actually contained fillers
made from wood pulp. But the labels, wrote U.S. District Judge
Gary Feinerman in the Northern District of Illinois, were too
"ambiguous" to deceive consumers.

"Although '100% Grated Parmesan Cheese' might be interpreted as
saying that the product is 100% cheese and nothing else, it also
might be an assertion that 100% of the cheese is parmesan cheese,
or that the parmesan cheese is 100% grated," he wrote. "Reasonable
consumers would thus need more information before concluding that
the labels promised only cheese and nothing more, and they would
know exactly where to look to investigate -- the ingredient list.
Doing so would inform them that the product contained non-cheese
ingredients."

Then there's common sense, he wrote. Consumers were unlikely to
believe the containers had 100 percent cheese in them because
they're packaged and sold at room temperature, "a quality that
reasonable consumers know is not enjoyed by pure cheese. Cheese is
a dairy product, after all, and reasonable consumers are well
aware that pure dairy products spoil, grow blue, green, or black
fuzz, or otherwise become inedible if left unrefrigerated for an
extended period of time."

He gave plaintiffs until Sept. 14 to amend their complaint.

Lead plaintiffs attorney Ben Barnow, Esq. --
b.barnow@barnowlaw.com -- of Barnow and Associates in Chicago did
not respond to a request for comment.

"Kraft Heinz applauds the court's dismissal of plaintiffs'
complaints today and fully agrees that the labeling of our
parmesan cheese is not misleading," wrote Michael Mullen, senior
vice president of corporate and government affairs at The Kraft
Heinz Co. in an email. "American families have enjoyed Kraft 100%
grated parmesan cheese for decades, and the judge's opinion
rejecting all of plaintiffs' claims reinforces the trust consumers
have in our products."

A Wal-Mart spokesman said he was pleased with the ruling.

Lawyers for defendants Albertson's LLC, and Target Corp. did not
respond to a request for comment.

The defendants sought to dismiss the lawsuits earlier this year.
Feinerman found that the plaintiffs had standing because they
"purchased a product worth less than what they paid."

But he struck down claims of deception brought under various state
consumer statutes. Unlike other food-labeling cases, he wrote, the
parmesan labels were ambiguous in what they stated. He also
rejected the notion that consumers don't expect cellulose to be in
cans of cheese.

"It does not matter whether reasonable consumers would expect to
find cellulose (or any other specific additive) in a container of
unrefrigerated, shelf-stable cheese; they would still suspect that
something other than cheese might be in the container, and so
would turn it around, enabling them to learn the truth from a
quick skim of the ingredient label," he wrote. [GN]


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: October 23 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd. ("Teva" or the "Company") (NYSE: TEVA) and certain
of its officers, on behalf of a class who purchased Teva
securities between November 15, 2016 and August 2, 2017, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/teva.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the class period, Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose adverse information regarding Teva's business and
outlook. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the poor
performance of its U.S. generics business resulted in Teva's
recording a goodwill impairment charge related to the acquisition
of Actavis Generics and was a key factor in cutting Teva's
dividend by 75%.

On August 3, 2017, Teva revealed the goodwill impairment charge of
$6.1 billion in the second quarter of 2017, and lower than
expected Q2 results attributed to the accelerated price erosion
and decreased volume experienced in the U.S. generics business due
to customer consolidation, greater competition, and delayed
product launches. Following this news, Teva shares dropped,
damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/teva or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Teva
you have until October 23, 2017 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. [GN]


TEX-TRUDE LP: Hit With CA Over Fair Labor Standards Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo, writing for SE Texas Record, reports that a
printing press operator has filed a class-action lawsuit against
his former Channelview employers over allegations that he was not
compensated for all hours worked.

James Degarmo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint on July 20 in the Houston Division of
the Southern District of Texas against Tex-Trude LP, Tex-Trude
Holdings Inc. and Charles Nettles Jr. alleging violation of Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he was
employed by the defendants from September 2015 to May 2017. He
alleges he was not paid a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for all
the time he actually worked and was not compensated at a rate of
one-and-one-half times his regular hourly rate for each hour
worked over 40 per week.

The plaintiff holds Tex-Trude LP, Tex-Trude Holdings Inc. and
Nettles Jr. responsible because the defendants allegedly
improperly calculated employees' hours worked by rounding hourly
time to the lowest 15-minute increment.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, costs of court, expenses and attorneys' fees,
incentive award for the time spent pursuing the lawsuit and all
further relief as the court deems just and proper. He is
represented by Charles W. Branham III, Esq. -- cbranham@dobllp.com
-- of Dean Omar & Branham LLP in Dallas. [GN]


TOP SHIPS: Pomerantz Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Top Ships Inc. ("Top Ships" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:TOPS) and certain of its officers.   The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of New
York, and docketed under 17-cv-05016, is on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Top
Ships securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Top Ships securities
between January 17, 2017, and August 22, 2017, both dates
inclusive, you have until October 23, 2017, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at --
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com -- or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged
to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number
of shares purchased.

Top Ships is an international provider of oil, petroleum products
and chemicals transportation services.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that the Company's CEO, Evangelos J.
Pistiolis ("Pistiolis"), through his control of Top Ships, caused
Top Ships to engage in a series of manipulative share
issuance/sales transactions with Kalani Investments Limited and
certain of its related entities ("Kalani") through which Top Ships
would sell its common shares and securities convertible into
common shares to Kalani at a significant discount to market price
and file registration statements so that Kalani could resell these
shares into the market. When Kalani's sales of Top Ships stock
caused the price of Top Ships stock to decline, the Company would
reverse split the stock, causing a certain number of outstanding
shares to be merged into a single share, and thereby raise the
price of Top Ships stock. Then, Top Ships would again sell
securities to Kalani and the same pattern of transactions would
ensue. At the same time that Top Ships was engaging in these
transactions, defendants failed to disclose the true purpose of
the transactions and related stock issuances and reverses -- to
finance related-party transactions and acquisitions that primarily
benefited Pistiolis and his related companies, and otherwise
funnel money to Company insiders.

By August 2017, Top Ships, through Kalani, had issued and sold
into the market tens of millions of shares of its common stock,
vastly diluting the Company's existing shareholders. While Top
Ships has allegedly used the proceeds from these offerings to
further enrich Pistiolis and his affiliates through various
related-party transactions, the value of Top Ships common stock
has dropped over 99%.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los
Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. [GN]


TRIBE APP: "Horsely" TCPA Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kenneth Horsley, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tribe App, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02519 (N.D.
Cal., May 3, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on August 15, 2017, and assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-23111.

Horsley seeks statutory damages together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).

Defendant is a mobile video-messaging application that allows
consumers who have signed up for its services to video message
several people simultaneously. It allegedly sent text messages to
Plaintiff's cellular telephones in an attempt to sign him up for
its mobile application. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake J. Dugger, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      1011 W. Colter St., #236
      Phoenix, AZ 85013
      Telephone: (602) 441-3704
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
      Email: blake@stefancoleman.com

            - and -

     Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
     201 S Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
     Miami, FL 33131
     Tel: (877) 333-9427
     Fax: (888) 498-8946
     Email: law@stefancoleman.com

Tribe App, Inc. is represented by:

     Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
     KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE LLP
     150 Post Street, Suite 520
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Tel: (415) 955-1155
     Email: karl@kronenbergerlaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ex-Staff Fights for Workers' Right to Pursue CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mallory Locklear, writing for Engadget, reports that Susan Fowler,
the ex-Uber engineer who called out the company's sexual
harassment problem in a blog post earlier this year, has now
focused her attention towards the Supreme Court. With her
attorney, she has filed an amicus brief in support of workers
involved in three consolidated cases that will be heard by the
high court. The cases all center on whether companies like Uber
should be able to stipulate that employees are barred from joining
class-action lawsuits against the company and instead must pursue
resolutions through private arbitration.

The brief notes that Fowler had to sign a class action waiver when
she was hired by Uber and that these sorts of documents are common
in the industry. "These waivers are now ubiquitous in the high
tech industry and 'gig economy,' where the likelihood of
unionization is remote," it said. It also notes that these are
particularly harmful to workers saying, " Class action waivers
take from these workers the concerted activity in which they are
most likely to engage, and from which they are most likely to
benefit: The right to engage in collective litigation."

The arguments Fowler and her attorney lay out highlight three
major problems with these types of waivers. First, that they only
exist to "eliminate the legal risk associated with systemic -- and
potentially or certainly illegal -- employment practices."
Secondly, taking away the right to pursue class action in the 21st
century is detrimental to workers that often can't effectively
fight for improved working conditions any other way. And finally,
the brief points out that collective litigation when warranted is
often successful in improving working conditions. "Without the
right to collective litigation, there will be more systemic
employment law violations, less effective ways to remedy them, and
the balance between companies (i.e., capital) and talent (i.e.,
labor) will shift firmly in favor of capital," said the brief.

The three cases are scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court on
October 2nd. [GN]


UNITED PHARMACY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Merentie" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Merentie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. United Pharmacy Services, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-04939
(E.D.N.Y., August 22, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of making illegal telemarketing calls to the telephones
of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons
injured by their conduct.

United Pharmacy Services, Inc. is a mail order pharmacy operating
in Chicago and serving customers through interstate commerce. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron Siri, Esq.
      Mason A. Barney, Esq.
      SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
      200 Park Avenue Seventeenth Floor
      New York, NY 10166-0004
      Telephone: (212) 532-1091
      Facsimile: (646) 417-5967

         - and -

      W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
      Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
      Galleria Tower I
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 554-2377
      Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
      E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
              jarrett@hughesellzey.com


US STEEL: Hit With Class Action Over Clairton Coke Plant Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Malfitano, writing for Penn Record, reports that U.S.
Steel is facing a consolidated class action lawsuit filed earlier
this year resulting from alleged health issues and property damage
from pollution related to its Clairton Coke Works plant, but have
offered objections to the litigation and believe the plaintiffs'
case is an "over-reaching" one.

Initially, plaintiffs Cheryl Hurt of Clairton and John Macus of
Jefferson Hills filed their class action litigation in the
Allegheny Court of Common Pleas on May 25, while plaintiff Cindy
Ross, also of Clairton, filed a similar-styled suit in the same
court on June 13.

Both suits were leveled against USX Company (doing business as
"U.S. Steel Corporation") of Pittsburgh, which were later
consolidated through an order from Allegheny County Court of
Common Pleas Judge Robert J. Colville on Aug. 4.

Hurt and Macus's lawsuit alleged the Clairton Coke Works, located
approximately 20 miles south of Pittsburgh, has permitted toxic
substances like sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and other
contaminant chemicals to enter the air and negatively affect the
surrounding community.

The lawsuit labels such substances as resulting from the
production of coke, a material used in making steel. Coke is made
by heating coal in ovens at extreme temperatures, a process meant
to remove impurities from the coal, with those same impurities
being released into the air after heating.

Hurt and Macus say these emissions have harmed citizens by causing
serious medical issues like "heart and respiratory diseases,
asthma and cancer," among others, in addition to property damage
in the surrounding area.

Hurt and Macus's lawsuit contained claims for private nuisance,
strict liability and negligence.

Ross's lawsuit alleged similar claims, and contained counts for
private nuisance, negligence, gross negligence and trespass by air
particulates.

Emission-control violations have resulted in U.S. Steel paying
nearly $4 million in punitive fines to Allegheny County since
2009.

It was reported by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last year that the
Clairton Coke Works was nailed for 6,700 violations for hazardous
and toxic air pollution releases, over a period spanning Jan. 1,
2012 to May 31, 2015.

Though the corporation pledged to make improvements with regards
to the safety of the coke ovens and pollution control in 2016, the
plaintiffs believe these promises have gone unfulfilled.

Meanwhile, U.S. Steel have strongly opposed the plaintiffs'
claims, seeking their dismissal as well as the dismissal of
requests for punitive damages and injunctive relief, through
preliminary objections filed July 31 which specifically addressed
Ross's lawsuit, just prior to its consolidation with that of Hurt
and Macus.

"Plaintiff Cindy Ross, despite having lived in Clairton for years,
now alleges that the Clairton Plant's operations have interfered
with the use and enjoyment of her property and caused her
unspecified property damages. At this stage, plaintiff's
allegations amount solely to a claim for private nuisance. Despite
this, plaintiff has freighted her complaint with additional,
unnecessary causes of action and requested relief to which she is
not entitled as a matter of law. This is a classic case of over-
pleading," the defendant's attorney, Mary J. Hackett, said.

Hackett continued that the substance of the allegations is based
on a private nuisance claim only, and the action should proceed
strictly as such. Hackett believed Ross's claims for negligence,
gross negligence and trespass are all connected from the very same
allegations as the nuisance claim, and thus barred by Pennsylvania
law.

Hackett's rationale for the corporation's objections to the
lawsuit continued.

"Second, plaintiff attempts to bring separate claims for
'negligence' and 'gross negligence' despite the fact that
Pennsylvania law does not recognize separate causes of action for
different types of negligence. Third, plaintiff's request for
punitive damages fails as a matter of law, as she has fallen far
short of pleading facts that establish the type of outrageous and
malicious conduct which would warrant the imposition of punitive
damages. Finally, plaintiff seeks certain unspecified injunctive
relief through her complaint, in effect asking this Court to issue
an order setting forth the manner in which U.S. Steel must operate
the Clairton plant. But, U.S. Steel is already subject to
comprehensive regulation and oversight, including the consent
judgment entered into with the Allegheny County Health Department
(ACHD)," Hackett said.

Hackett also believed Ross was vague in her allegations against
U.S. Steel.

"Plaintiff does not detail any specific damages that she has
suffered, nor does she explain how any damages to her property can
be traced to the Clairton plant as opposed to other sources of air
particulates in the Monongahela River Valley. Instead, she vaguely
contends that 'noxious odors and air particulates' resulting from
Clairton plant operations have 'interfered with plaintiff's use
and enjoyment of her property, resulting in substantial damages,"
Hackett said.

Through its attorneys, U.S. Steel respectfully requests that the
Court sustain its preliminary objections and dismiss the non-
private nuisance claims from the complaint with prejudice, strike
Ross's requests for punitive damages and injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs are currently represented by James DePasquale, Esq.
-- jim.depasquale@verizon.net -- D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. --
arihn@peircelaw.com -- and Robert N. Peirce III, Esq. --
rpeirce@piercelaw.com -- of Robert Peirce & Associates, both in
Pittsburgh.

Plaintiffs' attorneys seeking to enter the litigation on a pro hac
vice basis are Steven D. Liddle, Esq. -- sliddle@ldclassaction.com
-- Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. -- ncoulson@ldclassaction.com -- and
Brandon T. Brown, Esq. -- bbrown@ldclassaction.com -- of Liddle &
Dubin in Detroit, Mich., plus Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. --
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- and Jason S. Rathod, Esq. --
jrathod@classlawdc.com -- of Migliaccio & Rathod and Christopher
T. Nidel, Esq. and Jonathan B. Nace, Esq. -- info@nidellaw.com --
of Nidel & Nace, all of Washington, D.C.

The defendants are represented by Mary Hackett, Esq. --
mhackett@mcguirewoods.com -- Paul K. Stockman, Esq. --
pstockman@mcguirewoods.com -- K. Issac deVyver, Esq. --
kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com -- and Alexander M. Madrid, Esq. --
amadrid@mcguirewoods.com -- all of McGuire Woods, also in
Pittsburgh.

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-17-008663 [GN]


VOLVO: Full Refund Offer Doesn't Negate Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago federal appellate court breathed new life into a lawsuit
against Volvo, saying an offer by the automaker to pay one
customer a full refund doesn't garage the class action complaint.

Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote the Aug. 22 opinion; Circuit Judges
Michael S. Kanne and Ilana Diamond Rovner concurred.

The original complaint dates to April 21, 2016, when Xavier and
Khadija Laurens initiated a class action because they said Volvo's
twin-engine gas-electric Volvo XC90 T8 -- for which they paid an
extra $20,000 compared to the gas-only model, as well as $2,700
for a charging station -- drastically underperformed the
advertised 25-mile range on a full battery charge.

On Oct. 13, federal Judge Harry D. Leinenweber granted Volvo's
motion to dismiss because Volvo offered a full refund of the
purchase price if the Laurenses returned the T8. After the
Laurneses appealed that ruling, the panel heard arguments April 4.

Wood branded Volvo's tactic an "effort to pretermit a proposed
class action by picking off the named plaintiff's claim," and
further explained "black-letter contract law states that offers do
not bind recipients until they are accepted."

The complaint alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
Act, common law fraud, breach of express warranty and unjust
enrichment. It said Volvo changed its advertising to promote a 17-
mile range, but alleged "the only apparent method to even come
close to the 17-mile range is to drive the T8 at 40 miles an hour
on the highway -- with all the safety features disabled."

Wood noted the key wrinkle in the process: Xavier Laurens had
filed the original complaint in his name, then added Khadija once
it became clear she was the only one named on the title. Volvo
sent a letter offering Khadija a full refund, then the next day
moved to dismiss Xavier's suit because he lacked standing. The
Laurenses added Khadija to the complaint before the district court
ruled, which prompted Volvo to argue she lacked standing because
its letter offered full relief before she filed a complaint.

"The question whether the underlying dispute has been settled is a
live one," Wood wrote, countering Leinenweber's determination.
"Second, the fact that the Laurenses are seeking to serve as class
representatives complicates matters."

In all of its maneuvers to scuttle the claim thus far, Wood noted
Volvo has yet to raise a factual challenge to the fraud, warranty
breach and unjust enrichment accusations. While the appellate
panel was sympathetic to Volvo's arguments about Xavier's
standing, Wood explained the key question is whether she accepted
Volvo's offer. And since she did not, the matter is clear:
"Unaccepted contract offers are nullities; settlement proposals
are contract offers; and therefore unaccepted settlement proposals
are nullities. Nothing about that logic turns on whether a suit
has been filed."

The Laurenses never asked for a full refund. In their amended
complaint they sought only the $20,000 difference. But they also
pursued broader relief, like punitive damages and an injunction
forcing Volvo to stop advertising a 25-mile range on the T8.

The panel reversed the district court's ruling and remanded the
case for further proceeding.

While Kanne agreed with the other judges, he added a noted to
"further emphasize that on remand the district court is free to
draw, or not to draw, the conclusion that Khadija has not met her
burden to show standing for injunctive relief."

The Laurens couple is represented in the action by the firm of
Siprut P.C., of Chicago.

Volvo is represented by the firm of Reed Smith LLP, of Chicago.
[GN]


WELLS FARGO: Charged Unauthorized Insurance Premiums, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Havard, James Krolick, Regina Gonzalez-Phillips and Joe
Buckingham, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
individually and d/b/a Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00255 (W.D. Tex., August 15, 2017), seeks
restitution and/or disgorgement of Defendants' illegally obtained
profits, compensatory, statutory and other damages sustained,
applicable civil penalties, treble damages under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, attorney's fees, expert
witness fees and other costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest on any amounts awarded and such other relief for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

Wells Fargo through insurance underwriter National General
Insurance allegedly charged Plaintiffs unnecessary and duplicative
auto insurance, generally referred to as Collateral Protection
Insurance, without their authorization. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
      Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
      Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
      Ethan T. Litney, Esq.
      Alyssa Williams, Esq.
      CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
      110 Laurel Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 238-1811
      Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
      Email: dcasey@cglaw.com
             gmb@cglaw.com
             jrobinson@cglaw.com
             elitney@cglaw.com
             awilliams@cglaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Wants Court to Toss Overdraft Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Times reports that a group of Wells Fargo & Co.
customers who say they were victims of unfair overdraft practices
want their claims heard in court, but the bank wants the disputes
handled through arbitration.

Class-action lawsuits filed around the country have accused Wells
Fargo of changing the order of debit card transactions -- from
highest dollar amount to lowest dollar amount -- to unfairly
increase the number of transactions eligible for overdraft
penalties.

For example, say a customer has $100 in an account. The customer
first makes four transactions of $20 and then, later that day, has
a $90 transaction. If the transactions are taken in chronological
order, only the final $90 transaction would cause an overdraft and
trigger a fee. But if the transactions are reordered so the $90
transaction is first, each of the four $20 transactions would
trigger a separate overdraft fee.

Lawyers for the Wells Fargo customers say the practice -- which
they say continued at least a decade -- was "unfair and
unconscionable" and disproportionately affected the poor because
they are most likely to have low account balances.

The customers also say the San Francisco bank refused to let
customers opt out of overdraft protection programs; didn't get
customer consent before processing transactions that would lead to
overdraft fees; and failed to provide customers with accurate
balance information to help avoid overdrafts, among other things.

The litigation has dragged on for more than eight years and
includes Wells Fargo customers from 49 states, California not
among them. (The bank lost a related case brought on behalf of
California customers when, in 2010, a judge found the bank had
deceived customers and ordered it to pay $203 million in
restitution. The bank appealed that ruling all the way to the U.S.
Supreme Court, which last year declined to take the case, allowing
the judgment against Wells Fargo to stand.)

It is now consolidated before a federal judge in Florida who last
year declined Wells Fargo's request to force the claims into
arbitration. The bank appealed that ruling to the 11th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, which heard arguments on
August 24.

The cases were styled as class actions from the start, and Wells
Fargo initially chose to pursue a litigation strategy, U.S.
District Judge James King wrote. Extensive time and other
resources had been expended in that litigation by the time the
bank belatedly tried to invoke its arbitration rights, he wrote.

The arbitration clause in the Wells Fargo contracts was
permissive, rather than mandatory, meaning that in the case of a
dispute either party can request arbitration within a reasonable
period of time.

Sonya Winner, an attorney for Wells Fargo, told a three-judge
panel of the 11th Circuit that the fact that Wells Fargo didn't
enforce its arbitration rights in disputes with some customers
doesn't mean it waived those rights in every case.

Other large banks facing similar lawsuits over reordered debit
charges long ago settled those disputes. Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray invoked those cases --
and the subsequent recovery of about $1 billion -- as he advocated
the importance of class-action lawsuits as a consumer protection
tool in an editorial in the New York Times.

"It is true that the average payouts are higher in individual
suits," he wrote in the editorial published on August 24. "But
that is because very few people go through arbitration, and they
generally do so only when thousands of dollars are at stake,
whereas the typical group lawsuit seeks to recover small amounts
for many people."

Last month, Cordray announced a new rule to prevent financial
companies from using mandatory arbitration clauses to bar groups
of consumers from pursuing class-action lawsuits. The U.S. House
voted to block it just two weeks later, and its fate now lies with
the Senate. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: To Pay $3.5MM to Settle Training-Fee Repayment CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports Wells Fargo Advisors
on August 24 got preliminary approval from a federal judge in
Chicago for a $3.5 million settlement to resolve class action
allegations that the company unlawfully required its new financial
advisors to repay training costs.

Under the terms of the agreement endorsed by U.S. District Judge
John Tharp, Wells Fargo will end its program mandating that
financial advisors pay back as much as $55,000 in training costs
if they leave the company within five years of being hired. [GN]


WELTMAN WEINBERG: Faces "Gabadze" Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weltman, Weinberg &
Reis Co., L.P.A.  The case is styled as Ramaz Gabadze,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-06571 (D. N.J., August 30, 2017).

Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., provides collection services
and legal representation to creditors.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


WINDHAM PROFESSIONALS: Faces "Yushuvayev" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Windham
Professionals, Inc.  The case is styled as Bella Yushuvayev, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Windham Professionals, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05125
(E.D. N.Y., August 30, 2017).

The Defendants operate a debt collection company that specializes
in collection of educational accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
   337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


YORK INT'L: Amended Settlement in "Dickerson" Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christopher C. Conner of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania granted final approval of the
amended class action settlement; and finally certified the
settlement class in the case captioned STEVEN DICKERSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-1105(M.D. Pa.).

Judge Conner convened the Final Approval Hearing on Aug. 16, 2017.
Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of
class action settlement and motion for approval of attorneys' fees
and expenses, he finally certified the Action as a class action
for purposes of settlement on behalf of the Settlement Class that
was preliminarily approved by the Court in its Order dated March
15, 2017: all individuals and entities in the United States who
during the time period from Jan. 1, 2008 to March 13, 2017,
purchased an uncoated York, Fraser-Johnston, Luxaire, Coleman,
Evcon, Guardian, Champion, or Dayton brand copper evaporator coil
or copper condenser coil manufactured and sold by JCI or any of
its Affiliates, separately or as part of a split system or
packaged residential air handler, condensing unit, or HVAC unit,
that is covered by the original limited five year warranty or
extended ten year warranty.

Judge Conner appointed Shanon Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C.,
Greg Coleman of Greg Coleman Law, P.C., and Jonathan Shub of Kohn,
Swift & Graf, P.C., as the Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
Plaintiffs Dickerson, Robert Hester, Nancy Roberts, Katie Evans
Moss, and Richard Sanchez are appointed as the Class
Representatives for the Settlement Class.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he
granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement.  The
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice with
each party to bear their own costs, except as provided in the
Settlement Agreement, as against the Defendants.  The Judge also
approved the plan of distribution and allocation set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.

Judge Conner granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Costs.  The Plaintiffs' Counsel, Berger & Montague, P.C., Greg
Coleman Law P.C. and Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., are awarded
attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,000,000 plus reimbursement of
their out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $22,176.81.

He approved the requested service awards to the Named Plaintiffs
of $2,500 each for their efforts on behalf of the Settlement
Class.

On Nov. 14, 2016, the parties filed a motion for preliminary
approval of class settlement agreement.  The Court granted
preliminary approval and provisionally certified a settlement
class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on Nov. 22, 2016.
The settlement documents compartmentalized the relief to be
offered into four distinct categories based on the nature of the
harm to class members, as follows:

     a. The class members who experienced one copper coil failure
between Jan. 1, 2008 and the preliminary approval date would
receive a $75 service rebate certificate for service performed by
an authorized JCI dealer;

     b. The class members who experienced two or more copper coil
failures between Jan. 1, 2008 and the preliminary approval date
would receive a check as reimbursement of their out-of-pocket
expenses up to $550 for each replacement (but no more than $1,100
for all replacements);

     c. The class members who experience a first copper coil
failure after the preliminary approval date would receive an
aluminum replacement coil plus a $75 service rebate certificate
for service performed by an authorized JCI dealer; and

     d. The class members who experience two or more copper coil
failures, with at least one occurring after the preliminary
approval date, would receive an aluminum replacement coil plus a
check as reimbursement of their out-of-pocket expenses up to $550
for each replacement (but no more than $1,100 for all
replacements).

The counsel contacted the Court on Dec. 28, 2016 to request a
telephonic status conference concerning the preliminarily-approved
settlement.  The parties reported recently learning that certain
air-conditioning and heat pump systems could not accept
replacement aluminum condenser coils.  The Court tasked the
parties to develop appropriate alternative remedies and to file a
renewed motion for preliminary approval.  With the mediator's
assistance, the parties negotiated an amended settlement.

The parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of the amended
settlement agreement on March 8, 2017.  The categories of relief
are unchanged for class members who experience copper coil
failures prior to preliminary approval.  For copper coil failures
post-dating the preliminary approval date, the parties propose the
following relief:

     a. The class members who experience a first copper coil
failure after the preliminary approval date will receive: (i) if
the failed coil is an evaporator coil, either an aluminum
replacement coil or a tin-coated copper coil (if aluminum is not
feasible) in addition to a $75 service rebate certificate for
service performed by an authorized JCI dealer; or (ii) if the
failed coil is a condenser coil, a new copper replacement coil
with an extended copper coil warranty and a $75 service rebate
certificate for service performed by an authorized JCI dealer.

     b. The class members who experience two or more copper coil
failures after the preliminary approval date will receive: (i) if
the failed coil is an evaporator coil, either an aluminum
replacement coil or a tin-coated copper coil (if aluminum is not
feasible) in addition to a check as reimbursement for out-of-
pocket expenses up to $550 for each replacement (but no more than
$1,100 for all replacements); or (ii) if the failed coil is a
condenser coil, a new copper replacement coil with an extended
copper coil warranty in addition to a check as reimbursement for
out-of-pocket expenses up to $550 for each replacement (but no
more than $1,100 for all replacements).

The settlement allows reimbursement and replacement regardless of
the cause of the failure.  Its terms apply only to copper coil
failures that occur while the coil in question is covered by the
original manufacturer's warranty.  For those class members whose
systems cannot accept a replacement aluminum or tin-coated copper
coil, JCI will provide a replacement uncoated copper coil with an
extended eight-year parts and labor warranty, in addition to the
rebate or reimbursement described.  The deadline for filing claims
is 120 days after the date of final approval or 120 days after the
class member experiences a coil failure, whichever is later.

By order dated March 15, 2017, the Court provisionally certified
the settlement class, preliminarily approved the amended
settlement agreement, and scheduled a final approval hearing for
Aug. 16, 2017.  It convened a final approval hearing on Aug. 16,
2017.

Having rigorously reviewed the amended settlement agreement for
fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness; and having found that the
settlement benefits a class of substantial size and the attorneys
are well-qualified, Judge Conner granted in full the Plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the amended settlement agreement and
their motion for attorneys' fees and expenses.  He also approved
the parties' notice plan in the course of provisionally certifying
the class and preliminarily approving the settlement agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 22, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/0becgT from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 22, 2017 Final Judgment and
Order is available at https://is.gd/0wGIsU from Leagle.com.

Steven Dickerson, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman,
Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice.

Steven Dickerson, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Shub --
jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Russell D. Paul,
Berger & Montague PC, Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger
& Montague, P.C. & Lisa A. White -- lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com --
Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice.

Robert Hester, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg
Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice, Jonathan Shub, Kohn, Swift & Graf,
P.C., Russell D. Paul, Berger & Montague PC, Shanon J. Carson,
Berger & Montague, P.C. & Lisa A. White, Greg Coleman Law PC, pro
hac vice.

Nancy Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg
Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice, Jonathan Shub, Kohn, Swift & Graf,
P.C., Russell D. Paul, Berger & Montague PC, Shanon J. Carson,
Berger & Montague, P.C. & Lisa A. White, Greg Coleman Law PC, pro
hac vice.

Katie Evans Moss, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Shub, Kohn,
Swift & Graf, P.C., Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law PC,
Shanon J. Carson, Berger & Montague, P.C. & Lisa A. White, Greg
Coleman Law PC.

Richard Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Shub, Kohn,
Swift & Graf, P.C., Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law PC, Lisa
A. White, Greg Coleman Law PC & Shanon J. Carson, Berger &
Montague, P.C..

York International Corporation, Defendant, represented by John G.
Papianou -- jpapianou@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker &
Rhoads, LLP, pro hac vice, Caroline C. Plater --
cplater@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Casey L.
Westover -- cwestover@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Christopher
Scott D'Angelo -- cdangelo@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker
& Rhoads, LLP & David A. Rammelt -- drammelt@reedsmith.com -- Reed
Smith LLP, pro hac vice.

Johnson Controls Inc., Defendant, represented by John G. Papianou,
Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, LLP, pro hac vice, Caroline
C. Plater, Reed Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Casey L. Westover, Reed
Smith LLP, Christopher Scott D'Angelo, Montgomery McCracken Walker
& Rhoads, LLP & David A. Rammelt, Reed Smith LLP, pro hac vice.


ZILLOW INC: Court Dismisses "Patel" Suit
----------------------------------------
Judge Amy J. St. Eve of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois dismissed the case captioned VIPUL P. PATEL,
et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ZILLOW, INC. and ZILLOW GROUP, INC.,
Defendants, No. 17-CV-4008(N.D. Ill.).

Zillow operates a website that publishes information about real
estate, including "Zestimates," its estimated market value for
individual homes.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Zestimates fall
short of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices
because there is no secret sauce in the world of
appraisal/valuation law, and an appraiser would study a given
property and determine what comparable properties are appropriate
and, further, weed out the inappropriate properties in its
valuation analysis.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a class of all
current owners of real estate property located in Illinois whose
property(ies) are listed on Zillow's website.

In Count I of their complaint, the Plaintiffs seek an injunction
under the Illinois Real Estate Appraiser Licensing Act ("IREALA").
They claim that Zestimates are "real estate appraisals" under
IREALA that Zillow is unlicensed to make.  They claim they will
continue to suffer irreparable injury with the current Zestimate
placed by Zillow relative to their properties without the granting
of an injunction to prohibit Zillow's conduct.

In Count II, the Plaintiffs seek an injunction, damages, and
punitive damages for invasion of privacy.  They claim that Zillow
has unilaterally and willfully opted to disregard their right to
seclusion by publicly disseminating appraisal/financial opinions
relative to real property for the general public for review.

In Count III, the Plaintiffs seek an injunction, costs, and
attorneys' fees under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("IDTPA"), based on Zillow (i) using the Zestimate
tool which is likely to confuse the public; (ii) failing to
disclose to the Plaintiffs that there is a pre-existing business
relationship between Zillow and the real estate agents listed on
the webpage created for their property and/or that these real
estate agents pay Zillow for seller leads with the Plaintiffs;
(iii) failing to disclose that Zillow is aware of the confusing
and incorrect nature of the Zestimate; (iv) failing to disclose
that Zillow uses the Zestimate as a marketing ploy for their
Zillow premier agents to use as a lead to solicit unsuspecting the
Plaintiffs; (v) gathering, compiling, assessing, and disseminating
their financial information without consent; (vi) refusing to
remove listing or Zestimates upon the Plaintiffs' objection; and
(vii) listing property and Zestimates without consent to lure
people to the website so that they can thereinafter be solicited
by Zillow's premier real estate broker agents for services.

Finally, the Plaintiffs seek damages, costs, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees based on violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), based on the
allegedly deceptive acts.

The Plaintiffs filed the current action on May 19, 2017 in
Illinois state court.  Zillow filed a notice of removal on May 25,
2017.  Zillow then filed the present motion on June 13, 2017.

Judge St. Eve concludes that the Plaintiffs' IREALA claim fails
for at least two independent reasons.  First, IREALA does not
apply to Zestimates, which constitute "Automated Valuation Models"
under the statute.  Second, IREALA does not provide a private
cause of action, either explicitly or implicitly.

The Plaintiffs have also failed to allege sufficient facts to
state a claim of intrusion upon seclusion.  Judge St. Eve
therefore dismissed Count II without prejudice, although she
doubts that the Plaintiffs can successfully replead intrusion upon
seclusion based on their allegations that Zillow creates
Zestimates based on public and user-submitted information.

As to the Plaintiffs' claim of an injunction and reimbursement of
costs and attorneys' fees under the IDTPA, the Judge concludes
that to the extent they are claiming harm based on the confusion
of others, the Plaintiffs' allegations of a likelihood of future
harm are overly conclusory.  Outside of conclusory claims, viewing
the allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs,
they do not plead sufficient facts to plausibly claim that
Zestimates cause consumers to avoid their properties to the extent
that they cannot sell their homes at their true market value.
Accordingly, even if Zestimates were likely to confuse consumers,
the Plaintiffs' IDTPA claim based on the confusion of others still
fails.  Their prospect of future harm based on marketplace
confusion is too speculative.  Accordingly, Judge St. Eve
dismissed the Count III without prejudice.

Lastly, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs' ICFA claim fails
because they have not alleged deceptive conduct or conduct that is
likely to confuse consumers, as detailed in the preceding section.
The claim also fails because they have not alleged that they
suffered actual damage proximately caused by any of Zillow's
conduct.  As noted, their theory of harm turns on individuals who
would have otherwise been interested in purchasing their property
at their asking price losing interest because of an allegedly low
Zestimate.  These conclusory allegations are too speculative to
survive a motion to dismiss.  Accordingly, she dismissed the Count
IV without prejudice.

For these reasons, Judge St. Eve granted Zillow's motion to
dismiss with prejudice as to Count I, and without prejudice as to
Counts II-IV.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/OENUQo from Leagle.com.

Vipul B Patel, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Andersen,
Andersen Law LLC.

Vipul B Patel, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Jeffrey Thut,
Noonan Perillo and Thut & David A. Novoselsky, Novoselsky Law
Offices.

Bhasker T Patel, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Andersen,
Andersen Law LLC, Charles Jeffrey Thut, Noonan Perillo and Thut &
David A. Novoselsky, Novoselsky Law Offices.

Jyotsna B Patel, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Andersen,
Andersen Law LLC, Charles Jeffrey Thut, Noonan Perillo and Thut &
David A. Novoselsky, Novoselsky Law Offices.

Castle Bldrs.com, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Barbara
Andersen, Andersen Law LLC, Charles Jeffrey Thut, Noonan Perillo
and Thut & David A. Novoselsky, Novoselsky Law Offices.

Zillow, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric D. Brandfonbrener --
EBrandfonbrener@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLC, Rebecca S.
Engrav -- REngrav@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, pro hac vice &
Eugene Volokh, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, pro hac vice.

Zillow Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric D.
Brandfonbrener, Perkins Coie LLC, Rebecca S. Engrav, Perkins Coie,
pro hac vice & Eugene Volokh, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, pro hac
vice.


* U.S. Targeting Class-Action Provision of DOL Rule
---------------------------------------------------
Barron's reports it's looking likely that a key class-action
mechanism will be removed from the DOL fiduciary rule, reports The
Wall Street Journal.

That's based on a letter the U.S. Department of Justice submitted
on August 23 to the judge presiding over a lawsuit brought by
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans against the Labor Department's
fiduciary rule.

Thrivent's suit focuses on the mandatory arbitration waiver, which
allows investors to bring class-action suits against advisors they
say violate their fiduciary responsibility.

"The letter states that the mandatory arbitration waiver under the
best interest contract exemption is likely to be mooted," Josh
Lichtenstein, a tax and benefits attorney at Ropes & Gray, tells
the Journal. It's the first clear indications of the potential
outcome of the fiduciary rule's review process.

The class-action mechanism may be the most contentious part of the
rule. Proponents say such suits would deter advisors from putting
their interests above their clients', and that it would empower
mistreated clients. Opponents say that advisors and firms would
face unreasonable legal exposure and pass increased costs onto
consumers or stop serving smaller savers.

The DOL recently proposed delaying the final compliance deadline
by 18 months, to July 1, 2019, as it considers how it might revise
the regulation. [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  * * *