CAR_Public/170918.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Monday, September 18, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 184



                            Headlines

2 WITH DELI: "Valente" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
727 WEST SEVENTH: "Pursell" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Tharp" Suit over Securities Laws
ADEPTUS HEALTH: Retirement Group Appointed Lead Plaintiff
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Orzel" Suit in E.D. of New York

APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Rizzo Sues over Inflated Stock Price
ARCADIA RECOVERY: Faces "Shrem" Suit in E.D. of New York
ASIA MARKET: "Yang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
AUTOGRILL GROUP: Acey Files Suit Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work
BANGLADESH HINDU: Faces "Bhattacharjya" Class Action

BEHR PROCESS: Hamilton Sues Over Defective DeckOver Product
BOCA LANDINGS: Hilton Sues Over Illegal Fees and Dues
CALIFORNIA: Ruling on Subclass of Unrepresented Workers Reversed
CDI CORP: "Jurmu" Suit Seeks to Stop Sale to AE Industrial Units
CIRCLE K STORES: Bid to Compel Compliance w/ Rule30(b)(6) Denied

COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Violates FDCPA, FCRA, "Johnson" Suit Says
CONNECTICUT GENERAL: "Rain" Sues Over Denied Insurance Claim
CUSTOM COMFORT: "Walewski" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
CVS PHARMACY: Court Grants Summary Judgment in NJ Suit
DAIRYAMERICA INC: Can't Compel Written Discovery Reply

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Romero Sues over Robocalls
DISCOVER PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Griffith Alleges
EBELL OF LOS ANGELES: Register Sues over Wage & Hour Violations
ENVOY AIR: Court Certifies Sick Leave Class in "Schroeder" Suit
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Pantaze" Suit over Data Breach

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Vonwiller" Suit over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Pavitt et al. Sue over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Dixon" Suit over Data Security Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Christensen" Suit over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Waszkelewicz" Suit in N.D. of Georgia

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "O'Neill" Suit in N.D. of Georgia
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Englert" Suit in N.D. of Georgia
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Pleasant" Suit in N.D. of Georgia
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Berlanga"
EUROPEAN AMERICAN WASTE: Failed to Pay Wages, Guerrero Says

EVANSTON, IL: Two Due Process Classes Certified in "Wilson" Suit
FOSSIL GROUP: Faces "Safransky" Suit in S.D. of California
GATESTONE & CO: Ballaj Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
HOSPITAL SERVICE: "Leet" Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court
IPAWN RODNEY: Court Refuses to Dismiss Complaints in "Jones" Suit

J RECKNER ASSOCIATES: Lyngaas Seeks TCPA Class Certification
KSJC ENTERPRISES: "Edmontson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
LACY ONE: Court Certifies Class of Deliverymen in "Lamar" Suit
LBC IRWINDALE: Haskell Seeks Regular Wages under Labor Code
LEE LAW OFFICES: Accused by "Matthies" Suit of Violating FDCPA

LEMONADE RESTAURANT: "Velasco" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Labor Code
LIFEWAY FOOD: Court Narrows Claims in "Block" Suit
LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Court Certifies Class of Investors
LONE STAR: "Anderson" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
LOVED ONES: Mayhew Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA

MCNEIL INDUSTRIAL: "Fontenot" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MDL 2284: Court Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Huls' Appeal
MDL 2284: Ct. Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Mattie's Appeal
MDL 2284: Court Affirms Denial of Kochmanski's Appeal
MDL 3354: Court Dismisses State of Wyoming's Suit

MIDLAND CREDIT: Collection Letter Violates FDCPA, Laurenzo Claims
MONSANTO CO: "Martin" Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
NATIONAL GAS: Shelton Sues over Automated Telemarketing Calls
NAVIENT CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Suit with Leave to Amend
NELSON & KENNARD: Pratt Sues over Debt Collection Practices

OAK HARBOR: "Alvarado" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
OCEANPRO INDUSTRIES: Leon Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
OZZ LAND: "Lattig" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
PARK STERLING: Faces "Roskopf" Securities Class Suit
PEPSI BEVERAGES: "Grice" Suit Moved to S.D. California

PLATINUM GROUP: Colindres et al. Seek Overtime Pay
PRIMELENDING: "Shockley" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
R.J. REYNOLDS: "Tarrow" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
RASH CURTIS: Court Certifies 4 Classes in "McMillion" Suit
RDR CORPORATION: "Maurer" Suit Asserts ADA Violation

RENT-A-CENTER: Sept 28 Hearing on "Blair" Arbitration Bid
ROSANN LANDSCAPE: "Contreras" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
SANOFI PASTEUR: Ct. Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in "Weitzner"
SID'S SEALANTS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Holmes"
SIRIUS XM: "Andrews" Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Personal Info

SKYE RENTALS: Faces "Hernandez" Suit over Wage & Hour Violations
SMITH & ROUCHON: Wallis Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
SO CAL PETROLEUM: Faces "Rosales" Suit in C.D. of California
SP BEACH: Avila Moves to Certify Banquet Servers Class Under FLSA
STATE NATIONAL: Violates Securities Laws, Sciabacucchi Says

TAMPA BAY SURGERY: Court Tosses Complaints in "Stapleton" Suit
STEPHEN A BROWN: Faces "Marchese" Suit in E.D. of New York
TENNESSEE: Robinson Files Suit v. TDOS
TIME WARNER: Court Denies Class Certification in "Johnson"
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Corrective Notice in "O'Connor" Suit Entered

UMAMI RESTAURANT: Facilities Not Accessible for PWDs, Dixson Says
UNITED AIRLINES: Status Hearing in "Pumputyte" Suit on Oct. 11
UNITED PARCEL: Court Denies Bid to Stay/Dismiss "Solo" Suit
UNITED STATES: Rejection of Holiday Premium Pay Affirmed
USA: Faces "Milton" Suit in Court of Federal Claims

WACKO'S TOO: "Cervello" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
WELLS FARGO: Court Denies Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Merino"
YOUNIQUE LLC: Faces "Schmitt" Suit over Mascara Product
ZTO EXPRESS: Faces "Nurlybayev" Securities Class Suit
ZURICH AMERICAN: Not Obligated to Pay W.G. for Class Settlement









                            *********


2 WITH DELI: "Valente" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE VALENTE and JUAN AMIGON, on behalf of themselves, and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. 2 WITH DELI CORP.
dba SARGES DELI, and ANDREW WENGROVER, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-06889 (S.D.N.Y., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willfully
failed to pay Plaintiffs lawfully earned "spread of hours"
premiums in contravention of the New York Labor Law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue - 6111 Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209 3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209 7102
          E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


727 WEST SEVENTH: "Pursell" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
JESSICA PURSELL, an individual, MONICA MARQUEZ, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. 727 WEST SEVENTH, LLC, a California limited
liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
BC675509 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages for all time worked including overtime under the state Labor
Code.

The case is a class action complaint for Defendant's failure to
provide meal periods; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to
pay overtime wages; failure to pay all wages upon separation;
failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements; failure to
pay all wages owed every pay period; and violation of unfair
competition law.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514 5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514 5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffherlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com

               - and -

          Hrag Kouyoumjian, Esq.
          SEVEN HILL LAW, APC
          411 West 7th Street, Suite 310
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 235 3532
          Facsimile: (213) 488 1588
          E-mail: hragk@sevenhilllaw.com


ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Tharp" Suit over Securities Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN THARP, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MURUGESAN
SHANMUGARAJ, and JOHN F. GAVIN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
11504 (D. Mass., Aug. 14, 2017), seeks to recover damages
sustained by Plaintiff and the Class under Securities Exchange
Act.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Acacia securities between August 11, 2016 and
July 13, 2017, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its
top officials.

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) the Company's manufacturing and quality control processes were
deficient; (ii) the foregoing deficiencies were likely to disrupt
the Company's manufacturing, thereby impacting the Company's
revenues; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Acacia's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. On May 31, 2017, Acacia issued a press release and filed a
Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, advising investors that
"the Company has identified a quality issue" affecting "a portion"
of several thousand modules manufactured by one of Acacia's three
contract manufacturers, citing as the "root cause of this quality
issue a circuit board cleaning process that has since been
eliminated."

On July 14, 2017, Acacia issued a press release announcing the
Company's preliminary financial and operating results for the
quarter ended June 30, 2017. The Company reported profit and
revenue that missed estimates, and revised its current-quarter
guidance downward. Acacia stated that the Company's "second-
quarter results were adversely affected by the quality issue
identified at one of our three contract manufacturers that we
announced on May 31." On this news, Acacia's share price fell
$2.62, or 6.30%, to close at $39.00 per share on July 14. As a
result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Acacia designs, develops, manufactures, and markets communication
equipment. The Company offers high-speed coherent optical
interconnect products for cloud infrastructure operators and
content and communication service providers. Acacia Communications
serves customers worldwide. Founded in 2009, the Company is
headquartered in Maynard, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP
          110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
          Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
          Telephone: (781) 207 1717
          Facsimile: (781) 431 8726
          E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Hui M. Chang, 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
                  hchang@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


ADEPTUS HEALTH: Retirement Group Appointed Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Sherman Division, issued a memorandum opinion and order
granting the Motion of Alameda County Employees' Retirement
Association and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System for Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff, Approval of Selection of Counsel, and
Consolidation of Related Actions in the case captioned OKLAHOMA
LAW ENFORCEMENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM. v. ADEPTUS HEALTH INC., et al.,
Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-00449 (E.D. Tex.).

Named Plaintiff Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System filed
the federal securities class action on behalf of all person who
purchased the Class A common shares of Adeptus Health, Inc.
(Adeptus Health) pursuant to Adeptus Health's secondary public and
on behalf of purchasers of Adeptus Health's common shares.

Six different movants have filed eight different motions seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff, with their choice of lead counsel,
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Three
movants withdrew from lead plaintiff consideration, and three
movants remain: (1) David Swehla, Rodeo Plastic Bag & Film Inc.,
Wissam Mattar, Heriberto Vale, and Yixin Shi (Adeptus Investor
Group); (2) Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association
(ACERA) and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (Arkansas Teacher)
(Retirement Group); and (3) Michigan Laborers' Pension Fund
(Pension Fund).

There is no dispute that the Retirement Group and the Pension Fund
met the procedural requirements of Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)
because both the Retirement Group and the Pension Fund timely
moved for appointment of lead counsel.

If a motion is timely filed, the presumptive lead plaintiff must
have the largest financial interest. The Retirement Group argues
that it has the largest financial interest of any other movant,
which is not contested by any of the movants. Therefore, the Court
is satisfied that the Retirement Group has the largest financial
interest, followed by the only remaining movant, the Pension Fund.

Rule 23 Requirements

Typicality

Both the Retirement Group and the Pension Fund assert that their
claims are typical of the class. Neither challenges the other's
claims of typicality. The Court is satisfied that both the
Retirement Group and the Pension Fund's claims are typical of the
class; in other words, they have "the same essential
characteristics as those of the other class members.

Fair and Adequate Representation

The Pension fund argues that the Retirement Group will not fairly
and adequately represent the class because it is an improper group
under the PSLRA and because Arkansas Teacher is a professional
plaintiff barred from serving as a lead plaintiff pursuant the
PSLRA. The Court will address each argument.

Accordingly, because the Retirement Group timely filed its motion,
has the largest financial interest, and satisfies the requirements
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Retirement Group is the
presumptive lead plaintiff. Further, the presumption has not been
overcome. Therefore, the Court appoints the Retirement Group as
lead plaintiff in this action.

Lead Counsel

The Retirement Group seeks to appoint Bernstein Litowitz and
Kessler Topaz as co-lead counsel for the class and George L.
McWilliams as liaison counsel for the class. The Retirement Group
instructed Bernstein Litowitz and Kessler Topaz to enter into a
Joint Prosecution Agreement. The Court has reviewed the resumes
provided for each attorney, and is satisfied that each could
adequately represent the plaintiff in this action.

It is therefore ordered that the Motion of Alameda County
Employees' Retirement Association and Arkansas Teacher Retirement
System for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, Approval of Selection of
Counsel, and Consolidation of Related Actions is granted. The
Retirement Group's choice of lead counsel and liaison counsel are
appointed.

Accordingly, Michigan Laborers' Pension Fund's Motion for
Consolidation, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for Approval of
its Selection of Lead Counsel and the Motion of Adeptus Investor
Group to be Appointed Lead Plaintiff and to Approve Proposed Lead
Plaintiff's Choice of Counsel are denied.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's August 31, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/ycjq2uf7from Leagle.com.

Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented
by Andrea Leigh Fair -- andrea@wsfirm.com -- Ward, Smith & Hill,
PLLC.

Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented
by Mario Alba, Jr. -- malba@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd, Samuel H. Rudman -- Srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, pro hac vice, Thomas John Ward, Jr. --
tjw@wsfirm.com -- Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC & Claire Abernathy
Henry, -- claire@wsfirm.com -- Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC.
Laborers' Local 235 Benefit Funds, Consolidated Civil Action
6:16cv1391, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Shorty Craig Barrett,
Shorty Barrett, 611 Pecan St, Texarkana, AR 71854-5337
Winston Kim, Consolidated Civil Action 6:17cv150, Consol
Plaintiff, represented by Jacob A. Goldberg --
jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice,
Keith Robert Lorenze -- klorenze@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law
Firm, PA, Andy Tindel, Mann -- atindel@andytindel.com -- Tindel &
Thompson -- Attorneys at Law, Laurence Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice &
Phillip Kim -- pkim@rosenlega.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, PA, pro
hac vice.

Sascha Troll, Consolidated Civil Action 6:17cv241, Consol
Plaintiff, represented by Willie Charles Briscoe --
wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com -- The Briscoe Law Firm.

Li-Kuan Chen, Consol Plaintiff, Pro se.

Yvonne Chen, Consol Plaintiff, Pro se.

Victor Sardar, Consol Plaintiff, Pro se.

Michael Frick, Consol Plaintiff, Pro se.

Adeptus Health Inc., Defendant, represented by Xenia Nicole
Figueroa -- nicole.figueroa@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP.
Thomas S. Hall, Defendant, represented by Jill Rickershauser
Carvalho -- jcarvalho@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, Michael
John Biles -- mbiles@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, Paul
Richard Bessette -- pbessette@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP,
Srimath Saliya Subasinghe -- ssubasinghe@kslaw.com -- King &
Spalding LLP & Tyler Wayne Highful -- thighful@kslaw.com -- King &
Spalding LLP.

Timothy L. Fielding, Defendant, represented by Jill Rickershauser
Carvalho, King & Spalding LLP, Michael John Biles, King & Spalding
LLP, Paul Richard Bessette, King & Spalding LLP, Srimath Saliya
Subasinghe, King & Spalding LLP & Tyler Wayne Highful, King &
Spalding LLP.

Richard Covert, Defendant, represented by David Dykeman Sterling -
- david.sterling@bakerboots.com -- Baker Botts LLP, Amy Heard --
amy.heard@bakerbotts.com --  Baker Botts LLP, Jessica B. Pulliam -
- Jessica.pulliam@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP, John Benjamin
Lawrence -- john.lawrence@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP &
Mysha Webster Lubke -- mysha.lubke@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts
LLP.

Daniel W. Rosenberg, Defendant, represented by David Dykeman
Sterling, Baker Botts LLP, Amy Heard, Baker Botts LLP, Jessica B.
Pulliam, Baker Botts LLP, John Benjamin Lawrence, Baker Botts LLP
& Mysha Webster Lubke, Baker Botts LLP.

Gregory W. Scott, Defendant, represented by David Dykeman
Sterling, Baker Botts LLP, Amy Heard, Baker Botts LLP, Jessica B.
Pulliam, Baker Botts LLP, John Benjamin Lawrence, Baker Botts LLP
& Mysha Webster Lubke, Baker Botts LLP.

Ronald L. Taylor, Defendant, represented by David Dykeman
Sterling, Baker Botts LLP, Amy Heard, Baker Botts LLP, Jessica B.
Pulliam, Baker Botts LLP, John Benjamin Lawrence, Baker Botts LLP
& Mysha Webster Lubke, Baker Botts LLP.

Jeffery S. Vender, Defendant, represented by David Dykeman
Sterling, Baker Botts LLP, Amy Heard, Baker Botts LLP, Jessica B.
Pulliam, Baker Botts LLP, John Benjamin Lawrence, Baker Botts LLP
& Mysha Webster Lubke, Baker Botts LLP.

Steven V. Napolitano, Defendant, represented by David Dykeman
Sterling, Baker Botts LLP, Amy Heard, Baker Botts LLP, Jessica B.
Pulliam, Baker Botts LLP, John Benjamin Lawrence, Baker Botts LLP
& Mysha Webster Lubke, Baker Botts LLP.


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Orzel" Suit in E.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled as Usher Orzel, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alltran Financial, LP,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05338 (E.D.N.Y., September 12, 2017).

Alltran Financial is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Rizzo Sues over Inflated Stock Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
GIANLUCA RIZZO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS, INC., CHIH-
HSIANG (THOMPSON) LIN and STEFAN J. MURRY, the Defendants, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05313 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 11, 2017), seeks
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Defendants made, or caused to be made,
false statements that artificially inflated the prices of Applied
Opto securities during the Class Period. The Individual
Defendants, because of their positions with the Company, possessed
the power and authority to control the contents of Applied Opto's
quarterly reports, press releases and presentations to securities
analysts, money and portfolio managers and institutional
investors, i.e., the market. They were provided with copies of the
Company's reports and press releases alleged to be misleading
prior to or shortly after their issuance and had the ability and
opportunity to prevent their issuance or cause them to be
corrected. Because of their positions with the Company and their
access to material non-public information available to them but
not to the public, the Individual.

Defendants knew that the adverse facts specified herein had not
been disclosed to and were being concealed from the public and
that the positive representations being made were then materially
false and misleading. The Individual Defendants are liable for the
false and misleading statements.  Defendants are liable for (i)
making false statements; or (ii) failing to disclose adverse facts
known to them about Applied Opto. Defendants' fraudulent scheme
and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on
purchasers of Applied Opto securities was a success, as it: (i)
deceived the investing public regarding Applied Opto's prospects
and business; (ii) artificially inflated the prices of Applied
Opto securities; and (iii) caused Plaintiff and other members of
the Class to purchase Applied Opto securities at artificially
inflated prices.

Applied Opto manufactures lasers and transceivers used to build
fiberoptic networking equipment. Its biggest customer is
Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon"), which was responsible for 56.4% of
its 2016 sales.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367 7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367 1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230 0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255 1856
          E-mail: FrankJ@johnsonfistel.com

               - and -

          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 802 1486
          Facsimile: (212) 602 1592
          E-mail: Scott@johnsonfistel.com


ARCADIA RECOVERY: Faces "Shrem" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arcadia Recovery
Bureau. The case is styled as Abraham Shrem, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arcadia Recovery
Bureau, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05347 (E.D.N.Y., September 12,
2017).

Arcadia Recovery Bureau is an accounts receivables agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ASIA MARKET: "Yang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lian Yang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Asia Market Corp., Jie Ming
Liang, Wen "Doe" (last name unknown), Naomi Kwong, "John" (first
name unknown) Kwong, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06886
(S.D.N.Y., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The case is an action brought by Plaintiff on her own behalf and
on behalf of similarly situated employees, alleging violations of
the FLSA and the New York Labor Law, arising from Defendants'
various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or
practices. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally
committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging
in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees,
including Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, including
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Asia Market is an ethnic grocery store and wholesale distributor
providing hard-to-find Asian products -- countless varieties of
ingredients and fresh produce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
          Flushing, New York 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


AUTOGRILL GROUP: Acey Files Suit Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janeen Acey and Amber Hopkins, Individually, and on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated current and former employees,
Plaintiff, v. Autogrill Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and
HMS Host USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-02618, (W.D. Tenn., August 24, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid straight time wages, unpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

HMS Host USA, Inc. owns and operates food and beverage franchises,
such as Starbucks, Moe's and others, in major airports across the
United States and in malls and travel centers located in the
northeastern United States. Autogrill Group, Inc. is the parent
company of HMS Host USA, Inc.

Acey and Hopkins were employed by Defendants as shift supervisors
at Starbucks franchises located within the Memphis International
Airport. Both claim to have rendered unpaid off-the-clock work.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com
             pjackson@jsyc.com


BANGLADESH HINDU: Faces "Bhattacharjya" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bangladesh Hindu
Mandir, Inc.  The case is styled as Bhattacharjya, Dwijen et al.,
Ashok Saha, Md., Dipak Karmakar, Shyamal Chakraborty, Probir Roy,
Pronobendu Chakraborty, Subash Majumder, Joydeb Dey, Pienaky Sen
Chowdhury, Purnima Bhattacharjya, Dilip Nath, Deepok
Bhattacharjya, Madhabi Chakravarty, Ranesh Chakravarty, Santosh
Debnath, and other similarly situated, individually and on behalf
of Bangladesh Hindu Mandir, Plaintiffs v. Bangladesh Hindu Mandir,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00695 (W.D. Wis., September 12,
2017).

The Bangladesh Hindu Mandir is a non-profit Hindu religious
organization, actively fulfilling the spiritual, cultural, and
social needs of the Hindu community of the tri state area of New
York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Andrew Moulinos, Esq.
   23-52 31ST STREET
   Astoria, NY 11105
   Tel: (718) 545-2600


BEHR PROCESS: Hamilton Sues Over Defective DeckOver Product
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BEHR PROCESS CORP.; BEHR PAINT CORP.; MASCO
CORP.; THE HOME DEPOT, INC.; and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No.
2:17-cv-01765-KJM-EFB (E.D. Cal., August 23, 2017), is brought on
behalf of all persons, who purchased a Behr Premium DeckOver
product in the state of California.

Behr manufactures a line of deck resurfacers: "Behr's Premium
DeckOver," which the Plaintiff says is defective.

In contrary to Behr's marketing campaign, DeckOver is not durable
or long-lasting, Mr. Hamilton alleges.  Instead, he contends,
within mere months of application, DeckOver begins to flake, peel,
and separate from deck and concrete surfaces.

Behr Process Corporation and Behr Paint Corporation are California
corporations, with their principal place of business in Santa Ana,
California.  Masco Corporation is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business in Taylor, Michigan.  Masco acquired
Behr Process Corporation in 1999.

The Home Depot, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its principal
place of business in Georgia.  The Home Depot, Inc. is the parent
company of Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and describes itself in annual
reports filed with the Securities Exchange Commission as the
world's largest home improvement retailer.  Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of
business in Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael McShane, Esq.
          S. Clinton Woods, Esq.
          Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
                  cwoods@audetlaw.com
                  lkuang@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (877) 882-1011
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Charles LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202)789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          HALUNEN LAW
          80 South 8th Street
          IDS Center
          Suite 1650 Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 548-5286
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: weiner@halunenlaw.com


BOCA LANDINGS: Hilton Sues Over Illegal Fees and Dues
-----------------------------------------------------
Aaron Hilton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Boca Landings Homeowners Association, Inc.
and Stevens & Goldwyn, P.A., Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-61693
(S.D. Fla., August 24, 2017), seeks declaratory and monetary
relief, as well as additional individual damages and attorney's
fees and costs for violation of the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Boca is a private residential community in Boca Raton, Florida,
governed by the Boca Landings Homeowners Association, Inc. with
Stevens as its property manager. Plaintiff owns a home in the Boca
community.

Defendants improperly sought fees that have not been incurred, nor
have they been agreed to by the Plaintiff in the written
contractual agreement that governs the conduct between Plaintiff
and his homeowner's association. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
      J. Dennis Card, Jr.
      Consumer Law Organization, P.A.
      721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
      North Palm Beach, FL 33408
      Telephone: (561) 822-3446
      Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
      E-mail: darren@cloorg.com
              dennis@cloorg.com


CALIFORNIA: Ruling on Subclass of Unrepresented Workers Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case captioned KURT STOETZL et al., Plaintiffs
and Appellants, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and
Respondents, No. A142832 (Cal. App.), are current and former
correctional peace officers who work or worked at various state
correctional facilities. They brought these coordinated class
actions alleging they were improperly denied pay for time they
spent under their employer's control before and after their work
shifts.

Plaintiffs alleged they were not paid for all the time they spent
at the correctional institutions under defendants' control.
Specifically, they were expected to sign in and sign out on time
sheets that reflected only their officially assigned work day.
Plaintiffs were required to be at their assigned posts at the
beginning of their official shifts. They sought unpaid overtime
wages, unpaid California minimum wages, liquidated damages, and
injunctive relief.

The State moved for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court
granted the motion without leave to amend as to the causes of
action for failure to pay overtime in violation of sections 222
and 223 and failure to keep accurate records of hours worked, and
denied the motion as to the remaining causes of action.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four,
reversed the judgment in part as to the subclass of unrepresented
employees and affirm as to the subclass of represented employees.

As to the unrepresented employees, the trial court concluded the
Department of Human Resources (CalHR) had acted within its
legislatively delegated authority in applying the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 as the standard for measuring compensable
hours.  The trial court concluded the FLSA also provided the legal
standard for measuring the compensable hours worked by the
subclass of unrepresented employees. The court reasoned that CalHR
had established work week groups detailed in the California Pay
Scale Manual, that all the job classifications in the subclass
were contained in Work Week Group 2, and that CalHR had determined
that Work Week Group 2 positions were subject to the FLSA. The
Work Week Group Definitions" in the Pay Scale Manual included a
section describing "Work Week Groups Established Under [FLSA].
We conclude it is possible to harmonize the California Pay Scale
Manual and Wage Order 4, as we must seek to do under Brinker.
(Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1027.) The manual does not
expressly state that law enforcement employees are not subject to
the provisions of the wage orders applicable to their job
classifications, nor does it contain any provisions concerning
compensation for pre- and post-work activities.

Accordingly, the state court of appeal concludes the unrepresented
employees are entitled to pay for all hours worked under the
applicable California standard rather than the FLSA's standard.
The court of appeal therefore remands the matter to the trial
court for further proceedings, in which it will determine whether,
and to what extent, the unrepresented employees were not
compensated for their work.

Accordingly, the court of appeal reverses the judgment as to the
subclass of unrepresented employees as to the second and fourth
causes of action, and the matter is remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the August 31, 2017, Opinion is available at
http://tinyurl.com/ycquv6kzfrom Leagle.com.

Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP, Jack T. Friedman, Jonathan D.
Yank, Laurie J. Hepler, and David M. Rice, 44 Montgomery Street,
Suite 400San Francisco, CA 94104; Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP,
Gregg McLean Adam -- gregg@majlabor.com -- and Goyette and
Associates, Inc., Gary G. Goyette -- goyetteg@goyette-assoc.com --
Counsel for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, David W. Tyra --
dtyra@kmtg.com -- and Kristianne T. Seargeant --
SeargeK@sutterhealth.org -- California Department of Human
Resources, Joan A. Markoff, Chief Counsel, Frolan R. Aguiling,
Deputy Chief Counsel, Christopher E. Thomas, Labor Relations
Counsel, and David D. King, Labor Relations Counsel, Counsel for
Defendants and Respondents.


CDI CORP: "Jurmu" Suit Seeks to Stop Sale to AE Industrial Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT J. JURMU, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CDI CORP., WALTER R. GARRISON, LAWRENCE C.
KARLSON, ALBERT E. SMITH, MICHAEL J. EMMI, RONALD J. KOZICH,
BARTON J. WINOKUR, ANNA M. SEAL, and JOSEPH L. CARLINI, Case No.
2:17-cv-03787-MAK (E.D. Pa., August 23, 2017), seeks to enjoin the
proposed sale of CDI to Nova Intermediate Parent, LLC, and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Nova Merger Sub, Inc., which are
affiliates of private equity firm AE Industrial Partners, LLC.

On July 31, 2017, the Company announced that it had entered into
an agreement and plan of merger, by which AEI would commence a
tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of CDI at a
purchase price of $8.25 per share in cash.  The Tender Offer was
set to expire on September 12, 2017.

CDI, a Pennsylvania corporation, provides engineering and
technology solutions, as well as recruitment and staffing services
to leading companies with operations around the world.  The
Company maintains its principal executive offices in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com


CIRCLE K STORES: Bid to Compel Compliance w/ Rule30(b)(6) Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Circle K
Stores, Inc.'s Compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) in the
case captioned CHARLES GRAHL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CIRCLE K STORES, INC., a
foreign corporation, Defendant, No. 2:14-cv-305-RFB-VCF (D. Nev.).

This matter involves Plaintiff Charles Grahl's class action
against Defendant Circle K Stores, Inc. (Circle K) for allegedly
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Before the Court
are Grahl's Motion to Compel Defendant Circle K Stores, Inc.'s
Compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).

Grahl filed a complaint against Defendant Circle K, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated. In the Complaint, Grahl
alleged, inter alia, that as a Nevada resident, he worked for
Circle K as a store manager.  Grahl that he and other putative
class members were paid on a salary basis during their employment
as store managers and were classified by Circle K as exempt from
the overtime provisions of the FLSA. According to the Complaint,
Grahl and other putative class members were required to work an
average of 65 hours per week, which was a policy applied
nationwide by Circle K.

Grahl's Motion to Compel presents two questions: (1) Whether
Defendant Circle K has improperly designated a disproportionate
number of Rule 30(b)(6) designees along division lines for Topics
5-14 and 17 of the Amended Deposition Notice, and (2) Whether
Circle K properly prepared and educated its Rule 30(b)(6) designee
Kimberley Hoppa for her deposition.

The Court finds that Circle K's corporate designations for topics
5-14 and 17 are not contrary to Rule 30(b)(6). Under the text of
the rule, Circle K is required to designate other persons to
testify on its behalf and Circle K may set out the matters on
which each person designated will testify. Circle K has a duty to
make a conscientious, good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable
persons for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and to prepare them to fully
and unevasively answer questions about the designated subject
matter.

The rule, however, permits the corporation to designate different
people to address different topics. A corporation served with a
Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition has a duty to produce such
number of persons as will satisfy the request [and] more
importantly, prepare them so that they may give complete,
knowledgeable and binding answers on behalf of the corporation.
The persons Circle K designates must testify about information
known or reasonably available to Circle K.

Nor is the Court persuaded that Circle K's corporate designations
for topics 5-14 and 17 are contrary to the purposes of Rule
30(b)(6). The Court's role in such a discovery dispute is not
dissimilar to that of a referee whose job it is to ensure that
both sides are adhering to Rule 30(b)(6)'s objective of fair
access to corporate information and, at the same time, to guard
against overreaching by the party seeking discovery and failure of
the corporate party to satisfy its obligations under the rule.
To that end, the Court is guided by several objectives, including
Rule 30(b)(6)'s objectives to streamline discovery and curb
bandying, and at a more general level, the common-sense concept of
proportionality and the need to actively manage discovery to
secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
action and proceeding.

Accordingly, the Court will deny Grahl's Motion to Compel on this
ground.

To be sure, Ms. Hoppa was not prepared to testify about the
specific differences among the divisions from the company-wide
basic templates for, among other matters, job descriptions. But
Circle K proposed HR representatives from each division to testify
about those specific division differences. This seems consistent
with Circle K's Rule 30(b)(6) witness designations and the matters
that Circle K 'set out on which each person designated would
testify.

While deposing six different corporate designees for certain
topics will undoubtedly require Grahl to depose more witnesses,
this is not unduly unfair or unreasonable. To the contrary, it
would be impractical to require Circle K to designate one Rule
(30)(b)(6) witness to learn all of the differences between each
division and testify competently.

Accordingly, the Court has no basis to conclude that Ms. Hoppa was
not prepared for her deposition.

Plaintiff Charles Grahl's Motion to Compel is denied.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's August 31, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y75o7luh from Leagle.com.

Charles Grahl, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew L. Rempfer, Law
Offices of Steven J. Parsons, 10091 Park Run Drive, Suite 200, Las
Vegas, NV 89145-8868

Charles Grahl, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony M. Carter,
Tostrud Law Group, P.C., pro hac vice, Erik H. Langeland, Erik H.
Langeland, P.C., 500 5th Ave #1610, New York, NY 10110, USA pro
hac vice, Jon A. Tostrud, Tostrud Law Group, P.C., pro hac vice,
Joseph Nathan Mott, Law Offices of Steven J. Parsons, 10091 Park
Run Drive, Suite 200,Las Vegas, NV  -- 89145-8868, U.S.A. Scott E.
Lundy, Law Offices of Steven J. Parsons & Steven J. Parsons,
Steven J. Parsons, Law Office Of. 10091 Park Run Drive, Suite
200,Las Vegas, NV  -- 89145-8868 U.S.A.

Circle K Stores, Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Martin --
Anthony.martin@ogleetre.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Dana B. Salmonson -- dana.salmonson@ogletree.com --
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Patrick Hulla --
patrick.hulla@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice & Jill Garcia --
jill.garcia@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C.


COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Violates FDCPA, FCRA, "Johnson" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., a Pennsylvania
corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-02906-JMS-DML (S.D. Ind., August 23,
2017), alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Ms. Johnson, a citizen of the state of Indiana, contends that the
Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt by
pulling/accessing her credit report after she received a discharge
of all her debts from the bankruptcy court.

Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., is a Pennsylvania
corporation that acts as a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
          5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Telephone: (317) 780-8300
          Facsimile: (317) 217-1320
          E-mail: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


CONNECTICUT GENERAL: "Rain" Sues Over Denied Insurance Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Rain, as duly appointed personal representative of the
estate of Elinor G. Crandall, deceased, individually and behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Connecticut General
Corporation, Insurance Company of North America, Life Insurance
Company of North America, Towers Administrators, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-30115, (D. Mass., August 24, 2017), seeks refund
of all premiums collected that should not have been collected,
reinstatement of policies otherwise cancelled for lack of coverage
for Defendant's breach of contract, compensatory, consequential,
statutory and punitive damages and interest, declaratory and
injunctive relief, disgorgement of all ill-gotten profits and
gains, attorneys' fees, costs and any other relief for violation
of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act and the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and Massachusetts General
Law.

Crandall was an 86-year-old individual who resided at "The
Arbors," an assisted living facilities at Amherst, Massachusetts.
She was a certificate holder under the group long-term care
insurance policy issued and administered by Defendants. Karen
Rain, her daughter, claimed unpaid benefits on her behalf under
their policy. Defendants improperly denied her mother's claim
stating that assisted living facilities are not covered under her
policy and are not "medically-necessary" care requirements and is
not considered a "treatment." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean K. Collinsm, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS
      184 High Street, Suite 503
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 320-8485
      Fax: (617) 227-2843
      Email: sean@neinsurancelaw.com

             - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq.
      Melissa Wright, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Fax: (310) 201-9160
      Email: lglancy@glancylaw.com
             esams@glancylaw.com
             mwright@glancylaw.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey Goldenberg, Esq.
      GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
      One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 345-8291
      Fax: (513) 345-8294
      Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

             - and -

      Janet Pecquet, Esq.
      Peter Cassady, Esq.
      BECKMAN WEIL SHEPARDSON, LLC
      895 Central Ave., Suite 300
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 621-2100
      Fax: (513) 621-0106
      Email: jpecquet@beckman-weil.com
             petercassady@beckman-weil.com

             - and -

      Steven M. Dunn, Esq.
      STEVEN M. DUNN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      1135 Kane Concourse Suite #5
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 868-1400
      Fax: (305) 868-1409
      Email: sdunn@smdunnlaw.com


CUSTOM COMFORT: "Walewski" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE WALEWSKI, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CUSTOM COMFORT MEDTECK, LLC, a Florida
For Profit Corporation, and PETER GAUGHN, Individually, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01483-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla., Aug. 14,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages
and all other applicable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated was an hourly paid
employee who worked at Defendants' property within the last three
years in Orange County, Florida. During his employment with
Defendant, the Plaintiff as not paid time and one-half hid regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work
week during one or more work weeks.

Custom Comfort is in the hospital furniture business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Gunter, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N Orange Ave., 16th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420 1414
          Facsimile: (407) 867 4791
          E-mail: mgunter@forthepeople.com


CVS PHARMACY: Court Grants Summary Judgment in NJ Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KEITH ROBERT DEAN, JR., and ERIKA PRESSLEY,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., and CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-2136 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gerald
Austin McHugh of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania granted the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment as to the New Jersey action brought by Pressley and
denied as to the Pennsylvania action brought by Dean.

This is a putative class action case on behalf of pharmacy
technicians claiming that Defendants CVS Pharmacy Inc. and CVS
Caremark Corporation ("CVS") forced them to complete necessary
educational certifications without pay in violation of state wage
protection statutes and basic contract law.  The Named Plaintiffs,
Dean and Pressley, are former CVS workers from Pennsylvania and
New Jersey, respectively.

Pressley claims CVS violated the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
("NJWHL"), breached a contract with her, and was unjustly enriched
by her unpaid work.  Dean, on the other hand, alleges that CVS
violated the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law
("PWPCL"), breached its contract with him, and was unjustly
enriched by his work.  After extensive discovery, the Defendants
now move for summary judgment.

Judge McHugh concludes that because Pressley could have, but did
not, obtain and fill out timesheets for her hours, her claims
fail.  Though the parties agree that Pressley's LEARNet time was
compensable, and that she was not paid, the Judge nonetheless
cannot find that CVS violated the NJWHL.  In the simplest sense,
CVS did not deny Pressley wages for any hours that she worked;
Pressley herself failed to ask CVS for payment for her time.  CVS
created a legitimate, reasonable system for its employees to
report at-home LEARNet training hours.  There is no real evidence
to suggest that employees were discouraged from using the system;
instead, Pressley simply neglected to follow it.  Her failure to
log her hours precludes her statutory claim for relief.

Pressley next alleges that CVS breached its contract with her by
refusing to pay her the agreed-upon wage for hours she worked.
The evidence, however, does not support Pressley's conclusion that
CVS breached the contract, Judge McHugh finds.  It was CVS policy
that employees should get paid for at-home LEARNet hours.
Pressley's supervisor correctly followed that policy when she told
Pressley to record those hours on a timesheet.  By informing
Pressley that she was entitled to be paid, and telling her how to
put in for her time, CVS did what it was required to do.
Pressley's failure to ask follow-up questions, and thus determine
how to put in for her time, cannot be explained as a breach of
contract by CVS.  Thus, summary judgment on this claim is thus
appropriate.

As for Pressley's unjust enrichment claim, the Judge finds it
fails for the same reason that her other claims fail.  CVS was
willing to pay her for her at-home work, and her superior told her
how to go about being paid for the work.  CVS was not unjustly
enriched by Pressley's free labor, because it did not expect the
labor to be free.  Pressley's actions, rather than the actions of
CVS, were what caused her to not be paid.  Accordingly, this claim
cannot succeed.

Judge McHugh concludes that Dean has raised an issue of material
fact on his claims.  As with Pressley, CVS claims that no contract
existed here, and that Dean's claim fails as a result.  The Judge
disagrees.  Like Pressley, there is evidence from which a jury
could reasonably conclude that Dean formed an implied unilateral
contract with CVS when he worked hours on the company's behalf.
Unlike Pressley, however, Dean was left unpaid through no fault of
his own.  Instead, it was the fault of misinformed supervisors who
told Dean he had to work the hours for free.

The analysis for Dean's breach of contract claim is nearly
identical to the analysis of Pressley's.  Issues of material fact
exist about whether CVS breached its implied, unilateral contract
with Dean.  Accordingly, summary judgment for this claim is
denied.

Lastly, Judge McHugh finds that there is no need to decide whether
the nature of the Dean's unjust enrichment claim is predominately
legal in nature, such that it should be decided by a jury, or
predominately equitable in nature, and either submitted for an
advisory jury verdict under FRCP 39(c), or reserved for
presentation to the Court if the jury finds no legal remedy.  To
resolve this pending motion, the Judge needs only decide whether
there are facts of record that would support recovery under such a
theory, and he concludes that there are.

Accordingly, Judge McHugh granted the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment as to the New Jersey action brought by Pressley
and denied as to the Pennsylvania action brought by Dean.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/LNpOA3 from Leagle.com.

KEITH ROBERT DEAN, JR., Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL D.
DONOVAN, DONOVAN LITIGATION GROUP, LLC.

KEITH ROBERT DEAN, JR., Plaintiff, represented by PHILIP J. GORDON
-- pgordon@gordonllp.com -- GORDON LAW GROUP LLP.

MARILYN MONROE, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL D. DONOVAN,
DONOVAN LITIGATION GROUP, LLC.

ERIKA PRESSLEY, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL D. DONOVAN,
DONOVAN LITIGATION GROUP, LLC.

CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendant, represented by STEPHANIE JILL PEET
-- stephanie.peet@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C. & FELICE
B. EKELMAN -- EkelmanF@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS.

CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by STEPHANIE JILL
PEET, JACKSON LEWIS P.C. & FELICE B. EKELMAN, JACKSON LEWIS.


DAIRYAMERICA INC: Can't Compel Written Discovery Reply
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL ROZWADOWSKI
and DIANA WOLFE, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRYAMERICA, INC., and
CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:09-cv-00430-AWI-
EPG (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno
Division, denied Defendant DairyAmerica's Motion to Compel.

The case commenced on March 6, 2009 as a class action complaint
against the Defendants DairyAmercia, Inc. by the Plaintiffs.  On
July 19, 2017, the parties filed a joint statement regarding
discovery disputes.  Dairy America has filed a motion to compel
the Plaintiffs to respond to written discovery.  The Plaintiffs
have filed an opposition response to the motion.  The Court held
oral argument on July 26, 2017, and took the matter under
advisement.

DairyAmerica requested documents relating to the Plaintiffs' draft
declarations and communications with DairyAmerica's former
employees: Doug White, Candice Bimemiller, and Lani Ellingsworth
and counsel for these individuals.  DairyAmerica also requested
documents relating to the Plaintiffs' communications with John
Bunting, who is now deceased.  The Plaintiffs have withheld the
documents on the basis that they are protected by the attorney
work product doctrine.

The Plaintiffs argue that the draft affidavits and related
correspondence between these former employee witnesses and their
counsel are squarely protected as attorney work product, and that
there is no applicable exception warranting the production of
these materials.  They state in their opposition motion that
DairyAmerica has already deposed one of the three key witnesses
and will have the opportunity to depose the other two witnesses
pending this motion to amend the complaint, and therefore will
have the opportunity to obtain the substantial equivalent of the
information it seeks by other means.

At oral argument, the Plaintiffs further assert there to be only
four types of communication at issue: (i) communications with and
between witness Ms. Lani Ellingsworth; (ii) communications with
and between witness Ms. Candice Bimemiller; both and all of which
were exclusively communicated in anticipation for litigation and
for securing their declarations for trial; (iii) four email
communications with Ms. Ellingsworth's lawyer, one of which was a
"follow-up question about the testimony of the witness"; and (iv)
five email communications with Ms. Bimemiller's lawyer, both and
all of which is claimed as attorney "impressions, analyses, and
thoughts on the case," and constitute classic opinion work
product.

Magistrate Judge Grosjean agrees with the Plaintiffs and holds
that all documents between the Plaintiffs' counsel and witnesses
Ms. Bimemiller and Ms. Elligsworth obtained in anticipation of
litigation are protected under work product immunity because they
were made in furtherance of anticipation of litigation.

She further agrees with the Plaintiffs' claim that communications
between them and the witnesses' counsels, Mr. Dalmat and Mr.
Goldberg, are opinion work product and entitled to additional
protections as opinion work product because they contain mental
impressions, strategies, conclusions, or legal impressions.  The
Plaintiffs state in their motion that a vast majority of the
communications with lawyers have been produced for the Defendants
and that they withheld only those which contained the counsel's
mental impressions and strategies.  DairyAmerica must now make a
showing of waiver or substantial need and undue hardship.

Magistrate Judge Grosjen finds that the Defendant's evidence does
not support a sufficient showing of substantial need for the
communications requested.  DairyAmerica appears to want
communications for preparation only of their case and has shown no
reason why they could not obtain everything they sought by doing
their own work rather than utilizing that of their] adversary.
DairyAmerica have already deposed Mr. White and are free to depose
Ms. Bimemiller and Ms. Elligsworth to obtain the information they
seek.  The Petitioner has made more than an ordinary request for
relevant, non-privileged facts in the possession of his
adversaries or their counsel.  He has sought discovery as of right
of oral and written statements of witnesses whose identity is well
known and whose availability to petitioner appears unimpaired.

The Magistrate Judge assumes that DairyAmerica intended to
correctly cite to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(C) instead of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) in making its independent claim that it has
the right to its own previous statements in the possession of
opposing party.

This section allows any party on request and without the required
showing, to obtain the person's own previous statement about the
action or its subject matter.  The statements in question of the
former employees are not the statements of DairyAmerica,
therefore, DairyAmerica has no right to them under this provision,
she concludes.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge denied the Defendant DairyAmerica's
Motion to Compel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/7aPKBT from Leagle.com.

Gerald Carlin, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler --
cpoppler@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman Tabacco.

Gerald Carlin, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony David Phillips,
Berman DeValerio, Benjamin Doyle Brown -- --
bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson  Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C. Laufenberg --
claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac
vice, Christopher Heffelfinger --
cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman Tabacco, George F.
Farah, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli
E. Farris -- jfarris@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP,
Justin N. Saif -- jsaif@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio,
pro hac vice, Leslie M. Kroeger, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice & Ryan McDevitt -- rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
-- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

John Rahm, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler, Berman
Tabacco, Anthony David Phillips, Berman DeValerio, Benjamin Doyle
Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson, Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C. Laufenberg,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher Heffelfinger,
Berman Tabacco, George F. Farah, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N.
Saif, Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice, Leslie M. Kroeger, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Ryan McDevitt, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Paul Rozwadowski, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler,
Berman Tabacco, Anthony David Phillips, Berman DeValerio, Benjamin
Doyle Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson,
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C.
Laufenberg, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher
Heffelfinger, Berman Tabacco, George F. Farah, Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif, Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice,
Leslie M. Kroeger, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ryan McDevitt, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Diana Wolfe, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler, Berman
Tabacco, Anthony David Phillips, Berman DeValerio, Benjamin Doyle
Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson, Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C. Laufenberg,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher Heffelfinger,
Berman Tabacco, George F. Farah, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N.
Saif, Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice & Ryan McDevitt, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

DairyAmerica, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M. English -
- chipenglish@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice,
E. John Steren -- ejsteren@ober.com -- Ober Kaler, pro hac vice,
Joseph Michael Marchini -- jmarchini@bakermanock.com -- Baker,
Manock & Jensen, Wendy M. Yoviene -- wyoviene@ober.com -- Ober
Kaler, pro hac vice, Allison Ann Davis -- allisondavis@dwt.com --
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Joy G. Kim -- joykim@dwt.com -- Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP & Sanjay Mohan Nangia -- sanjaynangia@dwt.com
-- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

California Dairies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lawrence
Michael Cirelli -- lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett,
Shannon Marie Nessier -- snessier@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson
Bridgett LLP & Megan Oliver Thompson --
moliverthompson@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett LLP.

Bimemiller Candice, Unknown, represented by Edward Zusman --
ezusman@mzclaw.com -- Markun Zusman Freniere & Compton LLP.

James Rehberg, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J. Barton
Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Jon A. Tostrud --
tostrud@tostrudlaw.xom -- Tostrud Law Group, P.C..

Ronald Hayek, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J. Barton
Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Jon A. Tostrud, Tostrud
Law Group, P.C..

Michael K. Schugg, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J. Barton
Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Juli E. Farris, Keller
Rohrback LLP.

Timothy L. Rawlings, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J.
Barton Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris,
Keller Rohrback LLP, Mark A. Griffin --
mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice &
Raymond J. Farrow -- rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
LLP, pro hac vice.

Land O' Lakes, Inc., Amicus, represented by Gregory M. Schweizer -
- gschweizer@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, pro hac vice,
Scott C. Solberg -- ssolberg@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP,
pro hac vice & Seth D. Hilton -- sethhilton@stoel.com -- Stoel
Rives LLP.

California Farmers Union, Amicus, represented by Daniel Bennett
Harris -- dbh2007@sbcglobal.net.

California Dairy Campaign, Amicus, represented by Daniel Bennett
Harris.

Lani Ellingsworth, Movant, represented by Darin M. Dalmat --
dmdalmat@jamhoff.com -- James & Hoffman, P.C. & Glenn Rothner,
Rothner, Segall & Greenstone.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Romero Sues over Robocalls
----------------------------------------------
MARLON ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:17-cv-01849 (S.D. Cal., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks to
recover damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, on July 12, 2017, the Plaintiff
specifically revoked any purported consent to be called by
Discover, which Plaintiff denies giving in the first place,
informed them again that he did not owe any money to discover, and
requested that they stop the harassing phone calls to him. The
Plaintiff followed up with calls made to Discover in which he
repeated the fact that he did not know an "Alexander," and that he
did not want to be contacted any further by Discover. Discover
acknowledged Plaintiff's complaints, and even verified that
Plaintiff could not be found in their system as an existing
customer. Despite receiving this information on numerous
occasions, Defendant continued to place daily calls to Plaintiff,
on his cellular telephone, using an "automated telephone dialing
system" and/or an "artificial or prerecorded voice."

The Defendant provides financial credit and card services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


DISCOVER PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Griffith Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Renita Griffith, On behalf of herself and other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Discover Products, Inc. &
Discover Financial Services, Case No. 2:17-cv-00743-JLG-EPD (S.D.
Ohio, August 23, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
their alleged joint failure to pay employees overtime wages.  The
Plaintiff seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Discover Products, Inc., is a domestic for-profit corporation with
its principal place of business located in Riverwoods, Illinois.
Discover is a subsidiary of DFS.  DFS is a foreign, for-profit
bank and financial holding corporation formed under the laws of
the state of Delaware with its corporate headquarters also located
in Riverwoods.

DFS provides direct banking and payment services through its
subsidiaries, including Discover, and owns and operates a variety
of networks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 704-0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


EBELL OF LOS ANGELES: Register Sues over Wage & Hour Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
TARYN REGISTER, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated and On Behalf of the General Public as Private Attorneys
General; the Plaintiffs, v. THE EBELL OF LOS ANGELES, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No.
BC675450 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks to recover
remedies under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began working for
Defendant in September 2016. The Plaintiff's position is that of
Special Events Coordinator, and a non-exempt employee, getting
paid approximately $15.00 an hour. During the course of her
employment, Plaintiff regularly would work after clocking out for
the day. Specifically, Plaintiff was required to answer work-
related texts and emails after she clocked-out for the day, or
during her days off, however Plaintiff was never compensated for
this time. On other occasion, Plaintiff was asked by Defendant to
continue working after clocking out for the day, which would
require Plaintiff to work overtime hours that was never paid to
her. Also, Plaintiff was forced to either skip or eat through her
lunch, but was instructed to write down that she "took lunch" even
if that were not actually the case.

As a result of Defendants' violation of California Labor Code
section 226(a), Plaintiff suffered injury and damage to his
statutorily protected rights. Specifically Plaintiff was injured
by Defendants' intentional violation of California Labor Code
section 226(a) because he was denied both his legal right to
receive, and his protected interest in receiving, accurate,
itemized wage statements under California Labor Code.

Ebell of Los Angeles is a women's club housed in a complex in the
Mid-Wilshire section of Los Angeles, California. It includes a
clubhouse building and the renowned 1,270-seat Wilshire Ebell
Theatre.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Ronald L. Zambrano, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
          555 East Ocean Blvd,, Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432 8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435 1656
          E-mail: ronald@carlinbuchsbaum.com


ENVOY AIR: Court Certifies Sick Leave Class in "Schroeder" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald granted in part and denied in
part the motion for class certification filed by Karla Schroeder
and Osvaldo Guerro, the Putative Lead Plaintiffs in the lawsuit
entitled K. Schroeder v. Envoy Air, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-04911-
MWF-KS (C.D. Cal.).

The Motion is granted as to these Class and Subclasses:

   1. The Sick Leave Class: All California non-exempt Passenger
      Service Agents who received one or more wage statements
      from Enjoy from July 18, 2013, to the present;

   2. The Overtime Subclass: All California Passenger Service
      Agents who were not paid overtime at rates computed with
      reference to the correct "regular rate" (i.e. whose
      nondiscretionary bonuses were not included in the overtime
      rate calculation);

   3. The Wage Statement Subclass: All California Passenger
      Service Agents who received one or more wage statements
      from Envoy starting one year prior to the filing of the
      Second Amended Complaint (i.e. July 18, 2015), to the
      present; and

   4. The Former Employee Subclass: All California Passenger
      Service Agents who are members of the Overtime Subclass and
      whose employment with Envoy terminated on or before May 15,
      2015.

The Motion is denied as to the remaining proposed Subclasses.

According to the Court's Civil Minutes, the Motion is granted in
part and denied in part, as follows:

   -- The Motion is GRANTED as to the Sick Leave Class.
      Plaintiffs have identified a policy that, if it operates as
      Plaintiffs contend, could determine Envoy's liability on a
      classwide basis;

   -- The Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to the
      Overtime Subclass.  Whether or not the bonuses Envoy awards
      its employees are required to be included in their regular
      rate for purposes of calculating overtime is susceptible to
      class treatment.  Whether the Overtime Subclass was
      improperly denied wages for attendance at and travel to
      various trainings and meetings is not;

   -- The Motion is DENIED as to the Meal and Rest Break Subclass
      because Plaintiffs fail to present clear evidence of any
      specific policy governing employees' ability to take
      off-duty meal and rest breaks, and thus individualized
      testimony about each class member's experience taking meal
      and rest breaks is likely to overwhelm the common issues;

   -- The Motion is GRANTED as to the Wage Statement Subclass.
      There are no individualized issues that would prevent
      assignment of liability for noncompliant wage statements on
      a systematized, paystub-by-paystub basis;

   -- The Motion is DENIED as to the Living Wage Ordinance
      Subclass.  Determining Envoy's remaining liability as to
      any given member of the proposed Subclass would require an
      individualized analysis as to how much the employee had
      already been paid, their health care benefits, and so
      forth; and

   -- The Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to the
      Former Employee Subclass, which as proposed is derivative
      of the Overtime, Meal and Rest Break, and Living Wage
      Ordinance Subclasses.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xdkoIK96


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Pantaze" Suit over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
NIKOLAOS C. PANTAZE, an individual, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01530-UJB-MHH (N.D. Ala., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks
to recover damages and equitable relief on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers.

This lawsuit stems from the data breach of Equifax.  Between May
2017 and August 2017, sensitive financial and personal data of up
to 143 million consumers was compromised as a result of Equifax's
failure to adequately secure the consumers' personal and private
consumer data and information, including payment information on
its systems.  Equifax's security protocols were so deficient that
the breach was not immediately stemmed.  The consumers -- affected
class members -- have suffered substantial losses as a result of
Equifax's failure to adequately protect its sensitive payment
data.  This includes, but is not limited to, sums associated with
notifying customers of the data breach, reissuing debit and credit
cards, reimbursing customers for fraudulent transactions,
monitoring customer accounts to prevent fraudulent charges,
addressing customer confusion and complaints, changing or
canceling accounts, and the decrease or suspension of their
customers' use of affected cards.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason L. Yearout, Esq.
          YEAROUT & TRAYLOR, PC
          www.yearout.net
          3300 Cahaba Road, Suite 300
          Birmingham, AL 35223
          Telephone: 205.414 8169
          Facsimile: 205.795.7169
          E-mail: jyearout@yearout.net

               - and -

          M. Stan Herring, Esq.
          WATTS & HERRING, LLC
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 879 2447
          E-mail: john@wattsherring.com
                  stan@wattsherring.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Dooley, Esq.
          STONE, PATTON, KIERCE & FREEMAN
          118 North 18th Street
          Bessemer, AL 35020
          Telephone: (205) 424 1150
          E-mail: robert@stonepatton.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Vonwiller" Suit over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTA VONWILLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01839-CAB-NLS (S.D. Cal., Sep. 11,
2017), seeks an award of actual and statutory damages against
Defendant pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, California
Customer Records Act, and California Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant failed to properly
safeguard the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members,
as required under 15 U.S.C. section 1681e(a). The Defendant also
failed to properly safeguard the information of Plaintiff and
Class members, as required by the California Customer Records Act.
Additionally, Defendant's failure to properly safeguard the
personal information of Plaintiff and the Class members is an
unfair and unlawful business act and practice.

On July 29, 2017, Equifax discovered that one or more of its
servers, which contained Plaintiff's sensitive personal
information including Plaintiff's name, full Social Security
number, birth date, address, and, upon belief, her driver's
license numbers and possibly one or more of her credit cards, had
been breached or "hacked" by a still unknown third party. When
Equifax discovered this breach, Equifax immediately began an
internal investigation and contracted with an unidentified third-
party cybersecurity firm to conduct a comprehensive forensic
review to determine the scope of the hack including identifying
the specific data impacted. As of the filing of this Complaint,
that investigation remains ongoing and has not yet been completed
despite over six weeks elapsing since the initial breach.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692 3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362 9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Pavitt et al. Sue over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------
JODIE PAVITT, JENNIFER MERTLICH, and SIMON KAUFMAN, individually
and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs,
v. EQUIFAX, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01363-MJP (W.D.
Wash., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, and damages under Washington and federal laws.

The Plaintiffs file this Complaint as a national class action
lawsuit on behalf of approximately 140 million consumers --
including green card holders and business customers -- across the
United States, who have been and continued to be harmed as a
result of Defendant Equifax's 2017 data breach because of
Equifax's failure to utilize proper safeguards in the storage and
collection of sensitive Personally Identifying Information. To
worsen matters, Equifax immediately exploited the harm it brought
to its roughly 143 million customers, with its hastily erected
incident response site, EquifaxSecurity2017.com.

According to the lawsuit, by way of EquifaxSecurity2017.com,
Defendant offered the deceptive promise of one year of "free"
credit monitoring in exchange for waiving their right to pursue
legal action in a court of law. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief
that will prohibit Defendant from (a) pursuing a class action ban
that would violate federal and state laws and (b) persisting in
its unfair, deceptive and abusive trade practices that lull
consumers into a false state of complacency after accepting
Defendant's offer of "free" credit file monitoring. This Complaint
also seeks fair compensation for all class members who have been
or will be injured by the deceptive, unfair, and otherwise
wrongful business practices and conduct of Defendant and its
agent(s) that violate Washington and federal laws. This
Complaint's allegations are based on (1) information provided by
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), and other governmental agencies along with (2)
personal knowledge as to Defendant's conduct relative to its
negligent data security practices before and after the September
7, 2017 announcement and (3) personal knowledge as to Defendant's
conduct with regard to stocks sold over the New York Stock
Exchange.

Defendant is in the business of collecting and selling consumer
credit data to other businesses, including, but not limited to,
banks, utilities, insurance firms, and government agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Catherine J. Fleming, Esq.
          Brad J. Moore, Esq.
          Ray W. Kahler, Esq.
          STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN
          KOEHLER MOORE KAHLER
          3600 15th Avenue West, #300
          Seattle, WA 98119
          Telephone: (206) 448 1777
          Facsimile: (206) 728 2131
          E-mail: Catherine@stritmatter.com
                  Brad@stritmatter.com
                  Ray@stritmatter.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Dixon" Suit over Data Security Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER TANKS and BRITTANY DIXON, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EQUIFAX, INC., a
Georgia corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01832-BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks
to recover damages, including actual and statutory damages,
equitable relief, reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses, other
compensatory damages, a lifetime of credit monitoring services
with accompanying identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief
including an order requiring Equifax to implement improved data
security measures.

Equifax's failure to adequately protect consumers' most sensitive
information has far reaching implications, the complaint says. The
stolen Personal Identifying Information (PII) includes detailed
personal data, including names, social security numbers, birth
dates, addresses, driver's license numbers, credit card numbers,
bank account numbers, and more.

According to its September 7, 2017 press release, Equifax
acknowledged it experienced "a cybersecurity incident potentially
impacting approximately 143 million U.S. consumers. Criminals
exploited a U.S. website application vulnerability to gain access
to certain files.  Based on the company's investigation, the
unauthorized access occurred from mid-May through July 2017."

The lawsuit notes that Equifax claims it discovered the breach on
July 29, 2017, yet it did nothing to notify affected consumers
until September 8, leaving Plaintiffs and half of America
vulnerable to identity thieves. As of the date of the filing of
this complaint, Equifax still has not bothered to notify
Plaintiffs or Class Members of the Data Breach. Meanwhile,
Equifax's top executives have been busy protecting themselves
rather than focusing on Plaintiffs' vulnerabilities, selling off
millions of dollars of their stock before notifying the public.
Other stock trading activity suggests other insiders secretly
traded Equifax stock, capitalizing on their knowledge there would
be a dramatic decline of the stock following the announcement. The
Data Breach was a direct result of Equifax's failure to implement
adequate security measures to safeguard consumers' PII. Equifax
willfully ignored known weaknesses in its data security, including
prior hacks into its information systems. Unauthorized parties
routinely attempt to gain access to and steal personal information
from networks and information systems, like Equifax. Inasmuch as
Equifax is known to possess a massive amount of our nation's PII,
Equifax had a duty to implement effective procedures to avoid a
breach of this magnitude. Equifax utterly failed in its duty,
causing potential harm of gargantuan proportions -- potentially
impacting consumers for life.

According to the complaint, Equifax's failure to adequately
protect the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members will allow
identity thieves to commit a variety of crimes that harm victims
of the Data Breach. For instance, the thieves can take out loans,
mortgage property, open bank accounts and credit cards in a
victim's name; use a victim's information to obtain government
benefits or file fraudulent returns to obtain a tax refund, obtain
a driver's license or identification card in a victim's name, gain
employment in a victim's name, obtain medical services in a
victim's name, and/or give false information to police during an
arrest. Hackers also routinely sell individuals' PII to other
nefarious individuals who intend to misuse the information.

As a direct result of Equifax's willful failure to prevent the
Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been exposed to a
significant likelihood of fraud, identity theft, and financial
harm, and to a substantial, heightened, and imminent risk of such
harm in the near and indefinite future.

Defendant is in the business of collecting and selling consumer
credit data to other businesses, including, but not limited to,
banks, utilities, insurance firms, and government agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
          David Peck, Esq.
          Lauren Stewart, Esq.
          COAST LAW GROUP, LLP
          1140 S. Coast Hwy 101
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (760) 942 8505
          Facsimile: (760) 942 8515
          E-mail: helen@coastlaw.com

               - and -

          Tammy Gruder Hussin, Esq.
          HUSSIN LAW
          1596 N. Coast Highway 101
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (877) 677 5397
          Facsimile: (877) 667 1547
          E-mail: tammy@hussinlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Christensen" Suit over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Tom Partridge, Zane L. Christensen, Jennifer J. Christensen,
Zachary A. Christensen, Cameron Christensen, et al and unknown
Plaintiffs 1-143,000,000, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax,
Incorporated, Equifax Information Services, LLC and Does 1-1,000,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01017-DBP (D. Utah, Sep. 11,
2017), seeks to recover damages, including actual and statutory
damages, equitable relief, reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses,
other compensatory damages, credit monitoring services with
accompanying identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief
including an order requiring Equifax to implement improved data
security measures.

On September 7, 2017, Plaintiffs were advised that Equifax were
the subject of a data breach, in which unauthorized individuals
accessed Equifax's website.  The Plaintiffs believe the
unauthorized individuals who accessed the website have already
used information gained in the breach, including names, addresses,
Social Security numbers, alternative identification numbers,
driver's license information, wage information, employment
information, and other personal information, to sell and
compromise Plaintiffs' information.

According to the lawsuit, Equifax was aware of the Data Breach in
July 2017, but refused to comment on the Data Breach, or provide
any notification directly to affected individuals at that time,
and it was not until September 7 that the information became
public. The Data Breach occurred because Equifax failed to
implement adequate security measures to safeguarded consumers'
Personal Identifying Information (PII) and willfully ignored known
weaknesses in its data security, including prior hacks into its
information systems. Unauthorized parties routinely attempt to
gain access to and steal personal information from networks and
information systems-especially from entities such as Equifax,
which are known to possess a large number of individuals' valuable
personal and financial information. Armed with this personal
information, identity thieves can commit a variety of crimes that
harm victims of the Data Breach. For instance, they can take out
loans, mortgage property, open financial accounts, purchase cars,
and open credit cards in a victim's name; use a victim's
information to obtain government benefits or file fraudulent
returns to obtain a tax refund; obtain a driver's license or
identification card in a victim's name; gain employment in a
victim's name; obtain medical services in a victim's name; or give
false information to police during an arrest. Hackers also
routinely sell individuals' PII to other individuals who intend to
misuse the information. As a result of Equifax's willful failure
to prevent the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been
exposed to fraud, identity theft, and financial harm and to a
substantial, heightened, and imminent risk of such harm in the
future. It cannot be questioned that the PII of Plaintiffs and
Class Members was taken for the purpose of stealing the identity
of Plaintiffs and Class Members which has already resulted in and
will continue to result in damage to them. Plaintiffs and Class
Members have to monitor their financial accounts and credit
histories more closely and frequently to guard against identity
theft. Plaintiffs and Class Members also have incurred, and will
continue to incur, additional out-of-pocket costs for obtaining
credit reports, credit freezes, credit monitoring services, and
other protective measures in order to detect, protect, and repair
the Data Breach's impact on their PII for the remainder of their
lives. Going forward, Plaintiffs and Class Members anticipate
spending considerable time and money for the rest of their lives
in order to detect and respond to the impact of the Data Breach.

Defendant is in the business of collecting and selling consumer
credit data to other businesses, including, but not limited to,
banks, utilities, insurance firms, and government agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven A. Christensen, Esq.
          CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          9980 South 300 West No. 200
          Sandy, UT 84070
          Telephone: (801) 676 6447
          Facsimile: (888) 569 2786
          E-mail: steven@christensenyounglaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Waszkelewicz" Suit in N.D. of Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc.  The
case is styled as John Eastman and Paul Waszkelewicz, individually
and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v.
Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03512-TWT (N.D. Ga.,
September 13, 2017).

Equifax Inc. is a global provider of information solutions and
human resources business process outsourcing services for
businesses, governments and consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Joel B. Strauss, Esq.
   Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox
   850 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (212) 687-1980

      - and -

   Laurence D. King, Esq.
   Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
   14th Floor
   850 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (212) 687-1980
   Email: lking@kaplanfox.com

      - and -

   Matthew B. George, Esq.
   Girard Gibbs, LLP
   601 California Street
   14th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94108
   Tel: (415) 981-4800
   Fax: (415) 981-4846
   Email: mgeorge@kaplanfox.com

      - and -

   Ranse M. Partin, Esq.
   Conley Griggs Partin, LLP- GA
   4200 Northside Parkway, NW
   Atlanta, GA 30327
   Building One, Suite 300
   Tel: (404) 467-1155
   Fax: (404) 467-1166
   Email: ranse@conleygriggs.com

      - and -

   Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
   Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
   14th Floor
   850 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (212) 687-1980
   Fax: (212) 687-7714
   Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "O'Neill" Suit in N.D. of Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is styled as Kevin O'Neill, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax, Inc. and Does 1-
10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03523-ELR (N.D. Ga.,
September 13, 2017).

Equifax Inc. is a global provider of information solutions and
human resources business process outsourcing services for
businesses, governments and consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Aaron M. Olsen Esq.
   Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP -CA
   625 Broadway, Suite 1000
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 342-8000
   Fax: (619) 342-7878

      - and -

   Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
   Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP -CA
   625 Broadway, Suite 1000
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 342-8000
   Fax: (619) 342-7878

      - and -

   David Andrew Bain, Esq.
   Law Offices of David A. Bain, LLC
   1050 Promenade II
   1230 Peachtree Street, NE
   Atlanta, GA 30309
   Tel: (404) 724-9990
   Fax: (404) 724-9986
   Email: dbain@bain-law.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Englert" Suit in N.D. of Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is styled as Gina Englert, Steven Wininger and Brian Curtis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03509-ODE
(N.D. Ga., September 13, 2017).

Equifax Inc. is a global provider of information solutions and
human resources business process outsourcing services for
businesses, governments and consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   David James Worley, Esq.
   Evangelista Worley, LLC
   8100 A Roswell Road, Suite 100
   Atlanta, GA 30350
   Tel: (404) 205-8400
   Fax: (404) 205-8395
   Email: david@ewlawllc.com

      - and -

   James M. Evangelista, Esq.
   Evangelista Worley, LLC
   8100 A Roswell Road, Suite 100
   Atlanta, GA 30350
   Tel: (404) 205-8400
   Fax: (404) 205-8395
   Email: jim@ewlawllc.com

      - and -

   Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq.
   Evangelista Worley, LLC
   8100 A Roswell Road, Suite 100
   Atlanta, GA 30350
   Tel: (404) 205-8400
   Fax: (404) 205-8395
   Email: kristi@ewlawllc.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Pleasant" Suit in N.D. of Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is styled as Thomas W. Pleasant, M. Justin Holoman, Mallory
E. Haddon, Robert Kinsman, Courtenay Byrd, Gail Byrd and Evans
Byrd, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03507-LMM
(N.D. Ga., September 13, 2017).

Equifax Inc. is a global provider of information solutions and
human resources business process outsourcing services for
businesses, governments and consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   George Edwin Butler, II, Esq.
   Office of George E. Butler, II
   132 Hawkins Street
   Dahlonega, GA 30533
   Tel: (404) 873-2544
   Email: geb@lawyers.com

     - and -

   Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
   Law Office of Rhine Law Firm, P.C.
   1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300
   Wilmington, NC 28403
   Tel: (910) 772-9960
   Fax: (910) 772-9062


EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Berlanga"
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant Shell's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned DAVID BERLANGA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00282-
MMC (N.D. Cal.).

Before the Court is defendants Shell Pipeline Company LP, Equilon
Enterprises LLC, CRI U.S. LP and CRI Catalyst Company LP's (Shell)
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiffs are six individuals who work as operators at Shell's
refining and distribution facilities, shipping and storage
terminal facilities, and catalyst production plants in California.
Plaintiffs allege Berlanga works at the Carson Terminal, Ehresman
works at the Criterion Catalyst Plant, and Gaeth, Gonzalez,
Langlitz and Palacio work at the Martinez Refinery. Plaintiffs
allege they are scheduled for and work 12-hour shifts, during
which Shell uniformly requires them to remain on duty the entire
shift.

Plaintiffs' claims, all of which arise under state law, are based
on the allegation that Shell has a policy or practice of failing
to authorize and permit plaintiffs to take the rest periods to
which they are entitled under California law.  Shell argues that,
under the doctrine of complete preemption, plaintiffs' state law
claims must be treated as federal claims.

"Where the pre-emptive force of a federal statute is so strong
that it completely pre-empts an area of state law, a claim
purportedly based on a pre-empted state law is considered, from
its inception, a federal claim," the Court stated.  The Labor
Management Relations Act (LMRA) includes 29 U.S.C. Section 185(a),
a federal statute that completely pre-empts state laws claims,
specifically, claims founded directly on rights created by
collective-bargaining agreements, and also claims substantially
dependent on analysis of a CBA.

Here, Shell argues, resolution of plaintiffs' claims is
substantially dependent on an analysis of the terms of the
applicable CBAs. Plaintiffs, in response, argue that their claims
are dependent solely on an analysis of state law, in particular,
the California Labor Code.

As plaintiffs note, Shell's argument appears to pertain to the
Second Claim for Relief, wherein plaintiffs allege Shell failed to
provide plaintiffs with an accurate itemized statement of gross
wages earned (a), which claim requires plaintiffs, in order to
obtain monetary relief, to show such alleged failure was knowing
and intentional as used in the Labor Code. Consequently,
resolution of plaintiffs' claim that they did not receive rest
periods is not substantially dependent on the meaning of the term
uninterrupted as used in the CBA.

In particular, even assuming the contractual term "uninterrupted"
has a meaning different from the statutory definition, such
difference would have no bearing on the question of Shell's state
of mind under the Labor Code, as California's rest period
provision is a state-mandated minimum labor standard that parties
to a CBA cannot waive.

Each CBA includes, in a section titled Rest Period, the following
three provisions on which Shell relies, inter alia:

   "Covered Employees will record that they were authorized and
permitted to take Rest Periods as provided by California law,
unless otherwise indicated, on their shift turnover report (or
other document as determined by the Company)."

Although Shell argues the above-referenced provisions must be
examined and interpreted to determine what type of notice and
reporting are required.  Shell fails to identify how any such
provision could have any bearing on plaintiffs' state law claims,
none of which challenges any of the above-required procedures or
otherwise is dependent on an analysis of those contractual
provisions.

Shell contends resolution of the rest break claim in this case
would require an analysis of the grievance process provided in the
[CBAs] and interpretation of the CBAs to determine whether those
procedures were exhausted. Shell fails, however, to show the
above-referenced provisions have any bearing on plaintiffs' state
law claims, none of which requires exhaustion of contractual
remedies as a prerequisite to filing suit or otherwise appears to
be in any manner dependent on an analysis of the grievance
procedure.

Arguments Specific to Individual Claims

Second Claim for Relief: Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage
Statements

The Court, having reviewed the cases cited by the parties, agrees
with those district courts that have found payments due employees
for missed rest periods are properly characterized as wages, and,
thus, that a claim under Section 226 can be based on an alleged
failure to include on a wage statement payments due for missed
rest periods. In particular, as those district courts have
observed has held, in the context of determining the applicable
statute of limitations for claims alleging meal and rest period
violations, section 226.7 payments are a form of wages
The Court finds the California Supreme Court, having characterized
payments for missed rest periods to be wages for one purpose under
the Labor Code, would not define those payments to be something
other than wages for other purposes under the Labor Code.

Accordingly, Shell has not shown the Second Claim for Relief is
subject to dismissal.

Third Claim for Relief: Private Attorneys General Act

In the Third Claim for Relief, plaintiffs seek to recover civil
penalties for which plaintiffs allege Shell is liable as a result
of failing to provide rest periods.

Here, in their initial complaint, plaintiffs alleged they were "in
the process of exhausting their administrative remedies and would
amend the complaint when plaintiffs' administrative remedies had
been exhausted. In the FAC, plaintiffs allege they have exhausted
their administrative remedies, specifically, that they provided
the requisite notice to the LWDA and Shell  that they paid the
filing fee to the LWDA, and that the LWDA did not provide notice
to plaintiffs that it intend[ed] to investigate the alleged
violations within 65 calendar days.

Consistent therewith, district courts that have considered the
issue have found a plaintiff may amend a PAGA claim to allege
subsequent compliance with the exhaustion requirements.
Accordingly, Shell has not shown the Third Claim for Relief is
subject to dismissal.

Fourth Claim for Relief: Unfair Business Practice and Unfair
Competition

Shell argues that the payments due employees for missed rest
periods cannot be recovered in a Section 17200 claim, and,
consequently, that the claim should be dismissed to the extent
plaintiffs seek restitution.

The Court agrees with the reasoning in Azpeitia, (Azpeitia, 2017
WL 3115168),  which, as have numerous district courts in which the
California Supreme Court determined unlawfully withheld wages are
property of the employee within the contemplation of  Section
17203,  and, consequently, an order that earned wages be paid is
therefore a restitutionary remedy authorized by section 17203.
Accordingly, Shell has not shown the Fourth Claim for Relief is
subject to dismissal.

Prayer for Attorney Fees

In support of its argument that plaintiff's claim for attorney's
fee should be dismissed, Shell again relies on Kirby, in which, as
discussed above, the California Supreme Court held that a party
prevailing under Section 226.7 is not entitled to an award of
attorney's fees under Section 218.5 holding claim brought under
Section 226.7 is action brought for non-provision of meal or rest
breaks, and not, as is required to seek fees under section 218.5,
an action brought for non-payment of wages.

As plaintiffs point out, however, they do not seek an award of
fees under Section 218.5, and Shell has not shown the statutes on
which plaintiffs do rely are inapplicable.

Accordingly, Shell has not shown plaintiffs' prayer for attorneys'
fees is subject to dismissal.

Shell Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's August 31, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yb7uf87yfrom Leagle.com.

David Berlanga, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelia Dai --
cdai@hadsellstormer.com  -- Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP.

David Berlanga, Plaintiff, represented by Jay Edward Smith --
jsmith@steptoe.com -- Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation, Randy
R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP & Joshua Finley Young --
jyoung@gslaw.org -- Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation.

Brandon Ehresman, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelia Dai, Hadsell
Stormer & Renick, LLP, Jay Edward Smith, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law
Corporation, Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP &
Joshua Finley Young, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation.

Charles Gaeth, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelia Dai, Hadsell
Stormer & Renick, LLP, Jay Edward Smith, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law
Corporation, Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP &
Joshua Finley Young, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation.

Michael Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelia Dai, Hadsell
Stormer & Renick, LLP, Jay Edward Smith, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law
Corporation, Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP &
Joshua Finley Young, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation.

John Langlitz, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelia Dai, Hadsell
Stormer & Renick, LLP, Jay Edward Smith, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law
Corporation, Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP &
Joshua Finley Young, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation.

Christopher Palacio, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelia Dai,
Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP, Jay Edward Smith, Gilbert &
Sackman, A Law Corporation, Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer &
Renick, LLP & Joshua Finley Young, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law
Corporation.

Equilon Enterprises LLC, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Kim
Kimura -- lkimura@lkclaw.com -- Lafayette & Kumagai LLP & Gary T.
Lafayette -- glafayette@lkclaw.com -- Lafayette & Kumagai LLP.
CRI U.S. LP, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Kim Kimura,
Lafayette & Kumagai LLP & Gary T. Lafayette, Lafayette & Kumagai
LLP.

Shell Pipeline Company LP, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Kim
Kimura, Lafayette & Kumagai LLP & Gary T. Lafayette, Lafayette &
Kumagai LLP.

CRI Catalyst Company LP, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Kim
Kimura, Lafayette & Kumagai LLP & Gary T. Lafayette, Lafayette &
Kumagai LLP.


EUROPEAN AMERICAN WASTE: Failed to Pay Wages, Guerrero Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR GUERRERO, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by EUROPEAN AMERICAN WASTE
SERVICES, INC. and/or other entities affiliated or controlled by
EUROPEAN AMERICAN WASTE SERVICES, INC., the Plaintiffs, v.
EUROPEAN AMERICAN WASTE SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
609318/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks to recover wages
and benefits which Plaintiffs and members of the putative class
were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive for work
they performed in connection with various public works contracts
for the performance of refuse removal and related work with
various municipalities and/or municipal subdivisions within the
State of New York, including but not limited to the Town of
Riverhead; and for unpaid overtime compensation for work performed
while not employed in connection with the Government.

This action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class
of individuals who furnished labor to Defendants.

According to the Complaint, the Defendants paid Plaintiffs less
than the prevailing rates of wages and supplements to which
Plaintiffs were entitled for all hours they worked upon the Public
Works Contracts.  While working for Defendants, Plaintiffs and the
members of the putative class did not receive all earned overtime
wages, at the rate of one and one half times the regular rate of
pay, for the time in which they worked after the first forty hours
in any given week, including time worked reporting to the company
yard at the beginning and end of each workday. The Defendants
constituted the "employers" of the Named Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated.

European-American Waste Disposal Corp. is located in Wantagh, New
York. This organization primarily operates in the garbage
collection and transport business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, N.Y. 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080


EVANSTON, IL: Two Due Process Classes Certified in "Wilson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 30, 2017, in the case
captioned Jermaine Wilson, et al. v. City of Evanston, Illinois,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08347 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable John Z. Lee.

The minute entry states that for the reasons stated in the
memorandum opinion and order, the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is granted.

The Plaintiffs may proceed with their claims on behalf of these
classes:

   (1) Class I, Substantive Due Process:

       All persons whose property, following an arrest on and
       after October 23, 2012, was held at EPD and destroyed or
       otherwise disposed of, before court proceedings in
       connection with which such property was seized or
       otherwise taken possession of reached a final, appealable
       judgment, or were terminated without reaching such a
       judgment; and

   (2) Class II, Procedural Due Process:

       All persons whose property, following an arrest on and
       after October 23, 2012, was held at EPD and destroyed or
       otherwise disposed of, while that person remained in the
       custody of a jail or penitentiary for over thirty days.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rHpzHk46


FOSSIL GROUP: Faces "Safransky" Suit in S.D. of California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fossil Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Timur Safransky, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fossil Group, Inc.,
Fossil Stores I, Inc., Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01865-MMA-NLS (S.D. Cal., September 13, 2017).

Fossil Group, Inc. is a global design, marketing and distribution
company that specializes in consumer lifestyle and fashion
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zev Benjamin Zysman, Esq.
   Law Offices of Zev B. Zysman, APC
   15760 Ventura Boulevard
   16th Floor
   Encino, CA 91436
   Tel: (818) 783-8836
   Fax: (818) 783-9985
   Email: zev@zysmanlawca.com


GATESTONE & CO: Ballaj Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled VALBONA BALLAJ, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated v. GATESTONE & CO.
INTERNATIONAL INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:16-cv-01311-
CLW (D.N.J.), on consent of the Defendant, asks the Court for an
order certifying the case to proceed as a class action and
granting preliminary approval of the parties' class settlement
agreement.

The class is defined as:

     All Consumers residing in the State of New Jersey to whom
     Gatestone & Co. International, Inc. mailed a written
     communication in a windowed envelope between March 7, 2015,
     and March 7, 2016, to collect a debt on behalf of Bank of
     America, N.A., where the bar code containing the reference
     number associated with the consumer's debt was visible from
     the outside of the envelope.

Ms. Ballaj filed the class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, which alleges Gatestone violated
the FDCPA by mailing collection letters to consumers, which
contained a standardized barcode visible from the face of the
envelope in which it was mailed, and each barcode when scanned
reveals the Gatestone internal reference number associated with
each person's debt.  She alleged that Gatestone's foregoing
standardized letters violated the plain language of 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692f(8).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qIG3pr26

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com

               - and -

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


HOSPITAL SERVICE: "Leet" Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons holding that the District
Court  lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case captioned
VICTORIA LEET, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1 OF EAST BATON ROUGE
PARISH, d/b/a LANE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; ALEGIS REVENUE
SOLUTIONS, LLC; AND LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY,
d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA, Civil Action No.
15-811-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), and remands it to the 19th Judicial
District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge of the State of
Louisiana for further proceedings.

This matter comes before the Court on an issue raised sua sponte
relating to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff
Victoria Leet's ("Plaintiff") claims.

Plaintiff filed a class action petition for payment of a thing not
due, for damages, for declaratory relief, and for injunctive
relief in the 20th Judicial District Court for the Parish of West
Feliciana (20th JDC).  The original petition named Lane and Alegis
as defendants. The petition alleged, inter alia, that at some
point after receiving treatment at Lane for injuries Plaintiff
sustained during a motor vehicle accident, Lane "filed a claim
with BCBSLA, which claim was paid by BCBSLA in the amount of
$1477.74 with no deductible, no co-pay, and no co-insurance
required for said treatment.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, this court has original
jurisdiction "of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States. It is axiomatic that the
federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction and cannot
entertain cases unless authorized by the Constitution and
legislation. Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir. 1996) ted).
The removing party bears the burden of showing that federal
jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper. De Aguilar v.
Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1995). A defendant may
remove "any civil action brought in a State court of which the
district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a). Subject matter jurisdiction must exist
at the time of removal to federal court, based on the facts and
allegations contained in the complaint.

Federal Question Jurisdiction Under ERISA

According to the well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit arises under
the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the
plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is
based upon those laws or that Constitution. It is not enough that
the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of
action, and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some
provision of the Constitution of the United States. Louisville &
Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). The
plaintiff must directly establish the grounds for federal
jurisdiction by expressing the complaint's basis in federal law.

In short, if a claim is subject to conflict pre-emption, the issue
remains a state issue, and the apparent issue of conflict pre-
emption may preclude the validity of the law but must be enforced
within the jurisdiction of the state courts. On the other hand,
complete pre-emption automatically renders the claim within the
purview of federal question jurisdiction.

The parties unanimously agree that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction, albeit for different reasons. The Court will briefly
summarize the parties' respective positions relative to this
Court's jurisdiction.

Plaintiff immediately notes that a number of similar cases have
been removed to federal courts across the state, and then remanded
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  She briefly outlines the
similar cases that were removed and subsequently remanded, and
then attempts to distinguish each of these cases from the instant
case.

Plaintiff avers that the legal analysis of the cited cases was
correct under the facts presented in those cases. The instant case
is distinguishable because unlike the cases cited above, there is
evidence that BCBSLA denied claims for the purpose of delaying
adjudication and payment, thus giving the provider time to collect
from the third party claim of plaintiffs.

Lane submits that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's claims because they are at least, in part, completely
preempted under ERISA, and therefore BCBSLA's removal of the case
to this Court was proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441. Citing
Supreme Court jurisprudence, Lane insists that ERISA's "expansive
preemption provisions" were intended to ensure that ERISA-
regulated plans would be exclusively a federal concern.

It insists that while Plaintiff's state law claims, such as her
claim for breach of a promesse de porte-forte pursuant to La. Civ.
Code art. 1977, attempt to provide remedies beyond those that
ERISA authorizes[, they do] not place those claims outside the
scope of ERISA's civil enforcement mechanism.

BCBSLA argues that because Plaintiff seeks benefits promised under
an ERISA-regulated plan, her claims are completely preempted and
this Court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction over this
case. BCBSLA asserts that while jurisdiction is usually assessed
on the basis of the complaint (i.e. the well-pleaded complaint
rule), when a statute completely preempts a state law cause of
action, the state claim may be removed, and such is the case here.

Plaintiff reiterates her position that Emigh and Williams were
properly decided because in those cases, there was no evidence
that an ERISA plan third party administrator improperly denied or
administered a claim. In contrast, in this case, there is evidence
that BCBSLA improperly denied the claim for treatment of Ms. Leet.
She once again insists that the Court has ERISA jurisdiction over
some of her claims, and that it should exercise supplemental
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a).

Accordingly, in light of these and following an independent review
of the record, the Court holds that ERISA does not pre-empt
Plaintiff's claims.  Consistent with the holding and rationale in
Emigh and Williams, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims and this case must be
remanded.

These claims rely solely on Louisiana law, not ERISA, and will not
require an interpretation of the plan. Rather the hospital's
billing practices are the relevant facts, and the insurers'
liability is alleged to arise by operation of Louisiana law, not
the ERISA plan. Because Plaintiff has failed to allege facts that
distinguish the instant case from Williams and Emigh, the Court is
persuaded that it must follow suit and remand the action, and that
Plaintiff must endure the same fate as those in the Eastern and
Western Districts and pursue the action in state court.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's August 31, 2017 Order
and Reasons is available at http://tinyurl.com/y6u4mjegfrom
Leagle.com.

Victoria Leet, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph D'Aquilla,
Andrew Joseph D'Aquilla. 11745 Ferdinand St., Saint Francisville,
LA, 70775

Victoria Leet, Plaintiff, represented by Claude Devall, Hoffoss
Devall, LLC, 517 West College Street, Lake Charles, La 70506,
Derrick G. Earles, Laborde Earles Law Firm, LLC, 203 Energy Pkwy,
Bldg B, Lafayette, LA 70508-3815, Donald Wayne McKnight, Hoffoss
Devall, LLC, John Lee Hoffoss, Jr., Hoffoss Devall, LLC, 517 West
College Street, Lake Charles, La 70506, Lawrence J. Centola, III,
, Martzell & Bickford & Scott R. Bickford, Martzell & Bickford,
338 Lafayette St., New Orleans, LA 70130-3244

Hospital Service District No. 1 of East Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana, Defendant, represented by David Robert Kelly, Breazeale
-- david.kelly@bswllp.com -- Sachse & Wilson, Chris D. Billings --
chris.billings@bswllp.com -- Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, Joseph
John Cefalu, III -- joseph.cefalu@bswllp.com -- Breazeale Sachse
Wilson, LLP & Thomas Richard Temple, Jr.- thomas.temple@bswllp.com
-- Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson.

Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company, Defendant,
represented by Charles A. O'Brien, III, Jonathan M. Herman, Herman
Law Firm & Allison Nunley Pham.


IPAWN RODNEY: Court Refuses to Dismiss Complaints in "Jones" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kristine G. Baker entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned VINCIENT JONES, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. IPAWN RODNEY PARHAM, LLC; IPAWN
BASELINE, LLC; IPAWN ARKANSAS, INC.; STEVEN LANDERS JR., Case No.
4:16-cv-00644-KGB (E.D. Ark.):

   * denying as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
     original complaint;

   * taking under advisement the motion for class certification
     filed by Mr. Jones, as that motion is not yet ripe;

   * denying as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
     amended complaint;

   * denying in part and granting in part the motion to stay
     responses to motion for class certification and to respond
     to written discovery requests until ruling on motion to
     dismiss or in the alternative an extension of time to
     respond filed by the Defendants;

   * granting Mr. Jones's motion for leave to file a second
     amended complaint; and

   * granting Mr. Jones's motion for initial scheduling order.

Mr. Jones is directed to file his amended complaint within seven
days from the entry of this Order.  The Defendants are directed to
respond to the pending motion for class certification within 15
days from the entry of this Order.

Mr. Jones filed a class action complaint in Pulaski County Circuit
Court.  The case was then removed to the District Court by the
Defendants based on federal question jurisdiction.  Since that
time, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the original
complaint for failure to state a claim.  Soon after, Mr. Jones
filed an amended class action complaint, rendering the original
motion to dismiss moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2kc93oHw


J RECKNER ASSOCIATES: Lyngaas Seeks TCPA Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled BRIAN LYNGAAS, D.D.S.,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. J. RECKNER ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a RECKNER
HEALTHCARE, Case No. 2:17-cv-12867-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich.), moves for
entry of an order certifying this class:

     Each or entity person sent one or more telephone facsimile
     messages from "Reckner Healthcare" that invited them to
     participate for payment or compensation in a survey or
     telephone interview but did not state on its first page that
     failure to comply with such a request to removed from future
     faxes within 30 days would be unlawful.

Mr. Lyngaas states that he files the Motion soon after the filing
of the Class Action Complaint in order to avoid an attempt by the
Defendant to moot his individual claims.  However, he notes, in
this case, additional discovery is necessary for the court to
determine whether to certify the class he seeks to represent.  As
a result, he will seek leave to pursue class discovery as soon as
practicable.

The case involves common fact questions about the Defendant's
alleged fax campaign and common legal questions under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iE31buh6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  robert@classlawyers.com

               - and -

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
          6550 Lakeshore St.
          West Bloomfield, MI 48323
          Telephone: (248) 562-1320
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com


KSJC ENTERPRISES: "Edmontson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmie Edmontson, Justin Alexander and Otis Smith, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KSJC
Enterprises, Inc., Sweet Water Tavern and Jeffrey Cain,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-12789 (E.D. Mich., August 24, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation owed under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendants operate a restaurant, Sweet Water Tavern, where
Plaintiffs worked as restaurant employees, regularly working in
excess of 40 hours per week, but denied overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maia E. Johnson, Esq.
      David A. Hardesty, Esq.
      2701 Troy Center Dr., Ste. 400
      Troy, MI 48084
      Tel: (248) 275-5200


LACY ONE: Court Certifies Class of Deliverymen in "Lamar" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kristine G. Baker granted the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification, for approval and distribution of
notice, and for disclosure of contact information in the lawsuit
titled SETH LAMAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LACY ONE, LLC and TAMMARA LACY, Individually
and as an owner of Lacy One, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00135-KGB (E.D.
Ark.).

The Court conditionally certifies the case as a collective action
and authorizes notice to all deliverymen (or similar positions,
which may also be referred to as "drivers" or "delivery workers")
who worked for Lacy One, LLC and/or Tammara Lacy at any time after
March 9, 2013.

In his complaint, Mr. Lamar contends that, from approximately July
through November, 2015, he delivered goods and equipment for Lacy
One, LLC, a private company that contracts with retailers to
deliver appliances to and from customer locations in Arkansas.  He
alleges that Lacy One paid him and other deliverymen a day-rate
without overtime premiums in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oqZ84vqB


LBC IRWINDALE: Haskell Seeks Regular Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY HASKELL, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. LBC
IRWINDALE, LLC, a California corporation; LB CRUSHING, LLC, a
California corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC672177 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 14, 2017), seeks to
recover regular wages and underpaid overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants failed to pay overtime
premiums; failed to provide rest and meal periods and/or pay
premium pay for missed meal and/or rest periods; failed to
properly maintain records; failed to provide accurate itemized
wage statements for each pay period; failed to properly compensate
Plaintiff and similarly related employees for necessary
expenditures; and requiring, permitting or suffering the employees
to work off the clock.

LBC Irwindale is in the recycling machinery and equipment
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Ernest Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT ERNEST WHEELER
          250 West First Street, Suite 216
          Claremont, CA 91711-4790
          Telephone: (909) 621 4988
          Facsimile: (909) 621 4622


LEE LAW OFFICES: Accused by "Matthies" Suit of Violating FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronda Matthies, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Lee Law Offices, P.C., Case No. 1:17-cv-00771 (W.D.
Mich., August 23, 2017), accuses the Defendant of violating the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in connection with the
collection of a consumer debt asserted to be owed or due a
creditor other than the Defendant.

Lee Law Offices, P.C., is an entity, who engaged, by use of the
mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to collect a
"debt" from the Plaintiff.  The Defendant regularly collects or
attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due, or
asserted to be owed or due, another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Panvini, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388-8875
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com


LEMONADE RESTAURANT: "Velasco" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REYES VELASCO, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LEMONADE
RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC672835 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Aug. 14, 2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation
and liquidated damages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is not compensated by
Defendant for his overtime worked at the applicable overtime rate.
Defendant also fails to provide the legally required off-duty meal
breaks to Plaintiff as required by the applicable Wage Order and
Labor Code. The Defendant does not have a policy or practice which
provides meal and rest breaks to Plaintiff and also fails to
compensate Plaintiff for his missed meal and rest breaks.

The Defendant owns and operates a chain of restaurants in
California. The company's cafeterias offer comfort foods, salads,
sandwiches, soups, meats, beverages, tuna dishes, desserts, and
other seasonal food products. The Defendant also provides catering
services. The Defendant was founded in 2008 and is based in Culver
City, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP
          Website: www.bamlawca.com
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232


LIFEWAY FOOD: Court Narrows Claims in "Block" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, dismissed counts
4 and 5 and otherwise denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
each of the counts in the case captioned ANDREW BLOCK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. LIFEWAY FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17 C 1717
(N.D. Ill.).

Andrew Block has filed a class action complaint against Lifeway
Foods, Inc., alleging that the company made fraudulent
misrepresentations while marketing its kefir products.  He alleges
that he and others were misled by Lifeway's misrepresentations
regarding its plain kefir and that they would have purchased other
"99% lactose-free" products had they known Lifeway's kefir
contained 4% lactose.

Block proposes certification of three classes:

     a. National Class: All persons within the United States who
purchased and consumed the Plain Kefir from the beginning of any
applicable limitations period through the date of class
certification.

     b. Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class: All persons in the
States of California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode
Island, Washington and Wisconsin who purchased and consumed the
Plain Kefir from the beginning of any applicable limitations
period through the date of class certification.

     c. Illinois Sub-Class: All persons in Illinois who purchased
and consumed the Plain Kefir from the beginning of any applicable
limitations period through the date of class certification.

Block brings seven claims against Lifeway.  In count 1, he alleges
on behalf of the proposed national class that Lifeway's false
statements regarding its plain kefir violate the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA").  In count 2,
which Block brings in the alternative to count 1, he alleges on
behalf of the proposed consumer fraud multi-state class that
Lifeway's false statements regarding its plain kefir violate the
various consumer fraud laws of the 13 states named in that class.
In count 3, which Block brings in the alternative to counts 1 and
2, he alleges on behalf of the Illinois sub-class that Lifeway's
false statements regarding its plain kefir violate the ICFA.  In
count 4, Block alleges on behalf of the national class and the
Illinois sub-class that Lifeway breached its express warranty to
consumers that its plain kefir is 99% lactose-free.  In count 5,
Block alleges on behalf of the national class and the Illinois
sub-class that Lifeway likewise breached its implied warranties
that its plain kefir was fit for its ordinary use and for its
particular purpose.  In count 6, Block alleges on behalf of the
national class and the Illinois sub-class that Lifeway's
misrepresentations constitute common-law fraud.  In count 7, Block
alleges on behalf of the national class and the Illinois sub-class
that Lifeway has been unjustly enriched as the result of its
fraudulent statements.

Block requests injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and pre- and post-
judgment interest.  Lifeway has moved to dismiss all seven counts
in Block's complaint.  At this stage, it challenges Block's
ability to pursue class-wide claims on behalf of both the national
class and the consumer fraud multi-state class.

Lifeway argues that Block cannot pursue an ICFA claim on behalf of
a national class of consumers because the members of this class
who are not residents of Illinois cannot bring a claim under the
ICFA.  Judge Kennelly finds that the allegations in the complaint
do not clearly demonstrate that the circumstances relating to
these purchases did not occur primarily and substantially in
Illinois.  Block is an Illinois resident who purchased his kefir
from a grocery store in Illinois.  He has therefore alleged that
the circumstances relating to his transaction occurred
substantially in Illinois.  Lifeway does not argue otherwise.
Therefore, the Judge denied Lifeway's motion to dismiss the
national class claim in count 1.

Lifeway next challenges Block's proposed consumer fraud multi-
state class.  It contends that Block, a resident of Illinois,
lacks standing to pursue claims of non-Illinois residents under
the consumer fraud laws of other states.  Judge Kennelly agrees
with the judges in this district who have likened Lifeway's
challenge to an attack on Block's "ability under Rule 23 to
represent the multi-state class" - a question best left for class
certification - rather than a question of standing.  Once the
parties have briefed the requirements of class certification, the
Judge will be in a better position to determine whether Block can
adequately represent those non-Illinois residents pursuing claims
under the laws of other states and whether the claims of all
potential plaintiffs are suitable for class-wide resolution.
Therefore, he denied Lifeway's motion to dismiss count 2.

As for Block's allegation that Lifeway's plain, low-fat kefir
contains 4% -- instead of less than 1% -- lactose may seem on its
face to constitute a similarly immaterial discrepancy.  But Block
alleges that he purchased Lifeway's kefir because it is nearly
lactose-free and he wanted the health benefits that come from not
consuming lactose.  Products with 4% lactose -- such as regular
milk -- are anything but lactose-free.  Thus, Judge concludes this
alleged difference in percentage of lactose is not marginal or
immaterial.  Further, Lifeway does not seek dismissal on this
basis.  He therefore denied Lifeway's motion to dismiss counts 1
and 3 on the ground that these claims merely restate a breach of
contract claim.

Lifeway also argues that Block has failed to allege actual damage
because he has not expressly alleged that Lifeway charges more for
its kefir because of the representation that it is 99% lactose-
free.  But Block alleges that consumers pay a high premium for
kefir products that they otherwise would not pay if they purchased
a gallon of regular milk with the same amount of lactose.  He also
alleges that Lifeway advertises that its kefir is 99% lactose-free
in order "to pump sales of its 'kefir' products."  Block has
therefore adequately alleged that Lifeway is able to charge the
same price for 32 ounces of kefir that consumers pay for 128
ounces of milk only because the company represents that its kefir
is 99% lactose-free.  Judge Kennelly therefore denied Lifeway's
motion to dismiss counts 1, 3, and 6 on this ground.

Block alleges that, when he purchased the Plain Kefir, he relied
upon Lifeway's aforementioned representations that the Plain Kefir
is 99% lactose free.  He also alleges that he and other potential
class members "would have purchased other 99% lactose free
products, if any at all, if they had not been deceived by
Lifeway's statements.  The Judge finds this sufficient to satisfy
the "minimal" required allegation of proximate cause.  He
therefore denied Lifeway's motion to dismiss counts 1, 3, and 6 on
this ground.

Because Block does not allege that he suffered a personal injury
from purchasing and consuming Lifeway's kefir, his failure to
notify Lifeway of his concern with his particular purchase defeats
his claims for breach of warranties.  The Judge granted Lifeway's
motion to dismiss counts 4 and 5.

Because, Judge Kennelly granted Lifeway's motion to dismiss count
5 based on lack of notice, it is unnecessary to consider Lifeway's
argument that Block's claim for breach of implied warranty also
fails due to lack of privity.

Lifeway also argues that, because Block's unjust enrichment claim
is premised on the same allegations of deception underlying his
fraud claims, Block's failure to state a claim for fraud also
defeats his claim for unjust enrichment.  But as discussed, Block
has sufficiently alleged his claims of fraud.  The Judge denied
Lifeway's motion to dismiss count 7.

The Judge declined to address Lifeway's request at this stage of
the proceedings.  Block's request for injunctive relief is not a
"claim" -- it is a request for relief that is one part of many
claims.  Block requests both an injunction and damages for six of
his seven claims and requests only restitution for his unjust
enrichment claim.  Thus a determination in Lifeway's favor would
not result in dismissal of Block's suit or even of any particular
claim.

For these reasons, Judge Kennelly granted Lifeway's motion to
dismiss counts 4 and 5 but otherwise denied the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/fPb8u7 from Leagle.com.

Andrew Block, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Johnson --
djohnson@wjylegal.com -- Waskowski Johnson Yohalem LLP.

Andrew Block, Plaintiff, represented by Gary Michael Klinger --
gklinger@kozonislaw.com -- Kozonis Law & Ryan F. Sullivan --
sullivan@kozonislaw.com -- Kozonis & Associates Ltd.

Lifeway Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas Arthur
Hass, Lifeway Foods, Inc., Francis A. Citera -- citeraf@gtlaw.com
-- Greenberg Traurig, LLP., Brian D. Straw -- strawb@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, Llp & Todd Edward Pentecost --
pentecostt@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP.


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Court Certifies Class of Investors
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beryl Alaine Howell of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class; and denied the Defendants' motion for partial summary
judgment in the case captioned LEONARD HOWARD, individually and on
behalf of all others situated, Plaintiff, v. LIQUIDITY SERVICES
INC., WILLIAM P. ANGRICK III, and JAMES M. RALLO, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 14-1183 (BAH)(D. D.C.).

In this putative shareholder class action, the Plaintiffs allege
that Liquidity Services, Inc. ("LSI") publicly touted its retail
division as a driver of the company's overall growth despite
internal knowledge that the retail division was troubled and
suffering from deteriorating margins due to heightened
competition.  They assert claims under section 10(b) and of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), and the Security
Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, as well
as section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging that the Defendants
disseminated "materially false and misleading information" and
omitted "other material information that artificially inflated
Liquidity's stock price."  When the truth emerged, LSI's stock
price plummeted, resulting in financial losses to investors who
purchased the stock at inflated prices.

The original Lead Plaintiff, Howard, an individual investor, filed
this putative class action against LSI and Messrs. Angrick and
Rallo on July 14, 2014.  Several other shareholders entered
appearances to move for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff.  On
Oct. 14, 2014, institutional investors Caisse de dÇpìt et
placement du QuÇbec ("Caisse") and Newport News Employees'
Retirement Fund ("NNERF") were appointed as the Co-Lead Plaintiffs
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA").  The Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
Dec. 15, 2014.

Thereafter, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), and the PSLRA.
The Court dismissed part of the Plaintiffs' Count I, which alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on misrepresentations regarding the acquisitions of Network
International and GoIndustry in the commercial capital assets
division.  Further, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Count II, which alleges that Messrs.
William Angrick and James Rallo are jointly and severally liable
for LSI's alleged 10(b) violation.  During a subsequent hearing
addressing a discovery dispute, the Court clarified that the
allegations of material misrepresentations about "organic growth"
through sustained margins concern only the retail division, based
on the evidence proffered by the Plaintiffs thus far.  Following
the discovery hearing, the Defendants moved for reconsideration of
the Court's previous opinion denying their motion to dismiss,
which was denied.

The Plaintiffs have now moved to certify a class consisting of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded common stock of LSI during the period of Feb. 1,
2012 through May 7, 2014, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.
Shortly after filing their opposition to class certification, the
Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of
reliance by the Co-Lead Plaintiffs.  Their opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of
class representatives and class counsel, and their motion for
summary judgment advance similar arguments.

Judge Howell notes that the Defendants do not dispute that the
Plaintiffs satisfy Rule 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity and
commonality, and the 23(b)(3) requirement of superiority of the
class action mechanism.  However, she finds that each of the
Defendants' arguments concerning the Co-Lead Plaintiffs'
typicality fails, and certification is not precluded under Rule
23(a)(3).

The Plaintiffs have shown that common issues predominate over
individual issues, and the Defendants' effort to undermine that
showing based on omcast Corp. v. Behrend fails.  The Defendants do
not contest that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
As the Plaintiffs argue, the class members' interest in asserting
individual claims is limited, there is no other pending litigation
that is substantially similar to this suit, a class action would
eliminate the risk of inconsistent adjudication, and there are no
foreseeable management difficulties.  Thus, Judge Howell concludes
that, like many similar securities fraud cases, this controversy
is well-suited for class treatment.

With respect to their motion for summary judgment on the element
of reliance, the Defendants contend that there are no genuine
issues of material fact as to whether the Basic presumption is
rebutted with respect to the Co-Lead Plaintiffs in light of the
practice of their three investment advisories.  Judge Howell
concludes that given the significant overlap with the arguments
addressed, these arguments can be disposed of in fairly short
order.  She finds that the Defendants have not established that
the Department of Defense contracts were the sole consideration
for Van Berkom and that the alleged fraud was irrelevant to Van
Berkom's investment decisions.  The Defendants have not
demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to
whether Van Berkom was not misled by LSI's alleged
misrepresentations.  They also have not established the absence of
a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Pier Capital was
misled by the alleged misrepresentations and, accordingly, are not
entitled to summary judgment on that basis.  As for their argument
that New South's private contact with LSI influenced its
investment decisions, the Judge held that given the lack of any
evidence that New South was granted access to insider information,
such meetings do not warrant summary judgment on the issue of
reliance.

For these reasons, Howell granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class of investors in LSI common stock, during the class
period of Feb. 1, 2012 through May 7, 2014, inclusive; and denied
the Defendants' partial motion for summary judgment on the issue
of reliance.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/qFy3wg from Leagle.com.

LEONARD HOWARD, Plaintiff, represented by Anita B. Kartalopoulos -
- abk@whafh.com -- WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ LLP,
pro hac vice.

LEONARD HOWARD, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth K. Tripodi --
etripodi@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP, Benjamin Y. Kaufman --
kaufman@whafh.com -- WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ LLP,
Daniel Tepper -- tepper@whafh.com -- WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER,
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey G. Smith --
smith@whafh.com -- WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ, pro
hac vice & Nicholas Ian Porritt -- nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi &
Korsinsky LLP.

CAISSE DE DEPOT ET PLACEMENT DU QUEBEC, Plaintiff, represented by
Andrew D. Abramowitz -- aabramowitz@srkw-law.com -- SPECTOR,
ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., pro hac vice, Andrew N. Dodemaide --
adodemaide@srkw-law.com -- SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., pro
hac vice, Carol C. Villegas -- cvillegas@labaton.com -- LABATON
SUCHAROW LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Gardner --
jgardner@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua
Kaplan -- kaplanjoshua@msn.com -- SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF,
P.C., pro hac vice, Mark S. Willis -- mwillis@srkw-law.com --
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, Samuel B.C. de Villiers, LABATON SUCHAROW
LLP, pro hac vice & Tom W. Watson -- twatson@labaton.com --
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, pro hac vice.

NEWPORT NEWS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT FUND, Plaintiff, represented by
Andrew D. Abramowitz, SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., pro hac
vice, Andrew N. Dodemaide, SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., pro
hac vice, Carol C. Villegas, LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan Gardner, LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua
Kaplan, SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., pro hac vice, Mark S.
Willis, LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, Samuel B.C. de Villiers, LABATON
SUCHAROW LLP, pro hac vice & Tom W. Watson, LABATON SUCHAROW LLP,
pro hac vice.

LIQUIDITY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by Peter Dean
Isakoff -- peter.isakoff@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP,
David P. Byeff -- david.byeff@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES,
LLP, pro hac vice, Irwin H. Warren -- irwin.warren@weil.com --
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES & Miranda S. Schiller --
miranda.schiller@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP, pro hac
vice.

WILLIAM P. ANGRICK, III, Defendant, represented by Peter Dean
Isakoff, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, David P. Byeff, WEIL, GOTSHAL
& MANGES, LLP, pro hac vice, Irwin H. Warren, WEIL, GOTSHAL &
MANGES & Miranda S. Schiller, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP, pro hac
vice.

JAMES M. RALLO, Defendant, represented by Peter Dean Isakoff,
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, David P. Byeff, WEIL, GOTSHAL &
MANGES, LLP, pro hac vice, Irwin H. Warren, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
& Miranda S. Schiller, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP, pro hac vice.

KATHRYN A. DOMINO, Defendant, represented by Peter Dean Isakoff,
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, David P. Byeff, WEIL, GOTSHAL &
MANGES, LLP, pro hac vice, Irwin H. Warren, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
& Miranda S. Schiller, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP, pro hac vice.

CHRIS DEVLIN, Movant, represented by Matthew Evan Miller --
mmiller@cuneolaw.com -- CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP.

JONATHAN P. RODE, Movant, represented by Mark Hanna --
mhanna@murphypllc.com -- MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC.

TWIN CITY PIPES TRADE PENSION TRUST, Movant, represented by Brian
O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
LLP.

LILIAN JAMROZINSKI, Movant, represented by Matthew Evan Miller,
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP.

HENRY JAMROZINSKI, Movant, represented by Matthew Evan Miller,
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP.


LONE STAR: "Anderson" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lone Star Tank Rental, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-00166 (W.D. Tex., August 24, 2017),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation with corresponding liquidated
damages, pre-judgment interest computed at the underpayment rate,
attorneys' fees and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor and Standards Act of 1938.

Lone Star provides liquid storage frac tanks for the oil and gas
industry where Plaintiff worked as an office worker. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
      Carley Amyx, Esq.
      HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
      777 Main St., Suite 600
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Tel: (817) 479-9229
      Fax: (817) 260-0801
      E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
               carley@herrmannlaw.com


LOVED ONES: Mayhew Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Mayhew moves for conditional certification of the matter
titled PAMELA MAYHEW on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. LOVED ONES IN HOME CARE, LLC and DONNA SKEEN, Case No.
2:17-cv-03844 (S.D.W. Va.), as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and for notice of the action and its
underlying claims to employees of the Defendants, who are
similarly situated to her.

In her complaint, Ms. Mayhew alleges that the Defendants had used
various tactics and subterfuges over the course of several years
to deprive her of enhanced overtime pay for hours over 40 worked
in a workweek but has now corrected those practices.  She moves
for conditional certification of the matter as a collective action
on behalf of all similarly situated, FLSA non-exempt employees of
the Defendants, who have been negatively impacted by the same or
similar pay practices to those that have deprived her of enhanced
hourly rates for hours worked in excess of 40 each week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Toor, Esq.
          10 Hale Street, 2nd Floor
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 380-2111
          E-mail: mark@marktoor.com


MCNEIL INDUSTRIAL: "Fontenot" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Fontenot, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. McNeil Industrial, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 4:17-cv-03113, (D. Neb., August 23, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Fontenot worked exclusively for McNeil as a welder from
approximately May 2016 until March 2017. McNeil allegedly
improperly classified him as an independent contractor and paid
the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those hours
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 352-1100
     Fax: (713) 352-3300
     Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
            litkin@mybackwages.com

            - and -

     Richard J. Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

            - and -

     Brian E. Jorde, Esq.
     Christian T. Williams, Esq.
     DOMINALAW GROUP PC LLO
     2425 South 144th Street
     Omaha, NE 68144
     Tel: (402) 493-4100
     Fax: (402) 493-9782
     Email: bjorde@dominalaw.com
            cwilliams@dominalaw.com


MDL 2284: Court Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Huls' Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the
Imprelis Arborist Panel's decision and denying Sean Huls' appeal
in the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES
TO: ALL ACTIONS, MDL No. 2284, No. 11-md-02284 (E.D. Pa.).

Huls appeals the decision of the Panel, claiming that DuPont
should have rated a red pine for removal and replacement after he
made a warranty claim.

In the fall of 2010, DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide
designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-
target vegetation.  After widespread reports of damage to non-
target vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
began investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of
Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling
Imprelis.

In September 2011, DuPont started its own Claim Resolution Process
to compensate victims of Imprelis damage.  Despite this voluntary
process, various plaintiffs continued to pursue their lawsuits,
alleging consumer fraud/protection act violations, breach of
express and/or implied warranty, negligence, strict products
liability, nuisance, and trespass claims based on the laws of
numerous states.

After months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the
parties came to a settlement agreement.  The Imprelis Class Action
Settlement covers three classes of Imprelis Plaintiffs.  Among the
three settlement classes is a property owner class.  That class
includes all persons or entities who own or owned property in the
United States to which Imprelis was applied from Aug. 31, 2010
through Aug. 21, 2011, as well as all persons who own or owned
property adjacent to property to which Imprelis was applied and
whose trees showed damage from Imprelis on or before the date of
entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, or Feb. 11, 2013.

Under the Settlement, property owner class members who filed
claims by the claims deadline would receive tree removal (or
compensation for tree removal), payments for replacement trees,
tree care and maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for
incidental damages.  The Settlement included a warranty that
provided for all benefits but the 15% incidental damages award for
Imprelis damage that manifested after the claims period closed but
before May 31, 2015.  On Feb. 12, 2013, the Court preliminarily
approved the Settlement, and on Sept. 27, 2013, the Court held a
Final Fairness Hearing.  On Oct. 17, 2013, it granted the Class
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement.

Mr. Huls settled his original Imprelis claim with DuPont in 2015.
In May, 2015, he submitted a warranty claim seeking removal and
replacement of a red pine tree and claiming that after the removal
of a nearby willow tree the red pine had worsened and posed a
hazard.  The tree had originally been rated as a 1.

A DuPont arborist inspected his property, concluded that the tree
suffered from Dothistroma needle blight infection, and again
designated the tree for care, raising the rating to 2.  Mr. Huls
then appealed to the Arborist Panel and submitted a report from
his own arborist, who opined that the red pine was stressed by
Imprelis exposure.  The Arborist Panel denied the appeal.  Huls
appeals the decision.

Mr. Huls argues that his tree has drastically declined, and that
because of its proximity to power lines, it poses a safety hazard
and should be removed at DuPont's expense.  After reviewing the
record, including the Panel's decision, photographs, and Arborist
Louise Levy's report, Judge Pratter does not find the Panel's
decision arbitrary or capricious.  Like DuPont's arborists, Ms.
Levy concluded that the main issue with the red pine is
Dothistroma needle blight.  Although she recommends removal of the
tree as the best course of action, nothing in her report or the
record demonstrates that the Panel's decision that the tree fails
to meet the requirements to be rated for removal or replacement
was in error.  Therefore, Judge Pratter affirmed the Arborist
Panel decision and denied the Mr. Huls' appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/5X8Olh from Leagle.com.


MDL 2284: Ct. Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Mattie's Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the
Imprelis Arborist Panel's decision and denying Jeffrey Mattie's
appeal in the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT
APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS, MDL No. 2284, No. 11-md-02284 (E.D. Pa.).

Mattie appeals the decision of the Arborist Panel, claiming that
DuPont wrongly denied his warranty claim for Imprelis damage to
seven trees.

In the fall of 2010, DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide
designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-
target vegetation.  After widespread reports of damage to non-
target vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
began investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of
Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling
Imprelis.

In September 2011, DuPont started its own Claim Resolution Process
to compensate victims of Imprelis damage.  Despite this voluntary
process, various plaintiffs continued to pursue their lawsuits,
alleging consumer fraud/protection act violations, breach of
express and/or implied warranty, negligence, strict products
liability, nuisance, and trespass claims based on the laws of
numerous states.

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

The Settlement included a warranty that provided for all benefits
but the 15% incidental damages award for Imprelis damage that
manifested after the claims period closed but before May 31, 2015.
On Feb. 12, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement,
and on Sept. 27, 2013, the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing.
On Oct. 17, 2013, it granted the Class Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of the Settlement.

After the resolution of his original Imprelis claim, Mr. Mattie
filed a warranty claim seeking compensation for seven trees that
he contends gradually worsened after the application of Imprelis.
A DuPont arborist inspected the property and concluded that some
of the trees were actually plants and therefore not species
covered by the Settlement and that the others did not exhibit
symptoms of Imprelis damage.  Mr. Mattie then objected to the
warranty claim denial, submitting additional photographs of tree
damage.  DuPont denied his objections, and Mr. Mattie appealed to
the Arborist Panel.  The Panel reviewed the photographs and
information submitted and denied the claim, noting that the trees
did not exhibit typical Imprelis symptomology.  Mattie appeals the
decision of the Arborist Panel.

Mr. Mattie argues that seven trees on his property have gradually
worsened due to Imprelis exposure and should now be rated for
removal and replacement.  Both DuPont's arborist and the Appeals
Panel concluded that Mr. Mattie's trees did not show symptoms of
Imprelis damage.  After reviewing the record, including the
Panel's decision and photographs, Judge Pratter does not find the
Panel's decision arbitrary or capricious.  While it is clear that
Mr. Mattie's seven trees are not healthy, it is not sufficiently
clear that Imprelis caused the damage to the trees, such that the
Panel's decision should be overturned.  Therefore, Judge Pratter
affirmed the Arborist Panel decision, and denied Mr. Mattie's
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/RIzb6B from Leagle.com.


MDL 2284: Court Affirms Denial of Kochmanski's Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the
Imprelis Arborist Panel's decision and denying Christopher
Kochmanski's appeal in the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS
HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS, MDL No. 2284,
No. 11-md-02284 (E.D. Pa.).

Mr. Kochmanski appeals the decision of the Imprelis Arborist
Panel, claiming that DuPont wrongly denied his warranty claim for
Imprelis damage to four trees.

In the fall of 2010, DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide
designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-
target vegetation.  After widespread reports of damage to non-
target vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
began investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of
Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling
Imprelis.

In September 2011, DuPont started its own Claim Resolution Process
to compensate victims of Imprelis damage.  Despite this voluntary
process, various plaintiffs continued to pursue their lawsuits,
alleging consumer fraud/protection act violations, breach of
express and/or implied warranty, negligence, strict products
liability, nuisance, and trespass claims based on the laws of
numerous states.

After months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the
parties came to a settlement agreement.  The Imprelis Class Action
Settlement covers three classes of Imprelis Plaintiffs.  Among the
three settlement classes is a property owner class.  That class
includes all persons or entities who own or owned property in the
United States to which Imprelis was applied from Aug. 31, 2010
through Aug. 21, 2011, as well as all persons who own or owned
property adjacent to property to which Imprelis was applied and
whose trees showed damage from Imprelis on or before the date of
entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, or Feb. 11, 2013.

Under the Settlement, property owner class members who filed
claims by the claims deadline would receive tree removal (or
compensation for tree removal), payments for replacement trees,
tree care and maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for
incidental damages.  The Settlement included a warranty that
provided for all benefits but the 15% incidental damages award for
Imprelis damage that manifested after the claims period closed but
before May 31, 2015.  On Feb. 12, 2013, the Court preliminarily
approved the Settlement, and on Sept. 27, 2013, the Court held a
Final Fairness Hearing.  On Oct. 17, 2013, it granted the Class
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement.

After the resolution of his original Imprelis claim, Mr.
Kochmanski filed three warranty claim seeking compensation for
additional Imprelis damage, and it is the third warranty claim
that is the subject of this appeal.  More specifically, he claimed
that six evergreen trees, four of which were previously rated for
tree care, had become so damaged by Imprelis that they should be
removed.

A DuPont arborist inspected the property and concluded that there
was no evidence of Imprelis damage for two trees and that the
other four had not worsened enough to justify a change in ratings.
Mr. Kochmanski appealed to the Arborist Panel, this time focusing
on four of the six trees.  The Panel reviewed the photographs and
information submitted and denied the claim, noting that Mr.
Kochmanski's photographs were unusable.  Mr. Kochmanski appeals
the decision of the Panel.

Mr. Kochmanski argues that despite the Panel's conclusion that his
photographs were unusable and not labeled properly, the labels for
the photographs, which were submitted digitally, were contained in
their file names.  He contends that the trees have continued to
decline, look "unacceptably bad," and should be removed.  Judge
Pratter finds that while there may have been a misunderstanding
with respect to Mr. Kochmanski's photographs and their labeling,
the Arborist Panel still had the benefit of photographs and
inspection reports from two site inspections in reaching their
conclusion that the trees in question showed little injury or
failed to show typical Imprelis symptomology.  After reviewing the
Mr. Kochmanski's submissions, he does not conclude that the
Arborist Panel's decision was arbitrary or capricious.  Therefore,
Judge Pratter affirmed the Arborist Panel decision and denied Mr.
Kochmanski's appeal.

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


MDL 3354: Court Dismisses State of Wyoming's Suit
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting the Defendant Volkswagen's
Motion to Dismiss Wyoming's complaint in the case captioned IN RE:
VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. No. 3354
Wyoming v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., No. 16-cv-6646 (N.D.
Cal.). MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC). (N.D. Cal.)

Volkswagen AG conspired to and did defraud the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) by surreptitiously installing software in
its clean diesel vehicles that masked true nitrogen oxide (NOx)
emission levels. In response, the U.S. Department of Justice (on
behalf of EPA) filed civil and criminal actions against Volkswagen
to enforce the Clean Air Act (CAA), and Volkswagen ultimately pled
guilty to three criminal felony counts and settled the civil
charges in three partial consent decrees.

The State of Wyoming brought claims against Volkswagen based on
the operation of the clean diesel vehicles within the State. At
least eight other States have filed similar actions in state
courts. The question before the Court is whether Wyoming's action
is permitted by the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act, as amended, vests EPA with significant
authority to set and enforce motor-vehicle emission standards.
Pursuant to that authority, EPA has set emission limits for, among
other pollutants, NOx and diesel particulate matter.  The Clean
Air Act also requires EPA to administer a certification program to
ensure that all vehicles introduced into United States commerce
satisfy these and other emission standards.

Volkswagen installed its defeat device in nearly 600,000 "clean
diesel" vehicles, model years 2009 through 2016. But the company
did not disclose the defeat device in its applications for new-
vehicle certification, or in meetings with EPA and CARB staff
during the certification process.  Only by installing the defeat
device in its vehicles was Volkswagen able to obtain EPA and CARB
certificates of conformity. In fact, these vehicles release NOx at
factors up to 40 times higher than EPA limits.

The public learned about Volkswagen's emissions scheme in the fall
of 2015, when EPA issued two Notices of Violation of the Clear Air
Act and announced that the company had admitted to deliberately
cheating on emissions tests.  Hundreds of lawsuits were
subsequently filed against Volkswagen and consolidated before this
Court as part of this multidistrict litigation. The Department of
Justice also filed a criminal indictment against Volkswagen AG
before the Honorable Sean F. Cox in the Eastern District of
Michigan.

Wyoming filed a complaint against Volkswagen AG; Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc.; Audi AG; Audi of America, LLC; Porsche AG; and
Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Volkswagen) in the United States
District Court for the District of Wyoming. The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation later transferred the case to this Court.
Of the nearly 600,000 "clean diesel" vehicles Volkswagen sold in
the United States, approximately 1,196 were registered in Wyoming.
Wyoming contends that each day one of those vehicles is operated
in the State (and each day a non-resident drives an affected
vehicle in the State), Volkswagen violates two provisions in
Wyoming's State Implementation Plan.

Currently before the Court is a motion by Volkswagen to dismiss
Wyoming's complaint, in which Volkswagen argues that Wyoming's
claims are expressly and impliedly preempted by the Clean Air Act.
Volkswagen also contends that the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over the German Defendants (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG,
and Porsche AG), because these entities have not purposefully
taken actions in or directed towards Wyoming.

Volkswagen has moved to dismiss Wyoming's complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The dispute between Wyoming and Volkswagen centers on whether
Wyoming's claims are prohibited attempts to enforce new-vehicle
emission standards, Section 209(a); or permitted attempts to
regulate the operation of registered vehicles within the State,
Section 209(d).

Wyoming's tampering and concealment claims place the burden of
compliance on Volkswagen as the manufacturer.  To ensure accurate
emissions' reporting and the full use of vehicle emission
controls, Volkswagen must uninstall the defeat-device software.
And even then, modifications to the vehicles are needed for them
to perform as represented Wyoming's regulations therefore amount
to impermissible State "standard[s] relating back to the original
design of the engine by the original engine manufacturer.

Further, Wyoming's claims (and those of other States) threaten to
interfere with interstate commerce, because they are predicated on
conduct that occurred during the manufacture of hundreds of
thousands of vehicles intended for distribution throughout the
United States. This, of course, does not mean that Volkswagen
cannot be held responsible for the consequences of its actions. As
is readily apparent from this MDL, Volkswagen has indeed been held
responsible. But because Volkswagen's conduct took place during
manufacturing, Congress determined that EPA, not the 50 States,
was best situated to regulate it.

Wyoming, by attempting to apply its SIP's tampering and
concealment rules to Volkswagen's use of a defeat device, seeks to
enforce a standard relating to the control of emissions from new
motor vehicles.

Because the Clean Air Act prohibits States from enforcing such
standards, Wyoming's claims cannot go forward and the Court
accordingly GRANTS Volkswagen's motion to dismiss Wyoming's
complaint. Finding that amendment of the complaint would be
futile, the Court dismisses the complaint with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's August 31, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8nhgud4from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.
Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric
Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

David Fiol, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet -
waudet@audetlaw.com  --  Audet & Partners, LLP, Jeff D. Friedman -
- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Peter B.
Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter
Fredman, Robert B. Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com
--  Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Nicholas Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice &
Charles S. Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.

Brett Alters, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Joan Cabraser,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann  & Bernstein, LLP, David S. Stellings,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 275 Battery St #3000
San Francisco, CA 94111  & Tana Lin -- tlin@kellerrohrback.com --
Keller Rohrback LLP.

Donald Ardine, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry --
awilliams-derry@kellerrohrbacki.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P.,
Dean Noburu Kawamoto -- dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback LLP, Derek William Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -
- Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio --
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice,
Lynn Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP.

Annie Argento, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Dean Noburu Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback LLP,
Derek William Loeser, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman
Cappio, Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn Lincoln Sarko,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback
LLP.

Arkansas State Highway Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Jai K. Chandrasekhar -- jai@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, James A.
Harrod -- jim.harrod@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger
Grossmann LLP, Matthew I. Henzi -- mhenzi@swappc.com -- Sullivan,
War, Niki L. Mendoza, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
Ross M. Shikowitz ross@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice & Susan Rebbeca Podolsky, The Law
Offices of Susan R. Podolsky, 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600,
Alexander, VA 22314.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amie
Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- cbaker@wcsr.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker --
chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Dana Woodrum Lan -- dlang@wcsr.com -, Womble Carlyle Sandridge and
Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker,
Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Elizabeth L. Deeley --
elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Henry Buist
Smythe, Jr. -- Hsmythe@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and
Rice, Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP, Hugh J. Bod -- hbode@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger Co
LPA, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr.- rbibb@lewisthomason.com Lewis --
Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey --
tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase, Chase
Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg -- jrugg@bhfs.com  -
- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer Marino Thibodaux,
Gibbons PC,  One Gateway Center, Newark, NJ 07102-5310,  John W.
Cowden -- cowden@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Ric,
LLC, John W. Cowden, Baker Sterchi Cowden and Rice LLC.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Collection Letter Violates FDCPA, Laurenzo Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Laurenzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., a Kansas corporation,
and Midland Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02904-WTL-MPB (S.D. Ind., August 23, 2017), is
brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for a finding
that the Defendants' form debt collection letter violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., is a Kansas corporation that acts
as a debt collector.  Midland Funding, LLC, is a Delaware limited
liability company that acts as a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
          5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Telephone: (317) 780-8300
          Facsimile: (317) 217-1320
          E-mail: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


MONSANTO CO: "Martin" Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Elisabeth Martin on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Defendants, Case
No. 5:16-cv-2168 (C.D. Cal., October 13, 2016), was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on
August 24, 2017 under Case No. 4:17-cv-02300.

Plaintiff seeks redress for breach of express and implied
warranties as well as violations of the Unfair Competition Law of
the California Business and Professions Code.

Monsanto is into manufacturing and selling herbicides, including
"Roundup" Concentrates. Plaintiffs allege that said concentrates
only provide half the useable mix despite claims and/or
instruction on its labels. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Martin E. Jerisat, Esq
     Jerisate Law Firm
     2372 Morse Avenue Suite 322
     Irvine, CA 92614
     Tel: (714) 571-5700
     Fax: (714) 547-4710
     Email: mjerisat@jk-lawfirm.com

            - and -

     Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
     Melanie Persinger, Esq.
     Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
     Hillcrest Professional Building
     3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 692-3840
     Fax: (619) 362-9555
     Email: trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
            jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
            melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

            - and -

      Sidney W. Jackson, III, Esq.
      JACKSON & FOSTER, LC
      75 St. Michael Street
      Mobile, AL 36602
      Phone: (251) 433-6699
      Fax: (251) 433-6127
      Email: sid@jacksonfosterlaw.com

The Monsanto Company is represented by:

      Stephen R. Smerek, Esq.
      WINSTON AND STRAWN, LLP
      333 S. Grand Avenue
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 615-1700
      Fax: (213) 615-1750
      Email: ssmerek@winston.com

             - and -

      Adam S. Nadelhaft, Esq.
      John J. Rosenthal, Esq.
      WINSTON AND STRAWN, LLP
      1700 K Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel: (202) 282-5883
      Fax: (202) 282-5100
      Email: anadelhaft@winston.com
             jrosenthal@winston.com

             - and -

      George C. Lombardi, Esq.
      WINSTON AND STRAWN LLP
      35 W. Wacker Drive
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 558-5600
      Fax: (312) 558-5700
      Email: glombardi@winston.com


NATIONAL GAS: Shelton Sues over Automated Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EVERETT SHELTON, individually and on behalf of a class of
all persons and entities similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
NATIONAL GAS & ELECTRIC, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
04063-RBS (E.D. Pa., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks injunctive relief
prohibiting National Gas and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or
other persons or entities acting on National Gas's behalf from
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, by making calls,
except for emergency purposes, to any cellular telephone numbers
using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or
prerecorded voice in the future.

The Plaintiff brings this action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, a federal statute enacted in response to
widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive,
nuisance telemarketing practices.  The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant made automated telemarketing calls using equipment
prohibited by the TCPA, despite the fact that they had no business
relationship with him. Because the call to the Plaintiff was
transmitted using technology capable of generating thousands of
similar calls per day, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a
proposed nationwide class of other persons who were sent the same
illegal telemarketing call.

National Gas & Electric supplies electricity and natural gas for
homes and businesses in Illinois, Ohio, Maryland, and New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clayton S. Morrow
          MORROW & ARTIM, PC
          304 Ross Street, 7th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281 1250
          E-mail: csm@consurnerlaw365.com

               - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK & PARO NICH, P.C.
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (508) 221 1510
          E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com


NAVIENT CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Suit with Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware dismissed with leave to amend the case captioned LORD
ABBETT AFFILIATED FUND, INC., et al., Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. NA VIENT
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civ. No. 16-112-GMS (D. Del.).

Navient is one of the country's largest servicers of student
loans.  The company was formed in April 2014 through a spin-off
from Sallie Mae.  The Lead Plaintiffs ("Lord Abbett Funds") filed
a consolidated amended class action complaint alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act") and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act").  The complaint is based
on various disclosures Navient made between April 17, 2014 and
Dec. 28, 2015, which the Defendants have helpfully grouped into
three categories: (i) Navient's allowance for loan losses and
related financial metrics, (ii) Navient's compliance culture, and
(iii) Navient's credit facilities.

Defendant Navient and the Individual Defendants have moved to
dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and
12(b)(6), and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA").  The Underwriter Defendants have joined in the motion
to dismiss.  The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 (federal question
jurisdiction), 15 U.S.C. Section 78aa (jurisdiction for violations
of the Exchange Act), and 15 U.S.C. Section 77v (jurisdiction for
violations of the Securities Act).

The Defendants argue that the complaint should be dismissed,
because it relies on puzzle pleading that does not satisfy either
the notice pleading standard of Rule 8(a) or the heightened
pleading standards of Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA.  Judge Sleet
agrees.  He concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to set forth
a "short and plain" statement of their claims and make each
allegation "simple, concise and direct" in violation of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8.  At the same time, in contravention of the PSLRA, the
Plaintiffs have failed to craft a complaint in such a way that a
reader can determine precisely which statements (or portions of
statements) are alleged to be false or misleading, and the reason
why each statement is false or misleading.  Until the Plaintiffs
specifically identify the statements on which they would like to
proceed and the reasons why these statements are false or
misleading, neither the Defendants nor the Court can address these
allegations with the degree of particularity required by the
PSLRA.  Accordingly, Judge Sleet granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss is granted with leave for the Plaintiffs to amend the
complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/h9Zoud from Leagle.com.

Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Karen
L. Morris -- kmorris@morrisandmorrislaw.com -- Morris & Morris
LLC.

Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bruce
W. Leppla, pro hac vice, Daniel P. Chiplock, pro hac vice, Joy A.
Kruse, pro hac vice, Patrick Francis Morris --
pmorris@morrisandmorrislaw.com -- Morris & Morris LLC & R. Michael
Lindsey -- rmlindsey@morrisandmorrislaw.com -- Morris & Morris
LLC.

Lord Abbett Equity Trust - Lord Abbett Calibrated Mid Cap Value
Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Karen L. Morris, Morris & Morris
LLC, Bruce W. Leppla, pro hac vice, Daniel P. Chiplock, pro hac
vice, Joy A. Kruse, pro hac vice, Patrick Francis Morris, Morris &
Morris LLC & R. Michael Lindsey, Morris & Morris LLC.

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Fund, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Karen L. Morris, Morris & Morris LLC, Bruce W. Leppla, pro hac
vice, Daniel P. Chiplock, pro hac vice, Joy A. Kruse, pro hac
vice, Patrick Francis Morris, Morris & Morris LLC & R. Michael
Lindsey, Morris & Morris LLC.

Lord Abbett Investment Trust - Lord Abbett High Yield Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by Karen L. Morris, Morris & Morris LLC,
Bruce W. Leppla, pro hac vice, Daniel P. Chiplock, pro hac vice,
Joy A. Kruse, pro hac vice, Patrick Francis Morris, Morris &
Morris LLC & R. Michael Lindsey, Morris & Morris LLC.

Tore Heniz Markus Jagrelius, Plaintiff, represented by Norman M.
Monhait -- nmonhait@rmgglaw.com -- Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess,
P.A., Mary K. Blasy -- mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -- pro hac vice & Samuel
H. Rudman -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- pro hac vice.

George A. Menold, Plaintiff, represented by Peter B. Andrews,
Andrews & Springer LLC, Craig J. Springer, Andrews & Springer LLC
& David M. Sborz, Andrews & Springer LLC.

Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, Plaintiff,
represented by Joel E. Friedlander, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A.,
Christopher P. Quinn, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A. & Jeffrey M.
Gorris, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A..

Navient Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kelly E. Farnan --
arnan@rlf.com -- Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Abid R. Qureshi --
abid.qureshi@lw.com -- pro hac vice, Blake Rohrbacher --
rohrbacher@rlf.com -- Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Christopher
Harris -- christopher.harris@lw.com -- pro hac vice, Christopher
S. Turner -- christopher.turner@lw.com -- pro hac vice & Peter A.
Wald -- peter.wald@lw.com.

John F. Remondi, Defendant, represented by Kelly E. Farnan,
Richards, Layton & Finger, PA.

Somsak Chivavibul, Defendant, represented by Kelly E. Farnan,
Richards, Layton & Finger, PA.

Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Defendant, represented by John
M. Seaman -- Seaman@AbramsBayliss.com -- Abrams & Bayliss LLP,
Adam S. Hakki -- ahakki@shearman.com -- pro hac vice, Anthony D.
Marinello -- anthony.marinello@shearman.com -- pro hac vice,
Daniel R. Ciarrocki, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Daniel C. Lewis, pro
hac vice & Kevin G. Abrams -- abrams@abramsbayliss.com -- Abrams &
Bayliss LLP.

Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Defendant, represented by John M.
Seaman, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Daniel R. Ciarrocki, Abrams &
Bayliss LLP & Kevin G. Abrams, Abrams & Bayliss LLP.

J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, Defendant, represented by John M.
Seaman, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Daniel R. Ciarrocki, Abrams &
Bayliss LLP & Kevin G. Abrams, Abrams & Bayliss LLP.

RBC Capital Markets LLC, Defendant, represented by John M. Seaman,
Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Daniel R. Ciarrocki, Abrams & Bayliss LLP &
Kevin G. Abrams, Abrams & Bayliss LLP.

Barclays Capital Inc., Defendant, represented by John M. Seaman,
Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Daniel R. Ciarrocki, Abrams & Bayliss LLP &
Kevin G. Abrams, Abrams & Bayliss LLP.

Goldman, Sachs & Co., Defendant, represented by John M. Seaman,
Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Daniel R. Ciarrocki, Abrams & Bayliss LLP &
Kevin G. Abrams, Abrams & Bayliss LLP.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Defendant,
represented by John M. Seaman, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Daniel R.
Ciarrocki, Abrams & Bayliss LLP & Kevin G. Abrams, Abrams &
Bayliss LLP.

RBS Securities Inc., Defendant, represented by John M. Seaman,
Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Daniel R. Ciarrocki, Abrams & Bayliss LLP &
Kevin G. Abrams, Abrams & Bayliss LLP.


NELSON & KENNARD: Pratt Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Donna Pratt, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nelson & Kennard, Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC and Cavalry SPV I, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-02188 (D. Colo., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks to recover award
and actual damages pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff also seeks additional damages as the Court may allow
in the amount of $1,000 and minimum individual recovery, in the
amount of $500,000 or 1% of the net worth of the debt collector.

The Plaintiff's alleged obligation arises from a transaction in
which the money, property, insurance, or services that are the
subject of the transaction were incurred primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes -- namely, a personal vehicle loan.

Nelson & Kennard is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell S. Thompson IV, Esq.
          Joseph Panvini, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388 8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317 2674
          E-mail: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com
                  jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com


OAK HARBOR: "Alvarado" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR ALVARADO, and MICKEY AMAYA on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OAK HARBOR FREIGHT
LINES, INC., DOES 1 TO 100. INCLUSIVE, the Defendants, Case No.
RG17874785 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under California Labor Code.  According to the
complaint, Oak Harbor violated the meal and rest break
requirements of the Labor Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          Joshua M. Webster, Esq.
          8889 W Olympic Blvd No. 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000


OCEANPRO INDUSTRIES: Leon Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------
JESUS VILLA LEON, On behalf of himself, and all other similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. OCEANPRO INDUSTRIES, LTD.
d/b/a PROFISH, TIMOTHY JOHN LYDON, and GREGORY J. CASTEN, the
Defendants, Case No. 2017CA0055978 (Colo. Super. Ct., Aug. 14,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated
damages under District of Columbia Code.

According to the complaint, Mr. Leon and other employees worked
over-time on a regular basis but were not paid one-and-a-half
times their regular rate for all of their overtime hours.
Employees prepared and delivered seafood to clients in the
District -- including the White House, the World Bank,
restaurants, and notable hotels -- and sometimes outside the
District, but the District of Columbia was the focal point for
their work, Defendants' operations, and the issuance of payroll
checks to Plaintiff and Class members. Notably, Profish's
warehouse is located in the District of Columbia.

ProFish distributes and supplies seafood products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Shaibani, Esq.
          LAW FIRM OF STEFAN SHAIBANI, PLLC
          1776 K Street NW, Suite 818
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 733 1750
          Facsimile: (202) 833 1000
          E-mail: stefan@stefan.shaibani.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Gaudet, Jr., Esq.
          RJ GAUDET & ASSOCIATES LLC
          800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 855 6679
          Facsimile: (866) 333 1484
          E-mail: robert@rigaudet.com


OZZ LAND: "Lattig" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
KRYSTAL LATTIG, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. OZZ LAND, LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company d/b/a
DEEPWATER DINER and ALAYIDDIN OZDEMIR, Individually, Case No.
1:17-cv-06351 (D.N.J., August 23, 2017), alleges that pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff and the class are
entitled to: (i) unpaid minimum wages from the Defendants for work
for which they did not receive proper minimum wages, (ii)
liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, and (iii) declaratory
relief.

OZZ LAND, L.L.C., is a New Jersey Domestic Limited Liability
Company, located in Carneys Point, New Jersey.  OLL operated a
restaurant called Deep Water Diner, located in Carneys Point.
Alayiddin Ozdemir is the President and Owner of OLL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


PARK STERLING: Faces "Roskopf" Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ROSKOPF, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PARK STERLING CORPORATION, JAMES
CHERRY, LESLIE M. BAKER, KIM S. PRICE, LARRY CARROLL, BEN R.
RUDISIL, THOMAS HENSON, JEAN E. DAVIS, PATRICIA C. HEARTUNG,
WALTER C. AYERS, JEFFREY KANE, GRANT S. GRAYSON, and ROBERT C.
WHITTEN, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00483 (W.D.N.C., Aug.
14, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants, their agents, counsel,
employees, and all others persons acting in concert with them from
consummating a proposed transaction, unless and until the Company
adopts and implements a procedure to obtain the best available
terms for shareholders.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the
public stockholders of Park Sterling Corporation against Park
Sterling's Board of Directors for violations of Securities
Exchange Act.

On April 27, 2017, South State Corporation, and the Company
announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement
under which South State will acquire all of the outstanding shares
of Park Sterling in an all-stock proposed transaction. If
consummated, Park Sterling stockholders will receive 0.14 shares
of South State stock for each share of Park Sterling stock that
they own. The proposed transaction was valued at approximately
$691 million, based on the number shares of Park Sterling common
stock outstanding on March 31, 2017 and on South State's April 26,
2017 closing stock price.

On July 14, 2017, Defendants issued materially incomplete and
misleading disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement
filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the proposed transaction. The Registration
Statement is deficient and misleading in that it fails to provide
adequate disclosure of all materials information related to the
proposed transaction. Specifically, the Registration Statement
fails to provide Company stockholders with material information or
provides then with materially misleading information concerning
(i) Park Sterling's insiders' potential conflicts of interest; and
(ii) the valuation analyses prepared by Stephens in connection
with the rendering of its fairness opinion. The failure to
adequately disclose such material information constitutes a
violation of the Exchange Act, as stockholders need such
information in order to make a fully-informed vote on the Proposed
Transaction.

Park Sterling Bank, whose parent company is Park Sterling Corp.,
is a bank based in Charlotte, North Carolina. It has $3.3 billion
in assets and branches in North and South Carolina, Virginia and
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet Ward Black, Esq.
          Nancy E. Meyers, Esq.
          WARD BLACK LAW
          208 W. Wendover Ave.
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Telephone: (336) 333 2244
          Facsimile: (336) 379 9415
          E-mail: jwblack@wardblacklaw.com

               - and -

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


PEPSI BEVERAGES: "Grice" Suit Moved to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Altareek Grice, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pepsi
Beverages Company and Does 1 Through 10, the Defendant, Case No.
37-02017-00022150-CU-MC, was removed on Sep. 11, 2017 from the
Superior Court of California, San Diego County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01842-
AJB-WVG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Anthony J. Battaglia.

PepsiCo is an American multinational food, snack, and beverage
corporation headquartered in Purchase, New York. PepsiCo has
interests in the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of
grain-based snack foods, beverages, and other products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 883 4900
          Facsimile: (818) 883 4902
          E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan Hisataka Liu
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652 3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652 3101
          E-mail: jonathan.liu@ogletreedeakins.com


PLATINUM GROUP: Colindres et al. Seek Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
YANSI COLINDRES, RYANNA GRIMALDO, VERNETTA QUICK, and
KRYSTAL SANDOVAL, the Plaintiff, v. PLATINUM GROUP OF COMPANIES,
INC., a California corporation; ALLIANCE UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY,
a California corporation, KEMPER CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, MERASTAR INSURANCE CORPORATION, an Indiana
corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC672431 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 14, 2017), seeks to
recover overtime compensation under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, this action concerns Defendants'
wrongful and unlawful labor and employment practices, which
include failure to pay employees all wages earned, including
overtime pay, for work performed "off the clock"; failure to pay
employees all earned wages due upon separation from employment;
failure to provide meal and rest periods or to compensate
employees for working through meal and rest periods; and failure
to provide employees accurate wage statements that comply with
California law.

Platinum Group, a business consulting company, provides consulting
and advisory services, turnaround management services, and capital
and financing services in the Upper Midwest.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William M. Turner, Esq.
          Asha Dhillon, Esq.
          JONES, BELL, ABBOTT, FLEMING & FITZGERALD L.L.P.
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3460
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5759
          Telephone: (213) 485 1555

               - and -

          Francisco Cabada, Esq.
          Sayema J. Hameed, Esq.
          CABADA & HAMEED LLP
          70 South Lake Avenue, Suite 1000
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 463 7090


PRIMELENDING: "Shockley" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER SHOCKLEY, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. PRIMELENDING, A
PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00763-DW
(W.D. Mo., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
related penalties and damages owed to Plaintiff, and all other
similarly situated employees overtime wages, double damages and
reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the compliant, Defendant's policy and practice is to
deny overtime pay to its Mortgage Loan Processors. Defendant's
deliberate failure to pay its employees all of their earned wages
and overtime compensation violates the Fair Labor Standards Act,
as well as Missouri state laws. Jennifer Shockley, and all other
similarly situated employees, worked for Defendant as Mortgage
Loan Processors.

PrimeLending -- https://www.primelending.com -- is a residential
mortgage lender that provides services nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura C. Fellows, Esq.
          Virginia Stevens Crimmins, Esq.
          CRIMMINS LAW FIRM LLC
          214 S. Spring Street
          Independence, MO 64050
          Telephone: (816) 974 7220
          Facsimile: (855) 974 7020
          E-mail: v.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com
                  l.fellows@crimminslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kelly McCambridge, Esq.
          Heather Hardinger, Esq.
          MCCAMBRIDGE LAW, LLC
          1308 NE Windsor Drive
          Lee's Summit, MO 64086
          Telephone: (816) 389 8345
          Facsimile: (816) 875 2388
          E-mail: Kelly@McCambridgeLaw.com
                  Heather@McCambridgeLaw.com


R.J. REYNOLDS: "Tarrow" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW TARROW, individually and on behalf of all current and
former similarly situated employees in the State of California,
the Plaintiff, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY; REYNOLDS
AMERICAN, INC.; STACI MEYER, an individual; WILLIAM ROTH, an
individual, DANIEL HARRINGTON, an individual, and DOES 1 to 50,
inclusive, the Defendants, the Defendants, Case No. 30-2017-
00936345-CU-OE-CXC, was removed on Sep. 11, 2017 from the Superior
Court of California for the County of Orange, to United States
District Court for Central District of California. The Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-01568 to the proceeding.

The R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, based in Winston-Salem, North
Carolina and founded by R. J. Reynolds in 1875, is the second-
largest tobacco company in the U.S.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Aaron L. Agenbroad, Esq.
          Liat L. Yamini, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 626 3939
          Facsimile: (415) 875 5700
          E-mail: alagenbroad@JonesDay.com
                  lyamini@JonesDay.com


RASH CURTIS: Court Certifies 4 Classes in "McMillion" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned S ANDRA McMILLION, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
RASH CURTIS & ASSOCIATES, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03396-YGR
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs bring the instant action against the Defendant in
connection with the Defendant's allegedly unlawful debt collection
practices.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant uses repeated
robocalls, pre-recorded voice messages, and auto-dialed calls to
threaten and harass consumers in an attempt to collect debts, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the California
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("Rosenthal Act").

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant repeatedly called them on
their cellular telephones using an autodialer and/or an artificial
or prerecorded voice.  They further allege that they did not
provide defendant with prior express written consent, and they
specifically asked defendant to stop calling.  The complaint
further alleges that several consumer complaints have been filed
against the Defendant regarding similarly unsolicited robocalls
and autodialed calls.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify these four classes, challenging the
Defendant's use of autodialers, robocallers, and pre-recorded
voice messages to contact individuals in an attempt to collect on
their debt:

     a. With Adekoya and Perez as Class Representatives:

          i. Skip-Trace Class 1: All persons who received a call
on their cellular telephones within four years of the filing of
the complaint until the date that class notice is disseminated
from Rash Curtis' DAKCS/VIC Software System dialer and/or Global
Connect dialer whose cellular telephone was obtained by Rash
Curtis through skip tracing.

          ii. Skip-Trace Class 2: All persons who received a
prerecorded message or robocall on their cellular telephones or
landline phones within four years of the filing of the complaint
until the date that class notice is disseminated from Rash Curtis
whose telephone number was obtained by Rash Curtis through skip
tracing.

     b. With Perez Only as Class Representative:

           i. Non-Debtor Class 1: All persons who received a call
on their cellular telephones within four years of the filing of
the complaint until the date that class notice is disseminated
from Rash Curtis' DAKCS VIC dialer and/or Global Connect dialer
whose telephone number was obtained by Rash Curtis through skip
tracing and for whom Rash Curtis never had a debt-collection
account in their name.

          ii. Non-Debtor Class 2: All persons who received a
prerecorded message or robocall on their cellular telephones or
landline phones within four years of the filing of the complaint
until the date that class notice is disseminated from Rash Curtis
whose telephone number was obtained by Rash Curtis through skip
tracing and for whom Rash Curtis has never had a debt-collection
account in their name.

Judge Rogers finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied (i) all the
requirements for certification of Rule 23(b)(3) classes as to all
four of their proposed classes in this action; and (ii) the
requirements for certification under Rule 23(b)(2).

Accordingly, Judge Rogers granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under both Rule
23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3).  He certifies these classes with Perez
as the class representative, both for injunctive relief only
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and damages pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3):

     a. Skip-Trace Class 1: All persons who received a call on
their cellular telephones within four years of the filing of the
complaint until the date that class notice is disseminated from
Rash Curtis' DAKCS VIC dialer and/or Global Connect dialer whose
cellular telephone was obtained by Rash Curtis through skip
tracing.

     b. Skip-Trace Class 2: All persons who received a prerecorded
message or robocall on their cellular telephones or landline
phones within four years of the filing of the complaint until the
date that class notice is disseminated from Rash Curtis whose
telephone number was obtained by Rash Curtis through skip tracing.

     c. Non-Debtor Class 1: All persons who received a call on
their cellular telephones within four years of the filing of the
complaint until the date that class notice is disseminated from
Rash Curtis' DAKCS VIC dialer and/or Global Connect dialer whose
telephone number was obtained by Rash Curtis through skip tracing
and for whom Rash Curtis never had a debt-collection account in
their name.

     d. Non-Debtor Class 2: All persons who received a prerecorded
message or robocall on their cellular telephones or landline
phones within four years of the filing of the complaint until the
date that class notice is disseminated from Rash Curtis whose
telephone number was obtained by Rash Curtis through skip tracing
and for whom Rash Curtis has never had a debt-collection account
in their name.

The Judge further appointed the Plaintiffs' counsel, Bursor &
Fisher, P.A., as the class counsel.  He set a case management
conference for Oct. 2, 2017.  No later than Sept. 25, 2017, the
parties must file updated joint case management statements, in
accordance with the Civil Local Rules and the Court's Standing
Order, including any remaining requests for extensions to the
discovery and dispositive motion schedule.  The Order terminates
Docket Numbers 47 and 70.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/LxzAmQ from Leagle.com.

Sandra McMillion, Plaintiff, represented by Yeremey O. Krivoshey -
- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Bursor Fisher, P.A..

Sandra McMillion, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy
Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher P.A. & Lawrence
Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A..

Jessica Adekoya, Plaintiff, represented by Yeremey O. Krivoshey,
Bursor Fisher, P.A., Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher P.A.
& Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A..

Ignacio Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Yeremey O. Krivoshey,
Bursor Fisher, P.A., Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher P.A.
& Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A..

Rash Curtis & Associates, Defendant, represented by Andrew M.
Steinheimer, Ellis Law Group, LLP, Anthony Paul John Valenti --
AValenti@EllisLawGrp.com  -- Ellis Law Group, LLP & Mark Ewell
Ellis -- mellis@ellislawgrp.com -- Ellis Law Group, LLP.


RDR CORPORATION: "Maurer" Suit Asserts ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
DENNIS MAURER, Individually v. RDR CORPORATION, a New Jersey
Corporation; and MCDONALD'S USA LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-06362-JHR-AMD (D.N.J., August 23, 2017),
alleges that the Defendants have discriminated, and continue to
discriminate, against the Plaintiff and other mobility impaired
individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act by
failing to, inter alia, have accessible facilities, including
proper parking spaces.

Mr. Maurer has multiple sclerosis and is mobility impaired, and
uses a wheelchair for mobility.

RDR operates the subject property, McDonald's Store #573, alleged
by the Plaintiff to be operating in violation of the ADA.
McDonald's is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, which holds
title to the subject property alleged by the Plaintiff to be
operating in violation of the ADA.  The McDonald's Store is
located in Edgewater Park, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith Harris, Esq.
          BRAFF, HARRIS, SUKONECK & MALOOF
          570 West Mount Pleasant Avenue
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          Telephone: (973) 994-6677
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1296
          E-mail: kharris@bhsm-law.com

               - and -

          John P. 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: jpf@fullerfuller.com


RENT-A-CENTER: Sept 28 Hearing on "Blair" Arbitration Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PAULA L. BLAIR, ANDREA ROBINSON, and
FALECHIA A. HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC., a Delaware
corporation; RENT-A-CENTER WEST, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02335-WHA(N.D.
Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California continued the hearing on the
Defendants' Motion to Partially Compel Arbitration, Strike Class
Action Claims, and Stay Proceedings to Sept. 28, 2017 at 8:00
a.m., and the Case Management Conference to Sept. 28, 2017 at
11:00 a.m.

The hearing on the Defendants' Motion to Partially Compel
Arbitration, Strike Class Action Claims, and Stay Proceedings and
a Case Management Conference is presently on calendar for Sep. 7,
2017, at 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., respectively.

The wife of Robert Friedman -- a member of the Texas bar and the
attorney who will argue the Motion to Compel Arbitration on behalf
of the Defendants -- is hospitalized and had unexpected surgery on
September 5. For that reason, the Defendants' counsel has
requested that the Plaintiffs' counsel agree to continue the
Motion hearing and Case Management Conference to Sept. 28.

In consideration of Mr. Friedman's personal situation, the counsel
for the parties' respective calendars, and in view of the Court's
calendar, the parties have agreed to continue the Motion hearing
as well as the Case Management Conference.

Through their respective counsel, the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants stipulate and agree that, while the Court typically
hears such matters on Thursdays, the Motion Hearing and Case
Management Conference should be continued to Sept. 19, 20, or 22,
2017, at 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., respectively.  Alternatively,
the parties stipulate and agree that the Motion hearing and Case
Management Conference should be continued to Sept. 28, 2017, at
8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., respectively.  Judge Alsup approved the
parties' stipulation and continued the hearing on the Motion and
the Case Management Conference as stipulated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/M33PxE from Leagle.com.

Paula L. Blair, Plaintiff, represented by James T. Hannink --
Jim.Hannink@sdlaw.com -- Dostart Hannink and Coveney.

Paula L. Blair, Plaintiff, represented by Zachariah Paul Dostart -
- Paul.Dostart@sdlaw.com -- Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP, Eric
Prince Brown -- ebrown@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP
& Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon
LLP.

Andrea Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Prince Brown,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, James T. Hannink, Dostart Hannink and
Coveney, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Zachariah Paul
Dostart, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP.

Harris A. Falechia, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Prince Brown,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, James T. Hannink, Dostart Hannink and
Coveney, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Zachariah Paul
Dostart, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP.

Rent-A-Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kirsten F.
Gallacher -- KGallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner
Kosmo LLP, Robert Kenneth Dixon -- rdixon@wilsonturnerkosmo.com --
Wilson Turner Kosmo, Robert Francois Friedman --
rfriedman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice,
Vickie E. Turner -- vturner@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner
Kosmo LLP & Gregory G. Iskander -- giskander@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Rent-A-Center West, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kirsten F.
Gallacher, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Robert Kenneth Dixon, Wilson
Turner Kosmo.

Rent-A-Center West, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Robert Francois Friedman, Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
pro hac vice.

Rent-A-Center West, Inc., Defendant, represented by Vickie E.
Turner, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Gregory G. Iskander, Littler
Mendelson, P.C.


ROSANN LANDSCAPE: "Contreras" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Barragan Contreras, Juan Alonzo Orellana and Jorge Yepez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Rosann Landscape Corp., Rosann Land Improvement
Ltd., and Ana Maria Birlescu Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-06453,
(S.D. N.Y., August 24, 2017), alleges violations of the overtime
provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and minimum
wage and overtime provisions of New York Labor Law. The lawsuit
seeks redress for unjust enrichment, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and interest as well as
declaratory relief.

Defendants provided landscaping and maintenance services to large
residential facilities in New York and New Jersey where Plaintiffs
worked as general laborers assigned to at multiple locations,
routinely working in excess of 40 hours per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Tykulsker, Esq.
      DAVID TYKULSKER & ASSOCIATES
      161 Walnut St.
      Montclair, NJ 07042
      Tel: (973) 509-9292
      Fax: (973) 509-1181
      Email: david@dtesq.com

             - and -

      Robert McCreanor, Esq.
      HUDSON VALLEY JUSTICE CENTER
      30 South Broadway
      Yonkers, NY 10701
      Tel: (914) 308-3490
      Email: rmccreanor@hvjc.org


SANOFI PASTEUR: Ct. Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in "Weitzner"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ARI WEITZNER and ARI WEITZNER, M.D., P.C.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SANOFI PASTEUR, INC., formerly known as AVENTIS
PASTEUR INC., and VAXSERVE, INC., formerly known as VACCESS
AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-02198(M.D.
Pa.), Judge A. Richard Caputo of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania (i) denied the Defendants' Motion
to Strike the November 29, 2016 Declaration of Ari Weitzner, M.D.;
(ii) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to
Strike Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendants' Statement of Facts; (iii)
granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and (iv)
denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

Litigation remains pending in the Lackawanna County Court of
Common Pleas involving Dr. Weitzner and the same Defendants for an
alleged TCPA violation stemming from the same April 21, 2004 fax.
Dr. Weitzner commenced the state-court action with the filing of a
class action complaint on Feb. 14, 2005, seeking to represent a
class of persons who received unsolicited fax advertisements from
Defendants.  The class identified in the state-court action was
defined as Dr. Weitzner and all other individuals who received an
unsolicited fax advertisement from Defendants between Jan. 2, 2001
and the date of the resolution of the lawsuit.  Notably, the P.C.
was neither a Named-Plaintiff nor identified as a putative class
member in the state-court action.

On June 27, 2008, Judge Minora issued an opinion and order ruling
on the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and Dr. Weitzner's
motion to amend the complaint's class definition.  The opinion
concluded that a class could include only Pennsylvania-resident
fax recipients, rather than the proposed nationwide class, and
held that Dr. Weitzner was not a proper representative plaintiff
for class action purposes.  The Judge permitted Dr. Weitzner to
proceed on his individual TCPA claim, but found that a two-year
statute of limitations applied to the TCPA claims under
Pennsylvania law, and thus limited Dr. Weitzner's claims to faxes
he received within two years of the date on which the complaint
was filed.

On July 25, 2008, Dr. Weitzner filed a notice of appeal from the
state court's June 27, 2008 order.  On June 3, 2009, the Superior
Court concluded that the appeal was interlocutory and premature,
and therefore quashed the appeal.  The Superior Court noted that
no motion for class certification was ever filed or decided by the
Court of Common Pleas.

The Plaintiffs commenced this action on Nov. 26, 2011.  On Feb. 6,
2012, the Defendants filed their Motion for Abstention, or in the
alternative, to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, to Stay
Proceedings.  On May 14, 2012, the Court denied the Defendants'
Motion.  The Court also declined to address the applicability, if
any, of American Pipe tolling at that time.

On Nov. 12, 2013, the Defendants filed their Answers and
Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Complaint.  Just three days
later, on Nov. 15, 2013, the Defendants served Offers of Judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 upon the
Plaintiffs; offering for judgment to be entered against the
Defendants for the maximum statutory relief available to the
Plaintiffs.  The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on Dec. 4, 2013.  The
Motion was denied by the Court by Order and Opinion dated March
12, 2014.  The Third Circuit affirmed on April 6, 2016.

The Plaintiffs' filed the instant Motion for Class Certification
on June 28, 2016.  The Defendants filed the instant Motion for
Summary Judgment on Oct. 17, 2016.  Pursuant to the Local Rule of
the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Defendants filed a
Statement of Facts detailing the material facts at issue in the
litigation.  The Plaintiffs filed their Answer to the Defendants'
Statement of Facts on Nov. 29, 2016.  The Defendants have also
filed two Motions to Strike: Motion to Strike November 29, 2016
Declaration of Ari Weitzner, M.D., and Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendants' Statement of Facts.  These
Motions were filed on Jan. 27, 2017.

Judge Caputo finds that the Defendants correctly note that the
modification of the class currently at issue occurred in the Third
Weitzner Declaration.  This Declaration was filed on Nov. 29,
2016, after the Defendants had already filed their Brief in
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
However, the Defendants fail to meaningfully articulate the
defenses foreclosed by the timing of the modification.  Rather,
the Defendants throughout their brief call the claims included in
this modification "untimely," or "time-barred.  As the Plaintiffs
note, the Defendants already raise arguments related to the
timeliness of claims in their papers.  Moreover, the Defendants
had the opportunity to respond to the proposed class expansion in
their brief in response to the Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to
Summary Judgment.  Since the Defendants have failed to offer any
concrete prejudice caused by the timing of the modification, Judge
Caputo will not grant the Defendants' Motion to Strike the Nov.
29, 2016 Declaration of Dr. Weitzner.

The Defendants contend that many of the Plaintiffs' responses
contain impermissible argument and fail to provide "concise"
statements in violation of Local Rule 56.1.  In large part, the
Judge agrees.  The Plaintiffs' have provided a lengthy response
that runs afoul of the purpose for Local Rule 56.1.  Facially,
this is impermissible under the Local Rule.  Because he finds that
many of the statements within the Plaintiffs' response contravene
the purpose of Local Rule 56.1, he will allow those statements to
be stricken.  Therefore, only six statements made in the
Defendants' Statement of Facts will be considered contested for
purposes of summary judgment.

Judge Caputo also finds that in every meaningful way, Dr. Weitzner
would be the beneficiary of the P.C.'s individual claim, and thus
tolling would serve protect a Plaintiff "who initiated the prior
action."  Allowing the P.C., on these facts, to seek shelter from
the statute of limitations through the use of the American Pipe
tolling rule would condone the abuse of American Pipe.  For this
reason, American Pipe tolling will not apply to the P.C.'s
individual claim, and the Judge will grant summary judgment in
favor of the Defendants.

For these stated reasons, Judge Caputo (i) denied the Defendants'
Motion to Strike; (ii) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendants'
Statement of Facts; (iii) granted the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment; and (iv) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/y4mFEV from Leagle.com.

Ari Weitzner, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Osborn --
dosborn@osbornlawpc.com -- Osborn Law PC, pro hac vice.

Ari Weitzner, Plaintiff, represented by P. Timothy Kelly, Mattise
& Kelly PC & Todd C. Bank -- tbank@toddbanklaw.com -- Law Office
of Todd C. Bank, pro hac vice.

Ari Weitzner, M.D., P.C., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A.
Osborn, Osborn Law PC, pro hac vice, P. Timothy Kelly, Mattise &
Kelly PC & Todd C. Bank, Law Office of Todd C. Bankm pro hac vice.

Sanofi Pasteur, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carl J. Greco,
Greco Law Associates, P.C. & Jennifer Menichini, Greco Law
Associates, P.C.

Vaxserve, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carl J. Greco, Greco Law
Associates, P.C. & Jennifer Menichini, Greco Law Associates, P.C.


SID'S SEALANTS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Holmes"
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin, in the case captioned ERIC HOLMES, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SID'S SEALANTS,
LLC, NORTH SHORE RESTORATION, LLC, and SID ARTHUR, Defendants, No.
16-cv-821-wmc (W.D. Wis.), denied Defendants' motion to dismiss
for improper venue.

Plaintiff Eric Holmes alleges that he and a group of similarly
situated workers were deprived of wages and overtime pay by
defendants Sid Arthur and his two companies, Sid's Sealants, LLC,
and North Shore Restoration, LLC. Plaintiff brings a collective
action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), as well as claims under Wisconsin law.

Before the court is a renewed motion to dismiss or transfer the
action in which defendants assert if the action is allowed to
proceed at all, then it should be venued in the Eastern District
of Wisconsin where all of the parties and counsel reside.

Plaintiff Holmes resides in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where the
principal courthouse for the Eastern District is located.
Nevertheless, Holmes elected to bring his claim for wage theft and
prevailing wage violations in the Western District of Wisconsin,
whose principal courthouse is in Madison, roughly 80 miles away.
In support of his choice of venue, Holmes asserts that he and
other employees performed a substantial amount of work in the
Western District on behalf of the defendants, at least some of
which contributed to their claims in this case.

Motion to Dismiss

The Court finds little merit in defendant's motion to dismiss this
action for improper venue under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). When all
defendants are residents of one state, venue is proper in any
district where a defendant resides. 28 U.S.C. Sec tion 1391(b)(1).
A corporation "resides" in a district when its contacts in that
district would suffice to establish personal jurisdiction if that
district were a separate state. 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(d). Thus,
in a state with multiple judicial districts, such as Wisconsin,
venue is proper in any district where a corporation would be
subject to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate
state. KM Ents., Inc. v. Global Traffic Techs., Inc., 725 F.3d
718, 724 (7th Cir. 2013).

Defendants should have reasonably foreseen the possibility of
litigating a wage claim in the Western District. After all, they
accepted contracts for work in, sent workers to, and completed
projects in the Western District. Companies that engage in such
activities should not be caught entirely unawares by the prospect
of litigation from allegedly insufficient compensation emerging in
that same district. Furthermore, the additional factors
articulated in Fabio do not defeat jurisdiction.

If anything, plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient reliefas
expressed in his decision to file in the Western District points
towards a finding of jurisdiction given the deference due that
decision and the defendants' failure to identify any particular
inconvenience or community interest that would defeat
jurisdiction.

Because due process requirements have been met and defendants are
amenable to process in the Western District, therefore, personal
jurisdiction over the corporate defendants exists and venue is
proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(1).

Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss for improper venue will
be denied.

Motion to Transfer Venue

A district court may transfer any civil action to another district
where the action might have been brought when doing so would serve
the "convenience of parties and witnesses [or] the interests of
justice. 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Transfer is proper when "(1)
venue is proper in the transferor district; (2) venue and
jurisdiction are proper in the transferee district; and (3) the
transfer will serve the convenience of the parties, the
convenience of the witnesses, and the interests of justice.

Plaintiff's Choice of Forum

Although not addressed by either party, several courts have also
held that cases under section 216 of the FLSA warrant greater
deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum.  This additional
deference flows from the opt-in nature of collective actions under
the FLSA, which suggests that any plaintiff who opts-in deems the
forum convenient. And although courts have frequently held that
class action plaintiffs receive less deference with respect to
their choice of forum, the increased deference due because of the
FLSA's opt-in provision tends to outweigh any consideration that
some members of a related class may feel compelled to agree rather
than opt out.

Notwithstanding Holmes's choice to litigate outside his home
forum, therefore, the plaintiff's inherent right to choose the
forum, combined with the deference due under the FLSA, imposes a
heavier burden on the defendants to show that transfer would be
"clearly more convenient.

Convenience Factors

Convenience of the Parties

Defendants have not identified how litigating this case in the
Western District will clearly inconvenience them in accessing
witnesses, documents, or sources of proof. Instead, they focus
purely on the inconvenience of the commute. Although the court
sympathizes with defendants' plight (and commends the desire to
reduce their carbon footprint), the fact remains that an extra
hour of commute time does not warrant the transfer of this entire
action away from the plaintiff's chosen forum, especially
considering that this case does not project to involve more than
one or two actual, in-person appearances.

Regardless, the relatively short drive along I-94 is hardly an
onerous affront to the interests of justice.

Inconvenience to Witnesses and Access to Sources of Proof

The location and convenience of witnesses diminishes in importance
when the witnesses also are likely to be employees of a party.
Illumina, 2009 WL 3062786. The location of defendant's employee
witnesses is not a heavily weighted factor because of the
assumption that witnesses within the control of the party calling
them, such as employees, will appear voluntarily, that is, at
least without subpoena.

Interest of Justice Factors

Although the court may consider the litigation's relationship to
the community in the transfer analysis, Research Automation, 626
F.3d at 978, defendants provide little reason to do so here. In
support of their position, defendants simply restate that most of
the events and personages involved in this case reside in the
Eastern District. Without more, defendants cannot meet their
burden to overcome the deference given to plaintiff's choice of
forum.

For the reasons stated, the balance of factors in the transfer
analysis does not strongly point towards transfer, and so
defendants' motion to transfer venue is denied.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's August 31, 2017
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya42n3u7from
Leagle.com.

Eric Holmes, Plaintiff, represented by Yingtao Ho, Previant,
Goldberg, Uelmen, Gratz, Miller & Brueggeman, S.C.. 310 West
Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100 MW, Milwaukee, WI 53203

Sid's Sealants, LLC, Defendant, represented by Justin Taylor
Padway, Padway & Padway Ltd. & M. Nicol Padway, Padway & Padway
Ltd.,  633 W Wisconsin Ave Ste 1900, Milwaukee, WI 53203, US

Sid Arthur, Defendant, represented by Justin Taylor Padway, Padway
& Padway Ltd. & M. Nicol Padway, Padway & Padway Ltd..

North Shore Restoration, LLC, Defendant, represented by Justin
Taylor Padway, Padway & Padway Ltd..


SIRIUS XM: "Andrews" Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
James E. Andrews on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., and Does 1 through
100 inclusive, Defendants., Case No. 5:17-cv-01724, (C.D. Cal.,
August 24, 2017), seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief restraining and enjoining Defendant from further violations
of the Driver Privacy Protection Act, including destroying the
personal information obtained from motor vehicle records,
compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs of suit incurred and such other and further relief.

Plaintiff purchased a used 2012 Chevy Equinox in which the prior
owner had a lapsed Sirius XM radio account. Defendant mailed eight
notices to Andrews referencing the previous owner's Sirius XM
account number and listed the radio ID number but were addressed
to him and no longer the previous owner and mailed advertisements
to the Plaintiff's own address. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Wilens, Esq.
     LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
     18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610
     Yorba Linda, CA 92886
     Tel: (714) 854-7205
     Fax: (714) 854-7206
     Email: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org

            - and -

     Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq.
     THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
     903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 220
     San Clemente, CA 92673
     Tel: (949) 240-8595
     Fax: (949) 240-8515
     Email: jps@spencerlaw.net


SKYE RENTALS: Faces "Hernandez" Suit over Wage & Hour Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH HERNANDEZ, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. KENDALL R.
HENRY, an individual; SKYE RENTALS, INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. BC675200 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid compensation under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was never allowed to
take his meal breaks within the first five hours of his shifts.
Even when they take their meals, their meal was always on-call or
in the middle of performing his duties. Plaintiff was never
allowed to take his second meal break prior to his tenth hour of
his shift. Plaintiff's job duties did not permit him to take
regular rest breaks as mandated by law. He was never provided the
opportunity to take rest periods, nor was he informed of his right
to take rest periods.

Defendants did not pay a premium of one hour's pay for any missed
first and second hour meal or rest periods. Defendants have
willfully prevented and discouraged, and continue to prevent and
discourage Plaintiffs from taking meal and rest breaks and failed
to compensate Plaintiffs for missed breaks in violation of Labor
Code. Defendants have engaged in, and continue to engage in,
unfair business practices in California by practicing, employing
and utilizing the employment practices and policies. Defendants'
utilization of such unfair business practices constitutes unfair
competition and provides an unfair advantage over Defendants'
competitors. Defendants' utilization of such unfair business
practices deprives Plaintiffs of the general minimum working
standards and entitlements due them under California law and the
Industrial Welfare Commission.

As a direct result of the wage and hour violations herein alleged,
Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, substantial
losses related to the use and enjoyment of wages, lost interest on
such wages, and expenses and attorney's fees in seeking to compel
Defendants to fully perform their obligations under state law, all
to their respective damage in amounts according to proof at the
time of trial.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Young W. Ryu, Esq.
          Kelly Kim, Esq.
          LOYR, APC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (888) 365 8686
          Facsimile: (800) 576 1170
          E-mail: young.ryu@loywr.com
                  kelly.kim@loywr.com


SMITH & ROUCHON: Wallis Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Wallis, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Smith, Rouchon & Associates, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01366-UJH-RDP (N.D. Ala., Aug. 14,
2017), seeks to recover actual damages, or statutory damages under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, sometime earlier this year, Plaintiff
began to receive telephone calls from Defendant on her cellular
telephone. Defendant placed at least one call to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number on April 27, May 2, May 5 and May 9.
Defendant's records will show additional calls that it made to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number with an automatic telephone
dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice.
Defendant placed its calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number from (256) 740-4280 -- a telephone number assigned to
Defendant. The Defendant placed all of those calls in an effort to
contact and collect a debt allegedly owed by a third party named
"Marty," who is unknown to Plaintiff. On several occasions,
Plaintiff answered calls from Defendant and heard a prerecorded
message asking her to please hold for the next available
representative. On several occasions, including on May 5 and May
9, Plaintiff held the line to speak with a representative, at
which time she informed Defendant's representative that she was
not the individual Defendant was looking for, and that Defendant
should stop calling her cellular telephone number.
Notwithstanding, Defendant continued to place calls to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number.

Smith & Rouchon is a contingency debt collection services
firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gina DeRosier Greenwald, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Rd, Ste. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: ggreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


SO CAL PETROLEUM: Faces "Rosales" Suit in C.D. of California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SO Cal Petroleum
Transport, Inc.  The case is styled as David Rosales, on behalf of
himself, and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SO Cal
Petroleum Transport, Inc., doing business as: superior tank lines
and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01858 (C.D.
Cal., September 12, 2017).

So. Cal Petroleum Transport, Inc., doing business as Superior Tank
Lines, supplies refined petroleum products, gasoline, diesel, and
ethanol.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SP BEACH: Avila Moves to Certify Banquet Servers Class Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled PATRICIA AVILA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SP BEACH HOTEL
CORP., Case No. 8:17-cv-01430-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla.), files with the
Court an agreed motion for order conditionally certifying class,
approving class notice and requiring the Defendant's disclosure of
contact information for class members pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Specifically, the proposed Collective Class consists of:

     All individuals who were employed by or who worked for the
     Defendant at The Don Cesar Hotel, as banquet servers and who
     performed banquet server services, including setting up and
     breaking down the banquet halls, assisting in preparation of
     banquet dishes for service, serving food and drink to
     banquet guests, attending to banquet guests requests and
     performing other related duties from June 16, 2014 to
     February 28, 2017.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6gHfTYzi

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, P.A.
          900 E. Moreno Street
          Pensacola, FL 32503
          Telephone: (850) 437-9600
          Facsimile: (850) 437-0906
          E-mail: jj@talbottlawfirm.com


STATE NATIONAL: Violates Securities Laws, Sciabacucchi Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SCIABACUCCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. STATE NATIONAL COMPANIES,
INC., TERRY LEDBETTER, GENE BECKER, MARSHA CAMERON, DAVID KING,
FRED REICHELT, MARKEL CORPORATION, and MARKELVERICK CORPORATION,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02412-G (N.D. Tex., Sep. 11,
2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoins Defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a proposed transaction.

According to the complaint, on July 26, 2017, State National's
Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement
and plan of merger with Markel. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, if State National's stockholders approve the
Proposed Transaction, they will receive $21.00 per share in cash.
On August 29, 2017, defendants filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that Defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

State National Companies, Inc., is a specialty provider of
property and casualty insurance operating in two niche markets,
Program Services and Lender Services. The company is licensed to
do business in all 50 states and D.C.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654 7530

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631 1305

               - and -

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


TAMPA BAY SURGERY: Court Tosses Complaints in "Stapleton" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James S. Moody, Jr., entered an order in the lawsuit
titled JANIE STAPLETON, on her own behalf and on behalf of her
minor child, C.P., DAVID PACKEN, on his own behalf and on behalf
of his minor child, D.J., and CARMELO ALVAREZ, JR. on his own
behalf and on behalf of his minor child, K.R.A. v. TAMPA BAY
SURGERY CENTER, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-01540-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla.):

   1. granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
      First Amended Class Action Complaint;

   2. dismissing without prejudice the Amended Complaint.
      Plaintiffs have thirty (30) days to file an amended
      complaint that alleges an injury in fact if Plaintiffs are
      able to do so.  Failure to file an amended complaint within
      30 days will result in this case being closed without
      further notice; and

   3. denying without prejudice as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion
      for Class Certification.

Plaintiffs C.P., D.J., and K.R.A. are patients of Tampa Bay
Surgery Center, Inc., whose parents provided sensitive information
about them to TBSCI.  TBSCI's patient database was hacked, and
C.P., D.J., and K.R.A.'s information was briefly posted online,
along with the information of more than 142,000 other patients.

Although no patient has had their information misused as a result
of the data breach, the Plaintiffs are suing TBSCI.  The Court
concludes the action should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs
have not suffered an injury in fact and, thus, lack standing to
sue.

"[T]he Court concludes Plaintiffs' allegations of harm are too
speculative to constitute an imminent injury.  While Plaintiffs
argue that the mere fact that there was data breach is sufficient
to constitute an imminent injury, the Court cannot agree with that
sort of ipse dixit reasoning.  Something more than the mere data
breach must be alleged before Plaintiffs can show they have a
substantial risk of injury.  Lacking any allegations that would
show any harm is certainly impending, Plaintiffs failed to
demonstrate standing, and this Court lacks jurisdiction over their
claims," Judge Moody opines.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5gxtU8kB


STEPHEN A BROWN: Faces "Marchese" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Law Offices of
Stephen A. Brown. The case is styled as Yvonne Marchese,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Law Offices of Stephen A. Brown, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-05380 (E.D.N.Y., September 13, 2017).

Law Offices of Stephen A. Brown is a law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


TENNESSEE: Robinson Files Suit v. TDOS
--------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against David W. Purkey. The
case is styled as Fred Robinson, Ashley Sprague and Johnny Gibbs,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. David W. Purkey, Commisssioner of the Tennessee
Department of Safety and Homeland Security, in his official
capacity, Debby Moss, Circuit Court Clerk of Wilson County,
Tennessee, in her official capacity, Melissa Harrell, Circuit
Court Clerk of Rutherford County, Tennessee, in her official
capacity, Corey Linville, Court Clerk of the Municipal Court of
Lebanon, Tennessee, in his official capacity, Susan Gaskill, Court
Clerk of the City Court of Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, in her official
capacity, Wilson County, Tennessee, Rutherford County, Tennessee,
Lebanon, Tennessee and Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-01263 (M.D. Tenn., September 13, 2017).

The Defendants are government agencies and representative of
government.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Claudia Wilner, Esq.
   National Center for Law and Econimic Justice
   275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506
   New York, NY 10001
   Tel: (212) 633-6967
   Fax: (212) 633-6371
   Email: wilner@nclej.org

      - and -

   Edward P. Krugman, Esq.
   Civil Rights Corps
   910 17th Street NW, Suite 500
   Washington, DC 20006
   Tel: (202) 780-7594
   Email: krugman@nclej.org

      - and -

   Jonas Wang, Esq.
   Email: jonas@civilrightscorp.org

      - and -

   Josh Spickler, Esq.
   Just City
   902 South Cooper Street
   Memphis, TN 38104
   Tel: (901) 206-2226
   Email: josh@justcity.org

      - and -

   Matthew G. White, Esq.
   Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC (Memphis)
   165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
   Memphis, TN 38103
   Tel: (901) 577-8182
   Fax: (901) 577-0724
   Email: mwhite@bakerdonelson.com

      - and -

   Premal Dharia, Esq.
   Civil Rights Corps
   910 17th Street NW, Suite 500
   Washington, DC 20006
   Tel: (202) 780-7594
   Email: premal@civilrightscorps.org


TIME WARNER: Court Denies Class Certification in "Johnson"
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for District of South Carolina,
Columbia Division, Stanley, issued an Opinion and Order denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Motion to Strike in
the case captioned Johnson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Time Warner
Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership d/b/a/Time Warner
Cable, and Time Warner Cable Southeast LLC d/b/a Time Warner
Cable, Defendants, No. 3:15-cv-01727-CMC (D.S.C.).  The Court
granted Defendant TWC's Daubert Motion.

This matter is before the court on three related motions: (1)
Plaintiff's motion for class certification (Class Certification
Motion); (2) Defendants' motion to exclude certain testimony of
Plaintiff's expert John A. Kilpatrick, Ph.D. (Dr. Kilpatrick) and
Plaintiff's motion to strike certain evidence on which Defendants
rely in opposing the Class Certification Motion and pursuing their
Daubert Motion.

Plaintiff Stanley Johnson filed the action seeking recovery on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated for alleged
unauthorized placement of cable transmission lines and related
equipment (Cable Facilities) on land he purchased. Johnson alleges
the Cable Facilities were placed on his property by Defendants
Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership d/b/a/Time
Warner Cable, and Time Warner Cable Southeast LLC d/b/a Time
Warner Cable (TWC) or their predecessors.

Ascertainability Requirement

The Court has repeatedly recognized that Rule 23 contains an
implicit threshold requirement that the members of a proposed
class be 'readily identifiable. The plaintiffs need not be able to
identify every class member at the time of certification. But if
class members are impossible to identify without extensive and
individualized fact-finding or 'mini-trials,' then a class action
is inappropriate.

Arguments

Johnson argues the class may be readily identified using objective
criteria by (1) comparing data on different GIS maps to identify
parcels above which TWC has Cable Facilities and then (2)
eliminating parcels that fall within the exclusions from the class
definition (railroad rights-of-way, platted utility easements, and
public rights-of-way, streets and highways), again using GIS
databases. He relies on the report and testimony of Dr. Kilpatrick
to support the feasibility and manageability of both steps in the
process.

TWC responds that neither step has been or can be done using Dr.
Kilpatrick's proposed methodology. It argues Dr. Kilpatrick's work
to date is deficient for reasons addressed below as to TWC's
Daubert Motion. It maintains the class cannot, in any event, be
identified without physical examination of each parcel and a
search of its title history, precluding a finding the class is
readily ascertainable using the methods applied or proposed by Dr.
Kilpatrick.

The court finds Johnson has failed to meet his burden of
demonstrating a class is ascertainable because he relies solely on
an expert whose opinion as to class identification is excluded.
Even if the opinion is not excluded, Johnson has failed to
persuade the court that a class has been or may be identified by
the means proposed by Dr. Kilpatrick or any means that would not
require a title search and physical examination of each parcel
whose owner may be a class member.

This is true using either Johnson's proposed Opening Class
Definition or Reply Class Definition. While the purposes for which
physical examination is necessary are more limited under the Reply
Class Definition, such examination is still required to determine
whether the property is, in fact, burdened by TWC Cable
Facilities.

Rule 23(b)

Johnson seeks certification of a class for money damages under
Rule 23(b)(3) or, alternatively, for injunctive relief under Rule
23(b)(2). As explained below, the court finds Johnson has failed
to establish certification is proper under either subpart.

Rule 23(b)(3)

In determining predominance and superiority, the court may
consider multiple factors including but not limited to the
interest of members of the class in individually controlling the
prosecution or defense of separate actions and the difficulties
likely to be encountered in the management of a class action.
Johnson must also establish the Cable Facilities burdening each
class member's property fall outside Excluded Areas of Permissive
Use, either to establish class membership. This question also
requires individualized determination involving physical
examination of the property. These issues, alone, raise serious
manageability concerns and weigh heavily against finding common
issues predominate or class treatment is superior.

Similar issues are raised as to private easements. Johnson, to
this point, has made only a limited attempt to identify private
easements that allow placement of TWC's Cable Facilities on
private property. That attempt is limited to consideration of
easements produced by TWC that reflect both execution and
recording and even this work is incomplete. While neither of
Johnson's proposed definitions exclude owners of properties with
such easements from the class, he concedes in his reply memorandum
that it is undisputed current owners of these parcels do not have
a claim.

Rule 23(b)(2)

Johnson argues certification is proper, in the alternative, under
Rule 23(b)(2) because injunctive relief for ejectment of TWC's
corridor from class member land is the sort of uniform,
indivisible remedy contemplated by Rule 23(b)(2). Johnson
describes the relief sought as a simple remedy that can be
uniformly applied regardless of parcel size or location.
Dr. Kilpatrick's Second Supplemental Declaration, similarly,
points to a host of quality control measures that will either
eliminate or add class members as the case proceeds (or result in
loss of claims of those already determined to be class members).
This, as well as the fact injunctive relief would only benefit
current property owners, would require constant modification of
the class list. Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is inappropriate
where ensuring pursuit of injunctive relief continued to
predominate, requires the District Court to re-evaluate the roster
of class members continually.

In sum, the shifting nature either of class membership or those
class members whose claims survive the various reviews proposed by
Johnson and Dr. Kilpatrick demonstrates the class lacks adequate
cohesion to support certification under Rule 23(b)(2).

The court finds the class (1) is not readily identifiable under
either the proposed Opening Class Definition or Reply Class
Definition and (2) does not meet the requirements for
certification under either Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3). Accordingly,
the court denies Johnson's Class Certification Motion.

Johnson's Motion to Strike

While Dr. Kilpatrick's Second Supplemental Declaration
characterizes unspecified arguments of "the Defense [as]
misleading or altogether false[,]" it does not directly contradict
the challenged exhibits or declarations. While Johnson may
challenge admissibility of the referenced testimony and exhibits,
Dr. Kilpatrick's deposition testimony and Second Supplemental
Declaration concede the critical points: Dr. Kilpatrick has not
yet identified a class and substantial additional work using new
data and methods is needed to accomplish that purpose. Any delay
in disclosure is harmless under these circumstances.

Accordingly, the court denies Johnson's motion to strike. The
court, nonetheless, confirms it relies on the proffered exhibits
only for purposes of impeachment.

TWC's Daubert Motion

TWC's opening argument. TWC's Daubert Motion challenges Dr.
Kilpatrick's testimony as it relates to (1) processing right-of-
access documents to identify parcels subject to recorded
easements, and [2] using GIS tools to identify parcels not subject
to a recorded easement on which TWC has aerial Cable Facilities.
TWC argues Dr. Kilpatrick both lacks sufficient expertise in the
relevant areas and failed to apply reliable methods to sufficient
data in forming his opinions.

TWC argues identification of class members requires four pieces of
information reflecting the precise location of each of the
following: (1) cable strands; (2) property boundaries; (3) granted
easements, licenses, or other permission, and (4) public utility
easements or rights-of-way. TWC asserts Dr. Kilpatrick's GIS
review was not based on precise location of any of the four items,
considered only some forms of permission under the third item, and
failed, altogether, to consider the fourth item.

The party offering an expert bears the burden of establishing the
admissibility of the expert's opinions by a preponderance of the
proof the admission of expert testimony is governed by Federal
Rule of Evidence 702:

     "A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an
opinion or otherwise if:(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or
other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue;(b) the
testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;(c) the testimony
is the product of reliable principles and methods; and(d) the
expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the
facts of the case."

The record is unclear as to whether Dr. Kilpatrick has training or
experience specific to the tasks on which he offers an expert
opinion: identification of burdened parcels using GIS data and
tools where locational accuracy is critical to determining (1)
whether parcels are in fact burdened and (2) (under Opening Class
Definition) whether the burden falls outside Excluded Areas of
Permissive Use.

It is also significant that Dr. Kilpatrick relied on a third-party
vendor and his staff to perform substantial portions of the work.
Despite asserting this work was done under his supervision, he was
unable to provide details as to the data or methods used in
performing that work. This lack of knowledge suggests either a
lack of expertise or a failure to utilize that expertise in the
process.

In sum, Dr. Kilpatrick's deposition testimony and Second
Supplemental Declaration effectively concede his work to date
fails to satisfy the requirements for admission of expert
testimony to the extent he offers an opinion on identification of
the class. His testimony as to future steps he intends to take to
cure the deficiencies (using different data and methodologies) are
too vague to persuade the court they would serve the intended
purpose.

Accordingly, the court finds Johnson has failed to meet his burden
of demonstrating Dr. Kilpatrick's testimony on class
identification is admissible. This is due to insufficiencies in
the data used and failure to establish the methodologies used are
reliable or that they were reliably applied.

For these reasons, Johnson's Class Certification Motion and his
Motion to Strike are denied. TWC's Daubert Motion is granted.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's August 31, 2017
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybl3e2sx
from Leagle.com.

Stanley Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher P. Kenney -
- cpk@harpootlianlaw.com -- Richard A. Harpootlian Law Office.
Stanley Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Richard A. Harpootlian
-- rah@harpootlianlaw.com -- Richard A. Harpootlian Law Office &
Tobias Gavin Ward, Jr., Tobias G Ward Jr Law Firm,  PO Box 50124
Columbia, SC 29250

Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, Defendant,
represented by Frank Rogers Ellerbe, III --
fellerbe@sowellgray.com -- Sowell Gray Robinson Stepp and Laffitte
LLC & Kevin Kendrick Bell --  kbell@sowellgray.com -Sowell Gray
Robinson Stepp and Laffitte LLC.

Time Warner Cable Southeast LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank
Rogers Ellerbe, III, Sowell Gray Robinson Stepp and Laffitte LLC &
Kevin Kendrick Bell, Sowell Gray Robinson Stepp and Laffitte LLC.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Corrective Notice in "O'Connor" Suit Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-03826-
EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California entered an order regarding
corrective notice, and granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' administrative motion to file under seal.

On Aug. 31, 2017, the Court concluded that the Class Counsel's e-
mail communication to Class Members was misleading and that a
corrective notice was required to protect the rights of absent
class members.  It ordered the parties to meet-and-confer and to
propose the contents of the corrective notice, as well as a means
to distribute it.  A full-text copy of the District Court's August
31, 2017, Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y6u4mjegfrom
Leagle.com

Judge Chen finds that neither party's proposed notice is adequate.
The Plaintiffs' proposed notice does not communicate to Class
Members that the Court determined its prior e-mail communication
was misleading and does not clearly explain their rights.  Uber's
proposed notice contains detailed and confusing information about
issues that are not essential to correcting any wrongful reliance
that may have resulted from the misleading e-mail.  In lieu of the
parties' proposed notices, Judge Chen adopted the notice attached
to the Order.  Furthermore, rather than attaching the Court's Aug.
31, 2017 order on the settlement website.

The notice should be delivered by a neutral party rather than the
Class Counsel.  Accordingly, the Settlement Administrator will be
ordered to deliver the notice within 7 days of the Order.  The
costs of notice will be borne by the Class Counsel because the
Class Counsel's misleading e-mail necessitated the corrective
notice.  As explained in the Court's Aug. 31, 2017 order,
assessing costs is authorized based on the Class Counsel's
violation of the protective order and the California Rules of
Professional Conduct.

The Class Counsel requests that portions of her declaration
stating the number of individual arbitrations filed pursuant to
the misleading e-mail communication be sealed.  The Class Counsel
argues the information should be sealed on the basis that it
contains information related to attorney-client communications, as
well as information in which the class member has an interest in
privacy.

Judge Chen finds that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good
cause to seal all of the redacted information.  Their claim that
the information is privileged is unfounded.  The mere fact that
information is "related" to attorney-client communication, does
not establish that it is an attorney-client communication
protected by privilege.  Further, the paragraphs in question do
not disclose the contents of any such communications.  The
privilege does not apply.  However, the Court agrees that there is
good cause to redact the name of the class member discussed in the
declaration to protect that individual's privacy interests.  Thus,
the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion to seal only with respect
to the name of the class member and the caption and case-number of
the individual arbitration matter filed on behalf of that class
member.  The remaining information may not be sealed.  The
Plaintiffs will file a redacted version of the declaration
consistent with the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/A1J5rP from Leagle.com.

Douglas O'Connor, Plaintiff, represented by Adelaide Pagano --
apagano@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac
vice.

Douglas O'Connor, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew A. August,
Browne George Ross LLP, Ben Weber -- bweber@llrlaw.com -- Lichten
and Liss-Riordan, P.C., Benjamin J. Meiselas, Geragos and Geragos,
APC, Brian Stephen Kabateck, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Brian C.
Tackenberg -- btackenberg@crabtreelaw.com -- pro hac vice, Charles
Morris Auslander, Crabtree and Auslander, pro hac vice, George R.
Baise, Jr. -- gbaise@crabtreelaw.com -- pro hac vice, Jennifer R.
Liakos, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, John Granville Crabtree, pro hac
vice, Mark J. Geragos, Geragos & Geragos, APC, Matthew David
Carlson -- mcarlson@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.,
Sara Smolik, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., Shannon Liss-Riordan,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shant Arthur Karnikian --
sk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

Thomas Colopy, Plaintiff, represented by Adelaide Pagano, Lichten
and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Andrew A. August, Browne
George Ross LLP, Brian C. Tackenberg, pro hac vice, Charles Morris
Auslander, Crabtree and Auslander, pro hac vice, George R. Baise,
Jr., pro hac vice, John Granville Crabtree, pro hac vice, Matthew
David Carlson, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Sara Smolik, Lichten
and Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-
Riordan, P.C..

Matthew Manahan, Plaintiff, represented by Adelaide Pagano,
Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Andrew A. August,
Browne George Ross LLP, Brian C. Tackenberg, pro hac vice, Charles
Morris Auslander, Crabtree and Auslander, pro hac vice, George R.
Baise, Jr., pro hac vice, John Granville Crabtree, pro hac vice,
Matthew David Carlson, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon
Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Elie Gurfinkel, Plaintiff, represented by Adelaide Pagano, Lichten
and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Andrew A. August, Browne
George Ross LLP, Ben Weber, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., Brian
C. Tackenberg, pro hac vice, Charles Morris Auslander, Crabtree
and Auslander, pro hac vice, George R. Baise, Jr., pro hac vice,
John Granville Crabtree, pro hac vice, Matthew David Carlson,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Ronald Gillette, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Adelaide Pagano, Lichten and Liss-
Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Andrew A. August, Browne George Ross
LLP, Andrew Paul Lee, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Brian C.
Tackenberg, pro hac vice, Charles Morris Auslander, Crabtree and
Auslander, pro hac vice, George R. Baise, Jr., pro hac vice, John
Granville Crabtree, pro hac vice, Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot &
Wolfson, P.C. & William Copley Jhaveri-Weeks, Goldstein, Borgen,
Dardarian & Ho.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael
Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Marcellus Antonio McRae -- mmcrae@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Theane D. Evangelis -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney at Law, Brandon J. Stoker --
bstoker@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Debra Wong
Yang -- dwongyang@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP,
Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada --
dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, John
C. Fish, Jr. -- jfish@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Joshua
Seth Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn and
Crutcher LLP, Kevin Joseph Ring-Dowell --
kringdowell@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Stephen
A. Swedlow -- stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice & Theane Evangelis Kapur,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

7x7 Executive Transportation LLC, Defendant, represented by James
Parton, III, Parton & Sell PC.

Rasier-CA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael
Spurchise, Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Caren Ehret, Movant, represented by Myron Milton Cherry --
mcherry@cherry-law.com -- Myron M. Cherry & Associates LLC.

Ricardo Del Rio, Movant, represented by Christopher James Hamner -
- chamner@hamnerlaw.com -- Hamner Law Offices, APC, Amy Tai
Wootton, Hamner Law Offices, APC, Benjamin J. Meiselas, Geragos
and Geragos, APC, Brian Stephen Kabateck, Kabateck Brown Kellner
LLP, Joshua H. Haffner, Kabateck Kellner LLP, Mark J. Geragos,
Geragos & Geragos, APC & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown
Kellner LLP.

Greg Fisher, Movant, represented by Christopher James Hamner,
Hamner Law Offices, APC.

John Doe, Movant, Pro Se.

Todd Johnston, Movant, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi
Law Firm.

Steven Price, Interested Party, represented by Christopher John
Morosoff, Law Office of Christopher J. Morosoff & Douglas Caiafa,
Attorney at Law.

City of Cleveland, Ohio, Interested Party, represented by Carl E.
Meyer, City of Cleveland.

Rosario Richardson, Interested Party, represented by Carey A.
James -- caj@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith and Marcy & Shant
Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

Kathy Robinson, Interested Party, Pro Se.

Leticia Alcala, Objector, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Paul Napoli, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac
vice, Jennifer R. Liakos, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC & Shant Arthur
Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

Marc Borgen, Objector, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Shkolnik PLLC, Paul Napoli, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Jennifer R.
Liakos,

Napoli Shkolnik PLLC & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown
Kellner LLP.

Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Objector, represented by Andre Emilio
Jardini -- aej@kpclegal.com -- Knapp Petersen & Clarke.

Uladzimir Tabola, Objector, represented by Alexei Kuchinsky --
alexei@sfbizlaw.com -- Klein Law Group & Shant Arthur Karnikian -
sk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

Alexander Kazakov, Objector, represented by Alexei Kuchinsky,
Klein Law Group & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner
LLP.

Yahor Zgurski, Objector, represented by Alexei Kuchinsky, Klein
Law Group & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

Maksim Hancharuk, Objector, represented by Alexei Kuchinsky, Klein
Law Group.

Omar Zine, Objector, represented by Christopher John Gansen,
Gansen Law Group & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner
LLP.

Nahabet Narsis, Objector, represented by Kevin Todd Barnes, Law
Offices of Kevin T. Barnes.

Jorge Zunigas, Objector, represented by Mark Alan Morrison --
markmorrison@paulhastings.com -- Morrison and Associates.

Jason Rosenberg, Objector, represented by Mark Alan Morrison,
Morrison and Associates.

David Lanier, Amicus, represented by Christopher G. Jagard,
McCurdy Ku & John Cumming, Department of Industrial Relations.

Abdo Ghazi, Intervenor, represented by Alec Llewellyn Segarich,
Lohr Ripamonti & Segarich LLP, Conor Daniel Granahan, Law Offices
of Conor Granahan, Jason Shelton Lohr, Lohr Ripamonti & Segarich
LLP & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.


UMAMI RESTAURANT: Facilities Not Accessible for PWDs, Dixson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD DIXSON, JR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. UMAMI RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC d/b/a
UMAMI BURGER, the Defendant, Case No. BC675469 (Cal Super. Ct.,
Sep. 11, 2017), seeks statutory damages and reasonable attorney's
fees and costs on behalf of himself, and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a Class of
mobility impaired/wheelchair bound persons, alleges that Defendant
is in violation of the anti-discrimination statutes, Unruh Civil
Rights Act, and California Code.

Plaintiff is a citizen of California and is domiciled in Los
Angeles, and qualifies as an individual with disabilities.
Plaintiff is a paraplegic and requires a wheelchair to move about.
Plaintiff has visited and patronized Umami Burger stores within
the State of California, and has experienced discrimination at
those stores.  Plaintiff is being deterred from patronizing Umami
Burger but intends to return to these stores for the dual purpose
of availing himself of the goods and services offered to the
public at such stores and to ensure that those stores cease
evading their responsibilities under state law.

Umami Restaurant Group, LLC provides burgers, sides, and
accompaniments in Los Angeles and San Francisco.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877)534 2590
          Facsimile: (310)247 0160


UNITED AIRLINES: Status Hearing in "Pumputyte" Suit on Oct. 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 30, 2017, in the case
entitled Neringa Pumputyte, et al. v. United Airlines, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-04868 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Gary Feinerman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Defendant's summary judgment motion is entered and
      continued;

   -- Plaintiff's response due by September 27, 2017;

   -- reply due by October 11, 2017;

   -- For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff's motion
      for class certification is denied without prejudice to
      renewal by September 13, 2017; and

   -- Status hearing set for October 17, 2017, at 9:15 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZbF2Vrwr


UNITED PARCEL: Court Denies Bid to Stay/Dismiss "Solo" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOE SOLO and BLEACHTECH, L.L.C., Plaintiffs,
v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO., Defendant, Case No. 14-12719(E.D.
Mich.), Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied the
Defendant's Motion to Stay or Dismiss Proceedings.

This case was randomly reassigned from Judge Gerald E. Rosen to
the Court upon Judge Rosen's retirement.  The case was filed on
July 11, 2014.  On Aug. 29, 2014, the Defendant filed a Motion to
Dismiss, and Judge Rosen issued an Order granting the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss on March 27, 2015.  On March 18, 2016, the Sixth
Circuit issued an Opinion reversing Judge Rosen's Order as to
three of the four counts.  The parties filed a joint discovery
plan and a scheduling conference was held on May 17, 2016.  Six
months later, on Nov. 18, 2016, Defendant filed the instant Motion
to Stay or Dismiss Proceedings.  The Motion to Stay is premised on
the belief that the Plaintiffs' claims are covered by an
arbitration provision, such that they are obligated to arbitrate
those claims.

There are three remaining claims for relief on behalf of each the
Plaintiff and a putative nationwide class of purchasers for
declared value coverage in excess of $300: (i) breach of contract;
(ii) unjust enrichment; and (iii) declaratory relief.  All three
claims are based on the theory that the Defendant charges more for
declared value of packages than permitted by contract.  The
Complaint pleads the breach of contract and unjust enrichment
claims in the alternative.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover for 21 UPS shipments by BleachTech
between Jan. 18, 2010 and Dec. 29, 2013, each with a declared
value over $300, and 1 UPS shipment by Solo at The UPS Store in
Marina Del Ray, California on Dec. 26, 2013, a shipment with a
declared value over $300.  BleachTech proposes to represent a
class of similarly situated "direct" shippers; Solo proposes to
represent a class of similarly situated "indirect" shippers.

The basic shipping contract between UPS and shippers is comprised
of: (i) the UPS Tariff/Terms and Conditions of Service ("UPS
Terms"); (ii) the UPS Rate and Service Guide ("UPS Guide"); and
(iii) the Source Document used to tender the shipment to UPS.  The
UPS Terms provide that in tendering a shipment for service, the
shipper agrees that the version of the UPS Terms and the
applicable UPS Guide in effect at the time of shipping will apply
to the shipment and its transportation.  The UPS Terms further
state that all shipments are subject to the terms and conditions
contained in the UPS Terms.

As of Dec. 30, 2013, the UPS Terms have contained an agreement to
individually arbitrate all claims arising from or related to UPS
services.  The obligation is mutual.  The UPS Terms state that all
issues are for the arbitrator to decide, except that issues
relating to the scope, application, and enforceability of the
arbitration provision are for a court to decide.

The Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim assumes a contract
directly with the Defendant.  The unjust enrichment claim assumes
shipment through a third-party retailer like The UPS Store, and
alleges that the Defendant charges the retailer the allegedly-
excessive price for declared value service set forth in the Guide
and causes the retailer to charge its customers the rates from the
Guide, thereby passing on the alleged overcharges.  The
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment theory seeks to enforce the
Defendant's obligations under the UPS Terms and the UPS Guide.

Judge Hood concludes that the Defendant has waived its right to
arbitrate by taking actions inconsistent with reliance on the
arbitration provision and delaying its assertion of the need to
arbitrate, to the actual prejudice of the Plaintiffs.
Specifically, the Defendant did not seek to compel arbitration
until more than two years after the Complaint was filed, as it
opted to move for dismissal of the Complaint on the merits.  The
Defendant took actions inconsistent with reliance on the
arbitration provision when it sought to dismiss the Complaint on
the merits, rather than because of the arbitration provision.
And, not only did the Defendant wait more than two years to seek
to resolve the litigation pursuant to the arbitration provision,
it did not file the instant motion regarding the arbitration
provision until eight months after the Sixth Circuit remanded the
case to the Court.  Judge Hood finds that such inconsistent
actions and inordinate delay resulted in actual prejudice to the
Plaintiffs, including costs that they would not have been incurred
had the Defendant sought to arbitrate previously.  She held that
the Defendant's motion to stay or dismiss the proceedings is
unwarranted.  Accordingly, Judge Hood denied Defendant's Motion to
Stay or Dismiss Proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/OaECdx from Leagle.com.

Joe Solo, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Slidders --
cslidders@milberg.com -- One Pennsylvania Plaza.

Joe Solo, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna --
emckenna@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP, Sanford P. Dumain, Milberg
LLP, Daniel R. Karon -- dkaron@karonllc.com -- Karon LLC & Andrew
J. McGuinness -- drewmcg@topclasslaw.com.

BleachTech L.L.C., Plaintiff, represented by Charles Slidders, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Sanford
P. Dumain -- sdumain@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP, Daniel R. Karon,
Karon LLC & Andrew J. McGuinness.

United Parcel Service Co., Defendant, represented by Bonnie L.
Mayfield -- bmayfield@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, Caitlin S.
Blythe -- cblythe@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Gregory B.
Koltun -- gkoltun@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Paul T.
Friedman -- pfriedman@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster.


UNITED STATES: Rejection of Holiday Premium Pay Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL YANKO, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PART-TIME GS AND WG FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
OR WERE EMPLOYED BY ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES AND WHO ARE SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-
Appellee, No. 2017-1177 (Fed. Cir.), Judge William Curtis Bryson
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the
Court of Federal Claim's rejecting the Plaintiff Yanko's claim the
class members are entitled to premium pay for work performed on
each day designated by statute or Executive Order as an "in-lieu-
of" holiday.

Mr. Yanko filed this class action complaint for himself and on
behalf of all other part-time GS and WG federal employees who are
or were employed by all federal agencies and who are similarly
situated.  Mr. Yanko has been employed by the Department of
Veterans Affairs on a part-time basis for some time, including the
entire six-year period prior to the filing of his complaint.  His
regular workweek consists of five days, from Sunday through
Thursday.  Thus, his weekly non-workdays regularly fall on Fridays
and Saturdays.

Between Dec. 15, 2009, and May 16, 2016, there were eight official
public holidays that fell on either a Friday or a Saturday (New
Year's Day of 2010, 2011, and 2016; Independence Day of 2014 and
2015; and Christmas Day of 2009, 2010, and 2015).  Because Mr.
Yanko is a part-time employee, he was not credited with an in-
lieu-of holiday during the preceding or succeeding workweek for
any of those eight days.

It is the longstanding policy of the Office of Personnel
Management ("OPM") that part-time employees are not entitled to an
in-lieu-of holiday corresponding to a particular holiday when that
holiday falls on a non-workday for the part-time employee.  That
policy is reflected in regulations issued by OPM pursuant to
notice-and-comment rulemaking.  Contending that OPM's policy and
regulations are contrary to section 6103(b) and Executive Order
11,582, Mr. Yanko seeks to recover an amount equal to the premium
pay to which he would have been entitled if he had been credited
with inlieu-of holidays for the eight holidays that fell outside
his normal workweek during the past six years.

The Court of Federal Claims disagreed with Mr. Yanko's statutory
argument.  Instead, the court held that the governing statute and
Executive Order do not provide part-time employees such as Mr.
Yanko with a right to inlieu-of holidays when federal holidays
fall on days outside the employees' normal workweek.  In
particular, the court concluded that the term "basic workweek,"
which appears in the statute governing in-lieu-of holidays and in
Executive Order No. 11,582, refers only to full-time employees,
and not to part-time employees.  On appeal, Mr. Yanko challenges
that construction of the statute and the Executive Order.

Judge Bryson holds that it was reasonable for OPM, in its formal
regulations, to interpret the reference to "basic workweek" as
applying only to full-time employees.  That position is consistent
with the position taken by the Comptroller General in interpreting
the statute, and it is consistent with the position taken by OPM
since OPM first issued regulations on the issue.  Because the
language and context of the statute do not clearly indicate that
Congress or the President intended a contrary interpretation of
the term "basic workweek," the Judge sustains OPM's interpretation
of that term as applicable only to full-time employees.
Accordingly, Judge Bryson affirmed the Court of Federal Claims'
rejection of Mr. Yanko's claim.  Each party will bear its own
costs for the appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ggytFe from Leagle.com.

IRA M. LECHNER -- iralechner@yahoo.com -- Washington, DC, argued
for plaintiff-appellant.

MARK E. PORADA, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for
defendant-appellee. Also represented by CHAD A. READLER, ROBERT E.
KIRSCHMAN, JR., REGINALD T. BLADES, JR.


USA: Faces "Milton" Suit in Court of Federal Claims
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA. The case is
styled as Virginia Milton and Arnold Milton, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v.
USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01235-VJW (COFC, September 12,
2017).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Rand P. Nolen, Esq.
   Fleming, Nolen & Jez, L.L.P.
   2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 4000
   Houston, TX 77056
   Tel: (713) 621-7944
   Fax: (713) 621-9638
   Email: rand_nolen@fleming-law.com


WACKO'S TOO: "Cervello" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Rebekka Cervello, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wacko's Too, Inc. and Milton Howard,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01000, (M.D. Fla.,
August 24, 2017), seeks to recover compensation at the federally-
mandated minimum wage rate, unpaid overtime compensation, recovery
of misappropriated funds that were charged as fees and penalties,
all withheld tips, liquidated damages and attorney's fees and
costs under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate an adult entertainment establishment under the
name "Wacko's Bar and Grill" where Cervello worked as a dancer,
earning solely from tips from patrons. She alleges to be
misclassified as an independent contractor. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew. R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) WORKERS
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


WELLS FARGO: Court Denies Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Merino"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey denied the Defendants' motion to strike class
allegations in the case captioned JUAN CARLOS MERINO and AGUSTIN
MOREL, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-7840 (ES)(MAH)(D.
N.J.).

The Plaintiffs are former hourly employees of the Defendants.
They allege that Wells Fargo required them -- and all hourly
employees -- to meet quarterly quotas for new accounts.  Continued
failure to meet these quotas would result in demotion or
termination.  The Plaintiffs allege that -- to meet the quarterly
new account quotas -- it was necessary for hourly employees to
solicit accounts outside of normal business hours.

The Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo managers knew -- or
reasonably should have known -- that meeting the new-account
quotas required hourly employees to solicit new accounts outside
of regular business hours.  In particular, they allege that "Off
Site Sheets" show that Wells Fargo management knew that hourly
employees were working several hours each day off site and off the
clock outside of the standard 40-hour work week at the banking
branch.  Significantly, they allege that Wells Fargo never paid
them for the time they spent soliciting and obtaining new accounts
outside of normal business hours.

The Plaintiffs assert the following two counts individually on
behalf of themselves and: (i) as a collective action for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and (ii) as a class
action for violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
("NJWHL").

The Plaintiffs' Complaint proposes the class of the Plaintiffs and
other members of the Class are persons who: (i) work or have
worked for Wells Fargo as hourly employees; (ii) have been
required to meet quarterly quotas for new accounts; (iii) have
worked more than 40 hours per week; and (iv) have not been paid
overtime wages.

Further, it states that Plaintiff Merino brings this action
individually and in a representative capacity on behalf of a class
of persons who have worked for Wells Fargo in New Jersey and who
meet the definition of the putative class members set forth above
during any time in the two years prior to the date of filing the
Plaintiffs' complaint.  There are allegedly at least 100 persons,
if not more, in the Class (the exact number will be in the
Defendants' records), and the Defendants have engaged in the same
conduct towards Plaintiff Merino and the other members of the
Class.

Wells Fargo moves to strike Plaintiff Merino's class allegations
from Count II of the Plaintiffs' Complaint under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(f) and 23(d)(1)(D).  Wells Fargo argues that
the Court must strike Count II's Rule 23 class allegations for two
reasons: (i) there is no reliable and administratively feasible
mechanism to identify the members of the Rule 23 class; and (ii)
the class membership is defined as having a meritorious claim.

Judge Salas disagrees with Wells Fargo that -- based on the face
of the Complaint and the incontrovertible facts at this early
stage -- Merino has identified no objective mechanism for
identifying members of his proposed Rule 23 Class and determining
membership in the putative Rule 23 Class will require the Court to
make an individualized inquiry to determine whether each putative
class member actually worked "off the clock.  As noted, the
proposed class consists of those who (i) work or have worked for
Wells Fargo as hourly employees; (ii) have been required to meet
quarterly quotas for new accounts; (iii) have worked more than 40
hours per week; and (iv) have not been paid overtime wages."  As
Plaintiffs aptly note, Wells Fargo must keep payroll records by
law, and Plaintiffs have identified other records for hourly-paid
employees in the Complaint that can identify class members.  She
is not persuaded otherwise by Wells Fargo's contention that,
regardless of whether such records might have probative value in
deciding the merits of an individual's overtime claim, they
certainly would not allow an employee's membership in the proposed
class to be readily ascertained.

Judge Salas finds that the proposed class appears fail-safe.  An
individual seemingly falls in the class if he or she worked for
Wells Fargo as an hourly employee, was required to meet quarterly
quotas for new accounts, worked more than 40 hours per week, was
not paid overtime wages, and meets the time-period qualification
in the Complaint.  The Plaintiffs argue that the remedy for a fail
safe class is simply for the Court to refine the class definition
at the class certification stage.  Tellingly for the Judge, she
says Wells Fargo offers no specific response to this point in its
reply brief.  And declining to strike the class allegations in the
instant context aligns with what appears to be this District's
preference for addressing the issues discussed herein at the class
certification stage.

For these reasons, Judge Salas denied without prejudice Wells
Fargo's motion to strike the class allegations to raising the
arguments in opposition to a future motion for class
certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/Th4q3c from Leagle.com.

JUAN CARLOS MERINO, Plaintiff, represented by ALEXANDRA KOROPEY
PIAZZA -- apiazza@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE PC.

JUAN CARLOS MERINO, Plaintiff, represented by CATHERINE E.
ANDERSON -- canderson@gslawny.com -- GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON
LLP, ERIC LECHTZIN -- elechtzin@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.,
ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH -- roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF
ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH, LLC & RUSSELL S. WARREN, JR.

AGUSTIN MOREL, JR., Plaintiff, represented by ALEXANDRA KOROPEY
PIAZZA, BERGER & MONTAGUE PC, CATHERINE E. ANDERSON, GISKAN
SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP, ERIC LECHTZIN, BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.,
ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH, LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH, LLC &
RUSSELL S. WARREN, JR.

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, Defendant, represented by ROBERT T. SZYBA -
- rszyba@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented by
ROBERT T. SZYBA, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP.


YOUNIQUE LLC: Faces "Schmitt" Suit over Mascara Product
-------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN SCHMITT, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. YOUNIQUE, LLC, and COTY,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01397 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 14,
2017), seeks to recover monetary damages as a result of
Defendants' deceptive and misleading business practices with
respect to the marketing and sales of Younique Moodstruck 3D Fiber
Lashes throughout the State of California and the rest of the
country.

The Product is a mascara that is designed to enhance the
appearance of eyelashes. The mascara consists of two components, a
"Transplanting Gel" and "Natural Fibers." Until 2015, Defendants
manufactured, sold, and distributed the Product using a multilevel
marketing campaign centered on claims that appeal to health-
conscious consumers, i.e., that the Natural Fibers were "natural"
and consisted of "100% Natural Green Tea Fibers." However,
Defendants' advertising and marketing campaign was false,
deceptive, and misleading because the Product did not contain any
green tea leaves and was composed of ground-up nylon, which is not
a "natural" substance.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated relied on Defendants'
misrepresentations that the Natural Fibers were "Natural" and
consisted of "100% Natural Green Tea Fibers" when purchasing the
Product. Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the
Product over and above comparable products that did not purport to
be "natural." Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in
the amount of the premium paid.

The Defendants' conduct violated the federal Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, California's Consumer Legal Remedy Act and
California's Unfair Competition Law. In addition, Defendants'
conduct violated the consumer protection statutes and warranty
laws of other states.

Younique, LLC provides skin and body care products under the
Younique brand. It offers Moodstruck 3D Fiber Lashes+, eyelash
enhancers, and Moodstruck addiction shadow palettes. The company
operates in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
Mexico, France, Spain, Germany, Hong Kong, and Italy. Younique,
LLC is based in Lehi, Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA
          & CARPENTER, LLP
          San Diego, CA 92101
          1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
          Telephone: (619) 762 1900
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          Jeremy Francis, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
          Telephone: (854) 705 9460
          Facsimile: (888) 749 7747
          E-mail: Sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PLLC
          21810 Pine Crest Dr.
          Bly, OR 97622
          Telephone: (541) 359-2827
          Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
          Email: bonner@walshpllc.com


ZTO EXPRESS: Faces "Nurlybayev" Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
RUSTEM NURLYBAYEV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ZTO EXPRESS (CAYMAN) INC.,
MEISONG LAI, JIANFA LAI, JILEI WANG, XIANGLIANG HU, BAIXI LAN,
Z[NG LIU, FRANK ZHEN WEI, and JIANMIN (JAMES) GUO, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG)
LIMITED, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., AND MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
INTERNATIONAL PLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06130
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws.

According to the complaint, ZTO on September 30, 2016, filed a
registration statement on Form F-1 with the SEC. On October 24,
2016, ZTO filed its final amendment to the Registration Statement,
which registered over 82 million ZTO shares for public sale. The
Registration Statement contained a preliminary prospectus. The
final prospectus was filed on October 28, 2016 (Prospectus).  The
Securities and Exchange Commission declared the Registration
Statement effective on October 26. ZTO priced the IPO at $19.50
per share and filed the final Prospectus for the IPO, which forms
part of the Registration Statement. Through the IPO, defendants
issued and sold over 72 million ADSs, generating over $1.36
billion for defendants. The statements were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
ZTO was improperly inflating its stated profit margins by keeping
certain low-margin segments of its business out of its financial
statements. ZTO used a system of "network partners" to handle
lower-margin pickup and delivery services, while maintaining
ownership of core hub operations. By keeping the "network
partners" businesses off its own books, the Company was able to
exaggerate its profit margins to investors.

ZTO, through its subsidiaries, provides express delivery and other
value-added logistics services in China. It offers delivery
services for e-commerce merchants, traditional merchants, and
other express service users, as well as through business
partners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686 0114
          E-mail: fisquith@whafh.com

               - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914 2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914 2002
          E-mail: Thottini@bothnilaw.com


ZURICH AMERICAN: Not Obligated to Pay W.G. for Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned W.G.
HALL, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00646 NC (N.D. Cal.), and granting in
part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff W.G. Hall, LLC (WGH), a staffing services company,
settled a wage and hour class action lawsuit. Before and after
settling the class action, WGH sought coverage from its
professional liability insurer, Zurich American Insurance Company
for the amount it would pay out in the settlement agreement.
Zurich refused to reimburse WGH for the settlement amount on
several grounds, and WGH sued Zurich for breach of contract and
derivative claims.

In its motion, WGH seeks summary judgment on its claims for breach
of contract and declaratory relief, as well as a judgment from the
Court that none of five affirmative defenses raised by Zurich are
applicable in this case. Zurich opposes WGH's motion and seeks
summary judgment on its behalf as to the entire case.

WGH filed the case on February 6, 2017, alleging claims for (1)
breach of contract, (2) breach of contract/duty to defend, (3)
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
(4) declaratory relief. WGH moved for summary judgment.  Zurich
filed a cross motion for summary judgment. Both parties consented
to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. Section
636(c).

The terms in the coverage provision are defined as follows:

"C. Claim means a:

1. Written demand for money resulting from a wrongful act; or
2. Suit resulting from a wrongful act.

F. Damages means the monetary portion of any judgment, award or
settlement, provided such settlement is negotiated with our
assistance and approval. Damages do not include:

2. Personal profit or advantage to which the insured is not
legally entitled;

3. Criminal or civil fines, penalties fees or sanctions.

I. Employee includes but is not limited to a leased worker and a
staffing services worker.

Q. Staffing services means services provided by a staffing company
to their clients including but not limited to:

7. Services performed for a client company to supply that client
with a staffing services worker.
R. Staffing services worker means a person who is furnished by you
to your client to perform the duties to which you have agreed.

V. Wrongful act means any actual or alleged act, error, or
omission, misstatement, or misleading statement in the course of
providing staffing services to your clients by you or by any
person for whose acts you are legally responsible."

In relevant part, the policy provides the following exclusions:

"This insurance shall not apply to any claim, based upon or
arising out of, in whole or in part:

A. Any action made by or on behalf of another insured, in any
capacity.

I. Any liability assumed by an insured under any contract or
agreement, unless such liability would have attached to the
insured by law in the absence of such contract or agreement."

Construction of "Wrongful Act"

In both motions, the parties dispute whether the allegations in
the underlying class action litigation fall under the policy's
coverage of "wrongful acts." The meaning of "wrongful act" is key
in this case because if there is no "wrongful act" within the
meaning of the policy, Zurich is not required to provide coverage
No "Wrongful Act" As Defined in the Policy Was Committed.

WGH was required to pay employees' wages. WGH has never claimed
that no employment contract existed between itself and the
plaintiffs in the underlying litigation, and indeed concedes that
at least oral contracts existed with the plaintiffs. There are no
allegations that WGH assumed liability for these specific
obligations in its general oral employment contracts with class
members.

The claims under the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission
Orders would not exist but for an employment contract. The
plaintiffs in the underlying litigation alleged that WGH failed to
pay wages. This alleged failure is not insurable through the
Zurich policy. WGH has not met its burden to show it was entitled
to coverage.  Thus, the Court GRANTS Zurich's motion for summary
judgment on the first (breach of contract, second (breach of
contract/duty to defend), and fourth (declaratory relief) claims
for relief.

In addition, in its motion for summary judgment, Zurich argues
that WGH's third claim for bad faith/breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim fails because no
coverage is due under the policy. The Court agrees. Zurich cannot,
as a matter of law, be held liable for bad faith if it was not
obligated to cover the underlying litigation in the first place.
The Court also grants Zurich's motion for summary judgment as to
the third claim.

Though the Court grants Zurich's motion for summary judgment on
all of the claims, the Court also address the parties' other
arguments in their cross motions.

The Insured v. Insured Exclusion Does Not Preclude Coverage.

The Court considers the policy language ambiguous because the
policy is occurrence-based, but the text of the policy suggests
the exclusion only applies to claims made by employees, not former
"employees. WGH's argument as to the text of the policy makes
sense, but so does Zurich's argument regarding the context of the
policy. This ambiguity must by law be resolved in the insured's
favor where the insurer did not make exclusions clear.
This exclusion is inapplicable here, the Court concludes.

Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment to Zurich as to
each claim in WGH's complaint.  WGH's motion for partial summary
judgment is denied except as to the insured v. insured exclusion.
The insured v. insured exclusion to coverage is inapplicable in
the case. Yet because this issue has no bearing on the question of
coverage, the Court says its finding has no effect on the overall
outcome of the case. Zurich is not obligated to cover WGH's
settlement in the wage and hour class litigation because the
claims against WGH and the settlement do not fall within the basic
coverage provision of the policy.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's August 31, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycza9lhofrom Leagle.com.

W.G. Hall, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Mariah Lorraine Brandt -
- mariah.brandt@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP.

W.G. Hall, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Leslie Wallan --
robert.wallan@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
LLP.

Zurich American Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
William John Hapiuk -- Bill.Hapiuk@clydeco.us -- Clyde & Co US
LLP, Jane Warring -- jane.warring@clydeco.us -- Clyde Co US LLP,
pro hac vice & Scott Bertschi -- scott.bertschi@clydeco.us --
Clyde Co US LLP, pro hac vice.



                             *********


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  * * *