CAR_Public/170927.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


          Wednesday, September 27, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 191



                            Headlines

AARON'S INC: Court Dismisses "Aguirre" Wage and Hours Class Suit
AARONS INC: Oct. 16 Hearing to Approve "Korrow" Suit Settlement
ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Class Action Appeal
ACH FOOD: Sells Half-Full Baking Mix Cans, Class Action Says
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Court Prepared to Approve Deal in "Moses"

APPLE HOSPITALITY: Settlement Class Preliminarily Certified
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Powerbeats Headphones
APPLE INC: Confidential Accord in "Lusson" Suit Okayed
AVEO GROUP: Residents Push for Curb on Contracts in Class Action
BALTIMORE, MD: P. Harrell Can't Intervene in Class Suit

BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Disclosures
BELLAMY AUSTRALIA: Ct. Bases CA Determination on Litigation Deal
BHP BILLITON: Sued Over Failure to Pay Oilfield Workers Overtime
BLICK ART: Oct. 5 Hearing in "Andrews"
BRASKEM SA: Agrees to Settle U.S. Class Action for $10MM

BRISTOL WEST: Sued in Col. Over Automobile Insurance Policies
BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
CALIBER HOME: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
CALIFORNIA TANNING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Brown" Suit Says
CALYPSO ST. BARTH: Court Approves $145K Class Settlement

CARDCONNECT CORP: Sued in Penn. Over Merchant Services Payments
CAREMERIDIAN LLC: Hit With CA Over Meal and Rest Break Violations
CARLTON MANOR: Class Cert. Bid in "McKinney" Denied as Moot
CHARIOTS OF HIRE: Court Conditionally Certifies Class Action
CHICAGO, IL: Faces "Aldape" Class Suit Over Eviction Plan

CIGNA HEALTH: Faces "Patchell" Class Suit Over ERISA Violation
CLAUDINE DE NIRO: "Dilazary" Suit Moved to S.D. New York
COM DEV: Court Granted Class Certification Motion in "Tom" Suit
COREPOWER YOGA: $1.4MM "Barnard" Class Settlement Has Prelim OK
COSMETIC INSTITUTE: Faces CA Over Breast Procedures Complications

CPA GLOBAL: Wants to Bring Bentham-Funded CA in Channel Islands
CUSTOMER SERVICE: Court Certifies Employees Class in "Elliot"
CVS PHARMACY: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Haynes Claims
DOMINION DIAMOND: Violates New York and Canadian Law
DST SYSTEMS: BOD Sued Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duties

EOG RESOURCES: Faces "Qualls" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EQUIFAX INC: Baltimore Law Firm Leads Class-Action Lawsuit
EQUIFAX INC: Lieff Cabraser File Securities Class Suit
ERICSSON INC: Nguyen Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
EVERKEPT INC: "Burman" Suit Seeks to Certify Drivers Class

FARMERS NEW WORLD: "Olson" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
FCA US: Faces "Budris" Suit in Connecticut Superior Court
FGF BRANDS: "Sims" Suit Moved to Central District of California
FIRST SOUTH: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Proposed Carolina Merger
FLORIDA: Teachers Union Files Potential Class-Action Lawsuit

FLORIDA: Court Approves Settlement in Hernia Treatment Suit
FORD MOTOR: 4,500 Car Owners Opt Out of Powershift Settlement
FORD MOTOR: Beats Class Action Over Defective Vehicle Buybacks
FREIGHT HANDLERS: "Burch" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
GE APPLIANCES: $1.2MM Settlement Reached in Class Action

GLOBALSCAPE INC: Oct. 10 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
GOOGLE INC: Faces "Gurno" Suit over Wallet Service
GOOGLE INC: Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Gender Pay
GRUBHUB: Trial Begins in Delivery Driver's Suit
HEALTH INSURANCE: Nov. 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

IDEAL CONCEPTS: "Gould" Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
ILLINOIS HUMAN SERVICES DEPT: Faces Home Health Workers Suit
IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Hovermale Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
JESSE CASARES: JT's Frames Bid for Class Cert. Terminated as Moot
JIM FISCHER: Employee Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification

JOHN B SANFILIPPO: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Says Benecol Adheres to Regulation
KITE PHARMA: Faces "Berg" Class Suit Over Sale to Gilead Sciences
KOHL'S CORP: Renewed Class Certification Bid Terminated as Moot
LIFE ALERT: Sued Over Failure to Properly Compensate Employees

LINCOLN HILLS, WI: Judge Certifies Youth Prison Class
MARKSTEIN BEVERAGE: Faces "Marshall" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MDL 2591: Certification of 12 Corn Producers Classes Sought
MORNING CALL: Hernandez Seeks Conditional Class Certification
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: "Wiegand" Remanded to Calif. Super. Court

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Metzger" Suit in S.D. New York
NATURES BEST: "Andrade" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
NIKE INC: Judge Dismisses Workers' Suit Over Security Checks
NEW YORK: Public Advocate Has No Capacity to Sue, Court Rules
NORTHERN MARIANAS: Sept. 27 Retirement Fund Status Hearing Set

O'REILLY AUTO: "Davidson" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
PETMED EXPRESS: Faces "Marchese" Suit over Securities Laws
PROCTER & GAMBLE: "Brenner" Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC: "Rolon" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
PURDUE PHARMA: Coventry Joins Class Action Over Opioid Pandemic

QUALITY CABLE: "Card" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: "Racies" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
RITA'S WATER: TCPA Suit Class Members to Get Bigger Scoop of $3MM
RIVIANA FOODS: NY Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Class Action
SCANA CORP: New Suit Seeks Refunds for Failed Nuclear Project

SCHMIDT BAKING:  "Milles" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SERGEANT'S PET: "Bietsch" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
SELA HEALTHCARE: Cal. App. Affirms Order Dismissing "Zaragoza"
SHELL CHEMICAL: Sheila Rowell, et al. Seek to Certify Class
SIMPSONS STRONG-TIE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum, OT Wages

SNAP INC: Investors Seek to Unseal PowerPoint Presentation
SOUTHWEST HARVESTING: Court Grants Settlement Preliminary OK
SOUTHWICK INC: Faces "Lay" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SUBWAY: Appeals Court Rejects Footlong Class Action Settlement
TABLETOPS UNLIMITED: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages

TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA: Motion for Class Certification Denied
TENNESSEE: "Sprague" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & 3 Subclasses
TITLE SOURCE: "Swamy" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
TWIN RIVERS: Combined Bid for Class Action Certification Denied
UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Stricken Without Prejudice

UNITED STATES: "Kirwa" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
UNITED STATES: Army Corps of Engineers Sued Over Water Releases
US DEFENSE DEPARTMENT: Soldiers Sue over Promised Citizenship
VACAVILLE, CA: Must Defend Suit over Contaminated Water
VECTOR MARKETING: "Donald" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri

VETERANS & MEDICAID: "Hanshaw" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
VOCUS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Guidance Downgrade
WASHINGTON: Judge Tosses Nursing Home Residents' Class Action
WATCH TOWER: Hit With Sexual Abuse Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Court Narrows Claims in "Flower" UCL Suit

WELLS FARGO: Enters Class Action Settlement
WISCONSIN: Suit v. Jon Listcher Wins Class Certification
XENITH BANKSHARES: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Union Merger Plan
XEROX: Hit With Class Action Over Excessive Leasing Fees
ZILLOW GROUP: Oct. 23 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

* Attorney Says Class Action Lawsuits Over 'Soda Pop Tax' Only



                            *********


AARON'S INC: Court Dismisses "Aguirre" Wage and Hours Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Southern District of California,
issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned CARLOS AGUIRRE, Plaintiff, v. AARON'S INC. DBA AARON'S
SALES & LEASE OWNERSHIP, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-0297-L-BLM
(S.D. Cal.), however, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the
complaint.

In the putative wages and hours class action, Defendant Aaron's,
Inc., dba Aaron's Sales & Lease Ownership filed a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a store manager. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant misclassified him as exempt, and that, as a
result of misclassification, he was not provided meal and rest
periods, paid overtime or hourly wages for all hours worked,
receive accurate wage statements, forfeited vested vacation pay,
and was not timely paid his final wages in violation of numerous
provisions of the California Labor Code and the Federal Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

Based on the alleged violations, Plaintiff also alleges violation
of the California Unfair Competition Law. The Court has federal
question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C Section 1331 because
Plaintiff alleges a federal claim under the FLSA.

A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the
complaint.  Dismissal is warranted where the complaint lacks a
cognizable legal theory.

To state a claim for violation of the FLSA's minimum wage and
overtime provisions under 29 U.S.C. Sections 206 and 207, "at a
minimum the plaintiff must allege at least one workweek when he
worked in excess of forty hours and was not paid for the excess
hours in that workweek, or was not paid minimum wages.

Although Plaintiff alleges that he and the putative class members
would regularly work between eight to twelve hours per day, he
does not allege that he or any of the putative class members
worked more than 40 hours in any given week. Plaintiff also does
not affirmatively allege that he or any of the putative class
members were paid less than their earned regular-time wages at any
given time. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not stated a claim for a
violation of the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime provisions.

The Court must next consider whether Plaintiff should be granted
leave to amend.  Rule 15 advises leave to amend shall be freely
given when justice so requires.  This policy is to be applied with
extreme liberality.

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th
Cir. 2003),  In the absence of any apparent or declared reason
such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of
the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment,
etc.  the leave sought should, as the rules require, be freely
given.

Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's eighth cause
of action for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act is
dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim. All remaining causes of action are
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1367(c)(3).

Plaintiff is granted leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybxs4h5efrom Leagle.com.

Carlos Aguirre, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Carlos Aguirre, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Alistair Segal--
thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Aaron's, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christian J. Rowley,
crowley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Michael W. Stevens,
Seyfarth & Shaw LLP & Tatyana Shmygol -- tshmygol@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


AARONS INC: Oct. 16 Hearing to Approve "Korrow" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARGARET KORROW, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AARONS, INC. and John
Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 3:10-06317-MAS-LHG (D.N.J.),
the Plaintiff will move the Court on October 16, 2017, for entry
of an order granting preliminary approval of class action
settlement, provisionally decertifying certified Class, certifying
settlement class, appointing Plaintiff as Settlement Class
representatives and her attorneys as Settlement Class Counsel, and
scheduling of a Fairness Hearing.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mhvR1mzz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Hwy 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08920
          Telephone: (732) 545 7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545 1030

               - and -

          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MCGINN
          20 Nassau Street, Suite 250W-2
          Princeton, NJ 08542
          Telephone: (732) 937 9400
          Facsimile: (800) 931 2408

               - and -

          BEREZOFSKY LAW GROUP, LLC
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1300
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-1929
          Telephone: (215) 557 0099
          Facsimile: (856) 667 5133

               - and -

          CUKER LAW FIRM, LLC
          One Commerce Square, Suite 1120
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 531 2822


ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Class Action Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., on Sept. 13 disclosed that the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit signed an
order dismissing the plaintiffs' Appeal of their class action
lawsuit filed against Accelerate and certain of its executives.
Shortly before the Appeal was scheduled to be argued, the
plaintiffs/appellants voluntarily requested that their case be
dismissed.

"This is a case that should have never been brought," said
Steven Schatz -- sschatz@wsgr.com -- of Wilson Sonsini who
represented Accelerate and its executives.  "Accelerate and the
individual defendants acted entirely properly.  I am pleased that
they have been vindicated.  They should not have had to bear the
distraction and cost of this suit."  The lawsuit was filed in
March of 2015 against the company, its President and CEO, Lawrence
Mehren, and CFO, Steve Reichling, and alleged that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false or misleading statements about the
Accelerate Pheno(TM) system, formerly called the BACcel System.
The defendants denied all such allegations.

In January of last year, the U.S. District Court in Arizona
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case with prejudice.
The Appeal was subsequently filed by the plaintiffs challenging
the decision of the district court.  A year and a half later,
after fully briefing the case and on the cusp of oral arguments,
the plaintiffs abandoned their Appeal.  The plaintiffs -- without
seeking a settlement with the defendants -- requested that the
Ninth Circuit dismiss their case.  The Appeal was docketed as
Chang v. Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-CV-00504-
SPL (9th Cir. filed Feb. 26, 2016). [GN]


ACH FOOD: Sells Half-Full Baking Mix Cans, Class Action Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Graf, writing for Law360, reports that a proposed class of
customers alleged on September 14 in California federal court that
food manufacturer ACH Food Companies Inc. purposefully packages
baking mix products in opaque containers that are only half full,
misrepresenting the items to drive sales.

Anthony Buso, who brought the suit, said consumers rely on the
size of the nontransparent packaging of Fleischmann's Simply
Homemade Baking Mix products to gauge the amount of mix they're
buying but that ACH only fills the boxes about halfway.

"Consumers believe that the Fleischmann's Simply Homemade Baking
Mix product containers are substantially full because they cannot
see the actual contents within the nontransparent container," the
suit said.

Buso claimed that a reasonable consumer would expect the boxes to
be "substantially filled with product." He said that he would not
have purchased the baking mix had he known that it contained about
50 percent of empty space or slack-fill. Buso and other customers
paid full price for the baking mix but received a half-empty
product, the complaint alleged.

"Plaintiff was surprised and disappointed when he opened the
Fleischmann's Simply Homemade Baking Mix Cornbread product to
discover that the container had more than 50 percent empty space,"
the suit said.

Buso argued that there is no "practical reason" to package the
product with that much empty space.

Buso seeks to represent a class of California residents who bought
Fleischmann's products in containers with nonfunctional slack-
fill.

He is alleging violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.

Representatives for ACH didn't respond on September 14 to requests
for comment.

Counsel for Buso also didn't respond on September 14 to requests
for comment.

Buso is represented by Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. --
sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com -- of Pacific Trial Attorneys.

Counsel information for ACH was not available on September 14.

The case is Anthony Buso v. ACH Food Companies Inc., case number
3:17-cv-01872, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California. [GN]


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Court Prepared to Approve Deal in "Moses"
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued an Opinion ordering counsel in the case captioned
SUSAN MOSES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE HOSPITALITY REIT, INC., Defendants,
No. 14-CV-3131 (SMG) (E.D.N.Y.), to submit a revised version of
the proposed order for preliminary approval of a class settlement
and related relief.

The parties have also expounded upon why, although the settlement
amount reflects only a small percentage of the damages plaintiffs
assert they could prove at trial, the litigation risks are
sufficiently substantial to conclude that the amount is fair and
reasonable.  The parties have likewise more thoroughly explained
the basis for the allocation plan contemplated by the settlement
agreement and that appears to be fair and reasonable as well.
Finally, the parties have amended the settlement agreement and
both forms of notice to absent class members largely as was
discussed during the hearing.

Accordingly, the Court is prepared to enter the proposed Order
Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement submitted.
Counsel is directed to submit a revised version of the proposed
order that includes suggested dates for each relevant event, after
contacting my chambers to determine the Court's availability for a
final fairness hearing.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017
Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9qnempofrom
Leagle.com.

Susan Moses, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Gray, Law
Offices of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., 460 Park Ave, New York, NY
10022, USA

Susan Moses, Plaintiff, represented by James J. Eccleston --
JEccleston@ecclestonlaw.com -- Eccleston Law Offices, P.C.,
Jeffrey M. Salas, Salas Wang LLC, 155 North Wacker Drive Suite
4250 Chicago, IL, pro hac vice & Christine Elizabeth Goodrich --
cgoodrich@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.

Marsha wilchfort, Plaintiff, represented by Lee Squitieri --
lee@sfclasslaw.com -- Squitieri & Fearon, LLP.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
F. Edwards -- eedwards@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro
hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr. -- jmcmahan@glvlawfirm.com --
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marshall Beil -- mbeil@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods,
Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire Woods LLP & Stanley A. Roberts --
sroberts@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.

Glade M. Knight, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.

Bryan Peery, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.

Kent W. Colton, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.

Glenn W. Bunting, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.

Ronald A. Rosenfeld, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F.
Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.

Anthony Francis Keating, III, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
F. Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan,
Jr., McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP,
pro hac vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow,
McGuire Woods LLP.

Lisa B. Kern, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.

Bruce H. Matson, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.

Michael S. Waters, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.

Robert M. Wily, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Settlement Class Preliminarily Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SUSAN MOSES, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APPLE HOSPITALITY
REIT INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-03131 (SMG) (E.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Steven M. Gold Court preliminarily certifies a
Settlement Class of:

   "any person in the United States who participated in the DRIPs
   for Apple REIT Seven and/or Apple REIT Eight from July 17,
   2007 to June 27, 2013 inclusive."

The Court preliminarily concludes that the Settlement was
negotiated in good faith and is fair, reasonable and adequate,
subject to proof to this Court's satisfaction in connection with
Final Approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Accordingly, the Court
hereby preliminarily approves the Settlement. The Court reserves
the authority to approve the Settlement with or without
modification and with or without further notice of any kind. The
Court further reserves the authority to enter its Final Order and
Judgment approving the Settlement and dismissing the Claims
against Defendant on the merits and with prejudice regardless of
whether it has awarded attorneys' fees and expenses. A Final
Fairness Hearing (which, from time to time, and without further
notice to the Class other than by filing a notice on the docket in
the Class Action in advance of the Final Fairness Hearing, may be
continued or adjourned by order of this Court) will be held by
this Court on January 16, 2018 at 4:30 p.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=81WhX3az


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Powerbeats Headphones
--------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that five Plaintiffs from across the U.S.
(Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Florida and California) have filed a
Class Action lawsuit against Apple.  The class action covers 15
counts against Apple regarding defective Powerbeats headphones
that fall under four categories of claims: Express Warranty
Claims, Implied Warranty Claims, Consumer Protection Statute
Claims and Common Law Claims.

Nature of the Class Action

The following is from the formal complaint under 'Nature of the
Class Action:

Plaintiffs challenge Defendant's actions in connection with their
marketing, advertising and sale of the defective Powerbeats2 and
Powerbeats3 headphones ("Powerbeats").

In widespread advertising and marketing campaigns, Apple touts
that its costly Powerbeats (which retail for $199.95) are "BUILT
TO ENDURE" and are the "BEST HEADPHONES FOR WORKING OUT." Apple
repeatedly emphasizes that its Powerbeats are "Sweat & Water
Resistant," and employs world-famous professional athletes,
including LeBron James and Serena Williams, to promote its
Powerbeats in commercials as heavy-duty headphones suited for
workouts that can withstand rough treatment and exposure to the
elements.  In numerous places, including the packaging of the
headphones, Defendant represents that Powerbeats 2 have a six-hour
rechargeable battery and the Powerbeats 3 have a twelve-hour
battery life.

But these costly headphones are neither "built to endure" nor
"sweat & water resistant" and certainly do not have a battery that
lasts for six or twelve hours.  Instead, these shoddy headphones
contain a design defect that causes the battery life to diminish
and eventually stop retaining a charge.  Often, after minimal
usage, sometimes only days or weeks, the Powerbeats stop accepting
a charge and the indicator light blinks red.  Then, the Powerbeats
will either not power on at all, or will only power on for minutes
at a time.  Upon information and belief, thousands of users have
experienced this identical defect with their Powerbeats after less
than a year of use.

Plaintiffs and many consumers like them have all experienced the
same defect rapidly diminishing battery life and eventual failure
to retain a charge after using the Powerbeats during exercise or
other light activity.  But despite numerous consumer complaints,
Apple has not publicly acknowledged the defect or attempted to fix
it.  Instead, when consumers attempt to take advantage of Apple's
one year warranty and return the Powerbeats for a new pair, Apple
sends replacement Powerbeats that often contain the exact same
defect.  Many consumers, including Plaintiffs Deonn Morgan,
Jennifer Zielinski, Sophia Ivy, and Kelly Okorocha , have been
through several pairs of Powerbeats only to experience the same
defect each time.  Consumers are therefore caught in a vicious
cycle: use, malfunction, replacement, repeat.

Apple continues to promote and market its faulty Powerbeats, and
continues to profit handsomely from their sale.  In so doing,
Apple has defrauded the public and cheated its consumers,
including Plaintiffs.

The Powerbeats' purportedly long lasting battery is a material
feature of the product.  Powerbeats do not work, and are
worthless, unless they are able to retain a charge and the
batteries of the Powerbeats are able to last for a reasonable
amount of time.

Reasonable consumers expect that high-end Bluetooth headphones
will continue to function after minimal use.  Reasonable
consumers, including Plaintiffs, would not have purchased
Powerbeats had they known they contained defects that would cause
the battery life to rapidly diminish and eventually fail to charge
entirely.

As a result of the defect in the Powerbeats, Plaintiffs and the
proposed class have suffered damages.  They purchased Powerbeats
that they would not otherwise have bought had they known of the
existence of the defect. Moreover, they bought defective
Powerbeats that are not worth the price that they paid."

The Class Action covers 15 counts under four categories of Claims
as follows:

Express Warranty Claims

COUNT I: - (Breach of Express Warranty--Magnuson Moss Warranty
Act--On Behalf of the Nationwide Class and Each Subclass)

COUNT II: (Express Warranty--On Behalf of Nationwide Class, and in
the Alternative and the California Subclass)

COUNT III: (In the Alternative, Breach of Express Warranty on
Behalf of Pennsylvania Subclass under 13 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat.
Ann. Sec 2313 and the Florida Subclass Under Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec.
672.313)

Implied Warranty Claims

COUNT IV: (Breach of the California Song-Beverly Act-Implied
Warranty of Merchantability--On Behalf of Nationwide Class and
California Subclass)

COUNT V: (Violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301et seq.: The Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act-Implied Warranty--On Behalf Of the Nationwide
Class and All State Subclasses

COUNT VI: (In the Alternative Implied Warranty of Merchantability
on Behalf of the State Subclasses for Pennsylvania Under 13 Pa.
Con. Stat. Ann. Sec. 2314 and Florida Under Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec.
672.314)

COUNT VII: (In the Alternative, Breach of Warranty Against
Redhibitory Defects--On Behal of the Louisiana Subclass)

Consumer Protection Statute Claims

COUNT VIII: (Violation of the CLRA--On Behalf of Nationwide Class)

COUNT IX: (Violation of the UCL-On Behalf of Nationwide Class)

COUNT X: (In the Alternative, Violation of Florida Consumer
Protection Laws--On Behalf of Florida Subclass)

COUNT XI: (In the Alternative, Violation of Pennsylvania Consumer
Protection Laws-On Behalf of Pennsylvania Subclass)

Common Law Claims

COUNT XIII: (Common Law Fraud--On Behalf of Nationwide Class)

COUNT XIV: (Negligence--On Behalf of Nationwide Class)

COUNT XV: (Unjust Enrichment)
[GN]


APPLE INC: Confidential Accord in "Lusson" Suit Okayed
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San
Francisco, on September 6, signed off on a confidential settlement
between Apple and 169 iPhone users who claimed a fatal "Error 53"
code rendered their devices useless.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria also dismissed the putative
class action without prejudice, should others not party to the
settlement wish to refile.

The case is captioned, NICHOLAS LUSSON, BRYANT KUSHMICK, ALEXANDER
SAENZ, JOHN DENOMA, NORA PENNER, JEANMARIE ANAYA, and KENDALL
LANGE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-
00705-VC(N.D. Cal., September 6, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Darrell L. Cochran, Esq.
     Jason P. Amala, Esq.
     Loren A. Cochran, Esq.
     Christopher E. Love, Esq.
     PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC
     911 Pacific Ave., Ste. 200
     Tacoma, WA 98402
     Tel: (253) 777-0799
     E-mail: darrel@pcvalaw.com
             jamala@pcvalaw.com
             loren@pcvalaw.com
             chris@pcvalaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.:

     Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
     Adam M. Kaplan, Esq.
     O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
     Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
     San Francisco, CA  94111-3823
     Telephone: (415) 984-8700
     Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
     E-mail: mpowers@omm.com
             akaplan@omm.com


AVEO GROUP: Residents Push for Curb on Contracts in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Lenaghan, writing for Financial Review, reports that former
residents of Aveo are seeking sweeping injunctions to limit how
the retirement giant applies its Aveo Way residential contracts in
retirement villages, in a Federal Court class action lodged this
week.

The controversial contracts are at the heart of the litigation,
filed in the Melbourne division of the court, which accuses of
Aveo of unconscionable conduct and engaging in misleading or
deceptive conduct.

The class action has been brought by Sydney law firm Levitt
Robinson as an open class lawsuit. It was lodged as Melbourne
lawyers Maurice Blackburn opened registrations for a separate
class action.

Through the Aveo Way contracts freehold property held by residents
who are selling out of their villages is later bought on leasehold
for incoming residents.

"Effectively their freehold interest is being sold off as a
leasehold so they are getting a price that reflects an inferior
interest," Stewart Levitt told The Australian Financial Review.

The Levitt Robinson writ seeks compensation from Aveo and also
asks the court to condemn Aveo's actions through a series of
declarations about its conduct.

The lawsuit also seeks a series of injunctions that would curtail
how the Aveo Way program is applied.

Among those restrictions, it seeks that "full disclosure" be made
to residents that the "relevant Aveo manager has an option to
purchase any unit exercisable once a sale notice has been given".

Also, it seeks an injunction preventing the Aveo Way being
implemented without residents being told that no agent need be
appointed to sell their unit when it's being purchased by an Aveo
manager.

Another order is sought to prevent the retirement giant from
implementing the Aveo Way in any village "in a manner which unduly
or unreasonably prolongs the sale period".

The claim notes that "market value" of the original property
freehold holdings "would be more than the value" of the Aveo Way
style contracts, acquired as leasehold, by the incoming residents.

It alleges that "the sole purpose or alternatively the dominant
purpose" of introducing the Aveo Way system was to benefit one or
more of Aveo, the manager and the real estate agent.

The benefits include increasing the manager's "share of exit fees
and capital gains" from units sold under the Aveo Way program and
by "procuring the payment to the relevant real estate agent of
sales commission".

The lead plaintiffs in the case are the children of Robert Luke,
who bought a unit at the Peregian Springs village in Queensland
and has since passed away.

The unit was bought for AUD270,000 in 2003 and eventually sold for
AUD379,000 with the incoming resident holding the property on a
99-year lease.

After all fees including an exit fee were deducted, the Luke
estate received a little more than AUD219,000.

Aveo is yet to comment on the Levitt Robinson lawsuit. Chief
executive Geoff Grady has previously said the operator always acts
in the best interests of its residents.

"We vigorously deny any suggestion to the contrary and we are
confident that we can show that we have at all times met our
statutory and other obligations and our commitment to residents,"
he said previously.

The legal moves follow weeks of intense scrutiny and adverse
publicity around Aveo's retirement model.

The retirement giant responded to that criticism last month, with
pledges to simplify its sales contracts and improve its complaints
process. [GN]


BALTIMORE, MD: P. Harrell Can't Intervene in Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's Order denying Phoenicia
Harrell's Motion to Compel Intervention in the appeals case
captioned NICOLE ANDREA SMITH; JACQUELINE KIANA MORANT; AMY
TOWSON; SARA GARRET; ONNADAY MCINTOSH-GRIGGS; STEPHANIE HARRIS;
TAKIRA CARTER; LYNETTE COOPER; SHANAE BARNES; CELESTE ENGLISH;
MYRTLE GILBERT; TOWANDA PARKER; TRACEY HOLDEN; ROSENA PRINCE;
LASONIA GILBERT; DETRIA ADAMS; SIERRIA WARREN; SHANAE BOLES;
KHRYSTYNA KELLEY, All of the above Individually Named Plaintiffs
On Behalf of Themselves and all Other Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, and VITINA YVETTE THOMAS, Plaintiff, v.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE CITY; PAUL T. GRAZIANO, Baltimore
City Housing Commissioner and Executive Director of the Housing
Authority of Baltimore City; THE CITY OF BALTIMORE; MAYOR AND CITY
COUNSEL OF BALTIMORE; CHARLES COLEMAN, a/k/a Clinton Coleman; DOUG
HUSSY; MICHAEL ROBINSON; DOUG HUSSEY, Defendants-Appellees, and
CLINTON COLEMAN; MICHAEL ROBERTSON, Defendants, v. PHOENICIA
HARRELL, Movant-Appellant, No. 17-1103 (4th Cir.).

Phoenicia Harrell appeals from the district court's order denying
her motion to compel intervention into a class action.

Harrell is alleging that she and other potential class members did
not get proper notice that a phone interview needed to be
completed in order to qualify as a member of the class.  However,
it is undisputed that, in order to properly register as a member
of the class, the written registration form was due. It is further
undisputed that Harrell's form was postmarked, but not received
until after that date. In an effort to show that her registration
was timely filed, Harrell relies on the mailbox rule, arguing that
her registration was timely postmarked.

On appeal, Harrell contends that the district court erred in not
compelling Class Counsel to produce documents regarding absent
class members who were rejected due to lack of a phone interview
and that the district court erred in not decertifying the class
due to inadequate notice to Harrell and others.

It appears that Harrell is arguing that she was not notified of
her rejection from the class until the court had already closed
the case, thus preventing her ability to challenge the rejection
and uncover other improperly rejected applicants. However, it is
undisputed that Harrell was informed of the final fairness and
approval hearing, as well as her ability to appear at the fairness
hearing or file objections the settlement agreement. Harrell was
also given notice of how to ask questions or get more information,
and she could have easily determined the status of her application
prior to the fairness hearing. It is further undisputed that
Harrell did not object to the settlement agreement or the fairness
hearing.

The district court concluded that Harrell's application was
untimely filed and that she failed to show any excusable neglect.
Thus, the procedural errors, if any, were merely harmless.

Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's
order.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' September 11, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8vpzqapfrom Leagle.com.

Landon M. White, LAW OFFICE OF LANDON M. WHITE, LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant, 2225 Saint Paul Street, 21218, Baltimore,
MD, USA

Cary J. Hansel, Erienne A. Sutherell, HANSEL LAW, PC, Baltimore,
Maryland;, 2514 N Charles St, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA, Carrie
Blackburn Riley, BLACKBURN RILEY, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees,  409 Washington Ave, Baltimore, MD 21204, USA


BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Barclays Plc
won the dismissal on Sept. 13 of U.S. class-action litigation by
investors who bought its stock just months before the 2008 global
financial crisis, and accused it of concealing its exposure to
risky debt and an inability to manage credit risks.

U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty in Manhattan said investors failed
to show that Barclays and underwriters led by Citigroup Inc
deceived them when the British bank sold $2.5 billion of American
depositary shares in April 2008.

Though the shares lost 80 percent of their value by the following
March, Judge Crotty said much of that decline could have reflected
fallout from the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, the
bailout of U.S. insurer American International Group Inc, and
government capital injections into other British banks.

"In such circumstances, the prospect that the plaintiff's loss was
caused by the alleged misrepresentations decreases," Judge  Crotty
wrote in a 51-page decision.

The decision could end 8-1/2 years of litigation, and remove one
hurdle as Chief Executive Jes Staley focuses on scaling back
Barclays' geographic reach, increasing the bank's emphasis on
investment banking, and addressing various regulatory probes,
including over the financial crisis.

Lawyers for the investors did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.  Barclays spokeswoman Kerrie Cohen declined to
comment, as did Citigroup spokeswoman Danielle Romero-Apsilos.

The case is one of many accusing big banks of inflating their
share prices by hiding or being too slow to fix souring credits on
their balance sheets.

Barclays wrote off 2.8 billion pounds ($3.7 billion) on subprime
mortgages and other risky debt a few months after the ADS
offering, and a large capital-raising plan soon followed.

But Judge Crotty said Barclays' disclosures to investors about its
capital strength and dealings with British financial regulators
were sufficient, as were its disclosures about how further credit
market "dislocations" might hurt its finances.

"Given these disclosures, a reasonable investor would infer how
continued credit market dislocation might reasonably be expected
to have a material impact on future revenues," leaving Barclays
"vulnerable to additional write-downs," Judge Crotty wrote.

The judge dismissed other parts of the lawsuit in 2011.  A federal
appeals court revived the portion about the $2.5 billion ADS
offering two years later.

The case is In re: Barclays Bank Plc Securities Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 09-01989. [GN]


BELLAMY AUSTRALIA: Ct. Bases CA Determination on Litigation Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Freund, writing for Litigation Finance Journal, reports that
Bellamy Australia Ltd, a major Australian food and beverage
company, is facing dual shareholder class action suits following
the plunge of its stock price in the wake of low sales growth in
China. One class action is Slater and Gordon, and is funded by IMF
Bentham, while the other is being brought by Maurice Blackburn and
is being funded by ICP Capital.

Given that both cases are extremely similar, with the major
disparity being the specifics of the litigation funding agreements
in each, Bellamy moved to have both proceedings permanently
stayed. The Australian courts now had an interesting decision to
make.

As Lexology reports, Justice Beach was faced with 5 potential
decisions:

-- consolidation of the two proceedings into one proceeding;
-- a permanent stay of one of the proceedings;
-- a "declassing" order under section 33N(1) of the Federal Court
    of Australia Act 1976;
-- the closure of one proceeding, leaving the other proceeding
    open; or
-- a joint trial with each proceeding remaining as open class
    proceedings (which Justice Beach described as the "do nothing"
    option).

Justice Beach ultimately determined that a closure of one
proceeding was the most appropriate option, in order to eliminate
the duplication of group membership in each proceeding.

Justice Beach then evaluated each claim's third party funding
agreement, and concluded that the Bentham/Slater and Gordon case
should remain open, while the ICP/Maurice Blackburn case is
closed. The Justice based his determination on how the following
factors would impact unsigned group members:

-- the experience of the practitioners seeking to bring the
    representative actions;
-- the costs the practitioners anticipated charging;
-- the terms, conditions and percentage of the funding
    agreements;
-- the resources made available by each legal representatives and
    their accessibility to clients;
-- the fact that one proceeding was commenced first in time
    generally carries little weight unless one proceeding has been
    on foot for significantly longer than the other and is more
    advanced;
-- the number of signed up group members; and
-- the position adopted by each funder on the question of
    security for costs and their resources to meet any adverse
    costs order.

Based on those metrics, Justice Beach determined that the ICP-
funded case should be closed, as there was concern about the
financial situation of ICP and whether they could post the
necessary security for costs. Interestingly, modelling undertaken
by the parties also suggested that Bentham's funding model "may
generate a more beneficial result for group members." [GN]


BHP BILLITON: Sued Over Failure to Pay Oilfield Workers Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Whitaker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BHP Billiton Petroleum (Americas) Inc., Case No. 4:17-
cv-02698 (S.D. Tex., September 7, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay certain oilfield workers overtime as
required by Fair Labor Standards Act.

BHP Billiton Petroleum (Americas) Inc. is a global independent
energy company engaged in the exploration and production of crude
oil and natural gas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 352-1100
      Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
      E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
              adunlap@mybackwages.com

         - and -

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

BLICK ART: Oct. 5 Hearing in "Andrews"
--------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, in the putative class action styled VICTOR ANDREWS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
BLICK ART MATERIALS, LLC, Defendant, No. 17-CV-767 (E.D.N.Y.),
will convene a hearing in Courtroom 10B South on October 5, 2017,
at 10:30 a.m.

The named plaintiff and a representative with knowledge for
defendant shall be present with counsel.

The court is particularly interested in a number of aspects of the
proposed settlement: How will the defendants' websites technically
operate once they comply with the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA?

The court would find useful a demonstration of the technology
proposed to be implemented assuming there is no action by the
Department of Justice or substantial changes in technology while
the proposed changes are being implemented.

The court will not be in a position to determine the
appropriateness of the WCAG 2.0 Level AA Guidelines until it
understands them.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybeuhtmk
from Leagle.com.

Victor Andrews, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Seelig, Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC, 30 East 39 th. Street, Second Floor. New
York, NY 10016.

Victor Andrews, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation
Group, PLLC, 30 East 39 th. Street, Second Floor. New York, NY
10016.

Blick Art Materials, LLC, Defendant, represented by David Seth
Korzenik, Miller Korzenik Sommers LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, Suite
1120New York, NY 10022-5702, Steve Baron, Mandell Menkes LLC,
Steven Mandell -- smandell@mandellmenkes.com -- Mandell Menkes
LLC, pro hac vice & Terence Patrick Keegan, Miller Korzenik
Sommers Rayman LLP, 488 Madison AvenueSuite 1120New York, NY
10022-5702


BRASKEM SA: Agrees to Settle U.S. Class Action for $10MM
--------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports Brazilian petrochemical company Braskem SA said on
September 14 it has signed an agreement to settle a class action
lawsuit with a $10 million payment.

Under the accord, which requires court approval, the money will be
paid to investors who acquired American Depositary Receipts (ADRs)
in Braskem between July 2010 and March 2015. [GN]


BRISTOL WEST: Sued in Col. Over Automobile Insurance Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Vogel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bristol West Insurance Company and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 1:17-cv-02149-STV (D. Col., September 7,
2017), arises out of Bristol's practice of unlawfully failing to
pay its insured, specifically holders of Bristol automobile
insurance policies certain statutory mandated fees in the event an
automobile accident or other event results in a total loss
determination by Bristol for the insured's vehicle.

Bristol West Insurance Company offers a wide range of coverage
options to meet the needs of customers for private passenger auto
insurance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett N. Huff, Esq.
      HUFF & LESLIE, LLP
      2480 Gray Street
      Edgewater, CO 80214
      Telephone: (303) 232-3622
      Facsimile: (303) 274-0638
      E-mail: bhuff@huffandleslie.com


BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TAMERRA WASHINGTON, the Plaintiff, v.
BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL, P.C., LLO.; KIRK E. BRUMBAUGH; and MARK
QUANDAHL, the Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-00444-JMG-MDN (D.
Neb.), the Hon. Judge John M. Gerrard entered an order

   1. denying Washington's motion for class certification;

   2. denying B&Q's motion to dismiss for failure to state a
      claim as moot;

   3. granting in part B&Q's motion for summary judgment part;

   4. granting in part and denying in part Washington's motion
      for partial summary judgment;

   5. denying B&Q's motion for contempt;

   6. directing Washington to show cause, on or before October 7,
      2017, why summary judgment should not be entered as to her
      NCPA claims;

   7. directing Clerk of the Court to enter a show cause deadline
      of October 7, 2017; and

   8. referring matter to the Magistrate Judge for case
      progression as to Washington's remaining, unresolved claim
      against Quandahl.

The Court said, "B&Q is entitled to summary judgment on each of
Washington's FDCPA claims with the exception of Count I, which
alleges violations based on the "sworn" and "filed" language
described above. With respect to that claim, Washington is
entitled to summary judgment, and statutory damages in the amount
of $1,000. But it is unclear, at least at this point, if defendant
Quandahl shares in that liability. In other words, because genuine
issues of material fact remain as to whether Quandahl is or was a
"debt collector," the Court is unable to determine whether, if at
all, Quandahl is liable. Accordingly, at this juncture, the claims
remaining for disposition are Washington's NCPA claims and her
claim against Quandahl based on the "sworn" and "filed" language
of B&Q's discovery request."

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


CALIBER HOME: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Snow, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Persons
Similarly Situated v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. ("Caliber"), and US
Bank N.A., Case No. 17-0006145 (D.C. Super. Ct., September 7,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, specifically by contradicting and
overshadowing the Plaintiff's rights to dispute the debt and by
communicating directly with the Plaintiff when the defendants
knew, or should have known, that the Plaintiff was represented by
an attorney.

Caliber Home Loans, Inc. is an Irving, Texas-based home mortgage
originator and servicer established in 2013 by the merger of
Caliber Funding and Vericrest Financial.

US Bank N.A. is the 5th largest commercial bank in the United
States and provides banking, investment, mortgage, trust, and
payment services products to individuals, businesses, governmental
entities, and other financial institutions. [BN]

Frances Snow is a pro se plaintiff.


CALIFORNIA TANNING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Brown" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Brown, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. California Tanning Salons, Inc., Cop A Tan,
Inc., and Does 1-50, Case No. BC675212 (Cal. Super. Ct., September
7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants operate a tanning business in the State of
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Heather Davis, Esq.
      Amir Na Yebdadash, Esq.
      PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
      136 Main St., Suite A
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 290-3095
      Facsimile: (866) 264-7880


CALYPSO ST. BARTH: Court Approves $145K Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the case captioned ALECIA HOSUE, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. CALYPSO
ST. BARTH, INC., Defendant, Docket No. 160400/2015, Seq. No. 004.
(N.Y. Sup.), filed the present Class Action Complaint in New York
County Supreme Court.  The Complaint alleged that Defendant
violated the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and its supporting New York
State Department Of Labor Regulations (NYCRR) during the Class
Period because Defendant required its Sales Employees to work off-
the-clock after the end of their scheduled shift and during meal
breaks without compensation and failed to include commissions in
the regular rate of pay when calculating the overtime rate of pay
for Sales Employees, thereby depriving these Sales Employees of
straight and overtime wages.

A Joint Settlement Agreement and Release was fully executed by all
parties to effectuate the parties' agreement to resolve this
matter for $145,000.00.

The Court certifies the following class under Article 9 of the New
York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) for settlement purposes
(Settlement Class):

     All non-exempt hourly paid employees who worked as Sales
Employees for Defendant in the State of New York, who are or were
employed at any time from  through the date of Preliminary
Approval and who, during the class period, allegedly did not have
their commissions included in their regular rate of pay when
calculating their overtime rate of pay, were allegedly not paid
all of their straight time pay and overtime pay for work performed
during meal breaks and for work performed post-shift off the
clock, and allegedly were not provided with accurate wage
statements.

The Court grants the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Service Awards to Plaintiff and two other
Participating Class Members Dario Rodriguez and Paola
Francisquini, and Class Counsel's Attorney's Fees and Costs, and
finally approves the settlement, as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, of $145,000.00.

The Court finds reasonable the service award of $5,000.00 for the
class representative, Alecia Hosue, given the significant
contributions she made to advance the prosecution and resolution
of the lawsuit. This award will be paid from the settlement fund.

The Court also finds reasonable the service awards of $2,500.00
for participating class members Dario Rodriguez and Paola
Francisquini given the contributions they made to advance the
prosecution and resolution of the lawsuit. These awards will be
paid from the settlement fund.

The Court grants Class Counsel's request for attorney's fees and
awards Class Counsel $48,328.50 which is 33.33% of the settlement
fund.

The Court confirms Rust as the Claims Administrator. The Court
approves Class Counsel's request for the Claims Administrator to
be paid out of the settlement fund. The estimated administration
costs are $15,000. Claims Administrator fees in this amount are
routinely found reasonable. Therefore, the Court will approve all
reasonable Claims Administrator fees in an amount not to exceed
$15,000.00.

A full-text copy of the Court's September 11, 2017 Decision and
Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycbdqhyvfrom Leagle.com.


CARDCONNECT CORP: Sued in Penn. Over Merchant Services Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tech Lounge SP, LLC and The Law Office of Kevin Adams, PLLC, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Cardconnect Corp., Case No. 2:17-cv-04014-WD (E.D. Penn.,
September 7, 2017), seeks monetary damages, restitution, and
declaratory relief from the Defendant arising from its improper
business practices in connection with the provision of merchant
services relating to payments via credit and debit cards.

Cardconnect Corp. provides payment processing solutions to small
and medium business merchants and enterprise customers in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
      Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
      GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 985-9177
      Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
      E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
              kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com

         - and -

      E. Adam Webb, Esq.
      Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
      WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
      1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Telephone: (770) 444-0773
      Facsimile: (770) 217-9950
      E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
              Matt@WebbLLC.com


CAREMERIDIAN LLC: Hit With CA Over Meal and Rest Break Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
and Bhowmik filed a proposed class action Complaint against
Caremeridian, LLC for allegedly failing to provide their
California employees with the legally required thirty minute
uninterrupted meal periods and allegedly failing to pay all
overtime due to their California employees. The Caremeridian, LLC
lawsuit, Case No. 17CECG03048 is currently pending in the Fresno
County Superior Court for the State of California.

The lawsuit filed against Caremeridian, LLC alleges that the
company as a matter of corporate policy, practice and procedure,
intentionally, knowingly and systematically failed to reimburse
and indemnify its employees for required business expenses
incurred by the employees in direct consequence of discharging
their duties on behalf of Caremeridian.  Under California Labor
Code Section 2802, employers are required to indemnify employees
for all expenses incurred in the course and scope of their
employment.
The Complaint also alleges that the employees working in
California for Defendant were not always able to take their thirty
minute uninterrupted meal breaks before their fifth hour of work.
California law requires employers to provide their non-exempt
employees paid on an hourly basis with thirty minute meal periods
before the employee works five hours. The penalty for failing to
provide adequate meal breaks is one hour of pay under the
California Labor Code.

Additionally, the class action lawsuit alleges when PLAINTIFF
worked overtime and/or missed meal periods DEFENDANT also provided
PLAINTIFF with a paystub that failed to accurately display
PLAINTIFF's correct rates of overtime pay and missed meal
penalties for certain pay periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
226(a).

For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against
Caremeridian, LLC please call (866) 771-7099 to speak to Nicholas
J. De Blouw at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, Sacramento, San Francisco,
Riverside and Los Angeles Counties that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, fight back against unfair business practices,
including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor
Standards Act. [GN]


CARLTON MANOR: Class Cert. Bid in "McKinney" Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DEBI MCKINNEY, the Plaintiff, v. CARLTON
MANOR NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-00279-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order
administratively denying as moot Plaintiff's Motion for class
certification, appointment of class representative and appointment
of class counsel.

The Court said, "Plaintiff is free to renew the Motion in the
event she decides to pursue it. Nothing in the Order may be
construed as a ruling on the merits of Plaintiff's Motion. The
Court will reconvene the case in approximately 14 days to discuss
the status of the litigation."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mbglPc9k


CHARIOTS OF HIRE: Court Conditionally Certifies Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GREGORY PHIPPS and BRIAN MENSING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CHARIOTS OF HIRE, INC., and JOHN MARK PARSONS, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-CV-97-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas A. Varlan entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying class action according to the
      terms of the parties' agreement;

   2. directing Defendants to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with
      the e-mail addresses of potential opt-in class members, if
      on file; and

   3. directing to send agreed-upon notice and consent forms to
      potential opt-in class members by first-class mail and
      email.

The Court said, "After carefully reviewing the matter, the Court
is in agreement with Magistrate Judge Guyton's recommendations,
which the Court adopts and incorporates into its ruling.
Accordingly, the Court accepts in whole the R&R. Plaintiffs'
Expedited Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Court-
Authorized Notice is hereby granted in part and denied in part, in
accordance with the recommendations of the R&R."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H4NuTRoN


CHICAGO, IL: Faces "Aldape" Class Suit Over Eviction Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
Carol Aldape and Thomas Gordon, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons v.
The City of Chicago, Case No. 2017CH12186 (Ill. Ch. Ct., September
7, 2017), arises out of the City's decision to permanently
displace the Plaintiffs from the viaducts where they live under
the Lake Shore Drive bridges at Wilson and Lawrence Avenues as a
result of the City's proposed plan to evict the homeless residents
and re-design the viaducts.

The City of Chicago is a municipal corporation duly incorporated
under the laws of the State of Illinois and located in Cook
County, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert N. Hermes, Esq.
      BUTLER RUBIN SALTARELLI & BOYD LLP
      321 North Clark Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 444-9660
      Facsimile: (312) 873-4382
      E-mail: bhermes@butlerrubin.com

         - and -

      Diane O'Connell, Esq.
      Patricia Nix-Hodes, Esq.
      LAW PROJECT OF THE CHICAGO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS
      70 East Lake Street, Suite 720
      Chicago, IL 60601

         - and -

      Alan Mills, Esq.
      UPTOWN PEOPLE'S LAW CENTER
      4413 North Sheridan
      Chicago, IL 60640


CIGNA HEALTH: Faces "Patchell" Class Suit Over ERISA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Patchell, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company and
Life Insurance Company of America, and Disability Management
Solutions, Case No. 3:17-cv-00161-KRG (W.D. Penn., September 7,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by failure
to pay short and long term disability on time, failure to pay
interest on past-due benefits, failure to reimburse the Plaintiff
for expert witnesses when adverse internal decisions were then
reversed, and failure to assert overpayments at an early
opportunity despite the Plaintiff's correct and timely forms
completion of Social Security Disclosure and Defendant's
verification.

The Defendants operate a global health insurance service company,
offering health, dental, supplemental insurance and Medicare
plans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terrence A. Valko, Esq.
      616 1st Ave.
      Altoona, PA 16602
      Telephone: (814) 944-8275
      E-mail: terryvalko@yahoo.com


CLAUDINE DE NIRO: "Dilazary" Suit Moved to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Thais Dilazary and Linda Williams
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Claudine De Niro, the Defendant, Case
No. 153583/2017, was removed on Sep. 5, 2017 from the Supreme
Court of New York, County of New York to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-06748-AT to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Esq.
          Michael Alexander Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW PC
          Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550
          Facsimile: (516) 747 5024
          E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  jbrown@lmblaw.com
                  mtompkins@lmblaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tara Toevs Carolan, Esq.
          Laurent Scott Drogin, Esq.
          TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP
          1350 Broadway
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 216 8000
          Facsimile: (212) 216 8001
          E-mail: ttoevs@tarterkrinsky.com
                  LDROGIN@tarterkrinsky.com


COM DEV: Court Granted Class Certification Motion in "Tom" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Curtis Tom, the Plaintiff, v. Com Dev USA,
LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01363-PSG-GJS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order
granting motion for class certification and preliminary approval
of class action Settlement on behalf of:

   "participants in Part Two or Three of the Plan who retired and
   commenced receipt of benefits and who are listed on the Plan
   of Allocation to the Settlement Agreement and fall within
   either Group A or Group B defined below and every derivative
   claimant of such person who is an Eligible Beneficiary or
   Eligible Estate Representative".

   Group A includes individuals: (1): who were paid a Period
   Certain Benefit Option that was calculated using segment
   interest rates, rather than the 30-year treasury rate, as the
   applicable interest rate, and/or (2) who were paid a Period
   Certain Benefit Option that failed to include both the
   actuarial value of a COLA reasonably estimated to be payable
   under a life annuity during the lifetime of the participant
   and the value of the participant's subsidized early retirement
   benefit (where the participant was otherwise eligible for a
   COLA and a subsidized early retirement under the Com Dev Plan)

   Group B includes individuals: who elected a form of benefit
   that was not a Period Certain Benefit Option but were provided
   with information describing the various optional forms of
   benefits and the relative values of each optional benefit form
   that included a Period Certain Benefit Option that was
   calculated using segment interest rates, rather than the 30-
   year treasury rate, as the applicable interest rate, and/or
   failed to include both the actuarial value of COLA reasonably
   estimated to be payable under a life annuity during the
   lifetime of the participant and the value of the participant's
   subsidized early retirement benefit (where the participant was
   otherwise eligible for a COLA and a subsidized early
   retirement under the Com Dev Plan). Group B also includes
   every derivative claimant of such person who is an Eligible
   Beneficiary or Eligible Estate Representative.

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


COREPOWER YOGA: $1.4MM "Barnard" Class Settlement Has Prelim OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned SHAUNA BARNARD, v. COREPOWER YOGA LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 16-cv-03861-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Pending before the Court is the unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement filed by Plaintiff Shauna
Barnard, individually and on behalf of the settlement class.

Plaintiff filed the action against Defendant in Alameda Superior
Court, alleging that its pay and meal and rest break practices
violated the California Labor Code.

Class Definition: All individuals who were employed at any time by
Defendant in California as non-exempt/hourly yoga instructors,
interns, or teachers between April 4, 2015, and the date of this
order. The parties have represented that there is a total of
approximately 1,536 individuals who fall within the class period.

Monetary Relief: Defendant will establish a gross settlement fund
consisting of $1,400,000. The parties propose that civil penalties
of $30,000 related to the PAGA claim will be paid to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA)
(providing that penalties under PAGA are split 75% to LWDA and 25%
to aggrieved employees). The gross settlement fund accordingly
includes Court-approved attorneys' fees and costs, settlement
administration fees, the LWDA payment, and any additional payment
to Plaintiff as class representative. The cash payments to the
class will be based on the number of yoga classes each class
member taught at a California studio during the relevant class
period.  The parties have estimated that after the deductions
identified above, individual class members will receive
approximately $590.

Incentive Award: Plaintiff will file a motion after final
settlement approval for a $10,000 incentive award, subject to
court approval. Plaintiff's counsel states that she "incurred a
significant amount of risk acting as class representative as she
was employed by Defendant until just prior to settlement.
Defendant does not oppose this request.

Attorneys' Fees and Costs: Plaintiff will file an application
after final settlement approval for attorneys' fees not to exceed
30% of the gross settlement amount and for costs not to exceed
$20,0000.  Defendant does not oppose this request.

Rule 23(a) Certification

Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the putative class be so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable. The Court finds that
numerosity is satisfied here because joinder of the estimated
1,536 class members would be impracticable.

Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there are questions of law or fact
common to the class. A contention is sufficiently common where it
is capable of class-wide resolution which means that determination
of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to
the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.

Common questions of law and fact in this action include whether
Defendant's policies violated California's wage and hour laws by
failing to compensate employees for time spent performing
administrative tasks, such as working at the reception desk,
completing required trainings, traveling to different studios, and
creating playlists for classes.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the commonality requirement is
met in this case.

Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of
the class.

Plaintiff's claims are both factually and legally similar to those
of the putative class because Defendant allegedly failed to pay
both Plaintiff and all class members the same forms of
compensation and reimbursement.  That is sufficient to satisfy the
typicality requirement.

Adequacy of Representation

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the representative parties will fairly
and adequately represent the interests of the class. The Court
must address two legal questions: (1) whether the named Plaintiff
and her counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class
members and (2) whether the named Plaintiff and her counsel will
prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class.

The Court is unaware of any actual conflicts of interest in this
matter and no evidence in the record suggests that either
Plaintiff or proposed class counsel have a conflict with other
class members.  Court finds that proposed class counsel and
Plaintiff have prosecuted this action vigorously on behalf of the
class to date, and will continue to do so.

The adequacy of representation requirement, therefore, is
satisfied.

Predominance

The predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are
sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, U.S. 136 S.Ct. 1036, 1045.
The Court finds for purposes of settlement that the common
questions raised by Plaintiff's claims predominate over questions
affecting only individual members of the proposed class. Because
under Plaintiff's allegations Defendant's wage and hour policies
were uniform and violated California law, the Court finds the
predominance requirement is satisfied for purposes of provisional
class certification.

Superiority

The superiority requirement tests whether a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy.

Because common legal and factual questions predominate over
individual ones, and taking into account the large size of the
proposed class, the Court finds that the judicial economy achieved
through common adjudication renders a class action a superior
method for adjudicating the claims of the proposed class.

Class Representative and Class Counsel

In light of the fact that Plaintiff's counsel has extensive
experience litigating class actions in federal court, and given
their diligence in prosecuting this action to date, the Court
appoints Blanchard, Krasner & French and the Emge Firm, LLP as
class counsel.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that the claims,
issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled only with
the court's approval. The purpose of Rule 23(e) is to protect the
unnamed members of the class from unjust or unfair settlements
affecting their rights. In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095,
1100 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, before a district court
approves a class action settlement, it must conclude that the
settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable. In re
Heritage Bond Litig., 546 F.3d 667, 674-75 (9th Cir. 2008).

Settlement Process

The first factor the Court considers is the means by which the
parties settled the action. An initial presumption of fairness is
usually involved if the settlement is recommended by class counsel
after arm's-length bargaining.

Here, class counsel believes based on significant formal
discovery, including the analysis of thousands of pages of
documents, that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.
The Court consequently finds that this factor weighs in favor of
preliminary approval.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yasnn8b8from Leagle.com.

Shauna Barnard, Plaintiff, represented by David C. Hawkes --
dhawkes@bkflaw.com -- Blanchard Krasner French.

Shauna Barnard, Plaintiff, represented by Derek John Emge --
derek@emgelawfirm.com -- The Emge Firm LLP.

CorePower Yoga LLC, Defendant, represented by Philippe Alexandre
Lebel -- philippe.lebel@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP,
Valerie Dutton Kahn -- valerie_kahn@ca9.uscourts.gov -- Drinker
Biddle Reath LLP, Ramon Andres Miyar -- ramon.miyar@dbr.xom --
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & Cheryl D. Orr -- cheryl.orr@dbr.com
-- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.


COSMETIC INSTITUTE: Faces CA Over Breast Procedures Complications
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Armitage, writing for ABC, reports that a group of women
has brought a class action against Australia's largest cosmetic
surgery provider, The Cosmetic Institute (TCI), alleging
negligence during breast augmentation procedures left them with
life-threatening complications.

A statement of claim also alleges the company's staff lacked the
capacity to access urgent medical assistance in emergencies, and
the clinics did not have adequate infection controls.

"These women have suffered a range of complications including
cardiac arrests from toxic doses of anaesthesia, lung punctures,
infections, and physical disfigurement," said lawyer Sally Gleeson
from Turner Freeman.

One of the five lead applicants is a Western Australian woman who
in 2015 went into cardiac arrest during a breast augmentation at
TCI's Parramatta clinic.

The other participants include a New South Wales woman who
suffered seizures during her procedure, and a Queensland student
who required emergency surgery after developing a severe post-
operative infection.

"The Cosmetic Institute has left a trail of victims who were
promised top-quality cosmetic surgery in a highly advanced medical
setting, but instead have suffered serious injuries and ongoing
pain and suffering as a result of their treatment," Ms Gleeson
said.

The class action also alleges TCI used identical surgical
techniques on almost all patients, regardless of their size or
breast shape, which has resulted in poorly positioned implants and
scarring.

It has clinics in Sydney, the Gold Coast and Melbourne, offering
breast augmentations for AUD5,990.

Last year, the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission
investigation found The Cosmetic Institute appeared to be giving
high doses of anaesthetic to patients without their consent.

"Adrenaline was used routinely (in combination with local
anaesthetic agents) at well above the accepted upper limit of safe
dosage," the report found.

It found the clinics "placed the health and safety of members of
the public at risk".

Ms. Gleeson told the ABC she's been approached by several hundred
women who were unhappy with their surgeries at TCI since 2014.

"If we take TCI's claims on their website to be accurate, they
have performed breast augmentations on thousands of women, so I
wouldn't be surprised if more women continue to come forward," she
said.

"Every patient deserves competent treatment and follow up care.
This class action is about delivering justice for this large group
of women who continue to suffer from the impact of TCI's failures
to appropriately and safely carry out these procedures."

Turner Freeman said TCI patients who have had complications could
still join the class action suit.

The Cosmetic Institute said it would not be discussing the case
publicly.

"Should this matter proceed, we will be defending any allegations
made against TCI," the company said in a statement to the ABC.
[GN]


CPA GLOBAL: Wants to Bring Bentham-Funded CA in Channel Islands
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that there is no
mechanism for group litigation in the Royal Court of Jersey, which
oversees cases involving businesses incorporated in the popular
Channel Island offshore jurisdiction. But the New York-based law
firm Kobre & Kim has plans to team up with the litigation funder
Bentham IMF to replicate the advantages of a class action in a
jurisdiction where mass litigation doesn't exist.

Kobre & Kim claims that it has uncovered overbilling practices by
the world's biggest intellectual property management company, CPA
Global, in CPA's patent renewal services for CPA clients outside
of the U.S. Earlier this year in the U.S., a small group of CPA
clients settled a patent renewal overcharging class action for
$5.6 million. But most CPA customers, according to Kobre & Kim,
can't litigate in the U.S. because they agreed to forum selection
provisions directing disputes to Jersey, which has a British-style
loser-pays rule and no means by which plaintiffs can band together
to sue as a group.

So Kobre & Kim went to Bentham. "We had to create a mechanism,"
said Kobre partner Michael Ng. "This required some creativity."

Before I go on, I want to highlight two big caveats.

First: CPA denies the overbilling claims. "CPA Global
categorically and emphatically denies any wrongdoing in our
business," a company spokesman said in a written statement. "The
fees for our service are defined in our agreements with our
customers, and we adhere to those agreements fully. CPA Global
prides itself on its industry-leading ethical standards."

It's true that the company settled the U.S. overbilling class
action earlier this year - but the clients in that case were small
businesses that signed up with CPA through patent agents and did
not reach individual fee agreements with the patent management
company. CPA maintained in a filing in the U.S. class action that
most of its clients negotiate their patent renewal fees directly
with the company and are fully informed about the company's fee
structure. "CPA Global believes that all of its fees are justified
and adequately disclosed," the company's filing said.

Second: Kobre & Kim hasn't yet filed any suits in Jersey for CPA
clients. Its contemplated mass action is at the moment entirely
speculative. And though Kobre partner Ng said the firm and its
Jersey co-counsel, Baker & Partners, have reviewed "a large
volume" of CPA renewal bills, Ng would not specify who his clients
are or even how many of them are contemplating litigation.

Bentham chief investment officer Allison Chock confirmed that
Kobre & Kim is investigating and that her shop "has conditionally
committed to fund the group proceedings" in the Isle of Jersey.
But to repeat, the group proceeding does not actually exist right
now.

"We consider any speculation about future litigation that might or
might not take place to be a deliberate attempt to tarnish our
good business reputation and, as we always have, will continue to
vigorously defend ourselves against any such vexatious
speculation," a statement from CPA said.

That said, I'm intrigued by the idea of a U.S. law firm (albeit
with offices around the world) teaming up with a litigation funder
in an attempt to assemble a mass case in a jurisdiction where
there's no such thing. As you know, U.S. and European law firms
have been working for several years with litigation financiers in
the U.K., Germany and the Netherlands - but those jurisdictions
have procedural frameworks for plaintiffs to band together.

Jersey doesn't, although its legal systems has previously held
that litigation funding agreements are valid for plaintiffs who
cannot otherwise afford to bring their cases.

Ng said Kobre & Kim and Bentham have a standard, no-recourse
funding arrangement. Under their deal, if the CPA litigation is
filed, clients won't be on the hook for their own fees or CPA
fees, even if the case flops. Bentham's Chock declined to say how
much Bentham has committed to the potential litigation.

"Clients don't want to be out there on their own," Kobre's Ng
said. "This is a way of making a solution available." [GN]


CUSTOMER SERVICE: Court Certifies Employees Class in "Elliot"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TERRY ELLIOT and LASHON MCDANIEL, Each
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated, the
PLAINTIFFS v. CUSTOMER SERVICE QUALITY TRANSPORTATION, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00069-JM (E.D. Ark.), the Court
certifies a settlement group of:

   "all current and former employees of CSQT who worked as
    mechanics from February 2, 2015 to August 1, 2017."

The Court appoints Steve Rauls of the Sanford Law Firm, PLLC as
group counsel.  The Court finds that the proposed settlement is a
fair, reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute, and
that the proposed notice adequately informs the potential class
members of their rights. The Court instructs Steve Rauls to notify
the Court when the settlement checks have been received and to
request that the lawsuit and all settling plaintiffs be dismissed
with prejudice. The Court will retain jurisdiction only to resolve
issues with the settlement. The pending motion to certify class is
denied as moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jfkW7VWJ


CVS PHARMACY: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Haynes Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS HAYNES, Individually, the Plaintiff, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.,
a Rhode Island corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-
61778-BB (S.D. Fla., Sep. 7, 2017), asks the Court to issue a
Declaratory Judgment that determines that the Defendant's website
violates Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff, individually, on his behalf and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated, sues the Defendant for
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act

The Plaintiff is a Florida resident, lives in Broward County, is
sui juris, and qualifies as an individual with disabilities as
defined by the ADA. Plaintiff is blind and therefore unable to
fully engage in and enjoy the major life activity of seeing. The
Plaintiff also utilizes the internet. Plaintiff is unable to read
computer materials and/or access and comprehend internet website
information without software specially designed for the visually
impaired. Specifically, Plaintiff utilizes the JAWS Screen Reader
software, which is one of the most popular reader Screen Reader
Software ("SRS") utilized worldwide.

CVS Pharmacy is a subsidiary of the American retail and health
care company CVS Health, headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode
Island. It was also known as, and originally named the Consumer
Value Store and was founded in Lowell, Massachusetts in 1963.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathy L. Houston, Esq.
          Thomas B. Bacon, Esq.
          THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
          644 North Mc Donald St.
          Mt. Dora, FL 32757
          Telephone: (954) 478 7811
          E-mail: tbb@thomasbaconlaw.com
                  courtdocs@houstonlawfl.com


DOMINION DIAMOND: Violates New York and Canadian Law
----------------------------------------------------
NADAV POMS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOMINION DIAMOND CORPORATION, JAMES
GOWANS, THOMAS ANDRUSKEVICH, GRAHAM CLOW, TRUDY CURRAN, TIM
DABSON, DAVID SMITH, CHUCK STRAHL, and JOSEF VEJVODA, the
Defendants, Case No. 655733/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sep. 7, 2017),
seeks solely injunctive and declaratory relief, i.e. an order
enjoining a proposed transaction unless and until Defendants
disclose all material information regarding the proposed
transaction to the Company's shareholders.

On July 15, 2017, Dominion's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into a definitive arrangement agreement with Northwest
Acquisitions ULC, an affiliate of The Washington Companies,
pursuant to which each share of Dominion's common stock will be
converted into the right to receive $14.25 per share in cash.  To
convince Dominion's stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of an Information
Circular with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 23,
2017, which was also mailed to the Company's shareholders.

According to the Complaint, in violation of New York and Canadian
law, the Circular contains incomplete and materially misleading
information regarding: (i) the process leading to the Proposed
Transaction; (ii) the financial analyses conducted by the
Company's financial advisors, TD Securities Inc. and Morgan
Stanley Canada Limited, in connection with the Proposed
Transaction; and (iii) the projections relied upon by TD
Securities and Morgan Stanley in performing their valuation
analyses. For these reasons, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants
from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction
unless and until the material information is disclosed to Dominion
stockholders before the vote on the Proposed Transaction.

Dominion Diamond Corporation -- formerly known as Harry Winston
and, before that, Aber -- is a Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
specialist diamond mining and retail company. The company holds a
40% stake in the Diavik Diamond Mine Project.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
          Christopher Tillotson, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington Street
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: (504) 455-1400
          Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
          E-mail: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971 1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202 7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


DST SYSTEMS: BOD Sued Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Ostrander, as representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K)
Profit Sharing Plan v. DST Systems, Inc., The Advisory Committee
of the DST Systems, Inc., 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The
Compensation Committee of the Board Of Directors Of DST Systems,
Inc., Ruane, Cunniff, & Goldfarb, Inc., and John Does 1-20, Case
No. 4:17-cv-00747-GAF (W.D. Miss., September 7, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties by,
(1) failing to use "care, skill, prudence, and diligence"; (2)
failing to diversify the investments of the DST Retirement
Plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses, when under the
circumstances, and during the Class Period, it was clearly prudent
to do so; and (3) failing to confirm, during the Class Period,
that the Plan's underlying investments were consistent with the
stated description of the Plan.

DST Systems, Inc. provides global information processing services
and support to clients in the asset management, insurance,
retirement, brokerage and healthcare industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Klamann, Esq.
      Andrew Schermerhorn, Esq.
      Paul D. Anderson, Esq.
      THE KLAMANN LAW FIRM
      4435 Main Street, Suite 150
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Telephone: (816) 421-2626
      Facsimile: (816) 421-8686
      E-mail: jklamann@klamannlaw.com
              ajs@klamannlaw.com
              panderson@klamannlaw.com

          - and -

      Ted Kapke, Esq.
      Mike Fleming, Esq.
      KAPKE & WILLERTH
      3304 N.E. Ralph Powell Road
      Lee's Summit, MO 64064
      Telephone: (816) 461-3800
      Facsimile: (816) 254-8014
      E-mail: ted@kapkewillerth.com
              mike@kapkewillerth.com

         - and -

      William Carr, Esq.
      Bryan T. White, Esq.
      WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY & CARR
      19049 East Valley View Parkway
      Independence, MI 64055
      Telephone: (816) 373-9080
      Facsimile: (816) 373-9319
      E-mail: bwhite@wagblaw.com

         - and -

      Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
      HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & McCLAIN
      221 West Lexington, Suite 400
      P.O. Box 900
      Independence, MI 64051
      Telephone: (816) 836-5050
      Facsimile: (816) 836-8966
      E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com


EOG RESOURCES: Faces "Qualls" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Qualls, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EOG Resources, Inc., Bedrock Petroleum Consultants,
LLC and Jonathan Falcon, Case No. 1:17-cv-00916 (D.N.M., September
7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

EOG Resources, Inc. is an international energy company engaged in
exploration and production of oil and gas. EOG has operations
across the United States, including in Texas, Pennsylvania,
Oklahoma, North Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Borsellino, Esq.
      BORSELLINO, P.C.
      1020 Macon St., Suite 15
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Telephone: (817) 908-9861
      Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
      E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com

EQUIFAX INC: Baltimore Law Firm Leads Class-Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Robinson, writing for WBALTV, reports that Maryland is one of
the first states to file a class-action lawsuit against Equifax
for its massive data breach exposing personal information for 143
million people.

Baltimore law firm Murphy, Falcon and Murphy filed the suit on
September 12 in federal court in Greenbelt.

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges Equifax discovered the
breach as early as July 29 chose not to notify consumers and
instead tried to find out the extent of the problem by contracting
a third-party cybersecurity firm.

It also alleges that Equifax concealed the breaches from the
public so that three of its executives could sell shares of stock
worth a combined $1.8 million.

"I think this lawsuit already contains everybody in America that
has a credit profile. We think that, ultimately, the suits will be
consolidated so the work can begin," Murphy said.

People are included in the class-action lawsuit if they are one of
the 143 million people impacted.

Dozens of firms across the country have filed class-action suits.
The federal court will create a multi-district litigation panel
that will decide the venue for the case, the state and courthouse
in which it will heard.

The number of lawyers will be decreased, and a select group of
them will be in charge of the case, dividing responsibilities and
coming up with a consolidated complaint so they can pursue the
case.

Equifax has a website where people can determine whether they are
impacted. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Lieff Cabraser File Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Equifax
Inc. ("Equifax" or the "Company") (NYSE: EFX) between February 25,
2016 and September 7, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Equifax common stock during
the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than November 13, 2017. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the
actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the actions.

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

Background on the Equifax Securities Class Litigation

Equifax is an Atlanta, Georgia-based credit reporting and identity
verification company.

The action alleges that defendants misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose: 1) the Company failed to maintain adequate measures to
protect its data systems; (2) the Company failed to maintain
adequate monitoring systems to detect security breaches; (3) the
Company failed to maintain proper security systems, controls and
monitoring systems in place; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
the Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax belatedly revealed that more than a
month earlier, on July 29, 2017, it had discovered a massive
security breach by hackers who illegally gained access to the
names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and, in
some cases, driver's license numbers, of as many as 143 million
U.S. consumers who are now at risk of identity theft. On this
news, the price of Equifax common stock fell $19.49 per share, or
13.66%, to close at $123.23 on September 8, 2017.

Prior to Equifax's disclosure of the security breach, but after it
was discovered on July 29th, three Equifax senior executives --
Equifax's Chief Financial Officer, President of U.S. Information,
and President of Workforce Solutions -- sold Equifax stock and/or
exercised options to dispose of Equifax stock on August 1st and
2nd for total proceeds of nearly $2 million.

Equifax is currently the target of several government
investigations concerning the security breach.

                        About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle, is a nationally
recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors
and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated
unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff
Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation,
highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm
routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and
strongest defense law firms in the world." In late 2016, Benchmark
Litigation named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs'
Firms in America."


ERICSSON INC: Nguyen Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------
JOHN NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated the Plaintiff, v. ERICSSON, INC., 4G PROJECT PEOPLE,
INC., NETWORK.ERS, INC., and MICHAEL WILCOX, the Defendants, Case
No. 17CV315587 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 7, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants did not provide, permit, or
authorize Plaintiff to take their meal breaks, or pay added wages
in lieu of the break as required by law. Defendants also did not
provide, permit, or authorize Plaintiff to take their rest breaks,
or pay added wages in lieu of the break as required by law. The
Plaintiff worked more hours in one shift than the minimum hours
required by law to be entitled to those breaks. The Plaintiff has
never voluntarily or willfully waived his rest breaks. Any express
or implied waivers obtained from Plaintiff were not willfully
obtained, were not voluntarily agreed to, were a condition or
employment, or were part of an unlawful contract of adhesion. The
Defendants' failure to provide the statutorily required breaks
makes them liable to Plaintiff for one hour of pay at Plaintiff'
regular rate for each meal break missed, and another hour of pay
at Plaintiff' regular rate for each day where a rest break was not
provided. As a result of Defendants' unlawful acts, Plaintiff has
been deprived of wages in amounts to be determined at trial and is
entitled to their recovery, as well as interest and penalties and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Ericsson is a multinational networking and telecommunications
equipment and services company headquartered in Stockholm,
Sweden.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tomas E. Margain, Esq.
          Huy Tran, Esq.
          JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP, LLP
          84 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 790
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 317 1100
          Facsimile: (408) 351 0105
          E-mail: Tomas@JAWLawGroup.com
                  Huy@JAWLawGroup.com

               - and -

          Kevin R. Allen, Esq.
          Daniel Yelton, Esq.
          VELTON ZEGELMAN P.C.
          525 W. Remington Drive, Suite 106
          Sunnyvale, CA 94087
          Telephone: (408) 505 7892
          Facsimile: (408) 228 1930
          E-mail: kallen@vzfirm.com
                  dvelton@vzfirm.com


EVERKEPT INC: "Burman" Suit Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SCOTT BURMAN and KEVIN MULDER, for
themselves individually and for those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. EVERKEPT, INC., a.k.a. EVERKEPT DISPOSAL, a
Michigan corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00596-JTN
(W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant conditional
certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and
approve Plaintiffs' proposed notice of collective action lawsuit
for unpaid Overtime and other wages on behalf of:

   "Residential Pick-up Drivers employed by Everkept from
   September 2013 - June 2015."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=es9A4xw3

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dale R. Burmeister, Esq.
          Jason R. Mathers, Esq.
          Gregory P. LaVoy, Esq.
          HARVEY KRUSE, P.C.
          1050 Wilshire Drive, Suite 320
          Troy, MI 48084
          Tel: (248) 649-7800
          E-mail: dburmeister@harveykruse.com
                  jmathers@harveykruse.com
                  glavoy@harveykruse.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Van Tubergen, Esq.
          VAN TUBERGEN, TREUTLER & HAYES, PLLC
          114 North Third Street
          Grand Haven, MI 49417
          Telephone: (616) 844 3000
          E-mail: mvantubergen@vttlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Breay, Esq.
          Ruth A. Skidmore, Esq.
          MCSHANE & BOWIE, P.L.C.
          99 Monroe Ave., N.W., Suite 1100
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 732 5000
          E-mail: cjb@msblaw.com
                  ras@msblaw.com


FARMERS NEW WORLD: "Olson" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DEBE OLSON, the Plaintiff, v. FARMERS NEW
WORLD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND FARMERS GROUP, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01898 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff will
move the Court for an order certifying class and subclass:

The class is composed of:

   "all persons or entities (the "Class" or "Class Members") who
   purchased, have, or had at the time of the policy's
   termination, an ownership interest in one or more policies
   issued by Farmers between November 3, 1984 and December 31,
   1996 ("Class Period"). The policies issued were Farmers
   Universal Life ("FUL") and Farmers Flexible Universal Life
   policy ("FFUL"). The cause of action and class rests on the
   fact that Farmers made an undisclosed transfer of the
   investment risk to all policyholders as admitted by the
   Defendants own expert, Professor Skipper. Professor Skipper
   also states people cannot read and understand their policies
   and that is why there is a need for insurance law and
   regulations. He blames management for the problems. This class
   consists of approximately 903,000 policyholders. It excludes
   Farmers employees, and ERISA plans and or participants and the
   3% who paid for their policies in full."

The subclass consists of:

   "individuals who held either or both FUL and FFUL policies
   between March 1, 1993, through March 31, 1996, when interest
   paid on FUL policies was purposefully set lower than FFUL
   policies to make FFUL policies look more attractive by quoting
   a higher interest rate which increased sales. This subclass
   also necessarily includes individuals who purchased a new FFUL
   policy between the dates of March 31,1993 to March 31,1996.
   Farmers own minutes admit that the practice was unfair. This
   subclass is all part of the main class and involves
   approximately 330,000 policyholders."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qqTfuE6p

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Sheller, Esq.
          SHELLER LAW FIRM PLLC
          Houston, TX 77034
          Telephone: (832) 841 1175
          Facsimile: (281) 484 2101
          E-mail: david@shellerlawfirm.com


FCA US: Faces "Budris" Suit in Connecticut Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case
is captioned as NICHOLAS BUDRIS ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, D/B/A:
DODGE, the Defendant, Case No. UWY-CV-17-6036081-S (Conn. Sup.
Ct., Sep. 5, 2017).

FCA US LLC is the American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
N.V., an Italian controlled automobile manufacturer registered in
the Netherlands with headquarters in London, U.K., for tax
purposes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          CONSUMER LAW GROUP LLC
          35 Cold Spring Road, Suite 512
          ROCKY HILL, CT 06067
          Telephone: (860) 571 0408


FGF BRANDS: "Sims" Suit Moved to Central District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hortense Sims, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
the Plaintiff, v. FGF Brands USA Inc., a Delaware Corporation and
FGF Brands, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
RIC1714365, was removed on Sep. 7, 2017 from the Riverside County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01815-DOC-KK to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David O.
Carter.

FGF Brands operates a bakery that produces tandoori naans,
sandwich flats, stone-baked pizza crusts, and muffins.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kas L Gallucci, Esq.
          Michael Houchin, Esq.
          Ronald A Marron, Esq.
          RONALD A MARRON LAW OFFICES APLC
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696 9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564 6665
          E-mail: kas@consumersadvocates.com
                  mike@consumersadvocates.com
                  ron@consumersadvocates.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dale M Cendali, Esq.
          Mary C Mazzello, Esq.
          Diana M Torres, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446 4846
          Facsimile: (212) 446 4900
          E-mail: Dale.Cendali@kirkland.com
                  mary.mazzello@kirkland.com
                  diana.torres@kirkland.com


FIRST SOUTH: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Proposed Carolina Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. First South Bancorp, Inc., Frederick N. Holscher,
Marshall T. Singleton, Lindsey A. Crisp, Bruce W. Elder, Steve L.
Griffin, L. Steven Lee, and Carolina Financial Corporation, Case
No. 4:17-cv-00124-BO (E.D.N.C., September 7, 2017), stems from a
proposed transaction announced on June 12, 2017, pursuant to which
First South Bancorp, Inc. will merge with and into Carolina
Financial Corporation. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, if the Proposed Transaction is approved by First
South's and Carolina Financial's stockholders, stockholders of
First South will receive for 0.52 shares of Carolina Financial
common stock for each share of First South common stock they own.

According to the complaint, First South filed a Definitive Proxy
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission, which recommends that First South stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction.  However, the Proxy omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) "Opinion of First South's Financial Advisor;" (ii) "Opinion of
Carolina Financial's Financial Advisor;" and (iii) "Certain
Carolina Financial and First South Unaudited Prospective Financial
Information."

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

First South Bancorp, Inc. is a financial holding company under the
Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Janet Ward Black, Esq.
      Nancy Meyers, Esq.
      WARD BLACK LAW
      208 West Wendover Avenue
      Greensboro, NC 27401
      Telephone: (336) 510-2014
      Facsimile: (336) 510-2181
      E-mail: jwblack@wardblacklaw.com


FLORIDA: Teachers Union Files Potential Class-Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Saunders, writing for WJCT, reports that the Florida Education
Association teachers union has filed a potential class-action
lawsuit alleging that the state's controversial "Best and
Brightest" bonus program discriminates against older teachers and
minorities.

The lawsuit, filed on September 13 in federal court in
Tallahassee, names as defendants the Florida Department of
Education and school boards throughout the state.

Lawmakers approved the Best and Brightest program in 2015 to
provide bonuses to teachers. But the program has been
controversial, in part, because it uses teacher performances on
SAT and ACT college-entrance exams --- in some cases, exams that
teachers took decades ago --- to help determine eligibility for
the bonuses.

The lawsuit, which also includes seven individual teachers as
plaintiffs, alleges that the Best and Brightest program violates
state and federal civil-rights laws because of the use of the SAT
and ACT scores.

"The SAT/ACT score requirement has an illegal disparate impact on
teachers based on their age and on teachers based on their black
and Hispanic race," the 58-page lawsuit said. "The SAT/ACT score
requirement is not required by business necessity and is not
related to job performance."

The lawsuit, which seeks certification as a class action, asks for
damages and an injunction preventing the state and school boards
from engaging in the alleged "illegal actions."

A spokeswoman for the Department of Education said on September 14
the agency does not comment on litigation.

During the 2015-2016 school year, 5,334 teachers received the
bonuses, with each getting $8,248, according to a House analysis
in May. In 2015-2016, 7,188 teachers received $6,816 each.
Lawmakers earmarked about $44 million for the program in 2015-2016
and $49 million in 2016-2017.

The lawsuit alleges, however, that during the 2015-2016 year, less
than 1 percent of the bonus recipients were black teachers, while
about 4 percent were Hispanic. It also detailed statistics
indicating disparate effects of the SAT or ACT requirement on
older teachers who otherwise had been rated as "highly effective."

Though lawmakers made some revisions this year, eligibility
criteria during the program's first two years required teachers to
show they had been rated "highly effective" during their annual
evaluations and that they had scored at or above the 80th
percentile when they took the SAT or ACT. First-year teachers, who
had not gone through annual evaluations, could qualify based on
their SAT or ACT scores.

The lawsuit said the Florida Education Association represents
thousands of classroom teachers "who are over 40 years of age, who
are black and/or Hispanic, who have been rated highly (effective),
who were not first year teachers . . . and who applied for the
bonus under the program and were denied and did not receive the
bonus because they could not satisfy the SAT/ACT requirement, or
who would have applied for but were deterred from applying because
it would have been a futile act because they could not satisfy the
SAT/ACT requirement." [GN]


FLORIDA: Court Approves Settlement in Hernia Treatment Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District Florida,
Tallahassee Division, issued an order for final approval of
parties' settlement in the case captioned TRACY COPELAND et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. JULIE L. JONES, etc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:15cv452-RH/CAS (N.D. Fla.).

The plaintiffs in this class action challenge the treatment of
hernias by the Florida Department of Corrections and its prior
contracted medical provider, Corizon LLC.

The Court finds that the settlement is a fair, adequate, and
reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. The settlement did
not result from collusion. The agreed class-representative fees
are reasonable. The agreed attorney's fees were separately
negotiated, are reasonable, are within the range that customarily
would be charged by attorneys in this district for services of
this kind, and comport with the standards governing fee awards in
this circuit in cases of this kind.

The settlement classes and subclasses have been properly
certified. The consent order has been properly implemented to this
point. All procedural requirements have been met.

The motion to finally approve the settlement is granted.

All objections are overruled. These motions are denied as
unfounded, unnecessary, or moot:  Don Ferguson's motion to object.
Jon Duke DePriest's motion for belated objection and other relief.
Phillip Collins's motion to transport or in the alternative for
telephonic hearing.  Raymond Johnson's motion for joinder of
parties and second motion for joinder of parties. Scott Meyers's
affidavit which is deemed a motion to be added to the damages
class. Clyde Stokes's motion to extend time and motion to be added
to the damages class. Raymond Johnson's motion to compel a
response. Jon Duke DePriest's second motion for belated objection
and other relief.

All claims of the named plaintiff and class members are
voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya8g2euvfrom Leagle.com.

TRACY COPELAND, Plaintiff, represented by DOUGLAS WOLFE, KOZYAK
TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP, 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th FloorMiami, FL
33134

TRACY COPELAND, Plaintiff, represented by RANDALL CHALLEN BERG,
FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE INC, DANTE PASQUALE TREVISANI, FLORIDA
JUSTICE INSTITUTE INC, 100 SE 2nd St. Ste. 4320, Miami, FL 33131-
2113, ERICA SELIG & KENNETH RALPH HARTMANN, KOZYAK TROPIN &
THROCKMORTO, 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th FloorMiami, FL 33134

AMADO PARRA, Plaintiff, represented by DOUGLAS WOLFE, KOZYAK
TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP , RANDALL CHALLEN BERG, FLORIDA JUSTICE
INSTITUTE INC , DANTE PASQUALE TREVISANI, FLORIDA JUSTICE
INSTITUTE INC, ERICA SELIG & KENNETH RALPH HARTMANN, KOZYAK TROPIN
& THROCKMORTON.

ARCHIE GREEN, Plaintiff, represented by DOUGLAS WOLFE, KOZYAK
TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP , RANDALL CHALLEN BERG, FLORIDA JUSTICE
INSTITUTE INC, DANTE PASQUALE TREVISANI, FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE
INC, ERICA SELIG & KENNETH RALPH HARTMANN, KOZYAK TROPIN &
THROCKMORTON.

DERRICK R PARKHURST, Intervenor Plaintiff, Pro Se.
JULIE L JONES, Defendant, represented by DANIEL RYAN RUSSELL,
JONES WALKER LLP -- drussell@joneswalker.com --   KIRKLAND EDWARD
REID -- kreid@joneswalker.com -- JONES WALKER ETC LLP & MARC
WESLEY DUNBA -- mdunbar@joneswalker.com -- JONES WALKER LLP.

CORIZON LLC, Defendant, represented by JAMES TIMOTHY MOORE, JR. --
tim.moore@gray-robinson.com -- GRAYROBINSON PA, GEORGE N. MEROS,
JR. -- george.meros@gray-robinson.com -- GRAYROBINSON PA, STEPHEN
CLARENCE ROGERS -- srogers@maynardcooper.com -- MAYNARD COOPER &
GALE PC & WILLIAM RICHARD LUNSFORD -- blunsford@maynardcooper.com
-- MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC.


FORD MOTOR: 4,500 Car Owners Opt Out of Powershift Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stern Law, PLLC, on Sept. 13 disclosed that Sept. 5, 2017 was the
final day owners of the 2011-16 Ford Fiesta and 2012-16 Focus
vehicles equipped with a PowerShift transmission could opt-out of
a controversial class action settlement.  A total of 4,500 owners
opted out between July 5 and Sept. 5 through Stern Law, PLLC, a
part of nearly 12,500 owners who have rejected the class action
terms to instead pursue their legal rights under a mass action
suit led by the Stern Law firm.

"Utilizing federal consumer protection laws, we will file suit on
behalf of the 12,500 claimants by month's end.  We will be seeking
a buyback, damages for the abnormal depreciation, out-of-pocket
repair costs, inconvenience, lost wages and more," said Ken Stern,
co-lead attorney.  "Our firm's mass action represents a way for
clients to seek compensation without worrying about attorney fees
or losing any part of their award for representation, as Ford pays
all attorney fees."

Opting out as many as 4,500 owners in a two-month period was part
of Stern Law's larger effort in suing Ford though its mass action.
More than 25,000 individuals reached out to Stern Law. However,
even working round-the-clock, the short two-month opt-out period
severely limited the number of participants.
Mr. Stern estimates that thousands more would have joined, but
time simply ran out.

"Having heard from those 25,000 owners, we know we could have
easily signed several thousand more if we had more time,"
Mr. Stern said.  "The limitation of a two month opt-out period
unfairly punished owners that have already been mistreated by
Ford," Stern notes.

The main criticism that Novi, Mich.-based Stern Law, and other
attorneys nationwide, have with the class action settlement
relates to its compensation structure.  While owners of these
vehicles have historically had success with their claims in the
courts, whether through state Lemon Law proceedings or
settlements, those who did not opt-out of Ford's class action
settlement will now be forced into an arbitration setting to
pursue damages for a buyback moving forward.  This buyback effort
was also tied to an "inconvenience" payout structure that misled
many into believing they would receive compensation that, as Stern
contends, is almost impossible for many to attain.

"When the Australian government, our 12,500 clients, and countless
more that wanted to join the mass action, accuse Ford of deceptive
practices regarding the transmission defects, a two month opt-out
period is simply unacceptable," Mr. Stern said. "This unreasonably
shortened opt-out period was likely intended to limit the number
of those that would be able to opt-out, and thereby avoid the
class action settlement.  This will continue to punish Ford owners
that have been misled and defrauded by Ford, as we've made clear
in our complaint," he added.

The class action settlement is scheduled for an approval hearing
on Oct. 2.  Objections to the settlement will be heard at that
time.

To follow development of the mass action lawsuit, visit
FordTransmissionProblems.com and
www.facebook.com/YourLegalJustice.
[GN]


FORD MOTOR: Beats Class Action Over Defective Vehicle Buybacks
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that Ford Motor Co. on
September 13 beat a proposed class action claiming it improperly
deducted certain charges when it bought back defective vehicles,
with a California federal judge ruling that the deductions were
part of settlements and that such agreements can't be partially
enforced.

Named plaintiffs Michael J. Sansoe and Eric Frazer claimed that
Ford violated the Song-Beverly Act by deducting repair costs for
abnormal wear and tear from the amount the company paid the men to
buy back their allegedly defective trucks, but U.S. District Judge
Phyllis J. Hamilton found that the men's claims failed as a matter
of law and granted summary judgment in favor of Ford.

"The challenged provisions are not severable from the fully
executed settlement agreements, and plaintiffs cite no authority
that would permit the court to sever portions of a fully executed
and performed contract," Judge Hamilton said.

Sansoe and Frazer each bought a Ford truck in November 2007 and
said that during the next few years, they repeatedly brought their
trucks to a Ford-affiliated repair shop. When those visits failed
to solve their trucks' problems, they each retained attorney Jon
Jacobs, who in late 2012 threatened to sue Ford if it didn't
replace the trucks or reimburse his clients for the vehicles' full
purchase price.

In each case, Ford offered a refund or replacement vehicle,
subject to conditions including that Sansoe and Frazer would be
responsible for any missing equipment, abnormal wear or collision
damage. The two men accepted the offers and sent their trucks back
to Ford in exchange for payment, with each of them covering the
cost of repairs for abnormal wear. They both also signed a release
of all claims related to their vehicles.

In October 2013, the men, represented by new lawyers, filed the
instant suit, claiming that while the Song-Beverly Act allows for
a mileage deduction, it doesn't allow Ford to deduct charges
related to abnormal wear. They also claimed violations of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition
Law.

Judge Hamilton noted that while a party can rescind a contract
such as a settlement for certain reasons, they must also return
everything of value they received under that contract to the other
party. In this case, however, she said it's clear that the truck
owners don't want to rescind the agreement entirely.

Neither plaintiff has shown how Ford could locate and return their
trucks, and the men "clearly have no interest" in repaying the
money they got from Ford: $65,801 for Frazer and $53,037 for
Sansoe, the judge said, ultimately finding that settlements can't
be partially enforced.

She also said that neither the settlements nor the challenged
provisions are unconscionable, as both men were represented by
lawyers and could've chosen to refuse the deals. The agreements
were freely negotiated, not one-sided, and the plaintiffs haven't
shown that they were illegal, the judge added.

As for the CLRA claim, Judge Hamilton said that because the
challenged conduct occurred after they bought the vehicles and
couldn't have been deceptive acts that prompted the men to buy the
trucks, it also fails as a matter of law.

The UCL claim, meanwhile, failed because the men had an adequate
legal remedy to resolve their issue under the Song-Beverly Act,
even though the claims under that law ultimately failed as well,
the judge said.

Sansoe and Frazer filed their own cross-motion for summary
judgment, which Judge Hamilton denied, noting that it was one page
long, filed along with their opposition to Ford's summary judgment
motion and devoid of any evidence or legal argument apart from
their right to file a cross-motion.

Ford declined comment on September 14 and the plaintiffs could not
be reached for comment.

Ford is represented by Amir M. Nassihi, Esq. -- anassihi@shb.com -
- M. Kevin Underhill, Esq. -- kunderhill@shb.com -- and Andrew L.
Chang, Esq. -- achang@shb.com -- of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.

Sansoe and Frazer are represented by Jeffrey A. Kaiser, Esq.
Lawrence J. Gornick, Esq. and Dennis J. Canty, Esq. of Kaiser
Gornick LLP, and Fredric L. Ellis, Edward D. Rapacki and Joseph M.
Makalusky of Ellis & Rapacki LLP.

The case is Sansoe et al. v. Ford Motor Co., case number 4:13-cv-
05043, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. [GN]


FREIGHT HANDLERS: "Burch" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON BURCH, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. FREIGHT HANDLERS INC., a Foreign For Profit
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01623-GAP-TBS (M.D.
Fla., Sep. 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours within a workweek. However, the Plaintiff was not properly
compensated for all his overtime hours worked during the relevant
periods of time.

The Defendant provides product handling and logistics services to
retailers, distributors, manufacturers, and carriers in the
grocery industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GE APPLIANCES: $1.2MM Settlement Reached in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Insider Louisville reports that GE Appliances and homeowners have
reached a $1.2 million settlement after a 2015 fire destroyed
Appliance Park Building 6 and damaged nearby homes, according to a
news release from GE Appliances on September 14.

Immediately after the fire, a resident who lives near GE's
Appliance Park filed a class-action lawsuit against the company
and Derby Industries, a distribution company that leased space in
the warehouse that burned and collapsed in the massive fire.

The parties reaching the deal include the law firm of Jones Ward
PLC, General Electric Company and Derby Industries, the release
said. At the time of the fire, GE still owned Appliance Park; it
sold its Appliances division to Haier in June 2016.

"We are pleased that after two years of litigation and
negotiations, we were able to achieve a settlement that will
provide compensation to area residents whose property may have
been harmed by fire-related smoke and debris," Jasper Ward,
attorney for the class, said in a statement.

The parties will submit the settlement to Judge Susan Gibson of
Jefferson County Circuit Court for approval and jointly administer
the settlement. The firm of Gentle, Turner, Sexton & Harbison LLC,
based in Birmingham, will pay out the settlement during the next
year, the release stated.

The $1.2 million settlement fund for the class includes all
attorneys' fees and settlement administration costs, GE Appliances
said. This sum is in addition to the nearly $650,000 that GE and
Derby have paid to address property damage claims made by area
residents.

After the court has preliminarily approved the settlement, the
settlement administrator will contact potential claimants with
details on how to make a claim, according to the release. Anyone
who does not receive a settlement notice or has questions should
visit GEFireSettlement.com (not yet live) for additional details.

"Although the cause of the AP-6 fire remains unknown, we're glad
to work with counsel, our neighbors, and with their Metro Council
members and community leaders as we continue to address the needs
of neighbors whose property was impacted," Kim Freeman, a
spokeswoman for GE Appliances, said in a statement.

"In addition to allowing affected individuals to file claims,
we're pleased that any funds that remain after claims have been
satisfied will be used for neighborhood projects that can be
enjoyed by the whole neighborhood," she added. [GN]


GLOBALSCAPE INC: Oct. 10 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------
Safirstein Metcalf LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against GlobalSCAPE, Inc. ("GlobalSCAPE" or the
"Company") (NYSE:GSB) securities and certain of its officers, on
behalf of a class who purchased GlobalSCAPE shares between January
26, 2017 and August 7, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased or acquired shares of GlobalSCAPE during the
class period, and would like more information about the
shareholder class action, please contact Safirstein Metcalf LLP at
1-800-221-0015, or email info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 10, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) GlobalSCAPE overstated the reported
amounts of accounts receivable as of December 31, 2016, and
license revenue for the three months and year ended December 31,
2016 by approximately $403,000 and $396,000, respectively,
resulting in the overstatement of the Company's revenues for those
periods by the same amounts; (2) GlobalSCAPE's total current
assets and total assets were overstated by $292,000; (3)
GlobalSCAPE's total stockholder equity and total liabilities and
stockholders' equity were overstated by $217,000 and $292,000,
respectively; (4) GlobalSCAPE lacked adequate internal controls
over financial reporting; and (v) consequently, GlobalSCAPE's
publicly disseminated financial statements were materially false
and misleading.

On August 7, 2017, after-market hours, GlobalSCAPE disclosed that
its Audit Committee "has been conducting an investigation into
certain transactions in the fourth quarter of 2016 involving
improper arrangements with customers that circumvented the
Company's internal controls and their potential effect on
previously reported revenue." The Company also said that it
"intends to effect a restatement of its previously issued
financial statements through filing an amended Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 and an amended
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2017."

Following this news, GlobalSCAPE stock dropped 17.66% to close at
$3.87 per share on August 8, 2017.

                About Safirstein Metcalf LLP

Safirstein Metcalf LLP focuses its practice on shareholder rights.
The law firm also practices in the areas of antitrust and consumer
protection.  All of the Firm's legal endeavors are rooted in its
core mission: provide investor and consumer protection. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Faces "Gurno" Suit over Wallet Service
--------------------------------------------------
Adam Gurno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Google, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
and Google Payment Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and DOE 1
through DOE 20 Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17 CVJ 15499
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 5, 2017), seeks relief arising from
electronic communications and contracts made by Buyers using
Defendants' Google Play store and Google Wallet service.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff originally signed up and
registered for Google's "Checkout" payment processing service,
providing to Defendants certain PII, including his personal and
credit card information (e.g., credit card numbers, name, address,
zip code, email address, and telephone number), and agreeing to
the then-current Checkout terms of service. In November 2011,
Defendants replaced their Checkout payment processing service with
Google Wallet. On May 1, 2012, Plaintiff selected from the Google
Play library the "Tasker" App published by third-party Crafty
Apps. Plaintiff then purchased the Tasker App for $6.49 through a
Buyer Contract by sending Defendants his purchase authorization
information, agreeing to the then-current GWToS, and, for first
time in connection with a purchase, confirming and authorizing
use, in the Buyer 15 Contract, of some information he had stored
with the Defendants by clicking the button authorizing the
purchase. Upon receipt of Plaintiffs purchase authorization
information, Defendants debited Plaintiffs Payment Instrument,
collected the $6.49 sales price, retained 30% ($1.95), and made
Plaintiffs PII -- including his name, email address, and zip code
-- available to App Vendor Crafty 20 Apps.

Google Inc. is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products. These
include online advertising technologies, search, cloud computing,
software, and hardware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathryn S. Diemer, Esq.
          DIEMER & WEI, LLP
          W. San Fernando St., Ste. 555
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 971 6270
          Facsimile: (408) 971 6271
          E-mail: kdiemer@diemerwei.com

               - and -

          Adam E. Urbanczyk, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
          1570 Oak Avenue, Suite 103
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (312) 787 2717
          E-mail: adam@progressivelaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Gender Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Kastrenakes, writing for The Verge, reports three women have
filed a lawsuit against Google, accusing the company of
discriminating against female employees by underpaying them and
denying them opportunities for promotions. The plaintiffs seek to
turn their complaint into a class action lawsuit covering all
women who worked at Google within the last four years.

"Google has discriminated and continues to discriminate against
its female employees by systematically paying them lower
compensation than Google pays to male employees performing
substantially similar work under similar working conditions," the
lawsuit claims.

The suit was filed on behalf of three women -- Kelly Ellis, Holly
Pease, and Kelli Wisuri -- who say they were placed into lower
career tracks than their male co-workers and received lower
salaries and bonuses because of it. They assert that Google's
actions violate California law, including the California Equal Pay
Act, and are asking for lost wages and damages, and for Google to
be forced to correct its allegedly discriminatory hiring
practices.

Google denies the allegations. "In relation to this particular
lawsuit, we'll review it in detail, but we disagree with the
central allegations," Gina Scigliano, senior manager of corporate
communications at Google, writes in an emailed statement.
Scigliano also says that Google has "extensive systems in place to
ensure that we pay fairly."

This lawsuit is far from the first claim of gender-based pay
discrimination at Google. The US Department of Labor is currently
investigating the company's hiring practices and, earlier this
year, testified in court that it found "systemic compensation
disparities against women pretty much across the entire
workforce." Earlier this month, The New York Times published
salary data, compiled by nearly 1,200 Google employees, showing
disparities in both salaries and bonuses across pay grades.

The three women say they were put on lower tiers than their male
colleagues and limited in their opportunities to move up the
ladder. Ellis says she was hired with four years of experience and
placed at Level 3, where new college graduates are often placed;
weeks later, the suit claims, a male colleague with the same
amount of experience was hired into Level 4. Ellis also claims she
was put on the less-prestigious front-end development team,
despite having experience in backend development. The backend
team, the suit says, is higher paid and almost exclusively men.

Wisuri has a similar story. The suit says she was hired into a
Level 2 sales role, while men with similar qualifications entered
at Level 3. Men were more often hired into roles that received
commission, too, the suit claims.

Pease entered Google with 10 years of experience as a network
engineer and oversaw a team of "technical" staff, but she wasn't
considered to be a "technical" employee herself, thus limiting her
pay, according to the lawsuit. The suit claims she was denied the
opportunity to transition to the "technical" classification, and
after returning from medical leave, was moved out of engineering
entirely.

Ellis, Wisuri, and Pease all left Google over the past three
years.

Scigliano, at Google, says Google's hiring process is designed to
eliminate gender biases. "Job levels and promotions are determined
through rigorous hiring and promotion committees, and must pass
multiple levels of review, including checks to make sure there is
no gender bias in these decisions," she writes.

James Finberg, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, says he
believes the suit will be able to win class action status and
cover all women at Google over the last four years. "I think those
chances are very high," he says, "because the statistical evidence
that the Department of Labor collected and The New York Times
collected indicate that there are statistically significant
disparities adverse to women across the board."

Finberg says he plans to request the same pay information that
Google turned over to the Department of Labor and deliver an
analysis to the court.

Finberg's law firm, Altshuler Berzon, focuses on cases dealing
with "economic justice." The suit got started, he said, after the
firm put out a call for stories about discrimination inside
Google. Ninety people responded, he said, including the three
women listed on the suit. [GN]


GRUBHUB: Trial Begins in Delivery Driver's Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that whether a Grubhub delivery driver was "his own boss" or
controlled by his employer was the pivotal question on the first
day of a bench trial that could have far-reaching implications for
the gig economy.

Raef Lawson, an aspiring actor from Los Angeles, claims Grubhub
misclassified him as an independent contractor and denied him
minimum wage, overtime pay and reimbursement of expenses.

Lawson's attorney, Shannon Liss-Riordan, who has represented
workers in class actions in San Francisco against Lyft and Uber,
said this is the first case to make it to trial in California
challenging a startup's classification of an employee as an
independent contractor.

"We're not going to take on the whole gig economy in this one
trial," Liss-Riordan said in her opening statement Tuesday. "We
are biting off a little piece of it."

The case centers on whether Lawson was misclassified as a
contractor. U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied a
motion for class certification last year, finding Lawson could not
represent a class of delivery drivers because he did not sign an
arbitration agreement like other drivers.

Liss-Riordan on September 5, ran down the list of ways GrubHub
exerted control over her client: by tracking his location,
requiring him to accept nearly all delivery orders within 20
seconds, and threatening to terminate his shifts or job if he
failed to obey those orders.

Grubhub attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. painted a different picture
in his opening argument. He said Grubhub offers a system that
benefits workers like Lawson because they can set their own
flexible hours and make money while pursuing their dreams.

"It's abundantly clear this flexibility was important to Mr.
Lawson because when you're pursuing a job in the entertainment
industry, you need all the flexibility you can get," Boutrous
said.

Lawson set his own schedule and was never required to work a
certain amount of hours. He could wear what he wanted, take
whatever routes he chose for his deliveries, and even hire or
designate others to make deliveries for him, Boutrous said.

But Liss-Riordan argued that Lawson had to sport a Grubhub hat and
shirt or pay extra to rent an insulated bag for deliveries.
Grubhub also required drivers wear closed-toed shoes.

Although Lawson's contract allowed him to hire or designate others
to make deliveries for him, the low pay and inability to redirect
orders through the app made that option impractical, Liss-Riordan
said.

She contested Grubhub's claim that Lawson could set his own hours.
The most desirable scheduling blocks were often gobbled up before
Lawson could sign up for them, forcing him to sign up for whatever
shifts he could get, she said.

"GrubHub says you can pick your hours," Liss-Riordan said. "As a
practical matter, it was pretty slim pickings."

Boutrous said the fact that Lawson worked for at least 11 other
"gig economy" startups while working for Grubhub supports the
argument that he was a free agent and independent contractor. He
said Grubhub has evidence that Lawson made deliveries for other
services such as Postmates and Caviar during his scheduled shifts
with Grubhub.

Additionally, Boutrous pointed out that Lawson deducted expenses
as a contractor when filing his tax returns and that in a
deposition, when asked what he would say he did for a living in
2015, Lawson answered, "mainly an independent contractor."

Liss-Riordan countered that just because Lawson signed a contract
stating that he was a contractor and would abide by Grubhub's
terms to make money, that doesn't mean he was a contractor.

"He was not in the business of food delivery," Liss-Riordan said.
"He was delivering for a company. He wasn't making business
decisions as a business owner. He was just trying to pay the
rent."

One factor that affects Lawson's classification is whether his
work supported the company's core or principal business. That's
one of 11 sub-factors the California Supreme Court established to
determine whether a worker is an employee or contractor in the
1989 ruling, S.G. Borello & Sons Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial
Relations.

Boutrous told the judge that Grubhub started in Chicago in 2004 as
a platform to help market restaurants, "especially independent mom
and pops," to broader audiences. The company's core business
remains marketing, and the food delivery service launched in 2014
is merely "a small part" of the business, Boutrous said.

But Liss-Riordan said the company employs thousands of drivers
across the country and that food delivery is "a growing part of
its business."

Wrapping up her opening statement, Liss-Riordan said she intends
to prove that Grubhub paid her client only half the money he is
owed for mileage reimbursement, less than minimum wage on several
days, and no overtime when he worked over 40 hours.

Liss-Riordan said there are "potentially a lot of people waiting
out there in the wings" to see how this case shakes out.

"We look forward to arguing our case after the evidence is
submitted," she said.

Lawson took the stand as the first witness on September 5, and was
expected to continue testifying on September 6.



HEALTH INSURANCE: Nov. 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed the filing of a securities class
action lawsuit against Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between
August 2, 2017 and September 11, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm in advance of the
November 10, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you purchased Health Insurance Innovations shares during the
Class Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang &
Khang LLP, 4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250, Irvine, CA 92604, by
telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.


There has been no class certification in this case yet. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member as
well.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Health
Insurance Innovations made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: that the Company's application for a
third-party insurance administrators license with the Florida
Office of Insurance Regulation was denied due partly to material
errors and omissions; that the Florida Office of Insurance
Regulation's rejection of its application for a third-party
insurance administrators license could result in its losing
licenses in the other states; and as a result of the above, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. When this news was announced, shares of
Health Insurance Innovation declined in value materially, which
caused investors harm according to the Complaint.

         Joon M. Khang, Esq.
         Khang & Khang LLP
         Telephone: 949-419-3834
         Facsimile: 949-225-4474
         joon@khanglaw.com  [GN]



IDEAL CONCEPTS: "Gould" Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CATHERINE GOULD, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
IDEAL CONCEPTS, INC., doing business as: AMERICAN INSURANCE
ORGANIZATION, the Defendant, Case No. 17-04852, was transferred on
Sep. 7, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago), to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Allentown). The Eastern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-03984-JFL to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.

Ideal Concepts started in the insurance sales and technology
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X BORMES PC
          8 South Michigan Ave Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201 0575

               - and -

          Christopher Elisha Roberts, Esq.
          David T. Butsch, Esq.
          BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
          231 S Bemiston Ave Suite 260
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863 5700
          E-mail: butsch@bsflawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David S. Almeida, Esq.
          James Dominick Larry, Esq.
          BENESCH FRIEDLAND COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
          333 WEST WACKER DR., SUITE 1900
          CHICAGO, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 212 4949
          Facsimile: (312) 767 9192
          E-mail: DAlmeida@beneschlaw.com
                  meisen@beneschlaw.com


ILLINOIS HUMAN SERVICES DEPT: Faces Home Health Workers Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Dionne Cordell-Whitney, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported that a class of home health care workers and personal
assistants claims Illinois refuses to increase their wages by 48
cents per hour even though the pay raise was mandated by an
amendment to state law.

Service Employees International Union Healthcare Illinois &
Indiana and three members filed a class-action complaint on
September 6, against Illinois Department of Human Services
Secretary James Dimas and Michael M. Hoffman, acting director of
the state's Department of Central Management Services.

Lead plaintiff Virginia Grant and two other state workers,
Alantris Muhammad and Cynthia Sylvia, brought the Cook County
Circuit Court lawsuit seeking to require Illinois to implement a
48-cent-per-hour wage increased mandated by the Illinois Public
Act.

According to the complaint, the law was amended in July to include
the 48-cent raise for workers in the DHS Home Services Program,
which was set to take effect Aug. 5.

"Nonetheless, and contrary to Illinois statute, the DHS Secretary
and CMS Director have failed and refused to implement that wage
increase," the lawsuit states. "As a result of defendants'
unlawful actions, some of the state of Illinois' lowest paid
employees (personal assistants currently make only $13 an hour),
who provide the vital service of assisting people with
disabilities to live safely and independent in their homes, have
been denied a needed raise to which they have a legal right."

Grant says she has worked as a personal assistant in the DHS Home
Services Program since 2003. The program provides home care
services to people with severe disabilities.  Workers include
personal assistants, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses,
certified nursing assistants, and physical, occupation, and speech
therapists, according to the lawsuit.

About 28,000 providers represented by the union work in the
program, and the majority of the workers are personal assistants,
the complaint states.

Though the Service Employees International Union and Illinois are
currently in negotiations for a replacement to a 2012-2015
collective bargaining agreement, the old wages are still in
effect, the workers say.

The amendment to the Illinois Public Act mandating the pay
increase passed on July 6, after both houses of the General
Assembly voted to override Gov. Bruce Rauner's veto of the bill,
according to the lawsuit.

Grant and her co-plaintiffs say the DHS has the legal authority to
give the mandated raises to Home Services Program workers because
funds have been appropriated for the program.

In response to the workers' demand for a wage increase, a
representative for the DHS allegedly told the union that it would
implement the wage increase only after bargaining with the union.

"Just as with other statutory increases in minimum labor
standards, such as a statutory minimum wage increase, DHS and CMS
are not obligated to bargain with SEIU before implementing the
$0.48 wage increase for personal assistants and individual
maintenance home workers," the complaint states. "Alternatively,
to the extent such a duty to bargain exists under the Illinois
Public Labor Relations Act, such duty was fulfilled when SEIU
. . .consented to DHS and CMS implementing the wage increase
effective August 5, 2017."

DHS spokesperson Jason Schaumburg said in a statement that
Illinois and unions are required to engage in collective
bargaining over wages under the Illinois Public Labor Relations
Act.

"Under that same statute, the agreements the State and the union
reach over wage increases take precedence over any conflicting
law. The Labor Act also requires both the State and unions to
abide by the status quo while they are bargaining over a new
collective bargaining agreement," he said. "The State and SEIU
have been engaged in such negotiations as recently as late last
month.  The State remains willing to discuss issues with SEIU that
are properly subject to collective bargaining, including wages,
and calls on SEIU to use the statutorily-required bargaining
process rather than seek to make an end run around that process
through litigation."

The union and its workers are represented by lead attorney Robert
E. Bloch -- gluscombe@laboradvocates.com -- with Dowd Bloch in
Chicago.


IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Hovermale Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JENNIFER D. HOVERMALE, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMMEDIATE
CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-05646-RBK-
JS (D.N.J.), Ms. Jennifer D. Hovermale will move the Court on
October 16, 2017, for an order:

   1. enforcing and granting preliminary approval to the parties'
      class action settlement agreement; and

   2. certifying Settlement Class, fixing a date for a final
      approval hearing, and approving the form and method for
      class notice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

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

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


JESSE CASARES: JT's Frames Bid for Class Cert. Terminated as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JT's Frames, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. Jesse
Casares, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02504 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order
terminating Plaintiff's second amended "Damasco" motion for class
certification as moot.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 15,
2017, Plaintiff's second amended "Damasco" motion for class
certification is terminated as moot, as it is replaced with
Plaintiff's third amended "Damasco" motion for class certification
which is entered and continued generally.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xuTHQw1t


JIM FISCHER: Employee Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOSHUA LAUGHLIN, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
JIM FISCHER, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01342-WCG (E.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order
granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and
court authorization to send notice to potential class members on
behalf of:

   "all persons who are or were employed by Jim Fischer, Inc. as
   hourly jobsite employees during the time period on or after
   October 6, 2013".

The Court further ordered that (1) the form and content of the
Notice of Pendency of Lawsuit (ECF No. 23-1) and the Consent to
Opt In and Participate as a Named Plaintiff in Suit for Violations
of Fair Labor Standards Act (ECF No. 23-2) are approved; (2)
Defendant must within 10 days provide Plaintiffs with an
electronic list of names and addresses of all class members; and
(3) the collective class members are allowed 45 days from the
mailing of the notice to opt into this action.
The Court also ordered that the parties' joint motion to amend the
scheduling order is granted. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and Defendant's Motion for FLSA decertification are
due on or before December 3, 2017.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MPb4SdyX


JOHN B SANFILIPPO: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Ramos, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons v. John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc., Case No. 1:17-
cv-06450 (N.D. Ill., September 7, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay hourly production workers for all
time worked, including the time spent donning and doffing required
safety equipment and work clothes and the time spent obtaining
said equipment at the start of a work shift.

John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. procures, processes, and packages
nuts for its brands, Fisher Nuts and Sunshine Country, as well as
for its customers' brands. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
      Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
      CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
      224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
      Chicago, IL  60604
      Telephone: (312) 763-6880
      E-mail: info@caffarelli.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Says Benecol Adheres to Regulation
-----------------------------------------------------
Glenn Minnis, writing Legal Newsline, reports that the makers of
Benecol food products have filed motion to dismiss a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In the lawsuit, filed in May, the plaintiff alleged the Benecol
maker "falsely and misleadingly" labeled some spread products as
containing "no trans fats" and "no trans fatty acids."

Defendants Johnson & Johnson and McNeil Nutritionals allege that
they have adhered to and satisfied all federal regulations
requiring that "manufacturers of foods that contain less than 0.5
gram of trans fats label the products as containing zero gram, or
'0g,' trans-fat," in their Benecol spreads, the July 21 motion
states.

Suzanna Bowling filed suit individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated in May, naming Johnson & Johnson and McNeil
Nutritionals as defendants.

She alleged that their Benecol spread products were falsely
represented to consumers as being sans any trans fats or trans
fatty acids when all the while they were made using hydrogenated
oils she considers to be unsafe, according to the motion to
dismiss.

Bowling further claimed the blatant deception caused her financial
harm by fraudulently leading her to purchase products she would
have otherwise had no interest in.

The defendants stipulated that since Benecol is a federally
regulated food product, it is subject to the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act, and precluded from the state law guidelines
Bowling's suit sought to subject it to.

In requesting a trial by jury, Bowling's suit sought compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, restitution,
injunctive relief, attorney fees and court costs. She is
represented by attorneys Scott A. Bursor, Joseph I. Marchese, Neal
J. Deckant and Frederick J. Klorczyk III of Bursor & Fisher PC in
New York.

Johnson and McNeil are represented by Katherine A. Garceau, Esq.-
Katherine.garceautuckellis.com -- an associate with the Tucker
Ellis law firm based in Chicago. [GN]


KITE PHARMA: Faces "Berg" Class Suit Over Sale to Gilead Sciences
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Berg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kite Pharma, Inc., Arie Belldegrum, M.D., Facs, David
Bonderman, Farah Champsi, Ian Clark, Roy Doumani, Franz Humer,
Joshua A. Kazam, Ran Nussbaum, Jon Peacock, Steven B. Ruchefsky,
Owen N. Witte, Gilead Sciences, Inc., and Dodgers Merger Sub,
Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-06583 (C.D. Cal., September 7, 2017),
arises from a proposed transaction announced on August 28, 2017,
pursuant to which Kite Pharma, Inc. will be acquired by Gilead
Sciences, Inc. and Parent's wholly-owned subsidiary, Dodgers
Merger Sub, Inc. for $180.00 per share in cash.

According to the complaint, Kite filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, which recommends that Kite stockholders vote
in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the Statement omits
or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things, "Past Contacts, Transactions, Negotiations and
Agreements", and "The Solicitation or Recommendation."

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

Kite Pharma, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
development of innovative cancer immunotherapies with a goal of
providing rapid, long-term, durable response and eliminating the
burden of chronic care. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


KOHL'S CORP: Renewed Class Certification Bid Terminated as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Mark Ankcorn, the Plaintiff, v. Kohl's
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-01303 (N.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order terminating a
renewed preliminary motion for class certification as moot.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 15,
2017, Plaintiff's renewed preliminary motion for class
certification is terminated as moot, as it is replaced with
Plaintiff's renewed preliminary motion for class certification,
which is entered and continued generally. Notice of motion date of
Sep. 28 2017, is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that
date.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=17e6VUFN


LIFE ALERT: Sued Over Failure to Properly Compensate Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Askandar, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated current and former employees v. Life Alert Emergency
Response, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
BC675242 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 7, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation, provide
properly itemized wage statements, and separately compensate
indoor salespersons for paid meal and rest breaks.

Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. operates a medical monitoring
service business located at 11500 W. Olympic Blvd. #415, Los
Angeles, CA 90064. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Gammill, Esq.
      Eric Y. Hahn, Esq.
      GERAGOS & GERAGOS
      644 South Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-341
      Telephone (213) 625-3900
      Facsimile (213)232-3255
      E-mail: Geragos@Geragos.com


LINCOLN HILLS, WI: Judge Certifies Youth Prison Class
-----------------------------------------------------
CBS Minnesota reports that a federal judge has given class action
status to juvenile inmates in a lawsuit over conditions and
practices at the youth prison complex in northern Wisconsin.

U.S. District Judge James Peterson issued the decision on
September 15 following previous rulings that found the civil
rights of the youth offenders were likely being violated and that
changes needed to be made in how Lincoln Hills School for Boys and
Copper Lake School for Girls operate.

The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of
Wisconsin and the Juvenile Law Center. Peterson's decision means
the plaintiffs' attorneys will represent all present and future
inmates at the prison campus near Irma.

Peterson's earlier orders including one that required the prisons
to curb their use of solitary confinement, pepper spray and
handcuffs. [GN]


MARKSTEIN BEVERAGE: Faces "Marshall" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Markstein Beverage
Co. The case is captioned as Ryan Marshall on behalf of himself,
all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public, the Plaintiff, v. Markstein Beverage Co., the Defendant,
Case No. 34-2017-00218737-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 7,
2017).

Markstein Beverage is doing business in beer industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade St. San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833


MDL 2591: Certification of 12 Corn Producers Classes Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, Case No.
2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs move to certify
statewide classes composed of:

   "U.S. corn producers from twelve of the remaining thirteen
   states pleaded in Producer Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class
   Action Master Complaint ("TAC"): Alabama, Colorado, Indiana,
   Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota,
   Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin (the "Additional
   State Classes")."

   1. The Alabama Class, asserting claims for common law
      negligence and tortious interference (TAC 421-34);

   2. The Colorado Class, asserting a claim for common law
      negligence (TAC 471-76);

   3. The Indiana Class, asserting claims for common law
      negligence and tortious interference (TAC 529-42);

   4. The Kentucky Class, asserting a claim for common law
      negligence (TAC 577-82);

   5. The Louisiana Class, asserting a claim for common law
      negligence and a claim for Damage to Movables under La.
      Civ. Code art. 2315(A) (TAC 589-99);

   6. The Michigan Class, asserting a claim for common law
      negligence (TAC 600-04);

   7. The Mississippi Class, asserting a claim for common law
      negligence (TAC 649-54);

   8. The North Dakota Class, asserting claims for common law
      negligence and tortious interference with business (TAC
      719-24, 739-46);

   9. The Oklahoma Class, asserting claims for common law
      negligence and tortious interference (TAC 782-95);

  10. The Tennessee Class, asserting claims for common law
      negligence and tortious interference (TAC 814-27);

  11. The Texas Class, asserting a claim for common law
      negligence (TAC 839-44); and

  12. The Wisconsin Class, asserting a claim for common law
      negligence (TAC 857-62).

Each of the Additional State Classes consists of all corn
producers in that respective state who priced their corn for sale
after November 18, 2013.

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court for an appointment of Class
Counsel for the additional State Classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eqK5PEUh

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714 7100
          E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Don M. Downing, Esq.
          GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-5620
          E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com

               - and -

          William B. Chaney, Esq.
          GRAY REED & MCGRAW, P.C.
          1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (469) 320-6031
          E-mail: wchaney@grayreed.com

               - and -

          Scott Powell, Esq.
          HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON
          2025 3rd Ave. North, Suite 800
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328-5330
          E-mail: scott@hwnn.com


MORNING CALL: Hernandez Seeks Conditional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANTONIA HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MORNING CALL
COFFEE STAND, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02613-EEF-JVM
(E.D. La.), Ms. Antonia Hernandez moves the Court for conditional
class certification, approval of judicial notice, and for
disclosure of the names and addresses of potential "opt-in"
plaintiffs.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FR2NaIhD

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: "Wiegand" Remanded to Calif. Super. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Eastern District of California,
issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the case
captioned ROBERT MICHAEL WIEGAND, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC., an Ohio corporation,
Defendant, No. 2:17-cv-00246-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal.).  Plaintiff's
Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs is denied.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Robert Wiegand's
(Plaintiff) Motion to Remand.

Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento against Defendant on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated. Plaintiff alleges claims pursuant
to the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
California Civil Code Sections 1788-1788.33 which prohibits debt
collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair
practices, and California Civil Code Sections 1812.700-1812.702
which requires that California consumers be provided a Consumer
Collection Notice.

Plaintiff defines the class as all persons with addresses in
California (ii) to whom Defendants sent, or caused to be sent, an
initial written communication in the form of Exhibit 1 in an
attempt to collect a defaulted consumer debt originally owed to
Bank of America, N.A.

Defendant filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that the District
Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA). Plaintiff filed the instant motion to remand for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

Any civil action brought in a State court of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be
removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court
of the United States for the district and division embracing the
place where such action is pending. 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a).
However, if at any time before final judgment it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall
be remanded. 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).

CAFA gives federal district courts jurisdiction where: (1) the
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; (2) the number of
members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is 100
or greater; and (3) there is minimal diversity between the
defendants and plaintiffs.

The only question before the Court is whether Defendant has
established by a legal certainty that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.

Defendant contends in its opposition that the estimated amount in
controversy is in excess of $5,000,000.  Plaintiff asserts that
Defendant's calculations are not only too speculative, but also
completely impossible because Defendant assumes without support
that the combined claims of all class members will exceed
$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.  Plaintiff contends
the statute caps recovery at $1000 for individual claims and
$500,000 for class claims.  Defendant counters Plaintiff cannot
limit the damages of putative class members prior to class
certification.  Defendant further contends Plaintiff cannot
legally bind any unnamed members of the proposed class to disclaim
any recovery other than statutory damages until the class is
certified.

Defendant has failed to provide any evidentiary calculations in
support of its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000, the Court held.  Defendant alleges that the aggregated
claims of all class members may theoretically exceed the
jurisdictional limit of $5 million.

These allegations, although attempting to recite some 'magical
incantation,' neither overcomes the 'strong presumption against
removal jurisdiction,' nor satisfies Defendant's burden of setting
forth the underlying facts supporting its assertion for the amount
in controversy, the Court held.  Defendant has not brought forth
any calculations to persuade the Court that its assumption that
unnamed class members will bring aggregate claims exceeding
$5,000,000 is a legal certainty.

Plaintiff has failed to submit an affidavit to evidence his
eligibility for an award of reasonable costs and fees. L.R.
293(c)(1).  While rough estimates of Plaintiff's attorney's fees
and costs have been provided within Plaintiff's Reply in support
of his Motion to Remand, these estimates are inadequate to support
an award of attorney's fees and costs.

Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), it does not appear
that Defendant removed the case without a reasonable basis for
removal or in an attempt to delay litigation or impose costs on
Plaintiff.  The Court cannot say Defendant's removal was
objectively unreasonable as would warrant the award of attorney's
fees.  Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and
Costs is denied.

Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is granted and Plaintiff's request
for attorney's fees and costs is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yddp27tmfrom Leagle.com.

Robert Michael Wiegand, Plaintiff, represented by Fred W. Schwinn,
Consumer Law Center, Inc., 12 S 1st St Ste 1014, San Jose, CA
95113-2418

Robert Michael Wiegand, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Craig
Salmonsen, Consumer Law Center, Inc. & Raeon Rodrigo Roulston,
Consumer Law Center, Inc., 12 S 1st St Ste 1014, San Jose, CA
95113-2418

National Enterprise Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark
E. Ellis, Ellis Law Group, LLP. Suite 400, 1425 River Park Drive
Sacramento, California 95815


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Metzger" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit
Inc. The case is captioned as Chaya Metzger on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nationwide
Credit Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06729-VEC (S.D.N.Y.,
Sep. 5, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Valerie E.
Caproni.

Nationwide Credit, a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salim Katach, Esq.
          MOULINOS AND ASSOCIATES
          150 East 58th Street
          New York, NY 10155
          Telephone: (347) 415 2711
          E-mail: skatach@svhllp.com


NATURES BEST: "Andrade" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Edward Andrade, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. Natures Best, KeHE Distributors, Inc. f/k/a Doe 1
Erroneously Sued As KeHE Distributors LLC, and Does 2 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. CIVDS1508659, was removed on
September 7, 2017, from the Superior Court of the State of
California, San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01826-AG-KK to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges employment discrimination.

The Defendants operate a natural food distribution company in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE PC
      410 West Arden Avenue Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
      E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Steve L. Hernandez, Esq.
      Evelina Shpolyansky, Esq.
      Scott J. Witlin, Esq.
      BARNES AND THORNBURG LLP
      2029 Century Park East Suite 300
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 284-3880
      Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
      E-mail: shernandez@btlaw.com
              evelina.shpolyansky@btlaw.com
              scott.witlin@btlaw.com


NIKE INC: Judge Dismisses Workers' Suit Over Security Checks
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
on Sept. 12 said Nike Inc's retail arm was not required to pay
workers in California for the few seconds each day that they spent
going through security checks, and tossed out a class action
against the company.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose said
Oregon-based Nike had shown that the 10,000 class members spent an
average of 18 seconds being inspected before they left retail
stores, and that amount of time was "de minimis" and not
compensable under California law.  Nike is represented by Seyfarth
Shaw and the plaintiffs by Diversity Law Group. [GN]


NEW YORK: Public Advocate Has No Capacity to Sue, Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the Third Cause of Action of the Amended Class
Action Complaint in the case captioned ELISA W., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, No. 15 CV
5273-LTS-HBP (S.D.N.Y.).

Defendant Sheila J. Poole (Commissioner), Acting Commissioner of
the New York State Office of Children of Family Services (OCFS),
has moved to dismiss the Third Cause of Action of the operative
Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Third Cause of Action in the AC asserts claims under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 arising under Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare
Act (AACWA).  In the Third Cause of Action, the Public Advocate
and the putative class of named plaintiff children assert, inter
alia, claims against the Commissioner for violation of various
sections of AACWA.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must plead "enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
The Court accepts as true the non-conclusory factual allegations
in the complaint and draws all inferences in the Plaintiff's
favor.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b)(3), the Public
Advocate's capacity to sue is determined by the law of the State
of New York, where the Court is located. Under New York law,
governmental entities like the Public Advocate have neither an
inherent nor a common-law right to sue.

The capacity of the Public Advocate to sue in the context of the
enumerated responsibilities of that official under the New York
City Charter is well-established.  However, that capacity is not
unlimited, the Court pointed out.  In cases involving the scope of
the Public Advocate's capacity to sue, New York courts have
described the Public Advocate's role as being in essence, to
oversee city agencies, perform related investigations, and attempt
to resolve individual complaints concerning city services.

The Public Advocate cites no case in which she or her predecessors
was held to have capacity to sue a State agency or its officers,
the Court pointed out.  The case on which the Public Advocate
principally relies, In re Long Island College Hospital, explicitly
recognized the general rule that the Public Advocate does not have
authority to bring a proceeding against a state government agency
and noted that recognizing the Public Advocate's capacity to sue
in that case does not deviate from those rulings as the instant
matter does not challenge the actions of a state agency acting as
such.

Thus, rather than supporting the Public Advocate's position, In re
Long Island College Hospital only reaffirms the general
proposition that the Public Advocate does not have the capacity to
sue a state agency.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that, under New York law, the
Public Advocate does not have the capacity to sue a State agency
or its officers in their official capacity, and the Commissioner's
motion to dismiss the Public Advocate's claims against her is
granted.

The Commissioner also moves to dismiss the Named Plaintiff
Childrens' claims under AACWA.  These arguments are addressed by
the 2016 Opinion, which governs as the law of the case.  When a
court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to
govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.
Although the Commissioner correctly notes that the law of the case
doctrine does not preclude the Court from revisiting its prior
holdings, the Court declines to do so here.

The Court has reviewed carefully the Commissioner's arguments, and
concludes that they provide no basis to undermine the Court's
conclusions in the 2016 Opinion, whose reasoning is adopted here
in full.  Accordingly, the Third Cause of Action is dismissed as
against the Commissioner to the extent stated in the 2016 Opinion,
and the Commissioner's motion is otherwise denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/y9obn9jgfrom Leagle.com.

Ayanna J., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019
212-474-1512

Ayanna J., Plaintiff, represented by Claire Botnick, Cravath,
Swaine and Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore
LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 212-474-1512,  Marcia
Robinson Lowry, A Better Childhood, Molly Montgomery Jamison,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Nicole Marie Peles, Cravath, Swaine
& Moore LLP, Rachel Jennifer Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP,
Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary
Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine &
Moore LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 212-474-1512,
Dameon C., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and
Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP,
Marcia Robinson Lowry, A Better Childhood, Molly Montgomery
Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Nicole Marie Peles,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Rachel Jennifer Lamorte, Cravath,
Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better Childhood, Scott
Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP & Julie A.
North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

Letitia James, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Levy, Office
of The Public Advocate, Molly Anne Thomas-Jensen, Public Advocate
for the City of New York & Nicole Marie Peles, Cravath, Swaine &
Moore LLP.

Olivia R., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and
Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP,
Marcia Robinson Lowry, A Better Childhood, Molly Montgomery
Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Nicole Marie Peles,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Rachel Jennifer Lamorte, Cravath,
Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better Childhood, Scott
Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP & Julie A.
North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

Valentina T.C., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and
Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Molly
Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Rachel Jennifer
Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better
Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

Matthew V., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and
Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Molly
Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Rachel Jennifer
Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better
Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

Mikayla G., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and
Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Molly
Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Rachel Jennifer
Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better
Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

Myls J., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and
Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Molly
Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Rachel Jennifer
Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better
Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

Jose T.C., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and
Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Molly
Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Rachel Jennifer
Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better
Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

Lucas T., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and
Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Molly
Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Rachel Jennifer
Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better
Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

Emmanuel S., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and
Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Molly
Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Rachel Jennifer
Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better
Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

Ximena T., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and
Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Molly
Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Rachel Jennifer
Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better
Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

City of New York, Defendant, represented by Agnetha Elizabeth
Jacob, New York City Law Department, Jonathan L. Pines, NYC Law
Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Lauren Almquist
Lively, New York City Law Department & Neil Anthony Giovanatti,
New York City Law Department.

New York City Administration for Childrens Services, Defendant,
represented by Jonathan L. Pines, NYC Law Department, Office of
the Corporation Counsel, Lauren Almquist Lively, New York City Law
Department & Neil Anthony Giovanatti, New York City Law
Department.

Gladys Carrion, Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Pines, NYC
Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Lauren Almquist
Lively, New York City Law Department & Neil Anthony Giovanatti,
New York City Law Department.

Sheila J. Poole, Defendant, represented by Antoinette W.
Blanchette, New York State Office of the Attorney General, Cara
Brown Chomski, State of New York Office of the Attorney General,
Roderick Leopold Arz, New York State Office of the Attorney
General & Samantha Leigh Buchalter, New York State Office of the
Attorney General.

The Legal Aid Society, Intervenor, represented by Celia Goldwag
Barenholtz -- cbarenholtz@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Kara Corinne
Wilson -- kwilson@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Lisa Freeman, The
Legal Aid Society, Stephanie B. Turner --
stephanie.turner@skadden.com -- Cooley LLP, Tamara A. Steckler,
The Legal Aid Society, Theresa Beth Moser, The Legal Aid Society &
Victoria Anna Foltz -- vfoltz@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

Lawyers for Children, Inc., Intervenor, represented by Betsy
Kramer, Lawyers For Children, Celia Goldwag Barenholtz, Cooley
LLP, Kara Corinne Wilson, Cooley LLP, Karen J. Freedman, Lawyers
for Children, Inc., Stephanie B. Turner, Cooley LLP & Victoria
Anna Foltz, Cooley LLP.

The Children's Law Center of New York, Intervenor, represented by
Celia Goldwag Barenholtz, Cooley LLP, Kara Corinne Wilson, Cooley
LLP, Stephanie B. Turner, Cooley LLP & Victoria Anna Foltz, Cooley
LLP.

Center for Family Representation, Intervenor, represented by Audra
Jan Solowa -, asoloway@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP, Charles Jordan Hamilton --
chamilton@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP, Daniel H. Levi -- dlevi@paulweiss.com -- Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Luke Xavier Flynn-
Fitzsimmons -- fitzsimmons@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Bronx Defenders, Intervenor, represented by Audra Jan Soloway,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Charles Jordan
Hamilton, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Daniel H.
Levi, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Luke Xavier
Flynn-Fitzsimmons, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.


NORTHERN MARIANAS: Sept. 27 Retirement Fund Status Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Manabat, writing for Variety News, reports that the District
Court for the NMI Magistrate Judge Joaquin V.E. Manibusan Jr. has
summoned Secretary of Finance Larrisa Larson and Gov. Ralph Deleon
Guerrero Torres or, in his absence,
Lt. Gov. Victor Borja Hocog, to a status hearing scheduled for
Sept. 27, 2017 regarding the Betty Johnson class action against
the Retirement Fund.

The federal clerk of court at the same time noted the receipt of a
letter from Mariano Taitano a retiree member in the class action
who said he is disappointed with the Settlement Fund trustee,
Joyce Tang.

Two weeks ago, Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood ordered Tang and
other parties to report whether all issues in the Betty Johnson's
class action have been resolved, and whether the case can now be
closed in light of the settlement.

The federal judge instructed Tang to make a presentation on
Sept 27, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

In 2013, a global settlement agreement was reached in Johnson's
class action against the Retirement Fund and the CNMI government.

The agreement settles the issue on how the Retirement Fund could
collect from the CNMI government and eventually pay the retirees
and refund the employees' contributions.

The Settlement Fund is a not-for-profit, tax-exempt entity created
by the court-approved settlement agreement.

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Governor Torres
was automatically substituted as the defendant in Betty Johnson's
class action. [GN]


O'REILLY AUTO: "Davidson" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KIA DAVIDSON, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware
corporation; O'REILLY AUTO PARTS, a business entity of unknown
form; CSK AUTO, INC., an Arizona corporation; CSK AUTO PARTS, a
business entity of unknown form, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00603-RGK-AJW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on
December 4, 2017, for an order:

   1. certifying following classes:

      "all persons who worked for Defendant as a non-exempt,
      hourly paid employee in California (excluding Assistant
      Store Managers and Store Managers) at any time from March
      29, 2016 until April 2017. (The "Wage Statement Class")

      and

      "all persons who worked for Defendant as a non-exempt,
      hourly paid employee in California (excluding Assistant
      Store Managers and Store Managers) at any time from March
      29, 2013 until the date of certification. (The Rest Period
      Policy Class".)

   2. appointing Plaintiff Kia Davidson as class representative;
      and

   3. appointing Capstone Law APC as class counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4aLJHgZ4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew T. Theriault, Esq.
          Robert J. Drexler, Jr., Esq.
          Jonathan Lee, Esq.
          Natalie Torbati, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Natalie.Torbati@CapstoneLawyers.com


PETMED EXPRESS: Faces "Marchese" Suit over Securities Laws
----------------------------------------------------------
PAUL MARCHESE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PETMED EXPRESS, INC., MENDERES AKDAG
and BRUCE S. ROSENBLOOM, the Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-81019-
DMM (S.D. Fla., Sep. 7, 2017), seeks 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.

This case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired PetMed securities between May 23,
2017 and August 22, 2017, both dates inclusive. Throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) PetMed
engaged in questionable practices in connection with the sales and
marketing of the Company's opioid products; (ii) the foregoing
conduct, when it became known, would likely subject the Company to
heightened legal and regulatory scrutiny; and (iii) as a result of
the foregoing, PetMed's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times. On August 23, 2017, Aurelius
Value published a report entitled "PetMed: Exploiting America's
Opioid Epidemic," alleging that the Company targets opioid users
with Google ads and other marketing techniques aimed at
facilitating the abuse of opioids. 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.

PetMed Express, Inc. and its subsidiaries, doing business as
1-800-PetMeds, operates as a pet pharmacy in the United States.
The Company markets prescription and non-prescription pet
medications, health products, and supplies for dogs and cats to
retail customers.  Founded in 1996, the Company is headquartered
in Delray Beach, Florida. PetMed's stock trades on the NASDAQ
Global Select under the ticker symbol "PETS."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 515 0123
          Facsimile: (866) 300 7367
          E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


PROCTER & GAMBLE: "Brenner" Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled VERONICA BRENNER, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROCTER & GAMBLE
CO., the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01093-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs will move the Court on January 12, 2018, for an
order certifying classes defined as:

Multistate Breach of Express Warranty Class:

   "all Persons who purchased one or more units of Pampers
   Natural Clean Wipes in the states of California, Delaware,
   Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, West
   Virginia, and the District of Columbia from June 14, 2012 to
   September 3, 2017, excluding persons who purchased for purpose
   of resale";

California Class:

   "all Persons who purchased one or more units of Pampers
   Natural Clean Wipes in the state of California from June 14,
   2012 to September 3, 2017, excluding persons who purchased for
   purpose of resale"; and

Florida Class:

   "all Persons who purchased one or more units of Pampers
   Natural Clean Wipes in the state of Florida from June 14, 2012
   to September 3, 2017, excluding persons who purchased for
   purpose of resale."

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Veronica Brenner
as Class representative of the Multistate Breach of Express
Warranty and California Classes and appoint Angela Banegas as
Class representative of the Florida Class, and appoint their
counsel, Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mrsP6zHD

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300 4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407 2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com
                  ykopel@bursor.com

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338 1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338 1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Pustizzi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH PUSTIZZI, P.A.
          E-mail: joseph@pustizzilaw.com
          3440 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 415
          Hollywood, FL 30021 6933


PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC: "Rolon" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ISMAEL MARRERO ROLON, ANNE CATESBY JONES,
JORGE VALDES LLAUGER, PUERTO RICO BATHROOM REMODELING, INC.,
PERFORMANCE CHEMICALS COMPANY, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. AUTORIDAD
DE ENERGI ELECTRICA A/K/A PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER
AUTHORITY; WILLIAM RODNEY CLARK; EDWIN RODRIGUEZ; CESAR TORRES
MARRERO; INSPECTORATE AMERICA CORPORATION; CORE LABORATORIES N.V.
D/B/A SAYBOLT; ALTOL CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY INC. D/B/A
ALCHEM LABORATORY; ALTOL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. D/B/A ALTOL
ENTERPRISES; PETROBRAS AMERICA INC.; PETROLEO BRASILEIRO S.A;
CARLOS R. MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES; SHELL TRADING (US) COMPANY;
TRAFIGURA A.G.; TRAFIGURA BEHEER B.V.; TRAFIGURA LIMITED;
TRAFIGURA ARGENTINA S.A.; PETROWEST, INC.; VITOL S.A., INC.;
VITOL, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-
01167-JAG-MEL (D.P.R.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a Class of:

      "all persons or entities that paid a fuel oil surcharge on
      their electricity bill to the Puerto Rico Electric Power
      Authority (a/k/a Autoridad de Energia Electrica) during the
      period January 1, 2002 to April 30, 2016";

   2. appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class
      Counsel;

   3. appointing Plaintiffs Jorge Valdes Llauger and Anne Catesby
      Jones as Class Representatives; and

   4. directing that notice be sent to the Class, and granting
      such other relief as the Court deems necessary and
      appropriate.

The Plaintiffs bring their claims on behalf of the Class under the
Racketeering Influenced and Corruption Organizations (RICO) Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=K61bR1KF

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          Mark T. Vazquez, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628 4949
          Facsimile: (708) 628 4950
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jane A. Becker Whitaker, Esq.
          P.O. Box 9023914
          San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902
          Telephone: (787) 754 9191
          Facsimile: (787) 764 3101
          E-mail: jane@beckerwhitaker.com

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          Andrew Howie, Esq.
          HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON, P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223 4567
          E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net


PURDUE PHARMA: Coventry Joins Class Action Over Opioid Pandemic
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Leininger, writing for Journal Inquirer, reports that the town
of Coventry is joining a class-action lawsuit the city of
Waterbury recently filed against Connecticut-based Purdue Pharma
LP and other pharmaceutical companies responsible for making
opioid medication that has led to an addiction pandemic across the
country.

At its meeting on Sept. 5, the Town Council voted unanimously to
have the town join the lawsuit as a co-plaintiff. [GN]


QUALITY CABLE: "Card" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JEREMY RYAN CARD, on Behalf of Himself and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
QUALITY CABLE INSTALLERS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00524 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for conditional
certification and notice to potential class members on behalf of:

   "all persons employed by Defendants as helpers and foremen at
   anytime during the past three years."

On February 16, 2017, Jeremy Card filed this collective action
lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to recover
unpaid wages that were wrongfully denied to him and other
similarly situated helpers and foremen who worked for the
Defendant, Quality Cable Installers ("QCI" or "Defendant") within
the relevant time-period.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VBhL9orE

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq.
          Tracey D. Lewis, Esq.
          ROSENBERG & SPROVACH
          3518 Travis Street, Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 960 8300
          Facsimile: (713) 621 6670

The Defendant is represented by:

          W. Jackson Wisdom
          Diana Perez Gomez
          MARTIN, DISIERE, JEFFERSON &WISDOM, L.L.P.
          808 Travis, 20th Floor
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 632 1700
          Facsimile: (713) 222 0101
          E-mail: wisdom@mdhjwlaw.com
                  gomez@mdjwlaw.com


QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: "Racies" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled PHILLIP RACIES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUINCY BIOSCIENCE,
LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00292-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Mr. Phillip Racies moves
the Court on November 16, 2017, for an order certifying the
following Classes:

   1. Multi-State UCL Class:

      "all consumers who, within the applicable statute of
      limitations period, purchased Prevagen in California,
      Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
      Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Washington until the
      date notice is disseminated";
      or, alternatively,

   2. California-Only UCL Class:

      "all California consumers who, within the applicable
      statute of limitations period, purchased Prevagen until the
      date notice is disseminated; and

   3. California-Only CLRA Class:

      "all California consumers who, within the applicable
      statute of limitations period, purchased Prevagen until the
      date notice is disseminated".

The Plaintiff seeks certification of his claims under the Unfair
Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 7200, et
seq. ("UCL"), and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code
section 1750, et seq. ("CLRA").  As set forth in the accompanying
memorandum, the proposed Classes satisfy all requirements of Rules
23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, thereby
warranting class certification.

The Plaintiff also moves for an Order appointing the law firms of
Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C., and Siprut, PC as
Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lkxt6e8E

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798-4593
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
                  mmuecke@bffb.com
                  eryan@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          SIPRUT, PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236 0000
          E-mail: sweltman@siprut.com


RITA'S WATER: TCPA Suit Class Members to Get Bigger Scoop of $3MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has ruled that because there are fewer valid
claimants in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action
against Rita's Water Ice than originally anticipated, each will
get a larger share of the $3 million settlement fund.

The class action was filed in 2015 by Sherry Brown and Ericka
Newby. The two claimed that Rita's sent them "Cool Alerts" text
messages announcing when certain water ice flavors and other
products were available at local stores.

They alleged that the lists were generated using a database of
telephone numbers that the owners did not provide to Rita's. They
also claimed that they kept receiving messages after texting
"STOP" in response to the texts' instructions to stop receiving
future notifications.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania wrote in his opinion that there were fewer class
members with valid claims than previously thought--10,164 to the
anticipated 28,523--due to an error on the part of the settlement
administrator.

"The settlement administrator should have conducted the full
review of the claim forms as soon as the claim filing deadline
passed instead of waiting for the final approval order to be
issued," Savage wrote. "However, because the eligible class
members will receive a greater benefit, we shall grant the motion
and supplement the findings of fact to reflect the correct number
of valid claim forms submitted."

Stephen F. Taylor of Lemberg Law, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
said in an email, "We are moving forward with the court-approved
distribution plan to disperse the class settlement."
John M. Doroghazi of Wiggin and Dana, who represents Rita's, did
not respond to a request for comment.

Earlier in the litigation the plaintiffs attorneys were awarded a
sizable fee, though not as much as they had wanted.
On March 16, Savage granted class counsel's request for $40,000 in
expenses and $10,000 in incentive awards, but denied their request
for $1 million in legal fees, instead awarding them $651,000. That
reduced fee represents roughly 22 percent of the litigation's
settlement fund.

"The amount each class-member claimant will receive is not
significant, but rather modest," Savage said in his March ruling,
adding, "Counsel claim that they extracted the largest settlement
possible for the class in light of Rita's ability to pay. Yet,
rather than adjust the attorney fees to increase the amount
available to the class, counsel propose a lesser recovery for the
class members." [GN]


RIVIANA FOODS: NY Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Riviana Foods Inc. on Sept. 13 disclosed that a federal court in
New York dismissed baseless consumer fraud claims against the
company, finding that the arguments put forward by the plaintiff
were not those of a "reasonable consumer."

The plaintiff in Stewart v. Riviana Foods Inc., sued Riviana on
August 3, 2016, contending that she believed boxes of Riviana's
Ronzoni(R) Smart Taste(R), Healthy Harvest(R), Garden Delight(R),
SuperGreens(R), and Gluten Free(R) pasta would contain 16 ounces
of pasta, even though the boxes clearly showed contents weighing
12 ounces.  The plaintiff said she came to this belief because
other, similarly-sized Ronzoni(R) pasta boxes contain 16 ounces of
pasta, and say so.

Judge Nelson Roman of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed the plaintiff's claims in
an opinion issued on September 11, 2017.  The Court agreed with
Riviana that for the plaintiff to "expect to receive 16 ounces of
healthy pasta solely because she has purchased different Ronzoni
pasta products in similarly-sized boxes, is not reasonable."

Bastiaan de Zeeuw, Riviana's President and CEO, was pleased with
the outcome of the case and said, "Riviana will always vigorously
defend itself against baseless lawsuits like this one."

The case is Melissa Stewart v. Riviana Foods Inc., No. 16-CV-6157,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  Riviana was represented in the case by
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, and Paul Rosenthal of
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.

Riviana Foods Inc. is North America's largest processor, marketer
and distributor of branded and private label rice products and its
second largest pasta manufacturer. The Riviana family of well-
known brands includes Minute(R), Mahatma(R), Success(R),
Carolina(R), Comet(R), Adolphus(R), Blue Ribbon(R), RiceSelect(R),
Gourmet House(R), Ronzoni(R), Creamette(R), Skinner(R), San
Giorgio(R), Prince(R), Catelli(R), American Beauty(R), No
Yolks(R), Wacky Mac(R) and Light & Fluffy(R).

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Riviana is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Ebro Foods, S.A., a leading Spanish food company.
[GN]


SCANA CORP: New Suit Seeks Refunds for Failed Nuclear Project
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thad Moore, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that the two
South Carolina utilities behind an abandoned nuclear power plant
in Fairfield County face yet another lawsuit from their customers
seeking refunds for the failed $9 billion project.

In a recently filed complaint, SCANA Corp. and Santee Cooper are
accused of "taking money for nothing."  The plaintiffs --
customers from Richland and Florence counties -- want the power
companies' assets to be sold off to repay ratepayers.

The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, is one of at
least five filed by customers since the utilities pulled the plug
on their decade-long expansion of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station
north of Columbia.  The companies spent $9 billion on the project
before their lead contractor filed for bankruptcy protection, and
they halted work in late July after determining it would cost at
least $21 billion to finish.

The latest lawsuit, filed in Richland County by the Columbia law
firm Lewis Babcock LLP, takes a relatively unique approach,
however, by alleging state-owned Santee Cooper violated its
customers' constitutional rights by taking money without providing
a service in return.

The complaint also cites a secretive audit of the project,
completed in 2016, that identified significant flaws in the
project's designs and management, even as utility officials touted
the promise of cheap and clean power.

"Defendants knew for years that the project was doomed to fail,"
the lawsuit says, adding that the V.C. Summer owners "failed to
resolve the problems and continued to use the project as a cash
cow."

Cayce-based SCANA, which owns South Carolina Electric & Gas,
declined to comment on the case, citing the ongoing litigation.  A
spokeswoman for Moncks Corner-based Santee Cooper, which primarily
sells power to electric cooperatives, said the company hadn't yet
reviewed the allegations. [GN]


SCHMIDT BAKING:  "Milles" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal Milles, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated v. Schmidt Baking Company, Inc., Case No. 2017-CA-0061318
(D.C. Super. Ct., September 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, equitable
and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs under the
District of Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act.

Schmidt Baking Company, Inc. is in the business of producing and
delivering bread products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Leonard, Esq.
      Benjamin L. Davis III, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Telephone: (410) 244-7005
      E-mail: rleonard@nicholllaw.com
              bdavis@nicholllaw.com


SERGEANT'S PET: "Bietsch" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RYAN BIETSCH, MICHAEL PFORTMILLER, JUSTIN
MANNER, and SELIM FREIHA individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SERGEANT'S PET CARE
PRODUCTS, INC., a Michigan corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-05432 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an Order:

   1. certifying the following classes:

      National Class:

      "all persons in the United States who purchased Pur Luv
      Grande Bones and/or Mini Bones Treats within the Class
      Period of June 19, 2010, through the present";

      Consumer Fraud Multistate Class:

      "all persons residing in California, Florida, Illinois,
      Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey,
      New York, Ohio, and Washington who purchased Pur Luv Grande
      Bones and/or Mini Bones Treats within the Class Period of
      June 19, 2010, through the present";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   3. appointing the law firm of Siprut PC as class counsel.

In the alternative to the Consumer Fraud Multistate Class,
Plaintiffs ask that this Court certify the following state
subclasses:

      Illinois Class:

      "all persons residing in the State of Illinois who
      purchased Pur Luv Grande Bones and/or Mini Bones Treats
      within the Class Period of June 19, 2010, through the
      present";

      California Class:

      "all persons residing in the State of California who
      purchased the Pur Luv Grande Bones and/or Mini Bones
      Treats within the Class Period of June 19, 2010, through
      the present"; and

      Ohio Class:

      "all persons residing in the State of California who
      purchased the Pur Luv Grande Bones and/or Mini Bones Treats
      within the Class Period of June 19, 2010, through the
      present."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XbWE7qTs

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Richard L. Miller II, Esq.
          Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
          Richard S. Wilson, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236 0000
          Facsimile: (312) 878 1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  rmiller@siprut.com
                  tmclawhorn@siprut.com
                  rwilson@siprut.com


SELA HEALTHCARE: Cal. App. Affirms Order Dismissing "Zaragoza"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two,
issued an Opinion affirming the judgment of the District Court
granting Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case
captioned ESTELLA ZARAGOZA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SELA
HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. E065373 (Cal.
App.).

Plaintiff and appellant Estela Zaragoza appeals from an order
granting the motion to compel arbitration brought by defendant and
respondent Sela Healthcare, Inc., dba Villa Mesa Care Center, and
dismissing Zaragoza's class action.

Zaragoza worked for Villa Mesa.  Zaragoza signed the same version
of an arbitration agreement that had been adopted by Villa Mesa as
part of a new employee handbook.  Zaragoza filed a wage and hour
class action.  Villa Mesa responded by filing a motion to compel
arbitration with supporting declarations and documents, including
the signed agreement for binding arbitration.

The Cal. App. holds there is substantial evidence that Zaragoza
agreed to arbitrate her claims against Villa Mesa. There is no
contract until there is mutual consent of the parties. Mutual
consent necessary to the formation of a contract is determined
under an objective standard applied to the outward manifestations
or expressions of the parties, the reasonable meaning of their
words and acts, and not their unexpressed intentions or
understandings.

Zaragoza's lack of facility with English does not negate the
arbitration agreement. Ordinarily, one who accepts or signs an
instrument, which on its face is a contract, is deemed to assent
to all its terms, and cannot escape liability on the ground that
he has not read it. If he cannot read, he should have it read or
explained to him.

In summary, a person cannot knowingly enter into a contract and
then subsequently use unfamiliarity with the English language as a
shield against enforcement of that contract.

Sufficient evidence supports the trial court's ruling granting the
motion to compel arbitration. Cal. App. affirms the judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court Appeals' September 11, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya79go2bfrom Leagle.com.

Rastegar Law Group, Farzad Rastegar -- farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
-- and Thomas S. Campbell -- tom@rastegarlawgroup.com -- for
Plaintiff and Appellant.

Walraven & Westerfeld, Bryan A. Westerfeld --
bwesterfeld@walravenlaw.com -- and Nicole E. Wurscher --
new@walravenlaw.com  -- for Defendant and Respondent.


SHELL CHEMICAL: Sheila Rowell, et al. Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SHEILA ROWELL, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v.
SHELL CHEMICAL LP, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-02392-
CJB-DEK (E.D. La.), Keith Adams, Elizabeth Bickham, Bruce Blaine,
Erica Bolden, Walter Evans, Martha Huckaby, Varice James, Zina
James, Ruthie Jones, Deborah Nunnery, Deanna Porter, Gloria Riley,
Shelia Rowell, and Geraldine Young, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated ask the Court to certify class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PVP2EkC4

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Centola, Esq.
          Jason Z. Landry, Esq.
          MARTZELL & BICKFORD
          388 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581 9065
          Facsimile: (504) 581 7635

               - and -

          Stephen M. Huber, Esq.
          Brian Marcelle, Esq.
          HUBER, SLACK, THOMAS & MARCELLE, LLP
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1405
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 274 2500
          Facsimile: (504) 910 0838


SIMPSONS STRONG-TIE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum, OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tania De La Paz, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. Simpsons Strong-Tie
Company Inc., and Does 1 through I 00, inclusive, Case No.
RG17874434 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 7, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Simpsons Strong-Tie Company Inc. manufactures and distributes
engineered structural connectors and building solutions for homes
and buildings worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


SNAP INC: Investors Seek to Unseal PowerPoint Presentation
----------------------------------------------------------
Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that lawyers
representing investors in Snap Inc. filed a motion on Sept. 13 to
unseal a PowerPoint presentation that alleges that the company
woefully misstated its growth metrics.

The attorneys are pursuing a class action securities fraud case
against Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, and believe the
presentation by fired employee Anthony Pompliano will assist in
their case.

Mr. Pompliano filed a federal whistleblower suit in May, alleging
that he was fired because he refused to participate in the duping
of investors and advertisers.

Mr. Pompliano was on the job for a mere three weeks in 2015, but
in that time he prepared a PowerPoint deck laying out what he
believed were the key inaccuracies in the company's numbers.  That
presentation was filed as a sealed exhibit to the federal suit.

In a motion to intervene in the suit, attorney Benjamin Heikali
-- bheikali@faruqilaw.com -- argues that his clients have a First
Amendment right to access court records.  The presentation, he
argues, "is a matter of significant public concern given the high
profile of Snap's IPO."

Snap has blasted Mr. Pompliano as a disgruntled former employee
who was fired for "poor performance."  The company's lawyers have
also said his information is both inaccurate and badly out of
date, and has sought to force him to resolve the case in
arbitration.

Mr. Heikali's firm, Faruqi & Faruqi, filed suit against Snap on
July 10, alleging that the company used false and misleading
growth data to defraud investors in its IPO.  The presentation,
Heikali argues, will "bolster the action's allegations about what
the defendants knew about Snap's user metrics and when."

The firm has filed many such class action cases, including recent
ones against Tribune Media and Blue Apron.

Mr. Pompliano initially filed a heavily redacted complaint in
state court in January, which left out most of the details of his
tenure at the company.  Snap later filed an unredacted version of
the complaint, saying it had "nothing to hide." [GN]


SOUTHWEST HARVESTING: Court Grants Settlement Preliminary OK
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement in the case captioned JAVIER CAMACHO, Plaintiff, v.
SOUTHWEST HARVESTING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-05744-LHK
(N. D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Javier Camacho moved for an order granting preliminary
approval of the class action settlement reached with defendant
Southwest Harvesting, Inc.

The Court has reviewed the terms of the proposed Settlement
Agreement, Plaintiffs' motion papers and briefs, and the
declaration of counsel.  Based on its review of these papers, the
Court finds that the Settlement Agreement appears to be the result
of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations conducted with
the assistance of former Alameda County Superior Court Judge
Bonnie Sabraw.  The terms of the Settlement Agreement do not
improperly grant preferential treatment to any individual or
segment of the Settlement Class and fall within the range of
possible approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The Court therefore grants preliminary approval of the Settlement
Agreement and all of the terms and conditions contained therein.

The Court preliminarily certifies for settlement purposes the
Settlement Class described in the Settlement, composed of all
persons who worked for Defendant as seasonal agricultural workers
who performed field work harvesting produce and worked more than
six hours but less than eight hours in a workday, at any time
during the period.

The Court appoints Plaintiff Javier Camacho as representative for
the Settlement Class.

The Court appoints Gregory N. Karasik of Karasik Law Firm and
Santos Gomez of Law Offices of Santos Gomez as counsel for the
Settlement Class.

The Court appoints Atticus Administration as the Settlement
Administrator.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yabm462ofrom Leagle.com.

Javier Camacho, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory N. Karasik --
greg@karasiklawfirm.com -- Karasik Law Firm.

Javier Camacho, Plaintiff, represented by Santos Gomez --
santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com -- Law Offices of Santos Gomez.

Southwest Harvesting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Michelle Schermerhorn ---jschermerhorn@laborcouncelors.com -- The
Saqui Law Group, Kevin Patrick Cleveland, The Saqui Law Group &
Michael Christopher Saqui -- mcs@laborcouncelors.com -- The Saqui
Law Group.


SOUTHWICK INC: Faces "Lay" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Tu Lay, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v.
Southwick, Inc. d/b/a Toyota of 1611 Berkeley, and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. RG17874304 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 7,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
straight time and overtime wages owed to Non Exempt Employees, as
mandated under the California Labor Code.

Southwick, Inc. owns and operates vehicle service centers,
collision centers and tire centers in Alameda County, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arthur W. Lazear, Esq.
      Morgan M. Mack, Esq.
      LAZEAR MACK LLP
      435-14TH Street, #1117
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 735-6316
      Facsimile: (510) 255-2875
      E-mail: arthur@lazearmack.com
              morgan@lazearmack.com


SUBWAY: Appeals Court Rejects Footlong Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that a South Jersey
law firm has come up short in a dispute over Subway's Footlong
sandwiches.

DeNittis Osefchen Prince P.C. of Evesham was expected to share in
a $520,000 payment by the restaurant chain, a sum intended to
settle a class-action lawsuit over the actual length of Subway's
six- and 12-inch sandwiches.

But a federal appeals court in Chicago has rejected the deal,
saying it would have enriched attorneys while doing nothing for
most Subway customers.

In a sometimes-sharply worded decision, the three-judge panel
described the settlement as "no better than a racket."

"No class action settlement that yields zero benefits for the
class should be approved, and a class action that seeks only
worthless benefits for the class should be dismissed out of hand,"
it said.

The ruling also rejected the claim that Subway customers were
shortchanged by undersized Footlongs.

It said Subway's "raw dough sticks weigh exactly the same, so the
rare sandwich roll that fails to bake to a full 12 inches actually
contains no less bread."

Sandwich ingredients are standardized, the ruling added.

"No class member, regardless of bread length, was cheated on the
amount of ham or turkey, provolone or pepper jack," it said.

Evesham lawyer Stephen DeNittis said the appeals court
"unfortunately" did not consider information that "strongly
supported" the plaintiffs' claims.

He also said the ruling incorrectly suggested the settlement was
"a windfall for the attorneys at the expense of the class."

"Such was clearly not the case," Mr. DeNittis said on Sept. 13.
"There were 10 law firms involved in the 3ยด-year-long action who
devoted well over 2,000 hours in time in litigating the matter."

The settlement also included $500 for each of 10 named plaintiffs,
including two South Jersey men.

In a statement, Subway said it was pleased the ruling recognized
the company "did not misrepresent its product."

A federal judge in Wisconsin approved the settlement in February
2016 after lawyers for Subway and its customers said the agreement
offered "meaningful benefits" for consumers.

As part of the agreement, Subway said its franchisees would use "a
tool" to measure sandwich rolls.  The firm said its quality-
control inspectors would sample baked bread and would check bread
ovens during store visits.

Those measures, to be taken over a four-year period, represented a
benefit to customers worth more than $5 million annually,
according to Mr. DeNittis.

But the settlement also acknowledged some rolls "will inevitably
fall short due to the natural variability in the baking process."

That concession made the proposed changes "utterly worthless," the
appellate ruling said.

"There's still the same small chance that Subway will sell a class
member a sandwich that is slightly shorter than advertised," it
noted.

The appellate panel returned the case to U.S. District Judge Lynn
Adelman in Wisconsin.

The settlement was challenged on appeal by Theodore Frank,
director of the Center for Class Action Fairness and a Subway
customer.

The center described the ruling as "a win for consumers."

The 11-page decision recounted a highly publicized dispute that
began with a hungry boy and soon spurred the appetites of
attorneys across the United States.

"In January 2013, an Australian teenager measured his Subway
Footlong sandwich and discovered it was only 11 inches long," the
Aug. 25 ruling begins.  "He photographed the sandwich alongside a
tape measure and posted the photo on his Facebook page."

"It went viral. Class-action litigation soon followed."

The Evesham firm's lawsuit -- filed in the names of John Farley of
Evesham and Charles Noah Pendrak of Ocean City -- estimated annual
damages of up to $27.2 million for Subway customers in New Jersey.
It argued that amount should be tripled under New Jersey's
Consumer Fraud Act.

Eventually, the South Jersey suit and eight others were
consolidated before U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman in Wisconsin.
Mr. DeNittis served as co-lead counsel for the class of Subway
customers and the named plaintiffs.

The appellate panel also noted its concern over "the tendency of
class settlements to yield benefits for stakeholders other than
the class."

It said lawyers for customers support settlements "to get fees,"
while defendants do so "to evade liability."

"That is why objectors play an essential role in judicial review
of proposed settlements of class actions and why judges must be
both vigilant and realistic in that review," the ruling said. [GN]


TABLETOPS UNLIMITED: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Angela Huizar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Tabletops Unlimited, Inc., Prime Staff Inc., and Does
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC675128 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
September 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the California
Labor Code.

Tabletops Unlimited, Inc. designs and manufactures tabletop and
food preparation products.

Prime Staff Inc. owns and operates a staffing agency in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
      BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
      287 S. Robertson Blvd., Suite 303
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 975-1493
      Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
      E-mail: mehrdad@tomorrowlaw.com


TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA: Motion for Class Certification Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LEA FAMILY PARTNERSHIP Ltd., a Florida
Limited Partnership, on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA, and LEN
VALENTI, in his official capacity as "Housing Compliance Officer"
and individually, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-03463-JSM-AAS
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

      "all owners of residential dwellings located within the
      City of Temple Terrace: (i) whose dwelling was subject to
      the City's Rental Housing Ordinance Program; (ii) who
      submitted an initial application for the City's Rental
      Housing Ordinance Program at any time during the Class
      Period for such dwelling; (iii) who paid an initial fee to
      the City of Temple Terrace with their Rental Housing
      Ordinance Program application; and, (iv) whose dwelling was
      unoccupied at the time of the initial inspection performed
      by the City";

   2. directing the parties to conduct discovery on the issue of
      whether the City's records, including the two computer
      software programs used for enforcement of the Program,
      record whether a dwelling is unoccupied during initial
      inspection, in 90 days from the date of this Order; and

   3. directing Plaintiff to refile its Motion for Class
      Certification if Plaintiff can present further evidence on
      the issues of ascertainability and numerosity upon
      expiration of the 90 days.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GbbVxJV7


TENNESSEE: "Sprague" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & 3 Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled FRED ROBINSON; ASHLEY SPRAGUE; and JOHNNY
GIBBS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. DAVID W. PURKEY, Commissioner of the Tennessee
Department of Safety and Homeland Security, in his official
capacity, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01263 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move to certify a Statewide Class and three
Subclasses:

The Statewide Class:

   "all persons whose Tennessee driver's licenses have been
   or will be suspended under Tenn. Code Ann. section 55-50-
   502(a)(1)(H) or (I) for nonpayment of Traffic Debt and who
   cannot now and could not at the time of suspension afford to
   pay such debt";

The Wilson County Subclass:

   "all members of the Statewide Class whose driver's licenses
   have been or will be suspended at the instance of Wilson
   County and/or its Clerks";

The Rutherford County Subclass:

   "all members of the Statewide Class whose driver's licenses
   have been or will be suspended at the instance of Rutherford
   County and/or its Clerks"; and

The Multi-Barrier Subclass:

   "all members of the Statewide Class who, as of the date of
   judgment in this action, also had outstanding driver's license
   revocations under Tenn. Code Ann. section 40-24-105(b) for
   nonpayment of fines, fees, costs and restitution arising from
   criminal proceedings ("Court Debt").

All Named Plaintiffs seek to represent the Statewide Class.
Plaintiff Robinson seeks to represent the Wilson County Subclass.
Plaintiff Gibbs seeks to represent the Rutherford County Subclass
and the Multi-Barrier Subclass.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Gwd4rfmw

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew G. White, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN
            CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          First Tennessee Bank Building
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 577 8182
          E-mail: mwhite@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Premal Dharia, Esq.
          Jonas Wang, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th Street NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 670 4809
          E-mail: premal@civilrightscorps.org
                  jonas@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Claudia Wilner, Esq.
          Edward P. Krugman, Esq.
          Theresa Lau, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND
          ECONOMIC JUSTICE
          275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 633 6967
          E-mail: wilner@nclej.org
                  krugman@nclej.org
                  lau@nclej.org

               - and -

          Josh Spickler, Esq.
          JUST CITY
          902 South Cooper Street
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Telephone: (901) 206 2226
          E-mail: josh@justcity.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mike Jennings, Esq.
          Wilson County Attorney
          326 North Cumberland Street
          Lebanon, TN 37087

               - and -

          James C. Cope, Esq.
          Rutherford County Attorney
          16 Public Square North
          Murfreesboro, TN 37130

               - and -

          Andy Wright, Esq.
          Lebanon City Attorney
          200 N. Castle Heights Avenue
          Lebanon, TN 37087

               - and -

          Gino Marchetti, Esq.
          Mount Juliet City Attorney
          2908 Poston Avenue
          Nashville, TN 37203


TITLE SOURCE: "Swamy" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SOM SWAMY, on Behalf of Himself and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TITLE
SOURCE, INCORPORATED, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01175-WHA
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, will move the Court on October 26, 2017, for
an order:

   1. conditional certifying a collective action under the Fair
      Labor Standards Act for:

      "all Staff Appraisers that worked for Defendant at any time
      from three years prior to the date the Court authorizes
      notice to the present";

   2. compelling Defendant Title Source, Inc. to produce the
      names, dates of employment, last known addresses, phone
      numbers, dates of birth, and email addresses for each of
      the Class Members;

   3. authorizing the mailing of a Notice of the pendency of this
      action to the Class Members with a Consent Form for them to
      join this case; and

   4. allowing 60 days from the date of mailing of the
      Notice/Consent Form for the Class Members to join this
      case.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          10265 Beardon Dr.
          Cupertino, CA 95014
          Telephone: (408) 216 0599
          Facsimile: (312) 577 0720
          E-mail: lpeeters@caffarelli.com

               - and -

          Galvin Kennedy, Esq.
          Don Foty, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523 0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523 1116
          E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com
                  dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


TWIN RIVERS: Combined Bid for Class Action Certification Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHRISTOPHER MINOR, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. TWIN RIVERS CONSTRUCTION INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01002-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston
Deavers entered an order denying as moot and without prejudice
Plaintiff's combined motion for conditional collective action
certification and class action certification.

The Court said, "In light of the grant of Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action
Settlement Agreement Plaintiff's Combined Motion for Conditional
Collective Action Certification and Class Action Certification is
moot and denied without prejudice to refiling in the event
settlement is not accomplished."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uehl2XC3


UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Stricken Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Jose Luis Ocampo, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
United Collection Bureau, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
09401 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer entered an
order striking Plaintiff's motion for class certification without
prejudice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 19,
2017, Plaintiff's motion for class certification is stricken
without prejudice pending the court's upcoming ruling on
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7e39Gnu6


UNITED STATES: "Kirwa" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MAHLON KIRWA, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01793-ESH (D.D.C.), Mahlon Kirwa, Santhosh
Meenhallimath, and Ashok Viswanathan move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying this case as a class action, with the class
      consisting of all persons who:

      "(i) have enlisted in the U.S. military through the
      Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest
      ("MAVNI") program; (ii) have served in the Selected Reserve
      of the Ready Reserve ("Selected Reserve"); and (iii) have
      not received a completed Form N-426 from the military"; and

   2. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel to represent the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HkAn3HxD

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph J. LoBue, Esq.
          Douglas W. Baruch, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Wollenberg, Esq.
          Neaha P. Raol, Esq.
          Shaun A. Gates, Esq.
          Katherine L. St. Romain, Esq.
          Webster R. M. Beary, Esq.
          FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP
          801 17th Street, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 639 7000
          Facsimile: (202) 639 7003
          E-mail: joseph.lobue@friedfrank.com
                  douglas.baruch@friedfrank.com
                  jennifer.wollenberg@friedfrank.com


UNITED STATES: Army Corps of Engineers Sued Over Water Releases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Sims and David Gaffen, writing for Reuters, report that
owners of homes flooded during Hurricane Harvey are claiming
billions of dollars in damages by federal and state water releases
from storm-swollen reservoirs, using a legal tack pursued without
success in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.

Several lawsuits filed in federal and state courts in Texas claim
properties were taken for public use without compensation.  The
lawsuits name the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a state agency
responsible for water releases.  The potential damages could run
as high as $3 billion, according to attorneys involved.

"No one expects your government is going to deliberately do
something that is going to flood your home," said Rhonda Pearce,
56.  Her west Houston home was damaged by flooding from reservoir
dam releases and she is considering legal action, she said.

"Homes were literally being swept away," said Derek Potts, a
Houston-based lawyer representing plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in
Harris County court against the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA)
in a Texas court.  His lawsuits are seeking class action status
and could involve thousands of homes and businesses.

Water released from a lake into the San Jacinto River was lawful
and area flooding "was neither caused by or made worse" by those
releases, the SJRA said in a statement. Similar claims from an
earlier storm were dismissed in court, it said.

The Army Corps of Engineers referred questions to the U.S.
Department of Justice, which declined to comment.

Mr. Potts said there are more than 1,000 homes valued at between
$750,000 and $1 million, that could be covered by the lawsuit
against the SJRA, putting potential damages in that case in the
billions of dollars.

Similar cases last decade that argued the government improperly
took property when levees failed in Louisiana after Hurricane
Katrina in 2005 were unsuccessful, said Robert R. M. Verchick, an
environmental law professor at Loyola College of Law in New
Orleans.

"The Katrina plaintiffs tried to the do the same thing - and they
lost," Mr. Verchick said.  "In some ways this is going to follow
the same path."

Christopher Johns, an attorney who has filed two lawsuits in U.S.
Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., said his firm has
been contacted by hundreds of other homeowners.  A 2012 U.S.
Supreme Court decision involving flooding have opened the door to
winning such claims, he said.

Megan Strickland, a plaintiff in one of the federal lawsuits, said
while it is difficult to immediately quantify the damage to her
home, many of her neighbors are in a similar situation.

"We don't know if our neighborhood will be coming back again," Ms.
Strickland said. [GN]


US DEFENSE DEPARTMENT: Soldiers Sue over Promised Citizenship
-------------------------------------------------------------
Britain Eaken, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
three non-citizens serving in the U.S. Army filed a federal
complaint on September 1, accusing the Department of Defense of
unlawfully refusing to certify their eligibility for
naturalization after promising them a fast-track to citizenship.

Mahlon Kirwa, Santhosh Meenhallimath and Ashok Viswanathan filed
the class action in Washington, against the Defense Department and
Secretary of Defense James Mattis.

"As non-citizen soldiers serving honorably during wartime,
plaintiffs have an absolute statutory right to apply to become
naturalized U.S. citizens, but defendants are refusing to certify
their naturalization application eligibility as required by law,
leaving these soldiers to languish in immigration limbo,
notwithstanding their ongoing military service to this nation,"
the 32-page complaint states.

The three men, who serve in the Selected Reserve of the Ready
Reserve, were recruited into the Army under the 2008 Military
Accessions Vital to the National Interest program (MANVI), which
promises non-U.S. citizens with special language or medical skills
deemed vital to U.S. national interests an expedited path to
citizenship if they serve honorably during wartime.

Federal law allows Kirwa, Meenhallimath and Viswanathan to apply
for naturalization, but in order to do that they need the Pentagon
to complete certification form N-426.

According to the lawsuit, the citizenship opportunity provided a
powerful incentive for their enlistment, the terms of which
require them to serve for eight years.  But the three soldiers say
the Defense Department has implemented a new policy of refusing to
issue that form on the basis that the MANVI soldiers have not
served in active-duty capacity yet, even though the law does not
require that.

"Defendants' policy of withholding issuance of N-426s has no
lawful basis and contravenes their duty to act," the lawsuit says.
"And defendants have implemented this policy in blatant disregard
for the immense suffering and mounting harm that their actions
have caused to soldiers under their command."

The new policy "stands in stark contrast" to the Pentagon's
previous policy, according to the complaint. The Defense
Department has processed thousands of forms for MANVI soldiers in
the past, after which they are sent to the Department of Homeland
Security for regular processing. But now the Defense Department is
directing relevant commands to stop issuing the N-426 until the
soldiers have seen active duty.

Calling the Pentagon's conduct "a poorly-thought-out and thinly-
veiled effort" to deny the soldiers citizenship, the complaint
suggests that the department's views about the program have
shifted over time.

In a separate but related case filed in May, the Pentagon told a
judge it is not certifying any MANVI soldiers while it conducts a
review of the program in response to concerns that Army officials
had previously jumped the gun on N-426 certifications.

According to proceedings in that case, the Pentagon and the U.S.
Customs and Immigration Services are at odds over interpretation
of the law. According to Friday's complaint, Customs and
Immigration Services disagrees with the Defense Department's new
policy of requiring active-duty service before it will certify the
eligibility of MANVI soldiers for citizenship.

The three soldiers, who enlisted in 2015 and 2016, say they are
currently stuck in limbo without voting rights, work authorization
or the ability to travel in and out of the United States. They are
also without protection from deportation: According to the
Department of Homeland Security, MANVI soldiers are only lawfully
present in the United States "at the discretion of the agency."

Deportation could pose high risks for some of them.

"These individuals would be subject to deportation to countries of
origin, where, for some, they could face detention, interrogation,
prosecution, and/or imprisonment because of their decision to
enlist in the U.S. Army and swear their allegiance to the United
States and the Constitution," the complaint states.

The Defense Department declined to comment on the pending
litigation.

When reached for comment, attorneys for Kirwa, Meenhallimath and
Viswanathan also declined to comment.

The soldiers seek class certification and declaratory, injunctive
and mandamus relief.

The case is captioned, MAHLON KIRWA 400 Magnolia St. Orangeburg,
SC 29115, SANTHOSH MEENHALLIMATH 8080 Eden Rd., Apt. 347 Eden
Prairie, MN 55344, ASHOK VISW ANATHAN 14025 Chestnut Dr., Apt.
FEden Prairie, MN 55347, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, PLAINTIFFS, V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301, JAMES MATTIS,
in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense of the United
States Department of Defense 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC
20301, DEFENDANTS. Case 1:17-cv-01793 (D. D.C., September 1,
2017).

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Joseph J. LoBue, Esq.
     Douglas W. Baruch, Esq.
     Jennifer M. Wollenberg, Esq.
     Neaha P. Raol, Esq.
     Webster R. M. Beary, Esq.
     Shaun A. Gates, Esq.
     Katherine L. St. Romain, Esq.
     Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
     801 17th Street, NW
     Washington, D.C. 20006
     Telephone: (202) 639-7000
     Facsimile: (202) 639-7003
     Email: joseph.lobue@friedfrank.com
     Email: douglas.baruch@friedfrank.com
     Email: jennifer.wollenberg@friedfrank.com


VACAVILLE, CA: Must Defend Suit over Contaminated Water
-------------------------------------------------------
Nick Cahill, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in Sacramento, Calif., on September 1, advanced a
lawsuit against a Northern California city accused of knowingly
delivering drinking water contaminated with a carcinogen
highlighted in the film "Erin Brockovich."

U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller denied the city of
Vacaville's motion to dismiss an action filed in March by the
environmental group California River Watch. The environmentalists
want the city to be fined for each day it's violated the federal
Resource Conversation and Recovery Act by delivering chromium 6
through its water system to residential taps.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of recent tests revealing that high
levels of chromium 6, which occurs naturally in rocks and soil and
is used to make stainless steel and plastics, were found in five
of the city's 11 groundwater wells. River Watch claims the
contaminated water sold to Vacaville's 92,000 residents poses "an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health."

The environmental group is represented by Jack Silver of
Sebastopol.

Vacaville, located 55 miles northeast of San Francisco, argued the
lawsuit should be tossed because the plaintiff failed to show a
violation of the recovery act. It said that plaintiff's claims are
already regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Mueller, appointed by President Barack Obama in 2010 and the first
female judge to serve in California's Eastern District, called the
city's motion "unavailing" and dismissed it in seven pages. She
noted several other courts have recognized that chromium 6 waste
is regulated by the recovery act.

"Defendant has not challenged plaintiff's allegation of harm so
the court declines to address this issue," Mueller said. She added
that River Watch properly stated its recovery act claim and gave
the city 14 days to answer the order.

The city declined to comment on Mueller's order.

Vacaville public information officer Mark Mazzaferro told
Courthouse News in March that the city is dedicating millions
toward improving its wells and lowering the levels of the
carcinogen. He reiterated that the city is on track to meeting new
state drinking-water guidelines for chromium 6 that go into effect
in 2020.

Residents of the Los Angeles suburb of Paramount sued seven metal-
finishing factories in March, claiming they are polluting the city
with chromium 6. The plaintiffs in the class action hired the
environmental law firm Girardi Keese, which defended the chromium
contamination case made famous by "Erin Brockovich."

The case is captioned, CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH, Plaintiff, v. CITY
OF VACAVILLE, Defendant. Case 2:17-cv-00524-KJM-KJN(C.D. Cal.,
September 1, 2017).


VECTOR MARKETING: "Donald" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Justin Donald, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vector
Marketing Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 17SL-CC0274, was
removed on Sep. 7, 2017 from the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-02372-CDP to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. District Judge Catherine D. Perry.

Vector Marketing is a domestic sales arm of Cutco Corporation, an
Olean, New York based cutlery manufacturer and multi-level
marketing organization. Vector Marketing Corporation is the
company's sales division.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          S. Todd Hamby, Esq.
          CARMODY MACDONALD P.C.
          120 South Central Ave., Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 854 8600
          Facsimile: (314) 854 8660
          E-mail: sth@carmodymacdonald.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew James Weissler, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 345 6450
          Facsimile: (314) 480 1505
          E-mail: aj.weissler@huschblackwell.com


VETERANS & MEDICAID: "Hanshaw" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALANA HANSHAW, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. VETERANS & MEDICAID PLANNING GROUP, PLLC, a
Florida professional limited company, and ERIC MILLHORN,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00410-CEM-PRL (M.D.
Fla., Sep. 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to comply with the
FLSA because Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were
regularly required to work in excess of 40 hours a workweek but
were not paid overtime compensation as required by FLSA.

Veterans & Medicaid is a geriatric care management firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
          Jason M. Melton, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          One Progressive Plaza
          200 Central Avenue No. 400
          St. Petersburg, FL
          Telephone: (727) 822 1111
          Facsimile: (727) 898 2001
          E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
                  lechneri@theFLlawfirm.com
                  sonia@theFLlawfirm.com


VOCUS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Guidance Downgrade
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corinne Reichert, writing for ZDNet, reports that Vocus is facing
a potential class action from its shareholders over downgrading
its financial guidance in May, law firm Slater and Gordon and
shareholder claim management and funding-service provider Investor
Claim Partner (ICP) have announced.

According to Slater and Gordon, the proposed class action centres
around two allegations: That "Vocus engaged in misleading and
deceptive conduct because it had no reasonable grounds for the
original FY17 guidance issued in November 2016"; and that the
telco "breached its obligations of continuous disclosure by
failing to disclose that it would not achieve the FY17 guidance".

The law firm said the proposed claim will be brought on behalf of
those who purchased Vocus shares between November 29, 2016, and
May 2, 2017 -- which it said could be "hundreds, if not thousands,
of people".

Between these two dates, the claim alleges that the company's
shares traded significantly higher than their actual value due to
Vocus' alleged misleading and deceptive conduct.

Mathew Chuk, Slater and Gordon principal lawyer, said Vocus'
original guidance had relied on assumptions made about growing the
business through its AU$1.2 billion acquisition of Amcom in June
2015, its merger with M2 in February 2016 to form the third-
largest telecommunications provider in New Zealand and the fourth-
largest in Australia worth more than AU$3 billion, and its AU$861
million acquisition Nextgen Networks in July 2016.

However, Mr. Chuk said Vocus' presumptions that it would
consequently gain efficiencies by combining these businesses "was
done without proper visibility of profitability".

"Our investigations to date suggest Vocus had unreasonable
expectations about the costs involved in integrating its newly
acquired platforms and technology systems," Mr. Chuk said.

"We have also identified an accounting issue relating to
recognition of ongoing costs associated with the execution of long
term, multimillion-dollar service contracts."

ICP COO Simon Weeks alleged that Vocus had been aware of these
technology and platform integration and accounting and cost issues
while continuing to reiterate its original guidance.

"There appears to be evidence that Vocus was aware of most of
these issues when the FY17 guidance was originally issued in
November, thus misleading the market," Mr. Weeks said.

"Based on initial interest, Vocus shareholders are perturbed by
this, as it is yet another example of a listed company not
following the listing rules that exist to protect shareholders.

"Adverse, price-sensitive information needs to be disclosed
immediately, otherwise shareholders overpay."

In a statement to media, Vocus said it has always complied with
its reporting obligations.

"We understand that Slater and Gordon have issued a release
indicating they are seeking interest in a possible class action,"
Vocus said.

"At all times, Vocus has complied with its continuous disclosure
obligations and will continue to do so."

Vocus' revised guidance saw forecast revenue reduced by AU$100
million, underlying earnings before interest, tax, depreciation,
and amortisation (EBITDA) reduced by between AU$65 million and
AU$75 million, and net profit reduced by between AU$45 million and
AU$50 million.

CEO Geoff Horth had said underlying EBITDA was then expected to be
between AU$365 million and AU$375 million, net profit between
AU$160 million and AU$165 million, and revenue of AU$1.8 billion.

The company had attributed AU$12 million of its EBITDA reduction
to higher expenses than expected, particularly on technology;
AU$33 million to an accounting review of "the negotiated contract
terms on a number of large projects"; AU$10 million to the impact
of lower-than-expected billings and an increased headcount across
its Enterprise and Wholesale division; AU$5 million to low
earnings in its mass market energy business due to "volatility
created by extreme weather events in 3QFY17"; and AU$10 million to
other trading variances.

The drop in expected net profit was due to pre-tax expenses of
AU$113 million, including AU$26.4 million from the amortisation of
acquired software; AU$21.4 million from acquisition and
integration costs; AU$61 million from the non-cash amortisation of
acquired customer intangibles; and AU$5.6 million from the non-
cash book loss on the divestment of the Connect 8 joint venture
and the Cisco HCS voice platform.

Revenue, meanwhile, was said to be lower than previously forecast
thanks to a AU$40 million take-back as a result of the accounting
review, as it was found that revenue from the projects involved
would be earned in future periods; AU$12 million from lower
billings across its Enterprise and Wholesale division; and AU$20
million from the divestment of the Aggregato Australia business
and the Cisco HCS voice platform.

Vocus' net debt was updated to an expectation of between AU$1
billion and AU$1.1 billion, with CFO Mark Wratten expressing
confidence that Vocus would be able to hit its revised guidance.

As a result of its downgraded guidance, the company in June
received a takeover proposal from Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co
(KKR) to acquire 100 percent of its shares at a price of AU$3.50
per share via a scheme of arrangement, with Vocus then allowing
KKR to conduct due diligence to explore whether a binding
transaction could be agreed upon.

KKR had said its preliminary, indicative, and non-binding proposal
would be subject to whether Vocus' net debt did not exceed AU$1.1
billion as of June 30; EBITDA was between AU$365 million to AU$375
million for FY16-17, and not driven by any abnormal or one-off
items; and Vocus' existing asset base was maintained.

Shortly afterwards, Affinity Equity Partners submitted a takeover
proposal in July to acquire 100 percent of Vocus' shares at a
price of AU$3.50 per share via a scheme of arrangement to be paid
in cash.

Two days before Vocus was due to announce its FY17 full-year
financial results, however, both takeover proposals were
terminated.

"Throughout the due diligence process, the bidders indicated
support for management's strategic plans and transformation
program," Vocus said in August.

"However, the bidders have now advised that they are unable to
support a transaction on terms acceptable to the board.
Accordingly, all discussions have now ceased."

Vocus' full-year results announced late August saw a turnaround in
its FY16 net profit of AU$64.1 million to a net loss of AU$1.5
billion for FY17 due to "higher than forecast net finance costs
and a higher effective tax rate", along with what Mr. Horth called
"a more competitive business environment" in both Australia and
New Zealand.

Statutory EBITDA was AU$335.5 million, up 72.7 percent.

Underlying net profit was AU$152.3 million, while underlying
EBITDA, not including significant items during the year, was
AU$366.4 million, up 70 percent.

Revenue grew by 119 percent year on year to AU$1.8 billion, and
the company's net debt increased by 35 percent to AU$1.03 billion
and is expected to climb even higher, to up to AU$1.06 billion for
FY18.

"The underlying result reflects another strong year of growth for
Vocus; however, it was not at the level we anticipated at the
beginning of the financial year and we are working through a
number of projects to address this," Mr. Horth said last month.

"The FY17 year and in particular 2HFY17, has been a period of
transition as the business has focused on the completion and
integration of Nextgen, and the implementation of business plans
that will maximise returns and leverage the infrastructure
platform and operational scale that has been created through
recent acquisitions." [GN]


WASHINGTON: Judge Tosses Nursing Home Residents' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Alison Chandler, writing for The Washington Post, reports
that a U.S. district judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit that
alleged that the District failed to comply with a federal mandate
to move eligible and interested Medicaid recipients out of nursing
homes and into the community.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle ruled that a single
injunction could not remedy the problems experienced by the
elderly and disabled nursing home residents because barriers to
moving them back into the community extended beyond the system's
shortfalls with transition services.

Principle among them: a lack of affordable and accessible housing
in the District.  Other barriers included few wheelchair-
accessible units, and, for some residents, poor credit history or
criminal records that made it harder to secure housing.

"The District has little to be proud of regarding its historic
inability to comply with Olmstead's integration mandate," said
Huvelle in her 91-page ruling, referring to a U.S. Supreme Court
decision that public entities must provide community-based
services to people with disabilities whenever possible, and that
keeping them institutionalized is a form of discrimination.

"However, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the existence of a
concrete, systemic failure that entitles them to class-wide
relief," she said.

An advocate for the plaintiffs said they were still trying to
understand the judge's ruling on Sept. 13.

"We are incredibly disappointed," said Kelly Bagby, an attorney
with AARP Foundation who represents the plaintiffs.

She said she fundamentally disagreed with the ruling and that one
solution -- a better system of transition services to help the
disabled nursing home residents -- would have remedied the
plaintiffs' common complaint.

Claudia Schlosberg, state Medicaid director for the District, said
in a statement on Sept. 13 that the District's Medicaid program is
dedicated to providing qualified residents with disabilities
"access to services and supports in the most integrated setting
appropriate to their needs."

"We know, however, that some individuals who wish to transition
back to the community are still living in nursing homes," the
statement read.  "As the Court recognized, there are
individualized barriers that prevent these individuals from being
able to transition out of the nursing home and into the community.
Housing is one of the most common barriers. We are fully committed
to the principles of the Olmstead decision and will continue our
efforts to increase access to long term care services and supports
in the community."

The suit was filed in 2010 by University Legal Services, AARP
Foundation Litigation and the private law firm of Arent Fox.  In
2013, the plaintiffs were certified as a class, a designation that
was appealed by the District.  The ruling came exactly one year
after the case went to trial.

The plaintiffs were nursing home residents in the District who
receive Medicaid and are entitled to in-home care.

Federally and state-funded waivers for Medicaid recipients who are
elderly or have physical disabilities allow people to receive up
to 16 hours a day of in-home services and case management if they
need help with at least two activities of daily living such as
bathing, eating or dressing.  If they need 24-hour care, they can
get an additional eight hours through the D.C. Medicaid Personal
Care Assistance program.

Surveys consistently show that older people prefer to stay in
their homes for as long as they can.  Serving people at home is
also significantly more cost-effective, advocates say.

The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that between 500 and 2,900
people with disabilities in the District are "unnecessarily
institutionalized in nursing facilities, segregated and isolated
from their families and friends" and that "these individuals
desperately want to return to their communities."

Legal records show just a small number of nursing home patients
were moved successfully back into the community each year,
including only a fraction of those who were accepted into a
federal program that helps Medicaid recipients move out of nursing
homes and receive services in the community.

But the District alleged and, the judge agreed, that the lack of
available, affordable and accessible housing was a major barrier
to serving these residents in the community.

More than 80 percent of nursing facility residents who wanted to
move to the community needed publicly funded or subsidized
housing, court records say.  Waiting lists are exceedingly long,
and the availability of wheelchair accessible units is even more
limited.

Court documents noted that people with private housing were able
to transition much more quickly than those who needed to secure
subsidized housing.

Plaintiffs argued in court that the city should be responsible for
helping residents to secure housing.  In response to the judge's
ruling on Sept. 13, Ms. Bagby noted that unnecessarily lengthy
nursing home stays, due to poor transition services, were part of
the problem because they exacerbated plaintiffs' housing problems.

"These are people who are on Medicaid and have been
institutionalized.  Of course they don't have private housing."
[GN]


WATCH TOWER: Hit With Sexual Abuse Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Ms. Lisa Blais, as Petitioner, has filed on September 15 an
application to Institute a Class Action (court docket: 500-06-
000886-172) against three corporations of the Jehovah's Witnesses:
The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada, The Watch Tower
Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and The Watch Tower Bible
and Tract Society of New York, Inc.

She filed these proceedings on behalf of the following classes:

"All persons who are or were a Jehovah's Witness who allege having
been sexually abused in Quebec by a Jehovah's Witness Elder." and
"All persons who are or were a Jehovah's Witness who allege having
been sexually abused as a child in Quebec, by a Jehovah's
Witness."

The Petitioner Ms. Blais is represented by the law firm Woods LLP
in Montreal. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Court Narrows Claims in "Flower" UCL Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of California,
issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned VANA FOWLER, Plaintiff, v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02092-HSG (N.D.
Cal.).

Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff Vana Fowler brings the putative class action alleging
violations under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
Plaintiff alleges that Wells Fargo unlawfully and unfairly
collected post-payment interest on mortgages insured by the
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) part of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by failing to provide proper
notice to borrowers.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must
dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the
plaintiff must allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face. This facial plausibility standard
requires the plaintiff to allege facts that amo Plaintiff's sole
claim is a violation of California's UCL. The UCL prohibits any
unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and
unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.

Unlawful Business Practice

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's collection of post-payment
interest was both unlawful and unfair as it violated Section
203.558 and the terms of borrowers' promissory notes.

Defendant challenges both the statutory and contractual basis for
Plaintiff's claim and the Court addresses each in turn.

Private Right of Action under 24 C.F.R. Section 203.558

Defendant first argues that HUD regulation 24 C.F.R. Section
203.558 cannot serve as the predicate for a UCL claim because the
regulation does not create a private right of action for
borrowers.

Defendant points to the enforcement scheme overseen by HUD's
Mortgagee Review Board as evidence that private enforcement is
explicitly foreclosed.  The Board is empowered to initiate the
issuance of a letter of reprimand, the probation, suspension, or
withdrawal of any mortgagee found to be engaging in activities in
violation of [FHA] requirements. And Section 203.558 further
provides that if the mortgagee fails to meet the full disclosure
requirements the mortgagee may be subject to forfeiture and to
such other actions as are provided.

Defendant's other authorities are similarly unpersuasive, the
Court said.  The Court declined to deviate from the California
Supreme Court's explanation that a UCL claim may stand, whether or
not the underlying statute provides a private right of action.
Because Sec 203.558 does not explicitly bar private enforcement, the
Court concludes that a UCL claim premised on a violation of this
regulation may proceed. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's
motion to dismiss Plaintiff's UCL claim on that basis.

Breach of Contract

Defendant next argues that to the extent Plaintiff's UCL claim is
premised on a breach of contract theory.  This also fails because
the regulations are not incorporated by reference into the
promissory note and, even if they were, they cannot form the basis
of an affirmative breach of contract claim under California law,
the Court held.

Unjust Enrichment

Defendant next argues that Plaintiff's UCL theory based on unjust
enrichment fails because California does not recognize an
independent cause of action for unjust enrichment.  The Court
agreed.  In California, unjust enrichment is synonymous with
restitution. Restitution, however, is a remedy and not a
standalone cause of action. The Ninth Circuit has nevertheless
held that when a plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment, a court may
construe the cause of action as a quasi-contract claim seeking
restitution.

The goal of a quasi-contract cause of action is to prevent unjust
enrichment in the absence of a true contract or where the contract
was obtained by fraud. Here, however, because this action involves
an actual, express agreement, relief under a quasi-contract is
unnecessary, and also was not properly pled in the complaint. The
Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss on that basis without
leave to amend.

The Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's UCL
claim to the extent that it is premised on an unjust enrichment
theory, but otherwise denied the motion in its entirety.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya34ly9vfrom Leagle.com.

Vana Fowler, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Lewis Hoipkemier,
Epps, Holloway, DeLoach and Hoipkemier, LLC, pro hac vice, 1100
Peachtree Street NE, Ste. 800, Atlanta, GA 30303

Vana Fowler, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Epps --
ehdh@ehdhlaw.com -- EHDH, LLC, pro hac vice, Michael Francis Ram-
MRam@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP & Susan S. Brown,
SBrown@RobinsKaplan.com --    Robins Kaplan LLP.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by David S. Reidy -
- dreidy@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, K. Issac deVyver --
kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Karla
Lynn Johnson -- kjohnson@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP &
Sara F. Holladay-Tobias -- stobias@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice.


WELLS FARGO: Enters Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------
WHO-TV reports that Banking giant Wells Fargo is getting ready to
pay out millions of dollars over fake accounts its employees
created on behalf of real customers.

The company said it uncovered twice as many unauthorized accounts
as originally thought--three and a half million--without
permission from the people whose names were on them.

Wells Fargo has entered a class action settlement in which it will
pay out $142 million to those customers. The company has set up a
website with information about the settlement. [GN]


WISCONSIN: Suit v. Jon Listcher Wins Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled J.J. et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Listcher,
Jon, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00047-jdp (W.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. James D. Peterson entered an order granting
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

According to the Civil Minutes, a joint report on the status of
compliance of the preliminary injunction is due within 21 days.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by Laurence Dupuis, Esq., at
American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin.

The Defendants are represented by Samuel Hall, Esq.


XENITH BANKSHARES: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Union Merger Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Xenith Bankshares Inc., Patrick E. Corbin, T. Gaylon
Layfield III, Thomas G. Snead Jr., Palmer P. Garson, Robert J.
Merrick, Scott A. Reed, W. Lewis Witt, William A. Paulette, Henry
P. Custis Jr., James F. Burr, Edward Grebow, Robert B. Goldstein,
and Union Bankshares Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-00612-JAG (E.D.
Va., September 7, 2017), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Xenith Bankshares Inc., to enjoin the proposed
agreement and plan of merger of Xenith with Union Bankshares
Corporation for $687.2 million on an aggregate basis.

According to the case, Xenith filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which
recommends that Xenith stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction. However, the Statement omits or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (i) Xenith's
financial projections, Union's financial projections, and the
financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor,
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. ("Sandler O'Neill"), and Union's
financial advisor, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. ("KBW"), (ii)
potential conflicts of interest of KBW and Sandler O'Neill; and
(iii) potential conflicts of interest of the Company's executive
officers.

Xenith Bankshares Inc. is a commercial bank specifically targeting
the banking needs of middle market and small businesses, local
real estate developers and investors, and retail banking clients.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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: etripodi@zlk.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


XEROX: Hit With Class Action Over Excessive Leasing Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
According to a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District
Court in Rochester, NY, Eco Farm Sales, a former customer of
Xerox, is seeking monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief from defendant Xerox arising from alleged assessment of
excessive fees for printing services, equipment and supplies. The
case also challenges Xerox's alleged practice of charging
customers unwarranted fees to end lease agreements.

Plaintiff, Eco Farms Sales, is a California-based corporation that
primarily grows, packs and markets avocados.

The requested class includes all Xerox customers in the U.S. that
paid a fee that was not authorized in their lease agreements since
2011 and all Xerox customers that paid a termination fee penalty
in violation of their lease agreements since 2011. The suit makes
claims against Xerox for breach of contract, unlawful penalties
for termination, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated. The classes are preliminarily defined
as follows:

-- All Xerox customers in the U.S. that paid a fee that was not
    authorized in their lease agreement in the six-year period
    prior to the filing of the suit
-- All Xerox customers in the U.S. that paid a termination fee or
    penalty in violation of their lease agreement or the
    applicable New York law in the six-year period prior to the
    filing of the suit.

The plaintiff is making the following allegations:

-- Xerox induces customers to enter loan term contracts by
    assuring pricing and functionality that go undelivered.
-- Xerox raises fees without justification
-- Xerox charges unreasonable fees to terminate agreements.
-- Xerox's practices have harmed plaintiff and the classes.

According to the filing, the plaintiff's claims for relief are
based on three counts encompassing: Breach of contract including
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unlawful
penalties for termination on behalf of the termination class and,
"unjust enrichment" on behalf of the overcharge and termination
classes. [GN]


ZILLOW GROUP: Oct. 23 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Zillow Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ:Z) who purchased shares between February 12, 2016 and
August 8, 2017. The action, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, alleges
that the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) Zillow's co-
marketing program did not comply with the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act; and (2) as a result, Zillow's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders have until October 23, 2017 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does
not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to be
an absent class member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by
telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-sb/zillow-group-inc?wire=3.

Joseph Klein, Esq. is an experienced attorney and has also
practiced as a Certified Public Accountant. Mr. Klein represents
investors and participates in securities litigations involving
financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

         Joseph Klein, Esq.
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         E-mail: www.kleinstocklaw.com  [GN]


* Attorney Says Class Action Lawsuits Over 'Soda Pop Tax' Only
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dee Thompson, writing for Cook County Record, reports the
controversial new "soda pop tax" that went into effect last month
has already sparked class-action lawsuits against retailers and
restaurants for allegedly miscalculating the tax, but David
Almeida, an attorney at Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff
LLP, believes these suits likely are aimed only at generating
quick paydays for plaintiffs' lawyers.

"The threat posed by these lawsuits is twofold," Almeida told the
Cook County Record. "First, they are brought only as class
actions, which opens companies up to discovery regarding a large
number of transactions. And second, plaintiffs' attorneys are
bringing these cases without regard for the fact that class-wide
damages are very low. Usually these transactions involve the
alleged improper collection of between $0.02 and $0.21. Despite
that, class-wide damages are very low (likely less than $50,000)."

The new tax requires sellers of sweetened beverages to add $0.01
per ounce to any beverage that contains sugar, sucrose, glucose or
an artificial sweetener like aspartame. Beverages like coffee and
tea, which are typically sweetened by the buyer, aren't affected.

Almeida doesn't think the lawsuits are going to be a big headache
for businesses.

"The underlying theory of these lawsuits -- that companies are
going out and intentionally overcharging taxes -- simply makes no
sense," he said. "Companies do not keep these taxes. These cases
are generally grounded in theories of fraud, which requires that
the business intend for consumers to rely on a deceptive practice.
Plaintiffs' lawyers are not going after bad actors; they are going
after businesses acting in good faith to make every effort
possible to comply with the change in law."

Almeida said these cases are not likely certifiable as class
actions.

"Plaintiffs (more appropriately, their counsel) are manufacturing
these cases by doing things like purchasing fountain drink cups
and using self-service machines to select an unsweetened beverage
after paying the tax," he said. "There is simply no way to
identify a similar class of people, which would be plagued by a
number of individualized questions."

Almeida said he believes the only goal of these lawsuits is to
coerce businesses into settling and paying plaintiffs' lawyers.

"Plaintiffs' counsel rushed to file these lawsuits almost
immediately after the tax became effective," he said. "Plaintiffs'
counsel know that there is no pot of gold at the end of the
rainbow--there is only so much in $.05 charges that can be at
issue. No plaintiffs' lawyer would want to certify this class. It
would cost more to get class members their relief than they would
be entitled to. The cost of postage would cost more than class
members would get. Knowing this, plaintiffs' counsels' only goal
here is to force a quick settlement."

Cook County may see a rush of lawsuits in the near future, but
Almeida thinks that will subside.

"Tax class actions go through momentary bursts of popularity, but
quickly die down," he said. "A few years ago, there were a handful
of lawsuits regarding taxing delivery fees and another handful of
lawsuits of the proper tax treatment where coupons are used. Once
businesses see these suits, everyone checks for compliance and
moves on. And, plaintiffs' lawyers learn that these cases cost
more than their worth, which naturally tamps down such cases."

Right now, the lawsuits have focused on fairly large companies
like Walgreens, Subway and PepsiCo. Almeida feels that plaintiffs
lawyers won't go after mom-and-pop businesses.

"The focus has been on companies with dozens of locations in Cook
County in an effort to have as large a class as possible," he
said. "There is no incentive to go after mom-and-pop shops as
maximum class-wide damages are likely in the four figures."

Almeida, however said there are things that businesses can do to
protect themselves from these kinds of lawsuits.

"First, make sure that your point of sale system is programmed
properly," he said. "Second, make sure that your employees are
aware of the tax and are trained in what beverages are and are not
subject to the tax. And third, offer refunds of the tax whenever a
customer comes forward regarding an improper tax assessment." [GN]





                             *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *