CAR_Public/170907.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Thursday, September 7, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 177



                            Headlines

ABBA BAIL: Nov. 16 Class Cert. Bid Deadline in "van Hulten" Suit
ABUNDANT LIFE: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Order in "Malamphy" Suit
AETNA: Faces Class Action in Pennsylvania Over HIV Disclosure
AGRIA CORP: December 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AIRBNB: Faces Class Action in Canada Over "Service Fees"

ALCO VENDING: Court Denies Class Cert in Unsolicited Fax Suit
ALEX JEANS: Faces "Bernave" Suit over Unpaid Wages
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit in Connecticut Ongoing
ALTRIA GROUP: Unit Still Defends 4 Smoking & Health Class Suits
ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Smoking and Health Class Suits Pending in Canada

ALTRIA GROUP: 4 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru Sept. 30
ALTRIA GROUP: Class Certification Denied in 61 Cases v. PM USA
ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Still Defends 4 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases
ALTRIA GROUP: Appeal in "Larsen" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
ALTRIA GROUP: Stipulation to Dismiss "Carroll" Lawsuit Okayed

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Pact in Natural Gas Markets Suit Gets Final OK
ANGIE'S LIST: Still Faces "Williams" Lawsuit over Unpaid Wages
ANTHEM INC: May File Documents Under Seal in Data Breach Suit
ANTHEM INC: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Has Prelim. Approval
ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bids in "Stender"

BANK OF THE WEST: Faces "Stahl" Suit over Debit Card Charges
BEST YET EXPRESS: "Guzman" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages
BLINK HOLDINGS: "Diaz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Labor Law
BLUE APRON: "Speiser" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violations
CAC FINANCIAL: Faces "Sharon" Suit in E.D. of New York

CALIBER HOME: "Razuki" Suit Moved to S.D. California
CELGENE CORP: IUB Litigation Still Pending in New Jersey
CENTURYLINK INC: "Thummeti" Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana
CLARK COUNTY, IN: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hoffman" Suit
CLUBCORP HOLDINGS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action

CONNECTICUT: Faces Class Action Over Medicare Observation Status
CORELOGIC INC: Class Certification Bid in "Witt" Lawsuit Underway
CREDIT ONE: Faces "Tinker" Suit over Robocalls
CVS: Plaintiff Drops Suit Over Generic Drug Pricing Scheme
DEUTSCHE BANK: Litigation on Behalf of RMBS Trusts Still Ongoing

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Bid for Atty's Fees Partly Granted
DOMETIC CORP: Faces "Klenk" Suit over Defective Cooling Units
DOW CHEMICAL: Rocky Flats Class Action Suit Has Been Concluded
EDISON INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit Still Pending
EDISON INT'L: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit Set in October

ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Oct. 3 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Corcia" Suit in S.D. of New York
FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Still Faces Putative Class Lawsuits
FORTERRA INC: Faces "Spindler" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
FP STORES: "Hunt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages California Labor Code

GARDA CL: "Lane" Suit Seeks Unpaid Premium Wages under Labor Code
GENAERA CORP: 3d Cir. Partly Vacates Argyce Ruling in "Schmidt"
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Tangara" Suit over Defective AC Systems
GENERAL WIRELESS: Faces "Hoskinson" Suit in Delaware
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiffs/Counsel in "Rice" Suit Named

GNC HOLDINGS: California Wage and Break Claims vs. Unit Ongoing
GNC HOLDINGS: Appeal in Fluctuating Workweek Lawsuit Underway
HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces "Davis" Suit in E.D. of New York
HARRY CANTRELL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Caliste" Suit
HARTFORD FIRE: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Allen"

HELENA-WEST HELENA, AR: Court Dismisses "Mondy" Suit
HT RESTAURANT: Faces "Tasman" Suit over Minimum Wages & OT Pay
HYATT HOTELS: Sued in N.Y. Over Disabled Inaccessible Facilities
IHS ACQUISITION: Faces "Obare" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
IMPERVA INC: Poinsignon Sues over Background Checks

INDEPENDENT BANK GROUP: Subsidiary Still Faces BOH-Related Suit
INTEL CORP: Appeal Pending in McAfee Shareholder Class Action
JUICE BEAUTY: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in E.D. of New York
KBR INC: Metzgar Appeals Ruling in Burn Pit MDL to Fourth Circuit
KHBJR ENTERPRISE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Sanchez" Suit Claims

LIFE INSURANCE: Norman Appeals E.D. Louisiana Ruling to 5th Cir.
LM FUNDING: Agrees to Put $505K in Trust Account Under Settlement
LOVE'S TRAVEL: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Thompson" Suit
LTD FINANCIAL: Seeks 11th Circuit Review of Order in "Baez" Suit
MANDALA HEALING: "Brickhouse" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

MDL 2672: "Stokar" Suit vs. Audi Transferred to N.D. California
MERCHANT SOURCE: Fails to Pay Earned Commissions, Miller Says
METRO SHORE: Bessellieu Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Mutty" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
MIDLAND FUNDING: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Coyne" Suit

MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Foy" Suit over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NIC GEORGIOU: Accused of Trying to Scuttle Class Action
NORTH AMERICAN: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "McGhee" Suit
NOVOCURE LTD: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Still Ongoing
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Voluntary Dismissed "Cho" Suit

PEOPLES SECURITY: Rakus Sues over Vehicle Foreclosure Practices
PNM RESOURCES: Still Involved in Navajo Nation Allottee Matters
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Appeals Ruling in "Pettit" Charmin Wipes Suit
PSCH CLEAN: "Brown" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
QUIKTURN PROFESSIONAL: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Gonzalez Says

RADISSON HOTEL: Settles Banquet Servers' Class Action for $1.8MM
RELAY DELIVERY: "Sawadogo" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Pay under FLSA
SEI INVESTMENTS: Still Faces "Lillie" Class Action Litigation
SERVICE CORP: Units Still Faces Vasquez Suit on Labor Practices
SERVICE CORP: Plaintiffs to Appeal on Dropped Moulton Suit

SERVICE CORP: $15.0MM Settlement Reached in TCPA Class Lawsuit
SHAMROCK SALOON: Faces "George" Suit in S.D. of New York
SHORETEL INC: Faces "Mozeee" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Mitel
SHOWTIME: Sued Over Failed Mayweather-McGregor Streams
SPARTON CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action

STARBUCKS CORP: Faces "Naimi" Suit in C. Dist. of Calif.
SUBWAY: "Foot-Long" Sandwiches Settlement Approval Reversed
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Cheam Seeks Lost Wages under Labor Code
TD BANK: Penny Arcades Customers Can File Claims Until Oct. 27
TESLA MOTORS: Faces "Platt" Suit over Termination of Employment

TRIUMVIRATE ENVIRONMENTAL: Fails to Pay Wages, Guzman Claims
UNITIL CORP: Individual Claims in Bellermann Case Still Pending
VOLUME SERVICES: Faces "Jeffries" Suit in Dist. of Columbia
WESTLAKE WELLBEING: Faces "Edelstein" Suit in C.D. of California
WORLD CLASS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Paz" Suit Claims

WW GRAINGER: Trial in "Davies" Complaint Set for February 2018
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Sylvander Sues over Inflated Share Price
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Davydov" Suit in E.D. of New York

* Mainers May Lose Right to Fight Big Banks' Lending Practices






                            *********


ABBA BAIL: Nov. 16 Class Cert. Bid Deadline in "van Hulten" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ADAM VAN HULTEN, individually, and on behalf
of the general public and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ABBA BAIL BONDS, INC., a California corporation;
JANE UN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02459 (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L.
Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the Parties' Joint Stipulation to Extend
Deadline For Plaintiff to File Motion For Class Certification And
Extend Court's Precertification Discovery Cut-Off.

Pursuant to the Stipulation, the deadline for the Plaintiff to
file his Motion for Class Certification be extended from Sept. 21,
2017 to Nov. 16, 2017; and the Court's precertification discovery
deadline be extended from Sept. 11, 2017 to Nov. 10, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/nGrjic from Leagle.com.

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

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

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


ABUNDANT LIFE: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Order in "Malamphy" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Abundant Life Home Health Agency, LLC and Nely Nida
Villavencio filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Marcie Malamphy v. Abundant Life Home Health Age, et al.,
Case No. 8:16-cv-00327-EAK-TGW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Malamphy
commenced the lawsuit on February 11, 2016, alleging that she and
other hourly-paid nurses, who currently work, or have worked for
the Defendant, were deprived of proper overtime wages -- in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Marcie Malamphy v. Abundant
Life Home Health Age, et al., Case No. 17-13856, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before September 18, 2017, as to Appellant Abundant Life
      Home Health Agency, LLC; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before September 25, 2017, as to Appellee Marcie
      Malamphy.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee MARCIE MALAMPHY, and others, similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Constantine W. Papas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CYNTHIA N. SASS, PA
          601 W Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
          Tampa, FL 33603
          Telephone: (813) 251-5599
          Facsimile: (813) 259-9797
          E-mail: papas@sasslawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellants ABUNDANT LIFE HOME HEALTH AGENCY, LLC, and
NELY NIDA VILLAVENCIO, an individual, are represented by:

          Eric W. Neilsen, Esq.
          NEILSEN LAW GROUP, PA
          100 2nd Ave. N, Suite 240
          Saint Petersburg, FL 33712
          Telephone: (727) 350-3240
          Facsimile: (727) 499-7166


AETNA: Faces Class Action in Pennsylvania Over HIV Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Weixel, writing for The Hill, reports that Aetna on Aug.
28 was hit with a class-action lawsuit alleging the insurance
giant violated the privacy of its customers by mistakenly
revealing the HIV status of approximately 12,000 people.

The lawsuit, filed on Aug. 28 in federal court in Pennsylvania,
claims Aetna sent customers information about HIV medication that
was clearly visible through envelopes with large, clear windows.

The "highly confidential matter" was visible to "family,
roommates, friends, neighbors, landlords, mail carriers, and even
complete strangers," according to the AIDS Law Project of
Pennsylvania, which filed the suit with the Legal Action Center
and Berger & Montague P.C.

The suit demands that Aetna cease the practice of sending
information about HIV medications through the mail, reform its
procedures and pay damages.

The attorneys argue that by mailing the information the insurer
violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act,
a federal law that oversees the privacy of health information.

"For 40 years, HIV-related public health messages have been geared
toward assuring people that it's safe to come forward to get
confidential HIV treatment, and now our clients come forward for
HIV-related healthcare and Aetna fails to provide
confidentiality," Ronda B. Goldfein, executive director of the
AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania, said in a statement.

The letters were sent to Aetna customers in July.  The incident
came to light when the legal groups informed Aetna that it and six
other AIDS service organizations had received complaints from the
insurer's customers regarding the mailings.

Aetna acknowledged the incident and said it's starting a full
review.  The company declined to comment on the lawsuit. [GN]


AGRIA CORP: December 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., on Aug. 28 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of American Depositary Shares of
Agria Corporation (NYSE:GRO):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES OF AGRIA
CORPORATION DURING THE PERIOD FROM JUNE 8, 2016 THROUGH NOVEMBER
4, 2016, INCLUSIVE.1

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, that a hearing will
be held on December 13, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5C before
the Honorable Susan D. Wigenton, United States District Judge of
the District of New Jersey, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07101
(the "Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement consisting of the sum of
$1,300,000 (the "Settlement Amount") should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed
plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of
attorneys' fees of up to $429,000.00, or thirty-three percent
(33%) of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of litigation
expenses of no more than $25,000, and an award to the Lead
Plaintiffs not to exceed $15,000, should be approved; and (4)
whether the above-captioned action (the "Litigation") should be
dismissed with prejudice.

If you purchased Agria Corporation's American Depositary Shares
during the class period from June 8, 2016 through November 4,
2016, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of
this litigation.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of
the Proof of Claim and Release attached thereto, you may obtain
copies by writing to the Claims Administrator at: Agria
Corporation Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box
230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, Media, PA 19063 (866-274-4004
(Tel.); 610-565-7985 (Fax); info@strategicclaims.net), or going to
the website, www.strategicclaims.net.  If you are a member of the
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no
later than October 23, 2017 to the Claims Administrator,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  Unless you submit
a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Litigation whether or not you make a claim. If you
desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request
for exclusion so that it is received no later than November 13,
2017, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Class
Counsel's (as defined below) request for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses must be in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than
November 24, 2017 by each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
District of New Jersey
50 Walnut Street
Newark, NJ  07101

Laurence M. Rosen., Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
South Orange, NJ 07079
Telephone: (973) 313-1887
Facsimile: (973) 833-0399

Class Counsel

James J. Farrell, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
885 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 906-1200
Facsimile: (212) 751-4864

Counsel for Defendants

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Class Counsel:

Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
South Orange, NJ 07079
Telephone: (973) 313-1887
Facsimile: (973) 833-0399

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

1 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings
as set forth and defined in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, which is available on the Internet at
www.strategicclaims.net, or through the mail upon request to the
Claims Administrator. [GN]


AIRBNB: Faces Class Action in Canada Over "Service Fees"
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Mio, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a Quebec
lawyer is arguing that service fees added to the final price of
Airbnb rentals contravenes the province's Consumer Protection Act
and is asking the court to approve a class-action lawsuit against
the company.

Joey Zukran, the lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, says that
"service fees" added to the nightly rental rate violate the Quebec
law.

Mr. Zukran is representing Montrealer Martin Banoon, who recently
booked a six-night stay in Florida and was surprised to see his
room rate jump from the $199 originally quoted to $224 per night.

Even though the room was booked in the United States, the Quebec
law applies, Mr. Zukran says.  Sections 54.1 and 54.2 of the act
state that a "distance contract is deemed to be entered into at
the address of the consumer."

"A company like Airbnb that has over 800,000 users in Quebec, and
does business in Quebec, they (should) know that the law is going
to apply to them," he said.  "They know that they have to respect
the law in Quebec."

Mr. Zukran says the fees charged by Airbnb are in violation of the
Quebec Consumer Protection Act, specifically paragraph C of
Section 224, which reads that no merchant can "charge, for goods
or services, a higher price than that advertised."

In Quebec, hidden fees like the service charge must be disclosed
in the initial price quotes to consumers.

Mr. Banoon says he booked the stay in Florida as a surprise
vacation for his sister in early August.

"I booked the day before we left.  I found this nice listing in
Florida, I booked it, we went and had a great time," Mr. Banoon
said. "The price was fair."

He said that when he got back, he took a closer look at the bill
and only then did he notice the service fee added to the nightly
rate.

"I see on the price of the booking that there was this service fee
on it," he said.  "I didn't really understand what it was."

He says he didn't notice the increase because he assumed that it
was just taxes being added to an online transaction, something he
is accustomed to.

"They showed a total that looked more or less (like) the price,"
he said.  "I shop a lot online and you are used to coming to the
total and the price going up by 10 or 15 per cent, because usually
they are adding the taxes. And (the fee) is right in that range."

Mr. Banoon says that based on research he and Mr. Zukran have
done, the rate for the fee appears to vary.

"We really did a little bit of research and prices are advertised
without this fee, and then right before the end of the booking,
they add it," Mr. Banoon said, adding that the rate for the fee
can vary.

Similar cases have been heard in Quebec, specifically against
companies like Ticketmaster and StubHub.

Mr. Zukran says the lawsuit is seeking compensation for the
service fees paid by users, punitive damages of $100 per user and
to force Airbnb to change its website to comply with Quebec law.

"Sometimes it's because the company didn't know about the law, but
I would be very surprised if a company like Airbnb" didn't know
about this, Zukran said. "It's something they ought to have
known."

The Montreal Gazette reached out to Airbnb, and a company
spokesperson replied that the company would not comment on any
ongoing litigation. [GN]


ALCO VENDING: Court Denies Class Cert in Unsolicited Fax Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sara Elizabeth Lioi of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio denied both the Defendant's second
summary judgment motion and the Plaintiff's second motion to
certify the class in the case captioned THE SIDING AND INSULATION
CO., Plaintiff, v. ALCO VENDING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:11-
cv-1060 (N.D. Ohio).

The Defendant is in the business of placing and stocking vending
machines for its customers.  At all times relevant to the present
litigation, Richard Gajdos was the president of Alco and owned
100% of its stock.  Sometime in 2005, Gajdos received one or more
unsolicited faxes from Business to Business Solutions ("B2B")
offering to send faxes on behalf of Alco advertising its vending
machine services.  Gajdos contacted B2B and spoke with someone who
referred to himself as Kevin Wilson.  Gajdos settled on one
particular advertisement, after offering his input on certain
content details.

During the course of their negotiations, Wilson made several
representations to Gajdos regarding the nature of the advertising
services offered by B2B.  Gajdos ultimately authorized B2B to
transmit the advertisement and paid for this service by faxing a
check for $188 to B2B.  Following payment, the initial round of
faxes was sent in November 2005 by Macaw working with B2B.

After this first wave of faxes went out, Gajdos received "a
couple" of complaints from attorneys representing recipients who
did not consent to receiving the faxes.  Some of the attorney
letters threatened litigation.  Gajdos ultimately authorized and
paid B2B to send a second wave of fax advertisements that were
transmitted in July 2006.  Between the two attempts, Macaw
successfully sent 7,055 transmissions to 4,547 unique fax numbers.

The Plaintiff was one of the businesses to receive one or more of
the faxes sent by B2B/Macaw advertising the services of Alco.  On
May 24, 2011, it brought the present action alleging that, by
authorizing the faxes, Alco violated the TCPA inasmuch as the
Plaintiff did not invite or give permission to Alco to send the
faxes.  The Plaintiff moved for certification of the class of all
those who received the allegedly offending faxes, and defendant
moved for summary judgment.  The motions were referred to the
magistrate judge who issued a report and recommendation that
summary judgment be granted to the Defendant and the class
certification motion be denied as moot.  The Court adopted the R&R
and dismissed the action.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed.  In so ruling, the court
found that the magistrate judge and the district court had applied
the wrong standard when evaluating Alco's conduct under the TCPA.
Because the faxes were sent between Nov. 2005 and July 2006, the
court determined that the "on-whose-behalf" standard governed.
The court explained that, pursuant to this standard, a plaintiff
alleging a violation of the TCPA, must do more than simply show
that the defendant's goods or services were advertised in the
offending fax, but need not establish a complete agency
relationship between the defendant and the fax broadcaster.

The Sixth Circuit further identified a number of factors that
guide a court's consideration of whether a fax broadcaster had
sent the transmission "on behalf of" another entity. Applying
these factors to the record in this case, the court observed that
some of the factors indicate that B2B did not act on Alco's
behalf, while others tend to support the conclusion that B2B did
in fact act on Alco's behalf.  The court remanded the matter to
the district court to apply the correct legal standard.  The Sixth
Circuit noted that, on remand, the district court could allow
further discovery and permit any such further proceedings as it
determines is necessary to effectuate the standard described
above.  It also directed the district court to reconsider whether,
after conducting such proceedings, Siding's motion for class
certification remains moot.

The case was reassigned to Judge Lioi pursuant to General Order
2015-12, due to the original judge's retirement.  At the request
of counsel, the Court permitted the parties to conduct limited
discovery before re-briefing the Plaintiff's request for class
certification.  Following this period of discovery, the second
motion of Plaintiff Siding for class certification, and the
Defendant's second motion for summary judgment were filed.

The Plaintiff proposes certification of the class of all persons
who were successfully sent one or more faxes on Nov. 2, 2005 or
July 10, 2006, from Alco Vending offering a full line of vending
machines and stating that absolutely no charge to them to have
Alco put in their vending machines.

Judge Lioi finds that more to the point with respect to the
present dispositive motion, there are unresolved questions of fact
associated with many of these factors, including whether measures
taken by Alco to ensure compliance were sufficient given the fact
that Gajdos never read the complaints and continued to employ the
services of B2B after Alco was threatened with litigation.  As
previously mentioned, the reasonableness of Alco's reliance on
B2B's assurances of legality and promises to only send to those
who had consented to receive them also continues to be mired in
factual disputes.  Notwithstanding the promises made by B2B,
Gajdos concedes that he was not aware of the requirements (or even
existence) of the TCPA, yet he was well aware that B2B had sent
unsolicited faxes in the past because that is precisely how he
learned of the B2B's advertising services.  These unresolved
factual disputes preclude a finding that, as a matter of law, the
advertisements were not sent on Alco's behalf and therefore, Judge
Lioi denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

As to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, Judge Lioi
finds that the Plaintiff satisfies the Rule 23(a) commonality,
Rule 23(a)(3)'s typicality and the adequacy of representation
requirements.  However, she finds that Alco was able to produce
documentation demonstrating that it had an existing business
relationship with at least 42 of the entities on the fax list.
The Defendant has never represented that this was a complete list,
and, as early as 2013, has indicated that the 42 names came from
an "initial review" of Alco business records.  Accordingly, it is
reasonable to conclude that a more complete review of Alco's
records would be necessary to determine whether the claims of
other entities on the faxing list would be similarly time-barred,
and, coupled with the individualized inquiry as to timeliness of
each potential class member's claim that would follow, would
predominate the case.  Judge Lioi therefore denied the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/HWBAMe from Leagle.com.

Siding and Insulation Co., Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan B.
Piper -- jon@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim.

Siding and Insulation Co., Plaintiff, represented by Phillip A.
Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim,
Ryan M. Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Tod
A. Lewis -- tod@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch, pro hac vice,
Brian J. Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca,
Daniel J. Cohen, Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, Ross M. Good --
rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Scott D. Simpkins --
sdsimp@climacolaw.com -- Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino &
Garofoli.

Alco Vending, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric L. Samore --
esamore@salawus.com -- SmithAmundsen, Erin A. Walsh --
ewalsh@salawus.com -- SmithAmundsen & Dennis R. Fogarty --
dfogarty@davisyoung.com -- Davis & Young.


ALEX JEANS: Faces "Bernave" Suit over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
FIDEL BERNAVE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. ALEX JEANS MANUFACTURER, INC., a
California corporation; H&M DENIM APPAREL, INC., a business entity
of unknown form; J BRAND, INC., a California corporation;
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC673901
(Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and interest under the California Labor Code.

The case is a class action lawsuit alleging Defendants' failure to
timely pay all earned wages; failure to provide legally compliant
meal periods and/or pay meal period premium wages; failure to
provide legally complaint rest breaks and/or pay
rest break premium wages; statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties in the
form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employee all
earned and unpaid wages due upon separation of employment;
applicable civil penalties; injunctive relief and other equitable
relief; and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Code
Sections 226(e) and 1194; costs; and interest, brought on behalf
of Plaintiff and others similarly situated.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
          E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirtn.com
                  arosenkranz@lelawfirrn.com


ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit in Connecticut Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. still defends itself against a
securities class action lawsuit pending in Connecticut related to
misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris therapy, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

Soliris(R) (eculizumab) is the first and only therapeutic approved
for patients with either paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria
(PNH), a life-threatening and ultra-rare genetic blood disorder,
or atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), a life-threatening
and ultra-rare genetic disease. PNH and aHUS are two disorders
resulting from chronic uncontrolled activation of the complement
component of the immune system.

On December 29, 2016, a shareholder filed a putative class action
against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that
defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris.

On April 12, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff.

On July 14, 2017, lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class
action complaint against the Company and seven current or former
employees.  The complaint alleges that defendants made
misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris, including alleged
misrepresentations regarding sales practices, management changes,
and related investigations, between January 30, 2014 and May 26,
2017, and that the Company's stock price dropped upon the
purported disclosure of the misrepresentations.

The litigation is in the early stages, and defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint.

The Company said, "Given the early stages of this litigation,
management does not currently believe that a loss related to this
matter is probable or that the potential magnitude of such loss or
range of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated."

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on serving patients with devastating and ultra-rare
disorders through the innovation, development and
commercialization of life-transforming therapeutic products.


ALTRIA GROUP: Unit Still Defends 4 Smoking & Health Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017 that wholly-owned subsidiary Philip Morris USA Inc.
remains a defendant in four "Smoking and Health Class Actions and
Aggregated Claims Litigation" pending in the United States as of
July 24, 2017.  In some instances, the Company is also a
defendant.

The Smoking and Health Class Actions and Aggregated Claims
Litigation includes one case the 600 civil actions (of which 344
were actions against PM USA) that were to be tried in a single
proceeding in West Virginia (In re: Tobacco Litigation).

The Company said, "The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
ruled that the United States Constitution did not preclude a trial
in two phases in this case.  Issues related to defendants' conduct
and whether punitive damages are permissible were tried in the
first phase.  Trial in the first phase of this case began in April
2013.  In May 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
defendants on the claims for design defect, negligence, failure to
warn, breach of warranty, and concealment and declined to find
that the defendants' conduct warranted punitive damages.
Plaintiffs prevailed on their claim that ventilated filter
cigarettes should have included use instructions for the period
1964 - 1969.  The second phase will consist of trials to determine
liability and compensatory damages.  In November 2014, the West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment.  In
July 2015, the trial court entered an order that will result in
the entry of final judgment in favor of defendants and against all
but 30 plaintiffs who potentially have a claim against one or more
defendants that may be pursued in a second phase of trial.  The
court intends to try the claims of these 30 plaintiffs in six
consolidated trials, each with a group of five plaintiffs.  PM USA
is a defendant in nine of the remaining 30 cases.  The first trial
is currently scheduled to begin May 1, 2018.  Dates for the five
remaining consolidated trials have not been scheduled."

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United
States.  The company sells its tobacco products primarily to
wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations,
such as chain stores; and the armed services.  Altria Group, Inc.
was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Smoking and Health Class Suits Pending in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Philip Morris
USA Inc. (PM USA) still defend themselves in seven smoking and
health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces as of
July 24, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017.

As of July 24, 2017, PM USA is also a named defendant in 10 health
care cost recovery actions in Canada, eight of which also name
Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant.

The class actions, which name other cigarette manufacturers as
defendants, were filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.

In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and
Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases,
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes.

In the actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia,
plaintiffs seek certification of classes of all individuals who
smoked defendants' cigarettes.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United
States.  The company sells its tobacco products primarily to
wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations,
such as chain stores; and the armed services.  Altria Group, Inc.
was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: 4 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017 that as of July 24, four Engle progeny cases are set
for trial through September 30.

There is one individual smoking and health case and no
"Lights/Ultra Lights" class actions against the Company's wholly-
owned subsidiary Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) set for trial
during this period.  Cases against other companies in the tobacco
industry are scheduled for trial during this period.  Trial dates
are subject to change.

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts
have been returned in 61 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights"
and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a
defendant.  Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were
returned in 41 of the 61 cases.  These 41 cases were tried in
Alaska (1), California (7), Florida (10), Louisiana (1),
Massachusetts (2), Mississippi (1), Missouri (4), New Hampshire
(1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1),
Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2).  A motion
for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and in
the case in Alaska.  In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial court
withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's motion for
reconsideration.

In December 2015, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the trial
court decision and remanded the case with directions for the trial
court to reassess whether to grant a new trial.

In March 2016, the trial court granted a new trial and PM USA
filed a petition for review of that order with the Alaska Supreme
Court, which the court denied in July 2016.  The retrial began in
October 2016.

In November 2016, the court declared a mistrial after the jury
failed to reach a verdict.  The plaintiff subsequently moved for a
new trial, which is scheduled to begin October 16, 2017.

Of the 20 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs, 18 have reached final resolution.

As of July 24, 2017, 110 state and federal Engle progeny cases
involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida
Supreme Court's Engle decision as follows: 62 verdicts were
returned in favor of plaintiffs; 44 verdicts were returned in
favor of PM USA.  Two verdicts in favor of plaintiffs were
partially or entirely reversed on appeal and two verdicts in favor
of PM USA were reversed for a new trial.

After exhausting all appeals in those cases resulting in adverse
verdicts associated with tobacco-related litigation, since October
2004, PM USA has paid in the aggregate judgments and settlements
(including related costs and fees) totaling approximately US$490
million and interest totaling approximately US$184 million as of
June 30, 2017.  These amounts include payments for Engle progeny
judgments (and related costs and fees) totaling approximately
US$99 million, interest totaling approximately US$22 million and
payment of approximately US$43 million in connection with the
Federal Engle Agreement.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United
States.  The company sells its tobacco products primarily to
wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations,
such as chain stores; and the armed services.  Altria Group, Inc.
was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: Class Certification Denied in 61 Cases v. PM USA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017 that class certification has been denied or reversed
by courts in 61 smoking and health class actions involving wholly-
owned subsidiary Philip Morris USA Inc.

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits
in various state and federal courts.  In general, these cases
purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state
or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope)
and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical
injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 61
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1),
California (1), Delaware (1), the District of Columbia (2),
Florida (2), Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1),
Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey
(6), New York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1),
Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1)
and Wisconsin (1).

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United
States.  The company sells its tobacco products primarily to
wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations,
such as chain stores; and the armed services.  Altria Group, Inc.
was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Still Defends 4 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary Philip Morris USA
Inc. ("PM USA") remains a defendant to four "Lights/Ultra Lights"
class actions pending in the United States as of July 24, 2017,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.  In certain instances, the Company or its other
subsidiaries are also named as defendants.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the uses of the terms
"Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair
trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment
or breach of warranty, and seek injunctive and equitable relief,
including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages.
These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in
certain instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its other subsidiaries,
on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands
of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights,
Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge
Lights.

Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation,
lack of causation, injury and damages, the statute of limitations,
non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct
that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First
Amendment.

As of July 24, 2017, 21 state courts in 22 "Lights" cases have
refused to certify class actions, dismissed class action
allegations, reversed prior class certification decisions or have
entered judgment in favor of PM USA.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United
States.  The company sells its tobacco products primarily to
wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations,
such as chain stores; and the armed services.  Altria Group, Inc.
was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: Appeal in "Larsen" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that one certified class action lawsuit remains
pending on appeal.

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class
certification order.  In December 2009, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which
potential class members can qualify to become part of the class.
The class period remains 1995-2003.  In June 2010, PM USA's motion
for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request for
punitive damages was denied.  In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the
case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case
brought by the Department of Justice.  The plaintiffs' motion was
denied in December 2010.

In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions
challenging the plaintiffs' claims.  In August 2011, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling
that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on
allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro
Reds.  The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment
motions.  Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in
October 2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed
to reach a verdict.

In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior ruling
granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more
dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim.  In
October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and for
partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim,
which the court denied in June 2015.  Upon retrial, in April 2016,
the jury returned a verdict in favor of PM USA.

In August 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and PM USA
cross-appealed.  In November 2016, the court of appeals dismissed
PM USA's cross-appeal without prejudice upon joint motion of the
parties.

Oral argument at the Missouri Court of Appeals was scheduled for
August 8, 2017.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United
States.  The company sells its tobacco products primarily to
wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations,
such as chain stores; and the armed services.  Altria Group, Inc.
was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: Stipulation to Dismiss "Carroll" Lawsuit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017 that the "Carroll" lawsuit is concluded. In July
2017, the trial court approved a stipulation to dismiss the case
with prejudice.

In December 2009, the state trial court in Carroll (formerly known
as Holmes) (pending in Delaware) denied the motion of the
Company's wholly-owned subsidiary Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM
USA") for summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the
Delaware Consumer Fraud Act.

In January 2011, the trial court allowed the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint substituting class representatives and naming
Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as additional defendants.

In February 2013, the trial court approved the parties'
stipulation to the dismissal without prejudice of Altria Group,
Inc. and Philip Morris International Inc. ("PMI"), leaving PM USA
as the sole defendant in the case.

In March 2015, plaintiffs moved for class certification and, in
July 2015, PM USA filed a summary judgment motion seeking to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims in their entirety on preemption
grounds.

In May 2017, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The named plaintiff agreed to resolve her
individual claim for US$3,000 and, pursuant to that agreement, in
July 2017, the trial court approved the parties' stipulation to
dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United
States.  The company sells its tobacco products primarily to
wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations,
such as chain stores; and the armed services.  Altria Group, Inc.
was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Pact in Natural Gas Markets Suit Gets Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Electric Power Company, Inc. (AEP) disclosed in its Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that the district court
has issued a final approval of a settlement in three class action
lawsuits related to natural gas markets.

In 2002, the lawsuit was commenced in Los Angeles County
California Superior Court against numerous energy companies,
including AEP, alleging violations of California law through
alleged fraudulent reporting of false natural gas price and volume
information with an intent to affect the market price of natural
gas and electricity.  AEP was dismissed from the case.

A number of similar cases were also filed in state and federal
courts in several states making essentially the same allegations
under federal or state laws against the same companies.  AEP is
among the companies named as defendants in some of these cases.
AEP settled, received summary judgment or was dismissed from all
of these cases.

The plaintiffs appealed the Nevada federal district court's
dismissal of several cases involving AEP companies to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In April 2013, the appellate court reversed in part, and affirmed
in part, the district court's orders in these cases.  The United
States Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit's opinion.  The cases were remanded to the district
court for further proceedings.

AEP had four pending cases, of which three were class actions and
one was a single plaintiff case.  In February 2017, a settlement
was reached in the single plaintiff case.

A settlement was also reached in the three class actions and the
district court issued final approval of the settlement in June
2017.

American Electric Power Company, Inc., a public utility holding
company, engages in the generation, transmission, and distribution
of electricity for sale to retail and wholesale customers in the
United States.  It was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in
Columbus, Ohio.


ANGIE'S LIST: Still Faces "Williams" Lawsuit over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. still defends itself against a potential class
action related to unpaid wages, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The case styled Williams, et al. v. Angie's List, Inc., 1:16-cv-
878, was filed by a group of former employees on April 20, 2016,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana.  The lawsuit alleges the Company failed to pay (i) wages
earned in a timely manner as required under Indiana Wage Statutes
and (ii) overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (29 U.S.C. 206-07) and is requesting payment of all damages,
including unpaid wages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
charges.

Six amended complaints were filed, adding additional named
plaintiffs, and the Company filed its answer to the sixth amended
complaint on April 10, 2017.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
conditional certification on June 10, 2016, and the Company filed
its response brief in opposition on July 15, 2016.

The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification on November 30, 2016 but allowed the plaintiffs to
refile with a more narrow class definition.

On December 9, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
conditional certification.  The Company filed its response to the
renewed motion on January 6, 2017, and the plaintiffs filed their
reply on January 17, 2017.

The Court denied the plaintiffs' renewed motion for conditional
certification on April 28, 2017.

The Company said that it is currently unable to determine the
likely outcome or reasonably estimate the amount or range of
potential liability, if any, related to this matter, and
accordingly, has not established any reserve for this matter.

Angie's List operates a national local services consumer review
service and marketplace where members can research, shop for and
purchase local services for critical needs, as well as rate and
review the providers of these services across the United States.


ANTHEM INC: May File Documents Under Seal in Data Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted the parties' Joint
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in the appeals case
captioned IN RE ANTHEM, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 15-
MD-02617-LHK (9th Cir.).

The parties seek to seal portions of the motion for preliminary
approval, portions of Exhibit 2 to the Settlement Agreement, and
the entirety of the Statement Regarding Exclusion of Settlement
Class Members.  They submit that there are compelling reasons to
seal these materials.

The parties' motion seeks to seal two types of information.
First, they seek to seal confidential information regarding
Anthem's information security, including current methods for data
security, methods for data security that Anthem intends to
implement in the future pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and
specific amounts of funding that Anthem will spend on
cybersecurity measure pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.  This
information includes descriptions of cybersecurity practices and
protocols.

Judge Koh agrees that if specific information regarding Anthem's
cybersecurity practices were disclosed, this could allow
cyberattackers greater opportunity to defeat these defenses and
substantially harm both Anthem and putative class members.  She
also agrees that disclosing specific funding levels could allow
Anthem's competitors to have an advantage over Anthem in providing
cybersecurity services.  Therefore, she finds that compelling
reasons exist to seal specific information regarding Anthem's
cybersecurity practices and funding.  Judge Koh thus granted the
parties' motion to seal this information.

Second, the parties seek to seal the Statement Regarding Exclusion
of Settlement Class Members, which contains the number of opt-outs
from the settlement that would trigger Anthem's right to terminate
the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Koh and other courts have found that such information is
sealable in order to prevent third parties from utilizing the
provision for the improper purpose of obstructing the settlement
and obtaining higher payouts.  If revealed, this information could
lead to court files becoming a vehicle for improper purposes.
Both the class members and the Defendants have a strong interest
in avoiding strategic conduct by potential objectors in targeting
a specific number of opt-outs.  Thus, she finds that compelling
reasons exist to seal this information and therefore granted the
parties' request to seal the Statement Regarding Exclusion of
Settlement Class Members.

Thus, Judge Koh granted the parties' motion to seal.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Aug. 25, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/805uAD from Leagle.com.

In re Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
represented by Craig Alan Hoover -- craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com
-- Hogan Lovells US LLP.

In re Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
represented by E. Desmond Hogan -- desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com
-- Hogan Lovells, Eve Hedy Cervantez --
ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael
McDonald Maddigan -- michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio -- peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com --
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP & Michael Ben Pasternak, Michael Pasternak.

Laura Fowles, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti --
tlopresti@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle
Evelyn Leonard -- dleonard@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon
LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael W. Sobol --
msobol@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicole
Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & RoseMarie
Maliekel, Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP.

Danny Juliano, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon
LLP, Donald W. Stewart -- donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com -- Eve Hedy
Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Greg William Foster --
greg@stewartandstewart.net -- STEWART AND STEWART PC, Nicole Diane
Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & T. Dylan Reeves,
STEWART & STEWART PC.

Susanne Powell, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Clayeo C. Arnold, Clayeo C. Arnold, A
Professional Law Corporation, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Joshua
Haakon Watson, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation &
Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Casey Silva, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Clayeo C. Arnold, Clayeo C. Arnold, A
Professional Law Corporation, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Joshua
Haakon Watson, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation &
Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Brent J Gearhart, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Clayeo C. Arnold, Clayeo C. Arnold, A
Professional Law Corporation, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Joshua
Haakon Watson, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation &
Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Samantha Kirby, Plaintiff, represented by Theodore Walter Maya --
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Anthony J.
LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Bradley K. King, Ahdoot & Wolfson
APC, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy
Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Morgan
and Morgan, P.A., Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Robert Ahdoot, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Theodore
Walter Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C. & Tina Wolfson --
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C..

Aswad Hood, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, Danielle
Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, David Michael Berger, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Eric H. Gibbs, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP, Scott M. Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP & Steven
Augustine Lopez, Girard Gibbs LLP.

Susan Morris, Plaintiff, represented by Aashish Y. Desai, Desai
Law Firm PC, Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle
Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, M. Adrianne De Castro, Desai Law Firm, PC &
Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Joseph D'Angelo, III, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J.
LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Edward Adam Webb, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC, Eve Hedy
Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Webb,
Klase and Lemond, LLC, Matthew C. Klase, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC
& Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Shawn P. Haggerty, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon
LLP, Edward Adam Webb, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC, Eve Hedy
Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Webb,
Klase and Lemond, LLC, Matthew C. Klase, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC
& Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Anthem, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover --
craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael
McDonald Maddigan -- michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke -- adam.a.cooke@hoganlovells.com --
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Alexandria J. Reyes --
areyes@blackwellburke.com -- Troutman Sanders, LLP, Allison Marie
Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Cassandra Lauren Crawford --
cassie.crawford@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, Cavender C. Kimble -- ckimble@balch.com -- BALCH
& BINGHAM LLP, Chad R. Fuller -- chad.fuller@troutmansanders.com -
- Troutman Sanders LLP, Christopher W. Brooker --
cbrooker@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP, Craig H.
Smith -- craig.smith@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP,
David R. Boyd -- dboyd@bsfllp.com -- Comey & Boyd, E. Desmond
Hogan -- desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells,
Elizabeth C. Lockwood -- elizabeth.lockwood@hoganlovells.com --
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Geraldine G. Sanchez, Roach Hewitt Ruprecht
Sanchez & Bischoff, P.C., Glenn Virgil Whitaker --
gvwhitaker@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, Gregory
Haynes, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP, Jaime L. Theriot --
jaime.theriot@troutmansanders.com  -- Troutman Sanders, LLP,
Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja -- jasmeet.ahuja@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin -- john.martin@nelsonmullins.com
-- Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley,
Lisa Fried -- lisa.fried@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Lucile Hartley Cohen -- lucie.cohen@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson
Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mark A. Stafford, Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten --
mary.vanhouten@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Matthew
H. Geelan -- MGeelan@ddnctlaw.com -- Donahue, Durham & Noonan,
P.C., Melissa McCoy Gormly, Vorys, Sater Seymour and Pease LLP,
Michael G. Durham -- mdurham@ddnctlaw.com -- Donahue Durham &
Noonan PC, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Michael C. Theis -- michael.theis@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Michael J. Tuteur -- mtuteur@foley.com -- Foley &
Lardner LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan
Garrett Foell-- nathan.foell@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells,
Neal F. Perryman -- nperryman@lewisrice.com -- LEWIS RICE, LLC,
Patrick Joseph Dempsey, Hogan Lovels US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN
LOVELLS US LLP, Robert Armand Perez, S., Perez Law Firm Co. LPA,
Robert Neal Webner -- rnwebner@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour
and Pease LLP, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Ronald A.
Norwood -- rnorwood@lewisrice.com -- LEWIS RICE, LLC, Sally F.
Zweig, KATZ & KORIN P.C., Stephen A. Loney, Jr. --
stephen.loney@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan & Hartson, Travis A.
Bustamante -- travis.bustamante@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson
Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell --
winston.maxwell@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Blue Cross of California, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan
Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison Marie
Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP,
E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John
Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright
Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough
LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael
McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Peter
R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA
LLP, Sally F. Zweig, KATZ & KORIN P.C., Travis A. Bustamante,
Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan
Lovells US LLP.

The Anthem Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Alan
Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Allison Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Chad R.
Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Craig H. Smith, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan
Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough
LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins
Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R.
Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA
LLP, Stephen A. Loney, Jr., Hogan & Hartson & Travis A.
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins.

Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond
Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C.
Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells
LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP,
Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley
Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A.
Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan
Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A.
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David
Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

The Anthem Companies of California, Inc., a California
corporation, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald
Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US
LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman
Sanders LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick
Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright
Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough
LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael
McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan
Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins & Vassiliki
Iliadis.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia Inc, Defendant, represented
by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan,
Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Alexandria J. Reyes, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Chad R. Fuller,
Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Jaime L. Theriot, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan
Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough
LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins
Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett
Foell, Hogan Lovells, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins,
Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Community Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan
Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison Marie
Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP,
E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Glenn Virgil Whitaker, Vorys Sater Seymour &
Pease, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin,
Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile
Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera
Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Peter R.
Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Robert Neal Webner, Vorys Sater
Seymour and Pease LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins,
Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael
McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN
LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller,
Troutman Sanders LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth
C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan
Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough
LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins
Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett
Foell, Hogan Lovells, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins,
Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig
Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison
Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Cassandra Lauren Crawford,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman
Sanders LLP, Craig Alan Hoover, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, E. Desmond
Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson
Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile
Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mark A.
Stafford, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Mary Sameera
Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Peter R.
Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Sally F. Zweig, KATZ & KORIN P.C.,
Timothy James Parker, CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN, Travis A.
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David
Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Anthem Health Plans of Virginia, Defendant, represented by Craig
Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison
Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders
LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John
Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright
Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough
LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A.
Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan
Lovells, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Sally F. Zweig,
KATZ & KORIN P.C., Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki
Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.


ANTHEM INC: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Has Prelim. Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement in
the case captioned IN RE ANTHEM, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case
No. 15-MD-02617-LHK (9th Cir.).

Judge Koh preliminarily certified, for settlement purposes only,
the Settlement Class defined as all Individuals whose Personal
Information was maintained on Anthem's Enterprise Data Warehouse
and are included in Anthem's Member Impact Database and/or
received a notice relating to the Data Breach; provided, however,
that the following are excluded from the Settlement Class: (i) the
Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a controlling
interest, and the Defendants' officers, directors, legal
representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any
judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over the matter and
the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and
(iii) any individual who timely and validly opts-out from the
Settlement Class.

The Judge appointed as the Class Representatives: Cindy Chadwick,
Pearl Bruno, Daniel Randrup, Mary Ella Carter (on behalf of her
minor daughter T), Kenneth Coonce, Steve Kawai, Kenneth Solomon,
Joseph and Karen Jo Blanchard, Lillian Brisko, Alvin Lawson, James
Schatzman, Janet Brunton, Kimberly Kos-Williams, Gary Lasneski,
Ralph Staffieri, Jessica Holguin, Danielle DiFonzo, Glenn Kahn,
Gerald Keaton, John McAffry, Charles Platt, John Thomas, II,
Lauren Roberts, Karen Coppedge, Allison Swank, Kevin Donnelly,
Harold Lott, Cynthia Kelley, Mary Wicklund, David Klemer, Nadine
Foster, Cynthia Reichrath, Wanda Pratt, Brent Harris, Steven
Quinnette, Darrell Hunter, Cheryl Grissom, Melinda Lambert, Amy
Whittaker, Shantel and Rahman Jones, Jason Jenkins, Kelli Smith
(on her own behalf and on behalf of her three minor children),
Dianne Reistroffer, Christopher Ruberg, Frank Bailey, Jason Baker,
Meredith Fisse, Robin Wilkey, Gary Bellegarde, Mark Hatcher, Don
West, Denese Depeza, Claudia Cass, Robert Roy, Carrie Ramos, Lisa
Daniels, Michelle Kaseta-Collins, Lyle Nichols, Hank Maurer, Jack
Wenglewick, Charles McCullough, Debbie Stein, Melody Eads,
Christopher Allen, Jill Noble, Cherri and Gregory Hawes, Christina
Renkoski (previously Novak), Shawn Crane, Troy Hobbs, David
Ifversen, Angelin Gonzalez, Joseph LeBrun, Brenda Harrington,
Elizabeth Ames, Ronald Percy, Barbara Gold, Matthew Gates, Marne
Onderdonk, Frank Pacilio, Valerie Brescia, Randy Polacsek, Francis
Nicosia, Connie McDaniel, Rachel Calo, Nicholas Bowes, Martin
Williams, Rosanne M. Stanley, Gregory Kremer, Denise Masloski,
Alan Voll, Lakeysha Gant, Jonathan B. Pulcini, Patrick Kimbrell,
William Ansah-Dawson, C. Wheelwright, Michael S. Weinberger,
Vernon Davitte, Jennifer Mertlich, Simon Kaufman, Lisa Shiltz,
Susan H. Jones, and Jennifer Rud.

She also appointed as the Class Counsel Eve H. Cervantez, Andrew
N. Friedman, Michael W. Sobol, and Eric Gibbs, as well as their
respective firms: Altshuler Berzon LLP; Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC; Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP; and Girard
Gibbs LLP.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Parties have designated
KCC as the Settlement Administrator.  The Settlement Administrator
will perform all the duties of the Settlement Administrator set
forth in the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Koh approved the Notice and Notice Plan and directed the
parties and the Settlement Administrator to proceed with providing
notice to Settlement Class Members pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and the Order.  Under the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Administrator will
disseminate the Notice and implement the Notice Plan on or before
Oct. 30, 2017.

She also approved the Claim Form and the Out-of-Pocket Costs Claim
Form, as well as the administration and/or enrollment procedures
for Out-of-Pocket Costs claims, Alternative Compensation claims,
and obtaining Credit Services.

Those Settlement Class Members who wish to opt-out and exclude
themselves from the Settlement Class may do so by notifying the
Settlement Administrator in writing, postmarked no later than Dec.
29, 2017 (60 calendar days after Oct. 30, 2017).  Those Settlement
Class Members who wish to object to the Settlement may do so by
submitting a written objection to the Settlement Administrator and
to the Court in accordance with the procedures outlined in the
Notice no later than Dec. 29, 2017 (60 calendar days after Oct.
30, 2017).

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on Feb. 1, 2018 at
1:30 p.m.  It reserves the right to continue the date of the Final
Approval hearing without further notice to Settlement Class
Members.

Judge Koh set these deadlines, injunction, and termination: (i)
Event Date Notice of Class Action Settlement completed as October
30, 2017 per Notice Plan Class Counsel Motion for Attorneys' Fees;
(ii) Dec. 1, 2017 - Costs Motion for Final Approval; (iii) Dec. 1,
2017 - Opt-Out and Objection Deadline; (iv) Dec. 29, 2017 - Reply
in Support of Motion for Final Approval; (v) Jan. 25, 2018 -
Attorneys' Fees and Costs; and (vi) Feb. 1, 2018 - Final Approval
Hearing.

All proceedings and deadlines in the matter, except those
necessary to implement the Order and the Settlement, are stayed
and suspended until further order of the Court.

The instant motion granting preliminary approval of the proposed
class action settlement renders moot the following pending motions
in this multi-district litigation: Administrative Motion to File
Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal;
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Application for Leave to
File Response to Defendants' Statement of Recent Decision;
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to
File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal;
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to
File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Motion
to Strike Expert Testimony of Dr. Stefan Savage; Motion to Strike
Expert Testimony of James Mulvenon; Motion to Strike Expert
Testimony of William S. Choi; Administrative Motion to File Under
Seal; Administrative Motion for Removal of Incorrectly Filed
Documents; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal;
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to
File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal;
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to
File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal;
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to
File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; and
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.  Judge Koh therefore
denied as moot these pending motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/eCebzq from Leagle.com.

In re Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
represented by Craig Alan Hoover -- craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com
-- Hogan Lovells US LLP.

In re Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
represented by E. Desmond Hogan -- desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com
-- Hogan Lovells, Eve Hedy Cervantez --
ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael
McDonald Maddigan -- michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio -- peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com --
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP & Michael Ben Pasternak, Michael Pasternak.

Laura Fowles, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti --
tlopresti@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle
Evelyn Leonard -- dleonard@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon
LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael W. Sobol --
msobol@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicole
Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & RoseMarie
Maliekel, Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP.

Danny Juliano, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon
LLP, Donald W. Stewart -- donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com -- Eve Hedy
Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Greg William Foster --
greg@stewartandstewart.net -- STEWART AND STEWART PC, Nicole Diane
Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & T. Dylan Reeves,
STEWART & STEWART PC.

Susanne Powell, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Clayeo C. Arnold, Clayeo C. Arnold, A
Professional Law Corporation, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Joshua
Haakon Watson, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation &
Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Casey Silva, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Clayeo C. Arnold, Clayeo C. Arnold, A
Professional Law Corporation, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Joshua
Haakon Watson, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation &
Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Brent J Gearhart, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Clayeo C. Arnold, Clayeo C. Arnold, A
Professional Law Corporation, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Joshua
Haakon Watson, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation &
Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Samantha Kirby, Plaintiff, represented by Theodore Walter Maya --
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Anthony J.
LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Bradley K. King, Ahdoot & Wolfson
APC, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy
Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Morgan
and Morgan, P.A., Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Robert Ahdoot, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Theodore
Walter Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C. & Tina Wolfson --
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C..

Aswad Hood, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, Danielle
Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, David Michael Berger, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Eric H. Gibbs, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP, Scott M. Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP & Steven
Augustine Lopez, Girard Gibbs LLP.

Susan Morris, Plaintiff, represented by Aashish Y. Desai, Desai
Law Firm PC, Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle
Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, M. Adrianne De Castro, Desai Law Firm, PC &
Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Joseph D'Angelo, III, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J.
LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Edward Adam Webb, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC, Eve Hedy
Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Webb,
Klase and Lemond, LLC, Matthew C. Klase, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC
& Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Shawn P. Haggerty, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon
LLP, Edward Adam Webb, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC, Eve Hedy
Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Webb,
Klase and Lemond, LLC, Matthew C. Klase, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC
& Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Anthem, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover --
craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael
McDonald Maddigan -- michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke -- adam.a.cooke@hoganlovells.com --
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Alexandria J. Reyes --
areyes@blackwellburke.com -- Troutman Sanders, LLP, Allison Marie
Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Cassandra Lauren Crawford --
cassie.crawford@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, Cavender C. Kimble -- ckimble@balch.com -- BALCH
& BINGHAM LLP, Chad R. Fuller -- chad.fuller@troutmansanders.com -
- Troutman Sanders LLP, Christopher W. Brooker --
cbrooker@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP, Craig H.
Smith -- craig.smith@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP,
David R. Boyd -- dboyd@bsfllp.com -- Comey & Boyd, E. Desmond
Hogan -- desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells,
Elizabeth C. Lockwood -- elizabeth.lockwood@hoganlovells.com --
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Geraldine G. Sanchez, Roach Hewitt Ruprecht
Sanchez & Bischoff, P.C., Glenn Virgil Whitaker --
gvwhitaker@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, Gregory
Haynes, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP, Jaime L. Theriot --
jaime.theriot@troutmansanders.com  -- Troutman Sanders, LLP,
Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja -- jasmeet.ahuja@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin -- john.martin@nelsonmullins.com
-- Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley,
Lisa Fried -- lisa.fried@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Lucile Hartley Cohen -- lucie.cohen@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson
Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mark A. Stafford, Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten --
mary.vanhouten@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Matthew
H. Geelan -- MGeelan@ddnctlaw.com -- Donahue, Durham & Noonan,
P.C., Melissa McCoy Gormly, Vorys, Sater Seymour and Pease LLP,
Michael G. Durham -- mdurham@ddnctlaw.com -- Donahue Durham &
Noonan PC, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Michael C. Theis -- michael.theis@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Michael J. Tuteur -- mtuteur@foley.com -- Foley &
Lardner LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan
Garrett Foell-- nathan.foell@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells,
Neal F. Perryman -- nperryman@lewisrice.com -- LEWIS RICE, LLC,
Patrick Joseph Dempsey, Hogan Lovels US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN
LOVELLS US LLP, Robert Armand Perez, S., Perez Law Firm Co. LPA,
Robert Neal Webner -- rnwebner@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour
and Pease LLP, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Ronald A.
Norwood -- rnorwood@lewisrice.com -- LEWIS RICE, LLC, Sally F.
Zweig, KATZ & KORIN P.C., Stephen A. Loney, Jr. --
stephen.loney@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan & Hartson, Travis A.
Bustamante -- travis.bustamante@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson
Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell --
winston.maxwell@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Blue Cross of California, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan
Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison Marie
Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP,
E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John
Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright
Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough
LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael
McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Peter
R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA
LLP, Sally F. Zweig, KATZ & KORIN P.C., Travis A. Bustamante,
Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan
Lovells US LLP.

The Anthem Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Alan
Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Allison Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Chad R.
Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Craig H. Smith, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan
Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough
LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins
Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R.
Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA
LLP, Stephen A. Loney, Jr., Hogan & Hartson & Travis A.
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins.

Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond
Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C.
Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells
LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP,
Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley
Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A.
Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan
Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A.
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David
Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

The Anthem Companies of California, Inc., a California
corporation, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald
Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US
LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman
Sanders LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick
Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright
Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough
LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael
McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan
Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins & Vassiliki
Iliadis.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia Inc, Defendant, represented
by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan,
Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Alexandria J. Reyes, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Chad R. Fuller,
Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Jaime L. Theriot, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan
Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough
LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins
Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett
Foell, Hogan Lovells, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins,
Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Community Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan
Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison Marie
Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP,
E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Glenn Virgil Whitaker, Vorys Sater Seymour &
Pease, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin,
Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile
Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera
Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Peter R.
Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Robert Neal Webner, Vorys Sater
Seymour and Pease LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins,
Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael
McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN
LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller,
Troutman Sanders LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth
C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan
Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough
LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins
Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett
Foell, Hogan Lovells, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins,
Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig
Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison
Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Cassandra Lauren Crawford,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman
Sanders LLP, Craig Alan Hoover, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, E. Desmond
Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson
Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile
Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mark A.
Stafford, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Mary Sameera
Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Peter R.
Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Sally F. Zweig, KATZ & KORIN P.C.,
Timothy James Parker, CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN, Travis A.
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David
Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Anthem Health Plans of Virginia, Defendant, represented by Craig
Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison
Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders
LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John
Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright
Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough
LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A.
Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan
Lovells, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Sally F. Zweig,
KATZ & KORIN P.C., Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki
Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.


ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bids in "Stender"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Joseph Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado granted the Defendants' four motions for
summary judgment in the case captioned STEVEN A. STENDER, and
INFINITY CLARK STREET OPERATING, L.L.C., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ARCHSTONE-SMITH
OPERATING TRUST et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 07-cv-2503-
WJM-MJW (D. Colo.).

This case revolves around a particular  real estate investment
trust ("REIT")-umbrella partnership real estate investment trust
("UPREIT") pair (both organized under Maryland law), namely:
Defendant Archstone-Smith Trust, the publicly traded parent REIT
("Archstone"); and Archstone-Smith Operating Trust, the UPREIT
that actually owned and managed the properties ("Operating
Trust").

The Plaintiffs instituted this lawsuit on Nov. 30, 2007, alleging
breach of the pre-merger Declaration of Trust, breach of fiduciary
duties (majority oppression of minority shareholders), and breach
of fiduciary duties (self-dealing).  Plaintiffs Stender and
Infinity, along with the other members of the Plaintiff Class,
owned preferred equity interests in a real estate investment trust
that underwent a complicated merger in 2007.  They claim that the
merger was structured to impermissibly eliminate their interests,
causing them about $1 billion in damages.

The case was originally drawn to then-Chief Judge Edward W.
Nottingham.

In January 2008, the Defendants moved to dismiss or stay in favor
of arbitration.  They argued, in essence, that: (i) the Plaintiffs
were suing, at least in part, to be indemnified for the tax
consequences of the merger; and (ii) the Declaration of Trust
required arbitration of any tax-related dispute between
unitholders and the Operating Trust.  In September 2008, Judge
Nottingham resolved that motion, agreeing with the Defendants
that, at least to the extent count one alleges a breach of the tax
deferral provisions of Archstone UPREIT's Declaration of Trust, it
must be stayed for arbitration.

This case was then stayed pending arbitration.  During that stay,
the matter was reassigned to Judge Robert E. Blackburn.  The case
was then reassigned to Judge Martinez, upon his appointment to the
bench, in February 2011, while the arbitration was still in
progress.

The arbitration finally concluded with a written decision in March
2013.  Primarily at issue in the arbitration was a section of the
applicable TPA that triggered tax protection if a merger or
similar transaction results in an [A-1 Unit Holder] being required
to recognize part or all of the gain that would have been
recognized for federal income tax purposes upon a fully taxable
disposition of one or more Protected Properties.  The arbitration
claimants (including Plaintiff Stender) argued that their choice
between cash and Series O units was not a real choice.  Although
Series O units, in theory, preserved the tax-deferred
characteristics of the A-1 units, the claimants asserted that the
Series O Unit was so economically inferior that it provided no
reasonable alternative to the cash option, and so the claimants
were effectively required to take the cash, thereby recognizing
taxable gain.  The claimants accordingly sought damages equal to
the taxes paid.  The arbitrator ruled against claimants,
concluding that the Series O unit was a bona fide investment
alternative, and, therefore, the merger did not result in
Claimants being required to recognize taxable gain by choosing the
cash option.

The Court confirmed the arbitration award in November 2013.  It
then granted the Plaintiffs leave to file their Second Amended
Complaint.  The Plaintiffs filed that complaint in December 2013,
and it remains the operative complaint today.

The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint asserts eight causes of
action: (i) Count 1, against Archstone as Trustee and any of its
Successors-in-Interest, for breach of the fiduciary duties a
trustee owes to the trust; (ii) Count 2, against the Individual
Defendants and Tishman, for aiding and abetting the breaches of
fiduciary duty alleged in Count 1; (iii) Count 3, against
Archstone and any of its Successors-in-Interest, for breach of
fiduciary duties through majority oppression of minority
shareholders, namely, the A-1 unitholders; (iv) Count 4, against
the Individual Defendants and Tishman, for aiding and abetting the
breaches of fiduciary duty alleged in Count 3; (v) Count 5,
against Archstone, the Operating Trust, and any of their
Successors-in-Interest, for breach of contract, namely, the
Declaration of Trust; (vi) Count 6, against Tishman, the River
Entities, and any of their Successors-in-Interest, for tortious
interference with contract, namely, the Declaration of Trust;
(vii) Count 7, against Tishman, for civil conspiracy to commit
tortious interference with the Declaration of Trust; and (viii)
Count 8, against Tishman, the River Entities, and their
Successors-in-Interest, for unjust enrichment, based on the terms
of the merger.

The 2013 Defendants and Lehman Brothers are the "Successors-in-
Interest" referred to in the various causes of action.The Court
eventually dismissed the Plaintiffs' Count 1, finding that
Maryland REITs are generally governed by corporate fiduciary
duties, not trust duties.  It likewise dismissed Count 2, given
that it depended on establishing the breach alleged in Count 1.
Thus, as of today, only Counts 3-8 remain for decision.

Before the Court are four motions for summary judgment filed by
these of Defendants: (i) the Tishman Defendants (Tishman Speyer
Development Corp.), along with the River Entities, namely, River
Holding, LP, River Acquisition (MD), LP, River Trust Acquisition
(MD), LLC, and Archstone MultiFamily Series I Trust); (ii) the
Individual Defendants (Caroline Brower, Stephen R. Demeritt,
Ernest A. Gerardi, Jr., Ruth Ann M. Gillis, Ned S. Holmes, Robert
P. Kogod, Charles Mueller, Jr., Alfred G. Neely, James H. Polk,
III, Mark Schumacher, John C. Schweitzer, R. Scot Sellers, and
Robert H. Smith); (iii) the 2013 Defendants (AvalonBay
Communities, Inc., Equity Residential, and ERP Operating Limited
Partnership) along with Archstone Enterprise LP, Archstone Inc.,
and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. -- entities which, for some
unexplained reason, do not fit within any larger group; and (iv)
the Archstone Defendants (Archstone-Smith Trust and Archstone-
Smith Operating Trust)(public entry).

These four motions are comprehensive -- they address all remaining
causes of action asserted against all the Defendants.

Judge Martinez finds that the Archstone Defendants are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law against the Plaintiffs on their breach
of contract cause of action (Count 5).  Furthermore, an underlying
breach of contract is an element of any claim for tortious
interference with contract under Maryland law.  Consequently, all
the Defendants named under the Plaintiffs' claim for tortious
interference with contract (Count 6) and the Plaintiffs' claim for
civil conspiracy to commit tortious interference (Count 7) are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The Judge further finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to raise a
genuine issue of material fact regarding bad faith.  Moreover, to
the extent their claim reduces to simple dissatisfaction with the
negotiated per-share compensation ($60.75, as opposed to the
original offer of $64), there is no fiduciary duty claim when the
Plaintiffs' fundamental grievance is one of inadequate price.
Thus, all the Defendants subject to the Plaintiffs' fiduciary duty
claims (Counts 3 and 4) are entitled to judgment as a matter of
law on those claims.

Finally, on the factual side, the Plaintiffs' claims turn on the
supposed right to keep their A-1 units despite the merger, and the
attendant continuing existence of A-1 units after the merger.  As
he explained, the Judge notes no such right existed and therefore
the A-1 units were extinguished.  Judge Martinez will grant
judgment as a matter of law against the Plaintiffs on their unjust
enrichment claim (Count 8).

For these reasons, Judge Martinez granted the Defendants' Motions
for Summary Judgment.  He vacated the Final Trial Preparation
Conference currently set for Dec. 18, 2017 at 11:00 a.m., and the
14-day jury trial scheduled to begin on Jan. 16, 2018.  The Clerk
will enter final judgment in favor of all the Defendants and
against the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, and will terminate
the case.  The Defendants will have their costs upon compliance
with D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Mvip3u from Leagle.com.

Steven A. Stender, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth A. Wexler --
kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace, LLP.

Steven A. Stender, Plaintiff, represented by Olimpio Lee
Squitieri, Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, Christopher James Stuart,
Wexler Wallace, LLP, Daniel Charles Girard, Girard Gibbs, LLP,
Edward Anthony Wallace --eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace,
LLP, Jordan S. Elias, Girard Gibbs, LLP, Kara A. Elgersma --
kae@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace, LLP, Maria J. Ciccia,
Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, Mark Richard Miller --
mrm@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace, LLP, Renee Beth Taylor --
rtaylor@bader-associates.com -- Bader & Associates, LLC, Rick D.
Bailey, Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, PC & Thomas
Arthur Doyle -- tad@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace, LLP.

Harold Silver, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth A. Wexler, Wexler
Wallace, LLP, Kara A. Elgersma, Wexler Wallace, LLP, Mark Richard
Miller, Wexler Wallace, LLP & Thomas Arthur Doyle, Wexler Wallace,
LLP.

Infinity Clark Street Operating LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Kenneth A. Wexler, Wexler Wallace, LLP, Olimpio Lee Squitieri,
Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, Christopher James Stuart, Daniel Charles
Girard, Girard Gibbs, LLP, Edward Anthony Wallace, Wexler Wallace,
LLP, Jordan S. Elias, Girard Gibbs, LLP, Kara A. Elgersma, Wexler
Wallace, LLP, Maria J. Ciccia, Mark Richard Miller, Wexler
Wallace, LLP, Renee Beth Taylor, Bader & Associates, LLC, Rick D.
Bailey, Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, PC & Thomas
Arthur Doyle, Wexler Wallace, LLP.

Archstone-Smith Operating Trust, Defendant, represented by
Jonathan D. Polkes -- jonathan.polkes@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Alex C.
Myers -- AMyers@LRRLaw.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP,
Ashish Dinesh Gandhi -- ashish.gandhi@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka -- caroline.zalka@weil.com
-- Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser --
elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP,
Frederick J. Baumann -- FBaumann@LRRLaw.com -- Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Melanie A. Conroy -- melanie.conroy@weil.com -- Weil
Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Ralph I. Miller -- ralph.miller@weil.com --
Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel Kellert --
raquel.kellert@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP.

Archstone-Smith Trust, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.
Polkes, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal
& Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP,
Frederick J. Baumann, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Justin
David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Melanie A. Conroy, Weil
Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Ralph I. Miller, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP
& Raquel Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP.

Ernest A. Gerardi, Jr., Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.
Polkes, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal
& Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP,
Frederick J. Baumann, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Melanie A. Conroy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel
Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP.

Ruth Ann M. Gillis, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes,
Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP,
Frederick J. Baumann, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Melanie A. Conroy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel
Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP.

Ned S. Holmes, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes, Weil
Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP,
Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP,
Frederick J. Baumann, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Melanie A. Conroy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel
Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP.

Robert P. Kogod, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes,
Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP,
Frederick J. Baumann, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Melanie A. Conroy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel
Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP.

James H. Polk, III, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes,
Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP,
Frederick J. Baumann, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Melanie A. Conroy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel
Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP.

John C. Schweitzer, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes,
Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP,
Frederick J. Baumann, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Melanie A. Conroy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel
Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP.

R. Scot Sellers, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes,
Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP,
Frederick J. Baumann & Raquel Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP.

Robert H. Smith, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes,
Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP,
Frederick J. Baumann, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Melanie A. Conroy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel
Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP.


BANK OF THE WEST: Faces "Stahl" Suit over Debit Card Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
MONAH STAHL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BANK OF THE WEST, the Defendant, Case
No. BC673397 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 23, 2017), seeks to recover
damages and other relief arising from Bank of the West's routine
practice of charging standard overdraft fees on one-time debit
card transactions, in violation of its contract with
accountholders

In this case, Bank of the West charged Plaintiff $35.00 in
overdraft fees when she used her debit card to pay for one-time
Lyft and Uber ride transactions even though such fees are not
authorized for everyday debit card transactions. Accordingly,
Plaintiff seeks to recoup the fee she paid and to represent all
individuals in the United States who were charged similar
overdraft fees on one-time debit card transactions in violation of
Bank of the West's Disclosures.

Bank of the West is a regional financial services company,
headquartered in San Francisco, California. It is a subsidiary of
BNP Paribas. It has more than 600 branches and offices in the
Midwest and Western United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973 0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973 0950
          E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com

               -and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq.
          McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557 1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557 1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  jkk@mccumwright.com

              -and -

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Robert Dart, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          201 Wilshire Boulevard
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  Robert@kicklawfirm.com


BEST YET EXPRESS: "Guzman" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
ELISEO GUZMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BEST YET EXPRESS INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC678801 (Cal Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to
recover overtime and minimum wages, premium wages for missed meal
and rest periods, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief
and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to pay wages, including overtime wages, to
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State of
California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as
a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time
worked. For at least 4 years prior to the filing of this action
and continuing to the present, Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to provide Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees or former employees within the State of
California a 30 minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which
the employees worked more than five hours in a workday and a
second 30 minute uninterrupted meal periods for days on which the
employees worked in excess of 10 hours in a work day, and failing
to provide compensation for such unprovided meal periods as
required by California wage and hour laws.

Best Yet is doing business in California transportation and
warehousing industry for over 30 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile (310) 553 3603


BLINK HOLDINGS: "Diaz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Diaz, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Blink Holdings, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 711881/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, including her maximum liquidated damages,
including maximum liquidated damages on all wages paid later than
weekly, prejudgment interest, maximum recovery for violations of
the New York Labor Law (NYLL), reasonable attorney's fees, and
costs of the action.

The Plaintiff alleges pursuant to the New York Civil Practice Law
and Rules 901 et seq., on behalf of herself and a class of other
similarly-situated current and former employees who were employed
by Defendant as manual workers, within the six-year period
preceding the filing of this action to the date of disposition of
this action, that she and the class members: 1) were employed by
Defendant within the State of New York as manual workers; 2)
entitled to maximum liquidated damages (for the period after April
9, 2011) and interest for being paid overtime wages and non-
overtime wages later than weekly; and 3) entitled to costs and
attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Labor Law (NYLL)
sections 191, 198, and the regulations thereunder.  They also seek
an injunction prohibiting Defendant from continuing to violate the
weekly payment requirement for manual workers set forth in NYLL
191.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740 1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740 2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


BLUE APRON: "Speiser" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SPEISER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, 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 and BRADLEY J. DICKERSON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-06517 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933
(the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Blue Apron securities: (1) pursuant and/or
traceable to Blue Apron's false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus, issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering on or about June 29,
2017; and/or (2) on the open market between June 29, 2017 and
August 9, 2017, both dates inclusive.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) rather than continue to significantly increase spending on
advertising, Blue Apron had already decided to significantly
reduce spending on advertising in Q2 2017, which would hurt sales
and profit margins in future quarters; (ii) Blue Apron was already
experiencing adverse on-time in-full rates, meaning orders were
not arriving on time or with all the ingredients needed, which was
hurting customer retention; (iii) the Company had encountered
delays in Q2 2017 associated with its new factory in Linden, New
Jersey, a factory which is expected to eventually account for more
than half of the meal kits Blue Apron sells; (iv) existing and
already-materialized delays at the Company's new factory in Linden
were resulting in additional delays in new product rollouts, which
was limiting Blue Apron's ability to gain new customers and retain
existing ones; (v) the foregoing delays would hurt the Company's
bottom line in the near-term, particularly affecting the important
metric of lifetime value per customer (i.e., the net profit Blue
Apron makes off a customer); (vi) the Company was unable to fully
execute its new product initiatives; (vii) Blue Apron had already
decided it would be forced to change its strategic approach in
managing the business for the remainder of 2017; and (viii) as a
result of the foregoing, Blue Apron's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides meal-kit delivery
services. Blue Apron sends weekly boxes of pre-portioned
ingredients with instructions for customers to cook meals at home.
Founded in 2012, Blue Apron is headquartered in New York, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, 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
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


CAC FINANCIAL: Faces "Sharon" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CAC Financial Corp.
The case is styled as Ella Sharon, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. CAC Financial
Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05174 (E.D. N.Y., September 1,
2017).

CAC Financial provides financial services and accounts receivable
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CALIBER HOME: "Razuki" Suit Moved to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled SALAM RAZUKI, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CALIBER
HOME LOANS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIV 37-2017-00026373, was
removed on Aug. 25, 2017 from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego, to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01718-LAB-WVG to the proceeding.

Salam Rakuzi filed the State Court Action against Caliber on July
18, 2017.  The four claims alleged in Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint are: (1) negligence; (2) violation of the right to
privacy under California Constitution Article 1, Section 1; (3)
violation of Unfair Competition Law and; (4) violation of the
California Information Practices Act.

Caliber Home is an Irving, Texas-based home mortgage originator
and servicer established in 2013 by the merger of Caliber Funding
and Vericrest Financial. The firm is owned by affiliates of
private equity fund manager Lone Star Funds.[BN]

Attorneys for Caliber Home Loans, Inc.

          Spencer Persson, Esq.
          Matthew D. Spohn, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 892-9200
          Facsimile: (213) 892-9494
          E-mail: spencer.persson@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  matt.spohn@nortonrosefulbright.com


CELGENE CORP: IUB Litigation Still Pending in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation continues to defend itself in a class action
lawsuit filed by the International Union of Bricklayers and
Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB), according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and
Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the
Company violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and
unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive
supply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L.  so that Barr Laboratories
(Barr) allegedly could not secure its own supply of thalidomide
active pharmaceutical ingredient; (b) allegedly refusing to sell
samples of the Company's THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs
to various generic manufacturers for the alleged purpose of
bioequivalence testing necessary for ANDAs to be submitted to the
FDA for approval to market generic versions of these products; and
(c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits
against Barr and Natco Pharma Limited in order to allegedly delay
those companies from obtaining approval for proposed generic
versions of THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R).

IUB, on behalf of itself and a putative class of third party
payers, is seeking injunctive relief and damages.

On February 6, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint.

On March 3, 2015, the City of Providence ("Providence") filed a
similar putative class action making similar allegations.

Both IUB and Providence, on behalf of themselves and a putative
class of third party payers, are seeking injunctive relief and
damages.  Providence agreed that the decision in the motion to
dismiss IUB's complaint would apply to the identical claims in
Providence's complaint.

A supplemental motion to dismiss Providence's state law claims was
filed on April 20, 2015.  On October 30, 2015, the court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss on all grounds.

Celgene filed its Answer to the IUB and Providence complaints on
January 11, 2016.

On June 14, 2017, a new complaint was filed by the same counsel
representing the plaintiffs in the IUB case, making similar
allegations and adding three new plaintiffs - International Union
of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health and
Welfare Trust Fund, The Detectives' Endowment Association, Inc.
and David Mitchell.

The Company said, "Counsel identified the new complaint as related
to the IUB and Providence cases and intends to move to consolidate
the complaints.  The completion of fact discovery and expert
discovery is scheduled for February 1, 2018 and July 15, 2018,
respectively.  No trial date has been set.  We intend to
vigorously defend against these claims."

Celgene Corporation discovers, develops, and commercializes
therapies to treat cancer and inflammatory diseases worldwide.
The Company was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit,
New Jersey.


CENTURYLINK INC: "Thummeti" Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled AMARENDRA THUMMETI, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CENTURYLINK, INC., GLEN F. POST III and R. STEWART EWING JR., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04695, was transferred on Aug. 23,
2017 from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, to the U.S. District Court for Western District of Louisiana
(Monroe). The Louisiana Western District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:17-cv-01065-RGJ-JPM to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Robert G James.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired CenturyLink securities between February 27,
2014 and June 15, 2017, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

CenturyLink provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in
the United States. It operates through two segments, Business and
Consumer. The company offers broadband, Ethernet, colocation,
video entertainment and satellite digital television services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, 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
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


CLARK COUNTY, IN: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hoffman" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Amy Bennett, Nathan Clifford, Joshua Foley, Destiny
Hoffman and Ashleigh Santiago filed an appeal from a court ruling
in their lawsuit styled Destiny Hoffman, et al. v. Susan Knoebel,
et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00012-SEB-TAB, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was brought by former and current Clark County Drug Treatment
Court participants alleging mistreatment by Clark County
employees.

The Defendants include former drug court director Susan Knoebel;
and then-suspended Circuit Court No. 2 bailiff and former drug
court field officer Jeremy Snelling; Clark County Circuit Court
No. 2 Judge Jerry Jacobi, who oversaw the drug court program; and
drug court case manager and Clark County Probation Department
employee Josh Seybold.

The appellate case is captioned as Destiny Hoffman, et al. v.
Susan Knoebel, et al., Case No. 17-2750, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by September 8, 2017;
      and

   -- Appellants' brief is due on or before October 4, 2017, for
      Amy Bennett, Nathan Clifford, Joshua Foley, Destiny Hoffman
      and Ashleigh Santiago.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DESTINY HOFFMAN, On behalf of themselves and
on behalf of others similarly situated, NATHAN CLIFFORD, JOSHUA
FOLEY, ASHLEIGH SANTIAGO and AMY BENNETT are represented by:

          Brennan Soergel, Esq.
          BOLUS LAW OFFICES
          600 W. Main Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 584-1210
          E-mail: brennan@boluslaw.com

Defendants-Appellees SUSAN KNOEBEL and JEREMY SNELLING are
represented by:

          James S. Stephenson, Esq.
          STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER, P.C.
          3077 E. 98th Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46280
          Telephone: (317) 844-3830
          Facsimile: (317) 573-4194
          E-mail: jstephenson@stephlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees JOSH SEYBOLD and DANNY RODDEN, Clark County
Sheriff, are represented by:

          Robert Jeffrey Lowe, Esq.
          KIGHTLINGER & GRAY LLP
          3620 Blackiston Boulevard
          New Albany, IN 47150-0000
          Telephone: (812) 949-2300
          Facsimile: (812) 949-8556
          E-mail: jlowe@k-glaw.com

Defendant-Appellee JEROME JACOBI, Judge, is represented by:

          David A. Arthur, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          302 W. Washington Street
          Indiana Government Center South
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
          Telephone: (317) 232-6286
          Facsimile: (317) 232-7979
          E-mail: David.Arthur@atg.in.gov


CLUBCORP HOLDINGS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on Aug. 28 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada on behalf of holders of ClubCorp Holdings, Inc.
("ClubCorp") (NYSE:MYCC) common stock in connection with the
proposed acquisition of ClubCorp by Apollo Global Management, LLC
and its affiliates (together, "Apollo") announced on July 9, 2017
(the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against ClubCorp, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), and Apollo, is captioned Berg v. ClubCorp
Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02127 (D. Nev.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On July 9, 2017, ClubCorp entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Apollo.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of ClubCorp will receive $17.12 in
cash for each share of ClubCorp stock they own (the "Proposed
Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy
statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2017.  The
Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement, which recommends that
ClubCorp stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
omits material information necessary to enable shareholders to
make an informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed
Transaction, including material information with respect to
ClubCorp's financial projections, the analyses performed by
ClubCorp's financial advisor, and potential conflicts of interest.
The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of ClubCorp common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 27, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

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


CONNECTICUT: Faces Class Action Over Medicare Observation Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levin & Perconti reports that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in Connecticut against the government, citing Medicare's
observation status rule as being an unfair policy that has
dwindled the life savings of many.  Observation status is when a
hospital classifies a patient as such instead of as an admitted
inpatient, a distinction meaning very little in terms of the care
provided.  An admitted patient is also able to receive nursing
home care after discharge according to Medicare.  In order to be
able to receive nursing home coverage, an admitted patient must be
treated for 3 nights at a hospital.

Unlike a patient classified as 'admitted' to a hospital, hospital
charges for those listed as observation status are filed under
Medicare Part B, which requires a monthly premium payment, an out
of pocket payment until a deductible is met, as well as a 20%
copay for all Medicare-approved services.  Nursing home care after
discharge is not covered under Medicare for patients classified as
observation status.  If a patient has not enrolled in Medicare
Part B and is listed as observation status, that patient has to
pay the entire hospital bill out of pocket.

The class action, filed by the Center for Medicare Advocacy, seeks
to give patients the right to appeal observation status, a right
that is currently not afforded to Medicare recipients.  The suit
asks that interested patients who were listed as observation
status from January 1, 2009 on be eligible for inclusion in the
class.

Observation Status Increasing

While the inability to appeal observation status has long been an
issue, the hurt has intensified by the relatively recent push for
hospitals to slash readmission rates within 30 days of discharge.
As a result, hospitals are putting more Medicare patients on
observation status, which allows them to avoid classifying a
patient as being admitted.  A lower number of admitted inpatients
translates into a lower number of readmitted patients. The Naples
Daily News cited a Brown University study that found 918,000
Medicare recipients had been placed on observation status in 2009
alone.  With readmission rates under a watchful eye, experts
estimate that number of Medicare recipients placed on observation
status in recent years has grown even larger than 2009 levels.

Another factor influencing rising observation status designations
is that Medicare has been closely watching hospitals with high
admittance numbers of Medicare patients.  The reason for the
increased scrutiny lies in the fact that Medicare reimbursement is
greater for those who are technically admitted vs. those that are
listed under observation status.  The higher the number of
admitted patients, the more suspicion a hospital draws.  While the
lawsuit was just given the ok by a federal judge to proceed, the
first hurdle has been cleared, giving hope to many that they may
be able to appeal a decision that they were never given a part in
making. [GN]


CORELOGIC INC: Class Certification Bid in "Witt" Lawsuit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification is pending in the "Witt" class
action lawsuit against a unit of CoreLogic, Inc., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The case, Witt v. CoreLogic National Background Data, et al., was
filed in June 2015 by the same attorneys in a pending class action
captioned Tyrone Henderson, et al., v. CoreLogic National
Background Data., alleging the same claim against CoreLogic
National Background Data, LLC (n/k/a CoreLogic Background Data,
LLC) ("CBD").

Specifically, plaintiffs in the Henderson case allege violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and have pled a putative class
claim relating to CBD's return of criminal record data in response
to search queries initiated by its consumer reporting agency
customers, which then prepare and transmit employment background
screening reports to their employer customers.  Plaintiffs contend
that CBD failed to send notice letters to consumers each time
search results were returned to CBD's consumer reporting agency
customers.

Witt also names as a defendant CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC (n/k/a
CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC) ("RPS")) on the theory
that RPS provides criminal record "reports" to CBD at the same
time that CBD delivers reports to CBD's consumer reporting agency
customers.  Witt is pending in the same court and before the same
judge as Henderson, and the two cases have been deemed related by
the Court.

In April 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification,
seeking to certify a class of consumers for whom Virginia criminal
record data was returned that did not reflect a year of birth
associated with the record.  That motion is fully briefed and
remains pending.

CoreLogic, Inc. provides property information, analytics, and
data-enabled services in North America, Western Europe, and the
Asia Pacific.  It was formerly known as The First American
Corporation and changed its name to CoreLogic, Inc. in June 2010.
CoreLogic, Inc. was incorporated in 1894 and is headquartered in
Irvine, California.


CREDIT ONE: Faces "Tinker" Suit over Robocalls
----------------------------------------------
RICHARD TINKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A., a national
banking association, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00157-LJA
(M.D. Ga., Aug. 23, 2017), seeks redress on behalf of Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated to whose cellular telephone
number a call was initiated by Defendant using an automatic
telephone dialing system without the prior express consent of the
called party.

The Defendant is a national banking association with its principal
place of business located at 585 Pilot Road, Las Vegas, Nevada
89119.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
          James M. Feagle, Esq.
          Cliff R. Dorsen, Esq.
          Kris Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          2374 Main Street, Suite B
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Telephone: (404) 373 1970
          Facsimile: (404) 601 1855
          E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
                  cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
                  jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          Joseph McClelland, Esq.
          JOSEPH P. MCCLELLAND, LLC
          545 N. McDonough St. Ste.
          210 Post Office Box 164
          Decatur, GA 30031
          Telephone: (770) 775 0938
          Facsimile: (770) 775 0932


CVS: Plaintiff Drops Suit Over Generic Drug Pricing Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Sagonowsky, writing for FiercePharma, reports that after
making a series of allegations that pharmacy giant CVS was gouging
generic drug consumers who paid with insurance, the plaintiff in a
proposed class action lawsuit dropped her claims.

In the suit, plaintiff Megan Schulz alleged she paid more through
insurance to get a generic drug than if she'd just paid cash.  The
suit also alleged pharmacy "copays" were really payments to
pharmacy benefit managers, set up by confidential deals.  CVS
refuted the allegations and said in a statement on Aug. 25 that
it's pleased the suit has been dismissed.

After seeing the lawsuit, CVS got in touch with the law firm about
"numerous factual misstatements that, when corrected, make it
clear that the plaintiff named in the suit was not overcharged for
her prescriptions," a spokesperson told FiercePharma.

"The complaint contained numerous demonstrably false assertions
that a reasonable pre-filing investigation by the law firm would
have discovered," CVS's spokesperson said via email on Aug. 25.
"As such, we are pleased that the suit has been voluntarily
dismissed."

The firm that represented the plaintiffs, Hagens Berman, isn't
walking away from the allegations altogether, though.

"We plan to refile the lawsuit against CVS related to its generic
drug pricing scheme promptly," managing partner Steve Berman said
in a statement on Aug. 28.  "Our case against Walgreens was not
dismissed and will remain on file until we achieve a just outcome
for consumers."

The lawsuits made major waves earlier this month, garnering
coverage in dozens of publications and spreading rapidly on social
media.  Shortly after filing the CVS claim, Hagens Berman followed
up with another against one of CVS's peers, Walgreens.

The lawsuits came as public frustration with drug pricing mounted
in recent months, prompting lawmakers to propose a variety of
measures to tackle costs. None has gained traction in Congress,
and many states are now taking the issue into their own hands.

In addition to the pharma industry, pricing attention has also
spread to other segments of the drug business, such as pharmacy
benefit managers.  The middlemen have been thrust into the
spotlight in part thanks to efforts by the pharmaceutical industry
to highlight growing rebates and discounts. PBMs have countered
that their tough negotiations save billions in healthcare costs.
[GN]


DEUTSCHE BANK: Litigation on Behalf of RMBS Trusts Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (DBTCA) still defends itself
against a derivative and class action complaint filed on behalf of
private-label RMBS trusts, according to COMM 2013-CCRE12 Mortgage
Trust's Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the monthly distribution period from June 13, 2017
to July 12, 2017.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by
Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a
derivative action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State
Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544
private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations
of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA), breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA's
alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees for the
trusts.

Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and
filed a derivative and class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of and for
the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially
overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state court action.
The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total
realized collateral losses of US$89.4 billion, but the complaint
does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.

DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19,
2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural
grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and
Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction.
The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the
motion to dismiss.

On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
federal court.  In the amended complaint, in connection with 62
trusts governed by indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims
for breach of contract, violation of the TIA, breach of fiduciary
duty, and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest.  The
amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered
total realized collateral losses of US$9.8 billion, but the
complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum
certain.

On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On January 23, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part
DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss.  The court granted the motion
to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' conflict-of-interest claim,
thereby dismissing it, and denied the motion to dismiss with
respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and claim for
violation of the TIA, thereby allowing those claims to proceed.

On January 26, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and
proposed order dismissing plaintiffs' claim for breach of
fiduciary duty.

On January 27, 2017, the court entered the parties' joint
stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs' claim for breach of
fiduciary duty be dismissed.

On February 3, 2017, following a hearing concerning DBNTC and
DBTCA's motion to dismiss on February 2, 2017, the court issued a
short form order dismissing (i) plaintiffs' representation and
warranty claims as to 21 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors
had entered bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims
against such originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and
(ii) plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were premised upon any
alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers.

On March 27, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended
complaint.  Discovery is ongoing.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Bid for Atty's Fees Partly Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for attorneys' fees in the case captioned DL, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants, Case No.
05-cv-1437-RCL (D.D.C.).

This case, originally filed in 2005, was brought by the parents of
preschool age children with various disabilities who tried to
obtain special education services from the District of Columbia
Public Schools, alleging violations of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), the Rehabilitation Act, and
District of Columbia law, which require that the District offer a
free and appropriate public education to disabled children.

The Plaintiffs alleged numerous knowing, pervasive, and systemic
failures to comply with the "Child Find" requirement.  It is
sufficient to note that the Plaintiffs ultimately brought claims
related to four subclasses: (i) disabled three-to-five-year-olds
whom the District failed to identify for the purpose of offering
special education services; (ii) disabled three-to-five-year-olds
whom the District failed to give an initial evaluation within 120
days of being referred for special education services; (iii)
disabled three-to-five-year-olds whom the District failed to give
an eligibility determination -- i.e., a decision as to whether
they qualify for IDEA services -- within 120 days of being
referred; and (iv) all children who transitioned from early
intervention to preschool programs, and whom the District denied a
smooth transition by age three.

In 2014, the Court found that the District was liable for
violating the IDEA and District law for the period up to April 6,
2011 for all four subclasses.  It ruled for the Defendants,
however, on (i) the Plaintiffs' IDEA and District law claims
related to the failure timely to evaluate children for special
education and related services for the period from April 6, 2011
to the present [Subclass 2], and (ii) all of the Plaintiffs'
Rehabilitation Act claims for the period from March 22, 2010 to
the present.  Then, at trial, the Plaintiffs alleged that the
District violated the IDEA with respect to Subclasses 1, 3, and 4
from April 6, 2011 through the present, and that the District
violated the Rehabilitation Act with respect to all four
subclasses for the period up to March 22, 2010.  After trial, the
Court found that the District had violated the IDEA with respect
to Subclasses 1, 3, and 4 from April 6, 2011 through the first day
of trial (Nov. 12, 2015), and that it violated the Rehabilitation
Act with respect to all four subclasses through March 22, 2010.

On May 18, 2016, the Court found that the Plaintiffs have
prevailed on both IDEA and Rehabilitation Act claims. Pursuant to
the IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act, the District will pay the
Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and related nontaxable
expenses associated with litigating the suit.  The Plaintiffs now
request fees for two periods of time: (i) through Nov. 16, 2011
(Period 1); from Nov. 17, 2011 to June 22, 2016 (Period 2).  They
originally requested fees and costs totaling $10,010,956, using
the current rates set out in the LSI Matrix.  After briefing, they
now request $9,760,487.55 using LSI Matrix rates.  The law firm of
Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP ("TPM"), the lead counsel in the
case, requests fees totaling $8,962,597.98 and costs totaling
$259,409.83.  Prof. Jeffrey S. Gutman, who oversaw a clinic at The
George Washington University Law School in which students worked
on the case, requests fees totaling $135,476.32.  Co-counsel
Margaret A. Kohn, who served as class counsel and the primary
contact with the Named Plaintiffs, requests fees totaling
$380,009.56 and costs totaling $1,727.61.  Co-counsel Cyrus Mehri,
who performed work related to class certification and settlement,
requests fees totaling $21,266.25.

The District argues that the Court should award fees using the
USAO Matrix, and should use historic (2012) rates with interest
for Period 1, and current rates for Period 2.  It also argues that
the requested fees should be reduced because the Plaintiffs billed
an unreasonable number of hours for many tasks, because they
improperly billed for matters in which they failed to prevail, and
because they failed to exercise reasonable billing judgment.  It
also argues that fees for co-counsel should be reduced
substantially or denied.  Furthermore, it argues that the
Plaintiffs' costs are excessive and should be reduced
significantly, and that expert fees are not reimbursable.
Finally, the District argues that the IDEA's statutory fee cap
requires that the Court deny the Plaintiffs' request unless and
until the Plaintiffs demonstrate actual class membership.  The
United States has submitted a statement of interest pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 517, and argues that the USAO Matrix is the
appropriate fee matrix to use in this and other cases.

Judge Lamberth granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for attorneys' fees and costs.  He explains that the IDEA
fee caps do not apply in the case.  Fees will be calculated
according to the lodestar method of multiplying the number of
hours reasonably expended by reasonable hourly rates.  Hourly
rates will be determined by current USAO Matrix rates.  The
Plaintiffs will multiple these rates by the number of hours billed
for each timekeeper -- after all of the aforementioned voluntary
reductions -- less the 101.64 hours the Court has identified as
non-compensable clerical work billed by paralegals.  After this
calculation, the Plaintiffs' fee award will be reduced by 5% for
lack of success.  It will not be further reduced for issues such
as lack of billing judgment, unreasonable number of hours, block
billing, or vagueness.

The fee awards for Margaret Kohn, Jeffrey Gutman, and Cyrus Mehri
will also not be reduced any further, the Judge says.  The
Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable costs.  They will be
reimbursed for travel, telephone, and Westlaw/Lexis expenses, but
will not be reimbursed for overnight delivery of overtime
services.  They will be reimbursed 50% of their printing costs.
Finally, the Plaintiffs are entitled to $121,207.82 in expert
fees.

Given the number of attorneys and paralegals in this case with
different billing rates, the voluminous number of hours, and
various reductions to those hours, both voluntary and involuntary,
Judge Lamberth did not at this time calculate the total fee award.
Instead, in order to ensure that the correct calculations are
performed in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion, he ordered
the Plaintiffs to submit new fee and cost award calculations in
accordance with the aforementioned findings.  The Plaintiffs will
calculate the fees due under the current USAO Matrix, and will
then reduce those fees by 5%.  The Plaintiffs will also calculate
their costs for travel, telephone, and Westlaw/Lexis expenses, as
well as 50% of their printing expenses.  The Judge will review
their submission, and will allow the District to respond, before
ordering the District to reimburse the Plaintiffs the requested
amount.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/CrfwES from Leagle.com.

DL, Plaintiff, represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS, PRAVIK &
MILLIAN, LLP.

DL, Plaintiff, represented by Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS,
PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri -- cmehri@findjustice.com.
-- MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen Lillian Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK
& MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A. Kohn -- Margaret.Kohn07@gmail.com --
LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN.

TAMEKA FORD, Plaintiff, represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS,
PRAVIK & MILLIAN, LLP, Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK &
MILLIAN, L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen
Lillian Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A.
Kohn, LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN.

JB, Plaintiff, represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS, PRAVIK &
MILLIAN, LLP, Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN,
L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen Lillian
Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A. Kohn, LAW
OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN.

LEAH BLAND, Plaintiff, represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS,
PRAVIK & MILLIAN, LLP, Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK &
MILLIAN, L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen
Lillian Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A.
Kohn, LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN.

FD, Plaintiff, represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS, PRAVIK &
MILLIAN, LLP, Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN,
L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen Lillian
Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A. Kohn, LAW
OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN.

FREDERICK DAVY, Parent and Next Friend of FD, Plaintiff,
represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS, PRAVIK & MILLIAN, LLP,
Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, L.L.P., Cyrus
Mehri, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen Lillian Millian, TERRIS,
PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A. Kohn, LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET
KOHN.

MONICA DAVY, Parent and Next Friend of FD, Plaintiff, represented
by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS, PRAVIK & MILLIAN, LLP, Carolyn Smith
Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri, MEHRI &
SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen Lillian Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN,
LLP & Margaret A. Kohn, LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN.

TF, Plaintiff, represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS, PRAVIK &
MILLIAN, LLP, Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN,
L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen Lillian
Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A. Kohn, LAW
OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN.

ANGELIQUE MOORE, Parent and Next Friend of TF - On their own
behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS, PRAVIK &
MILLIAN, LLP, Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN,
L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen Lillian
Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A. Kohn, LAW
OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, represented by Chad Wayne
Copeland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, Daniel Albert Rezneck, OFFICE OF THE D.C. ATTORNEY
GENERAL, Matthew Robert Blecher, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Robert C. Utiger, DC OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL & Samuel C. Kaplan -- skaplan@bsfllp.com --
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP.

MICHELLE RHEE, Defendant, represented by Chad Wayne Copeland,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA &
Matthew Robert Blecher, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

MICHELLE RHEE, Chancellor, Defendant, represented by Samuel C.
Kaplan, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP.

DEBORAH GIST, Defendant, represented by Chad Wayne Copeland,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Matthew Robert Blecher, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA & Samuel C. Kaplan, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER
LLP.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Interested Party, represented by Peter
C. Pfaffenroth, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.


DOMETIC CORP: Faces "Klenk" Suit over Defective Cooling Units
-------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE ZUCCONI and TIMOTHY KLENK, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DOMETIC CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-23197-CMA (S.D. Fla.,
Aug. 23, 2017), seeks to recover damages for any of the personal
injuries that have resulted from fires or inhalation of harmful
gases.

The lawsuit says the Plaintiffs' recreational vehicles (RV's) were
engulfed in flames and rendered total losses as a result of fires
caused by the defective cooling units installed on the Dometic gas
absorption refrigerators in their RV's. They bring this class
action to address the inherent latent design defects in the
cooling units and the business practices implemented by Defendant
for more than a decade in connection with its manufacture and sale
of these cooling units and its efforts to conceal the defective
design. Many hundreds of thousands of consumers have purchased RVs
equipped with refrigerators manufactured by Dometic. Dometic's
refrigerators exhibit an identical and dangerous, inherent design
defect in their cooling units (the "Defective Cooling Units") that
is present at the point of sale but not visible or disclosed to
consumers. The lawsuit alleges Dometic has known for over a decade
that the Defective Cooling Units in question shared the uniform
design defect but has not fixed the inherent defect or warned
consumers of the serious and potentially lethal dangers of the use
of the cooling units. Dometic's Defective Cooling Unit is a
separate replaceable part that attaches to the back of the
refrigerator box. It is uniform in design and operation and does
not differ in any material way by the refrigerator model number.
In fact, when a Defective Cooling Unit leaks but does not ignite,
a consumer can replace the Defective Cooling Unit without harming
the refrigerator box.

Dometic Group is a Swedish manufacturer whose core business is
climate, hygiene, sanitation, food and beverage applications
within the RV, marine, and automotive industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Gail A. McQuilkin, Esq.
          Robert J. Neary, Esq.
          Stephanie Moncada Gomez
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372 1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372 3508
          E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com
                  gam@kttlaw.com
                  rn@kttlaw.com
                  sgomez@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Lance A. Harke, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP
          9699 NE Second Avenue
          Miami Shores, FL 33138
          Telephone: (305) 536 8220
          Facsimile: (305) 536 8229
          E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com
                  hbushman@harkeclasby.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348 6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348 6415
          E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com
                  caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

              - and -

          Jack Scarola, Esq.
          SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA
          BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA
          2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409
          Telephone: (561) 686 6300
          Facsimile: (561) 383 9451
          E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com


DOW CHEMICAL: Rocky Flats Class Action Suit Has Been Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017 that there are no outstanding balances
in the consolidated balance sheets at June 30 related to a class
action lawsuit involving property owners in Rocky Flats, Colorado.
The Company previously recorded US$131 million in "Accounts and
notes receivable - Other" and US$130 million in "Accrued and other
current liabilities" at December 31, 2016 related to the escrow.

The Company and Rockwell International Corporation ("Rockwell")
(collectively, the "defendants") were defendants in a class action
lawsuit filed in 1990 on behalf of property owners ("plaintiffs")
in Rocky Flats, Colorado, who asserted claims for nuisance and
trespass based on alleged property damage caused by plutonium
releases from a nuclear weapons facility owned by the U.S.
Department of Energy ("DOE") (the "facility") but operated by Dow
and Rockwell.

The plaintiffs tried their case as a public liability action under
the Price Anderson Act ("PAA").  Dow and Rockwell litigated this
matter in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
("District Court"), the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and
then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States
Supreme Court.

On May 18, 2016, Dow, Rockwell and the plaintiffs entered into a
settlement agreement for US$375 million, of which US$131 million
was paid by Dow.  The DOE authorized the settlement pursuant to
the PAA and the nuclear hazards indemnity provisions contained in
Dow's and Rockwell's contracts.  The District Court granted
preliminary approval to the class settlement on August 5, 2016.

On April 28, 2017, the District Court conducted a fairness hearing
and granted final judgment approving the class settlement and
dismissed class claims against the defendants ("final judgment
order").  The litigation is now concluded.

On December 13, 2016, the United States Civil Board of Contract
Appeals unanimously ordered the United States government to pay
the amounts stipulated in the settlement agreement.  On January
17, 2017, the Company received a full indemnity payment of US$131
million from the United States government for Dow's share of the
class settlement.  On January 26, 2017, the Company placed US$130
million in an escrow account for the settlement payment owed to
the plaintiffs.  The funds were subsequently released from escrow
as a result of the final judgment order.

At June 30, 2017, there are no outstanding balances in the
consolidated balance sheets related to this matter (US$131 million
included in "Accounts and notes receivable - Other" and US$130
million included in "Accrued and other current liabilities" at
December 31, 2016).

The Dow Chemical Company manufactures and supplies products that
are used as raw materials in the manufacture of customer's
products and services worldwide.  It operates in five segments:
Agricultural Sciences, Consumer Solutions, Infrastructure
Solutions, Performance Materials & Chemicals, and Performance
Plastics segments.  The Company was founded in 1897 and is based
in Midland, Michigan.


EDISON INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International is awaiting court ruling on a motion to
dismiss the third amended securities complaint related to
San Onofre, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017.

In July 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in federal court against Edison International, its then
Chief Executive Officer and its then Chief Financial Officer.  The
complaint was later amended to include subsidiary Southern
California Edison Company's former President as a defendant.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the securities
laws by failing to disclose that Edison International had ex parte
contacts with CPUC decision-makers regarding the San Onofre OII
that were either unreported or more extensive than initially
reported.  The initial complaint purported to be filed on behalf
of a class of persons who acquired Edison International common
stock between March 21, 2014 and June 24, 2015 (the "Class
Period").

In September 2016, the federal court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint, with an opportunity for plaintiff to amend
the complaint.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the federal court
dismissed again with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend the
complaint.

Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint in May 2017, which
extends the Class Period to August 10, 2015.  Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in June 2017, and
are awaiting a ruling.

Edison International, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in the
United States.  The Company generates electricity through
hydroelectric, diesel, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic
sources.  It supplies electricity primarily to commercial,
residential, industrial, agricultural, and other customers, as
well as public authorities through transmission and distribution
networks.  Edison International was incorporated in 1987 and is
based in Rosemead, California.


EDISON INT'L: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit Set in October
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017 that its motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in a class action lawsuit alleging claims under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act will be heard by the court
in October 2017.

In November 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in federal court against Edison International, its then
Chief Executive Officer and its Treasurer by an Edison
International employee, alleging claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.  The complaint purports to be
filed on behalf of a class of Edison International employees who
were participants in the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan and invested
in the Edison International Stock Fund between March 27, 2014 and
June 24, 2015.

The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties because they knew or should have known that investment in
the Edison International Stock Fund was imprudent because the
price of Edison International common stock was artificially
inflated due to Edison International's alleged failure to disclose
certain ex parte communications with CPUC decision-makers related
to the San Onofre OII.

In July 2016, the federal court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend
her complaint.  Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in July 2016,
that dismissed Edison International as a named defendant and the
remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss in August 2016.
These defendants' motion was heard by the court in November 2016.

In June 2017, the federal court again granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to
amend her complaint.  Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
early July 2017.  Defendants have filed motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which will be heard by the court in October
2017.

Edison International, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in the
United States.  The Company generates electricity through
hydroelectric, diesel, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic
sources.  It supplies electricity primarily to commercial,
residential, industrial, agricultural, and other customers, as
well as public authorities through transmission and distribution
networks.  Edison International was incorporated in 1987 and is
based in Rosemead, California.


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Oct. 3 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on
Aug. 28 disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Envision Healthcare Corporation ("Envision" or the
"Company") (NYSE: EVHC) between March 2, 2015 and July 21, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Envision securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than October 3, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Your share of any recovery in the
actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.  You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the actions.

Envision investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact Sharon M.
Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Envision Securities Class Litigation

Envision, based in Nashville, Tennessee, through its subsidiary
EmCare Holdings, Inc. ("EmCare"), is one of the largest physician
staffing companies for hospital emergency rooms in the United
States.

The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) EmCare routinely engaged in "surprise billing," whereby
EmCare arranged for patients seeking treatment at in-network
facilities to be treated by out-of-network physicians, and
subsequently charged significantly higher billing rates; (ii) for
this reason, the Company's statements during the Class Period
attributing EmCare's growth to other factors were false and/or
misleading; and (iii) Envision's revenues from EmCare were not be
sustainable.

On July 24, 2017, The New York Times reported that a study
conducted by researchers at Yale University found that hospital
emergency rooms run by EmCare were much more likely to engage in
surprise billing.  According to the Times, out of a sample of 194
hospitals emergency rooms run by EmCare, for example, the study
found an average out-of-network billing rate of 62%, far higher
than the national average. On this news, the price of Envision
common stock fell $2.33 per share, or 3.72%, to close at $60.28
per share on July 24, 2017, on elevated trading volume.

                      About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility. [GN]


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Corcia" Suit in S.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as David Corcia, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-
06689 (S.D. N.Y., September 1, 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 appears PRO SE.


FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Still Faces Putative Class Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation still defends in a number of
non-ordinary course lawsuits, most of which are putative class
actions, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses.

In a case alleging the defendants charged an improper rate for
title insurance in a refinance transaction (Lewis v. First
American Title Insurance Company, filed on November 28, 2006 and
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho), a court has granted class certification in Lewis.  The
Company said that it has been unable to assess the probability of
loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

The cases alleging that the defendants misclassified certain
employees include:

   * Cruz v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on November 25, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Orange,

   * Sager v. Interthinx, Inc., filed on January 23, 2015 and
pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, and

   * Weber v. Interthinx, Inc., et al., filed on April 17, 2015
and pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

These lawsuits are putative class actions for which a class has
not been certified.  The Company said that it has not yet been
able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible
loss or the range of loss or, where the Company has been able to
make an estimate, the Company believes the amount is not material
to the condensed consolidated financial statements as a whole.

The cases alleging that the defendants overcharged or improperly
charged fees for products and services, conspired to fix prices,
participated in the conveyance of illusory property interests,
denied home warranty claims, improperly handled property and
casualty claims, and gave items of value to brokers and others as
inducements to refer business in violation of certain laws, such
as consumer protection laws and laws generally prohibiting unfair
business practices, and certain obligations, include:

   * Chavez v. First American Specialty Insurance Company, filed
on June 29, 2017 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles,

   * Downing v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
filed on July 26, 2016 and pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia,

   * Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

   * Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles,

   * Lennen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on May 19, 2016 and pending in the United States District court
for the Middle District of Florida,

   * McCormick v. First American Real Estate Services, Inc., et
al., filed on December 31, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Orange,

   * Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

   * Tenefufu vs.  First American Specialty Insurance Company,
filed on June 1, 2017, pending in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Sacramento,

   * Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, and

   * In re First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation,
consolidated on October 9, 2014 and pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman, Kirk and Sjobring, are
putative class actions for which a class has not been certified.
In Kaufman a class was certified but that certification was
subsequently vacated.  A trial of the Kirk matter has concluded
and the judgment has been affirmed on appeal.  The Company said
that it has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or
estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where the
Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company believes
the amount is not material to the condensed consolidated financial
statements as a whole.

First American Financial Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
provides financial services.  It operates through Title Insurance
and Services, and Specialty Insurance segments.  First American
Financial Corporation was incorporated in 2008 and is based in
Santa Ana, California.


FORTERRA INC: Faces "Spindler" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Spindler, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Forterra, Inc., Jeffrey Bradley, William
Matthew Brown, Lori M. Browne, Kyle S. Volluz, Kevin Barner,
Robert Corcoran, Samuel D. Loughlin, Clint Mcdonnough, John
Mcpherson, Chris Meyer, Jacques Sarrazin, Chadwick Suss, and Grant
Wilbeck, Case No. 2:17-cv-04978 (E.D.N.Y., August 23, 2017),
alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) at the time of the IPO,
organic sales in Forterra's Drainage and Water segments had
significantly declined; (ii) the Company was experiencing
increased pricing pressure due to competition and continued
softness in its concrete and steel pipe business; (iii) Forterra
had been losing business in its important pipe and precast
business due to in large part to operational problems at its
production plants; (iv) the Company had undisclosed material
weaknesses in its internal controls that prevented it from
accurately reporting and forecasting its financial results; and
(v) as a result of the foregoing, Forterra's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, the
complaints asserts.

Forterra, Inc. manufactures water and drainage pipes and various
precast products. [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


FP STORES: "Hunt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages California Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE HUNT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FP STORES, INC. aka FALLAS-PAREDES
NATIONAL DISCOUNT STORES, a California Corporation; and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC673955 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages in the
form of rest and meal period compensation, penalties, injunctive
and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants consistently maintained
and enforced against Defendants' Non-Exempt
Employees, among others, the following unlawful practices and
policies, in violation of California state wage and hour laws: a)
failing to provide proper meal and rest periods, b) failing to
timely pay all wages earned upon separation from Defendants, c)
failing to provide proper and accurate employee itemized wage
statements, and d) failing to pay all wages.

FP Stores operates a chain of off-price stores in the United
States. Its stores offer clothing for men, ladies, boys, girls,
juniors, infants, and toddlers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Caldwell, Esq.
          WILLIAM S. CALDWELL, APLC
          9891 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 130
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 244 2547
          E-mail: william@wsc-law.com


GARDA CL: "Lane" Suit Seeks Unpaid Premium Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALI LANE, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and
the general public, the Plaintiff, v. GARDA CL WEST, INC., a
California corporation; GARDA CL TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; GARDA SUPPLIES, RENTAL & SERVICES LTD., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC673544 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid premium wages under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants (a) failed to provide him
and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods,
(b) failed to provide them with rest periods, (c) failed to pay
premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods, (d) failed to
pay them for all hours worked, (e) failed to pay overtime wages at
the correct rate, (f) failed to pay double time wages at the
correct rate, (g) failed to reimburse them for all business
expenses; (h) failed to provide them with accurate written wage
statements, (i) failed to timely pay them all of their final wages
following separation of employment. Based on these alleged
violations, Plaintiff now brings this class and representative
action to recover unpaid wages, restitution, and related relief on
behalf of herself, all others similarly situated overtime wages,
double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants,
jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com


GENAERA CORP: 3d Cir. Partly Vacates Argyce Ruling in "Schmidt"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALAN SCHMIDT, v. JOHN A. SKOLAS; LEANNE
KELLY; JOHN L. ARMSTRONG, JR.; ZOLA B. HOROVITZ, Ph. D.; OSAGIE O.
IMASOGIE; MITCHELL D. KAYE; ROBERT F. SHAPIRO; PAUL K. WOTTON;
ROBERT DELUCCIA; DAVID LUCI; STEVE ROUHANDEH; JEFFREY DAVIS; MARK
ALVINO; GENAERA LIQUIDATING TRUST; BIOTECHNOLOGY VALUE FUND, INC;
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; XMARK CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC; ARGYCE,
LLC; JOHN L. HIGGINS; GENAERA CORPORATION; SCO FINANCIAL GROUP;
MARK N. LAMPERT; DIPEXIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; MACROCHEM
CORPORATION; ACCESS PHARMACEUTICALS INC; BIOTECHNOLOGY VALUE FUND,
LP; BIOTECHNOLOGY VALUE FUND II, LP; BVF, INC; XMARK OPPORTUNITY
FUND, LP; XMARK OPPORTUNITY FUND LTD; XMARK JV INVESTMENT PARTNERS
LLC; XMARK OPPORTUNITY PARTNERS LLC. Alan W. Schmidt, Appellant,
No. 15-3751 (3d Cir.), Judge Michael Chagares of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated and remanded in part, and
affirmed in part the District Court's dismissal of the Schmidt's
class action shareholder derivative suit under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

According to the complaint, the board of directors of
biotechnology company Genaera voted in April 2009 to dissolve the
company.  On June 4, 2009, the Genaera shareholders, including
Genaera's largest shareholder, XMark Capital Partners, LLC,
approved the dissolution.  Genaera director Mitchell Kaye was an
officer of XMark.  The next day, XMark sold a third of its Genaera
shares at a price that was 1.6 times the average selling price for
recent trading days.  "Upon information and belief," Schmidt
alleges that sale was prearranged.

When Genaera was dissolved on June 12, 2009, its assets were
transferred to a trust, pursuant to a trust agreement between
Genaera and trustee Argyce, LLC, an entity run by John Skolas, a
former Genaera CFO.  Genaera shareholders received an interest in
the trust.

Argyce allegedly sold three of Genaera's assets for less than
their worth.

First, Genaera owned an interest in certain aminosterol compounds
("Aminosterol Assets").  In July 2009, the Trustee sold the
Aminosterol Assets for $200,000 without public bidding.  The
complaint alleges that the board did not have the Aminosterol
Assets appraised.

Second, Genaera owned an interest in Pexiganan, a treatment for
diabetic foot infections, which it licensed to MacroChem
Corporation.  In 2007, MacroChem paid $1 million for the license.
MacroChem spent only $45,110 on developing Pexiganan in 2008.  As
a result of MacroChem's failure to develop the asset, in late 2009
the Trustee terminated MacroChem's licensing agreement.  MacroChem
executives Robert DeLuccia and David Luci formed an entity called
Dipexium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Jan. 14, 2010 that purchased the
Pexiganan license for $272,500.  The sale lacked the royalty or
sales-milestone payment obligations of MacroChem's agreement.

Third, Genaera owned an interest in an IL9 antibody program for
asthma, which it licensed to MedImmune, LLC, a subsidiary of
AstraZeneca Corporation.  In February 2008, Genaera indicated at
an investor conference that the value of the IL9 program was $48
million.  In May 2010, the Trustee sold the IL9 program to Ligand
Pharmaceuticals for $2.75 million.  Ligand then sold half of its
interest in the program to BVF, Inc., Biotechnology Value Fund,
L.P., and/or Biotechnology Value Fund II, L.P. ("BVF"), where Kaye
is currently a managing director (it is not clear when he assumed
that role).

Schmidt filed the suit.  He alleged breach of fiduciary duty
against the Trustee and the directors and officers of Genaera
("D&O Defendants"), and aiding and abetting the breaches by the
Trustee and the D&O Defendants against Dipexium ("Dipexium
Defendants"), among other claims.

The District Court granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss.
First, the District Court considered the breach of fiduciary duty
claim against the D&O Defendants.  Despite Kaye's involvement with
XMark, the District Court concluded the XMark sale of Genaera
stock after the dissolution announcement did not show disloyalty.
Nor were the facts alleged sufficient, according to the District
Court, to state a claim that the D&O Defendants breached their
duty of care by failing to inform themselves about alternatives to
dissolution.

The District Court then rejected each alleged misrepresentation in
the proxy statement.  The Delaware law does not require directors
to disclose all alternatives.  Schmidt alleged that the proxy
should have included more information about the value of Genaera's
assets.  According to the District Court, however, Schmidt did not
allege that current valuations were within the board's control.

Second, the District Court considered the breach of fiduciary duty
claim against the Trustee for unlawful asset sales.  The District
Court concluded that Schmidt failed to allege gross negligence
with the necessary specificity.  Third, the District Court
considered the claim against the Dipexium Defendants for aiding
and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty by the Trustee and the
D&O Defendants.  The District Court determined that Schmidt did
not allege anything besides an arm's length transaction, despite
the connection between Dipexium and MacroChem.

Schmidt timely appealed.  On appeal, Schmidt challenges dismissal
of claims against the Trustee, the D&O Defendants, and the
Dipexium Defendants.

Judge Chagares concludes that the District Court erred in
dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claim against the Trustee.
Viewing all reasonable inferences in favor of Schmidt, and under
enhanced scrutiny review, it is plausible that the Trustee acted
with gross negligence and failed to maximize asset values.
Accordingly, he reinstates the claim against the Trustee (Argyce)
premised on the sale of the Aminosterol Assets and Pexiganan.
However, he affirms dismissal of the allegations based on the sale
of the IL9 program.  Allegations of the difference in valuation
and the subsequent sale to an entity affiliated with a former
Genaera director (a sale that did not involve the Trustee) are
insufficient alone to survive a motion to dismiss.

The Judge further concludes that the District Court correctly
dismissed Schmidt's claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the
D&O Defendants.  The business judgment rule applies, and the
directors' actions are presumptively valid.  The complaint fails
to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the D&O
Defendants.  And, as a result, the Dipexium Defendants cannot be
liable for aiding and abetting that insufficiently-pled breach.

For these reasons, Judge Chagares vacated and remanded the
District Court's order dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty
claim against the Trustee (except as to the IL9 program sale
allegations and as to Skolas, personally), and affirmed the order
dismissing the remaining claims.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's Aug. 25, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/mojt6c from Leagle.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Tangara" Suit over Defective AC Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMED TANGARA, and THOMAS L. BRENNAN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GENERAL
MOTORS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12786-MOB-EAS (E.D.
Mich., Aug. 23, 2017), seeks declaratory relief, judgment
enjoining Defendant from continuing to disseminate its false and
misleading statements relating to the sale of vehicles.

This is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and a class of current and former GM vehicle owners and
lessees whose vehicles suffer from a defective air conditioning
system ("AC systems") resulting from systemic failure of the
refrigerant hose that transmits refrigerant from the vehicles'
compressor to the condenser in the following models: 2015 Cadillac
Escalade models, 2014-15 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 models, 2015
Chevrolet Suburban models, 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe models, 2014-15
GMC Sierra 1500 models, and 2015 GMC Yukon models ("Class
Vehicles"). This action arises from GM's fraudulent and misleading
marketing, sale and warranting of Class Vehicles. GM marketed and
sold the Vehicles as including a functioning AC system suited for
its intended purposes, despite knowing prior to sale -- and
failing to disclose to Plaintiffs and Class members -- that the AC
system is defective and virtually guaranteed to fail because of
GM's failure to adequately secure the refrigerant hose. As a
result of the tremendous pressure to which the refrigerant hose is
subjected while the AC system is in operation, as well to extreme
vibration experienced during vehicle operation generally, the
refrigerant hose will eventually shake loose, crack, leak and fail
("the Defect"). Further, if the Defect, which is latent but
present in all Class Vehicles at the time of sale and all times
thereafter, manifests while the AC system is in use, the AC system
will suddenly cease to operate, causing the compressor to seize
and necessitating additional costly repairs.

General Motors Company, commonly known as GM, is an American
multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
          Bryan Clobes, Esq.
          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          220 Collingwood Dr., Suite 130
          Ann Arbor, MI 48103
          Telephone: (734) 769 2144
          Facsimile: (215) 864 2810
          E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com
                  bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
                  dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                  ctourek@caffertyclobes.com


GENERAL WIRELESS: Faces "Hoskinson" Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Wireless
Operations Inc. dba RadioShack. The case is styled as Calvin
Hoskinson, Eric Vanderlip, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. General Wireless Operations Inc.
dba RadioShack, Dene Rogers, Robert Lavan and DOES 1 through 40,
Defendants, Case No. 17-51043-BLS (D. Del, September 1, 2017).

General Wireless Operations, Inc. is an American chain of wireless
and electronics stores, founded in 1921 and since 2017 has 70
remaining corporate locations, an online website, and
approximately 500 independently owned franchise stores.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Daniel I. Barness, Esq.
   Barness & Barness LLP
   11377 West Olympic Blvd.
   5th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90064
   Tel: (310) 594-3011
   Fax: (310) 473-8700
   Email: Daniel@BarnessLaw.com

      - and -

   Julia Bettina Klein, Esq.
   Klein LLC
   919 N. Market Street, Suite 600
   Wilmington, DE 19801
   Tel: (302) 438-0456
   Email: klein@kleinllc.com

      - and -

   Mia Munro, Esq.
   KESLUK, SILVERSTEIN, & JACOB, PC
   9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 411
   P.O. Box 9729
   Los Angeles, CA 90069-3309
   Tel: (310) 273-3180
   Email: Mmunro@californialaborlawattorney.com

      - and -

   Douglas N. Silverstein, Esq.
   KESLUK, SILVERSTEIN, & JACOB, PC
   9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 411
   Los Angeles, CA 90069-3309
   Tel: (310) 273-3180
   Email: Dsilverstein@californialawattorney.com


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiffs/Counsel in "Rice" Suit Named
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALEXANDER RICE, Individually And on behalf
of all others Similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENWORTH
FINANCIAL INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:17cv59 (E.D. Va.), Judge Robert E. Payne of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied The
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 478 Pension
Fund's motion seeking to be named the Lead Plaintiff and seeking
approval of the Union's counsel as the Lead Counsel; and granted
Plaintiffs Rice and Brian James' Motion for Appointment of Lead
Plaintiffs and Counsel.

On Oct. 21, 2016, a Merger Agreement was executed between Genworth
and China Oceanwide. On Oct. 23, 2016, Genworth and China
Oceanwide issued a press release announcing that the companies had
reached an Agreement and Plan of Merger, whereby Genworth would be
acquired by China Oceanwide.

On Dec. 21, 2016, the Genworth filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary
Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission which
provided that Genworth stockholders should exchange their shares
pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, based, among other
things, on the opinion rendered by Genworth's financial advisors,
Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Lazard Freres & Cp. LLC.

On Jan. 23, 2017, Rice filed a Class Action Complaint in which he
raised claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that the Merger
Consideration and the process by which the Defendants agreed to
consummate the Proposed Transaction are fundamentally unfair to
Genworth's public stockholders as the Merger Consideration
represents only a 4.2% premium to the Company's closing price of
$5.21 on Oct. 21, 2016, the last trading day before the Proposed
Transaction was announced.

The Complaint filed by Rice alleges several material
misrepresentations and omissions in the Proxy Statement provided
to Genworth shareholders.  In the Complaint, Rice sought
injunctive relief, certification of a class, and the enjoining of
the proposed transaction, unless and until the Defendants disclose
the material information identified above which has been omitted
from the Proxy Statement.  In the alternative, the Complaint
requested recissory damages.

On Jan. 25, 2017, the Company filed a Schedule 14A Definitive
Proxy Statement with the SEC.  This Proxy Statement recommended
that shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction and
announced that the special shareholder meeting to vote on the
Proposed Transaction would occur on March 7, 2017.

On Jan. 25, 2017, James filed a Class Action Complaint for
Violations of Sections 14 (a) and 20 (a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, in which he raised essentially the same
substantive claims as those raised by Rice.  Rice and James agreed
to work together to coordinate their actions.  Also on Jan. 25,
2017, the Rosenfeld Family Trust filed a Class Action Complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in which it
raised substantively similar claims to those raised by Plaintiffs
Rice and James.  On Feb. 2, 2017, Rice, supported by James, filed
the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, which sought
to enjoin the shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction until
certain supplemental disclosures were made to Genworth's
stockholders.

On Feb. 6, 2017, Esther Chopp filed a Class Action Complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  Chopp
raised essentially the same substantive claims as raised by Rice
and James.  On Feb. 10, 2017, David Ratliff filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia a complaint in
which he raised substantively identical claims to those already
raised by Rice, James, and the Rosenfeld Family Trust.  The
Ratliff case was filed and identified as a case related to the
Rice case.

On Feb. 17, 2017, an Emergency Motion to Consolidate Cases and for
Appointment of Interim Lead Counsel was filed, in which Rice and
James sought the entry of an order consolidating the actions
pending before the Court, and appointing Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP,
Monteverde & Associates, PC, and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") as
the Interim Class Counsel and MeyerGoergen PC as the Interim Lead
Liaison Counsel.  On Feb. 23, 2017, the Court consolidated
Rosenfeld Family Trust v. Genworth Financial, Inc., and Chopp v.
Genworth Financial, Inc., et al., with the consolidated cases, all
of which thereafter proceeded under the style Rice, et al. v.
Genworth Financial, Inc., et al.

The Plaintiffs subsequently reached an agreement with the
Defendants, pursuant to which the Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction was withdrawn.  On March 6, 2016, the Court entered the
Stipulated PSLRA Lead Plaintiff Scheduling Order which provided
that on or before April 17, 2017, any Plaintiff in these actions
or any other member of the purported class who wishes to serve as
the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated purported class action will
file a motion to serve as the Lead Plaintiff of the purported
class and will state its selection for the Lead Counsel to
represent the purported class, subject to approval by the Court.

On April 1, 2017, the Union filed its motion seeking to be named
the Lead Plaintiff and seeking approval of the Union's counsel as
the Lead Counsel.  Rice and James, with the consent of the other
Plaintiffs in the consolidated cases, also filed the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel.

The stockholder vote has taken place and the merger was approved;
however, the merger of Genworth and China Oceanwide has been
pending for several months.  Recently, a further delay in the
merger was announced.

To rebut the presumption that the Union is not an adequate Lead
Plaintiff, Rice and James contend that the Union has a conflict of
interest in the action against the Company because it is pursuing,
on behalf of the Company, a derivative action in the Delaware
Court of Chancery.  Judge Payne is persuaded by the argument made
by Rice and James that there is a conflict between the direct
action and the derivative action in Delaware based on the issue of
damages.  He also finds persuasive the argument of Rice and James
that the Union's 220 Action potentially serves as a basis to
strengthen the Union's derivative case post-merger.  The Union
tries to rebut this conflict not by denying its existence, but by
explaining that, once the merger is consummated, the derivative
action will disappear.  The Judge concludes that this conflict
renders the Union an inadequate the Lead Plaintiff.  Further, in
all respects, Rice and James have shown that they meet the relaxed
typicality and adequacy (capability) requirements of Rule 23 that
apply at this stage of the proceedings.

The Lead Plaintiff is empowered under the PSLRA to select and
retain counsel to represent the class members in the consolidated
actions.  Judge Payne finds that Faruqi & Faruqi and KSF as the
Co-Lead Counsel and MeyerGoergen as the Liaison Counsel possess
the requisite experience to represent the interests of the class
members and approves the selection of those firms as co-lead
counsel and liaison counsel respectively.

For these reasons, Judge Payne denied Union's motion seeking to be
named the Lead Plaintiff and seeking approval of the Union's
counsel as the Lead Counsel; and granted Plaintiffs Rice and Brian
James' Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion dated August 25, 2017,
is available at https://is.gd/PtG39H from Leagle.com.

Alexander Rice, Plaintiff, represented by Scott Andrew Simmons,
MeyerGoergen PC.

Alexander Rice, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Joseph
Habenicht, MeyerGoergen PC, James Milligan Wilson, Jr., Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice & Stuart Jay Guber, Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, pro hac vice.

Brian James, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Scott Andrew
Simmons, MeyerGoergen PC, Christopher Joseph Habenicht,
MeyerGoergen PC, Christopher Robert Tillotson, Kahn Swick & Foti
LLC, pro hac vice & Michael Joseph Palestina, Kahn Swick & Foti
LLC, pro hac vice.

David Ratliff, II, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Charles
Lewis Williams, Williams & Skilling PC, Benjamin Isaac Sachs-
Michaels, Harwood Feffer LLP, pro hac vice & Robert Ira Harwood,
Harwood Feffer LLP.

Rosenfeld Family Trust, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Ryan M. Ernst, O'Kelly & Ernst LLC, Daniel Patrick Murray, O'Kelly
& Ernst LLC, Elizabeth Kathleen Tripodi, Levi & Korsinsky LLP &
Richard Adam Acocelli, WeissLaw LLP, pro hac vice.

Esther Chopp, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Charles Lewis
Williams, Williams & Skilling PC & Thomas J. McKenna, Gainey
McKenna & Egleston, pro hac vice.

Genworth Financial Incorporated, Defendant, represented by
Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice,
Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen,
Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley,
III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges
LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams
LLP.

Thomas J. McInerney, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey
Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph
Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,
pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

James S. Riepe, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka,
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton &
Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac
vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

William H. Bolinder, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey
Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph
Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,
pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

G. Kent Conrad, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka,
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton &
Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac
vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

Melina E. Higgins, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey
Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph
Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,
pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

David M. Moffett, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka,
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton &
Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac
vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

Thomas E. Moloney, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey
Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph
Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,
pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

James A. Parke, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka,
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton &
Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac
vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

Debra J. Perry, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka,
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton &
Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac
vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr., Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey
Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph
Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,
pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 478 Pension
Fund, Movant, represented by Tim Schulte, Shelley & Schulte PC,
Blackwell Nixon Shelley, Jr., Shelley & Schulte PC, Brett David
Stecker, The Weiser Law Firm PC, pro hac vice, Donald Alan Broggi,
Scott + Scott LLP pro hac vice, Judith Sarah Scolnick, Scott +
Scott LLP. pro hac vice, Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV, Scott +
Scott LLP. pro hac vice & William Scott Holleman, Johnson & Weaver
LLP, pro hac vice.


GNC HOLDINGS: California Wage and Break Claims vs. Unit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of GNC Holdings, Inc. is still facing California wage
and break claims in the Country of Alameda, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On February 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth
Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation ("GNC") in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda.  The complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging,
among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations for
which indeterminate money damages for wages, penalties, interest,
and legal fees are sought.

The Company stated, "As of June 30, 2017, an immaterial liability
has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements.  The
Company intends to conduct further discovery and file a motion to
decertify the class action prior to trial, which is scheduled for
July 2018."

GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products.
The Company was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


GNC HOLDINGS: Appeal in Fluctuating Workweek Lawsuit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. continues to defend itself against a case
alleging that it violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA)
through the "fluctuating workweek" method, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced
a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.  Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for
a purported violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA),
challenging the Company's utilization of the "fluctuating
workweek" method to calculate overtime compensation, on behalf of
all employees who worked for the Company in Pennsylvania and who
were paid according to the fluctuating workweek method.

In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use
of the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA.

In September 2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs and the class related to damages and ultimately legal
fees for a combined immaterial amount, which has been accrued in
the accompanying interim consolidated financial statements.  The
Company appealed from the adverse judgment.

The Company's brief has been filed with the Superior Court and
Plaintiffs' brief was due in August 2017. The Superior Court has
not announced a date for oral argument.

GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products.
The Company was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces "Davis" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc.  The case is styled as Josh Davis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Hain
Celestial Group, Inc. and Hain Blueprint, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-05191 (E.D. N.Y., September 1, 2017).

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. operates a food company whose main
focus is foods and personal care products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
   Levin-Epstein& Associates
   One Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
   New York, NY 10119
   Tel: (212) 792-0046
   Fax: (212) 563-7108
   Email: joshua@levinepstein.com


HARRY CANTRELL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Caliste" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
case captioned ADRIAN CALISTE AND BRAIN GISCLAIR, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. HARRY E. CANTRELL,
MAGISTRATE JUDGE, SECTION "L"(5) OF ORLEANS PARISH CRIMINAL
DISTRICT COURT, Civil Action No. 17-6197 (E.D. La.).

On June 27, 2017, a group of Plaintiffs filed suit as a class
against one Criminal District Court Judge; Magistrate Judge Harry
Cantrell.  The Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class has been
continued.

The Named Plaintiffs are two criminal defendants with cases
pending in the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court.  They
appear as the class representatives for the putative class.  The
Defendant is the Magistrate Judge for Orleans Parish Criminal
District Court, among his duties is to set bail for those
arrested.  He also has a role in managing the expenditures of the
Judicial Expense Fund.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant routinely sets a $2,500
minimum secured money bond without considering the facts of the
case to determine whether a lower bond amount or an alternative
condition of release might be appropriate.  They Plaintiffs
further aver that the Defendant requires the use of a for-profit
bail bond and does not allow arrestees to post cash bail.  They
argue that this policy of refusing to consider a criminal
defendant's ability to pay, alternative conditions of release, or
a lower bond, as well as the resulting institutional financial
conflict, violate the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of
the Fourteenth Amendment.  Thus, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgement that the Defendant's bond policy, which results in the
creation of a modern "debtor's prison," is a violation of their
constitutional rights, and a declaration that the Defendant's
financial conflict of interest violates the Due Process rights of
criminal defendants.

The Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction, raising two issues, standing and abstention.

Judge Fallon finds that the Named and proposed Plaintiffs in this
putative class action have criminal cases pending before the
Defendant.  Therefore, they have ongoing actual injuries,
traceable to the Defendant, and will likely be redressed by a
favorable decision.  The Defendant argues that Named Plaintiff
Gisclair lacks standing because he has been released from custody
subsequent to the filing of this suit.  However, in Cain v. City
of New Orleans, the Court only dismissed plaintiffs for lack of
standing who were not incarcerated or did not have court debts
outstanding at the time the suit was filed.  Here, Plaintiff
Gisclair was incarcerated at the time the suit was filed and his
claim is not mooted by his release from custody.  Therefore,
Plaintiff Gisclair has standing to bring this claim.  Finally,
regarding the putative class members, there are issues related to
standing that may depend on facts not present at this time.

Judge Fallon further finds that while these Plaintiffs have
various procedural mechanisms available to challenge the bonds set
by the Defendant, the delay required by these appeals is
problematic because the damage is done by the time the appeal is
perfected.  The Named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class
will suffer irreparable harm via incarceration and/or the
financial burden of the bonds even if their appeals are eventually
successful.  Additionally, any appeals would not abrogate denial
of due process during initial bond hearings.  Therefore, the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction and Younger abstention is not
appropriate.  The Plaintiffs' complaint, according to the Judge,
is sufficient on its face to make a claim of denial of due
process.  Further, the Plaintiffs have not and likely will not
have an adequate opportunity in the state court to raise
constitutional challenges in a manner that prevents irreparable
harm.

For these reasons, Judge Fallon denied the Defendant' Motion to
Dismiss.  He ordered the parties to attend a status conference in
chambers set for Sept. 7, 2017, at 8:30 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/SJY0Lb from Leagle.com.

Adrian Caliste, Plaintiff, represented by Eric A. Foley --
admin@macarthurjustice.org -- Roderick and Solange MacArthur
Justice Center.

Adrian Caliste, Plaintiff, represented by Alec George
Karakatsanis, Civil Rights Corps, pro hac vice & Katharine Murphy
Schwartzmann, Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center.

Brian Gisclair, Plaintiff, represented by Eric A. Foley, Roderick
and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, Alec George Karakatsanis,
Civil Rights Corps, pro hac vice & Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann,
Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center.

Harry E. Cantrell, Defendant, represented by Celeste Brustowicz,
Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C., Dennis J. Phayer, Burglass &
Tankersley, L.L.C., Christopher Kent Tankersley, Burglass &
Tankersley, L.L.C. & Elizabeth A. Doubleday, Burglass &
Tankersley, L.L.C.


HARTFORD FIRE: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Allen"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CORDELL ALLEN; ALIA CLARK; PATRICIA DEARTH;
CHRIS DEPIERRO; JESSICA LEIGHTON; JESSICA PEREZ; JAMIE RIVERA;
LAYFON ROSU; MARISSA SHIMKO; and CAROL SOMERS, Plaintiffs, v.
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-1603-
Orl-37KRS(M.D. Fla.), Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr., of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification of Collective Class and Issuance of Notice and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law.

To properly assess the parties' dispute, the Court looks back more
than three years to the start of a closely-related Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") action -- Monserrate v. Hartford Fire
Insurance Company.  The named plaintiffs in Monserrate were
Analysts who worked for The Hartford in Orange County, Florida.
As here, the Monserrate plaintiffs alleged that The Hartford
violated the FLSA by: (i) failing to pay its employees overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week; (ii)
failing to maintain accurate records of its employees' work hours;
and (iii) inaccurately classifying its Analysts as exempt from
overtime pay despite knowledge that such Analysts were non-exempt.

A little over a year into the litigation, the named plaintiffs
moved to conditionally certify a national class of similarly
situated Analysts.  The Court ultimately granted the motion in
part-limiting the scope of the proposed class due to the absence
of evidence that employees outside The Hartford's central Florida
locations were interested in opting into the action.  The named
plaintiffs later moved to clarify and expand the class based on
after-acquired evidence that similarly situated Analysts from
additional states were interested in joining the Monserrate class.
However, the parties settled the action before the Court resolved
the Motion to Expand.

Three months after the Monserrate settlement, the Plaintiffs
initiated the instant action.  While almost identical to the
plaintiffs' pleadings in Monserrate, the operative Complaint also
references Analysts employed by The Hartford in Seminole County,
Florida, Connecticut, New York, Georgia, and Minnesota.
Unsurprisingly, the Plaintiffs have submitted evidence from
Analysts that have worked in these five states to support their
Motion to Certify.

The present case was initiated by employees who claim that their
employer willfully misclassified them as exempt administrative
employees and, thus, failed to pay them overtime compensation to
which they were entitled under the FLSA.  Seeking relief for both
themselves and a collective class of similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiffs request that the Court conditionally certify a
nationwide class of current and former employees who: (i) worked
for The Hartford as Analysts processing disability claims; and
(ii) routinely worked more than forty hours a week without
receiving overtime compensation.

In addition to seeking conditional certification of a national
class of Analysts, the Motion to Certify requests that the Court:
(i) order The Hartford to produce the names, addresses, telephone
numbers, and emails of each putative class member; (ii) authorize
notice of the action to be sent to all putative class members
employed by The Hartford within the three years preceding the
Motion to Certify; (iii) require The Hartford to post notice of
this action at its work sites and on its company intranet website;
and (iv) toll the statute of limitations for the putative class
members' claims back to the date that the Motion to Certify was
filed.  The Hartford vehemently opposes conditional certification.

Judge Dalton granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Class and
Issuance of Notice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law.

He conditionally certifies a national Section 216(b) class of
Analysts who have: (i) worked for The Hartford at any of its
locations during the three years preceding their decision to opt
into this action; and (ii) worked more than 40 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.  The putative class members
will have a 60 day period in which to opt into the action.

The Judge appointed Named Plaintiffs Patricia Dearth, Jessica
Perez, Jamie Rivera, Layfon Rosu, Marissa Shimko, and Carol Somers
as the Class Representatives.

No later than Aug. 31, 2017, The Hartford is directed to disclose
to the Named Plaintiffs the contact information of all Analysts
who have: (i) worked at or reported to any of The Hartford's
locations during the three years preceding the date of the Order;
and (ii) are not subject to The Hartford's arbitration policy.

Judge Dalton approved the Plaintiffs' Notice of Collective Action,
subject to the incorporation of the following changes:

     a. The Plaintiffs must change the start date of the statute
of limitations period from Dec. 2, 2013 to Aug. 25, 2014, in the
recipient line, under the sections titled Persons Eligible to
Participate in the Lawsuit, and Your Choice to Participate in the
Lawsuit, and on the Consent to Join Collective Action form.

     b. Under the section titled Persons Eligible to Participate
in the Lawsuit, the Plaintiffs must delete language stating: Even
if you signed an Arbitration Agreement with Hartford you may still
Opt-In to this action.  In its place, they must state that
employees subject to The Hartford's arbitration policy will not be
permitted to join the collective action.

     c. The Plaintiffs must remove the Named Plaintiffs subject to
The Hartford's arbitration policy from their Description of The
Lawsuit -- specifically, Cordell Allen, Alia Clark, Chris
DePierro, and Jessica Leighton.

     d. Under the Description of the Lawsuit, the Plaintiffs must
specifically state that The Hartford denies that it owes any of
the Plaintiffs overtime pay.  The Hartford contends that the
Plaintiffs' duties made them exempt from the law requiring
overtime pay.

     e. Under the Effect of Joining the Lawsuit, the Plaintiffs
must adjust the language to state that: If you choose to join this
suit, you may be required to provide information, sit for
deposition, and you may be required to appear for a trial and
testify in Court in the Middle District of Florida, which
encompasses Seminole, Brevard, Orange, Osceola, and Volusia
counties.

Judge Dalton authorized the distribution of the modified notices -
- by U.S. mail and personal email -- on or before Oct. 31, 2017.
On or before Sept. 1, 2017, The Hartford is directed to post the
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
Nov. 1, 2017.

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

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/PtG39H from Leagle.com.

Alexander Rice, Plaintiff, represented by Scott Andrew Simmons --
simmons@mg-law.com -- MeyerGoergen PC.

Alexander Rice, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Joseph
Habenicht -- habenicht@mg-law.com -- MeyerGoergen PC, James
Milligan Wilson, Jr. -- jwilson@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, pro hac vice & Stuart Jay Guber, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro
hac vice.

Brian James, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Scott Andrew
Simmons, MeyerGoergen PC, Christopher Joseph Habenicht,
MeyerGoergen PC, Christopher Robert Tillotson --
christopher.tillotson@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, pro
hac vice & Michael Joseph Palestina, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, pro
hac vice.

David Ratliff, II, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Charles
Lewis Williams, Williams & Skilling PC, Benjamin Isaac Sachs-
Michaels -- bsachsmichaels@hfesq.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP, pro
hac vice & Robert Ira Harwood -- rharwood@hfesq.com -- Harwood
Feffer LLP.

Rosenfeld Family Trust, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Ryan M. Ernst -- rernst@oelegal.com -- O'Kelly & Ernst LLC, Daniel
Patrick Murray -- dmurray@oelegal.com -- O'Kelly & Ernst LLC,
Elizabeth Kathleen Tripodi -- etripodi@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky
LLP & Richard Adam Acocelli, WeissLaw LLP, pro hac vice.

Esther Chopp, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Charles Lewis
Williams, Williams & Skilling PC & Thomas J. McKenna --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- Gainey McKenna & Egleston, pro hac vice.

Genworth Financial Incorporated, Defendant, represented by
Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice,
Edward Joseph Fuhr -- efuhr@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP,
Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac
vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A.
Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl
Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

Thomas J. McInerney, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey
Zalka -- caroline.zalka@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro
hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John
Christensen, Jr. -- evert.christensen@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III --
gsibley@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow --
greg.danilow@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice &
Johnathon Earl Schronce -- jschronce@hunton.com -- Hunton &
Williams LLP.

James S. Riepe, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka,
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton &
Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac
vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

William H. Bolinder, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey
Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph
Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,
pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

G. Kent Conrad, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka,
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton &
Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac
vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

Melina E. Higgins, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey
Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph
Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,
pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

David M. Moffett, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka,
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton &
Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac
vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

Thomas E. Moloney, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey
Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph
Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,
pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

James A. Parke, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka,
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton &
Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac
vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

Debra J. Perry, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka,
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr,
Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton &
Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac
vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/PtG39H from Leagle.com.

Cordell Allen, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz --
dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney -- Lytle & Barszcz.

Cordell Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Mary E. Lytle --
mlytle@lblaw.attorney -- Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N. Sutton, III -
- rsutton@lblaw.attorney.

Alia Clark, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz, Lytle
& Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N. Sutton, III.

Patricia Dearth, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz,
Lytle & Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N.
Sutton, III.

Chris Depierro, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz,
Lytle & Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N.
Sutton, III.

Jessica Leighton, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz,
Lytle & Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N.
Sutton, III.

Jessica Perez, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz,
Lytle & Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N.
Sutton, III.

Jamie Rivera, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz,
Lytle & Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N.
Sutton, III.

Layfon Rosu, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz, Lytle
& Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N. Sutton, III.

Marissa Shimko, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz,
Lytle & Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N.
Sutton, III.

Carol Somers, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz,
Lytle & Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N.
Sutton, III.

Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony
S. Califano -- acalifano@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, pro
hac vice, Arlene Karin Kline -- Arlene.kline@akerman.com --
Akerman LLP, Melissa Segarra Zinkil -- Melissa.zinkil@akerman.com
-- Akerman LLP, Molly C. Mooney -- mmooney@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick J. Bannon --
pbannon@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, pro hac vice.


HELENA-WEST HELENA, AR: Court Dismisses "Mondy" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge James Leon Holmes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas dismissed without prejudice the case
captioned ELIJAH MONDY, JR., individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated citizens of the City of Helena-West Helena,
Arkansas, Plaintiff, v. ADRIAN MESSINA, individually and in his
official capacity as Alderman for the City of Helena-West Helena,
Arkansas, et al., Defendants, No. 2:17CV00104 JLH (E.D. Ark.).

This is a putative class action against the City of Helena-West
Helena, its mayor, and its aldermen.  The Plaintiff alleges that
the city council unlawfully repealed an ordinance passed by a
majority of the city's residents during a valid initiative
election.  The Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the action
and to disqualify Mondy's attorney, James F. Valley.

Because Mondy fails to state a claim that arises under federal
law, the case is dismissed without prejudice and the motion to
disqualify counsel is denied as moot.

On or about Sept. 9, 2016, Mondy submitted a petition for an
initiated ordinance with the requisite number of signatures to the
city clerk.  The proposed ordinance would reduce the number of
wards in the city and consequently the number of city council
members.  The clerk verified the signatures, and the county
election commission approved the ordinance to appear on the ballot
for the November 2016 election.  By majority vote, the initiated
ordinance passed at the election.  In early December of 2016, the
city council voted 10-0 on a "motion to repeal the vote" on the
initiated ordinance.  The city council subsequently realized that
a new ordinance was needed to repeal the initiated ordinance.
Later that month the city council met again, this time with a
repeal ordinance on the agenda.  The city council ultimately
adopted the repeal ordinance by an 8-1 vote.  The city council
also voted by the same margin on an emergency clause so that the
repeal ordinance would be effective immediately.

Mondy alleges that the Defendants' actions have violated the
first, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments of the United
States Constitution.  He further alleges violations of 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights
Act of 1965.  After invoking these provisions in the
jurisdictional allegation of his complaint, Mondy barely mentions
them again.  Instead, the complaint alleges numerous violations of
Arkansas law and seeks a declaration that the repeal ordinance is
invalid under state law.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint because it
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and
because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.  Mondy
responded but did not address the issue of subject matter
jurisdiction, except in a conclusory fashion.

Judge Holmes held that Mondy's complaint fails to allege a claim
that arises under federal law, diversity jurisdiction is lacking,
and Mondy lacks standing.  Thus, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction and must dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1).
If the dismissal of Mondy's federal claims were governed by Rule
12(b)(6), the Judge nevertheless would decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Mondy's state-law claims.

For these reasons, Judge Holmes granted the Defendants' amended
motion to dismiss.  He denied as moot the motion to disqualify
counsel and the motion for a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction.  The original motion to dismiss is denied
as moot.  The case is dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/LWOSxn from Leagle.com.

Elijah Mondy, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by J.F. Valley --
james@jamesfvalley.com -- J. F. Valley, Esq., P.A..

Adrian Messina, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley, Andre
K. Valley, Esq. P.A..

Jesse Vescon Hollowell, Jr, Defendant, represented by Andre K.
Valley, Andre K. Valley, Esq. P.A..

Helena-West Helena City of Arkansas, Defendant, represented by
Andre K. Valley, Andre K. Valley, Esq. P.A..

Wanda Crockett, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley, Andre
K. Valley, Esq. P.A..

Ever J Ford, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley, Andre K.
Valley, Esq. P.A..

Joe St Columbia, Sr, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley,
Andre K. Valley, Esq. P.A..

Christopher Franklin, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley,
Andre K. Valley, Esq. P.A..

John Huff, Jr, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley, Andre K.
Valley, Esq. P.A..

Larry J Brown, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley, Andre K.
Valley, Esq. P.A..

Monica Davis, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley, Andre K.
Valley, Esq. P.A..


HT RESTAURANT: Faces "Tasman" Suit over Minimum Wages & OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER MARIE TASMAN, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HT RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, D/B/A HIDDEN
TREASURE RAW BAR & GRILL, Florida Limited Liability Company, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00994-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla., Aug. 23,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid minimum
wages, and liquidated damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked over 40 hours during
multiple weeks of employment with Defendant. Specifically,
Plaintiff usually worked six days per week and would work up to 35
hour during only her shifts on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

Defendant is a seafood restaurant on the Intracostal Waterway in
Flagler Beach, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Henson, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Avenue, 14th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 428 6241
          Facsimile: (407) 245 3342
          E-mail: jjhenson@forthepeople.com


HYATT HOTELS: Sued in N.Y. Over Disabled Inaccessible Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Swartz, individually, on her behalf and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated v. Hyatt Hotels Corporation,
Case No. 1:17-cv-06411 (S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to remove architectural and
communication barriers in existing facilities and the amenities
offered, denying equal access to disabled persons and endangered
their safety.

Hyatt Hotels Corporation operates The Hyatt Centric Times Square
Hotel located at 145 West 45th Street, New York, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence A. Fuller, Esq.
      FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502 North
      Miami, FL 33181
      Telephone: (305) 891-5199
      Facsimile: (305) 893-9505
      E-mail: Lfuller@fullerfuller.com


IHS ACQUISITION: Faces "Obare" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Obare, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. IHS Acquisition No. 129, Inc. d/b/a Heritage Manor Healthcare
Center, Case No. 4:17-cv-00589 (E.D. Tex., August 23, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

IHS Acquisition No. 129, Inc. operates an assisted living facility
located at 1999 Bryan St., Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
      DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
      1800 Guadalupe Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 777-7777
      Facsimile: (512) 340-4051
      E-mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com


IMPERVA INC: Poinsignon Sues over Background Checks
---------------------------------------------------
JULIEN POINSIGNON, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMPERVA, INC., Delaware corporation;
INSPERITY PEO SERVICES, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; and
DOES I through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17CIV03879
(Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks compensatory and punitive
damages due to Defendants' systematic and willful violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California Investigative
Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and the California Consumer
Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants routinely acquire consumer,
investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports to conduct
background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current and
former employees and use information from credit and background
reports in connection with their hiring process without providing
proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in
compliance with the law.

Imperva provides cyber security software and services to protect
enterprise data and application software and to ensure regulatory
compliance. Imperva is headquartered in Redwood Shores,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setatareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com


INDEPENDENT BANK GROUP: Subsidiary Still Faces BOH-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, Inc. (IBG) disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that its subsidiary still
defends itself in a class action complaint related to Bank of
Houston.

IBG, through subsidiary Independent Bank, a Texas state banking
corporation (Bank) (collectively known as the Company), provides a
full range of banking services to individual and corporate
customers in the North Texas, Central Texas and Houston areas
through its various branch locations.

Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by
Independent Bank in connection with the Company's acquisition of
BOH Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH,
that was completed on April 15, 2014.  Several entities related to
R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford Entities, including Stanford
International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had deposit accounts at BOH.

Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from
SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including
BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, alleging, among other things,
that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud by SIBL and other
Stanford Entities and seeking to recover damages and alleged
fraudulent transfers by the defendant banks.

On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
permission to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this
case, which motion was subsequently granted.  The Second Amended
Class Action Complaint asserted previously unasserted claims,
including aiding and abetting or participation in a fraudulent
scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that the Stanford
Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of certain BOH
officers.

Given the new allegations, Independent Bank notified its insurance
carriers of the claims made in the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.  The insurance carriers have initially indicated that a
"loss" has not yet occurred or that the claims are not covered by
the policies.  However, Independent Bank is continuing to pursue
insurance coverage for these claims, as well as for the
reimbursement of defense costs, through the initiation of
litigation and other means.

IBG said, "Independent Bank believes that the claims made in this
lawsuit are without merit and is vigorously defending this
lawsuit.  This is complex litigation involving a number of
procedural matters and issues.  As such, Independent Bank is
unable to predict when this matter may be resolved and, given the
uncertainty of litigation, the ultimate outcome of, or potential
costs or damages arising from, this case."

Independent Bank Group, Inc. operates as the bank holding company
for Independent Bank that provides a range of commercial banking
products and services to businesses, professionals, and
individuals in the United States.  It offers various deposit
products, including checking and savings accounts, demand
accounts, money market accounts, and certificates of deposit, as
well as individual retirement accounts.  Independent Bank Group,
Inc. was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McKinney, Texas.


INTEL CORP: Appeal Pending in McAfee Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 1, 2017 that it is waiting on a hearing date from the
appellate court on an appeal from the final judgment issued for a
consolidated class action suit related to its acquisition of
McAfee common stock.

On August 19, 2010, the Company announced that it had agreed to
acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for
US$48.00 per share.

Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action lawsuits in
Santa Clara County, California Superior Court challenging the
proposed transaction.  The cases were ordered consolidated in
September 2010.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee
board members, McAfee, and Intel as defendants, and alleged that
the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that
McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty.  The
complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such other
equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award of
damages in an unspecified amount.

In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the
value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages
should be US$62.08.

In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action,
appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class
representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013.

In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California
Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class
certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012.

In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that
plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial and ordered a bench
trial.  In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the
California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that
order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012.

In August 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
The trial court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered
final judgment in the case in February 2013.

In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment.

The Company said, "The appeal is fully briefed, and we are waiting
on a hearing date from the appellate court.  Because the
resolution of the appeal may materially impact the scope and
nature of the proceeding, we are unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising
from this matter.  We dispute the class-action claims and intend
to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously."

Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer,
networking, and communications platforms worldwide.  It operates
through Client Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of
Things Group, Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Intel Security
Group, Programmable Solutions Group, and All Other segments.  The
company was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara,
California.


JUICE BEAUTY: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juice Beauty, Inc.
The case is styled as Judith Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Juice Beauty, Inc.
doing business as: Juice Organics, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
05187 (E.D. N.Y., September 1, 2017).

Juice Beauty offers organic skin care and organic beauty products
that are clinically validated to show transformative results.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


KBR INC: Metzgar Appeals Ruling in Burn Pit MDL to Fourth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alan Metzgar, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: KBR,
INCORPORATED, Burn Pit Litigation, MDL No. 8:09-md-2083-RWT, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are ALAN METZGAR, PAUL PARKER, JOSHUA
ELLER, JOANNE OCHS, MELISSA OCHS, JAMES MORGAN, DAVID NEWTON,
CHRIS BOGGIANO, EARL CHAVIS, BENNY LYLE REYNOLDS, ALBERT PAUL
BITTEL, III, MICHAEL DOUGLAS MOORE, DAVID U. LACKEY, RANDALL L.
ROBINSON, MICHAEL AUW, CORY CASALEGNO, RICHARD RONALD GUILMETTE,
WILLIAM G. BRISTER, JR., HENRY J. O'NEILL, SMSGT GLEN S. MASSMAN,
SSGT WENDY L. MCBREAIRTY, DEAN GUY OLSON, ROBERT CAIN, CRAIG
HENRY, FRANCIS JAEGER, DAVID MCMENOMY, MARK POSZ, EL KEVIN SAR,
MAURICE CALLUE, DENNIS WAYNE BRIGGS, EDWARD LEE BUQUO, WAYNE E.
FABOZZI, SHARLENE S. JAGGERNAUTH, FLOYD JAMES JOHNSON, SR., TAMRA
C. JOHNSON, RICHARD LEE KEITH, DANIEL SANTIAGO MORALES, PHILLIP
MCQUILLAN, ILDEBBRANDO PEREZ, LUIGI ANTONIO PROVENZA, RUTH ANN
REECE, EDUARDO SAAVEDRA, SR., JILL R. WILKINS, MICHAEL DONNELL
WILLIAMS, JERMAINE LYNELL WRIGHT, BENJAMIN BOEKE, CRAIG KERVIN,
BARRY ZABIELINSKI, PABLO BERCHINI, BRIAN P. ROBINSON, DAVID GREEN,
NICK DANIEL HEISLER, JOHN A. WESTER, JR., EDWARD ADAMS, KENNETH
BALDWIN, DONNA WU, JOHN DOES 1-1000, JANE DOES 1-1000, KEVIN PAUL
ROBBINS, BRIAN BLUMLINE, ROBERT BIDINGER, UNKNOWN PARTIES, DERROL
A. TURNER, VINCENT C. MOSELEY, ALEX HARLEY, FRED ROBERT ATKINSON,
JR., ROBYN SACHS, JENNIFER MONTIJO, STEPHEN FLOWERS, WALLACE
MCNABB, PATRICK CASSIDY, WILLIAM BARRY DUTTON, CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL
KOZEL, CHARLES HICKS, SEAN ALEXANDER STOUGH, BILL JACK CARLISLE,
JR., ANTHONY EDWARD ROLES, DANNY LAPIERRE, ANTHONY RAY JOHNSON,
DAVID MICHAEL ROHMFELD, RICHARD MCANDREW, LORENZO PEREZ, THOMAS
KELLECK, DAN BOWLDS, TONY ALLEN GOUCKENOUR, JOHN WILLIAM JACKSON,
JOHN PETE TROOST, DEBORAH ANN WHEELOCK, GEORGE LUNDY, EUNICE
RAMIREZ, MARCOS BARRANCO, JOEL LUGO, SHAWN THOMAS SHERIDAN, JAYSON
WILLIAMS, HEINZ ALEX DISCH, JAMES MCCOLLEM, TRAVIS FIDELL PUGH,
THOMAS OLSON, BRIAN PAULUS, PAUL MICHAEL WIATR, LEE WARREN
JELLISON, JR., JESSEY JOSEPH PHILIP BACA, DANIEL TIJERNIA, JOSHUA
DAVID BEAVERS, MATTHEW JOEL FIELDS, MICHAEL FOTH, STEVEN E.
GARDNER, KENNETH HARRIS, STEPHEN R. JONES, BRETT ANTHONY MAZZARA,
KEVIN SCOTT TEWES, KATHY VINES, ANTHONY JEROME WILLIAMS, HANS
NICOLAS YU, JEFFREY MORGAN COX, JAMES WARREN GARLAND, PETER
BLUMER, SCOTT ANDREW CHAMBERLAIN, TIMOTHY E. DIMON, WILLIAM PHILIP
KRAWCZYK, SR., SEAN JOHNSON, DAVID ROUNDS, LISA ROUNDS, ALBERT
JOHNSON, JR., GENE BISHOP, PATRICK BISHOP, SHERRY BISHOP, GENE
LEONARD MATSON, TIMOTHY J. WATSON, DAVID JOBES, MICHELLE BROWN,
JONATHAN LYNN, ANDREW MASON, CHARLES KINNEY, MICHAEL MCCLAIN,
BASIL SALEM, JUSTIN GONZALES, MATTHEW GUTHERY, CHRISTOPHER
LIPPARD, DAVID PARR, JOHN F. MONAHAN, AMANDA BRANNON, L. CHANDLER
BRANNON, JOHN DOE, ELIYAHU ARSHADNIA, SIMCHA ARSHADNIA, WILLIAM
SIMMONS, DAWN LUCIA, DANIEL MEYER, HARMONIE MEYER, JOSE BURGOS,
BETHANY BURGOS, STEPHEN HOPPER, STEVEN C. SNEE, VINCENT MOLINO,
LARRY ENGLE, RAYMOND CRUZ, ANTONIO CLARK, JAMES KNOUSE, JR.,
LESLIE SCOTT, SCOTT HURT, JAMES JACKSON, JEFFREY DURHAM, WILLIAM
AUSTIN DANIEL, JOSEPH COLLINS, RACHEL GUTIERREZ, BRANDON SHOEMAKE,
STACIE MOSER, ALBERT ROBERTS, JEFFREY WILKINS, WILLIAM EATON, TODD
GRIMES, GARY MORRIS, MICHAEL GENAW, JOSHUA KEPPLE, WILLIS ROWE,
JUSTIN ACOSTA, TRAVIS ADAMS, LEON J. ALEXANDER, MICHAEL DEVINCENT
AMICY, THOMAS ANDERSEN, PATTI J. ANDERSON, PHILLIP A. ANDERSON,
DOMINICK THOMAS ANDREWS, JULIO A. APODACA, ROSE MARIE APPLEWHITE,
FRANCISCO ARAQUE, ANTHONY L. ARRINGTON, TRACY L. ASHER, MATTHEW K.
ASHWORTH, RYAN L. ATTAR, DUSTIN JEFFREY AUER, EVERETTE D. AVERY,
JR., JOHN ALAN BACON, SCOTT D. BAILEY, JESSE BAKER, LARRY BAKER,
STEVEN LEROY BAKKEN, MICHAEL DANIEL BANKS, ANGELA VANETTE BARNES,
CHARLES J. BARNES, JULIE BARON-MANNIX, TRAVIS M. BASSETT, JAMES R.
BATES, JERICHO N. BEAUCHAMP, CRAIG BELANGER, JUDY-ANN BELLEFEUR,
REGINALD J. BELTON, BRANDI L. BENSON, THEODORE J. BILL, JASON R.
BILLS, JOHNNIE F. BINES, DENNIS A. BLANCHARD, CLINT ALLEN
BLANKENSHIP, ANDREW MICHAEL BOOTH, BRIAN K. BOWER, ANDREW DOULGAS
BOWERS, SR., WILLIE ANTONIO BOYKIN, SR., FRANK EARL BRAXTON, ALAN
K. BRIDGEWATER, BRANDY E. BROADBENT, RACHAEL BROWN, DAVID F.
BRYDEN, DENNIS H. BUDD, ERIK J. BURCH, KENON L. BURNS, THOMAS W.
BURNS, TEE JAY BURR, ROBERT P. BUSSE, MICHAEL L. CALDWELL, WILLIAM
G. CARDWELL, JOHN ERNEST CARLSON, JASON L. CARMEN, MICHAEL W.
CARR, ROBIN A. CARR, ANDREA M. CASTON, FREDDIE E. CAVAZOS, JR.,
RICHARD D. CELIA, BLAIN L. CHAMBERS, BRUCE R. CHAPLIN, DANIEL C.
CHAVEZ, SR., LEONARD RAY CHEEK, GWEN COLLEEN CHIARAMONTE, BLAINE
S. CHILD, KENNETH ROGER CHRISTENSEN, SR., SCOTT ALLAN CHRISTIE,
MARC J. CHUBBUCK, SR., RICHARD CHARLES CHUMBLEY, JR., JEFFREY S.
CHURCH, DERRICK D. CLARK, RICHARD MICHAEL CLEMES, RYAN V.
COLLAMORE, CONNIE G. CONLEY, ANDREW E. COUSSENS, KATHLEEN S. COY,
CHARLES DONALD CRABBLE, JR., MICHAEL A. CRANFILL, PERRY A. CROSS,
JR., CRAIG J. DANIEL, and ROWENA L. DARVIN.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 10,
2017, Judge Roger W. Titus has granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss all the complaints under the litigation.

Numerous complaints were filed against the military's use of open
burn pits for waste management.  Faced with this avalanche of
litigation in the federal courts asserting the common question of
harm caused by the use of open burn pits, the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation, acting pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
1407, directed that all such cases be transferred to the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland for
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The appellate case is captioned as Alan Metzgar v. KBR, Inc., Case
No. 17-1960, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Frederick C. Baker, Esq.
          James William Ledlie, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE, LLP
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9186
          Facsimile: (843) 216-9440
          E-mail: fbaker@motleyrice.com
                  jledlie@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Susan L. Burke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN L. BURKE
          1611 Park Avenue
          Baltimore, MD 21217
          Telephone: (410) 733-5444
          E-mail: sburke@burkepllc.com

Defendants-Appellees KBR, INCORPORATED, KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, LLC,
HALLIBURTON COMPANY, KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INCORPORATED,
BROWN AND ROOT SERVICES, DII INDUSTRIES, LLC, HALLIBURTON ENERGY
SERVICES, INC., KBR HOLDINGS, LLC, KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT,
INCORPORATED, KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED,
KBR GROUP HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, and KBR TECHNICAL SERVICES,
INCORPORATED, are represented by:

          Raymond Brian Biagini, Esq.
          Daniel L. Russell, Jr., Esq.
          Robert A. Matthews, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
          850 10th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-4956
          Telephone: (202) 662-5120
          E-mail: rbiagini@cov.com
                  drussell@cov.com
                  rmatthews@cov.com


KHBJR ENTERPRISE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Sanchez" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KHBJR Enterprise LLC d/b/a 4th Quarter Sports Bar;
Bombay Ranch, Inc. d/b/a 8811 Patio Bar; 8811 LLC d/b/a 8811 Patio
Bar; Kenneth Henry Baker, Jr.; and Michael Kevin Wade, Case No.
5:17-cv-00811 (W.D. Tex., August 23, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a bar located at 8779 Wurzbach
Road, San Antonio, Texas, 78240. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edmond S. Moreland Jr., Esq.
      Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
      MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      13590 Ranch Road 12
      Wimberley, TX 78676
      Telephone: (512) 782-0567
      Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
      E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com
              daniel@morelandlaw.com


LIFE INSURANCE: Norman Appeals E.D. Louisiana Ruling to 5th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Weyman Maxon and Ashlee Ane Norman filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Rusty Norman, et al. v. Life
Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 2:16-CV-17271, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New
Orleans.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit alleging violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act due to improperly reduced
disability benefits.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for employers
that issued policies through the Defendant.  They allege the
Defendant improperly reduced the benefits they were owed.  The
Plaintiffs allege that due to the Defendant's unlawful actions,
they suffered monetary losses for not receiving the full amount of
benefits due under the long-term disability plan.  The Plaintiffs
hold Life Insurance Co. of North America responsible because the
Defendant allegedly improperly reduced Plaintiffs' disability
benefits by offsetting maintenance paid under the general maritime
law.

The appellate case is captioned as Rusty Norman, et al. v. Life
Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 17-30671, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants WEYMAN MAXON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and ASHLEE ANE NORMAN, daughter and
heir to the Estate of Rusty Norman, Decedent, are represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, L.L.C.
          8712 Jefferson Highway
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809-0000
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com

               - and -

          Dennis M. O'Bryan, Esq.
          O'BRYAN BAUN COHEN KUEBLER KARAMANIAN
          401 S. Old Woodward Avenue
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Telephone: (248) 258-6262
          E-mail: dob@obryanlaw.net

Defendant-Appellee LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA is
represented by:

          Lauren Ann Welch, Esq.
          MCCRANIE, SISTRUNK, ANZELMO, HARDY, MCDANIEL
          & WELCH, L.L.C.
          909 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 831-0946
          E-mail: lwelch@mcsalaw.com


LM FUNDING: Agrees to Put $505K in Trust Account Under Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Taylor Martin, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that
less than two years after it went public, LM Funding America, Inc.
says it might not be able to say in business unless it can
refinance its debt by year's end.

In its latest filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Tampa debt collection company said it experienced
"significant operating losses" through June 30 of this year and
had failed to make a quarterly principal payment to its main
lender,

"The inability to obtain financing would raise substantial doubt
about the company's ability to continue as a going concern," the
filing said.  It added, however, that LM Funding is negotiating
with "several entities" and expects to have a new financing
agreement by the end of the year.

Founded by Tampa attorney Bruce Rodgers, LM Funding advances money
to homeowners' associations for the right to collect their
delinquent fees.  The company's business model has been
controversial, partly because of its close ties to the Business
Law Group, a Tampa law firm founded by Rodgers that collects on
some of the delinquent HOA accounts owned by LM Funding.

The two firms have been the target of lawsuits alleging that while
Business Law Group appeared to be working on behalf of the
associations, it really was acting in the best interests of itself
and LM Funding.

LM Funding agreed to put $505,000 into a trust account by Aug. 23
under a settlement agreement in a South Florida class action suit
involving scores of homeowners' associations.  Attorneys for the
class agreed to extend the timeline after the company said it
would be unable to fund the trust by that date.

In its filing with the SEC, LM Funding reported revenues of $2
million in the six months ended June 30 and a net loss of $1.197
million.  The company had $800,000 cash,

LM Funding raised $10 million in its initial public offering in
late 2015, but had to cut staff and slash salaries last year.
Among those taking a pay cut were Rodgers, whose salary dropped
from $385,000 to $269,500.

On a more positive note, the company says it expects a
"significant" decrease in legal expenses as it settles claims.  It
also is acquiring condos and other real estate through
foreclosures -- so far this year, it has sold 14 properties for a
net total profit of $623,000. [GN]


LOVE'S TRAVEL: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Thompson" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kevin Thompson filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Kevin Thompson v. Love's Travel Stops, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00143, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee at Knoxville.

The appellate case is captioned as Kevin Thompson v. Love's Travel
Stops, Case No. 17-5992, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

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

          Gordon Ball, Esq.
          GORDON BALL, PLLC
          550 W. Main Street, Suite 600
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 525-7028
          Facsimile: (865) 525-4679
          E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com

Defendant-Appellee LOVE'S TRAVEL STOPS & COUNTRY STORES, INC., is
represented by:

          William Kyle Carpenter, Esq.
          WOOLF, MCCLANE, BRIGHT, ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC
          P.O. Box 900
          Knoxville, TN 37920
          Telephone: (865) 215-1000
          Facsimile: (865) 215-1001
          E-mail: kylew@wmbac.com


LTD FINANCIAL: Seeks 11th Circuit Review of Order in "Baez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant LTD Financial Services, L.P., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Liznelia Baez v. LTD Financial
Services, L.P., Case No. 6:15-cv-01043-PGB-TBS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 10,
2017, Judge Paul G. Byron denied the Defendant's Renewed Motion
for Judgment as a Matter of Law in the case.

Ms. Baez initiated this class action against the Defendant, to
vindicate her rights and the rights of other similarly situated
consumers under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  She
states that she and approximately 34,000 other consumers received
dunning letters from LTD which sought partial payment on debts
that are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

The appellate case is captioned as Liznelia Baez v. LTD Financial
Services, L.P., Case No. 17-13842, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before September 8, 2017, as to Appellant LTD Financial
      Services, L.P.;

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before September 22, 2017, as to Appellee Liznelia
      Baez.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee LIZNELIA BAEZ, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
          PO Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          E-mail: dlietz@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Michael Tierney, Esq.
          MICHAEL TIERNEY, PA
          918 Beard Avenue
          Winter Pk, FL 32789
          Telephone: (407) 740-0074
          Facsimile: (407) 740-0079
          E-mail: michael@tierneylaw.us

Defendant-Appellant LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P., a Texas
Corporation, is represented by:

          Dale Thomas Golden, Esq.
          Joseph C. Proulx, Esq.
          GOLDEN SCAZ GAGAIN, PLLC
          201 N Armenia Ave.
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 251-5500
          Facsimile: (813) 251-3675
          E-mail: dgolden@gsgfirm.com
                  jproulx@gsgfirm.com


MANDALA HEALING: "Brickhouse" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Brickhouse, Lydia Releford, Lake Howard, and those
similarly situated v. Mandala Healing Center, LLC, Behavioral
Health Innovations, LLC, Peter L. Walstrom and Joseph A. Petri,
Case No. 9:17-cv-80970-DMM (S.D. Fla., August 23, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing addiction
recovery treatment to clients suffering from drug and alcohol
addiction and substance misuse. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don R. Boswell, Esq.
      AKERS & BOSWELL, P.A.
      2161 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd, Suite 407
      West Palm Beach, FL 33409
      Telephone: (561) 547-6300
      Facsimile: (561) 828-9212
      E-mail: dboswell@akers-boswell.com

MDL 2672: "Stokar" Suit vs. Audi Transferred to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Elliot H. Stokar, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Audi
of America LLC and Audi AG, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
10456, was transferred on Aug. 23, 2017 from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-04881-CRB to the
proceeding.

The Stokar case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter
diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America,
Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions
Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

Audi of America and its network of U.S dealers offer a full line
of highly engineered vehicles, including the newest premium-
engineered compact sedans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623 0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Christian A Jenkins, Esq.
          MINNILLO & JENKINS CO., LPA
          2712 Observatory Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 723 1600
          Facsimile: (513) 723 1620
          E-mail: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com
                  beth@hbsslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James K. Toohey, Esq.
          Garrett L. Boehm, Jr.
          JOHNS & BELL LTD
          33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          E-mail: toohey@jbltd.com
                  boehmg@jbltd.com


MERCHANT SOURCE: Fails to Pay Earned Commissions, Miller Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER MILLER and MITCHELL MARK, on behalf of themselves and all
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCHANT SOURCE INC.
and GEORGE GRECO, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
157630/2017 (N.Y. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover
damages and costs under New York State Labor Law.

The Defendants allegedly failed to fully compensate T-3 and T-2
Sales Representatives for their earned commissions, and failed to
provide notice and keep records, in violation of the NYLL.

Merchant Source has been providing financing to thousands of small
businesses since 2008.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Walker G. Harman Jr., Esq.
          Edgar M. Rivera, Esq.
          THE HARMAN FIRM, LLP
          220 Fifth Avenue. Suite 900
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212)425 2600
          E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com
                  erivera@theharmanfirm.com


METRO SHORE: Bessellieu Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
KAMESHIA BESSELLIEU, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
the Plaintiff, v. METRO SHORE SERVICES, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY dba METRO PORTS
a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC67370 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017),
seeks to recover wages and penalties for unpaid wages owed,
including but not limited to unpaid overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty
hours per week, unpaid premium wages for meal and rest breaks that
were missed, short, or late, wages due to discharged employees,
penalties for failure to maintain accurate records and to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, and interest, attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses, under California Labor Code.

The Defendant is engaged in the business of operating and managing
cruise terminals, stevedoring, ship's agency, and guest services.
Defendant employs Assistant Supervisors, which are non-exempt,
hourly-paid positions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Maggie K. Realin, Esq.
          Michael J. Morphew, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B Street, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 399 3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615 2067
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                  mrealin@markham-law.com
                  mmorphew@markham-law.com

               - and -

          Walter F. Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (310) 234 5678
          Facsimile: (310) 652 2242
          E-mail: walter@whaines.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: "Mutty" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dylan Mutty and Robert Gullo, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Midland Credit Managment, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 17-CA-4730-CI, was removed on Aug. 23, 2017 from
Pinellas County Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 8:17-cv-02011-SDM-AAS to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday.

Midland Credit helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations.
MCM provides flexible payment plans and financial education
tools.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles M.R. Vethan, Esq.
          VETHAN & JEREMIAH
          2425 W. Loop St., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (713) 552 9100

               - and -

          Christopher W.E. Boss, Esq.
          BOSS LAW PLLC
          9887 4th St N Ste 202
          St Petersburg, FL 33702
          Telephone: (727) 471 0039
          Facsimile: (888) 503 2182
          E-mail: CWBservice@protectyourfuture.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anthony J. Palermo, Esq.
          Cory W. Eichhorn, Esq.
          Lauren Lynn Millcarek, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP - TAMPA
          100 N Tampa St-Ste 4100
          PO Box 1288
          Tampa, FL 33601-1288
          Telephone: (813) 227 6320
          E-mail: anthony.palermo@hklaw.com
                  cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com
                  lauren.millcarek@hklaw.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Coyne" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Coyne filed an appeal from a court order dated
July 20, 2017, judgment dated July 21, 2017, and order dated
August 1, 2017, in the lawsuit entitled David Coyne v. Midland
Funding LLC, et al., Case No. 0:17-cv-00500-PAM, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks to stop the Defendant's alleged unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

The Defendants own and operate a debt collection firm in
Minnesota.

The appellate case is captioned as David Coyne v. Midland Funding
LLC, et al., Case No. 17-2826, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before September 27, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on October 10, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellant David Coyne is due on October 10, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

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

          Anthony Patrick Chester, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2050
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (952) 225-5333
          Facsimile: (800) 635-6425
          E-mail: tony@westcoastlitigation.com

Defendants-Appellees Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit
Management, Inc., are represented by:

          Russell S. Ponessa, Esq.
          Margaret Ann Santos, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          333 S. Seventh Street, Suite 2000
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-3434
          E-mail: rponessa@hinshawlaw.com
                  asantos@hinshawlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Messerli & Kramer P.A. is represented by:

          Derrick Neal Weber, Esq.
          MESSERLI & KRAMER
          3033 Campus Drive, Suite 250
          Plymouth, MN 55441
          Telephone: (763) 548-7900
          E-mail: dweber@messerlikramer.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Foy" Suit over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FOY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-04889-VC (E.D. Mo., Aug. 23, 2017), seeks to
recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate
result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob A. Flint, Esq.
          FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC
          222 E. Park St., Suite 500
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 205 2017
          Facsimile: (618) 288 2864
          E-mail: jflint@flintfirm.com

               - and -

          David J. Wool, Esq.
          Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq.
          ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, P.C.
          7171 W. Alaska Drive
          Lakewood, CO 80226
          Telephone: (303) 376 6360
          Facsimile: (303) 376 6361
          E-mail: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com
                  david.wool@andruswagstaff.com


NIC GEORGIOU: Accused of Trying to Scuttle Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that the gloves
have come off in the application for leave to appeal by property
magnate Nic Georgiou against a judgment that he illegally tried to
scuttle a potential class action suit against him.

In a strongly worded affidavit Jacques Theron, the attorney
representing the Highveld Syndication Action Group (HSAG),
responded to allegations made by former HSAG member Helgard Hancke
in an application to become an intervening party in Georgiou's
application for leave to appeal against a judgment in May.

This judgment found that Georgiou acted unethically and abused the
court process when he secretly settled the claims of the
applicants of the class action application on the condition that
they withdraw their application.

Mr. Hancke stated in his affidavit that some facts in Mr. Theron's
founding affidavit, on which the judgment was based, were false.
He also strongly criticised Mr. Theron and said Mr. Theron was not
acting in the best interest of investors and was only driving the
process for his personal financial gain.

But in his opposing affidavit, Mr. Theron alleged that Mr. Hancke
"jumped ship" after Georgiou secretly settled his wife's claim and
that he was now waging a smear campaign to discredit
Mr. Theron in an effort to turn investors against the class
action.

Allegations denied

Mr. Theron strongly denies Mr. Hancke's allegations.  "The fact is
that Mr. Hancke was paid an undisclosed amount to settle his (Mr.
Hancke's wife's) claim, and that he is now actively campaigning
against the class action and against me personally on social media
and has even set up a disparaging website to 'stop Theron' and to
'prevent a national disaster awaiting investors'."

Elsewhere in his affidavit, Mr. Theron states: "It is clear that
Hancke is dancing to the tune of Georgiou, who is funding and
using Hancke as another of his 'front persons' to further
frustrate the class action litigation with delays and additional
costs."

Mr. Theron also questioned why Mr. Hancke is applying to become an
intervening party as his wife's claim was settled, and asked who
was paying his legal fees.

Hancke's response

In response to a draft version of this article, Mr. Hancke in turn
strongly denied Mr. Theron's allegation that he "jumped ship",
stating that he decided to turn against the class action when
believed it was no longer to the benefit of investors.
Mr. Hancke stated he was opposing the HSAG's application to have
the section 155 Scheme of Arrangement set aside as it would be
"devastating" to investors.

He also rejected Mr. Theron's contention that Mr. Georgiou paid
money to him in secret to settle his wife's claim or that he had
received funding from Georgiou. Regarding legal fees, Mr. Hancke
said that he instructed his attorneys and that he was responsible
for the payment of the fees.

'Orthotouch owns only two properties'

Another point of contention is Mr. Georgiou's settlements with
investors.  In his original affidavit, Mr. Hancke alleged that Mr.
Theron was against investors settling their claims, as it was not
in his financial interest to do so.

These settlements refer to a process through which Georgiou, via
Orthotouch, offers to repay around 50% of the capital value of
investors' original investments in the Highveld Syndication
companies over a period of around three years.

Settlements are negotiated individually between investors and
Orthotouch.

Theron denied that he was against the settlements per se, but said
investors should be aware that such agreements with only
Orthotouch could severely damage investors' rights.

". . . Orthotouch is a public company, which currently owns a mere
two adjacent properties as per the recent deeds search that my
offices performed.  Of the 50 properties it previously owned, 48
properties were sold or alienated.  It is inconceivable that a
company that bought two properties for R143 million, with a bond
of R72 million in favour of Accelerate (a company steered by
Georgiou's son, Michael Georgiou), can now pay monthly the
approximately R10 million (an amounted hinted to by Georgiou to
Stander, Hancke and myself). . . from these two properties."

He added that investors who settled with Orthotouch would be left
destitute if the company went into liquidation.  Moneyweb sent
questions to Georgiou to confirm or deny this statement, but he
had not responded prior to publication.

1% commission and the 800 HSAG settlement agreements

Mr. Hancke also alleged in his original affidavit that Mr. Theron
demanded a 1% negotiator's commission on settlements and that
Georgiou refused to pay this commission.  This demand, according
to Hancke, resulted in Mr. Georgiou not settling the claims of
around 800 HSAG members who were keen to settle.

Mr. Theron strongly denied he ever demanded a 1% commission for
settlements.  "The allegation that I demanded a 1% commission
payment is a blatant lie. I never even mentioned payment of
commission to me, let alone demanding some."

Mr. Theron said it was, in fact, Mr. Georgiou who did not want to
sign the 800 settlements after the parties met for two days to do
so. He also alleges that Mr. Hancke "betrayed" the HSAG as he
conveyed confidential strategies to Georgiou which resulted in
Georgiou not signing the agreements.

The applicants

Mr. Theron reaffirmed that the six applications in the
certification application, who settled with Georgiou on condition
that they withdraw their application, did not know each other.

Mr. Hancke contended in his affidavit that they did, in fact, know
each other.

Mr. Theron said that "the only 'proof' that they knew each other,
is a blank screen-print of a WhatsApp group of which two of them
are members (with me and Visagie).  They may have been aware of
one another, but they certainly did not know each other --
especially in the sense to have gone to the same attorney
simultaneously with the same instructions to withdraw the
litigation." [GN]


NORTH AMERICAN: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "McGhee" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant North American Bancard, LLC, filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Gerald McGhee v. North American
Bancard, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00586-AJB-KSC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 1,
2017, Judge Anthony J. Battaglia denied the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration in the lawsuit.

Defendant NAB is the provider of mobile credit card processing
services called "PayAnywhere."  McGhee, a merchant, acquired a
card reader from NAB, but never used it.  After more than one
year, NAB began deducting a monthly non-use fee from McGhee's bank
account.  Despite contacting NAB to stop the charges and demand a
refund, NAB continued to charge him for several months and has
refused to issue him a refund.

The appellate case is captioned as Gerald McGhee v. North American
Bancard, LLC, Case No. 17-56248, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant North American Bancard, LLC's opening brief is
      due on October 16, 2017;

   -- Appellee Gerald McGhee's answering brief is due on
      November 16, 2017;

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

Plaintiff-Appellee GERALD MCGHEE, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Eric A. LaGuardia, Esq.
          LAGUARDIA LAW
          3245 University Ave.
          San Diego, CA 92104
          Telephone: (619) 655-4322
          Facsimile: (619) 655-4344
          E-mail: eal@laguardialaw.com

               - and -

          Craig Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

Defendant-Appellee NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD, LLC, is represented by:

          Matthew F. Murray, Esq.
          MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP
          10880 Wilshire Boulevard, 19th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (301) 564-2670
          E-mail: mmurray@mrllp.com


NOVOCURE LTD: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the consolidated class action lawsuit filed
against NovoCure Limited related to alleged violation of the
federal securities laws is bifurcated into two stages, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In January 2017, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company, its directors and certain of its officers, as
well as the underwriters in the Company's October 2015 initial
public offering.  The complaints, which purport to be brought on
behalf of a class of persons and/or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired ordinary shares of the Company pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering, allege
material misstatements and/or omissions in the Company's initial
public offering materials in alleged violation of the federal
securities laws and seek compensatory damages, among other
remedies.

The two actions have been consolidated and the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on May 31, 2017.

The court granted the defendants' motion to bifurcate the motion
to dismiss into two stages: a threshold motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and
insufficient process and service of process, due on July 31, 2017;
and, if the matter is not dismissed following that threshold
motion, a subsequent merits motion to dismiss regarding whether
the allegations in the amended complaint state a claim under the
securities laws.

NovoCure stated, "The Company believes that the amended complaint
is without merit and plans to defend the consolidated lawsuits
vigorously.  The Company has not accrued any amounts in respect of
these lawsuits, as a liability is not probable and the amount of
any potential liability cannot be reasonably estimated."

NovoCure Limited engages in the development, manufacture, and
commercialization of tumor treating fields (TTFields) for the
treatment of solid tumors.  The Company markets its proprietary
therapy, TTFields delivery system under the Optune name for use as
a monotherapy treatment for adult patients with glioblastoma brain
cancer.  It is also involved in conducting clinical trials for the
use of TTFields in brain metastases, non-small cell lung cancer,
pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, and mesothelioma.  The company
markets its products in the United States, Germany, Switzerland,
Japan, and other countries.  NovoCure Limited was founded in 2000
and is based in Saint Helier, the Channel Islands.


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Voluntary Dismissed "Cho" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017 that the lead plaintiff in the class action
captioned Cho v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-
07371 has voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice.

The Company said, "On December 28, 2016, a putative securities
class action captioned Cho v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:16-cv-07371 (the "Securities Case"), was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (the
"Court").  The Securities Case asserted claims relating to our
disclosure in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016, that on March 28, 2016, we received a
Civil Investigative Demand from the FTC as part of its
investigation to determine whether we, through our Venmo service,
have been or are engaged in deceptive or unfair practices in
violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

"The Securities Case purported to be brought on behalf of
purchasers of eBay's stock on or after December 19, 2013 who
subsequently received the Company's stock pursuant to eBay's spin-
off of the Company, effective as of July 17, 2015, and/or
purchasers of the Company's stock between July 20, 2015 and April
28, 2016, and asserted claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
Officer, and former interim Chief Financial Officer, and eBay and
certain of its former officers, including the Chairman of our
Board of Directors.

"The Securities Case alleged that defendants made materially false
and misleading statements or omissions regarding our compliance
with applicable laws and regulations, including the failure to
disclose that we were purportedly engaging in unfair trade
practices through our Venmo service and that as a result of
alleged false and misleading statements or omissions, our stock
traded at artificially inflated prices.  The Securities Case
sought unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the putative
class members.

"On March 23, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel to represent the putative class.  On May 12, 2017, the
lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that, among other
things, did not name eBay or the former eBay officers as
defendants.  On June 1, 2017, the lead plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the Securities Case without prejudice."

PayPal Holdings, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in January 2015
and is a technology platform and digital payments company that
enables digital and mobile payments on behalf of consumers and
merchants worldwide.


PEOPLES SECURITY: Rakus Sues over Vehicle Foreclosure Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY RAKUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, 535 Cherry Street Mount Carmel, PA 17851-1709, the
Plaintiff, v. PEOPLES SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO., 216 S. Main
Street Old Forge, PA 18518, the Defendant Case No. 170802552
(Philly. Cty. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), is a consumer class action
brought against an automobile lender to redress systemic
violations of Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code.

The UCC requires secured parties who utilize self-help
repossession to provide consumers with proper notice when
repossessing and reselling a financed vehicle.  Defendant has
failed to do so, the lawsuit says.

According to the compliant, the Defendant regularly finances the
purchase of automobiles for consumer use in Pennsylvania. When
PBST believes that a consumer has defaulted on a secured vehicle
loan, it repossesses and then re-sells the vehicle.  In the course
of so doing, PSBT failed to provide Plaintiff and the class with
the proper notice of disposition of collateral required by
Pennsylvania law, including the UCC.  Because self-help
repossession is effected without judicial authorization or
oversight, the UCC requires secured creditors like PSBT to adhere
strictly to the Code's notice requirements. Failure to provide
proper notice of disposition of repossessed consumer goods is a
violation of the Code that yields uniform statutory minimum
damages for Plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent.

The lawsuit seeks to recover minimum damages of the credit service
charge plus 10% of the principal amount of the obligation.  The
statutory minimum damages are designed to relieve the consumer
debtor of the sometimes difficult burden of proof of actual
damages. The statutory damages are derived from a simple,
straightforward and uniform arithmetic calculation, the lawsuit
says.

Peoples Security Bank, a community bank, provides a range of
banking products and services to individuals, businesses, not-for-
profit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Telephone: (610) 822 0782


PNM RESOURCES: Still Involved in Navajo Nation Allottee Matters
---------------------------------------------------------------
PNM Resources, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Public Service
Company of New Mexico (PNM), is still facing legal proceedings
related to Navajo Nation allottee matters, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities
in February 2009 in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico.  Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members
of the Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were
allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation and
allege that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way grantees
with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are either in
trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of rights-
of-way or both.

In March 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the
plaintiffs' case be dismissed.  The court did not grant plaintiffs
leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must
pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking
redress in federal court.

In May 2010, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau
of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), which was denied by the BIA Regional
Director.  In May 2011, plaintiffs appealed the Regional
Director's decision to the DOI, Office of Hearings and Appeals,
Interior Board of Indian Appeals.  Following briefing on the
merits, on August 20, 2013, that board issued a decision upholding
the Regional Director's decision that the allottees had failed to
perfect their appeals, and dismissed the allottees' appeals,
without prejudice.  The allottees have not refiled their appeals.

Although this matter was dismissed without prejudice, PNM
considers the matter concluded.  However, PNM continues to monitor
this matter in order to preserve its interests regarding any PNM-
acquired rights-of-way.

In a separate matter, in September 2012, 43 landowners claiming to
be Navajo allottees filed a notice of appeal with the BIA
appealing a March 2011 decision of the BIA Regional Director
regarding renewal of a right-of-way for a PNM transmission line.
The allottees, many of whom are also allottees in the above
matter, generally allege that they were not paid fair market value
for the right-of-way, that they were denied the opportunity to
make a showing as to their view of fair market value, and thus
denied due process.

On January 6, 2014, PNM received notice that the BIA, Navajo
Region, requested a review of an appraisal report on 58 allotment
parcels.  After review, the BIA concluded it would continue to
rely on the values of the original appraisal.

On March 27, 2014, while this matter was stayed, the allottees
filed a motion to dismiss their appeal with prejudice.  On April
2, 2014, the allottees' appeal was dismissed with prejudice.

Subsequent to the dismissal, PNM received a letter from counsel on
behalf of what appears to be a subset of the 43 landowner
allottees involved in the appeal, notifying PNM that the specified
allottees were revoking their consents for renewal of right of way
on six specific allotments.

On January 22, 2015, PNM received a letter from the BIA Regional
Director identifying ten allotments with rights-of-way renewals
that were previously contested.  The letter indicated that the
renewals were not approved by the BIA because the previous consent
obtained by PNM was later revoked, prior to BIA approval, by the
majority owners of the allotments.  It is the BIA Regional
Director's position that PNM must re-obtain consent from these
landowners.

On July 13, 2015, PNM filed a condemnation action in the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico regarding the
approximately 15.49 acres of land at issue.

On December 1, 2015, the court ruled that PNM could not condemn
two of the five allotments at issue based on the Navajo Nation's
fractional interest in the land.  PNM's motion for reconsideration
of this ruling was denied.

On March 31, 2016, the Tenth Circuit granted PNM's petition to
appeal the December 1, 2015 ruling.  On September 18, 2015, the
allottees filed a separate complaint against PNM for federal
trespass.  Both matters have been consolidated and are stayed
while PNM pursues its appeal before the Tenth Circuit.

On June 27, 2016, PNM filed its opening brief in the Tenth
Circuit.  Amicus briefs were filed in support of PNM's position.

On October 5, 2016, the United States, the Navajo Nation, and
individual allottees filed their response briefs.  After the
response briefs were filed, other entities requested leave to file
amicus briefs addressing arguments raised in the United States'
response brief.  Oral argument before the Tenth Circuit was heard
on January 17, 2017.

On May 26, 2017, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court.

On July 8, 2017, PNM filed a Motion for Reconsideration en banc
with the Tenth Circuit.  On July 21, 2017, the court denied PNM's
Motion for Reconsideration.  On July 26, 2017, PNM filed a motion
to stay implementation of the court's decision.

PNM is considering all of its procedural options going forward in
the litigation.

PNM cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

PNM Resources, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in the
energy and energy-related businesses in the United States.  It
operates through Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) and
Texas-New Mexico Power Company (TNMP) segments.  The PNM segment
is primarily involved in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity.  It generates electricity using coal,
natural gas and oil, nuclear fuel, solar, wind, and geothermal
energy sources.  The TNMP segment provides regulated transmission
and distribution services.  PNM Resources, Inc. was founded in
1917 and is headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Appeals Ruling in "Pettit" Charmin Wipes Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant The Procter & Gamble Company filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the entitled Jamie Pettit v. The Procter & Gamble
Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-02150-RS, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 16,
2017, the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting
certification of:

   "[a]ll persons who, between April 6, 2011 and the [date of
   class certification], purchased in California the Charmin
   Freshmates Flushable Wipes (excluding purchases for purpose of
   resale)".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jhx3JT9D

The appellate case is captioned as Jamie Pettit v. The Procter &
Gamble Company, Case No. 17-80168, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent JAMIE PETTIT, an individual, on behalf of
himself, the general public, and those similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Seth Adam Safier, Esq.
          Adam Joshua Gutride, Esq.
          Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 336-6545
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                  adam@gutridesafier.com
                  kristen@gutridesafier.com

Defendant-Petitioner THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY is represented
by:

          Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          E-mail: ehenn@cov.com

               - and -

          Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq.
          Sonya D. Winner, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-7078
          Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
          E-mail: clannin@cov.com
                  SWinner@cov.com


PSCH CLEAN: "Brown" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Brown, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PSCH Clean Corp., the Defendant, Case
No. 711882/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, maximum liquidated damages, including maximum
liquidated damages on all wages paid later than weekly,
prejudgment interest, maximum recovery for violations of the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges pursuant to the New York Civil Practice Law
and Rules 901, on behalf of himself and a class of other
similarly-situated current and former employees who were employed
by Defendant as manual workers, within the six-year period
preceding the filing of this action to the date of disposition of
this action, that he and they: 1) were employed by Defendant
within the State of New York as manual workers; 2) entitled to
maximum liquidated damages (for the period after April 9, 2011)
and interest for being paid overtime wages and non-overtime wages
later than weekly; and 3) entitled to costs and attorneys' fees,
pursuant to the New York Labor Law, and the regulations; as well
as an injunction prohibiting Defendant from continuing to violate
the weekly payment requirement for manual workers set forth in
NYLL 191.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427.
          Telephone: (718) 740 1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740 2000


QUIKTURN PROFESSIONAL: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Gonzalez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARICELA GONZALEZ, individually 11 II and on behalf of all others
similarly 12 11 situated, the Plaintiffs, v. QUIKTURN PROFESSIONAL
SCREENPRINTING, a California Corporation; PERSONNEL STAFFING
GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; CUSTOMLINE
SCREENPRINTING & DISTRIBUTION, a California Corporation; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 30-2017-00940071-CU-OE-
CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages or actual damages under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay all wages
owed, including overtime; failed to provide lawful meal periods;
failed to timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment;
failed to reimburse necessary expenses; and unfair
competition.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Christina M. Luciov
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387 6676
          E-mail: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com


RADISSON HOTEL: Settles Banquet Servers' Class Action for $1.8MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rochester Business Journal reports that a class-action lawsuit
filed by current and former banquet servers who worked at the
Radisson Hotel Rochester Riverside has settled for $1.8 million.

Settlement checks are scheduled to be mailed in the next few weeks
to more than 200 class members who worked as banquet service
workers at the hotel at 120 E. Main St. during an almost six-year
period.

The settlement resolves claims that banquet service workers were
illegally deprived of tips in the form of mandatory service
charges added to bills for banquet events and did not receive
spread of hours pay when they worked 10 or more hours in a single
day.

The mandatory service charges were retained by the hotel instead
of being distributed to the banquet service workers as tips.
The class members are represented by attorneys at Thomas & Solomon
LLP, who filed the lawsuit in state Supreme Court in Monroe County
in early 2016.  The settlement received final court approval on
Aug. 23, 2017.

The lawsuit was filed under provisions of New York State Labor Law
making it illegal for employers to retain a gratuity or any charge
purported to be a gratuity for an employee and requiring employees
to be paid an additional hour of pay if they worked in a spread of
ten or more hours in a workday.

The lawsuit alleged that the hotel failed to advise customers in
writing that the mandatory service charge -- which was
approximately 20 percent of the food and beverage charge for
events, was not a gratuity and was instead being retained by the
hotel. [GN]


RELAY DELIVERY: "Sawadogo" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KADAR SAWADOGO, IDRISS MAHAMAED, ABDEL JABA LIGALI, IBRAHIMA
MINTE, KPELE GNUAN, and CESSLIN INTADI, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RELAY
DELIVERY, INC., ALEX BLUM, and individual, and, MICHAEL CHEVETT,
an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 516630/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime
pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs routinely worked
between 60 and 70 hours per week for Defendants. They were paid as
little as $6.00 per hour for this work, and were not paid
overtime. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the federal or state
minimum wage for most of their employment, and never paid them
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 each work week.

Relay Delivery provides delivery solutions for restaurants. It
offers software and delivery team. The company was incorporated in
2014 and is based in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
          225 Broadway, Suite 2700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 791 5396


SEI INVESTMENTS: Still Faces "Lillie" Class Action Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company and its wholly-owned limited purpose
federal thrift subsidiary, SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC), still
defend themselves in the "Lillie" class action suit, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

SEI has been named in seven lawsuits filed in Louisiana courts;
four of the cases also name SPTC as a defendant.

The procedural status of the seven cases varies.  The Lillie case,
filed originally in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge, was brought as a class action and is
procedurally the most advanced of the cases.

The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the purported
role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust
Company.  The complaints allege that SEI and SPTC participated in
some manner in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by
Stanford International Bank so as to be a "seller" of the
certificates of deposit for purposes of primary liability under
the Louisiana Securities Law or so as to be secondarily liable
under that statute for sales of certificates of deposit made by
Stanford Trust Company.  Two of the actions also include claims
for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly
conspiracy, and a third also asserts claims of negligence, breach
of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform
fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental
reliance, violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act, and
conspiracy.

SEI and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part,
dismissing claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act
and permitting the claims under the Louisiana Securities Law to go
forward.

On March 11, 2013, newly-added insurance carrier defendants
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana.

On August 7, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the matter to the Northern District of Texas where MDL
2099, In re: Stanford Entities Securities Litigation ("the
Stanford MDL"), is pending.

On September 22, 2015, the District Court on the motion of SEI and
SPTC dismissed plaintiffs' claims for primary liability under
Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability under Section
714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law based on the allegations
pled by plaintiffs.

On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 712(D) of the
Louisiana Securities Law.  Consequently, the only claims of
plaintiffs still pending before the District Court in Lillie are
plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability against SEI and SPTC
under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law.

On May 2, 2016, the District Court certified the class as being
"all persons for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed
Stanford Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in
Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009".

Notice of the pendency of the class action was mailed to potential
class members on October 4, 2016.

SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management
holding company.  Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides
wealth management, retirement and investment solutions, asset
management, asset administration, investment processing
outsourcing solutions, financial services, and investment advisory
services to its clients.  SEI Investments Company was founded in
1968 and is based in Oaks, Pennsylvania.


SERVICE CORP: Units Still Faces Vasquez Suit on Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
The subsidiaries of Service Corporation International continue to
defend themselves in the lawsuit captioned Adrian Mercedes
Vasquez, an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. California Cemetery and Funeral Services, LLC, et al; Case No.
BC58837, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.  The claims have been ordered to arbitration, with
the arbitrator to determine whether the claims will proceed as a
class or individual claims.

The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles in July 2015 against SCI
subsidiaries and purports to be brought on behalf of current and
former non-exempt California employees of defendants during the
four years preceding the filing of the complaint.

The plaintiff alleges numerous causes of action for alleged wage
and hour pay violations.  The plaintiff seeks unpaid wages,
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
interest, and injunctive relief.

In addition, the plaintiff filed an unfair labor practice charge
against defendants with the National Labor Relations Board
alleging that by enforcing a mandatory arbitration provision,
defendants allegedly violated the National Labor Relations Act.

The Company said, "We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if
any, in this lawsuit."

Service Corporation International, together with its subsidiaries,
provides deathcare products and services in the United States and
Canada.  The Company operates through Funeral and Cemetery
segments.  The Company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


SERVICE CORP: Plaintiffs to Appeal on Dropped Moulton Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017 that plaintiffs have filed documents
indicating that they are appealing the dismissal of the class
action filed in connection with the Company's proposed acquisition
of Stewart Enterprises, Inc.

The case, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service
Corporation International and others, Case No. 2013-5636; in the
Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans, was filed as a class
action in June 2013 against SCI and its subsidiary in connection
with SCI's acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors
in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a
subsidiary of SCI.  The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the
combination.

The Company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that
were granted in June 2014.  Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no
longer be party to the suit.

The case has continued against the Company's subsidiary Stewart
Enterprises and its former individual directors.  However, in
October 2016, the court entered a judgment dismissing all of
plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs have filed documents indicating that they are appealing
the dismissal.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

The Company said, "We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if
any, for the payment of damages."

Service Corporation International, together with its subsidiaries,
provides deathcare products and services in the United States and
Canada.  The Company operates through Funeral and Cemetery
segments.  The Company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


SERVICE CORP: $15.0MM Settlement Reached in TCPA Class Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Service Corporation International has entered into
a US$15.0 million agreement to settle a class action lawsuit
related to Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations, according
to the Company's Form 8-K filed on August 30, 2017 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The settlement is subject to
court approval.

The case, Linda Allard, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. SCI Direct, Inc., Case No 16-1033; In the
United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, case
was filed in June 2016 as a class action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the Act).

Plaintiff alleges she received telemarketing telephone calls that
were made with a prerecorded voice or made by an automatic
telephone dialing system in violation of the Act.  Plaintiff seeks
actual and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees and
costs.

In July 2017, the court denied the subsidiary's motion for summary
judgment.  The parties have scheduled a mediation for August 1,
2017.

On August 30, 2017, the Company reported the execution of a
binding term sheet outlining the settlement of the lawsuit
involving its subsidiary SCI Direct, among others.

If final court approval of the settlement is obtained, all claims
under the lawsuit will be released. The terms of the settlement
call for the subsidiary to pay US$15.0 million to a settlement
fund.  An insurance carrier has agreed to reimburse the Company
US$3.5 million pursuant to the Company's insurance coverage. The
settlement of this matter will result in a one-time net charge of
US$11.5 million in the Company's third quarter 2017 Statement of
Operations.

Service Corporation International, together with its subsidiaries,
provides deathcare products and services in the United States and
Canada.  The Company operates through Funeral and Cemetery
segments.  The Company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


SHAMROCK SALOON: Faces "George" Suit in S.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shamrock Saloon II
LLC agent of d/b/a Calico Jack's Cantina. The case is styled as
Meghan George agent of on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shamrock Saloon II LLC agent of
d/b/a Calico Jack's Cantina, Blitz Marketing, LLC, John L.
Sullivan and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06663 (S.D. N.Y., September 1, 2017).

The Defendants own and operate a bar/restaurant located at 800 2nd
Ave, New York, New York 10017. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SHORETEL INC: Faces "Mozeee" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Mitel
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Mozee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Shoretel, Inc., Don Joos, Marjorie Bowen, Mark
Bregman, Kenneth Denman, Charles Kissner, Shane Robison, Constance
Skidmore, Josef Vejvoda, Mitel US Holdings, Inc., Shelby
Acquisition Corporation, and Mitel Networks Corporation, Case No.
4:17-cv-04888-HSG (N.D. Cal., August 23, 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:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 534-2590
      Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
      E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
              rcardona@brodskysmith.com


SHOWTIME: Sued Over Failed Mayweather-McGregor Streams
------------------------------------------------------
According to Hollywood Reporter's Ashley Cullins,  before the
sweat was dry in the ring following Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s defeat
of UFC champion Conor McGregor on Aug. 26, Showtime had another
major fight on its hands -- a class-action lawsuit from customers
unhappy because of streaming issues that plagued the fight and the
lead-up bouts.

Portland, Ore., boxing fan Zack Bartel paid to stream the fight in
high-definition through the Showtime app but says all he saw was
"grainy video, error screens, buffer events, and stalls."

Mr. Bartel is suing Showtime for unlawful trade practices and
unjust enrichment, alleging the network rushed its pay-per-view
streaming service to the market without securing the bandwidth
necessary to support the scores of cable-cutting fans.

"Instead of being upfront with consumers about its new, untested,
underpowered service, defendant caused likelihood of confusion and
misunderstanding as to the source and quality of the HD video
consumers would see on fight night," writes attorney
Michael Fuller in the complaint filed late on Aug. 26 in Oregon
federal court.  "Defendant intentionally misrepresented the
quality and grade of video consumers would see using its app, and
knowingly failed to disclose that its system was defective with
respect to the amount of bandwidth available, and that defendant's
service would materially fail to conform to the quality of HD
video defendant promised."

The complaint, which is largely composed of screenshots and
tweets, is seeking for each member of the class actual damages or
$200 in statutory damages, whichever is greater.

The proposed class includes Oregon consumers who viewed Showtime's
app advertisement on iTunes and paid $99.99 to stream the fight,
but were unable to view the fight live on the app "in HD at 1080p
resolution and at 60 frames per second, and who experienced
ongoing grainy video, error screens, buffer events, and stalls
instead."

Showtime senior vp sports communications Chris DeBlasio says
anyone who had issues with a cable or satellite feed should
contact their provider, but Showtime will handle complaints from
anyone who bought the fight through Showtimeppv.com and the
ShowtimePPV app.

"We have received a very limited number of complaints and will
issue a full refund for any customer who purchased the event
directly from Showtime and were unable to receive the telecast,"
he says.

Pay-Per-View Live Events Inc. also sent The Hollywood Reporter an
email that directed dissatisfied customers to their service
providers.  "Unfortunately, we are receiving a huge number of
complaints from a large number of customers who are not using our
services but a different provider (UFC)," says the message.  "We
can only express that we understand your pain for not being able
to see the special event but again we are not the company that
provided the stream or actual event. You will need to contact the
actual provider such as Xfinity, Showtime, HBO, UFC.tv etc. to
request your refund."

The plaintiffs are also represented by Geragos & Geragos. [GN]


SPARTON CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, on Aug. 28 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, case No. 1:17-cv-01663, on behalf of
shareholders of Sparton Corporation ("Sparton" or the "Company")
(NYSE:SPA) who have been harmed by Sparton's and its board of
directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
in connection with  the proposed merger of the Company with Ultra
Electronics Holdings plc ("Ultra Electronics").

On July 7, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Proposed Transaction"), under which
each share of Sparton common stock will be exchanged for $23.50 in
cash.

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

The complaint alleges that the Preliminary Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A (the "Proxy") filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on August 4, 2017, violates Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially
incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the
Proposed Transaction, including information concerning the
Company's financial projections and analysis, on which the Board
relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to Sparton
shareholders.

Take Action

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

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

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


STARBUCKS CORP: Faces "Naimi" Suit in C. Dist. of Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Starbucks
Corporation. The case is styled as Oliver Naimi, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Starbucks
Corporation, Starbucks New Venture Company, PepsiCo, Inc. and
North American Coffee Partnership, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
06484-VAP-GJS (C.D. Cal., September 1, 2017).

Starbucks owns and operates approximately 12,000 coffee shops
under the trade name "Starbucks" within the United States with 317
in New York City. Armstead was hired by Defendant as a barista for
Starbucks at 6th and Waverly.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
   Faruqi and Faruqi LLP
   10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470
   Los Angeles, CA 90024
   Tel: (424) 256-2884
   Fax: (424) 256-2885
   Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com


SUBWAY: "Foot-Long" Sandwiches Settlement Approval Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Vielmetti, writing for Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reports
that a class-action lawsuit that almost extracted $520,000 out of
Subway over the length of its sandwiches just derailed at a
federal appeals court.

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Milwaukee federal
judge's approval of a settlement in the infamous case about
whether Subway's "foot-long" sandwiches were always 12 inches
long.

Judge Diane Sykes, writing for a three-judge panel, concluded:
"Because the settlement yields fees for class counsel and 'zero
benefits for the class,' the class should not have been certified
and the settlement should not have been approved."

After an Australian teenager took a photo of his Subway sandwich
coming up short next to a ruler in 2013 and posted it online,
people began to sue over the length of their subs. Several were
consolidated into a single class-action case that was assigned to
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman in Milwaukee.

"In their haste to file suit, however, the lawyers neglected to
consider whether the claims had any merit.  They did not," Judge
Sykes wrote.

She noted that early discovery in the case showed Subway already
had fairly strict standards about how much dough was in unbaked
loaves, and that the minor variations in length were
unpreventable, given the nature of baking.  Plus, she wrote, no
customer really gets less food than they expect, since they watch
their subs get made in front of them and can ask for more
toppings.

Nonetheless, a settlement plan announced in 2015 would have paid
the 10 plaintiff law firms involved a total of $525,000 but given
most class members -- the millions of people who purchased Subway
subs since 2003 -- only some promised new procedures Subway said
would further assure that their rolls measured a full 12 inches.

The injunctive nature of the settlement was because there really
were no damages to any customer. Seeking the other relief from
Subway was a way for the lawyers to preserve fees.  Some folks
objected to the proposed deal.

Theodore Frank, "a class member and professional objector to
hollow class-action settlements," in Judge Sykes' words, tried to
block the planned deal but Adelman approved it.  Besides fees to
the lawyers, a few named plaintiffs would get $500 each.

The class lawyers tried to argue that since the relief to the
class was injunctive, Mr. Frank stood to gain nothing if the
attorney fees were reduced.  But Judge Sykes noted that
Mr.  Frank's objection was to certification of the class and the
settlement itself.

She observed that before -- and after -- the settlement, customers
could still occasionally get a sandwich in a bun a little under 12
inches or 6 inches long.  She was not impressed that some who
might find offense could theoretically return to court and try to
have Subway found in contempt.

"Contempt as a remedy to enforce a worthless settlement is itself
worthless. Zero plus zero equals zero," Judge Sykes wrote.

Adam Schulman, who represented the objector Frank (who is Ted
Frank, director of the Center for Class Action Fairness), said,
"It was wonderful to see the principle vindicated," that cases
without benefits to absent class members should not be certified.

"Subway should really be the happiest," though, he said, as
Mr. Schulman read Judge Sykes' language to suggest the case is
likely headed for dismissal.

But Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., one of the class-action attorneys,
said they will now seek to have internal Subway documents that
were kept confidential for the purpose of mediation in the case
made part of the public court record.

"We intend to pursue the cases," he said.  "People will definitely
have a different view once they see the information the two judges
saw."

Subway released this statement on Aug. 28: "We are pleased that
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recognized, as had the lower
court before it, that the Subway(R) brand did not misrepresent its
product.  We stand behind our commitment to quality." [GN]


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Cheam Seeks Lost Wages under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
SIRICA CHEAM, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF
ARIZONA, LLC., a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC873820 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover lost wages and unpaid balance of
the premium compensation pursuant to Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants jointly and severally,
have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in Defendants'
failure to: (a) provide paid rest breaks and (b) provide accurate
itemized wage statements.

Swift Transportation is a Phoenix, Arizona-based publicly held
American truckload motor shipping carrier. With over 16,000
trucks, it is one of the largest common carriers in the United
States. In 2017, Swift announced that it was merging with Knight
Transportation, also of Phoenix, to be called Knight-Swift.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Nick Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554

               - and -

          Edward W. Choi, Esq.
          Paul M. Yi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 381 1515
          Facsimile: (213) 465 4885


TD BANK: Penny Arcades Customers Can File Claims Until Oct. 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Everett, writing for NJ.com, reports that if you counted
coins using TD Bank's Penny Arcades in the last seven years, you
can now file a claim in a class action suit against the bank.

The suit was filed in 2016 after NBC's Today Show broke the news
that the machines in bank branches were undercounting change. TD
Bank, based in Cherry Hill, removed all the coin counters within a
few months.

In July, U.S. District Court Judge Jerome B. Simandle approved a
$9 million settlement that will see nearly $7.5 million shared
among those who used the machines after April 11, 2010.

TD Bank customers who used the coin-counting machines will get
paid automatically from the settlement, court documents show.
But if you don't have an account with the bank, you will have to
submit a claim to get paid.  Aug. 28 is the first day that people
can submit claims.

Here's what you need to know if you think TD Bank owes you money.

How to submit a claim

Starting on Aug. 28 and until Oct. 27, people will be able to
print or submit a claim online at the website
pennyarcadesettlement.com.

You can also request a form be sent to you by calling 855-312-
1974.

Under the terms of the settlement, the claims process is being
handled by Garden City Group LLC.  That company will also provide
information on the website, and answer questions via the toll-free
number, questions@pennyarcadesettlement.com or mail at Penny
Arcade Settlement, c/o GCG, PO Box 10470 Dublin OH 43017-4070.

How much money you'll get
If you counted fewer than $3,846 in the machine over the years,
you're looking at a single-digit payout.

To figure out your payment, multiply the total amount you obtained
from the coin-counting machines by .26 percent.  That means users
will get 26 cents per $100 counted.

Both sides agreed on the formula after testing the coin-counting
machines, the settlement said. The percentage is actually higher
than the percent error of the machines during the testing, the
settlement agreement says.

The tested machines undercounted by .117 percent and .090 percent,
court documents show.

Documentation is key

With each claim, one must submit the date of the coin counting,
the dollar amount of the transaction, and "documentation
sufficient to substantiate the claim, if available," according to
the preliminary settlement.

If you weren't a TD Bank customer when you used the Penny Arcades
and you don't have receipts of your transactions, the bank has no
way to verify that you used the machines at all.

Any non-customer who does not have documentation of their coin-
counting transactions will only be able to make a claim on up to
$500 in coins.  That means the most he or she could recoup is
$1.30.


TESLA MOTORS: Faces "Platt" Suit over Termination of Employment
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN PLATT, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons; and DOES 1-50, the Plaintiff, v. TESLA MOTORS,
INC, a Delaware, corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. RG17873032 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017),
seeks to recover benefit under Tesla's employment.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was diagnosed on July 24,
2013, with significant decrease in pulmonary function by an
Occupational Health Physician and advised to follow up with a
pulmonary physician. While Plaintiff was allowed to return to work
without restriction on August 2, 2013, the Occupational Health
Physician asked that Plaintiff return for a follow up appointment
on August 6.  On August 6, Plaintiff was cleared by the
Occupational Health Physician to continue working without any
restrictions.  However, on August 26, 2013, at the end of his work
shift for that day, Plaintiff was informed that Tesla was
terminating his employment. Plaintiff was subsequently paid his
wages up and including his wages for August 26.  As for his
shares, Plaintiff was informed that he is not entitled to any
portion of his shares with Tesla because they presumably have not
vested.

Tesla is an American automaker, energy storage company, and solar
panel manufacturer based in Palo Alto, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef Peretz, Esq.
          Sumy Kim, Esq.
          PERETZ & ASSOCIATES
          22 Battery Street, Suite.202
          San Francisco, CA 9411
          Telephone: 415 732 3777
          Facsimile: 415 732 3791
          E-mail: yperetz@peretzlaw.com
                  skim@peretzlaw.com


TRIUMVIRATE ENVIRONMENTAL: Fails to Pay Wages, Guzman Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by TRIUMVIRATE ENVIRONMENTAL
(NYC), LLC and/or TRIUMVIRATE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., the Plaintiffs,
v. TRIUMVIRATE ENVIRONMENTAL (NYC), LLC, TRIUMVIRATE
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. and JOHN DOE BONDING COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 157629/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to
recover wages and benefits which Plaintiff and the members of the
putative class were contractually entitled to receive for work
they performed on Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. projects
in New York.

According to the complaint, a schedule of prevailing rates of
wages and supplemental benefits established by the New York City
Comptroller ("Prevailing Wage Schedule") was annexed to, or
incorporated by reference, in each of the Con Ed Contracts. This
promise to pay and ensure payment of the prevailing wage and
supplemental benefit rates in the Con Ed Contracts was made for
the benefit of all workers furnishing labor on the Utility
Projects and, as such, the workers furnishing labor on the sites
of the Utility Projects are the beneficiaries of that promise.
Upon information and believe, the terms and conditions of the Con
Ed Contracts were incorporated into Con Ed Subcontracts.

Plaintiff Guzman worked for Triumvirate on the Utility Projects in
2016.  While working on the Utility Projects, Plaintiff Guzman was
paid $14.00 per hour. The proper wage and benefit rate that
Plaintiff Guzman was required to receive under the Con Ed
Contracts was in excess of $50.00 to $80.00 per hour depending on
the location of the project, year, and work being performed.
Defendant John Doe Bonding Company furnished Labor and Material
Payment Bonds the terms of which insured that the Bonding Company
would pay unpaid prevailing wages and supplemental benefits to the
Plaintiff and the putative class members in the event Triumvirate
failed to pay these wages.

Triumvirate Environmental provides innovative environmental,
health and safety solutions for Healthcare, Education, Life
Sciences, and Industrial markets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack Newhouse, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, N.Y. 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          E-mail: Lambinder@vandallp.com
                  jnewhouse@vandallp.com


UNITIL CORP: Individual Claims in Bellermann Case Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2017 that individual claims in a putative class action captioned
Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company are
still pending.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts'
Worcester Superior Court.  The Complaint seeks an unspecified
amount of damages, including the cost of temporary housing and
alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and
suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in
connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm
in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an order denying
class certification status in July 2016, though the plaintiffs'
individual claims remain pending.

Unitil said, "The Company continues to believe that this suit is
without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously."

The Town of Lunenburg filed a separate action in the Court arising
out of the December 2008 ice storm.  The Court granted the
Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on all counts in December
2016 and dismissed the Town's complaint.  The Court's decision
remains subject to a potential motion for reconsideration and
appeal.

Unitil said, "The Company believes, based upon information
furnished by counsel and others, that the ultimate resolution of
these suits will not have a material impact on its financial
position, operating results or cash flows."

Unitil Corporation, a public utility holding company, engages in
the distribution of electricity and natural gas in the United
States.  It operates through three segments: Utility Gas
Operations, Utility Electric Operations, and Non-Regulated.
Unitil Corporation was incorporated in 1984 and is headquartered
in Hampton, New Hampshire.


VOLUME SERVICES: Faces "Jeffries" Suit in Dist. of Columbia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volume Services
America, Inc. (d/b/a Centerplate and Centerplate/NBSE). The case
is styled as Doris Jeffries, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Volume Services America, Inc.
(d/b/a Centerplate and Centerplate/NBSE) and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01788 (D.C., September 1,
2017).

Volume Services America, Inc. is the rated subsidiary of
Centerplate, Inc. which operates concession, catering and
merchandise services in sports facilities, convention centers and
other entertainment facilities.  Centerplate, the ultimate parent
of Volume Services, Inc. and Service America Corporation, has its
principal executive office in Stamford, Connecticut and a
corporate office in Spartanburg, South Carolina.  Through these
subsidiaries, Centerplate generated revenues totaling
approximately $741 million during fiscal 2007.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


WESTLAKE WELLBEING: Faces "Edelstein" Suit in C.D. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westlake Wellbeing
Properties LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The case is
styled as Scott Edelstein and Steven Brooks individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v.
Westlake Wellbeing Properties LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Four Seasons Hotels Limited, a Canada corporation and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06488
(C.D. Cal., September 1, 2017).

Westlake Wellbeing Properties LLC is in the Spa business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE.


WORLD CLASS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Paz" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Paz and Maricela Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. World Class Garment Care Corp.,
World Class Cleaners Long Island City Inc., and Angelo Bolbasis,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04977-AMD-CLP (E.D.N.Y., August 23, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and
overtime wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a laundry and dry cleaner business
located at 27-09 40th Avenue, Long Island City, New York 11101.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: 718-263-9591
      E-mail: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com


WW GRAINGER: Trial in "Davies" Complaint Set for February 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc. still defends itself against a lawsuit filed
by David Davies related to violations of Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017.

On April 5, 2013, David Davies filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"), and sought certification
of a class of persons who may have received one or more of
approximately 400,000 faxes Grainger sent in connection with a
2009 marketing campaign.  The TCPA provides for penalties of
US$500 to US$1,500 for each noncompliant individual fax.

On May 13, 2013, the Company removed the case to the Federal
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"District Court").

On June 27, 2014, the District Court found that Davies was not an
adequate class representative.  The United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit denied Davies' petition for immediate
review of the ruling.

Davies subsequently moved the District Court for reconsideration
of its ruling and his motion was denied on September 28, 2016.
Davies may seek to pursue an appeal of the ruling at the
conclusion of the District Court proceeding.

On April 4, 2016, the District Court denied the Company's motion
to dismiss Davies' individual claims and subsequently the parties
filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  The District Court
entered judgment for Grainger on Davies' common law claim for
conversion while granting partial summary judgment for Grainger on
Davies' TCPA claim.

On November 21, 2016, the District Court denied Grainger's motion
for summary judgment which argued that Davies lacks standing to
bring his TCPA claim and held that the issue of whether Grainger's
opt-out notice is clear and conspicuous was a contested issue of
fact to be resolved by a jury at trial.

Trial is currently set for February 5, 2018.

W.W. Grainger said, "The Company believes it has strong legal and
factual defenses and intends to continue defending itself
vigorously in the pending lawsuit.  While the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of this proceeding, the Company believes that
the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or
results of operations."

W.W. Grainger, Inc. distributes maintenance, repair, and operating
(MRO) supplies; and other related products and services that are
used by businesses and institutions in the United States, Canada,
Europe, Asia, and Latin America.  It operates through two
segments, U.S. and Canada.  W.W. Grainger, Inc. was founded in
1927 and is based in Lake Forest, Illinois.


ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Sylvander Sues over Inflated Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE SYLVANDER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, ANDERS GUSTAFSSON and MICHAEL C. SMILEY, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04961 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2017),
seeks remedies under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as a result
of the alleged fraudulent conduct of Defendant.

The case is a securities class action on behalf of all persons and
entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Zebra common stock between
March 17, 2015 through May 9, 2016, both dates inclusive ("Class
Period"). The Company made materially false and/or misleading
statements, misrepresenting its business operations and legal
compliance. The Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchased
Zebra common stock at artificially inflated prices and suffered
significant losses and damages once the truth emerged.

Zebra Technologies is a public company based in Lincolnshire,
Illinois, USA, that manufactures and sells marking, tracking and
computer printing technologies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363 7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363 7171
          E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com
                  aapton@zlk.com


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Davydov" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwicker &
Associates, P.C. The case is styled as Yuzef Davydov, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zwicker &
Associates, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05182 (E.D. N.Y.,
September 1, 2017).

Zwicker & Associates is a law firm whose primary business function
is debt collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

The Defendant represented by:

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


* Mainers May Lose Right to Fight Big Banks' Lending Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Harris, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that if you're
like most people, chances are you've signed a bank or credit card
agreement without reading the fine print.  Not only is the print
too small to read, but it is wordy and hard to understand.  Even
more egregious for consumers in Maine and throughout the country,
the legal print you're likely to ignore often includes language
that takes away your rights.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wants that to change.
That's why last month, the bureau announced a new rule aimed at
protecting the right of Mainers and consumers across the U.S. to
hold banks accountable in court.

Often buried in that fine print is language that prevents
consumers from banding together in public, class-action lawsuits
against big banks.  Instead, the fine print requires them to use
private arbitration -- called "forced arbitration" -- and
negotiate with the very companies they are fighting.  The bureau's
rule would prohibit forced arbitration clauses with class-action
lawsuit bans in financial contracts and help people take court
action against companies' fraudulent practices.

The question, however, is whether Congress will move to strip
Mainers of their right to hold banks accountable in court.
Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has already begun the
attack, and Rep. Bruce Poliquin voted on July 25 to strike down
the new rule.  If the House measure passes the Senate, the bureau
would be barred from ever issuing another rule to restrict forced
arbitration.  We hope Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King will once
again stand in the best interests of their constituents by voting
against repeal of this long-awaited protection.  In doing so, they
would be siding with Mainers against the rampant abuses of forced
arbitration.

Study after study has shown that big banks almost always win
forced arbitration cases while regularly exploiting working and
middle-class families.  A recent Economic Policy Institute report
found that arbitrators grant consumers relief regarding their
claims in only 9 percent of disputes, but when companies make
claims or counterclaims, arbitrators side with them 93 percent of
the time.  Instead of getting the relief he or she seeks through
arbitration, the average consumer is ordered to pay their bank or
lender $7,725, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
Further, class-action lawsuits are critical when small-dollar
amounts are at issue.  Ultimately, an individual consumer involved
in a small dispute of only tens or hundreds of dollars cannot
afford to arbitrate on his or her own.

An ongoing lawsuit involving Wells Fargo customers illustrates the
kind of banking behavior the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
rule aims to end.  For years, Wells Fargo illegally re-ordered the
sequence of debit card transactions from highest to lowest dollar
amount instead of posting the transactions chronologically.

Imagine you have $150 in your checking account, then spend $3 on a
cup of coffee in the morning, $5 for a sandwich at lunch, and then
$155 for groceries after work.  If the transactions were processed
in the correct order, you would face a single overdraft fee for
the groceries at the end of the day.  But what if Wells Fargo took
those transactions and applied them to your account from largest
to smallest? Now, you must pay three overdraft fees of up to $35
each. For someone living paycheck to paycheck, this can be a
devastating sequence of events.

America's banks have used this scam to defraud consumers out of
billions of dollars.  While other big banks ultimately settled
their cases, Wells Fargo is attempting to force its customers into
private arbitration proceedings to avoid being held accountable in
court.  If Wells Fargo is successful, consumers will need to
pursue secret arbitration one-by-one to recoup their money.  And
in arbitration, customers routinely lose and end up on the hook
for thousands of dollars from bank counterclaims. Most individual
customers simply won't take that risk.

If the Wells Fargo overdraft scandal, or the myriad other big bank
abuses are any indication, we can expect Wall Street to continue
to put profits over the rights and welfare of consumers. Consumers
need our elected representatives to help protect us against this
abusive behavior that has become all too common among big banks.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule is an important part
of this protection, but it also will require that lawmakers like
Collins and King resist overturning it.


                             *********


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  * * *