CAR_Public/170906.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Wednesday, September 6, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 176



                            Headlines

ACE HOMECARE: Nurse and Non-Nurse Classes Certified
ADAPTIVE ENTERPRISES: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "McCoy" Suit
APPLIED MATERIALS: Court Certifies Settlement Classes in Stewart
APPLE INC: Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Over Driving Accidents
ASHLEY HALL: Hit With CA Over Email Containing Medical Records

BIG LOTS: Faces "Brito" Suit Over Disabled-Inaccessible Store
BISON DRILLING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Jones" Suit Claims
BLUE APRON: Faces "Ivan" Suit Over False Registration Statement
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Class Conditionally Certified in "Paxton"
BOW & TRUSS: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes

CANADA: Class Action Seeks Compliance on Free Education Law
CAPGEMINI FINANCIAL: Certification of IT Workers Class Sought
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Mishra" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces Probe Following Laundering Allegations
CP OPCO: Sued Over Failure to Provide 60 Days Termination Notice

CYFRED LTD: United Pacific Islanders Lose Basic Services Suit
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Florida Judge Dismisses Fraud Lawsuit
DR. REDDY'S: October 25 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
INDIANA: Sidewalk Ordinances Target Homeless People, Suit Claims
DUKE UNIVERSITY: "Seaman" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Siddiqi" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Jones" Suit in W.D. of Tenn.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Jones" Suit in W.D. of Tenn.
FRANCO AND COMPANY: Faces "Moya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FUSION LOGISTICS: "Geffrard" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class

FEDEX GROUND: Jameson et al. Seek to Notify Drivers
GC SERVICES: Ocampo Seeks Renewed Bid for Class Certification
HARTFORD FIRE: Court Conditionally Certifies Analysts Class
HUNGARY: Court Denied Bid for Default Judgment
HYATT CORPORATION: "Matthews" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class

ILLINOIS: Class Certification Bid Sought in 10 Cases vs DHS
ILLINOIS: Court Refuses to Review Denial of Class Certification
INTUIT INC: Directed to Produce ATO Docs in Data Litigation
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pelvic Mesh Victims Balk at Sexual Suggestions
JON BELMAR: "Furlow" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes

KANOA: Backers Mull Class Action Following Shutdown
KOVITZ SHIFRIN: "Chacon" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
LH 690: Class Certification Bid in "Shabotinsky" Suit Denied
LOGAN TOWNSHIP: Faces Potential CA Over Housing Development Site
MDL 1674: $8.4MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Mortgage Lending Suit

MDL 2284: Court Affirms Denial of Bordases' Appeal
MDL 2284: Court Affirms Denial of T. LaFollette's Appeal
MDL 2284: Court Affirms Denial of J. Masserant's Appeal
MDL 2437: Court Certifies Class in Antitrust Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ: Settles Class Action Over Heated Seats

MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Court Certifies Class in "Devera" Suit
MONSANTO COMPANY: 7 Suits Filed in Missouri over Roundup
MONTANA: DiFrancesco Files Class Action
NAGLE & ZALLER: Faces "Archie" Suit in Maryland
NATIONAL ELECTORAL: Court Urged to Assess Damage From Demo

NEBRASKA: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in "Valentine" Suit
NESTLE USA: Settlement in "McFarland" Has Final Approval
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Legal Assistance Threatens to Renew Prison Case
NEWBURG ROAD: Bid to Strike Defenses in "Connector" Partly OK'd
NIKITA LEVY: 8,000+ Checks Sent in Recording Case

NORTH AMERICAN: Prelim. Approval of Deal in "Claridge" Denied
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court OKs Filing of Amended Class Suit
NUTIVA INC: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss "Jones" Suit
PAFFORD EMS: "Williams" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Arkansas
PETMED EXPRESS: Faces "Lusson" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports

PF CHANG'S: Counterclaims in "Anderson" Suit Nixed
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Court Dismisses "Thornton" Without Prejudice
PHILIP MORRIS: 9,500 Claimants to Get Second Round of Checks
PRISMA LLC: Court Affirms Denial of Arbitration in "Sprunk"
RESIDENTIAL HOME: Fries Suit Has Conditional Class Certification

RIVER MANOR: Faces "Freeman" Suit in E.D. of New York
ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE: Faces "Belanger" Suit in S.D. of Florida
ROYAL ADMINISTRATION: Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
RSI ENTERPRISES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
RUTHERFORD, TN: Court Denied Class Certification Bid as Moot

SHORETEL INC: Faces "Simonson" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Mitel
SONY CORP: Hit With Class Action Over Xperia Devices
SOS INTERNATIONAL: Magana Seeks to Certify Interpreters Class
SOUTH AFRICA: Court to Hear Class Action Over Muslim Marriages
STATOIL USA: Sued in Penn. Over Oil and Gas Lease Royalties

STERLING JEWELERS: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Suit Says
SURFSTITCH: Enters Administration Amid Shareholder Class Actions
SYKES ENTERPRISES: "Slaughter" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
TAKATA CORP: Recall Shows Complicity in Negligence
TOP SHIPS: Faces "Narine" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports

TRANSUNION LLC: Faces "Jones" Suit in W.D. of Tenn.
TRAVELERS CASUALTY: ITT and Gould Pumps Seek to Certify Class
TREASURY WINE: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $39 Million
UBER TECH: Sexism Blogger Backs Workers in Class Waiver Cases
UNITED NATIONS: Court Junks Last Suit Over Haiti Cholera Epidemic

UNITED STATES: Evergreen Ranch Seeks to Certify Class
UNITED STATES: Court Denies Adams Class Certification Motion
UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Bid Denied in Suit vs Atty Generals
UNITED STATES: Arches Payout Hinges on Class Action Outcome
WAL-MART STORES: Confident on Beating Cotton Sheet Action

WALMART STORES: "Stephens" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
WELLS FARGO: Court Sounds Skeptical of Overdraft Fee Defense
WEST VIRGINIA: Attorneys Seek Approval of Revised Settlement
WESTERN EXPRESS: Faces "Elmy" Suit Over Deceptive Scheme
WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Faces "Dibble" Suit in Dist. of S.C.

WORLD LIQUIDATORS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Katz" Suit Says
XPO LAST MILE: Certification of Drivers Class in "Hayes" Denied
YIN WALL: Court Grants Motion for Class Certification

* Class Action Framework in India Needs Review
* DOL Fiduciary Rule Lawsuit Angle 'Will Likely Be Mooted'






                            *********


ACE HOMECARE: Nurse and Non-Nurse Classes Certified
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TONI MOLINA, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. ACE
HOMECARE, BRL INVESTMENTS, LLC, ARTHUR BARLAAN and JOCELYN
BARLAAN, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-02214-JDW-TGW (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge James D. Whittemore granted conditional
certification to these classes:

Nurse Putative Fair Labor Standards Act Minimum Wage Putative
Class:

   "all nurses employed by Ace Homecare, LLC who were not paid
   minimum wage between February 29, 2016 to March 13, 2016"; and

Non-Nurse Putative Fair Labor Standards Act Minimum Wage Putative
Class:

   "all other employees by Ace Homecare, LLC who were not paid
   minimum wage between February 29, 2016 to March 13, 2016".

The seven named plaintiffs were employed by Ace Homecare at its
Sebring, Florida, location until their termination when all of Ace
Homecare's facilities were shut down.  During the last two weeks
of their employment, they received no compensation.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v8jABKkN


ADAPTIVE ENTERPRISES: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "McCoy" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GLENNA McCOY and DIETRICH GRAINGER,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. ADAPTIVE ENTERPRISES, LLC, MICHAEL MONTGOMERY, and
JUSTIN HURDLE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00054-GNS-HBB
(W.D. Ken.), the Hon. Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl entered an
order:

   a. conditionally certifying this case to proceed as a
      collective action for overtime and/or minimum wage
      violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of
      a potential class of:

      "all present and former employees/independent contractors
      of Defendants who are or were employed as van drivers (or
      those who performed similar duties, however titled) from
      March 24, 2014, through the present";

   b. approving proposed notice and consent forms, to the joint
      motion to approve notice and consent forms;

   c. directing Plaintiffs to distribute the notice and claim
      forms to potential class members;

   d. directing counsel for the Plaintiffs to ensure that each
      consent form returned to them is filed with the Court by or
      before the date which is 60 days following issuance the
      notice and consent forms;

   e. directing Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs, within
      14 days of entry of this Order, a list of the names, last
      known addresses, and email addresses for all potential
      class members, as previously defined;

   f. directing Plaintiffs to provide copies of the notice and
      consent form, as modified in accordance with this Order, to
      all potential class members identified by the Defendants,
      by first-class mail and email, within 10 days after receipt
      of the list of names from the Defendants;

   g. directing Defendants to post the notice and consent form in
      accordance with this Order, prominently at Adaptive
      Enterprises, LLC, office locations, in an area where other
      labor and related notices are typically posted, within 14
      days of entry of this Order; and

   h. denying motion for extension of time as moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3ilFyBkF


APPLIED MATERIALS: Court Certifies Settlement Classes in Stewart
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARIA STEWART, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-
02632-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. John S. Tigar entered an order:

   1. granting certification of classes for settlement purposes
      only:

      (1) (a) [Individuals who] have been participants or
              beneficiaries in the Plan at any time during the
              Class Period;

          (b) who while enrolled in the Plan received Speech
              Therapy to treat Autism during the Class Period and
              had an Autism diagnosis at the time of that Speech
              Therapy; and

          (c) were either age six or older at the time of receipt
              of that Speech Therapy or were age five or younger
              and had exceeded 60 Speech Therapy visits in a
              calendar year; and either

                 i. submitted claims for reimbursement of Speech
                    Therapy to the Plan and the Claims Processor
                    denied those claims ("Class One"); or

                ii. did not submit a claim to the Plan and were
                    not otherwise reimbursed for the therapy
                    ("Class Two"); or,

      (2) [Individuals who] are the parents and guardians of the
          individuals described above; or

      (3) [Individuals who] are the Successors-in-Interest of the
          individuals described in above.

   2. confirming the appointment of Glenn R. Kantor as Class
      Counsel;

   3. granting final approval of the proposed settlement; and

   4. granting Plaintiffs' counsel $70,520 in attorneys' fees.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gHA214pS

The Settlement Agreement establishes payment for past claims
(whether previously submitted or not) for Speech Therapy,
attorneys' fees and costs.  The "moneys budgeted for" the
settlement "will be sufficient to pay all claims at 100% of the
amount the Plan would have paid, had the claims been submitted and
approved." In exchange, class members "will release Applied
Materials, the Plan, and their respective assigns, heirs,
administrators, executors, and successors-in-interest, affiliates,
benefit plans, predecessors, and transferees, and their past and
present shareholders, officers, directors, agents, and employees,
from any and all Class Released Claims that Named Plaintiff or the
Settlement Classes have directly, indirectly, derivatively, or in
any other capacity ever had or now have whether known or unknown,
supported or unsupported.

Named Plaintiff and the Class Members expressly waive and
relinquish any and all claims, rights, or benefits that they may
have under California Civil Code Section 1542." California Civil
Code Section 1542 provides: A general release does not extend to
claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his
or her favor at the time of executing the release which if known
by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement
with the debtor.

Class members received notice of the Settlement through the
mailing of "the [Class Action Fairness Act of 2005] Notice."
Applied Materials shall bear all notice costs, including the
hiring of a Class Administrator, and providing class notice."
Moreover, "Applied Materials has agreed to pay and not object to a
motion by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses in the amount of $70,250 to Class Counsel."


APPLE INC: Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Over Driving Accidents
----------------------------------------------------------
Chance Miller, writing for 9to5Mac, reports that Apple is facing
an increasing number of lawsuits centered around allegations that
it is responsible for accidents caused by users who are driving
while distracted by their smartphone. One case, however, as
reported by Law360, has been thrown out by Santa Clara County
Superior Court Judge Maureen A. Folan.

The case was brought to court by David Riggs, whose son was killed
in 2013 when he was hit by a driver who was texting. The driver
was charged with a misdemeanor for driving while distracted by his
iPhone, but Riggs wanted to place the blame on Apple for its
failure to implement a lockout system.

The case was thrown based partly on precedent set by a 2016
lawsuit that likewise argued Apple was responsible for distracted
driving accidents. That case determined that to assume Apple was
"actually responsible for the ultimate harm" was unreasonable

Similarly, Judge Folan stated in his ruling that Riggs' agreement
for blaming the accident on Apple was "attenuated." The case was
thrown out with precedent and therefore cannot be refiled under
the same claim.

"The chain of causation alleged by the plaintiffs in this case is
far too attenuated for a reasonable person to conclude that
Apple's conduct is or was a substantial factor in causing
plaintiff's harm."

Earlier this year, we reported on a similar class action lawsuit
that aimed to place blame on Apple for distracted driving
accidents. The case argued that by refusing to implement a lockout
system to prevent texting while driving, Apple puts profits ahead
of user safety. That case is still ongoing.

Apple has the ability to outfit its iPhones with a lock-out device
that would disable the smartphone while being used by motorists.
In fact, it has had this technology since 2008, and was granted a
patent on it by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2014.

Yet, fearful that such a device would cause it to lose valuable
market share, Apple refuses to employ the technology, choosing
instead to allow the massive carnage to occur.

As part of iOS 11, Apple is introducing a new Do Not Disturb While
Driving feature that blocks incoming notifications while a vehicle
is in motion. For texts, there's an option to send an automatic
reply telling the other person you're driving, while calls are
allowed as long as the iPhone is connected to a car's Bluetooth
system. In a poll we ran earlier this year, the majority of
respondents said it's not Apple's responsibility to create a
complete lockout mode to prevent texting and driving. [GN]


ASHLEY HALL: Hit With CA Over Email Containing Medical Records
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bowers, writing for Post and Courier, reports that the Ashley
Hall school in Charleston sent an email to parents on August 25
with an attachment that included private medical details about
dozens of students.

A staff member at the private school forwarded the email from a
school nurse practitioner to parents around 11 a.m. on August 25.
It included a note from the nurse asking parents to update their
students' medication paperwork. It also included a spreadsheet
individually identifying 86 students' allergies, medical
conditions, psychiatric diagnoses and medications.

Attorney Gregg Meyers, Esq. -- attygm@aol.com -- filed a class-
action lawsuit on August 25 in a Charleston County court against
the school, Health Center Director Tiffin Lamoreaux and Upper
School Administrative Assistant Meridith Oxley. The plaintiff is
listed as "Jane Doe 300, on behalf of herself and her child, and
all others similarly situated to her and to her child."

"I have no idea how they could make such a mistake. There ought to
be bells and whistles going off, but there weren't," Meyers said.
"It's hard to imagine someone could be so careless with
information that's so heavily protected."

The lawsuit alleges that the school violated the students' privacy
and the federal laws protecting student and medical records. It
seeks actual and punitive damages as well as an injunction
requiring the school to update its privacy procedures and
training.

"I don't know how the school makes it right, but obviously they
don't have procedures up to the task of modern-day information
dissemination," Meyers said. "This is a cautionary tale for every
school."

Assistant Head of School Anne Weston declined to comment, citing
advice from legal counsel after the lawsuit was filed. [GN]


BIG LOTS: Faces "Brito" Suit Over Disabled-Inaccessible Store
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos G. Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.
d/b/a Big Lots at Chelton Center, Case No. 1:17-cv-02052 (D. Col.,
August 25, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
remove architectural and communication barriers in existing
stores, denying equal access to disabled persons.

Big Lots Stores, Inc. operates a shopping plaza located at 1990 S.
Academy Blvd., Colorado Springs, CO 80916. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
      Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq.
      GARCIA-MENOCAL, & PEREZ, P.L.
      4937 SW 74th Court, No. 3
      Miami, FL 33155
      Telephone: (305) 553-3464
      Facsimile: (305) 553-3031
      E-mail: ajperezlaw@gmail.com
              agmlaw@bellsouth.net
              mpomares@lawgmp.com


BISON DRILLING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Jones" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bison Drilling and Field Services, LLC, Case No. 7:17-
cv-00167 (W.D. Tex., August 25, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours each week.

Bison Drilling and Field Services, LLC operates an oilfield
services company operating drilling rigs throughout the Permian
Basin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


BLUE APRON: Faces "Ivan" Suit Over False Registration Statement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc., Matthew B. Salzberg, Ilia
M. Papas, Matthew J. Wadiak, Jared Cluff, Pablo Cussatti, Benjamin
C. Singer, Julie M.B. Bradley, Tracy Britt Cool, Kenneth A. Fox,
Robert P. Goodman, Gary R. Hirshberg, Brian P. Kelley, Bradley J.
Dickerson, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Stifel, Nicolaus &
Company, Incorporated, Canaccord Genuity Inc., Needham & Company,
LLC, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and
William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Case No. 1:17-cv-05021 (E.D.N.Y.,
August 25, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made materially
false and misleading Registration Statement and failed to disclose
that: (i) the Company was suffering from delays at one of its new
factory in Linden,
New Jersey, which would impact new products roll-out, (ii) the
Company was experiencing issues related to delivering all orders
with all the ingredients, (iii) the Company had begun to
significantly reduce its spending on advertising and thus
negatively impacting the Company's net revenue, and (iv) the
Company's strategy was not achieving the desired operational
efficiency.

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. is a based in New York that provides
ingredients and recipe meal kit services, along with wine and
kitchen utensils. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: ek@zlk.com


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Class Conditionally Certified in "Paxton"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned WHITNEY PAXTON, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00523-HSM-
HBG (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon Judge Harry S. Mattice, Jr. entered an
order:

   1. overruling Defendants' objections to magistrate Judge
      Guyton's Report and Recommendation;

   2. accepting and adopting Magistrate Judge Guyton's Report and
      Recommendation;

   3. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to
      conditionally certify collective action and facilitate
      notice to potential class members;

   4. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "current and former, non-exempt, commission paid (1) Front-
      Line Sales Representatives, (2) In-House Sales
      Representatives, and (3) In-House Sales Specialists at
      Bluegreen's Sevier County and Orlando, Florida locations
      during the three years preceding the filing of the date of
      this Complaint";

   5. directing Bluegreen to produce the names, addresses, and
      dates of employment for all persons potentially covered by
      the collective action within 20 days of entry of this
      Order; and

   6. if the Parties have not reached an agreement regarding the
      notice and opt-in forms by the date of entry of this Order,
      directing Plaintiffs to file their proposed notice and opt-
      in form within five days of the date of entry of this
      Order, and directing Defendants to respond or file a
      competing notice and opt-in form within five days of the
      Plaintiffs' filing.

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


BOW & TRUSS: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KRYSTAL SMITH, TRUMAINE HARDY, BRYCE
LUCAS, BENJAMIN CREECH, JEFFREY O'MALLEY, ROBERT HENRY, ETHAN
JANTZ, CHRIS COWDREY, GABRIELA CAMPOS, and TAYLOR STEELE on behalf
of themselves individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BOW & TRUSS, LLC, DOEJO, LLC; PHILIP
TADROS, and DARREN MARSHALL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01809 (Ill. Cir. Ct.), the Plaintiffs seek to certify three
classes:

Overtime Class:

   "all non-exempt employees employed in Defendant Bow Truss'
   retail sales locations in the State of Illinois who worked in
   excess of forty hours in any workweek, at any time in the
   three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, up to and
   including the date of trial";

Wage Deduction Class:

   "all persons employed in Defendant Bow Truss' retail sales
   locations in the State of Illinois who had deductions made by
   Defendant Bow Truss or Doejo to their paychecks for tax,
   benefits, or similar purposes at any time in the ten years
   preceding the filing of this Complaint, up to and including
   the date of trial";

Non-Payment and Late Payment of Wages and Tips Class:

   "all persons employed in Defendant Bow Truss' retail sales
   locations in the State of Illinois who were not paid, or
   who received delayed payment, for wages and tips they were
   lawfully owed for work completed, at any time in the ten years
   preceding the filing of this Complaint, up to and including
   the date of trial".

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott Kane Stukel, Esq.
          Colin Cameron, Esq.
          CAMERON & KANE, LLC
          2864 N. Milwaukee Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60618
          Telephone: (872) 588 0727
          Facsimile: (312) 268 7478
          E-mail: scott@cameronandkane.com
                  colin@cameronandkane.com


CANADA: Class Action Seeks Compliance on Free Education Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Sherbrooke Times reports that as thousands of students return
to school, the Parti quebecois questioned the government Couillard
to make it comply with the law on free education.

After having received many complaints from parents, the member of
the PQ Alexandre Cloutier has analyzed dozens of bills related to
school supplies.  These have been filed as evidence in the context
of a larger class action against the school boards.

"For example, for a course on science and technology, we have a
bill of $ 32 for the material, perishable and specialized, which
serves as yet directly at the course ", he laments.

The member of parliament for Lac-Saint-Jean also note that the
school requires in addition to the $ 40 fee for photocopies.
Students in the international program are also required to pay $
70 for a fitness center, even if they do not want to use and that
they are not enrolled in a sport-etudes program.

The mp said also, that the costs of monitoring the midi is
required for students in fifth secondary: "they are students of
fifteen or sixteen years of age, and demand $ 140 per child ".

Class action

On its web site www.pq.org/bonnerentree the Parti quebecois
promised not only to abolish the costs related to school, it
invites the parents to send their bills to put pressure on the
minister of Education, Sebastien Proulx, who is supposed to
enforce the law on free education.

The latter was not available to give an interview to TVA
Nouvelles. His press officer has responded that " the costs of
school materials should not be an obstacle to learning."

"The law clearly provides that it must be free, except for the
exercise books," says Mr. Cloutier.

Since a class action has been authorized against them in this
folder, the Federation des commissions scolaires du Quebec has
made no comment.

For the official opposition, the government must send a clear
directive to put an end to the fee-gouging. [GN]


CAPGEMINI FINANCIAL: Certification of IT Workers Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled PRANAV BHATTACHARYA and NAVANEETHA
KOOTHAPILLAI, individually and for all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. CAPGEMINI NORTH AMERICA, INC., CAPGEMINI
FINANCIAL SERVICES USA, INC. and PETER KORNOWSKE, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-07950 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to certify a class of:

   "all current and former Indian IT Workers who worked for
   Defendants, who participated in Capgemini's Group Health Plan
   together with their spouses and covered dependents at any time
   from August 8, 2014 to the date of judgment in this action,
   and who did not receive proper COBRA notice and subsequent
   coverage in violation of ERISA."

The Plaintiff bring claims against all Defendants, pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C.
sections 1132 et seq. (ERISA), for Defendants' failure to provide
requisite information regarding Plaintiffs' health insurance
benefits and failure to provide election notice and continuation
coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1985 ("COBRA").

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sPdYZc1E

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          E-mail: lawyers@stephanzouras.com


COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Mishra" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Debi Mishra, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation,
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-01785-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal., August 25,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing computer
consulting services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John T. Stralen, Esq.
      Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
      CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, APC
      865 Howe Avenue
      Sacramento, CA 95825
      Telephone: (916) 777-7777
      Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
      E-mail: jstralen@justice4you.com
              jwatson@justice4you.com


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces Probe Following Laundering Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clancy Yeates and Eryk Bagshaw, writing for The Sydney Morning
Herald, report that an unprecedented inquiry will examine whether
the Commonwealth Bank undermined its own reputation in pursuit of
profit, after a damaging run of scandals at the country's biggest
bank.

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority chairman Wayne Byres on
Aug. 28 ramped up pressure on CBA, announcing a public inquiry
into the lending giant's culture, governance and accountability
frameworks.

Treasurer Scott Morrison says the government welcomes the APRA
inquiry into the Commonwealth Bank.

The probe was triggered by bombshell allegations of a mass breach
of anti-money-laundering laws by CBA, revealed alongside earlier
failings in the bank, including in its financial planning and life
insurance businesses.

APRA will look at any "core" cultural or organisational reasons
for the bank's troubles, including whether it has put too much
emphasis on financial goals at the expense of risk management.

"The Australian community's trust in the banking system has been
damaged in recent years, and CBA in particular has been negatively
impacted by a number of issues that have affected the reputation
of the bank," Mr Byres said.

Treasurer Scott Morrison said there had been more than 12
compliance "issues" at the bank since 2008, and the board and
management's promises to improve culture at CBA had failed to meet
the public's expectations.

"Dramatic action and accountability to restore this trust must be
the focus of the CBA's board and management," Mr Morrison said.

CBA is facing the fallout after the financial intelligence
regulator, Austrac, alleged it had breached anti-money-laundering
laws more than 53,000 times, and that its ATMs were used by
criminal gangs to launder cash.

The inquiry will be undertaken by an independent panel, to be
appointed by APRA, and it is expected to be completed within about
six months after it commences.  The report will be made public and
CBA will cover the costs of the inquiry.

It is the first time that APRA, which normally works behind the
scenes, has established a public inquiry of this nature into one
of the banks it supervises.

An inquiry into National Australia Bank was carried out by the
regulator in 2004, but this focused on multimillion-dollar trading
losses, and the report was handed to NAB's board, which then
released it.

In response to the probe, CBA chief executive Ian Narev
acknowledged people were "asking questions" about the root causes
of the series of problems at the bank, and CBA would co-operate
with the inquiry.

"Despite the fact that we have got confidence in the institution,
we have got confidence in what we are doing, we are aware of the
fact that we have been in the news for the wrong reasons," he
said.

The inquiry would likely look at the balance between financial and
other goals, and the complexity of its organisational structure,
Mr Narev said.

CBA is the most profitable bank in Australia, in July delivering a
full-year profit of $9.9 billion and announcing that Mr Narev
would leave the lender at the end of this financial year.

"We fully expect that out of the inquiry will come recommendations
for further steps that we can take with the same goal of
strengthening trust," Mr Narev said.

The terms of reference and inquiry members have not been set, but
it is expected the inquiry panel will include a range of
participants, including those with expertise in corporate culture
and financial institutions.

The announcement comes as Mr Morrison is fighting off pressure
from the opposition for a banking royal commission -- a proposal
the government has repeatedly rejected.

Labor's shadow treasurer Chris Bowen and financial services
spokesman Katy Gallagher backed APRA's inquiry, but said they
"strongly believed" a royal commission was still needed.

"Not even the serious allegations of breaches of anti-money-
laundering and anti-terrorism funding laws by Australia's largest
bank have been enough to convince the Prime Minister to establish
a royal commission," they said.  "What is it going to take?"

Mr Morrison said the APRA inquiry showed there was no need for
such a probe, which he said would see "nothing happen for another
three years".

"Taking action now is what is needed, that is what we are doing,
that is what our regulators clearly understand is their job to do
and they are getting on with it," Mr Morrison said.

In addition to APRA's inquiry, the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission said it was investigating whether CBA broke
the Corporations Act in its response to the alleged anti-money-
laundering breaches.

Mr Morrison said he had been in regular talks with regulators
including Austrac, APRA and ASIC after the anti-money-laundering
scandal emerged. [GN]


CP OPCO: Sued Over Failure to Provide 60 Days Termination Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
David McDonald, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CP OpCo, LLC, d/b/a Classic Party Rentals; Insperity
PEO Services, L.P., and Does 1-20, Case No. 3:17-cv-04915 (N.D.
Cal., August 23, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to provide notice to their employees 60 days before
closing their facilities or conducting a mass layoff as required
by Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act

The Defendants own and operate an event rental company in
Inglewood, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John T. Mullan, Esq.
      Chaya M. Mandelbaum, Esq.
      Meghan F. Loisel, Esq.
      RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, L.L.P.
      351 California Street, Suite 700
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 434-9800
      Facsimile:  (415) 434-0513
      E-mail: jtm@rezlaw.com
              cmm@rezlaw.com
              mfl@rezlaw.com


CYFRED LTD: United Pacific Islanders Lose Basic Services Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Louella Losinio, writing for The Guam Daily Post, reports that
after 15 years, residents of the Gill Baza subdivision are still
hoping to get some resolution to the long-standing problem of
their not having access to basic services.

In separate interviews with The Guam Daily Post, subdivision
residents expressed their frustration.  Long-term residents Redsa
Untalan and daughter Angie moved to Gill Baza around the same time
when several homeowners sued developer Cyfred Ltd. over their
failure to provide much-needed infrastructure, including sewer
lines.

Angie Untalan said only in 2013 were they able to get their power
installed. Now, a broken sewer line has remained unfixed for
months.

"We called GWA after someone damaged it. We called and they came
to check it but never returned. This was a couple of months ago,"
she said.

Without a sewer line, Redsa said they have to pay around $179 per
month for a portable toilet which requires weekly maintenance.

The same issue concerns Florence Martin, who moved to the area in
2002.

"When we got here, we had no power or sewer. I was off-island when
we got power here. It was several years ago, except for the sewer.
Up to now, we are still waiting for these services," she said.

"It is really hard with the portable toilets - we need a sewer
line. It is hard for the kids to use the porta-toilets."

At the time the Post visited the area, a Detry Plumbing Service
truck was seen going around the neighborhood to clean the portable
toilets.

Back in 2002, 40 subdivision homeowners filed their first
complaint with the Superior Court of Guam. In 2006, the Guam
Environmental Protection Agency issued a notice of violation and
order of compliance for the subdivision, which required residents
to leave the area until a sewer system was installed.

In 2009, the Guam Supreme Court upheld a trial court's decision
ordering Cyfred to pay around $580,000 for the installation of a
sewer system for homeowners. The decision stemmed from a class
action filed by lead plaintiffs Kini and Iowanna Sananap.

Since then, various parties have filed motions and oppositions.

In July, a group of residents won their appeal against Cyfred,
which meant the Superior Court of Guam had to hear the matter.

The Superior Court dismissed the case filed by United Pacific
Islanders' Corp. and dozens of residents of the subdivision
against Cyfred and National Union Fire Insurance Co. for failure
to prosecute under the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure because the
case had not progressed in the Superior Court.

An appeal of the dismissal was filed with the local Supreme Court.

The appellate court determined that United Pacific Islanders' had
no standing in the lawsuit, but that the individual residents did.

On Aug. 25, the court held a brief meeting to announce a
stipulation has been drafted between the parties involved in the
recent case. [GN]


DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Florida Judge Dismisses Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
David Weigel, writing for Washington Post, reports a year-long
legal battle over the Democratic National Committee's handling of
the 2016 presidential primary came to an end on August 25, with a
federal judge in Florida dismissing a class-action suit brought by
supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

"To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances
with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is
through the ballot box, the DNC's internal workings, or their
right of free speech -- not through the judiciary," Judge William
Zloch, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his dismissal. "To the extent
Plaintiffs have asserted specific causes of action grounded in
specific factual allegations, it is this Court's emphatic duty to
measure Plaintiffs' pleadings against existing legal standards.
Having done so . . . the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs
have not presented a case that is cognizable in federal court."

The lawsuit, which its supporters promoted with the hashtag
#DNCFraudLawsuit, grew out of the 2016 hack of the DNC that
eventually led to the release of thousands of documents on the
website DCLeaks. On July 28, 2016, Florida attorneys Jared and
Elizabeth Beck filed a civil complaint, alleging that the hacked
emails had revealed a DNC that was plotting to get Hillary Clinton
through the primaries, defrauding its donors, and exposing them to
harm through shoddy information security.

The DNC filed a petition to dismiss the complaint on July 22, the
week the party's convention got underway -- and the week that Rep.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) resigned as DNC chair. But the
case dragged on into 2017, with the Becks heavily promoting the
case on Twitter and through their super PAC, JamPAC. In April, the
Becks and the DNC's attorneys met in court, with the Becks arguing
that the hacked emails had shown the DNC violated its charter,
with staffers talking openly about how to elect Clinton.

"We have a wealth of information that was released by WikiLeaks
that comes from emails from officials of the DNC, as well as the
Hillary Clinton campaign, which really, I think, flesh out and
fill in the detail of this really seminal internal document that
Guccifer released," Jared Beck said. "These additional leaks have
shown that DNC officials participated in creating and
disseminating media narratives to undermine Bernie Sanders and
advance Hillary Clinton."

Bruce Spiva, representing the DNC, made the argument that would
eventually carry the day: that it was impossible to determine who
would have standing to claim they had been defrauded. But as he
explained how the DNC worked, Spiva made a hypothetical argument
that the party wasn't really bound by the votes cast in primaries
or caucuses.

"The party has the freedom of association to decide how it's gonna
select its representatives to the convention and to the state
party," said Spiva. "Even to define what constitutes
evenhandedness and impartiality really would already drag the
court well into a political question and a question of how the
party runs its own affairs. The party could have favored a
candidate. I'll put it that way."

In the corners of the media where the lawsuit was covered most,
that answer became infamous -- proof that the defeated Democrats
did not respect the will of the voters. "The DNC reportedly argued
that the organization's neutrality among Democratic campaigns
during the primaries was merely a 'political promise,' and
therefore it had no legal obligations to remain impartial
throughout the process," a reporter for Newsweek wrote.

But Clinton had won 3.7 million more votes than Sanders during the
primaries, in part because the Vermont senator dominated
relatively lower-turnout caucuses. And as the judge considered
whether to dismiss the suit, Jared Beck advanced more theories of
the depths to which Democrats might have gone in order to cover
their tracks. In a June 2017 interview with Alex Jones's news site
Infowars, Beck suggested that the deaths of potential witnesses,
the process server who delivered documents to the DNC, and DNC IT
staffer Seth Rich had all raised troubling questions. [GN]


DR. REDDY'S: October 25 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until October 25, 2017 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. (RDY), if they purchased the
Company's securities between June 17, 2015 through August 10,
2017, inclusive (the 'Class Period").  This action is pending in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Dr. Reddy's and would like to
discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and
your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/-rdy/to learn more. If you wish to
serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition
the Court by October 25, 2017.

About the Lawsuit

Dr. Reddy's and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company had failed to
implement an effective corporate quality control system including
but not limited to its manufacturing plants and (ii) as a result
of the foregoing, Dr. Reddy's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

                   About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com -- whose partners include the
former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law
firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions,
along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation
against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders.  The
firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. [GN]


INDIANA: Sidewalk Ordinances Target Homeless People, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Wolfe, writing for The American Conservative, reports that
they loiter, they sit, even sprawl on the sidewalk. Often we avert
our eyes to their condition.  Police see the homeless as a
nuisance and they are soon scattered under the guise of "public
safety."  Meanwhile, the non-homeless often loiter, and they
congregate too, but are never turned away by the cops.  They
aren't considered a threat.

A struggling class of working poor living in urban areas with high
housing prices, combined with an increasing lack of low-income
rents and long-term solutions, ensure the poor have nowhere else
to go.  Those who can, move outside the urban limits. Those who
can't, stay behind, oftentimes on the streets, closer to shelters
and other free services.

But now officials in cities across the country want to make these
people "illegal" in hopes they will move along, to wherever that
may be.  In a class action lawsuit filed in August, plaintiffs are
claiming the city of Indianapolis is unconstitutionally targeting
homeless people with their sidewalk ordinances. Homeless people
and activists believe the law, which prohibits congregating or
lying on certain public sidewalks, is being applied unequally, and
by all accounts it is.

On August 4, in what reports say was a joint effort with the
Department of Homeland Security, notices were posted at several
homeless encampments that they would be cleared within a few days,
and that "an emergency" had been declared.  According to the
Indianapolis Star the city claimed:

Congestion and cluttering of the area from personal belongings or
people in the public right of way inhibits safe passage by
pedestrians and emergency first responders, blocks evacuation
routes and allows for concealment of threats targeting pedestrians
and first responders.

On August 8, city officials kept their word. According to Maurice
Young, a homeless man mentioned in the lawsuit, police officers
have made it clear to the homeless that they cannot sit, stop,
loiter, or lie down in the cleared areas--but non-homeless people
have not been treated the same way or even approached with such
reminders.

"At the time Mr. Young visited the areas there were no events
taking place at any nearby stadiums or other event venues and
there were not a large number of non-homeless pedestrians
traversing the areas," reads the lawsuit--so it's clear there was
no massive obstruction of sidewalks, or obvious issue with the
conduct of the homeless in the area.  Plaintiffs are also
challenging the vague use of the term "emergency," arguing it
violates residents' due process rights and needs to be clarified.

These cruel regulatory tendencies too often go unnoticed and harm
the most vulnerable people.  With the help of the American Civil
Liberties Union of Indiana, plaintiffs are arguing that these
ordinances are being used to discriminatorily target the needy.
Simply put, they violate the constitutional rights to due process
and equal protection under the law.  It's crucial that the city
remedy this. In addition, an injunction to lift the ban has been
requested to prevent future issues.

It makes sense for lawmakers to ensure sidewalks aren't blocked to
pedestrians, but it doesn't make sense for city officials to deny
the homeless the ability to rest their feet, talk to one another,
or stop for a moment to catch their breath.  For too long,
ordinances such as these have been passed quietly, city by city,
with little to no public objection.  Now, homeless people must
navigate a complex patchwork of laws that slowly deprive them of
their humanity and criminalize daily activity, without ever giving
their input to legislators.

Of course, laws designed to target homeless people are nothing
new.

In 33 of 100 total U.S. cities studied, the National Law Center on
Homelessness and Poverty found that it's illegal to publicly camp.
About 32 percent of cities studied had anti-loitering ordinances
city-wide.  And these laws aren't limited to specific states: from
2012 to 2015, the Dallas Police issued about 323 citations a month
for sleeping in public. In 2014, Honolulu enacted a law banning
sitting and lying down in public places, which has resulted in
more than 16,000 warnings given predominantly to homeless people.
In California alone, there are hundreds of separate ordinances all
targeting the homeless--in fact, researchers at Berkeley found
that each California city has, on average, nine separate anti
-homeless laws.  Government overreach that hurts vulnerable people
isn't limited to a specific state, region, or jurisdiction--it's
unfortunately all over.

In some ways, Indianapolis's methods of dealing with homelessness
are ahead of the curve.  Faith-based missions provide shelter for
a large percentage of the homeless population, and Indianapolis
"serves as a national model for government-FBO collaborations"
according to a study done by the Baylor Institute that measured
the impact of faith-based organizations in public policy
initiatives. These private-public partnerships also lessen the
amount incurred by taxpayers-organizations like Wheeler Mission
Ministries save taxpayers about $3 million per year. For small
government advocates, this is a clear win and an impressive feat.

But in order to fully approach homelessness with compassion,
Indianapolis city government and law enforcement will need to not
only rethink their current laws, but also how they're being used.
Many states are slowly passing laws against housing status
discrimination, such as Right to Rest Acts and efforts to make the
homeless a protected class--but still, cities all across the
country regularly violate the rights of those who need them most.
Instead of using public funds and the threat of jail time to
corral the homeless into submission, we should rethink our onerous
laws and discern whether they're actually designed to help the
homeless get back on their feet.  In most places, they aren't.
[GN]


DUKE UNIVERSITY: "Seaman" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled DANIELLE SEAMAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DUKE
UNIVERSITY; DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, WILLIAM L. ROPER, AND
DOES 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00462-CCE-JLW
(M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a
class of:

   "all natural persons employed by Defendants and their co-
   conspirators in the United States during the period from
   January 1, 2012 through the present (the "Class Period") as a
   faculty member, physician, nurse, or other skilled medical
   employee. Excluded from the Class are: members of the boards
   of directors and boards of trustees, boards of governors, and
   senior executives of Defendants and their co-conspirators who
   entered into the illicit agreements alleged herein; and any
   and all judges and justices, and chambers' staff, assigned to
   hear or adjudicate any aspect of this litigation."

Dr. Seaman also moves the Court to appoint her as Class
representative and to appoint Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, and Elliot Morgan Parsonage, P.A., as Class
Counsel. This motion is based on the accompanying memorandum of
law; the Declaration of Anne B. Shaver; the Expert Reports of Dr.
Edward E. Leamer and Dr. Peter Cappelli; all exhibits and
appendices to such documents, the pleadings and other documents on
file in this action, and any argument that may be presented to the
Court.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z2aYqmzx

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
          Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
          Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
          Abbye Klamann, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
          BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com
                  dharvey@lchb.com
                  ashaver@lchb.com
                  aklamann@lchb.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Elliot, Esq.
          ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, P.A.
          426 Old Salem Rd.
          Winston-Salem, NC 27101
          Telephone: (336) 724 2828
          Facsimile: (336) 714 4499
          E-mail: rmelliot@emplawfirm.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Siddiqi" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled SHABIB SIDDIQI, on behalf of plaintiff and
the class members, Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC;
and PINNACLE CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-06126 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff seeks the Court to certify two
classes:

Pinnacle class:

   "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses, (b) to whom a
   letter was sent on behalf of Pinnacle to collect a debt, (c)
   which debt was a credit card on which the last payment had
   been made more than 5 years prior to the letter, (d) which
   letter offered a settlement or a payment plan (e) and did not
   state that any payment may restart the statute of limitations,
   (f) which letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to
   the filing of this action and on or before a date 21 days
   after the filing of this action"; and

Dynamic class:

   "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses, (b) to whom
   Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC sent a letter to collect a
   debt, (c) which debt was a credit card on which the last
   payment had been made more than 5 years prior to the letter,
   (d) which letter offered a settlement or a payment plan (e)
   and did not state that any payment may restart the statute of
   limitations, (f) which letter was sent on or after June 22,
   2017".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class.

The Defendants have been attempting to collect from plaintiff an
alleged credit card debt incurred, if at all, for personal, family
or household purposes. On July 31, 2017, Defendant, acting on
behalf of defendant Pinnacle, sent plaintiff a letter. The debt
was beyond the statute of limitations, the Complaint says.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=giYd8Mfj

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603 1824
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Jones" Suit in W.D. of Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Treva Sudell Jones, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax
Information Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01166 (W.D.
Tenn., August 31, 2017).

Equifax Information collects and reports consumer information to
financial institutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Micah Stephen Adkins, Esq.
   THE ADKINS FIRM, P.C.
   2 Perimeter Park South, Suite 405 E
   Birmingham, AL 35243
   Tel: (205) 206-6718
   Email: MicahAdkins@ItsYourCreditReport.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Jones" Suit in W.D. of Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc.  The case is styled as Treva Sudell Jones, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01165 (W.D. Tenn., August 31, 2017).

Experian Information, an information services company, provides
information, analytical, and marketing services to organizations
and consumers to help manage the risk and reward of commercial and
financial decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Micah Stephen Adkins, Esq.
   THE ADKINS FIRM, P.C.
   2 Perimeter Park South, Suite 405 E
   Birmingham, AL 35243
   Tel: (205) 206-6718
   Email: MicahAdkins@ItsYourCreditReport.com


FRANCO AND COMPANY: Faces "Moya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Rhodes Moya, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Franco And Company, LLC, and Sandra L. Franco, Case No. 0:17-cv-
61697-DPG (S.D. Fla., August 25, 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 Podiatry medical practice and
"Med Spa" d/b/a as "FRANCO AND CO" with multiple locations
including at 2407 Main Street, Miramar, Florida 33025 in Broward
County and 777 East 25th Street, Suite 502, Hialeah, Florida 33013
in Miami-Dade County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      One Flagler
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: (305) 901-1379
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
              hsolis@workingforyou.com


FUSION LOGISTICS: "Geffrard" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CHRISTIAL GEFFRARD, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FUSION
LOGISTICS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01161-GAP-KRS
(M.D. Fla.), the Class Representative asks the Court to enter an
Order certifying a class of:

   "all employees of Fusion who: (1) were employed as "Delivery
   Drivers" in Florida during the preceding three years; (2) were
   paid a "day rate;" and (3) worked more than forty hours in a
   workweek without being paid proper overtime compensation".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z3nE2yb6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Adams, Esq.
          N. Ryan Labar, Esq.
          LABAR & ADAMS, P.A.
          2300 East Concord Street
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 835 8968
          Facsimile: (407) 835 8969
          E-mail: sadams@labaradams.com
                  rlabar@labaradams.com


FEDEX GROUND: Jameson et al. Seek to Notify Drivers
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled HUNTLEY JAMESON, JORDAN ROY, and ANGEL
SULLIVAN-BLAKE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00987-WWE (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the
court to order that notice be issued to:

   "all individuals who, at any time in the last three years,
   have delivered FedEx's packages but have been employed through
   a FedEx ISP and who may have driven vehicles under 10,001
   pounds gross vehicle weight."

The Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendant, on behalf
of themselves and all other individuals who have delivered
packages for FedEx through intermediary "independent service
providers" ("ISPs") and who have been eligible to receive overtime
pay but have not been paid time-and-a-half compensation for their
hours worked in excess of forty hours per week, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=71aQT8h8

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  pdelano@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC.
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522 8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218 9555
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


GC SERVICES: Ocampo Seeks Renewed Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JOSE LUIS OCAMPO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GC
SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09388 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff
seeks renewed motion for class certification of:

   "(1) all persons with addresses in the State of Illinois (2)
   from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer
   debt, (3) upon which Defendants sent a form letter
   substantially similar to that of Plaintiff's, which contained
   the following paragraphs: (a) While we have not reported this
   account to any consumer reporting agency as of the date of
   this letter, our client has authorized us to report your
   account to the three major consumer reporting agencies unless
   we are able to resolve your account; (b) Please read the
   following message provided by Dish Network: The balance that
   has been placed in collections may include the cost of your
   leased Dish Network equipment. If you choose to return the
   equipment to Dish Network they will reverse the leased
   equipment fees and/or refund any payments made that were
   applied to equipment charges."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0asVYoIr

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Celetha C. Chatman, Esq.
          Michael J. Wood, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757 1880
          Facsimile: (312) 265 3227
          E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com


HARTFORD FIRE: Court Conditionally Certifies Analysts Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CORDELL ALLEN; ALIA CLARK; PATRICIA DEARTH;
CHRIS DEPIERRO; JESSICA LEIGHTON; JESSICA PEREZ; JAMIE RIVERA;
LAYFON ROSU; MARISSA SHIMKO; and CAROL SOMERS, the Plaintiffs, v.
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No 6:16-cv-
01603-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton Jr.
entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for
      conditional certification of collective class and issuance
      of notice and incorporated memorandum of law;

   2. conditionally certifying a national section 216(b) class of
      Analysts who have: (1) worked for The Hartford at any of
      its locations during the three years preceding their
      decision to opt into this action; and (2) worked more than
      forty hours in a workweek without being paid overtime
      compensation. This class excludes Analysts that have agreed
      to arbitrate their claims pursuant to The Hartford's
      arbitration policy. Putative class members will have a 60
      day period in which to opt into this action;

   3. appointing Plaintiffs Patricia Dearth, Jessica Perez, Jamie
      Rivera, Layfon Rosu, Marissa Shimko, and Carol Somers as
      class representatives;

   4. On or before Thursday, August 31, 2017, directing Hartford
      to disclose to the Plaintiffs the contact information of
      all Analysts who have: (1) worked at or reported to any of
      The Hartford's locations during the three years preceding
      the date of this Order; and (2) are not subject to The
      Hartford's arbitration policy;

   5. approving Plaintiffs' Notice of Collective Action;

   6. authorizing distribution of the modified notices -- by
      U.S. mail and personal email -- on or before Tuesday,
      October 31, 2017;

   7. On or before Friday, September 1, 2017, directing Hartford
      to post Plaintiffs' revised notice at its job site
      locations and on its company intranet site and provide
      certification to the Court that it has done so. The
      Hartford may remove such notices on or after Wednesday,
      November 1, 2017; and

   8. directing parties to file a joint motion for modification
      of the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order on or
      before Tuesday, September 5, 2017. Failure to do so may
      result in the Court revising its Case Management and
      Scheduling Order sua sponte.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7d0CCPac


HUNGARY: Court Denied Bid for Default Judgment
----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOE W. STAR, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05709 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. entered an order denying
Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment, and
for admission to trial bar without prejudice.

The Court said, "In regard to Trial Bar membership, an explanation
of the procedures and a link to the Court's web site. Neither an
order of default nor a default judgment are appropriate at this
time because Plaintiff has not satisfactorily shown that he has
effectuated service of the summons and complaint on Defendant. The
Plaintiff is directed to file on the docket no later than Sep. 8,
2017 a memorandum answering the questions set out below pertaining
to service of the summons and complaint. In addition, given the
inability of Plaintiff's counsel to appear in person and to file
documents electronically, the Court's previous inclination to
proceed without local counsel has become untenable. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's counsel is directed to obtain local counsel in
accordance with Local Rule 83.15 by Sep. 8, 2017. Plaintiff's
counsel is reminded that all documents should be filed
electronically rather than mailed directly to the judge's chambers
or the Courtroom Deputy. Finally, Plaintiff's counsel is directed
to contact Courtroom Deputy Carolyn Hoesly (312-435-5668) at least
24 hours prior to any status hearing in which he wishes to
participate by telephone. The Court will set this matter for
further status hearing after it is able to review Plaintiff's
forthcoming memorandum."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2cR8BSCI


HYATT CORPORATION: "Matthews" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CARLA MATTHEWS, and all similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. HYATT CORPORATION,
an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00413-
RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), Carla Matthews, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated individuals, moves the Court, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a FLSA collective;

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-authorized notice of
      Plaintiffs' FLSA claim is sent (via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and
      text message) to:

      "all current and former hourly Remote Associates who worked
      for the Hyatt Corporation in the United States at any time
      in the past three years; and

   3. requiring Defendant to identify all potential opt-in
      plaintiffs by providing names, dates of employment, job
      title, and last known addresses, cell phone numbers, and
      email addresses in an agreeable format for mailing within
      14 days of the entry of the order.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8u0tga3C

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MH 48076
          Telephone: 248-355-0300
          E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Edward B. Davis, Esq.
          BELL DAVIS PITT, P.A.
          227 W. Trade Street, Suite 1800
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          E-mail: edward.davis@belldavispitt.com
          Telephone: (704) 227 0129


ILLINOIS: Class Certification Bid Sought in 10 Cases vs DHS
-----------------------------------------------------------
Separate motions for class certification and appointment of class
counsel have been filed in 10 lawsuits by civil detainees held by
the Illinois Department of Human Services, Rushville Treatment and
Detention Facility.  The complaints are identical and allege
violation of the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act
(725 ILCS Sec. 207/1 et seq.)(from prosecution to conditions of
imprisonment).

The 10 lawsuits are captioned as:

"James Vance, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, Et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04190-JES (C.D. Ill.)"
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sQOo1mEX;

Samuek Rutherford, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04194-JES (C.D. Ill.)"
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gCDqCEQU;

Christoher Tatara, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04195-JES (C.D. Ill.)",
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=frs64peg;

Michael Hansen, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04189-JES (C.D. Ill.)",
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BesniizY;

Samuel Lewis, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04191-JES (C.D. Ill.)",
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pSpwgyOu;

Ronald Dunn, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04192-JES (C.D. Ill.)",
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lfJBISw8;

William Ragel, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04198-JES (C.D. Ill.)",
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fLDBIVL9;

Nicholas Bauer, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04205-JES (C.D. Ill.)",
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DsxalHCP;

Jose Montanez, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04222-JES (C.D. Ill.)",
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=P9pOv2As;and

Joseph Sumaling, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04224-JES (C.D. Ill.)",
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SpzFV2S1.


ILLINOIS: Court Refuses to Review Denial of Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois denied the Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration and Objections to Court's June 13,
2017, Order denying his motion to amend his complaint, certify a
class action, and appoint new counsel in the case captioned MARC
NORFLEET, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-1279-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.).

First, Judge Wilkerson finds that Plaintiff's belief that he was
misled that his previously-appointed counsel's duty was to assist
him in bringing a class action was misguided and unfounded.  A
review of the docket evidences no indication that the purpose of
appointing the Plaintiff counsel to this matter was to assist him
in setting forth a class action lawsuit.  In the Court's Order
appointing counsel, it noted that the Plaintiff is a disabled
inmate proceeding on an Eighth Amendment and ADA and
Rehabilitation Act claims that may require significant discovery.
It also recognized that his filings were difficult to comprehend
and demonstrated his inability to communicate effectively.
Nowhere in the Order does the Court contemplate a potential class
action or direct counsel to assist in litigating the same.

The Plaintiff also takes issue with the Court allowing counsel to
withdraw after conducting a telephonic conference with counsel in
which he was not in attendance.  He asserts that counsel was
allowed to withdraw without merit as counsel only sought to
withdraw because he did not want the workload of handling a class
action.  It is apparent from the letter dated Feb. 6, 2017
directed to the Plaintiff from former counsel that there was a
significant breakdown of the attorney-client relationship insofar
as the Plaintiff and his counsel had different views on how this
matter should be handled.  Judge Wilkerson notes that the
Plaintiff cannot ask that counsel withdraw because they will not
pursue a class action lawsuit, and then complain when counsel is
allowed to withdraw and the Court declines to appoint new counsel.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to reconsider its denial of his
motion to amend the complaint and bring forth a class action
lawsuit.  A review of the proposed amended complaint submitted in
accordance with the Plaintiff's motion at Document 53 in October
2016 demonstrates its obvious similarity to the proposed amended
complaint submitted in March, 2017, the Judge finds.  Indeed, the
October 2016 proposed amended pleading includes the same
substantive content as the later proposed amended pleading, but
does not include any reference to a class.  Accordingly, Judge
Wilkerson does not find that the October 2016 proposed amended
pleading clearly sets forth the claims the Plaintiff is attempting
to bring.

The Judge held that insofar as the Plaintiff complains about the
overcrowding of the ADA cells at Pinckneyville in his motion, he
has not requested any specific relief in this motion tied to this
issue and the Court reminds him that these issues are the basis of
the claims pending in this lawsuit.

For these reasons, Judge Wilkerson finds that the Plaintiff has
not provided a significant reason for the Court to reconsider its
previous ruling on the Plaintiff's requests for new counsel and
motion to amend the complaint and proceed as a class action.
Accordingly, he denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration
and Objections to Court's June 13, 2017 Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jvG4nf from Leagle.com.

Marc Norfleet, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

IDOC, Defendant, represented by Ayesha Patel, Office of the
Attorney General.

Patrick Keane, Defendant, represented by Ayesha Patel, Office of
the Attorney General.

Gladyse C Taylor, Defendant, represented by Ayesha Patel, Office
of the Attorney General.

Sherry Benton, Defendant, represented by Ayesha Patel, Office of
the Attorney General.


INTUIT INC: Directed to Produce ATO Docs in Data Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: INTUIT DATA LITIGATION, Case No. 15-
cv-01778-EJD (SVK)(N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, ordered Intuit to produce the
Account Takeover Refund Fraud ("ATO") documents.

The putative class action claims that Intuit enabled third parties
to file false tax returns in the names of the Named Plaintiffs and
other taxpayers through Intuit's TurboTax service.  The Plaintiffs
allege that these third parties fraudsters used two methods to
carry out this scheme: (i) opening new TurboTax accounts in the
names of other individuals and filing returns through those
accounts, Stolen Identity Refund Fraud ("SIRF"), and (ii)
accessing the accounts of existing TurboTax customers and filing
returns through those accounts, ATO.   The Plaintiffs assert
causes of action for violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, negligence, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent
enablement of third-party imposter fraud, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs seek to bring these claims on behalf of a class
defined in the operative Second Amended Complaint as all persons
in the United States in whose names fraudulent tax returns were
filed using TurboTax within the applicable statute of limitations.
Intuit generally denies responsibility for fraudulent tax filings
submitted through TurboTax.

The District Judge has issued an order opening discovery.  No
discovery cut-off or deadline for the Plaintiffs' class
certification motion has been set.  Intuit's motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint and its motion to compel certain of the
Named Plaintiffs to submit their dispute with Intuit to
arbitration are pending before the District Judge.

Before the Court is the parties' joint letter brief concerning a
dispute over the relevance of documents concerning ATO sought by
the Plaintiffs in discovery.  Intuit objects to the production of
documents that relate only to ATO on the grounds that ATO-only
documents are not relevant.  The Plaintiffs respond that they have
not dropped ATO victims from the putative class or the case and
state this action is brought on behalf of all victims in whose
name fraudulent TurboTax returns were filed, whether by means of
SIRF or ATO.

At the request of Defendant Intuit, the Court held a hearing on
this dispute on Aug. 22, 2017.

Judge van Keulen concludes that the ATO documents sought by the
Plaintiffs are relevant and appropriate discovery at this pre-
certification stage of the case.  In determining relevancy in a
class action, it is appropriate for the Court to consider the
class definition.  The proposed class is not limited to persons
who suffered SIRF-type fraud.  In addition, the Second Amended
Complaint states that this proposed class may be divided into
subclasses.  Elsewhere, the Second Amended Complaint discusses
both SIRF and ATO fraud.  Intuit has not demonstrated that the
Plaintiffs have unambiguously "abandoned" their ATO-related
claims.  Although Intuit's arguments as to the role of ATO-type
fraud in this case may be pertinent to issues such as class
certification, they are not an appropriate basis to limit
discovery at this stage in light of the class definition in the
operative complaint.  The Plaintiffs have shown that discovery of
the ATO documents is necessary to enable them to present evidence
as to whether their proposed class or subclasses are appropriate.
Therefore, she concludes that the ATO documents are relevant.

Accordingly, Judge van Keulen ordered Intuit to produce the ATO
documents to the Plaintiffs.  The parties are to meet and confer
regarding a reasonable production schedule for the documents and,
if they are unable to agree, must submit a joint letter brief to
her.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/OWLkE5 from Leagle.com.

Christine Diaz, Plaintiff, represented by David Christopher Wright
-- dcw@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

Christine Diaz, Plaintiff, represented by Jae Kook Kim --
jkk@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, John A.
Yanchunis -- JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com -- Morgan and Morgan,
P.A., pro hac vice, Michael W. Sobol -- msobol@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn Soffin --
RSoffin@ForThePeople.com -- Morgan and Morgan, Roger Norton Heller
--  rheller@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein LLP, Joel
R. Rhine, Rhine Law Firm, pro hac vice, Joseph Jeremy Siprut --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Steven William Teppler, Abbott
Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune, Jr. --
rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

David Stock, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis, Morgan
and Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice, Julian Ari Hammond, HammondLaw,
PC, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP,
Roger Norton Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice &
Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

James Lebinski, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis,
Morgan and Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice, Mark S. Goldman --
goldman@lawgsp.com -- Goldman Scarlato & Penny, P.C., Melissa Ann
Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Roger Norton
Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Steven William
Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice & Michael W. Sobol,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Carol Knoch, Plaintiff, represented by Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg
LLP, pro hac vice, Henry J. Kelston, Milberg LLP, Melissa Ann
Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Roger Norton
Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Steven William
Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice & Michael W. Sobol,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Richard Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg
LLP, Henry J. Kelston, Milberg LLP, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Roger Norton Heller, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law
Group, P.A., pro hac vice.

Intuit, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rodger R. Cole --
rcole@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Alexis Caloza --
acaloza@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP, Angel Chiang --
achiang@fenwick.com -- Carly Lee Bittman, Fenwick and West &
Hailey Coltra Teton -- hteton@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pelvic Mesh Victims Balk at Sexual Suggestions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Knaus, writing for The Guardian, reports that
Australian victims of faulty pelvic mesh implants have expressed
disgust at doctors' suggestions of anal intercourse as a solution
to their ruined sex lives.

A disturbing email exchange between doctors emerged as part of a
federal court class action in Australia, which was launched by
hundreds of women who had the devices implanted to treat common
childbirth complications.

The devices, manufactured by pharmaceutical giant Johnson &
Johnson, caused chronic and debilitating pain, including during
intercourse.

The emails reflected a callous attitude towards women among French
gynaecologists involved with the company.

In the emails, doctors talk about alternatives to sex for women
suffering painful intercourse.  "It is no less true that sodomy
could be a good alternative!" one doctor wrote.  Another discussed
the difficulty of raising sexual matters with his patients.

"I said to myself, there you go, for your next prolapse [patient],
you talk to her about orgasms.  OK! But also about fellatio,
sodomy, the clitoris with or without G-spot etc," he wrote.  "I am
sure of one thing: that I would very quickly be treated like some
kind of sex maniac (which, perhaps, I am) or a pervert, or an
unhealthily curious person."

The attitudes accord with evidence before the current Senate
inquiry into the devices, which has heard women were advised to
consider anal intercourse as a solution to the extreme pain caused
by intercourse.

The comments outraged members of the Australian Pelvic Mesh
Support Group, which sent Guardian Australia a collection of
anonymised responses from women to the revelations.

Many of the women said they had encountered similar attitudes from
their own doctors.

"My husband and I were given advice [about] sexual activity," one
woman said.  "We were gobsmacked.  The whole sexual deviation
thing is supposed to make the pain and complications from mesh go
away.  I find this type of advice disgusting."

Another woman said the comments were demoralising and devalued
women.  She said they represented another form of abuse.

"Our vaginas have been abused by mesh and now doctors are
suggesting our anus be abused.  Despicable! Only a misogynist
could think this way," she said.

A third woman wrote that the "appalling" comments showed a
complete lack of respect to the women involved.  Another wrote
that they suggested women were nothing more than a receptacle to
satisfy men.

"The suggestion that women who are unable to have vaginal
intercourse should practise anal instead completely devalues a
woman's right to a full and healthy sex life as an active,
empowered and fulfilled participant," she said.

"It suggests that a woman is nothing more than a receptacle to
satisfy men and that 'any hole will do'.  I'm appalled that
anyone, particularly a woman's treating medical practitioner,
would be so thoughtless and arrogant as to suggest that anal sex
is an adequate solution to sexual dysfunction."

Greens senator Rachel Siewert is chairing the senate inquiry into
the devices.  Ms. Siewert described the treatment of many of the
women as appalling.

"The way many women have been treated when trying to get treatment
and support when they have had bad outcomes from mesh implants is
appalling, including suggestions by medical professionals that
anal intercourse is an alternative to vaginal intercourse after
mesh implants have gone terribly wrong," she said.

"We have heard a lot of harrowing evidence during the inquiry --
so many women have been horribly impacted by mesh implants.  There
is a clear pattern emerging of poor processes and advice which is
leading to women having their lives severely impacted."

The class action is continuing in the federal court. [GN]


JON BELMAR: "Furlow" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled DWAYNE FURLOW et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
JON BELMAR et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00254-JAR
(E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant certification of
two classes.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric A. Stone, Esq.
          Timothy J. Holland, Esq.
          Charles J. Hamilton III, Esq.
          Elizabeth J. Grossman, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON
          AND GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-6064
          Telephone: (212) 373 3000
          Facsimile: (212) 757 3990
          E-mail: tholland@paulweiss.com
                  estone@paulweiss.com
                  chamilton@paulweiss.com
                  egrossman@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
          Michael-John Voss, Esq.
          Blake A. Strode, Esq.
          ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC.
          Nathaniel R. Carroll 67988MO
          1210 Locust Street, 2nd Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63103
          Telephone: (855) 724 2489
          Facsimile: (314) 925 1307
          E-mail: tharvey@archicitydefenders.org
                  mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org
                  bstrode@archcitydefenders.org
                  ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org

               - and -

          Baher Azmy, Esq.
          Darius Charney, Esq.
          Omar Farah, Esq.
          Angelo Guisado, Esq.
          CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
          666 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: 212 614 6464
          Facsimile: 212 614 6499
          E-mail: bazmy@ccrjustice.org
                  dcharney@ccrjustice.org
                  ofarah@ccrjustice.org
                  aguisado@ccrjustice.org


KANOA: Backers Mull Class Action Following Shutdown
---------------------------------------------------
David Z. Morris, writing for Fortune.com, reports that Kanoa, a
crowdfunded company promising its backers a pair of innovative
wireless headphones, has announced that it will shut down without
delivering products to most of them.  The shutdown comes after a
string of challenges, but the final nail in the coffin may have
been a merciless YouTube video posted on Aug. 19 in which a
reviewer found numerous basic flaws with the product -- and
alleged that the company tried to bribe him for positive coverage.

Kanoa's journey began in 2015, when its successful crowdfunding
campaign promised in-ear wireless headphones with a sharp charging
case and smart features like adjustable ambient sound pass-
through.  According to the company's parting message, the
following year saw them encountering technical challenges and
starting over from scratch.

They began to ship a few units to backers and reviewers, but they
were apparently still not up to snuff.  Technology reviewer Cody
Crouch, also known as iTwe4kz, received a review unit from the
company, and . . . well, things got rough.

Mr. Crouch's review video is like a horrific car crash -- hard to
watch, but impossible to turn away from.  It chronicles his
Sisyphean struggle to get the headphones, which were planned to
retail for $300, to perform basic functions like connecting to his
phone.  Kanoa's promised pass-through feature produced
unlistenable feedback, and they didn't reliably connect when
Mr. Crouch had his phone in his rear pocket.  The fancy charging
case, stunningly, wouldn't charge the headphones while plugged in.

Mr. Crouch says he was in communication with the Kanoa team
through all of these struggles, and offered to review an improved
version of the product if they sent him one.  But he eventually
concluded that he had been sent a production unit and decided to
go ahead with an honest review.

That, according to Mr. Crouch, is when things got really dark.  He
claims that a Kanoa representative sent him a long email detailing
the headphone's features, which concluded with: "I know that
you're busy and your time is valuable, so if you can get a good
review, or a good video, out by Sunday, we'll give you $500."

Visibly incensed by the offer of a bribe, Mr. Crouch offered a
pointed summary of Kanoa and its product:

"This is trash.  You don't want to have these. This is not a
company that you want to deal with."

Within four days, Kanoa was finished. The company even alluded to
the review in its shutdown announcement, saying that "reviews of
non-shippable beta units" led to customer complaints and, more
dramatically, the loss of promised investments.  Kanoa's
announcement did not reference any possibility for refunds, saying
that its customer service and social media staff have been laid
off along with other employees.  Some Kanoa backers are now
organizing a class action lawsuit, though it's unclear where any
proceeds would come from. [GN]


KOVITZ SHIFRIN: "Chacon" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WENDY CHACON, on behalf of herself and all
other similar situated, the Plaintiff, v. KOVITZ SHIFRIN NESBIT,
an Illinois, Professional Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-02766 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks Court for an order
certifying two classes:

Count I Class consisting of:

   "(a) individual(s) who own (s)a unit property within an
   Homeowner's association governed by or formed under the
   Illinois Common Interest Community Association Act, (b) who
   received a form collection letter similar to Plaintiff's form
   Collection Letter, and whose collection letters were not
   returned by the United States Postal Service as undelivered or
   undeliverable. The class period is between September 17, 2016
   and April 12, 2017, the date of filing of this action.
   Excluded from the Class are Kovitz, any entity in which Kovitz
   has a controlling interest, any officers or directors of
   Kovitz, the legal representative, heirs, successors, and
   assigns of Kovitz, and any Judge assigned to this action, and
   his or her family"; and

Count II Class consisting of:

   "(a) individual(s) who own(s) a unit property within a
   homeowner's association governed by or formed under the
   Illinois Common Interest Community Association Act, (b) was
   sued by Kovitz in an attempt to collect a debt for assessment,
   and whose lawsuits contained substantially similar, or
   identical to the allegations in Plaintiff's State Action. The
   class period is between September 17, 2016 and April 12, 2017,
   the date of filing of this action. Excluded from the Class are
   Kovitz, any entity in which Kovitz has a controlling interest,
   any officers or directors of Kovitz, the legal representative,
   heirs, successors, and assigns of Kovitz, and any Judge
   assigned to this action, and his or her family.

The Plaintiff also asks that the Court enter an order appointing
Plaintiff as the class representative and Kenneth M. DucDuong of
KMD Law Office, Ltd. as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth M. DucDuong, Esq.
          KMD LAW OFFICE, LTD.
          4001 W. Devon Ave., Ste. 332
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 997 5959
          Facsimile: (312) 219 8404
          E-mail: kducduong@kmdlex.com


LH 690: Class Certification Bid in "Shabotinsky" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled David Shabotinsky, the Plaintiff, v.
Deutsche Lufthansa, A.G., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04865
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon, Judge Elaine E. Bucklo entered an order
denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification in a lawsuit
over a 2014 cancelled Lufthansa flight.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 21,
2017, Judge Bucklo held that the first prerequisite to a class
action is that a class "is so numerous that joinder of all members
is impracticable." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Plaintiff has offered
various class definitions in this case, in his complaint, in court
on March 17, 2017 and March 3 2017, and in his motion for class
certification. In my order dated March 17, 2017, I rejected
plaintiff's attempt to base a class on Lufthansa flights other
than the canceled flight from Frankfurt to Tel Aviv on August 25,
2014 (flight 690). I understood at that time that plaintiff agreed
that only persons who flew on plaintiff's flight from Chicago on
August 24, 2014 and were scheduled to fly on the canceled Tel Aviv
flight were in his potential class. However, plaintiff now argues
that anyone on any U.S. flight to Frankfurt (he is vague about the
date the flight from the United States had to take place), who was
scheduled to fly on the canceled Frankfurt to Tel Aviv flight is
part of his class. The motion for class certification actually
contains a proposed class that is arguably broader still, defining
the class to include any person residing in the United States who
had a confirmed reservation on the canceled flight, assuming the
person has not received compensation as required under Article 19
of the Montreal Convention. The broader definition in plaintiff's
motion for class certification is rejected on the ground that the
mere fact that a person resides in the United States cannot confer
this court's jurisdiction over a canceled flight from Germany to
Tel Aviv, Israel."

The Court further said, "I also reject plaintiff's alternative
proposed class of persons who traveled, or were scheduled to
travel, on any flight from the United States to Frankfurt, with a
connection to the canceled flight. I note, first, that plaintiff's
definition would presumably include non-Lufthansa flights, raising
jurisdictional issues, and at any rate include Lufthansa flights
from other parts of the United States. In either case, the
individual issues relating to discovery and evidence with respect
to each connecting flight would clearly outweigh questions of fact
common to a class. Plaintiff is left with two other persons
besides himself who took the flight from Chicago to Frankfurt and
then a flight (delayed by three hours from the original scheduled
flight) from Frankfurt to Tel Aviv. Three persons have never been
held to be a sufficient number to justify class certification
under Fed. R. Civ. P."

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OD4yTGuZ


LOGAN TOWNSHIP: Faces Potential CA Over Housing Development Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Kibler, writing for Altoona Mirror, reports that a lawsuit
threatened by the developer who initiated the 100-acre Strawberry
Hills housing development could stymie Logan Township's efforts to
find a use for the parcel.

"My lawyers are preparing a lawsuit," Victor Ruggery told the
supervisors at the regular meeting that preceded one dedicated to
supervised brainstorming about Strawberry Hills, the site of one
of the former Stotler landfills, one heavily used by the railroad.

The supervisors have "defamed" his name and lately have been
"slurring" the name of the development, said Ruggery, who went
bankrupt and lost the project in the early 2000s.

Following that loss, a Lancaster firm proposed building up to 600
homes, but didn't follow through due in part to road access
problems, eventually giving way to a bankruptcy trust that donated
the property to the township in 2015.

The township -- particularly solicitor Larry Clapper -- caused
Ruggery to lose the development with repeated "roadblocks,"
Ruggery said.

"It was despicable the way the township treated me," he said.

The proposed lawsuit has the potential to become a class action
comprising potential homeowners who put money down and had
contracts to build. Others with damaged interests include builders
those potential homeowners would have engaged, Ruggery said.

There's also the matter of unrealized profit, he added.

He's prepared to take the suit through appeal after appeal to the
highest court, he said.

He borrowed for the project, committed all the money he had,
investing $1 million and six years of his life, buying the
property acre-by-acre, and it's not fair for others to reap the
benefits, he told the supervisors.

It's also wrong that the state Department of Environmental
Protection at one time had approved ground for building homes,
then later withdrew that permission, he said.

Early on, he suspected the township was angling to take over, and
events proved him right, he said.

Supervisors Chairman Jim Patterson said he can't respond, given
the threat of the lawsuit.

"Thanks for coming," he told Ruggery. "However things lay out,
things (will) lay out."

After the meeting, Patterson explained that the DEP withdrew its
approval of the ground for homes -- there's a blanket prohibition
against using any of the site for residential construction -- only
after Ruggery had lost control.

At the brainstorming session, Ruggery alerted attendees of his
hope to regain control and build "decent" homes in one area. He's
fine with leaving the rest green space, he told the approximately
40 attendees, who favored green space for the tract more than any
other option discussed. [GN]


MDL 1674: $8.4MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Mortgage Lending Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: COMMUNITY BANK OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA
MORTGAGE LENDING PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 1674 (W.D. Pa.),
Judge Arthur James Schwab of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania granted the Motion to Confirm
Costs and Attorneys' Fees Awarded to R. Bruce Carlson, Esquire.

The Parties to this class action agreed to resolve their dispute
in accordance with certain terms they set forth in a Final and
Binding Settlement Agreement dated Aug. 8, 2016.  The Court
approved the Settlement Agreement along with the terms and
procedures set forth therein, subject to further consideration at
the Final Approval Hearing.

After Notice was provided to the Class, the Court granted the
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action
Settlement.  In so doing, it honored the terms set forth the
Parties' Settlement Agreement and appointed a Three-Person
Arbitration Panel to make their ruling as to the "high" or "low"
amount submitted by the Parties and to determine attorneys' fees
and expenses, which was to be paid solely from the selected
number.

After the Panel's appointment, but before the three Arbitration
Panelists heard the case and determined the award, one Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, amended, was filed.  The Court denied without
prejudice, the Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees because the Aug.
8, 2016 Agreement provided that the three-person Arbitration Panel
would also determine attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Arbitration Panel, after a comprehensive 13-day hearing,
issued a "Unanimous Decision" on March 24, 2017 announcing the
amount to be awarded to the Plaintiff Class ($24,000,000).  The
Panel also approved the attorneys' fees of 35% of the Final
Settlement Amount ($8,400,000), less costs and expenses to the
extent that they exceed $1,150,000.

Despite the representations made by "all Class Counsel" to the
Arbitration Panel, Atty. Carlson's prior law firm, Specter Specter
Evans & Manogue ("SSEM"), now claims that it is entitled to a
portion of the attorney fees to be paid out in this matter.  SSEM
relies upon its June 30, 2004, "Separation Agreement" with
Attorney Carlson, and an earlier document dated Feb. 6, 2004,
entitled "Agreement," to substantiate its claim to a portion of
Attorney Carlson's attorneys' fees to be paid in the case.

Meanwhile, in the Court, Atty. Carlson filed a Motion and Brief in
Support to conform costs and attorneys' fees awarded to him, and
to stay the State Court litigation initiated by SSEM.  In his
Motion and Brief, Atty. Carlson argued that the Court has
ancillary jurisdiction over this fee dispute.  The Court granted
Atty. Carlson's Motion to stay the State Court lawsuit, thereby
suggesting it had ancillary jurisdiction.

SSEM filed a Motion/Response to Attorney Carlson's Motion to
Conform Fees and a Motion to Vacate the Order of Court Asserting
Ancillary Jurisdiction; and Motion and Brief in Support to Vacate
Order Asserting Ancillary Jurisdiction.  Attorney Carlson filed a
Reply to the Motion/Response filed by Attorney Stein.

SSEM contends that ancillary jurisdiction is inappropriate because
the state court proceedings have absolutely nothing whatsoever to
do with the settlement of or legal fees awarded in this class
action.  However, given the Court's participation (which began in
May of 2013), and its in-depth involvement with the Parties and
their mediator which led to the Agreement on a method by which
this case could be settled (after 14 years of prolonged
litigation), by a panel of three of arbitrators using a baseball
arbitration technique, Judge Shwab firmly disagrees with SSEM's
position.  He accordingly finds it has ancillary jurisdiction over
the attorney fee dispute in this matter.

Based on the plain reading of Feb. 6, 2004 Agreement, Judge Schwab
finds the phrase, "assuming the district court's Order is affirmed
on appeal" to be a condition precedent.  The history of this case
readily shows that on Aug. 11, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit did not affirm the district court's Order; to
the contrary the Aug. 11, 2005 Court of Appeals Order was vacated
and the matter was remanded back to the late Chief Judge
Lancaster, and it continued to be litigated for an additional 12
years.  Therefore, because the prerequisite was not met, Atty.
Carlson is excused from his performance of his obligation(s) under
terms set forth in the Feb. 6, 2004 contract.

Subsequent to the Feb. 6, 2004 Agreement, Atty. Carlson and SSEM
entered into the June 30, 2004 Agreement which set forth a fee
sharing arrangement with respect to the instant matter.  Again,
like the Feb. 6, 2004 Agreement, Judge Schwab finds that the
"approval of the $8.1 million fee" was a condition precedent.
Thus, because the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in its
2005 decision did not approve "the $8.1 million fee," Atty.
Carlson is excused from his performance of his obligation(s) under
terms set forth in this June 30, 2004 contract.

For these reasons, Judge Schwab finds that neither of the two
agreements between Carlson and SSEM obligates Carlson to perform.
Accordingly, he granted the Motion to Confirm Costs and Attorneys'
Fees.

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

DAVID R. COHEN, Special Master, represented by David Rosenblum
Cohen -- david@specialmaster.law -- David R. Cohen Co. LPA.

BRIAN W. AND CARLA M. KESSLER, Plaintiff, represented by A. Hoyt
Rowell -- hrowell@rpwb.com -- Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook &
Brickman, Daniel O. Myers -- dmyers@domlawoffice.com -- The Law
Offices of Daniel O. Myers, Michael E. McCarthy, R. Bruce Carlson
-- bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela,
LLP, Benjamin J. Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch
Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Carlos R. Diaz, Carlson Lynch LTD, David M.
Skeens -- DSKEENS@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters, Bender, Strohbehn &
Vaughan, Edwin J. Kilpela -- ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson
Lynch LTD, Gary F. Lynch, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP,
James L. Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC, Jamisen A. Etzel
-- jetzel@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP,
R. Frederick Walters -- FWALTERS@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters, Bender,
Strohbehn & Vaughan, Stephanie K. Goldin --
sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP,
Sunshine R. Fellows -- sfellows@levicofflaw.com -- The Levicoff
Law Firm, P.C. & Robert S. Wood -- bwood@rpwb.com -- Richardson,
Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC, pro hac vice.

JOHN A. NIXON, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin J. Sweet,
Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, David M. Skeens, Walters,
Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan, Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch LTD,
James L. Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC & R. Frederick
Walters, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan.

KATHY NIXON, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin J. Sweet, Carlson
Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, David M. Skeens, Walters, Bender,
Strohbehn & Vaughan, Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch LTD, James L.
Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC & R. Frederick Walters,
Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan.

ELLEN SABO, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin J. Sweet, Carlson
Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, David M. Skeens, Walters, Bender,
Strohbehn & Vaughan, Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch LTD, James L.
Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC & R. Frederick Walters,
Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan.

WILLIAM SABO, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin J. Sweet, Carlson
Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, David M. Skeens, Walters, Bender,
Strohbehn & Vaughan, Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch LTD, James L.
Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC & R. Frederick Walters,
Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan.

MARTIN J. BARATZ, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Skeens,
Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan, James L. Ward, Jr., McGowan,
Hood & Felder, LLC & R. Frederick Walters, Walters, Bender,
Strohbehn & Vaughan.

TAMMY WASEM, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin J. Sweet, Carlson
Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, David M. Skeens, Walters, Bender,
Strohbehn & Vaughan, Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch LTD, James L.
Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC & R. Frederick Walters,
Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan.

DAVID WASEM, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin J. Sweet, Carlson
Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, David M. Skeens, Walters, Bender,
Strohbehn & Vaughan, Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch LTD, James L.
Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC & R. Frederick Walters,
Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan.

PHILIP F. KOSSLER, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by A. Hoyt
Rowell, Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, Daniel O.
Myers, The Law Offices of Daniel O. Myers, R. Bruce Carlson,
Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Benjamin J. Sweet, Carlson
Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Carlos R. Diaz, Carlson Lynch LTD,
David M. Skeens, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan, Edwin J.
Kilpela, Carlson Lynch LTD, James L. Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood &
Felder, LLC, Jamisen A. Etzel, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP,
R. Frederick Walters, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan,
Stephanie K. Goldin, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Sunshine
R. Fellows, The Levicoff Law Firm, P.C. & Robert S. Wood,
Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC, pro hac vice.

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant Consolidated,
represented by Darryl J. May, PNC, N.A., Joel E. Tasca --
TASCABALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP,
pro hac vice, Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Ballard Spahr LLP, Joseph F.
McDonough -- joseph.mcdonough@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll &
Rooney & Kevin P. Lucas -- kevin.lucas@bipc.com -- Buchanan
Ingersoll & Rooney.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Joseph
P. Pohl, III, Reed Smith.

FRANK JONES, JR., Movant, represented by Scott C. Borison --
borison@legglaw.com -- Legg Law Firm & Stanley A. Kirshenbaum.

DEBORAH A. JONES, Movant, represented by Scott C. Borison, Legg
Law Firm & Stanley A. Kirshenbaum.

MICHAEL LANE, Movant, represented by Scott C. Borison, Legg Law
Firm & Stanley A. Kirshenbaum.

MARCOS ESCALANTE, Movant, represented by Scott C. Borison, Legg
Law Firm & Stanley A. Kirshenbaum.

CHERYL WHITE-BERRY, Movant, represented by Scott C. Borison, Legg
Law Firm & Stanley A. Kirshenbaum.

WILLIAM P. GORNY, Movant, represented by Scott C. Borison, Legg
Law Firm & Stanley A. Kirshenbaum.

RINALDO SWAYNE, Movant, represented by Scott C. Borison, Legg Law
Firm & Stanley A. Kirshenbaum.

DAVID D. DAVISON, Movant, represented by Scott C. Borison, Legg
Law Firm.


MDL 2284: Court Affirms Denial of Bordases' Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES
TO: ALL ACTIONS, (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene E. K. Pratter of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania affirmed
the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel denying the appeal of
James and Linda Bordas that centers on the ratings of their 42
trees.

In the fall of 2010, DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide
designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-
target vegetation.  After widespread reports of damage to non-
target vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
began investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of
Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling
Imprelis.  In September 2011, DuPont started its own Claim
Resolution Process to compensate victims of Imprelis damage.
Despite this voluntary process, various plaintiffs continued to
pursue their lawsuits, alleging consumer fraud/protection act
violations, breach of express and/or implied warranty, negligence,
strict products liability, nuisance, and trespass claims based on
the laws of numerous states.

After months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the
parties came to a settlement agreement.  The Imprelis Class Action
Settlement covers three classes of Imprelis Plaintiffs.  Among the
three settlement classes is a property owner class.  That class
includes all persons or entities who own or owned property in the
United States to which Imprelis was applied from Aug. 31, 2010
through Aug. 21, 2011, as well as all persons who own or owned
property adjacent to property to which Imprelis was applied and
whose trees showed damage from Imprelis on or before the date of
entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, or Feb. 11, 2013.  Under
the Settlement, property owner class members who filed claims by
the claims deadline would receive tree removal (or compensation
for tree removal), payments for replacement trees, tree care and
maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for incidental damages.
The Settlement included a warranty that provided for all benefits
but the 15% incidental damages award for Imprelis damage that
manifested after the claims period closed but before May 31, 2015.
On Feb. 12, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement,
and on Sept. 27, 2013, the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing.
On Oct. 17, 2013, it granted the Class Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of the Settlement.

After three inspections and reviews by multiple arborists of 57
trees on the Bordases' property, DuPont rated 15 of the Bordases'
trees for removal and replacement, 14 for tree care, and 28 for no
action.  The Bordases ultimately appealed the ratings of 42 trees
to the Appeals Panel, asking that the vast majority of those 42
trees be rated for removal and replacement.  The Panel denied the
appeal in full.  The Bordases' appeal the decision of the Imprelis
Arborist Panel, claiming that several of their trees were so
damaged by Imprelis that they should be rated for removal and
replacement.

Judge Pratter finds that their appeal centers on the ratings of 41
trees.  They submit a wealth of photographic evidence and their
own arborist's report in support of their appeal.  It is clear
from the Appeals Panel's statement that they reviewed this same
evidence in detail and were not convinced that DuPont's prior
assessments should be disturbed.  The Bordases have not
demonstrated that the Arborist Panel's decision was arbitrary or
capricious.  After an independent review of the evidence, Judge
Pratter held that because the Appeals Panel decision in the
Bordases' case was neither arbitrary nor capricious, she affirmed
the Panel's unanimous decision and denied the Bordases' appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/Yzltz4 from Leagle.com.


MDL 2284: Court Affirms Denial of T. LaFollette's Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES
TO: ALL ACTIONS, (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene E. K. Pratter of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania affirmed
the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel denying Thomas
LaFollette's appeal that the DuPont inspector should have
inspected a fourth tree and compensated him for it.

In the fall of 2010, DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide
designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-
target vegetation.  After widespread reports of damage to non-
target vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
began investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of
Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling
Imprelis.  In September 2011, DuPont started its own Claim
Resolution Process to compensate victims of Imprelis damage.
Despite this voluntary process, various plaintiffs continued to
pursue their lawsuits, alleging consumer fraud/protection act
violations, breach of express and/or implied warranty, negligence,
strict products liability, nuisance, and trespass claims based on
the laws of numerous states.

After months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the
parties came to a settlement agreement.  The Imprelis Class Action
Settlement covers three classes of Imprelis Plaintiffs.  Among the
three settlement classes is a property owner class.  That class
includes all persons or entities who own or owned property in the
United States to which Imprelis was applied from Aug. 31, 2010
through Aug. 21, 2011, as well as all persons who own or owned
property adjacent to property to which Imprelis was applied and
whose trees showed damage from Imprelis on or before the date of
entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, or Feb. 11, 2013.  Under
the Settlement, property owner class members who filed claims by
the claims deadline would receive tree removal (or compensation
for tree removal), payments for replacement trees, tree care and
maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for incidental damages.
The Settlement included a warranty that provided for all benefits
but the 15% incidental damages award for Imprelis damage that
manifested after the claims period closed but before May 31, 2015.

On Feb. 12, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement,
and on Sept. 27, 2013, the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing.
On Oct. 17, 2013, it granted the Class Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of the Settlement.

A Davey Tree arborist inspected three trees on Mr. LaFollette's
property and recommended one tree for tree care and two for no
action.  Mr. Lafollette then raised two issues with the Appeals
Panel -- the valuation of his claim and the failure of the
inspector to evaluate a fourth tree.  The Panel denied the appeal.
LaFollette appeals the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel,
claiming that the DuPont inspector missed one tree that should be
rated for removal.

Judge Pratter finds that Mr. LaFollette focuses his appeal to on
one issue -- whether DuPont should have inspected a fourth tree
and compensated him for it.  He provided a few photographs with
his appeal, but those photographs are undated and do not allow for
an assessment of the tree's symptoms.  Based on the lack of any
evidence that would allow them to properly evaluate that tree, the
Appeals Panel denied Mr. LaFollette.  Mr. Lafollette now seems to
argue that because the damage to the tree happened after Imprelis
was applied, Imprelis must have been the cause of the damage.
However, the Judge finds that Mr. LaFollette's circumstantial
evidence, without more, is insufficient to prove causation.
Because the Appeals Panel decision in Mr. LaFollette's case was
neither arbitrary nor capricious, Judge Pratter affirmed their
decision and denied Mr. LaFollette's appeal.

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


MDL 2284: Court Affirms Denial of J. Masserant's Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES
TO: ALL ACTIONS, (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene E. K. Pratter of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania affirmed
the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel denying John
Masserant's appeal for lack of evidence.

In the fall of 2010, DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide
designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-
target vegetation.  After widespread reports of damage to non-
target vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
began investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of
Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling
Imprelis.  In September 2011, DuPont started its own Claim
Resolution Process to compensate victims of Imprelis damage.
Despite this voluntary process, various plaintiffs continued to
pursue their lawsuits, alleging consumer fraud/protection act
violations, breach of express and/or implied warranty, negligence,
strict products liability, nuisance, and trespass claims based on
the laws of numerous states.  After months of settlement
discussions, including mediation, the parties came to a settlement
agreement.

The Imprelis Class Action Settlement covers three classes of
Imprelis Plaintiffs.  Among the three settlement classes is a
property owner class.  That class includes all persons or entities
who own or owned property in the United States to which Imprelis
was applied from Aug. 31, 2010 through Aug. 21, 2011, as well as
all persons who own or owned property adjacent to property to
which Imprelis was applied and whose trees showed damage from
Imprelis on or before the date of entry of the Preliminary
Approval Order, or Feb. 11, 2013.  Under the Settlement, property
owner class members who filed claims by the claims deadline would
receive tree removal (or compensation for tree removal), payments
for replacement trees, tree care and maintenance payments, and a
15% payment for incidental damages.  The Settlement included a
warranty that provided for all benefits but the 15% incidental
damages award for Imprelis damage that manifested after the claims
period closed but before May 31, 2015.

On Feb. 12, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement,
and on Sept. 27, 2013, the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing.
On Oct. 17, 2013, it granted the Class Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of the Settlement.

After a warranty inspection of Mr. Masserant's trees, seven trees
were recommended for removal and replacement and 10 were
recommended for tree care.  Mr. Masserant appealed his notice of
warranty resolution to the Arborist Panel on Sept. 30, 2014.
However, he did not provide any details concerning what he wished
to appeal or include any evidence supporting his appeal.  The
Panel denied the appeal.  Mr. Masserant appeals the decision of
the Imprelis Arborist Panel, claiming that a number of trees rated
for tree care should be rated for removal.

Mr. Masserant appeals from the Arborist Panel's decision to deny
his appeal for lack of evidence.  He now clarifies that he was
challenging the tree ratings for the trees recommended for care,
and he includes several pictures for Judge Pratter's review, the
Judge's review is limited to that evidence presented to the
Appeals Panel, and Mr. Masserant presented no evidence to the
Appeals Panel.  Indeed, he did not even identify for the Appeals
Panel the issues he intended to raise on appeal.  And because the
Appeals Panel decision in Mr. Masserant's case was neither
arbitrary nor capricious, Judge Pratter affirmed their decision
and denied Mr. Masserant's appeal.

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


MDL 2437: Court Certifies Class in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs' ("DPPs") Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned IN RE: DOMESTIC DRYWALL ANTITRUST LITIGATION THIS
DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Direct Purchaser Actions, MDL No. 2437,
No. 13-MD-2437 (E.D. Pa.).

In the fall of 2011, several gypsum wallboard (drywall)
manufacturers in the United States announced substantial changes
to their pricing.  These announcements ended a long-standing
pricing practice called "job quotes" and scheduled a very large
price increase to commence in January 2012 and to be effective for
the entire year.  Then, in fall 2012, the same manufacturers again
announced a similar price increase to take effect in January 2013.

In this multidistrict litigation, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants' 2012 and 2013 price increases and other changes in
pricing practices were the result of an agreement, in violation of
federal and state antitrust laws.

At the outset of the Direct and Indirect Purchaser actions, a
consensus was reached among counsel and the Court that discovery
would be initially limited to whether there was an agreement
between any Defendants in violation of Sherman Act Section 1.  As
a result, the Court postponed discovery on class certification
issues.  After the first-phase of discovery period was completed,
with intra-party and third-party discovery, the Court set a
deadline for the Defendants to move for summary judgment.
Following extensive briefing and argument, the Court filed an 85-
page detailed opinion denying summary judgment as to all but one
Defendant, Certainteed.

Presently before the Court is DPPs' Motion for Class
Certification.  Related to this motion is the Defendants' Daubert
Motion to Preclude the Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert, Dr.
Russell Lamb.  The Court previously ruled on the Motion to
Preclude, and held that Dr. Lamb's expert opinion and testimony
are admissible, and will be considered in support of DPPs' Motion
for Class Certification.

The Court has carefully considered the expert reports submitted by
the Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Russel Lamb in support of Class
Certification, and the reports of the Defendants' expert Dr. Jerry
Hausman in opposition to Class Certification.  In addition, it
heard oral argument on March 8, 2017, and, to more thoroughly
assess the experts' opinions, the Court held an evidentiary
hearing on April 25 and 27, during which both experts testified
and were subject to cross-examination.

Following the evidentiary hearing, the parties submitted post-
hearing briefing.  Then, to help with its understanding of the
econometric issues raised by the expert reports, the Court
appointed a technical advisor, Dr. Jeffrey Church of the
University of Calgary.  Dr. Church submitted a report.  Pursuant
to the Court's invitation, the Parties responded to Dr. Church's
Report.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all persons or
entities that purchased Paper-Backed Gypsum Wallboard in the
United States from Jan. 1, 2012 through Jan. 31, 2013 directly
from the Defendants or their wholly-owned subsidiaries.  The
proposed class is composed of about 14,000 entities, and includes
distributors, buying cooperatives, and contractors.  They seek
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

Judge Baylson concludes that Dr. Lamb has sufficiently responded
to Dr. Hausman's critiques.  In so holding, he does not conclude
that Dr. Lamb is necessarily "correct" but rather that he has
presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude
that all or nearly all the Plaintiffs were impacted by the
Defendants' alleged agreement to fix prices.  This supports the
conclusion that the Plaintiffs have shown, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that they can prove antitrust impact on a classwide
basis.  The Judge notes that Dr. Lamb's opinions and testimony are
entitled to more weight than Dr. Hausman's, in large part because
his opinions adhere to the factual record.

Judge Baylson further concludes that the Plaintiffs have shown, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that they will be able to prove
measurable damages on a classwide basis.  The damages alleged by
them relate directly to this price fixing scheme.  Though there
are various actions alleged by the Plaintiffs that contributed to
the effectiveness of the conspiracy, such as the elimination of
job quotes, these separate actions are alleged to have contributed
to the overall scheme, and do not form the basis of separate
theories of liability.

Like the plaintiffs' expert in Processed Egg, Dr. Lamb's damages
model here utilizes the same regression model he developed to
demonstrate antitrust impact.  Dr. Lamb, like Dr. Rausser in
Processed Egg, submits a formula to be used to allocate the
aggregated damages.  At this stage, the model is a workable
damages model.  It is sufficient to recognize that Dr. Lamb's
model allows for classwide proof of measurable damages.
Therefore, common issues predominate on the question of measurable
damages.

This determination is made without prejudice to the Court later
deciding to divide the certified class into sub-classes for
purposes of damages determinations.  These subclasses could be
based on purchaser size, type, or geographic location.  Hence, the
predominance requirement is satisfied.

For these reasons, Judge Baylson held that the Plaintiffs have
satisfied their burden of proof for class certification.
Accordingly, DPPs' Motion for Class Certification is granted.  The
counsel will proceed to implement the notice provisions of Rule
23.

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


MERCEDES-BENZ: Settles Class Action Over Heated Seats
-----------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that
Mercedes-Benz heated seats that allegedly can catch on fire will
be repaired for former and current owners and lessees of 2000-2007
M-Class, 2006-2007 R-Class and 2007 GL-Class vehicles equipped
with original seat heaters.

According to the Mercedes class-action lawsuit, about 270,000
vehicles are included in the proposed class-action settlement
after owners sued Mercedes claiming the seat heaters cause fires
and injuries.

Mercedes denies there are problems with the wiring or the heated
seats but will settle the suit to avoid prolonged and costly
litigation.

According to the Mercedes-Benz lawsuit, the problem exists because
copper wires used for the seat heaters can overheat and cause
smoke and fires.  Mercedes owners say seeing smoke and burned
seats are a common result of the seat heater wiring.

"I was about to pull off the parking lot when I noticed thick
white smoking coming from my seat.  I immediately turned off the
seat warmer.  The smoke dissipated afterwards.  I continued to
drive the car about 1/2 mile to the grocery store. I got out and
noticed a burn on seat." - 2007 Mercedes-Benz E350 owner / Little
Rock, Arkansas

"My husband was driving when he smelled something burning and then
felt something burning, he pulled over and jumped out to check and
found the seat warmer had malfunctioned and burned through the
seat, his shirt and had slightly burned him." - 2007 Mercedes-Benz
E350 owner / Yucaipa, California

Plaintiff Elizabeth Callaway says she noticed the smell of smoke
in her 2006 Mercedes-Benz R350 shortly after turning on the
driver-side seat heater.  A day later the car filled with smoke
and the seat heater allegedly caused a hole to burn through
Callaway's dress in addition to causing a deep burn in the seat
material.

Mercedes fought the action by telling the court that federal
regulators twice investigated alleged problems with the heated
seats and closed the investigations without finding issues with
the seat heaters.

Once the paperwork is done and the judge gives final approval to
the settlement terms, affected owners can receive free repairs
that involve dealers bypassing wires, or owners can receive
extended warranties for the seat covers.

For owners who already paid for repairs to their cars related to
seat heaters, Mercedes agrees to reimburse those owners up to
$1,000.

Attorneys for vehicle owners may receive more than $6 million.

The Mercedes-Benz heated seats lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California -
Elizabeth Callaway et al., v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Frank Sims & Stolper LLP, and
Yuhl Carr. [GN]


MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Court Certifies Class in "Devera" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CERILINA DEVERA and MARY NEUMER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT CORPORATION, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01349-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Lynn Adelman certified Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
of:

   "(a) all natural persons in the State of Wisconsin (b) who
   were sent a collection letter in the form [of the allegedly
   confusing letters], (c) seeking to collect a debt for
   personal, family or household purposes, (d) between November
   11, 2014, and the date that the Court enters an order
   certifying a class in this action, (e) that was not returned
   by the postal service.

Judge Adelman said a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
The alternative to the class would be dozens or hundreds of
separate suits in which plaintiffs seek to prove that Merchants's
discount-offer language violates the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act. Resolving that common question in a single suit is
the superior method, Judge Adelman said.

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: 7 Suits Filed in Missouri over Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------
Seven lawsuits were filed against Monsanto Company seeking damages
suffered by each Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of
Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the
herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate. Each Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or
glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and
unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper
warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The lawsuits are captioned as:

"ROBERT KING and CARLESA KING, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY
and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04843-VC (E.D.
Mo., July 28, 2017)";

"ALTON MCLENDON and BEVERLY MCLENDON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendant, 3:17-cv-04844-VC (E.D.
Mo., July 28, 2017)";

"WILLIAM MEDLIN as EXECUTOR of the Estate of BILLY MEDLIN, and
ZELLA MEDLIN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-
50, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04848-VC (E.D. Mo., July 28,
2017)";

"RICHARD MILLER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES
1-50, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04845-VC (E.D. Mo., July 28,
2017)";

"SUZANNE SIMPSON and ROGER SIMPSON the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04847-
VC (E.D. Mo., July 28, 2017)";

"RANDEL WHITE and PEGGY WHITE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY
and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04846-VC (E.D.
Mo., July 28, 2017)"; and

"PATRICIA HONAKER and CHARLES HONAKER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04842-
VC (E.D. Mo., July 28, 2017)".

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241 8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241 5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Jessica L. Richman. Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 723 4627
          Facsimile: (516) 723 4727
          E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com


MONTANA: DiFrancesco Files Class Action
---------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steve Bullock in his
official capacity as Governor of Montana. The case is styled as
Michael DiFrancesco, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Steve Bullock in his official capacity as
Governor of Montana, Tim Fox in his official capacity as Attorney
General of Montana, Sarah Garcia in her official capacity as
Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Division, Michele Snowberger in
her official capacity as Bureau Chief of the Driver Services
Bureau, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00066-SEH (D. Mont., August
31, 2017).

Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is a state-level government
agency that administers vehicle registration and driver
licensing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert Farris-Olsen, Esq.
   MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP
   401 N Last Chance Gulch
   PO Box 557
   Helena, MT 59624
   Tel: (406) 442-3261
   Fax: (406) 443-7294
   Email: rfolsen@mswdlaw.com


NAGLE & ZALLER: Faces "Archie" Suit in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nagle & Zaller, P.C.
The case is styled as Suzette Archie, individually and on behalf
of three classes of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Nagle
& Zaller, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02524-GJH (D. Md.,
August 31, 2017).

Nagle & Zaller, P.C. has been representing community associations
for over 30 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

The Defendant represented by:

   Stacey Ann Moffet, Esq.
   Eccleston and Wolf PC
   7240 Parkway Dr Fourth Fl
   Hanover, MD 21076
   Tel: (410) 752-7474
   Fax: (410) 752-0611
   Email: moffet@ewmd.com


NATIONAL ELECTORAL: Court Urged to Assess Damage From Demo
----------------------------------------------------------
CITIZENS Against Violence and Anarchy Trust (CAVAAT) have asked
the court to appoint a commissioner to assess the extent of damage
on property during last year's demonstration by opposition parties
under the banner of National Electoral Reform Agenda (Nera).

Charles Laiton, writing for News Day, reports that CAVAAT is a
local organisation aligned to the ruling Zanu PF that promotes
peace and business in the country.

The organisation filed its application on August 21 through its
trustee, Elton Paul Ziki, as a follow-up to the first court
application it made in June this year suing Nera for $1 million.

In November last year, CAVAAT filed another court application seek
to have Nera held accountable for the damages.

The losses were, however, not quantified and former police
assistant commissioner Faustino Mazango resolved to sue Nera for
damages in a bid to assist the affected victims recover their
property.

"This is an application in terms of Section 9 of the Class Action
Act (Chapter 8:17) which allows the court to appoint a
commissioner at any stage in a class action to assess and collate
evidence," Ziki said in his founding affidavit.

"The applicant's (CAVAAT) claim is based on the damages suffered
as a result of violence which took place during the demonstration
held by the respondent on August 26 2016 the applicant was granted
leave by this honourable court on January 25, 2017 to institute
class action. On June 15, 2017 applicant issued summons claiming
damages in the sum of $1 million.

"The respondent (Nera) was duly served with summons and a
declaration and has failed to enter an appearance to defend within
the dies induciae. Having failed to do so, the members of the
class are, therefore, entitled to default judgment."

Ziki further said notwithstanding that CAVAAT was entitled to a
default judgment, it was appropriate to have the damages proved
and assessed, adding at the time of filling the application, the
number of claims filed were 78 and more were still forthcoming.

"The applicant therefore considers it appropriate at this stage
for the court to appoint a commissioner who will assess damages
and make a report to the court on the quantum of damages
successfully proved," he said.

Ziki added that the nature and extent of the damage and or loss
caused to the individual properties and businesses was diverse.
The matter is yet to be set down for hearing. [GN]


NEBRASKA: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in "Valentine" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned VERONICA VALENTINE, the Plaintiff, v.
LISA VILLWOK, No. 1764; and JENNIFER HANSEN, No. 1585, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00131-LSC-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon.
Judge Michael D. Nelson denied Plaintiff's motion for
certification.

The Plaintiff asked the Court to certify class and appoint counsel
to represent class.  According to a hand-written document, the
lawsuit alleges illegal strip-searching of "Red, Yellow, Black,
White & Brown" albino women.  A copy of the Plaintiff's Motion is
available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jzyxc6vr

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

In its ruling, the Court said, "In review of Plaintiff's motion
and the operative pleadings in this case, the Court finds
Plaintiff's bare and general allegations are insufficient to
warrant certification of a class action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
provides that no class action may be certified unless the court
determines: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact
common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of
the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interest of the class. Plaintiff has not
made any kind of showing that the above requirements exist in this
case. Moreover, Plaintiff has not complied with this district's
class action procedures set forth in NECivR 23.1."

"Additionally, Plaintiff's motion to certify this case as a class
action is not proper at this stage of the proceedings," the Court
continued.  "Pursuant to this Court's January 20, 2017, Order
Setting Schedule for Progression of Case, Defendants should have
already drafted the Order on Final Pretrial Conference and
submitted it to Plaintiff by July 31, 2017. Plaintiff should have
already provided to defense counsel her additions and/or proposed
deletions to that draft by August 14, 2017. The jointly prepared
Proposed Order on Final Pretrial Conference is due to the Court by
August 28, 2017. By that time, the parties should have completed
"all items as directed in NECivR 16.2" and fully prepared for the
case "so that trial may begin at any time following the Pretrial
Conference." This proposed order is necessary before the
undersigned magistrate judge can hold a meaningful final pretrial
conference with the parties on September 11, 2017."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Er64Zotj


NESTLE USA: Settlement in "McFarland" Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOY McFARLAND, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NESTLE USA, INC. and
NESTLE PREPARED FOODS COMPANY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16-
cv-00100-JLH(E.D. Ark.), Judge James Leon Holmes of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted final
approval of the Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of the
Class and Collective Action Settlement, and the Class Counsel's
Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

Judge Holmes the approved (i) the Plaintiff's request for a
service payment of $2,500 for the Named Plaintiff; (ii) the Class
Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $49,450; and
the form and content of the Notice of Proposed Settlement.

Simpluris, Inc., will mail payments by check to Class Members
within 14 calendar days of the Settlement Effective Date as
defined in the Settlement Agreement.  The Class Members will have
120 calendar days after the date of mailing to cash their
settlement checks as provided in the Settlement Agreement.

If any checks are returned as undeliverable, Simpluris will update
the Class Members' last known mailing address through the National
Change of Address program certified by the U.S. Postal Service and
other standard skip trace methods and will re-send the check to
the new address.  If any Class Members do not cash their checks
within 120 days after mailing of the checks by Simpluris and their
check is not returned, their checks will be void and a stop-
payment will be placed.  If any redistributed checks are again
returned as undeliverable, their checks will be void and a stop-
payment will be placed.

Following the expiration of the period for the Class Members to
timely submit Claims Forms as specified in the Settlement
Agreement, the Class Counsel will apply to the Court for an Order,
on a form supplied by the Defendant and agreed to by the parties,
which dismisses the action on the merits and with prejudice any
individual or Class claims which are released by the settlement,
upon satisfaction of all payments and obligations.

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

Joy McFarland, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Sanford --
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm.

Joy McFarland, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Lee West --
west@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm.

Nestle USA Inc, Defendant, represented by Eric R. Magnus --
MagnusE@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Justin R. Barnes -
- BarnesJR@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & O. John
Norris, III -- NorrisJ@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C..

Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Defendant, represented by Eric R.
Magnus, Jackson Lewis P.C., Justin R. Barnes, Jackson Lewis P.C. &
O. John Norris, III, Jackson Lewis P.C.


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Legal Assistance Threatens to Renew Prison Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire Union Leader reports that after 12 years, William
Wrenn wants out of prison.

Mr. Wrenn will not seek a fourth term as commissioner of the
Department of Corrections, saying it is "time to pass the baton."

That baton will be heavy. New Hampshire prisons are facing huge
challenges.

The Executive Council was forced to spend $2.5 million to extend
the state's lease at the Goffstown women's prison through next
spring.  After spending $48 million to build a brand-new 224-bed
facility in Concord that was supposed to open a year ago, the
state can't staff it.

New Hampshire Legal Assistance is threatening to renew its class
action lawsuit if the state can't get the new prison opened.

The contract with Teamsters Local 633, the union representing
nearly 400 correctional officers, expired in June, and
negotiations on a new deal are at an impasse.  Gov. Chris Sununu
claims the union has turned down a 10-percent raise, which the
union disputes.

The union also wants more positions established, but the state
can't fill current jobs.  That results in correctional officers
working more than 10,000 hours of overtime a month for the past
three years, straining prison safety and the state budget.

The prison system has a hard time holding on to correctional
officers, who have to go through the state police academy. That
makes them tempting targets for law enforcement agencies.

Whoever takes over Mr. Wrenn's job should be focused on recruiting
and retaining prison staff, stopping the deadly flow of illegal
drugs into our prisons, and updating standards and training to
improve safety for New Hampshire prisoners and the public
employees who guard them. [GN]


NEWBURG ROAD: Bid to Strike Defenses in "Connector" Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge E. Richard Webber of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Some of Defendant's Affirmative
Defenses in the case captioned CONNECTOR CASTINGS, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. NEWBURG ROAD LUMBER CO., INC., Defendant, No. 4:17-
CV-01204-ERW (E.D.Mo.).

The Plaintiff filed the purported class action in state court on
March 29, 2017, alleging it received unsolicited fax
advertisements marketing the products, goods or services of
Defendant.  The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, statutory
damages, and treble damages under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), as well as attorneys' fees.  The Defendant
removed the action to the Court and filed an answer and eleven
affirmative defenses.

The Plaintiff now moves to strike to Defendant's first, second,
eighth, and ninth affirmative defenses.  The Defendant has filed a
memorandum in opposition.

The Plaintiff argues the defense is "legally insufficient" because
other federal courts have ruled the TCPA is not void for
vagueness. However, Judge Webber finds that the Plaintiff cites no
precedent from the Court or the Eighth Circuit to indicate the
Defendant's void-for-vagueness affirmative defense would fail as a
matter of law.  Accordingly, the Defendant fairly presents a
matter of law which the Court should hear, and the Plaintiff's
motion to strike the Defendant's second affirmative defense is
denied.

In its eighth affirmative defense, the Defendant asserts that any
claim alleged in the Complaint is barred to the extent the
Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its alleged damages.  The Court
and other courts have determined recipients of unsolicited faxed
advertisements have no duty to mitigate or to ask senders to stop
transmitting such advertisements.  Accordingly, Judge Webber held
that the Defendant's failure-to-mitigate affirmative defense
cannot succeed under any circumstances, and the Plaintiff's motion
to strike the Defendant's eighth affirmative defense is granted.

In its ninth affirmative defense, the Defendant asserts that any
claim alleged in the Complaint is barred because Newburg did not
have actual knowledge of any unlawful transmissions.  The Judge
finds that the Defendant's assertion that it did not have actual
knowledge of the unlawful faxes is therefore relevant to the
Plaintiff's allegation the Defendant ratified the acts.  Further,
the Plaintiff asks the statutory damages be trebled, which
requires a finding by the court that the violation was willful or
knowing.  Therefore, he concludes that the Plaintiff's motion to
strike the Defendant's ninth affirmative defense is denied.

In accordance with the foregoing, Judge Webber granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Some of
Defendant's Affirmative Defenses.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/WyvT3w from Leagle.com.

Connector Castings, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Robert Schultz
-- rschultz@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P..

Connector Castings, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ronald J.
Eisenberg -- reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES,
L.L.P..

Newburg Road Lumber Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Ann
L. Wymore -- mlw@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC &
Jasmine Yasar McCormick -- jmccormick@greensfelder.com --
GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC.


NIKITA LEVY: 8,000+ Checks Sent in Recording Case
-------------------------------------------------
The News and Observer reports that more than 8,000 checks have
been mailed to former patients of Johns Hopkins gynecologist Dr.
Nikita Levy as part of a class-action settlement involving the
secret recording of pelvic exams, but some have still not received
a full payment.

The Baltimore Sun reports some women have received only 80 percent
of their settlement award, because the trustee of the $190 million
settlement fund continues to try to resolve lien issues related to
Medicaid and Medicare.

Michael Lee, the chief operating officer of a Philadelphia company
handling the claims, says that since June about 8,100 checks have
been mailed. He says about 1,200 women received partial payments.

A total of 8,342 women were approved to receive settlement money
in the case. [GN]


NORTH AMERICAN: Prelim. Approval of Deal in "Claridge" Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JULIE CLARIDGE and HELEN MARSH, Plaintiffs,
v. NORTH AMERICAN POWER & GAS, LLC, Defendant, No. 15-cv-
1261(PKC)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion of
Ms. Claridge and Ms. Marsh for preliminary approval of the class
action settlement, and denied as moot the application of the
Edwards Plaintiff to intervene in the action.

The complaint was brought on behalf of a class of "thousands of
New York consumers" who were overcharged for electricity by the
Defendant.  The ratepayers were alleged to have entered into a New
York Electricity Sales Agreement.  The Court certified a class of
New York consumers who paid a variable monthly rate for
electricity that they purchased from North American.  Among other
conclusions, the Court determined that New York ratepayers
Claridge and Marsh were adequate Class Representatives and that
their claims, including claims of deceptive trade practices in
violation of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 349-d,
were typical of other class members.  The action was brought under
the Class Action Fairness Act, and no claims other than claims
under New York law were asserted.

Ms. Claridge and Ms. Marsh, through their counsel, now present a
proposed settlement for preliminary approval.  The proposed
settlement dramatically expands the class definition from a New
York-only class to a class that includes all ratepayers across the
nation who, after Feb. 20, 2012, had a contract for variable-rate
electric or gas service for more than 28 days.  At no time has Ms.
Claridge or Ms. Marsh sought to expand the definition of the class
or amend the claims in their complaint to include non-New Yorkers
or purchasers of natural gas.

Presently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut is a putative class action against North American
brought by Connecticut and New Hampshire ratepayers who are
represented by a different set of lawyers, Edwards v. North
American Power.  The Edwards action was filed on Nov. 14, 2014,
prior to the institution of New York action.  The lawyers who
represent Ms. Claridge and Ms. Marsh are also counsel in a
putative class actions brought on behalf of New Jersey, Rhode
Island and Illinois ratepayers.  There is no information before
the Court that would allow it to assess whether ratepayers in
states other than New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, Rhode Island and Illinois have potentially valid claims.

There has been no adequate showing of typicality and commonality
of the claims and defenses of New York electric ratepayers with
ratepayers, both gas and electric, in states other than New York.
Also, the proposed settlement would require scrutiny of whether
the settlement was infected by a reverse auction with the Edwards
plaintiff.

North American has now moved for a stay of the Edwards action
pending approval of the settlement present to the Court.

Judge Castel finds that to gloss over the preliminary approval
stage but then later conclude that Ms. Claridge and Ms. Marsh are
not adequate class representatives of electric and gas ratepayers
from other states and that their claims are not typical of these
other ratepayers' claims, would severely prejudice the Edwards
putative class members because of the likely delay during the
failed approval process.

The Judge is mindful of the efficiencies of a joint or
consolidated settlement hearing of claims that have some
significant similarities, even though they may have state-to-state
variances.  The counsel in Fritz and Zahn, who also represent the
class in this action, are free to seek a conditional transfer of
those actions to the Court for the limited purpose of Rule 23(e),
Fed. R. Civ. P., settlement proceedings.  That option is also open
to the Edwards plaintiffs.

For these reasons, Judge Castel denied the motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement, and denied as moot the
application of the Edwards plaintiff to intervene in this action.

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

Julie Claridge, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Gregory
Blankinship -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP.

Julie Claridge, Plaintiff, represented by Todd Seth Garber --
tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson &
Garber, LLP, Antonino B. Roman -- aroman@fbfglaw.com --
Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP, Matthew R.
Mendelsohn -- mmendelsohn@mskf.net -- Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman,
LLC & Matthew D. Schelkopf -- mds@mccunewright.com --
Mccunewright, LLP, pro hac vice.

Helen Marsh, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Gregory
Blankinship, Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP,
Todd Seth Garber, Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber,
LLP, Antonino B. Roman, Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson &
Garber, LLP, Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman,
LLC & Matthew D. Schelkopf, Mccunewright, LLP, pro hac vice.

North American Power & Gas, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas
Gregory Blankinship, Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson &
Garber, LLP, Joanna Marie Doherty -- jmdoherty@grsm.com --
Chronakis Siachos & Kaplan, LLC & Peter George Siachos --
psiachos@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP.


NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court OKs Filing of Amended Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHANTAE YOUNG, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated;
Plaintiff, v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, an unknown
business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-04390-EMC(N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted the Plaintiff leave to file her First Amended Class Action
Complaint for Damages.

On June 23, 2017, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
other members of the public similarly situated, filed a wage and
hour class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Mateo against the Defendant.

On Aug. 2, 2017, the Defendant removed the case to the Court.

On Aug. 16, 2017, the parties met and conferred regarding the
Defendant's intention to file a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule")
12(b)(6).  The Plaintiff agreed to amend her Complaint to attempt
to address the Defendant's concerns and avoid motion practice.

While Defendant is reviewing, and continues to have concerns
regarding, certain aspects of the proposed amended complaint, the
Defendant has agreed not to object to the Plaintiff's filing of
the same, subject to its reservation of rights to answer or to
otherwise respond to the amended complaint.

Therefore the parties agree and stipulate pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to the filing of the Plaintiff's First
Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages, subject to the
Defendant's reservation of rights to answer or to otherwise
respond to the proposed amended complaint.

Having considered the Parties' Stipulation to Permit Plaintiff to
File a First Amended Complaint, Judge Chen granted the Plaintiff
leave to file her First Amended Class Action Complaint for
Damages.

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

Chantae Young, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin Aiwazian --
edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC.

Chantae Young, Plaintiff, represented by Jill Jessica Parker --
jill@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Defendant, represented by A.
Marisa Chun -- mchun@mwe.com -- McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Jeremy
White -- jmwhite@mwe.com -- McDermott Will & Emery LLP, pro hac
vice & Kerry Alan Scanlon -- kscanlon@mwe.com -- McDermott Will &
Emery, pro hac vice.


NUTIVA INC: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss "Jones" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PRESTON JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NUTIVA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-00711-HSG(N.D. Cal.),
Judge Haywood Stirling Gilliam Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in
part the  Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint ("FAC").

According to the FAC, in January 2013 and again in February 2014,
Plaintiff Jones purchased several jars of the Defendant's Virgin
Coconut Oil.  Based on the product's label, Plaintiff Jones
believed Nutiva Virgin Coconut Oil was healthy, healthier than
butter and other oils, would only make positive contributions to
health and would not detriment his health.

Plaintiff Delalat purchased the Defendant's Extra Virgin Coconut
Oil and Virgin Coconut Oil on multiple occasions over the past
several years.  Like Plaintiff Preston, based on the product's
label, Plaintiff Delalat believed Nutiva Extra Virgin and Virgin
Coconut Oils were healthy, healthier than butter and other oils,
and would only make positive contributions to health and would not
detriment her health.

However, the Plaintiffs allege that each 1 tablespoon (or 15mL)
serving of Nutiva coconut oil (whether Extra Virgin, Virgin, or
Refined) contains 130 calories, all of which come from fat: in
each 14-gram serving there are 14 grams of fat.  Further, each 14-
gram serving contains 13 grams of saturated fat.  In other words,
Nutiva's Coconut Oil is 100%, 93% of which is saturated fat.
According to them, this amount of total and saturated fat renders
the Defendant's products both inherently unhealthy and less
healthy than butter.

The Plaintiffs consequently seek to bring a nationwide class
action on behalf of themselves and a Class of all persons in the
United States who, on or after Jan. 8, 2012, purchased, for
personal or household use, and not for resale or distribution
purposes, Nutiva Extra Virgin Coconut Oil, Nutiva Virgin Coconut
Oil, or Nutiva Refined Coconut Oil.  They assert five causes of
action on behalf of the putative class: (i) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law; (ii) violation of
California's False Advertising Law; (iii) violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (iv) breach of express
warranty; and (v) breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

This is the Defendant's second motion to dismiss.  On Sept. 22,
2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part its earlier
motion.  The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint on Dec. 5,
2016, adding Plaintiff Delalat and allegations that both the
Plaintiffs believed the Defendant's products would only make
positive contributions to health and would not detriment their
health.

Pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
FAC.  It challenges the claims of Plaintiffs UCL, FAL, and CLRA in
two ways.  First, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs'
allegations no longer pass the reasonable consumer test because
they do not plausibly allege that its products' labels would
deceive a reasonable consumer.  Second, and more narrowly, it
argues that the allegations regarding Plaintiff Delalat lack
sufficient particularity.

As detailed in the Court's previous order, to state a claim under
the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, a plaintiff must plead that "members of
the public are likely to be deceived" by a defendant's
advertisements.  The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint no longer passes this "reasonable consumer test" as no
reasonable consumer would believe that any product would "only
make positive contributions to health and would not detriment"
their health.  Judge Gilliam is not persuaded by the Defendant's
narrow reading of the amended complaint.  The Plaintiffs detail
myriad alleged detrimental health effects of consuming saturated
fats generally, and coconut oil more specifically.  The
Defendant's product labels -- such as characterizing coconut oil
as "nourishing" and a "superfood" -- contribute to the impression
that the product is healthy.  Accordingly, it would be premature
to dismiss these claims and he denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss on this basis.

Judge Gilliam agrees that Plaintiff Delalat's allegations are
insufficient.  Rather than list the specific statements upon which
she relied, she only identifies two illustrative statements that
she read and relied on labeling claims that made the products seem
healthy.  And although the complaint includes different labels for
the Defendant's Virgin and Extra Virgin Coconut Oil, it does not
state that Plaintiff Delalat relied on any of them.  Such
incomplete allegations do not satisfy Rule 9(b)'s heightened
pleading requirement.  The Judge similarly finds that Plaintiff
Delalat has not sufficiently alleged when she was exposed to the
Defendant's alleged misrepresentations.  Instead, she merely
states that she purchased its products over the past several
years.  Judge Gilliam, therefore, granted the Defendant's motion
to dismiss Plaintiff Delalat's allegations asserted against its
Virgin and Extra Virgin Coconut Oil products.

As the Court previously held, the Plaintiffs must have actually
purchased the products at issue to have standing to challenge
them.  The Plaintiffs concede that neither of them purchased the
Defendant's refined coconut oil and do not ask the Court to
reconsider its prior holding.  Accordingly, Judge Gilliam granted
the Defendant's motion to dismiss all claims asserted against its
refined coconut oil product.

The Court also previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' request for
injunctive relief because they failed to allege that they are at
risk of future injury.  The Plaintiffs concede that they are
merely preserving their rights for appeal, and do not ask the
Court to reconsider its prior holding.  Therefore, Judge Gilliam
granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' request
for injunctive relief.

For these reasons, Judge Gilliam granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiff may file an
amended complaint within 21 days of the date of the Order if it
can, pursuant to its Rule 11 requirements, provide additional
detail regarding the products Plaintiff Delalat purchased, when
she purchased them, and which statements she relied upon when
making those purchases.  The Judge cautions, however, that the
amended complaint may not add additional plaintiffs or additional
claims.

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

Preston Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Kenneth Joseph --
pkjoseph@umich.edu -- The Law Office of Paul K. Joseph, PC.

Preston Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Fitzgerald --
jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald,
PC, Melanie Rae Persinger -- melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The
Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald & Trevor Matthew Flynn, Law Office
of Jack Fitzgerald, PC.

Shirin Delalat, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Kenneth Joseph, The
Law Office of Paul K. Joseph, PC & Jack Fitzgerald, The Law Office
of Jack Fitzgerald, PC.

Nutiva, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rakesh Mahendra Amin --
rakesh@amintalati.com -- Amin Talati and Upadhye LLC, pro hac
vice, Ryan Mathew Kaiser -- ryan@amintalati.com-- Amin Talati and
Upadhye LLC, pro hac vice, Sanjay Satish Karnik --
sanjay@amintalati.com -- Amin Talati and Upadhye LLC, pro hac
vice, William Paul Cole -- wcole@calljensen.com -- Call and Jensen
& Matthew Ryan Orr -- morr@calljensen.com -- Call & Jensen.


PAFFORD EMS: "Williams" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Karley Williams, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Pafford EMS LLC; Pafford Medical Billing Services Inc.; and
Pafford Medical Services Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 54-CV-17-
00151, was removed on Aug. 21, 2017 from Phillips County Circuit
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas (Helena). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:17-cv-00141-JM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge James M. Moody Jr.

Pafford is a medical transport company providing local
transportation for customers requiring medical transport service
in Ringgold, Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon W. Lacy, Esq.
          LACY LAW FIRM
          630 S. Main Street
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 277 1144
          E-mail: brandon@lacylawfirm.com

               - and -

          Donald E. Knapp, Jr.
          KNAPP LAW FIRM
          107 Hickory Hill Drive
          Helena, AR 72342
          Telephone: (870) 338 3100
          Facsimile: (870) 338 3101
          E-mail: donald@knapplewis.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Owen Scriber, Esq.
          324 South Main
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 336 0155
          Facsimile: (870) 934 8887
          E-mail: scriberfirm@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charley Swann, Esq.
          Patrick R. James, Esq.
          JAMES, HOUSE & DOWNING P.A.
          Post Office Box 3585
          Little Rock, AR 72203-3585
          Telephone: (501) 372 6555
          Facsimile: (501) 372 6333
          E-mail: cswann@jamesandhouse.com
                  pjames@jamesandhouse.com

               - and -

          Guy W. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
          Philip Miron, Esq.
          HYDEN, MIRON & FOSTER, PLLC
          557 Locust
          Conway, AR 72034
          Telephone: (501) 336 8822
          Facsimile: (501) 336 8688
          E-mail: guy.murphy@HMFlaw.net


PETMED EXPRESS: Faces "Lusson" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew W. Lusson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PetMed Express, Inc., Menderes Akdag, and
Bruce S. Rosenbloom, Case No. 9:17-cv-80980-WPD (S.D. Fla., August
25, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, 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.

The Defendants operate a pet pharmacy that markets prescription
and non-prescription pet medications, and other health products
for dogs and cats, direct to consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 32963
      Telephone: (772) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
      E-mail: lwd@DesmondLawFirm.com

         - and -

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


PF CHANG'S: Counterclaims in "Anderson" Suit Nixed
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JEREMY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. P.F. CHANG'S
CHINA BISTRO, INC., DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 16-14182(E.D.
Mich.), Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan granted Plaintiff Anderson's Motion
to Dismiss P.F. Chang's Counterclaims, dismissed without prejudice
the Defendant P.F. Chang's' Counterclaims, and denied without
prejudice Plaintiff Anderson's Motion for Collective Action
Certification.

Anderson began working for P.F. Chang's, an Asian-themed
restaurant chain, in 2008 until about June 2013 as a Line Cook in
the Beachwood, Ohio restaurant.  Starting in or about August 2013
until about September 2014, Anderson became a Sous Chef at the
P.F. Chang's restaurant in Northville, Michigan.  From about
September 2014 to about March 2015, Anderson worked as a Sous Chef
at the P.F. Chang's restaurant in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Anderson asserts that, as a Sous Chef in the Michigan and North
Carolina restaurants, he was a non-exempt employee within the
meaning of the FLSA.  He claims that he is entitled to back wages
for work performed for which P.F. Chang's did not pay him the
legal minimum wage or overtime wages.  According to Anderson, he
worked four days a week, for approximately 66.5 to 70.5 hours per
week at the Michigan restaurant.  He claims he worked five days a
week, for approximately 55 hours per week at the North Carolina
restaurant.

On Nov. 29, 2016, Anderson filed the case against the Defendants
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
Michigan labor law, and North Carolina labor law.  Anderson seeks
to prosecute his claims as a collective action on behalf of all
persons who are or were formerly employed by the Defendants as
sous chef employees or similar positions with different titles who
were non-exempt employees within the meaning of the FLSA and who
were not paid minimum wage for hours worked and/or were not paid
overtime for hours worked over 40 hours in a work week during the
three years prior to the filing on this case.

On Feb. 1, 2017, P.F. Chang's filed an Answer and Counterclaims
against Anderson alleging accounting and offset/recoupment, breach
of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment and restitution, and faithless servant. On March 8,
2017, Anderson filed a Motion to Dismiss P.F. Chang's
Counterclaims.  P.F. Chang's filed a Response on March 29, 2017.
Anderson filed a Reply on May 12, 2017.  On March 27, 2017,
Anderson filed a Motion for Collective Action Certification.  P.F.
Chang's filed a Response on May 30, 2017.  Anderson filed a Reply
on June 12, 2017.  The Court held a hearing on the Motions on June
21, 2017.

Judge Hood finds that P.F. Chang's' Counterclaims are not
compulsory because they do not arise from the same transaction or
occurrence as Anderson's claims.  Even if P.F. Chang's'
Counterclaims derived from a common nucleus of operative facts
with Anderson's claims, she declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the Counterclaims because of the concern that
the Counterclaims would change the nature of the lawsuit and
substantially predominate over Anderson's statutory wage claims.
The Judge dismissed without prejudice P.F. Chang's' Counterclaims
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Because the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the Counterclaims, Judge Hood
needs not reach the parties' remaining arguments under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

As to Plaintiff Anderson's Motion for Collective Action
Certification, Judge Hood finds that under these circumstances it
cannot be said that Anderson has made a modest factual showing
sufficient to demonstrate that he and potential plaintiffs
together were victims of a widespread, unlawful de facto policy or
plan of P.F. Chang's.  She concludes that Anderson has not met his
burden of showing that the putative class is similarly situated.
She denied Anderson's Motion for Collective Action Certification
without prejudice.  Anderson may ask the Court to revisit the
issue of conditional certification after additional discovery if
appropriate.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Hood granted Plaintiff Anderson's
Motion to Dismiss P.F. Chang's Counterclaims; dismissed without
prejudice Defendant P.F. Chang's' Counterclaims; and denied
without prejudice Plaintiff Anderson's Motion for Collective
Action Certification.

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

EREMY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by William C. Rand --
wcrand@wcrand.com -- Law Offices of William Coudert Rand.

JEREMY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by Sergei Lemberg --
slemberg@lemberglaw.com -- Lemberg Law, LLC.

P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Parlo -- chris.parlo@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius LLP, Daniel Kadish -- daniel.kadish@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Melissa C. Rodriguez --
melissa.rodriguez@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Stephanie L. Sweitzer -- stephanie.sweitzer@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

DOES, Defendant, represented by Daniel Kadish, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Melissa C. Rodriguez, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Stephanie L. Sweitzer, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., Counter Claimant, represented by
Stephanie L. Sweitzer, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

JEREMY ANDERSON, Counter Defendant, represented by Sergei Lemberg,
Lemberg Law, LLC.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Court Dismisses "Thornton" Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOANNE THORNTON, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et
al., Civil Action No. 16-5554 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Juan Ramon Sanchez
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted the Defendants' move to dismiss Thornton's
Amended Complaint and dismissed without prejudice Thornton's
Amended Complaint.

Thornton previously owned real property located at 1609 Christian
Street in Philadelphia.  She was unable to make her mortgage
payments.  In May 2011, her mortgagee, EverBank, filed a complaint
for mortgage foreclosure in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County.  In September 2014, Thornton's property sold
at a sheriff's sale for $305,000 to a third party purchaser.

The Philadelphia Sheriff's Office collected the proceeds from the
sale and thereafter issued a Proposed Schedule of Distribution of
the proceeds listing taxes, fees, costs, liens, and mortgages
associated with the property, as well as "unused proceeds" from
the sale to be distributed to Thornton.  One such deduction
includes the cost of a title insurance policy in the amount of
$1,317.50.  After accounting for all costs and liabilities from
the sale proceeds, the Proposed Schedule of Distribution listed
the unused proceeds as $193,795.18.  Sometime thereafter, the
Proposed Schedule of Distribution was amended to include, among
other things, a Redevelopment Authority of the City of
Philadelphia (RDA) mortgage in the amount of $179,454.

After the amendment, the unused proceeds amounted to $11,968.17.
Pursuant to Pennsylvania law, Thornton filed a Defendant Asset
Recovery Team claim for the unused proceeds in August 2016, about
two years after the sheriff's sale.  The Sheriff's Office
disbursed a check to Thornton for the unused funds.

Thornton brings this putative class action lawsuit against the
City, the Sheriff's Office, and the Sheriff, asserting she was
deprived of procedural due process because she did not receive the
amount of unused proceeds calculated in the original Schedule of
Distribution, that the Sheriff's Office improperly amended the
Schedule of Distribution, and that the sale proceeds should not
have been used to pay for the title insurance policy.

In bringing the class action, she seeks to represent two classes
of individuals.  As to the first class, Thornton seeks to
represent those individuals whose real property was foreclosed and
sold at sheriff sale for an amount in excess of the legal credit
price plus costs and who did not recover the excess funds
remaining from the proceeds of such sheriff's sale after all
proper liability had been satisfied.  As to the second class, she
seeks to represent those individuals who were charged a premium by
the Defendants for a title insurance policy insuring Defendants
for their actions related to a sheriff's sale.

Thornton also brings claims under Pennsylvania law for breach of
contract, negligent mishandling of funds, unjust enrichment, and
conversion.  Thornton seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
a declaratory judgment that the Defendants' policies are
unconstitutional.  The Defendants move to dismiss the Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Sanchez granted the Defendants' move to dismiss Thornton's
Amended Complaint and dismissed without prejudice Thornton's
Amended Complaint.

The Judge held that because Thornton received the unused funds as
reflected in the latest Schedule of Distribution, she does not
have a legitimate claim of entitled to any additional funds from
the sale.  Any procedural due process claim based on the
calculation of unused proceeds in the original, and incomplete,
Proposed Schedule of Distribution is meritless.  Because, he
agrees that Pennsylvania law affords Thornton adequate process to
challenge the distribution of proceeds, including challenging the
Sheriff's use of $1,317.50 from the sale proceeds to pay for a
title insurance policy, he finds she was not deprived procedural
due process.

Moreover, to the extent that Thornton does not receive the relief
she desires from objecting to, pursuant to Rule 3136, the
Sheriff's use of the sale proceeds to pay for title insurance, she
may appeal such a determination.  Because Thornton may yet avail
herself of this process, and suffer some defect therein, Judge
Sanchez dismissed her procedural due process claim without
prejudice.  Thornton's remaining state-law claims are likewise
dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/fWLC4b from Leagle.com.

JOANNE THORNTON, Plaintiff, represented by CHRISTOPHER G. HAYES --
chris@chayeslaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HAYES.

JOANNE THORNTON, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL C. LEVIN --
dlevin@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN & WILLIAM T. WILSON --
wtw@becounsel.com -- BAILEY & EHRENBERG PLLC.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, represented by DIMITRIOS
MAVROUDIS, City of Philadelphia Law Department.

PHILADELPHIA SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Defendant, represented by DIMITRIOS
MAVROUDIS, City of Philadelphia Law Department.

SHERIFF JEWELL WILLIAMS, Defendant, represented by DIMITRIOS
MAVROUDIS, City of Philadelphia Law Department.


PHILIP MORRIS: 9,500 Claimants to Get Second Round of Checks
------------------------------------------------------------
John Lynch, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that about 9,500
claimants in a $45 million Arkansas cigarette settlement should
expect a second check in the mail under an August 25 ruling by
Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox that quadrupled the minimum
payout to $400.

The fund, set up last year by cigarette-maker Philip Morris USA to
end a 2003 lawsuit about Marlboro Lights advertising, has already
sent out $18 million tax-free to 20,521 claimants. The checks were
mailed in April.

Of those applicants, 13,035 shared $17.3 million, at $1,325 per
application, court filings show.

Fox's ruling on August 25 addresses the 7,372 claimants -- about
36 percent of the total -- whose applications were deemed faulty
and received only the $100 minimum. They will now get an
additional $300. Court filings show the procedure to determine the
validity of the claims has drawn hundreds of inquiries.

Fox stated that if he held hearings on each questionable
application to determine its worthiness, the process would take
years and drain money from the fund that otherwise could have gone
to the claimants.

"It is not feasible to establish a hearing procedure to adjudicate
the more than 7,000 remaining claims," the judge wrote. "It is not
in the best interests of the class nor in accordance with
principles of judicial efficiency and economy."

If he held hearings, none of the 7,372 claimants could be paid
until all of the questionable applications had been examined in
court and compensation had been determined for each claimant, the
judge wrote.

The necessary hearing process also would take three to 10 years,
Fox wrote, citing a study by the settlement fund administrators
who calculated the resources needed for the procedure.

Even figuring each proceeding lasted only 30 minutes, the process
would take three to 10 years, considering a hearing schedule of
one per week to four a week, while accommodating Fox's regular
caseload of 1,500 to 1,600 new cases a year, the judge wrote. The
costs would run from $1.4 million to $8.8 million.

The additional payments are expected to cost $2,684,313, with $2.1
million coming from the settlement fund and the remainder from
unclaimed payments, the judge wrote.

Out of fairness, 2,002 claimants who were paid less than $400 now
will be paid the difference to reach the minimum level, the judge
ordered.

Applications that the judge deemed flawed were almost all for
claims of cigarette purchases by claimants when they were younger
than 18 or reports of purchases of more than five packs a day for
sustained periods, court filings show.

About 13 percent of the applications that reported purchasing
cigarettes by minors involved applicants who reported regularly
buying cigarettes before age 12, the judge wrote. Honoring those
applications would cost the fund $2 million.

One claimant reported buying cigarettes for 40 years before his
birth, while another four reported making purchases for 39 years
before they were born, court filings show. A "large number" of the
claims alleged they purchased multiple dozens -- sometimes more
than 100 packages of cigarettes every day for at least one of the
40-year claim period, the judge wrote.

Michael Woods of Gray filed an objection May 9, about a month
after the checks were mailed out. He complained because his
payment was reduced to the $100 minimum because his claim included
a year of cigarette purchases he made when he was younger than 18
in the early 1970s.

Woods questioned whether those purchases were actually illegal,
stating he was never denied cigarettes and that both the
elementary and high schools he attended provided smoking areas for
students. Woods complained he was being penalized unfairly for
filling out the form honestly and that the proper remedy would be
to just deduct that year from his total.

A second petitioner, Larry Reed, a 57-year-old prison inmate
serving time for robbery convictions in Pulaski and Jefferson
counties, also filed a complaint about receiving the $100 minimum.

He also stated it was not illegal in Arkansas for consumers
younger than 18 to purchase cigarettes during the first four years
of his claim, 1978 through 1981. Reed stated he should receive his
full share because 35 years of smoking has left him disabled with
cardiovascular disease, hypertension and high blood pressure.

Also submitting a petition for increased payment was Loretta Jane
Martin of Jacksonville, who stated all of her cigarette purchases
were legal.

Philip Morris paid the $45 million to end a 2003 class-action
lawsuit filed in Little Rock about how Marlboro Lights had been
marketed in Arkansas. Anyone who bought the brand and its sister
brand Marlboro Ultra-Lights could apply for payment.

Applicants were eligible for 10 cents to 25 cents per pack
purchased, based on an estimate of their annual purchases between
1971 when Lights went on the market until 2010 when regulators
forced cigarette makers to drop the light designation.

Each potential claimant had to submit a sworn statement attesting
to yearly cigarette purchases, a list of three retailers where
they were purchased and contact information for a verifying
witness.

The fund received 26,001 applications after a national advertising
campaign last fall. [GN]


PRISMA LLC: Court Affirms Denial of Arbitration in "Sprunk"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Elwood Lui of the California Court of Appeal, Second
Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's
denial of Plan B's motion to compel arbitration in the case
captioned MARIA ELENA SPRUNK et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v. PRISMA LLC, Defendant and Appellant, No. B268755(Cal. App.).

Sprunk is the Named Plaintiff in this wage and hour class action
that the trial court certified on April 24, 2015.  Prisma, doing
business as Plan B Club, owns and operates a bar and restaurant in
Los Angeles in which exotic (i.e., bikini-clad) dancers perform.

Sprunk and the other class members are dancers who performed at
Plan B.

Sprunk alleges that the dancers were misclassified as independent
contractors rather than employees, and that they were consequently
denied various benefits that the law requires for employees, such
as minimum wages, meal periods, and reimbursement of expenses.
Sprunk also alleges that Plan B misappropriated tips.

Sprunk and all other class members signed contracts containing an
arbitration clause.  There were two versions of the arbitration
clause.  One version, which was in effect prior to July 2011, did
not specifically address class arbitration.  The other version,
which Plan B claimed was in effect beginning in July 2011,
contained an express waiver.  Sprunk signed the first version of
the agreement.

Sprunk filed her complaint on Oct. 7, 2011.  On Nov. 28, 2011,
Plan B sent an arbitration demand letter stating that new case law
has issued which permits demanding and requiring arbitration of
individual claims despite class allegations.

The parties filed a joint initial status report on Dec. 30, 2011,
in which Plan B stated that it wishes to file a motion to compel
arbitration at the earliest available opportunity.  On Jan. 25,
2012, Plan B filed the Petition to Compel Individual Arbitration
and Stay Superior Court Proceedings, seeking arbitration of
Sprunk's individual claims only.  Sprunk filed an opposition to
the petition on Feb. 15, 2012.

On Sept. 6, 2012, Plan B filed a notice withdrawing its motion for
arbitration.  Plan B filed an answer the same day which included
several affirmative defenses based upon the arbitration
agreements.  Plan B also filed a cross-complaint, which it amended
on Nov. 14, 2002.  On Dec. 19, 2012, Sprunk filed a demurrer and a
motion to strike in response to the cross-complaint.  Before those
motions could be heard, Plan B dismissed the cross-complaint
without prejudice.

Sprunk filed her class certification motion on Sept. 19, 2014.
Plan B opposed.  The trial court granted class certification in a
written order filed on April 24, 2015.  On Aug. 12, 2015, Plan B
filed two separate motions to compel arbitration directed to the
class members who signed the two different versions of the
arbitration agreement.

The trial court heard the motions on Oct. 15, 2015.  It rejected
the argument that the arbitration agreements were unconscionable.
However, the court ruled that Plan B had waived its right to
compel arbitration based upon its delay in seeking arbitration of
Sprunk's individual claims.  The court concluded that the delay
was both unreasonable and prejudicial.  It found that the
Plaintiffs would be prejudiced by the four-year delay in
adjudicating their claims if the court were to now order
arbitration.  The court also expressed concern that the Plaintiffs
might be reluctant to "come forward" to arbitrate their claims
individually due to the kind of business that they are in.
Accordingly, the court denied Plan B's motion in a written order
filed on Nov. 6, 2015.  Plan B appeals.

Judge Lui affirmed trial court's order denying the motions to
compel arbitration.  He explains that the four-year delay resulted
in Sprunk conducting class-related discovery and preparing and
arguing an extensive class certification motion that never would
have been necessary if individual arbitration had been ordered
earlier in the case.  Because Plan B's delay was unreasonable, he
concludes that the trial court's finding of prejudice is supported
by sufficient evidence.

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

Markun Zusman Freniere & Compton and Daria Dub Carlson --
dcarlson@mzclaw.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.

Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, AndrE E. Jardini -- aej@kpclegal.com --
Gwen Freeman -- gf@kpclegal.com -- and K. L. Myles --
klm@kpclegal.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent.


RESIDENTIAL HOME: Fries Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ERIN FRIES, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RESIDENTIAL HOME
HEALTH, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03727 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Charles Ronald Norgle entered an order
granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to certify
class and issue notice.

The Court said, "The class shall be conditionally certified, as
the parties do not dispute that conditional certification should
occur. However, Plaintiffs' proposed notice shall not issue as it
currently stands. Plaintiffs shall file a second proposed notice
consistent with this order. The second proposed notice shall be
submitted on or before September 18, 2017. Defendants shall file
objections, if any, on or before September 22, 2017. Having not
submitted their own proposed notice along with their objections to
Plaintiffs' first proposed notice, the Court directs Defendants to
include a proposed notice with the filing of their objections.
Finally, Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' objections is due on or
before September 29, 2017."

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


RIVER MANOR: Faces "Freeman" Suit in E.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against River Manor Corp.
d/b/a Atrium Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing. The case is
styled as Lennox Freeman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. River Manor Corp. d/b/a Atrium
Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing, River Manor Care Center,
Inc., Excelsior Care Group, LLC, River Manor Acquisition I, LLC,
River Manor Acquisition II, LLC, Constance Leifer and Joel Leifer,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05162 (E.D. N.Y., August 31, 2017).

River Manor Corp. provides medical and surgical hospital
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE: Faces "Belanger" Suit in S.D. of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RoundPoint Mortgage
Servicing Corporation. The case is styled as Austin Belanger, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation, Great American E&S
Insurance Company and Willis of Ohio, Inc. doing business as: Loan
Protector Insurance Services, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-23307-
MGC (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2017).

Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation is engaged in the
business of collecting on behalf of themselves, debts owed to them
arising out of home mortgage loans and/or home equity lines of
credit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Aaron Samuel Podhurst, Esq.
   PodhurstOrseck, P.A.
   City National Bank Building
   25 W Flagler Street, Suite 800
   Miami, FL 33130-1780
   Tel: (305) 358-2800
   Fax: (305) 358-2382
   Email: apodhurst@podhurst.com

      - and -

   Lance August Harke, Esq.
   HarkeClasby& Bushman LLP
   9699 NE Second Avenue
   Miami Shores, FL 33138
   Tel: (305) 536-8222
   Fax: (305) 536-8229
   Email: lharke@harkeclasby.com

      - and -

   Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
   KozyakTropin& Throckmorton
   2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 900
   Coral Gables, FL 33134-6036
   Tel: (305) 372-1800
   Fax: 372-3508
   Email: AMM@kttlaw.com


ROYAL ADMINISTRATION: Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric S. Pavlack, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Royal Administration Services, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
02935-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind., August 25, 2017), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of using automatic telephone dialing systems
to initiate calls to wireless cellular telephone lines of the
Plaintiff and Class members using an artificial and prerecorded
voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the
called party.

Royal Administration Services, Inc. operates as a service contract
administrator of automotive service plans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      G. John Cento, Esq.
      CENTO LAW, LLC
      334 N. Senate Avenue
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 908-0678
      E-mail: cento@centolaw.com

RSI ENTERPRISES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KRISTINA GIBEAU and KEVIN SCHELLENBERGER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. RSI ENTERPRISES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-01143-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an
order certifying proposed classes, appointing Plaintiffs as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate. The Plaintiffs further request that the Court
stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for
class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence.  Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QnwH54Gf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RUTHERFORD, TN: Court Denied Class Certification Bid as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled E.J., et al., the Plaintiffs, v. RUTHERFORD
COUNTY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01975 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. denied as moot the original
Motion for class certification without prejudice to refiling in
accordance with any deadlines set by the Magistrate Judge, in
light of the amended class action complaint.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=d6t4HuNJ


SHORETEL INC: Faces "Simonson" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Mitel
---------------------------------------------------------------
David H. Simonson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Shoretel, Inc., Charles D. Kissner, Kenneth D. Denman,
Mark F. Bregman, Donald Joos, Constance E. Skidmore, Shane V.
Robison, Josef Vejvoda, Marjorie L. Bowen, Mitel US Holdings,
Inc., Shelby Acquisition Corporation, and Mitel Networks
Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-04931-WHA (N.D. Cal., August 24,
2017), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of
ShoreTel, Inc. to enjoin the proposed sale of the Company to Mitel
Networks Corporation for $7.50 per share in cash.

According to the complaint, ShoreTel filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, in support of the
Proposed Transaction. However, the 14D-9 omits and/or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(a) the Company's financial projections; (b) the sales process of
the Company; and (b) the data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that purport to support the fairness opinions
provided by the Company's financial advisor J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC; and (c) the financial analyses performed by J.P. Morgan in
support of the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint says the
Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest ShoreTel's public
stockholders of the Company's valuable assets without fully
disclosing all material information concerning the Proposed
Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy the Defendants'
Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder
vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such problems
are remedied.

Shoretel, Inc. provides business communication solutions for small
and medium sized businesses.  The Company offers integrated voice,
video, data, and mobile applications based on Internet protocol
technologies, such as ShoreTel Voice Switches; ShoreTel Service
Appliances for messaging, conferencing, and collaboration
applications; ShoreTel Director, which enables IT administrators
to view and manage the entire system from various locations using
a single application; ShoreTel IP Phones; and Small Business
Edition 100 for smaller businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 291-2420
      Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
      E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com

         - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 337-1567
      E-mail: denright@zlk.com


SONY CORP: Hit With Class Action Over Xperia Devices
----------------------------------------------------
A class action settlement filed against Sony regarding the
waterproof capabilities advertised for a number of Xperia devices
has been preliminarily approved by a U.S. federal court in New
York. The lawsuit claimed that Sony sold mobile devices that were
deceptively advertised as waterproof.

The lawsuit alleged that Sony designed, manufactured, distributed,
advertised, and sold certain mobile devices that were
misrepresented as waterproof, but were not designed for or capable
for underwater use. Furthermore, the suit also claimed that the
company exploited some international water resistance ratings in
order to launch the marketing campaign promoting the devices as
waterproof.

The class action lawsuit website said that the settlement provides
for warranty extension and claims for prior water-related warranty
claim rejections from Sony.

The company has denied these allegations and will be settling with
the court on Dec. 1 for the final terms.

This is not the first time that Sony has encountered problems with
the labeling of its devices as waterproof. In 2014, the
Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of South Africa ordered Sony
to discontinue using the term "waterproof" in describing the
Xperia Z1 in the country following a complaint filed regarding the
device.

In 2015, the company updated its website which advised its users
to "remember not to use the device underwater" despite the devices
having an IP68 certification. The company explained that while its
devices have the certification, the tests were conducted in
laboratory conditions and with the phone in standby mode.

"Sony devices that are tested for their waterproof abilities are
placed gently inside a container filled with tap water and lowered
to a depth of 1.5 metres," said the company on its website. "After
30 minutes in the container, the device is gently taken out and
its functions and features are tested."

If the allegations are found to be true, the company may need to
pay a large sum as a result of the incorrect labeling. [GN]


SOS INTERNATIONAL: Magana Seeks to Certify Interpreters Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JO ANN GUTIERREZ-BEJAR, MARIA PORTILLO, AND
STEPHANY MAGANA, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. SOS INTERNATIONAL, LLC and
DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-09000-JAK-JEM (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs will seek at a hearing on November 20, 2017,
conditional certification of an opt-in collective action
consisting of:

   "all persons who are or have been employed by Defendant,
   nationwide, as Interpreters pursuant to Defendant's contract
   with the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") Executive
   Office for Immigration Review ("EOIR") (including persons
   described as "Contractors" pursuant to Defendant's Prime
   Contract with the DOJ EOIR, or any titles performing similar
   duties thereto) at any time from November 2, 2015, (i.e., the
   first date of the Defendant's "period of performance" on its
   contract with DOJ EOIR) through the final disposition of this
   action."

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=D3oZdIfo

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sheila K. Sexton, Esq.
          Costa Kerestenzis, Esq.
          Lorrie E. Bradley, Esq.
          BEESON, TAYER & BODINE, APC
          483 Ninth Street, 2nd Floor
          Oakland, CA 94607-4051
          Telephone: (510) 625 9700
          Facsimile: (510) 625 8275
          E-mail: ssexton@beesontayer.com
                  ckerestenzis@beesontayer.com
                  lbradley@beesontayer.com


SOUTH AFRICA: Court to Hear Class Action Over Muslim Marriages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Petersen and Alex Mitchley, writing for News24, report that
a class action suit to have Muslim marriages declared legally
valid in South Africa will be heard in the Western Cape High Court
on Aug. 28.

The matter, which was filed in 2014, was deferred to be heard
together with a matter which raises similar issues, applicant, the
Women's Legal Centre (WLC), said.

The court previously ordered the consolidation of a further matter
pending before the court, which similarly highlights the plight of
Muslim women, the WLC said.

"There are several matters that are pending at a number of courts
across the country.  This is testament to the fact that Muslim
women are struggling to assert their rights because their Muslim
marriages and the consequences arising therefrom are not legally
recognised," the centre said in a statement.

"They have no option but to plead their cases with the courts and
the judiciary."

Judges Siraj Desai, Gayaat Salie-Hlophe and Nolwazi Boqwana have
been appointed to hear the matter.

According to the non-profit law centre, legal steps to ensure
fairness between the spouses, as well as ensuring children's
rights, when civil or customary marriages break down, do not exist
in Muslim and religious marriages.

"Once customary marriages were given full legal recognition, the
historical basis for not recognising polygynous marriages fell
away," attorney Hoodah Abrahams-Fayker said in a statement when
the application was first heard in September 2016.

"The courts have already found the lack of inclusion of Muslim
marriages to be discriminatory in respect of inheritance and
spousal dependent's claims, but legislation is needed to recognise
them for all purpose."

"We are also often approached by women who cannot get a divorce
because it is dependent upon the husband to agree when the wife
seeks a divorce. Even where the religious bodies intervene, they
have no power to compel a husband to adhere or to enforce an
agreement reached."

The centre argues that there is no judicial oversight with Muslim
divorces, as there is in civil and customary divorces.

It would rely on arguments that a range of constitutional rights
were being violated, including the right to equality. [GN]


STATOIL USA: Sued in Penn. Over Oil and Gas Lease Royalties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alan Marbaker; Carol Marbaker; Jerry L. Cavalier; and Frank K.
Holdren, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
v. Statoil USA Onshore Properties, Inc. f/k/a StatoilHydro USA
Onshore Properties, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01528-UN2 (M.D. Penn.,
August 25, 2017), is an action for declaratory relief pursuant to
the filed arbitration demand by the Plaintiffs with the American
Arbitration Association against Statoil with respect to the
royalties paid by Statoil on certain oil and gas leases in which a
32.5% interest was assigned to Statoil by Chesapeake
Appalachia, L.L.C.

Statoil USA Onshore Properties, Inc. operates an oil and gas
exploration services business located at 2103 City West Blvd.,
Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77042. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ira Neil Richards, Esq.
      Arleigh P. Helfer III, Esq.
      SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
      1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 751-2000
      E-mail: irichards@schnader.com
              ahelfer@schnader.com

         - and -

      Aaron D. Hovan, Esq.
      John J. Hovan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOHN J. HOVAN
      154 Warren Street
      Tunkhannock, PA 18657
      Telephone: (570) 836-3121

         - and -

      Richard L. Huffsmith, Esq.
      RICHARD L. HUFFSMITH, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
      28 East Tioga Street
      Tunkhannock, PA 18657
      Telephone: (570) 240-4400


STERLING JEWELERS: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Madrid, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01711-CAB-
BGS (S.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.

Sterling Jewelers, Inc. operates a specialty jewelry company in
San Diego, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
      409 Camino Del Rio South, Ste 101B
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 222-7429
      Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
      E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


SURFSTITCH: Enters Administration Amid Shareholder Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
John McDuling, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
selling surfwear products online in Australia (a nation obsessed
with surfing and buying things online) sounds like a cake walk.
But Gold Coast-based online retailer SurfStitch hasn't been able
to make it work, and the ramifications of that could be far
reaching.

The ASX-listed e-commerce company recently collapsed into
voluntary administration, and if you haven't been following the
incredible saga surrounding it, then here is a quick recap:

In 2014, SurfStitch made waves among sharemarket investors
(warning, this piece is going to contain lots of surfing puns)
when it splashed onto the ASX through an IPO.

In the IPO prospectus, the company, which was founded by former
banker Justin Cameron, and retail executive Lex Pederson,
described itself as "one of the leading pure play online action
sports retailers globally" and "one of Australia's fastest growing
technology companies".

Through its websites, it acted as both a third party retailer,
helping others sell surf and skate wear, and a more traditional
retailer, selling stock it purchased from suppliers itself, to
people in Australia, the US and Europe.

Initially investors loved the pitch. "If you look out three years,
it will be a global business, not a loss-making business, with
global scale," Janchor Partners founder John Ho told Fairfax Media
shortly after the float.

Less than a year later, the share price had more than doubled,
pushing SurfStitch's market value beyond $500 million.

SurfStitch looked like one of Australia's most interesting, and
exciting companies.  Mr. Cameron, who served as founding CEO,
talked up the company's aims to hit $1 billion in sales within
five years, and its potential to be the Netflix or Amazon Prime of
the action sports world.  It started investing in content, such as
surf forecasting websites and action sports video providers, in a
bid to drive more traffic to its websites.
ned you).

Last year, Cameron abruptly and unexpectedly quit.  New management
wrote down the value of the company's assets; its financial losses
deepened.  It is now facing multiple class action lawsuits from
shareholder groups, as well as an ASIC investigation.  Its shares
tanked, and are now suspended from trading.

In a statement to the ASX, the administrator FTI Consulting said
Surfstitch's ASX listed entity and a holding company had been
placed in administration, but its consumer facing online companies
continue to trade as normal.

At any rate, the SurfStitch saga could reinforce the perception
among ASX investors that Australia just can't do online retail.

Other e-commerce businesses that have made it to the ASX have also
struggled.

Shares in Temple and Webster, an online furniture business, have
fallen 70 per cent since it listed in late 2015.  Redbubble, an
online marketplace for printed products, is down about 40 per cent
from its IPO price. Some faith has been restored by Kogan, the
online electronics retailer, whose shares started poorly but
recently reclaimed their IPO price (and have since been on a bit
of a tear).

Yet, Kogan could be perceived as the exception not the rule.

That, coupled with the narrative Amazon dominates everything in e-
commerce (the reality is more complex than that) and the fact that
retail floats in general (Dick Smith, Myer) have been problematic
to say the least could be a problem.

It could make life difficult for the next wave of promising
Australian tech businesses with aspirations to list on the ASX in
the next few years, particularly those in e-commerce.

At the front of the list would be Vinomofo, an online wine
retailer with a devoted following, which pursues a daily deals
type model in Australia.  Members sign up to get discounted rates
on cases of wine (and winemakers can offload excess inventory
without hurting their brand).

In confidential fundraising documents from 2015 obtained by
Fairfax Media, Vinomofo's key investor Blue Sky Venture Capital
said  the "most likely exit path" for the company is an IPO, and
that an IPO on the ASX "is achievable in the next three to four
years".

Other highly regarded Australian e-commerce companies to keep an
eye on include Brosa, an IKEA-style furniture business backed by
AirTree Ventures, Shoes of Prey, a custom shoemaker backed by
Blackbird Ventures and Blue Sky; and The Iconic, the fashion
business backed by the German clone factory Rocket Internet.

If the IPO route is closed off, these companies might still be
acquired by a bricks and mortar rival. That's what's been
happening in the US, stoking a mini revival for e-commerce start-
ups.  Retailer Wal-Mart acquired Jet.com, consumer goods behemoth
Unilever bought subscription razor blade company Dollar Shave and
pet food business PetSmart ate Chewy.com.

For a while, SurfStitch's biggest shareholder was Billabong,
another fallen surfwear company (what's the deal with that,
Australia?).

Of course, its struggles are in many ways company specific.  But
through the eyes of a beaten and bruised sharemarket investor, its
travails might not look like an isolated case.  The challenge for
its successors will be to prove otherwise. [GN]


SYKES ENTERPRISES: "Slaughter" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Slaughter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sykes Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Sykes Home Powered by
Alpine Access, Case No. 1:17-cv-02038 (D. Col., August 24, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sykes Enterprises, Inc. provides comprehensive customer contact
management services to Global 2000 companies in the
communications, financial services, healthcare, technology,
transportation, and retail industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mary Jo Lowrey, Esq.
      Sarah J. Parady, Esq.
      LOWREY PARADY, LLC
      1725 N. High Street, Suite 1
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (303) 593-2595
      Facsimile: (303) 502-9119
      E-mail: maryjo@lowrey-parady.com
              sarah@lowrey-parady.com

         - and -

      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      Melissa Lardo Stewart, Esq.
      Cheryl-Lyn Bentley, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

         - and -

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Paolo Meireles, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831

TAKATA CORP: Recall Shows Complicity in Negligence
--------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Muhoro, writing for Techdigg, reports that there has been
a ruckus concerning the recent airbag recall which affected
millions of vehicles in America spanning more than a dozen brands.
Takata, the Japanese supplier on the faulty inflator parts has
been implicated leading to numerous legal issues as the issue also
entail 17 deaths globally.

The issue involved defective inflator and propellant devices which
could improperly deploy during a crash and shoot metal fragments
into the occupants of the vehicle.  About 42 million vehicles were
affected in America only.

A Brief History on Takata Issues

There were originally six brands which had been affected when
Takata announced the issue in 2013, though the Toyota recall along
with admissions from the inflator producer stating it was not sure
on the vehicles that had used the defective inflators or the root
cause had made the automakers authorize more recalls for safety's
sake.

Though Toyota states there have been no related injuries or deaths
concerning its vehicles, a report from the New York Times found a
total of 139 reported injuries across different brands. The report
also claimed that Takata and Honda had previous knowledge of the
faulty equipment since the year 2004 though they failed to notify
the NHTSA during the previous recall filings in 2008 that the
airbags which were affected had ruptured or had been linked to
injuries and deaths.

Takata had stated that their propellant chemicals were mishandled
in the first place and improperly stored when they were being
assembled and this led the metal airbags inflators to burst open
because of excessive pressure during deployment.  Documents
reviewed by Reuters showed Takata's position implying rust, bad
welding and foreign materials dropped into inflators as the fault.

These same documents also show that in the year 2002, a plant in
Mexico allowed defect rates which were at least six times above
the acceptable limits or about 60 defective parts per 1 million
airbag inflators that are shipped.  Interestingly enough, the
company's position is they are yet to come to a conclusion so they
can report what they know to the NHTSA.  The level of negligence
exhibited has evidently led to injury and death and shows a
conscious effort to subdue due process from possibly more than one
player.

Automakers Compromise on Quality

News broke in February that at least four automakers had previous
knowledge the Takata airbags were dangerous and would rupture
resulting in injury or even death, though they continued to use
the airbags in the cars in order to save on cost.  The
manufacturers include Ford, Honda, Toyota and Nissan and they were
facing litigation as part of a class action lawsuit in Florida
according to company documents which allegedly provided evidence
on a deep involvement by the brands in utilizing defective airbags
from Takata.

There is evidence to prove this considering Ford chose the
inflaters over objections from their own inflator expert that had
opposed the use of the propellant considering its instability and
sensitivity to moisture.  Apparently, in its defense, Takata was
the only supplier that could conveniently handle its needs.
Representatives from the implicated brands withheld official
statements on the active cases which in a sense is an admission of
guilt or at least a legal move to cover their positions.

Thus far, Takata and affiliated automakers have proven automakers
and parts suppliers frequently compromise on quality for the
purpose of profits.

Recall and Repairs Delays

The spokesman for choice, Tom Godfrey claimed 50,000 vehicles were
among the ones affected within the ranges of the auto
manufacturers.  Apparently, the brands have also been silent on
the increased risk brought on by the new Alpha airbags.  The
standard ones tend to fail at a rate of one in 400 times, while
the alpha airbags have a 50 percent rate of failing.

According to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's
(ACCC) deputy chairwoman Delia Rickard, repairs and compensation
claims are not being attended to fast enough.  This is interesting
considering Stephen Collins, a director at Honda has rejected
claims the firm is not keeping adequate communication on this
matter with their clients.  Apparently, the auto manufacturers and
clients are not on the same page as pertains claim negotiations.
This is troubling as the firms have clearly benefitted of the
profits of sales units. [GN]


TOP SHIPS: Faces "Narine" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karon Narine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Top Ships Inc., Evangelos J. Pistiolis, Alexandros
Tsirikos, Kalani Investments Limited, Murchinson Ltd. and Marc
Bistricer, Case No. 2:17-cv-05016 (E.D.N.Y., August 24, 2017),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that: (i) the true purpose of the proxy
proposal was to further the Defendants' Reverse Split Share
Issuance Scheme and enable Top Ships to finance a variety of
related-party transactions in order to enrich Pistiolis and his
affiliates; (ii) the Defendants intended to repeatedly engage in
securities issuances and related reverse splits thereby
manipulating the market for Top Ships stock; and (iii) as a result
of the foregoing, Top Ships' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

Top Ships Inc. is an international provider of oil, petroleum
products and chemicals transportation services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and-

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

         - and -

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


TRANSUNION LLC: Faces "Jones" Suit in W.D. of Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TransUnion LLC. The
case is styled as Treva Sudell Jones, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TransUnion LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01167 (W.D. Tenn., August 31, 2017).

Transunion offers total credit protection all in one place from
credit score, credit report and credit alert.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Micah Stephen Adkins, Esq.
   THE ADKINS FIRM, P.C.
   2 Perimeter Park South, Suite 405 E
   Birmingham, AL 35243
   Tel: (205) 206-6718
   Email: MicahAdkins@ItsYourCreditReport.com


TRAVELERS CASUALTY: ITT and Gould Pumps Seek to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ITT CORPORATION and GOULDS PUMPS, INC., the
Plaintiffs, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS THE AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY), the Defendant,
Case No. 3:12-cv-00038-JAM (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs will move
the Court to certify a proposed class.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rnroI5cc

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harvey Bartle, IV, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Telephone: (215) 963 5000


TREASURY WINE: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $39 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ambar Warrick, writing for Reuters, reports that Australian
winemaker Treasury Wine Estates Ltd said on Aug. 28 it will pay
A$49 million ($39 million) to settle a class action lawsuit over
allegations it misled shareholders about problems at its U.S.
business.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn filed the suit in 2014 after the
world's biggest listed stand-alone winemaker announced a surprise
A$190 million writedown at its U.S. unit, partly to cover the cost
of pouring out millions of bottles of unsold wine.

The writedown prompted a sharp decline in Treasury Wine's shares,
and the company subsequently fought off two takeover attempts by
private equity firms.

The company has since restructured its U.S. business.  On August
28, 2017, its shares rose 0.9 percent to a record high of A$14.10,
nearly three times the per-share value of the private equity
takeover approaches.  The broader market was down 0.7 percent.

Treasury Wine, which initially said it would defend the lawsuit,
said on Aug. 28 the settlement was fully insured and would not
have an impact on its financial results.

Litigation financier Bentham IMF Ltd, which funded the class
action suit, said the settlement terms were confidential and that
the agreement is subject to approval by the Federal Court of
Australia. [GN]


UBER TECH: Sexism Blogger Backs Workers in Class Waiver Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Braden Campbell, writing for Law360, reports that the former Uber
engineer behind a viral blog post alleging a sexist culture at the
company has filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to find
that federal labor law bars so-called class action waiver
agreements, casting collective litigation as the equivalent of the
strike for the 21st-century workforce.
As the growth of telecommuting and the rise of the gig economy
reduce the effectiveness of the traditional forms of "collective
activity" protected by the National Labor Relations Act, workers
should not be barred from joining together to improve their
working conditions in court, Susan Fowler said in an Aug. 16
amicus brief in an appeal tying together three cases over the
waivers.

"Collective litigation -- when meritorious -- usually results in
settlement negotiations (or bargaining), a 'collective' settlement
agreement, an improvement in working conditions, and a reduction
of industrial strife," Fowler said. "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."

Class action waivers are agreements by workers not to engage in
collective litigation, collective actions or collective
arbitration against their employers.

The high court in January agreed to hear three cases over the
National Labor Relations Board's stance that class action waivers
violate NLRA provisions guaranteeing the rights of workers to act
collectively, in a debate that has split the circuit courts. These
cases involve class action waiver agreements required by Ernst &
Young, Epic Systems Corp. and Murphy Oil Corp. Fowler's brief
joins unions, a group of states and others in defense of the NLRB.

Fowler alleged in her February post that she was sexually harassed
by a male superior and ignored when she reported it to human
resources, plunging the ride-hailing giant into a public relations
nightmare that led to the firing of at least 20 employees and the
resignation of CEO Travis Kalanick. But where these changes were
possible because her blog went viral, Fowler argued that she would
not have been able to get them in court because she had signed a
class action waiver.

Fowler's brief attacked the "legal fiction" by employers that
arbitrators more cheaply and efficiently deal with worker
grievances than the courts, arguing companies employ class action
waivers to avoid costly litigation over potentially illegal
employment practices.

"The primary benefit [of arbitration] is the employer's belief
that the arbitration agreement is necessary to secure the class
action waiver, and the class action waiver -- which prohibits
today's workers' most effective means of concerted activity -- is
too good a deal for even a virtuous large employer to pass up,"
Fowler said.

Now collective litigation is the "primary means of concerted
activity for 21st century workers" as more and more workers are
telecommuting, hopping jobs or turning to the "gig economy,"
eliminating the picket as they erase the centralized workplace and
allowing employers to more easily replace striking workers, she
argued.

"By necessity the modern workforce must turn to the third leg of
'concerted activity' to aggregate their economic power and improve
their working conditions: collective litigation," Fowler said.

The right of collective litigation furthers Congress' intent when
it passed the NLRA, and collective activity can not only win
payment for aggrieved employees but also result in "agreed-upon
changes to the employees' working conditions," she said.

An attorney for Fowler did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.

Fowler is represented by Chris Baker, Esq. --
cr.bakerlaw@gmail.com -- of Baker Curtis & Schwartz PC.

The NLRB is represented by Richard F. Griffin Jr., Esq. Jennifer
Abruzzo, Esq. John H. Ferguson, Esq. Linda Dreeben, Esq. Meredith
Jason, Esq. Kira Dellinger Vol, Esq. and Jeffrey W. Burritt, Esq.

Ernst & Young is represented by Rex S. Heinke, Esq. --
rhienle@akingump.com -- Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. --
gknopp@akingump.com -- Pratik A. Shah, Esq. -- pshah@akingump.com
-- and Daniel L. Nash, Esq. -- dnash@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and Kannon K. Shanmugam, Esq. -
kshanmugam@wc.com -- Allison Jones Rushing, Esq. - arushing@wc.com
-- A. Joshua Podoll, Esq. -- apodoll@wc.com -- William T. Marks,
Esq. - wmarks@wc.com -- and Eden Schiffmann, Esq. --
eschiffmann@wc.com -- of Williams & Connolly LLP.

Epic Systems and Murphy Oil are represented by Thomas P. Schmidt,
Esq. -- tschmidt@hoganlovells.com -- Neal Kumar Katyal, Esq. --
nkatyal@hoganlovells.com -- Frederick Liu, Esq. --
fliu@hoganlovells.com -- Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak, Esq. --
crohsinzdak@hoganlovells.com -- and Daniel J.T. Schuker, Esq. --
daniel.schuker@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells. Epic Systems
is also represented by Noah A. Finkel, Esq. - nfinkel@seyfarth.com
-- and Andrew Scroggins, Esq. - ascroggins@seyfarth.com -- of
Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Murphy Oil is also represented by Jeffrey A.
Schwartz, Esq. - schwartzj@jacksonlewis.com -- and Daniel D.
Schudroff, Esq. -- SchudroffD@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis
PC.

The cases are Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Stephen Morris et al.,
case number 16-300; NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA Inc., case number 16-
307; and Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, case number 16-285, at the
Supreme Court of the United States. [GN]


UNITED NATIONS: Court Junks Last Suit Over Haiti Cholera Epidemic
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Curacao Chronicle reports that a US federal judge has thrown out
the last class-action lawsuit that had been filed against the
United Nations (UN) over the 2010 cholera epidemic in Haiti.

The suit had contended that the UN should take responsibility for
the outbreak because the illness was introduced by its
peacekeepers from Nepal.

But in her ruling yesterday, Federal District Court in Brooklyn,
Judge Sandra Townes said the UN could not be sued in US courts. On
August 18 last year, a federal appeals court in New Year also
upheld that immunity argument in the other class-action lawsuit.

According to the New York Times, the lead lawyer for the Haitians
who had filed the lawsuit, James Haggerty, said he was "certainly
likely" to appeal.

A study by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had
indicated that UN peacekeepers from Nepal, where cholera is
endemic, were the likely cause of the outbreak which killed more
than 10,000 of the hundreds of thousands of Haitians who were
infected.

The disease had not been present in Haiti before the peacekeepers
arrived from their homeland where an outbreak was underway.

The UN has not legally accepted responsibility for the outbreak,
but last year, the then Secretary General Ban Ki-moon delivered a
statement at the General Assembly in which he apologized for the
UN's role in the outbreak.

"We simply did not do enough with regard to the cholera outbreak
and its spread in Haiti," he said at the time. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Evergreen Ranch Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned EVERGREEN RANCH, LC, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AND FOOD, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00478-RJS-EJF
(D. Utah), Evergreen Ranch moves the Court to certify a class of
plaintiffs with respect to injunctive relief and with respect to
refunds; designate the Plaintiff as the representative of the
class(es); and appoint the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karra J. Porter, Esq.
          J.D. Lauritzen, Esq.
          CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN, P.C.
          257 East 200 South, Suite 1100
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2047
          Telephone: (801) 323 5000
          Facsimile: (801) 355 3472
          E-mail: kporter@chrisjen.com
                  JD.Lauritzen@chrisjen.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Fuller, Esq.
          FULLER LAW OFFICE, LC
          1090 North 5900 East
          Eden, UT 84310
          Telephone: (801) 791 7736
          E-mail: rob@fullerattorney.com


UNITED STATES: Court Denies Adams Class Certification Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KAREN ADAMS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BETSY DEVOS, in
her capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of
Education, the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-03592 (S.D.W.Va.), the
Court denies Plaintiff Karen Adams' motion for class
certification.

Adams claims the DoE had violated the Administrative Procedures
Act when it (1) rehabilitated her loan subject to discharge; (2)
sold it to SunTrust; and (3) denied her claim for interest on the
money paid on the discharged loan.

Adams moved the Court to certify a class of plaintiffs whose
eligibility for a guaranteed student loan disbursed in whole or in
part on or after January 1, 1986 was falsely certified by PTC
"and/or" whose loans were secured through Florida Federal and are
allegedly subject to restitution.

Chief Judge Robert C. Chambers held that Adams has not been able
to prove that her proposed class or classes meet the "numerosity"
requirement of Rule 23(a)(1).  He explained that the primary
deficiency of Adams' request for class certification is her sole
reliance on unsupported speculation about the size of the
potential class.  Adams has conducted months of discovery for the
purpose of finding evidence to support her request for class
certification, but none of the evidence presented to the Court
would permit the Court to make a "common-sense" assumption finding
the numerosity requirement met.

Judge Chambers added that Adams has not identified a single other
potential class member, other than herself, whose discharged loan
was subject to rehabilitation. Without even a sliver of evidence
to base a decision, the Court cannot assume that Adams has met the
numerosity requirement.

Failing to have made a sufficient showing of numerosity, the Court
declines to address Adams' arguments on the other three elements
required to certify a class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tEdIWzr8


UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Bid Denied in Suit vs Atty Generals
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROLANDO ROBLES, the Plaintiff, v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00296-
VLB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Vanessa L. Bryant entered an order:

   1. denying a motion for class certification and a motion to
      intervene; and

   2. denying a motion for appointment of counsel without
      prejudice; and

   3. conditionally granting a motion to participate in
      electronic filing.

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, the Court said.

The plaintiff's civil complaint is against 35 individuals
including the Attorney General of the United States, the
Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, the United States
Attorney for the District of Connecticut, Governor Daniel P.
Malloy, City/Town Clerks, Superior and Appellate Court Judges,
Connecticut State's Attorneys, the Chief Public Defender, Superior
Court Clerks, Connecticut Probation Officers and Department of
Correction employees.

He also filed a motion for class certification and a motion for
other inmates to intervene in this action.

The plaintiff was a pretrial detainee confined in the MacDougall
Building within the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution
when he filed this action.  He has recently informed the court
that correctional officials have discharged him from prison.

The claims asserted by Robles on behalf of other similarly
situated inmates are not properly before the court and are
dismissed, Judge Bryant said.  Accordingly, all claims in the
complaint have been dismissed.

Judge Bryant said Robles may renew his motion at a later stage of
the litigation after he has made additional attempts to secure
legal assistance and has filed an amended complaint. Robles must
complete the court's training class on electronic filing for Self-
Represented litigants before he may start filing documents
electronically in this case. Robles may contact the Clerk's
Office in Hartford, Connecticut at (860)-240-3200 regarding any
questions about the court's training class. If Robles seeks to
proceed with one of the claims or sets of claims that are asserted
in the complaint, the court will permit him to file an amended
complaint that complies with Rules 8 and 20 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. The Clerk shall send Robles an amended
complaint form and a copy of the Complaint with a copy of this
order.

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


UNITED STATES: Arches Payout Hinges on Class Action Outcome
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Lockhart, writing for Deseret News, reports that the Utah
Insurance Department told legislators that it will pay roughly $10
million to health providers over the next six months to help pay
down the debt of unpaid claims from Arches Health Plan, which
closed its doors at the end of 2015.

But Tanji Northrup, assistant department commissioner, said that
the payments are just a fraction of the more than $36 million owed
to those service providers by the health co-op, which was founded
for the purpose of offering insurance plans on the federal
exchange established by the Affordable Care Act.

That number could still rise as a small number of straggler claims
trickle in, she said.

That's in addition to another $90 million that the defunct co-op
owed the federal government, as well as $2 million in unpaid debts
to insurance agents and unpaid advertising costs,
Ms. Northrup reported to the Health Reform Task Force of the Utah
Legislature.

The money owed to the federal government was a startup loan of $10
million and a solvency loan of $80 million.

Arches announced in October 2015 that it would no longer be able
to offer health insurance beginning in January 2016.  The
announcement meant 45,000 Utahns would no longer be covered
beginning that January and would need to explore other options for
their health insurance.

Arches at the time cited unsustainable financial pressure caused
by an extreme shortfall in expected funding from the Affordable
Care Act's risk corridor, a funding source that the law intended
to use to make up for unpredictable shortfalls for some insurers.

At the time Arches was put into receivership, it was paying $2
million per month to outside third-party administrators for help
processing claims, Northrup reported.  That number dismayed task
force co-chairman Rep. Jim Dunnigan, R-Taylorsville, who asked
incredulously, "How do you get that job?"

"Well, when you have an insurance company that doesn't have the
expertise or the technology to pay claims," Northrup began, before
cutting herself off.

Since the time that the Utah Insurance Department hired Stillman
Consulting Services to take Arches into receivership, the firm has
"been able to reduce that to just a few hundred dollars a month,"
she said.

Former Arches CEO Shaun Greene told the Deseret News that he
"wholeheartedly, respectfully" disagrees that Arches was paying
anywhere close to $2 million per month for those services.  He
added that the contract in question "was pretty favorable" and
that he is not confident Insurance Department leaders were "given
all the facts."

In an interview with the Deseret News last year, Mr. Greene was
critical of the Insurance Department's decision to shut down the
startup insurer.

Mr. Greene said at the time that the company was able to present
an analysis to the department providing evidence that the co-op
could manage a small profit by the end of 2016.

Insurance Department Commissioner Todd Kiser told health providers
in a public meeting that the decision to take Arches into
receivership was based on objective data and "wasn't a subjective
opinion that we (expressed) to say 'we want to do this.'"

In all, what remains of what used to be Arches is $20 million in
assets. Mr. Dunnigan asked why $10 million of that is not
scheduled to be paid out to health providers in the coming months.

"Why can't we pay more? Why don't we expend the (full) $20 million
and pay those claims?" he said.

That money is being held in reserve for "any potential future
claims or future litigation that may occur and the administrative
costs to finalize this insolvency, which is going to take years,"
Ms. Northrup said.

Mr. Greene also said on Aug. 27 that he was dissatisfied with the
pace of the payments being made to service providers.

"They could have made a partial payment a long time ago," he said.

Sen. Allen Christensen, R-North Ogden and co-chairman of the task
force, asked Ms. Northrup whether there is "such a thing as
negotiating with the providers on a pay down amount."

Ms. Northrup said Kiser is allowed by law to "take a reduction of
25 percent and pay the provider claims 75 cents on the dollar."

"Commissioner Kiser has not yet made a determination on if he is
going to (do that) or not," she said.

Steve Gooch, spokesman for the Utah Insurance Department, told the
Deseret News that compensation to health providers for unpaid
claims will be ordered by date of service, with earlier medical
services being paid for first, and that no one provider or one
type of claim is otherwise prioritized over another.

Mr. Gooch said Utahns who had Arches insurance don't need to be
concerned that their health providers would pass financial
responsibility for any unpaid insurance claims back to them. Such
action would be illegal, he said.

"There's nothing they have to worry about this point," he said of
those who were covered by Arches.

Ms. Northrup said her department is maintaining hope that all
health providers can be paid in full, but that could be contingent
on the success of a class action lawsuit against the federal
government suing for funds from the Affordable Care Act's risk
corridor mechanism. The receivership could receive roughly $57
million if the lawsuit is successful, according to the department.

"It's going to be a long process, but I would say there is a light
at the end of the tunnel," she said, saying that three of six
similar lawsuits against the federal government have so far found
favorable rulings.

"I'm not optimistic that will happen," Rep. Dean Sanpei, R-Provo,
said, referring to a court victory resulting in a payout.

When asked about the lawsuit, Greene said he was cautiously
hopeful it could eventually get the job done and said he agreed
with the effort.

"We have seen some succesful judgements, so why not?" he said, but
also warned that winning in court and getting paid in full "are
two different things."

Kiser explained to health providers in a meeting that federal
authorities have appealed in all three risk corridor cases they
lost. He also cautioned "it might be years" before a final
judgment is given in the lawsuit that could potentially benefit
them.

Statutorily, any paying off of Arches' debts would be required to
make health providers whole before beginning to recompensate the
federal government, Ms. Northrup told the Deseret News.

A somewhat obscure provision added to extensive federal spending
legislation in 2014 delivered a major financial obstacle to Arches
and co-ops like it around the country by limiting the capabilities
of the Affordable Care Act's risk corridor feature.

Despite receiving assurances from the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid services just months earlier that risk corridor payments
would be delivered in full, Arches discovered in October 2015 that
it would receive only $1.9 million out of an expected $11 million
in such funds. [GN]


WAL-MART STORES: Confident on Beating Cotton Sheet Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pete Brush, writing for Law360, reports that retail giants
including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Target Corp. are confident they
can nip a potential big-dollar consumer fraud class action
stemming from Welspun India Ltd.'s 2016 Egyptian Cotton labeling
scandal in the bud, a Manhattan judge heard on August 25.

On coming dismissal bids the defense was coy on specifics on
August 25, though Warren Haskel of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, counsel
for Welspun and Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. -- a third big retail
defendant -- hinted at jurisdictional curbs that have been much on
the mind of the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years.

"Defendants are confident they have strong bases for [defense]
motions in response to plaintiffs' complaint," a defense filing
says.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Sullivan directed the retailers to
give him previews of their motions bids in coming weeks. Judge
Sullivan plans to give guidance on their merits.

"I can just see what this is costing by looking at all of you," he
told a foursome of corporate defense partners who were in court to
back the retailers, Mumbai-based Welspun and its U.S. unit.

Consumers including New York shopper Samuel Jividen claimed fraud,
unjust enrichment and other violations by the retailers in a
February complaint that says consumers across the U.S. payed
premium prices for supposedly higher-quality Egyptian Cotton at
retail outlets only to take home lesser-quality bedding.

Welspun's share price plummeted following revelations last year
that retailers were investigating its business practices.

The damages in the case were not specified as of August 25, but
Welspun alone has set aside roughly $78 million for the litigation
and its quality improvement efforts.

The retailers "knew or should have known" the sheets were falsely
labeled, the suit says, asserting they lacked adequate quality
control procedures.

All three retailers offered refunds to short-sheeted customers.
Target has discontinued its relationship with Welspun.

Judge Sullivan also set up a discovery schedule related to
certifying a potential consumer class or classes to last through
most of 2018.

The sides have noted that a July mediation did not bear fruit, but
the judge said they will have to take another crack at settlement
before the case is folded up and put away.

"I will ask you to huddle up with a magistrate judge," he said.
"At some point before trial I'll expect you to have a session."

The plaintiffs are represented by Scott A. Bursor, Esq. --
sbursor@bursor.com --  and Frederick J. Klorczyk, Esq. --
fklorczyk@bursor.com -- of Bursor & Fisher PA.

Welspun and Bed Bath & Beyond are represented by Warren Haskel,
Esq. -- warren.haskel@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP and
Joseph Serino Jr., Esq. -- joseph.serino@lw.com -- of Latham &
Watkins LLP.

Wal-Mart is represented by Nathaniel P.T. Read, Esq. --
info@cohengresser.com -- of Cohen & Gresser LLP.

Target is represented by Jessica Kaufman, Esq. - jkaufman@mofo.com
-- and Steven T. Rappoport, Esq. -- srappoport@mofo.com -- of
Morrison & Foerster LLP.

This case is In re Welspun Litigation, case number 1:16-cv-06792,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
[GN]


WALMART STORES: "Stephens" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled GERARD STEPHENS, on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. WALMART
STORES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-62723-KMM (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a national class
of:

   "consumers who applied for work with Walmart and against whom
   Walmart took adverse employment actions without first
   providing them with the FCRA-mandated notice."

Walmart is one of the nation's largest employers, staffing its
retail locations and other positions with individuals like
Plaintiff. As do many employers, Walmart obtains employment
purpose consumer reports (commonly known as "background checks")
for use in its hiring process. Nothing requires that employers use
such reports to screen employees but, when they choose to do so,
employers must abide by the strict, easy-to-follow mandates of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Plaintiff alleges that Walmart
has failed to meet those requirements, for him and a national
class of individuals who applied for work at Walmart and against
whom Walmart took adverse actions absent the appropriate notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=06ms7RFz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8719
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Chad A. Justice, Esq.
          BLACK ROCK TRIAL LAWYERS PLLC
          201 S. Westland Ave., Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (800) 346 7752
          Facsimile: (813) 254 3999
          E-mail: chadjustice@blackrocklaw.com

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Elizabeth Hanes, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930 3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930 3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Batista, Esq.
          Richard Bradlee Rosengarten, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
          401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: Batistad@gtlaw.com
                  rosengartenrich@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          David E. Sellinger, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          500 Campus Drive, Suite 400
          Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677
          Telephone: (973) 360 7900
          E-mail: sellingerd@gtlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Court Sounds Skeptical of Overdraft Fee Defense
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dugan, writing for New York Post, reports that a federal
appeals court sounded very skeptical about Wells Fargo's eleventh-
hour argument that more than 1 million depositors potentially hit
with excessive overdraft fees should be forced individually to
pursue a remedy through arbitration.

The bank's arbitration defense was raised well after the 2008 suit
was filed -- leading one jurist on the three-judge panel to
question the wisdom of chasing such a gambit.

"Whatever," Judge Adalberto Jordan said during August 23's
argument, responding to an explanation from a Wells lawyer about
why the bank changed strategies.

"I mean, parties choose their litigation strategy, and sometimes
they predict the future correctly and sometimes they don't," the
judge said, according to an audio recording of the argument
released on August 25.

Five depositors sued the embattled bank in 2008, claiming they
were slammed with excessive overdraft fees because Wells reordered
the charges.

Most banks used to reorder each day's charges to clear the
highest-price purchase first -- thus increasing the chances of
charging overdraft fees.

Every bank settled those claims -- except Wells Fargo.

If it loses its attempt to force depositors to chase down a remedy
through arbitration -- and not through a class-action lawsuit --
it could face a payout of more than $1 billion, experts close to
the case estimate.

Wells Fargo's scandal-scarred chairman to step down next year
A trial court judge in Florida denied Wells Fargo's arbitration
argument -- which set up August 23's appeals court argument in
Atlanta.

It is not known when the appeals court will rule.

Lawyers for the depositors have claimed that the bank was too late
in trying to narrow who can join the class, which could balloon to
more than a million people.

During the hearing, Sonya Winner, a lawyer for Wells Fargo, said
the bank would have mounted the arbitration strategy earlier --
but it did not appear viable until a decision in a related case.
It was that comment that prompted Jordan to blurt out, "Whatever."

"Everybody's devoted 5, 6, 61/2 years to litigation on substantial
motions to dismiss, certifications of a class, everything else,"
Jordan said. "It all could have been avoided had you initially
asserted your arbitration right with regard to the named
plaintiffs and had that issue resolved one way or another."

Wells tried once before, in 2011, to stop depositors from forming
a class action. The previous argument was not a winner. [GN]


WEST VIRGINIA: Attorneys Seek Approval of Revised Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ward Jr., writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that
attorneys for tens of thousands of Kanawha Valley residents,
businesses and workers have filed a revised settlement in the
class-action lawsuit over the January 2014 water crisis, and are
hoping that changes made to the agreement with West Virginia
American Water and Eastman Chemical will resolve objections raised
by the federal judge who is overseeing the case.

The amended settlement agreement aims to avoid what the judge felt
were disparities between settlement payments to different sized
businesses, provide a more thorough avenue for water-crisis
victims to appeal the amount of their individual settlement
payments, address the court's concerns about payments and
eligibility for medical claims, and create a potential avenue for
some payments to be made quickly, even if the settlement itself
faces a legal appeal.

Broad terms of the new proposal, filed on August 25 night in U.S.
District Court in Charleston, remain essentially the same:
Residents, businesses and workers who couldn't use tap water
following the contamination of the West Virginia American regional
system by the Freedom Industries chemical spill will share in a
total of up to $151 million in payments from the water company and
Eastman.

The process for residents, businesses and workers to file claims
for their share of the settlement will not start until the
settlement gets preliminary approval from U.S. District Judge John
T. Copenhaver Jr. Notices will be published and sent to eligible
class members once the judge has issued that preliminary approval.

Copenhaver had ruled in July that the settlement was a "strong
result" that provides "substantial benefits" for the victims of
the water crisis, but said the deal needed more work before he
would give it preliminary approval and begin the formal process
for spill victims to have their say about the deal or opt-out of
the settlement.

Among other things, the revisions would increase the estimated
payments to households who choose to file a simple claim form --
one that doesn't require documentation of money spent on things
like bottled water -- from $525 for the first resident and $170
for each additional resident to $550 for the first resident and
$180 for each additional resident. The base payment for a family
of four therefore increases from $1,035 to $1,090, without the
family having to prove specific losses or injuries.

New language would also require the hiring of an "Independent
Appeal Adjudicator" who would hear challenges from victims to
claim decisions made by a settlement administrator.

"The amended settlement agreement is the product of further
extensive negotiations between the parties, undertaken to ensure
that the court's concerns identified in the July 6 order were well
understood and fully addressed," lawyers for the water crisis
victims said in a legal brief filed on August 25 night. "Thus, at
this juncture, the parties submit their request for preliminary
approval of the amended settlement agreement as fair, adequate and
reasonable and in the best interest of all parties."

The amended settlement comes 10 months after the parties agreed,
on the eve of trial, to general terms of a deal to resolve the
complicated case over the region's ability to use its tap water
during the "do not use" order period that followed the
contamination of the Elk River supply by a spill of Crude MCHM and
other chemicals from the Freedom Industries facility just 1.5
miles upstream from the water company intake.

In the case, lawyers for residents and businesses alleged that
West Virginia American did not adequately prepare for or respond
to the spill and that MCHM-maker Eastman did not properly warn
Freedom of the dangers of its chemical or take any action when
Eastman officials learned that the Freedom facility was in
disrepair. West Virginia American and Eastman continue to deny any
liability, and say the blame for the crisis rests with Freedom
Industries, which admitted to criminal pollution violations
related to the spill.

The class covered by the case includes 224,000 residents and about
8,000 businesses. It includes basically any business or resident
who received tap water from the Elk River intake plant and any
hourly wager earner whose employer closed because of the spill and
resulting water system contamination.

Generally under the settlement, residents and businesses can
obtain uniform settlement payments by filing simple claim forms or
potentially receive larger distributions by providing receipts or
other proof of money spent for things like replacing hot water
tanks or buying bottled water. If the settlement administrator
rules out some portions of more complex claims, the administrator
must then advise the victims if they would be able to instead
accept payment of the simple form's base amount if that amount
would be greater.

The settlement also provides additional payments to women who were
pregnant at the time of the spill, residents who had medical
expenses, and hourly-wage earners who lost money when businesses
they worked in closed during the water crisis.

The amended settlement includes language that would cut -- as
ordered by the judge -- the payment to lawyers for the plaintiff
class from 30 percent of the settlement to 25 percent. It also
would place firmer restrictions on the ability of any lawyers to
charge clients for assistance in filling out simple claim forms.
Originally, law firms that did not sign onto a settlement petition
for fees, but who had clients eligible for the class-action deal,
would have been able to charge for that work.

Copenhaver had been concerned the original settlement would have
provided businesses that file simple claim forms with just under
$1 million in annual revenue with a payment equal to 1.25 percent
of their annual revenue, while a business with just over $1
million in revenue would be entitled to a payment of 5 percent of
its annual revenue. The amended proposal would give simple claim
form businesses with annual revenue of $1 million or less a base
payment of $1,875 plus 4 percent of an amount equal to their 2013
revenue. Businesses with more than $1 million in annual revenue
would receive estimated uniform payments of $41,875, which is the
amount that a business with $1 million in revenue would receive
using the same formula as for businesses with less than that in
revenue.

To address Copenhaver's concern about delays in claims being paid
should eventual approval of the settlement be appealed, the
amended deal sets up a procedure for both sides would confer to
decide if some claim classes might not be affected by the outcome
of the appeal, allowing them to be paid before the appeal is
resolved. Alternatively, the amended deal allows for early
funding, into escrow accounts, so that the water crisis victims
would at least have the benefit of interest on those funds in
exchange for the delay in being paid. [GN]


WESTERN EXPRESS: Faces "Elmy" Suit Over Deceptive Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------
John Elmy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Western Express, Inc., New Horizons Leasing, Inc., and
John Does 1-5, Case No. 3:17-cv-01199 (M.D. Tenn., August 25,
2017), seeks redress for fraud and negligent misrepresentation for
the Defendants' scheme to misrepresent material facts about the
Owner Operator program in order to induce the Plaintiffs to become
Owner Operators.

The Defendants own and operate a cargo and freight company in
Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lesley Tse, Esq.
      Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
      GETMAN, SWEENEY, & DUNN, PLLC
      260 Fair Street
      Kingston, NY 12401
      Telephone: (845) 255-9370
      Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
      E-mail: ltse@getmansweeney.com

         - and -

      Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
      1101 Kings Hwy N. Ste 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
      E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com

         - and -

      Charles Yezbak, Esq.
      YESBAK LAW OFFICES
      2002 Richard Jones Rd., Suite B-200
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Telephone: (615) 250-2000
      E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com


WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Faces "Dibble" Suit in Dist. of S.C.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Williams & Fudge,
Inc. The case is styled as David Dibble, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Williams &
Fudge, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-
02351-CMC (D. S.C., August 31, 2017).

Williams & Fudge, Inc was founded in 1986 with the purpose of
serving the Higher Education community.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kenneth Edward Norsworthy , Jr, Esq.
   Norsworthy Law Ltd Co
   505 Pettigru Street
   Greenville, SC 29601
   Tel: (864) 804-0581
   Fax: (864) 756-1153
   Email: kenorsworthy@me.com


WORLD LIQUIDATORS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Katz" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shalom Katz and all others similarly situated v. World
Liquidators, Inc. and Meir Peretz, Case No. 1:17-cv-23223-JLK
(S.D. Fla., August 25, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a safety equipment and supplies
company in Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


XPO LAST MILE: Certification of Drivers Class in "Hayes" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEPHEN HAYES, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
XPO LAST MILE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00319-RJJ-RSK
(W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Jonker denied class
certification of:

   "all current or former drivers and drivers' assistants and/or
   helpers who worked for Defendant at any time in the three
   years prior to the filing of this action."

The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice.

In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs asked the Court to enter an Order:

   a. conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid
      wages pursuant to 29 U.S.C section 216(b) defined as:

      "all current or former drivers or drivers' assistants
      and/or helpers who worked for Defendant at any time in the
      three years prior to the filing of this action;

   b. compelling Defendant to provide Plaintiffs with the names,
      all known addresses, e-mail addresses and cell phone
      numbers of the potential Collective members;

   c. authorizing the notice to the Collective members with a 120
      day opt-in period; and

   d. appointing Avanti Law Group, PLLC as interim class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kRKgd0Mr

In its order, the Court explained that it will be more efficient
and less confusing to consider the collective action and class
action issues at the same time on the CMO schedule. First, some
discovery will be needed here in light of the multiple layers of
potential employers and the contractual relations between them.
Second, the potential for confusion among prospective plaintiffs
is too great if the case proceeds now with a notice of conditional
collective action with required opt-in, and later with a parallel
opt out class action.  Finally, case management conflicts inherent
in parallel collective and class proceedings can be best managed
on the CMO schedule just set by the Court.  The Court recognized
this means some potential FLSA opt in plaintiffs may not start
their claim clock as early as they otherwise would. However, if
both collective and class action status is ultimately proper, as
Plaintiffs contend, the class portion of the case would relate
back to the date of the original class action complaint.
Accordingly the risk identified by Plaintiffs for the FLSA
collective action opt in plaintiffs would be mitigated.

A copy of the Court is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=95X36wwS

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
          Kristin L. Sage, Esq.
          AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC
          600 28th Street SW
          Grand Rapids, MI 49509
          Telephone: (616) 257-6808
          Facsimile: (616) 257-8501
          E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com
                  ksage@avantilaw.com


YIN WALL: Court Grants Motion for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BAUMANN FARMS, LLP, a Wisconsin limited
liability partnership; and GLENN HEIER; and AARON KAISER, the
Plaintiffs, v. YIN WALL CITY, INC., an Illinois corporation; SUT
I. FONG; CHEONG SAT O; YIN WALL CITY, DALLAS, INC., a Texas
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00605-WED (E.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

      "all individuals and entities engaged in the business of
      cultivating ginseng in the State of Wisconsin who have
      registered as ginseng growers with Wisconsin's DATCP as
      mandated by Wis. Stats. section 94.50(2), from January 2010
      through the date the defendants stopped selling ginseng in
      boxes labeled as "grown in Wisconsin," excluding defendants
      and all officers, directors, employees, and agents of
      defendants";

   2. appointing Michael T. Hopkins of IP-Litigation US LLC as
      class counsel; and

   3. directing class counsel to provide the court with a
      proposed form of notice to potential class members within
      28 days of this order.

The Court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, and a class action is superior to other available methods
for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The
defendants allege that they stopped selling the ginseng labeled
"grown in Wisconsin" in July 2015.Thus, the class definition will
include those who have registered as ginseng growers from 2010 up
to and through the date on which the defendants stopped selling
the ginseng that the plaintiffs allege was falsely labeled.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=q1qSw4jK


* Class Action Framework in India Needs Review
----------------------------------------------
Ashish Rukhaiyar, writing for The Hindu Review, reports that
in 2006, many shareholders who lost money after investing in
shares of Enron received a total of $7.2 billion in the U.S. after
a probe revealed that officials of the company presented false
accounts to investors and hid losses before going bankrupt.

Around the same time, those who had invested in the shares of
WorldCom received $6.2 billion after it emerged that its CEO had
indulged in manipulative activities to pump up the share price.

Both these cases saw eligible shareholders in the U.S. getting
back their money only because they had recourse to a class action
suit.  Interestingly, homegrown Satyam Computer Services, whose
investors in India did not get any compensation even after founder
Ramalinga Raju said that accounts were inflated and falsified,
agreed to pay $125 million in the U.S. to settle suits filed by
shareholders.

Such cases assume significance currently as India Inc. recently
saw the sudden resignation of Infosys's CEO Vishal Sikka and the
ensuing exchange of allegations between the board of directors and
founder N.R. Narayana Murthy that led to almost INR23,000 crore of
investor wealth being wiped off in a single day.

At least three U.S. law firms -- Pomerantz LLP, Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, and Rosen Law -- have reportedly said that they would
initiate class action proceedings against the Indian software
major, which is also listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

The origins of class actions suits in the U.S.-- where such cases
are the most common -- go back to 1842 when Equity Rule 48 gave
individuals the right to file such cases.  After multiple
revisions, it gained its current shape in 1966.

Since then, the legal recourse has been used on numerous occasions
in the U.S., the most famous and biggest of the lot being a
whopping $206 billion being paid out by tobacco companies over a
period of time.

This would be a good time for Indian policy makers as well to mull
why such class action suits have not been able to take off in the
country even though it has been more than four years since such
recourse has been made possible in India.

The concept of class action was introduced in the Indian legal
system when the Companies Act, which has its origin in 1956, was
revised in 2013.

Section 245 of the revised Act lays down that shareholders or
depositors can file a suit in the Tribunal if "they are of the
opinion that the management or conduct of the affairs of the
company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the
interests of the company or its members or depositors."

The Act further states that a minimum of 100 individuals is
required to file a class action suit. The Tribunal, if it deems
fit, could restrain the company from certain activities while also
directing the company and the auditor as well to pay damages or
compensation.

'Non-starter'

Sandeep Parekh, founder, Finsec Law Advisors, was of the view that
class action suits have been a non-starter in India primarily due
to two reasons: "First, lawyers should be allowed to charge
contingency fees in class suits as is the case in the U.S. where
such suits have seen shareholders get hefty compensation when
cheated by companies," he said.  "Second, Section 20A of SEBI Act
bars a civil court from having jurisdiction on any matter that is
under the regulatory purview of SEBI," said Mr. Parekh, who has
earlier worked with SEBI as an executive director in charge of the
legal department.

Contingency fees refer to the practice wherein the lawyer gets a
fee only if the case is won. Indian regulations bar lawyers from
charging such fees.

Meanwhile, the Companies Act lays down that the Investor Education
and Protection Fund will be used for "reimbursement of legal
expenses incurred in pursuing class action suits under sections 37
and 245 by members, debenture-holders or depositors as may be
sanctioned by the Tribunal."

According to Mr. Parekh, class action suits cannot be managed with
a government-controlled fund as they could be misused and one
might even suspect that people are using political influence to
target rival companies.  Interestingly, the California-based law
firm that managed the class action suit for Enron shareholders got
more than $700 million in fees.

Rajesh Narain Gupta, managing partner, SNG & Partners, said that
while Section 245 had been introduced in the Companies Act, class
action suits are still rare though there have been a few instances
of people coming together or a common cause being addressed at
consumer forums or in the form of a public interest litigation.

"The reasons include lack of a push mechanism.  In U.S., law firms
and lawyers become the catalyst for class suits as they get a
share in the compensation granted by the Courts and the aggrieved
persons get legal help and assistance without paying anything
upfront," said Mr. Gupta.

"The lawyers and law firms are highly incentivised to ensure
success to such actions as they can legitimately recover their
costs and fee from the award/compensation given to the claimants.
It's a highly-skilled and developed industry.  In India, a
commoner has to first think, 'which platform do I go to; how do I
get a lawyer; and how do I pay the lawyer,' as there is no
recognised back-ended system for payment of legal charges," he
added.

In the absence of such recourse to a class action suit, interested
entities, including individual and institutional shareholders,
have been left with no option but to approach the company itself
or the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to ensure
that the organisation is managed in the best possible manner so as
to safeguard their investments.

In a joint letter addressed to the board of Infosys, 12 mutual
funds wrote that they were concerned about the recent developments
and that co-founder Nandan Nilekani should be brought back.  This
was before the company announced the appointment of Mr. Nilekani
as the chairman.

Incidentally, UTI Mutual Fund also sought clarification from the
Infosys board as to whether the company was "committed to a
transformation strategy aimed at rebuilding its business" and
whether it would "continue to invest in attracting and rebuilding
human capital" to aid such a strategy.

Bringing SEBI in

Post the sudden resignation of Mr. Sikka, a few shareholders even
wrote to SEBI to check if there were any lapses related to
corporate governance or disclosure requirements by the IT major.

"Under Companies Act, 2013 investors can approach the Tribunal for
a class action suit if they think that company's affairs are being
conducted in a prejudicial manner to the shareholders or
depositors.  While there is no proven success of class action
suits in India as it has its own limitations, there are precedents
of relief from SEBI where stakeholders have sought quality in
financial reporting, transparency and corporate governance," said
Sumit Agrawal, founder, Suvan Law Advisors, a law firm
specialising in regulatory matters.

Mr. Sikka, in his resignation note, had said that the last few
months and quarters saw "false, baseless, malicious and
increasingly personal attacks" and allegations "that have been
repeatedly proven false and baseless by multiple, independent
investigations."

"But despite this, the attacks continue, and worse still,
amplified by the very people from whom we all expected the most
steadfast support in this great transformation," he said in his
letter to the board.

Interestingly, if the framework for class action suits is revised
to remove practical hindrances, one could see such suits being
filed over non-corporate issues as well, such as those related to
the general lack of proper civic amenities or even those
concerning public health facilities. [GN]


* DOL Fiduciary Rule Lawsuit Angle 'Will Likely Be Mooted'
----------------------------------------------------------
John Hilton, writing for Insurance News, reports that the DOL
fiduciary rule places any financial professional who works with
retirement income under a fiduciary standard.

The Department of Labor sent its clearest signal that it plans to
eliminate the hated class-action lawsuit provision of the Obama-
era fiduciary rule.

In a court brief filed in District of Minnesota federal court,
government attorneys said the lawsuit angle "will likely be mooted
in the near future."

The lawsuit right is included in the Best Interest Contract
Exemption, which agents will need to comply with in order to sell
variable and fixed indexed annuities. It is slated to take effect
Jan. 1.

However, the DOL is proposing an 18-month delay that is expected
to be published in the Federal Register soon. During that time,
the department will study and revise some portions of the rule.

The lawsuit provision is one of the most despised aspects of the
fiduciary rule. Several lawsuits were filed challenging the
government's right to create a private right of action, including
one in Minnesota court filed by Thrivent Financial.

Filed in September 2016, Thrivent 's 29-page lawsuit claimed the
DOL rule will render its dispute resolution mechanism obsolete.
Thrivent's mechanism prohibits class actions.

"Nothing in ERISA gives DOL authority to preclude financial
institutions and their clients from entering into and enforcing
arbitration agreements that include class action waivers,"
Thrivent's complaint reads.

The two sides are trading briefs in the case, but the government
made it clear that Thrivent should not worry about class action
remaining a part of the rule.

Phase one of the DOL rule took effect June 9. It requires advisors
and agents to act as fiduciaries, make no misleading statements
and accept only "reasonable" compensation. [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  * * *