CAR_Public/171003.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, October 3, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 195



                            Headlines

AETNA INC: Faces Suit Over CMIA Violation
AKOURI METAL: Faces "Fernandez" Suit in S.D. Fla.
ALARM.COM INC: Court Denies Bid to Amend Class Definitions
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Buxbaum" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
ALLIED FOOD: "Floyd" Suit Alleges FLSA and AMWA Violations

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Heller" Suit in E.D. of New York
ANCHO'S TACO: Faces "Johnson" Suit in M. Dist. Fla.
BARCLAYS BANK: Averts Mortgage Crisis-Related Securities Suit
CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses Muslim Inmate's Class Claims
CALSONIC KANSEI: Irving Levine Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations

CATALINA RESTAURANT: Court Denies Bid for Rule 11 Sanctions
CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Misonzhnik" Suit in E.D. of New York
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Scott+Scott Named Interim Class Counsel
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Lewis" Suit in E.D. of New York
CREDIT ONE: Court Denies Move to Stay "Hiemstra"

CVS HEALTH: Class Action Over Generic Drug Pricing Withdrawn
DELANO FARMS: Class Counsel Must Supplement Request for Costs
DISPARTI LAW GROUP: Faces "Durrett" Suit in M.D. Fla.
DITECH FINANCIAL: NRS200.260 Has No Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
EQUIFAX INC: Breach Likely to Bring Litigation Challenges

EQUIFAX INC: Legal Department May Face Probes Over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Stock Sales Raise Concerns Following Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Regulatory Scrutiny May Tighten Following Hack
EQUIFAX INC: Taps King & Spalding Partner to Defend Class Actions
EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Class Actions May Be Consolidated

EQUIFAX INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Minnesota
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in North Carolina
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Collins" Suit in Southern District of Texas
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Davis" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Perkins" Suit over Massive Data Breach

EQUIFAX INC: Summit Credit Suit Sues over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Tirelli" Suit in S.D. New York
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Anderson" Suit over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Boundy et al. Sue over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: "Tada" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California

EQUIFAX INC: Spector, et al. Ask Panel to Transfer 22 Actions
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Pavesi" Suit over Consumer Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Richmond et al. Sue over Consumer Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Suit by Rust et al. over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Strauchman" Suit in N.D. Georgia

EQUIFAX INC: Corboy & Demetrio Files Data Breach Class Action
EQUIFAX INC: Massachusetts AG Files Suit Following Data Breach
EXPERIAN: Berger & Montague Sues Over Consumer Reports
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
FORD MOTOR: Wants 9th Circuit to Toss Power Steering Class Action

FOREMOST INSURANCE: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in "Braden" Denied
FRONT RANGE: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss "Sanchez" Suit
GEL SPICE: Court Partly Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
HERBALIFE: Faces Class Action in Florida
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Court Grants Bid to Stay Medicine To Go Suit

JODAT LAW: Faces "Hinkle" Suit in Middle District of Florida
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Files Motions to Discard $417MM Talc Verdict
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Probes Pennsylvania Connections
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Awards $57.1MM Damages in Ebaugh Case
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Postpones Hip Implant Bellwether Trial

KRAFT HEINZ: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in ERISA Suit
LG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Feinberg" Suit in District of New Jersey
LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS: Class Settlement Has Final Court Approval
MAC'S CONVENIENCE: Temporary Foreign Workers' Class Action Okayed
MAGIC MOUNTAIN: Miranda et al. Sue over Debit Card Transactions

MGM MIRAGE: Approval of $75MM Deal in Securities Suit Affirmed
MURPHY OIL: Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Arbitration Issue
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Judge Appoints Expert to Look Into Attorney Fees
NATIONAL CONSUMER: Faces "Albritton" Suit in N.D. Georgia
NEBRASKA ALLIANCE: Court Vacates Certification of "Bewer" Class

NEW ZEALAND: PSA Outbreak Class Action Costs Taxpayer Over $3MM
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Faces "Leyva" Suit in C.D. California
NOVO NORDISK: Berman, Cecchi Named Lead Atty in Insulin Suit
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Class Decertification in "Lambert" Flipped
OHIO: Court Dismisses RCI Inmates' Class Action Claims

OHIO STATE: Seeks Dismissal of Spielman's Class Action
PARADIGM CREDIT: Faces "Rosenshein" Suit in New York State Court
PRESTIGE DELI: "Odeh" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
REX PERFORMANCE: Settlement in "Slaght" Has Prelim. Approval
ROCKET FUEL: Court Approves Dismissal of "Debnath"

SHOWTIME NETWORKS: Vance Sues over Mayweather v. McGregor Fight
SHUTTERFLY INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Monroy" Suit
SINGING RIVER: Court Denies Objectors' Bid to Stay "Jones"
SPOTLESS: Seeks to Remove Embarrassing Manus Island Allegations
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Sued Over Defective Defibrillators

STANDARD INSURANCE: $2.4MM Settlement in "Woods" Has Final OK
TESORO REFINING: Court Names Hadsell Stormer Interim Lead Counsel
TEXAS: Judge Says 600 Heat-Sensitive Inmates Qualified for Relief
THOUSAND OAKS, CA: Ranch Mobile Home Class Action Settlement OK'd
TRANSUNION LLC: Wins Bid for Rule 11 Sanctions vs. Letren, Atty

TURN INC: Loses Bid to Invoke Verizon's Arbitration Agreement
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Arbitration Issue in Drivers' Case
UNILEVER UNITED: Faces Class Action Over Flammable Vaseline Gel
UNITED PROPANE: Class Certification in "Purcell" Suit Vacated
UNITED STATES: Oct. 6 Status Conference in Class Suits

UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Appeal OPM Data Breach Case Dismissal
VEON LTD: Fails to Avert Investors' FCPA Class Action in New York
VOLVO CARS: Faces "Middien" Suit in District of Massachusetts
WOLFGANG'S VAULT: Faces Greg Kihn Copyright Class Action
XTREME CUISINE III: "Crenshaw" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

YAHOO! INC: Court Dismisses "Wahl" Suit with Leave to Amend

* Congress Urged to Fight CFPB's New Arbitration Rule
* Harrison Pensa Attorneys Discuss Carriage Motion Issues
* Merkel Says Class Actions Not Compatible with German Law
* States Broaden Investigation Into Opioid Industry Amid Suits




                            *********


AETNA INC: Faces Suit Over CMIA Violation
-----------------------------------------
John Doe, and all others similarly-situated v. Aetna, Inc., Case
No. 3:17-cv-01947 (S.D. Calif., September 25, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for alleged unlawful and unauthorized
disclosure of confidential medical information in violation of the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California's Unfair
Competition Law and Negligence.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the County of San
Diego, State of California.

Headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut, the Defendant is a health
care company that sells health insurance plans and related
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mona Amini, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Tel: (800) 400-6808
      Fax: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mona@kazlg.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

      Steven Soliman, Esq.
      THE SOLIMAN FIRM
      245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Tel: (714) 491-4111


AKOURI METAL: Faces "Fernandez" Suit in S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Akouri Metal Inc.
The case is styled as Julio A. Fernandez, on behalf of himself and
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. Akouri Metal Inc. and
Fadi Akouri, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-23577-JEM (S.D. Fla.,
September 28, 2017).

Akouri Metal Inc. is engaged in metal reshaping and replating
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
   300 71st Street, Suite 605
   Miami Beach, FL 33141
   Tel: (305) 865-6766
   Fax: 865-7167
   Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


ALARM.COM INC: Court Denies Bid to Amend Class Definitions
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' motion to amend the
class definitions in the case captioned BANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING,
INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ALARM.COM INCORPORATED, ET AL.,
Defendants Case No. 15-cv-06314-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

Cell Phone Class: All persons in the United States to whom:
Alliance or its agents, on Defendants' behalf, instituted one or
more non-emergency telephone calls; promoting Defendants' goods or
services; to a recipient's cellular telephone number; through the
use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
pre-recorded voice.

Residential Class: All persons in the United States to whom:
Alliance or its agents, on Defendants' behalf, initiated one or
more non-emergency telephone calls;  promoting Defendants' goods
or services;  to a recipient's residential telephone line number;
through the use of an artificial or pre-recorded voice.

National Do-Not-Call Class (DNC Class): All persons in the United
States who: received more than one call, made by Alliance on
Defendants' behalf; promoting Defendants' goods or services; in a
twelve-month period; on a cellular telephone line number or
residential telephone line whose cellular or residential telephone
line number(s) appear on the National Do-Not- Call Registry.

Plaintiffs seek to amend these class definitions in light of their
inability to obtain calling data (Additional Calling Data) from
defendants' recently-bankrupt dealer, Alliance Security
(Alliance), which data plaintiffs apparently believed could be
used to identify additional class members.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(c)(1)(C) permits a court to alter or amend,
an order granting class certification before final judgment. The
Ninth Circuit has similarly stated that district courts may modify
a class definition as a result of developments during the course
of litigation.

The Court finds that plaintiffs' proposed amendments are not an
appropriate mechanism to eliminate individuals from the proposed
classes which cannot be identified with readily available data.
Plaintiffs have not offered a sufficient basis for modifying the
class definitions to exclude individuals covered by the Additional
Calling Data. Significantly, plaintiffs make no showing that the
individuals covered by the Additional Calling Data have TCPA
claims against defendants which differ in any way from those of
other class members.

The proposed amendments would deprive defendants of the benefit of
a fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Plaintiffs'
argument that defendants may still move for summary judgment with
regard to the members of the amended classes which potentially
include hundreds of thousands of members does not persuade in
light of plaintiffs' position during class certification briefing
that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7vs8uatfrom Leagle.com.

Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Beth
E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law
Group PLLC.

Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Anthony I. Paronich, Broderick & Paronich, P.C., 125 Summer
Street, Suite 1030Boston, MA 02110,  Chiharu Gina Sekino-
csekino@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP,
Edward A. Broderick, Broderick Law, P.C., 727 Atlantic Avenue
Second Floor, Boston, MA, 02111,  Elizabeth Anne Adams --
eadams@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC,
James C. Shah -- jshah@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd Finkelman Miller &
Shah, LLP, Jennifer Rust Murray -- jmurray@terrellmarshall.com --
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, John W. Barrett --
jbarrett@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey Glasser, LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan Rehe Marshall- jmarchall@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey
Glasser LLP, pro hac vice, Kerem M. Levitas --
klevitas@baileymarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC,
Matthew P. McCue, The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue, 340 Union
Avenue, Framingham, MA 01702 & Ryan McCune Donovan --
rdonovan@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey Glasser, LLP.

Mark Hankins, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E. Terrell, Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC, Anthony I. Paronich, Broderick &
Paronich, P.C., Chiharu Gina Sekino, Shepherd Finkelman Miller &
Shah, LLP, Edward A. Broderick, Broderick Law, P.C., Elizabeth
Anne Adams, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Jennifer Rust Murray,
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, John W. Barrett,
Bailey Glasser, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Rehe Marshall, Bailey
Glasser LLP, pro hac vice, Kerem M. Levitas, Terrell Marshall Law
Group PLLC, Matthew P. McCue, The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue &
Ryan McCune Donovan, Bailey Glasser, LLP.

Philip J. Charvat, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E. Terrell,
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Anthony I. Paronich, Broderick &
Paronich, P.C., Chiharu Gina Sekino, Shepherd Finkelman Miller &
Shah, LLP, Edward A. Broderick, Broderick Law, P.C., Elizabeth
Anne Adams, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Jennifer Rust Murray,
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, John W. Barrett,
Bailey Glasser, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Rehe Marshall, Bailey
Glasser LLP, pro hac vice, Kerem M. Levitas, Terrell Marshall Law
Group PLLC, Matthew P. McCue, The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue &
Ryan McCune Donovan, Bailey Glasser, LLP.

Alarm.com Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Kasey C. Townsen
-, ktownsend@murchisonlaw.com -- Murchison & Cumming, Ross Allen
Buntrock, Obsidian Legal PLLC, 1821 Vernon St NW, Washington, DC,
20009-1216, Susan Jane Welde -- swelde@murchisonlaw.com --
Murchison & Cumming, LLP, Keith Lowell Gibson --
kgibson@jaszczuk.com -- Jaszczuk P.C., Margaret M. Schuchardt --
mschuchardt@jaszczuk.com -- Locke Lord LLP & Martin Wojslaw
Jaszczuk, Jaszczuk P.C., 311 S Wacker Dr Ste 1775Chicago, IL,
60606-6627

Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kasey C.
Townsend, Murchison & Cumming, Ross Allen Buntrock, Obsidian Legal
PLLC, Susan Jane Welde, Murchison & Cumming, LLP, Keith Lowell
Gibson, Jaszczuk P.C., Margaret M. Schuchardt, Locke Lord LLP &
Martin Wojslaw Jaszczuk, Jaszczuk P.C..


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Buxbaum" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AllianceOne
Receivables Management, Inc.  The case is styled as Sigmund
Buxbaum, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiff v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05679 (E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2017).
AllianceOne provides debt collection services and contact center
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ALLIED FOOD: "Floyd" Suit Alleges FLSA and AMWA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Tosha Floyd, and all others similarly-situated v. Allied Food
Industries, Inc. dba Burger King, Case No. 4:17-cv-00613 (E.D.
Ark., February 8, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wages Act.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated overtime compensation for all hours that Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

Plaintiff Tosha Floyed is a resident and citizen of Pulaski
County, Arkansas. Plaintiff was a salaried employee at one of the
Defendant's eateries in Little Rock, Arkansas.

The Defendant is a fast food eatery company with restaurants
throughout the southern United States, including several locations
in Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve Rauls, Esq.
      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787) 2040
      E-mail: steve@sandfordlawfirm.com
              josh@sandfordlawfirm.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Heller" Suit in E.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled as Mayer Heller, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Alltran
Financial, LP formerly known as: United Recovery Systems, L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05690 (E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2017).

Alltran Financial is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ANCHO'S TACO: Faces "Johnson" Suit in M. Dist. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ancho's Taco
Company, Inc.  The case is styled as Patrick Johnson, on his own
behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. Ancho's Taco Company, Inc. doing business as: Capital
Tacos, a Florida Profit Corporation and Kristel Heskett,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02260-CEH-JSS (M.D.
Fla., September 28, 2017).
Ancho's Taco Company Inc. is a small, new organization in the
restaurants industry located in Land O Lakes, FL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, Tampa P.A.
   7th Floor
   One Tampa City Center
   201 N Franklin Street
   Tampa, FL 33602-5157
   Tel: (813) 223-5505
   Fax: (813) 257-0572
   Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


BARCLAYS BANK: Averts Mortgage Crisis-Related Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
B. Colby Hamilton, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty has, over the eight-year life span
of a securities suit against Barclays, continued to whittle down
the claimants and claims against the bank.

On Sept. 13, he succeeded in getting rid of the last one in In re:
Barclays Bank Plc Securities Litigation, 09-cv-01989.  In a 51-
page decision, Judge Crotty granted summary judgment to Barclays
and its co-defendant securities underwriters, including Citibank,
dismissing the final plaintiff and his claims that the defendants
violated Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.

At the core of the original suit were a number of mortgage-backed
securities offerings that raised $2.5 billion through the London-
based bank's U.S. operations, just as the U.S. housing market
began to crumble in early 2007.

The original plaintiffs made claims on four separate offerings.
Eventually, after a number of orders issued by Judge Crotty, who
sits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, and a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, the suit was winnowed down to one class representative,
Dennis Askelson, and one offering, Series 5 American Depositary
Shares, issued April 8, 2008.

Initially offered at $25 per share, the share price collapsed a
month later to $4.95. A year later, it was valued at $12.82 per
share and as of September 2017, had risen to $26.75.

Mr. Askelson's surviving allegations that Barclays made material
misstatements and omissions in the Series 5 offering materials
were all connected to the bank's ongoing issues related to the
collapse of the housing market.  Specifically, Barclays' failure
to properly deal with the exposure to credit market assets
declining, issuance of allegedly misleading claims over its risk
management practices' ability to prevent loss, duplicitousness
over its capital risks and positions, as well as failures over
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regulations and accounting
standards, represented security violations, according to Mr.
Askelson.

Each claim was dismissed by Judge Crotty, who found that none were
actionable under Sec. 11, and therefore were not violations under
Sec. 15.  Mr. Askelson's arguments amounted to the reframing of
omission theories discounted by Crotty, or ones that weren't
misstatements at all.  Others didn't, in fact, require
disclosures, while Series 5 share prices were ultimately
corrected, "indicat[ing] that the misrepresentations did not cause
. . .  price declines."

"All of the alleged omissions are immaterial to a reasonable
investor," Judge Crotty wrote.

Mr. Askelson's allegations focused largely on a series of events
that impacted Barclays, as well as the rest of the financial
system, beginning in 2007.  Barclays suffered multiquarter losses
in the billions related to the crisis in 2007, even as it
announced a nearly $2 billion net profit at the end of the first
quarter of 2008.

Despite allegations that the bank misrepresented and omitted
critical information during this time period, Judge Crotty said
that at every turn, the bank believed what it was saying was true
about its financial condition or, as in the argument over alerting
investors to the notional amount of monoline insurer exposure, had
no legal duty to do so. Likewise, claims that the bank didn't do
enough to alert investors to the deterioration of its market
positions fell flat as Judge Crotty found the bank's filings
satisfied what disclosures were required, and, beyond that, the
total economic picture at the time was enough to make investors
aware of the risks they were taking.

"In light of this 'total mix,' a reasonable investor would not
have considered the omitted interim financial information and
write-downs material; and the omissions are not actionable under
Section 11, regardless of whether they are labeled as
alleged . . . disclosure failures," Judge Crotty wrote.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd partner Andrew Brown --
andrewb@rgrdlaw.com -- and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check partner
Sharan Nirmul -- snirmul@ktmc.com -- represented the plaintiff.
Neither responded to a request for comment.

Barclays was represented by Sullivan & Cromwell partners Michael
Tomaino Jr. -- tomainom@sullcrom.com -- and Thomas White --
whitet@sullcrom.com -- who declined to comment.  The underwriters
were represented by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom partners
Jay Kasner -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- and Scott Musoff --
scott.musoff@skadden.com -- Neither could be reached for comment.
[GN]


CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses Muslim Inmate's Class Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, in the case captioned LEON M. SORIANO, Plaintiff, v.
M. E. SPEARMAN, et al., Defendants, No. 2:17-cv-1617 DB P (E.D.
Cal.), granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint
but prohibited the inmate from bringing the suit as a class
action.

Plaintiff is a Muslim inmate.  He accuses the defendants,
collectively, of denying Muslim inmates use of the chapel area.
They also deny Muslim inmates an outside Imam and they require
these inmates to hold their Friday religious services outside
under extreme conditions (in rain, snow, extreme freezing
conditions, having to deal with blowing dust and biting insects).
Plaintiff brings suit pursuant to the Eighth Amendment and the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. He seeks
injunctive relief.

Plaintiff purports to bring this action as a class action on
behalf of HDSP Muslim inmates.

"He may not do so. A non-attorney proceeding pro se may bring his
own claims to court, but may not represent others," the Court
held.

"A pro se litigant simply cannot fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. Therefore, this action will be construed
as an individual civil suit brought by plaintiff rather than as a
class action," the Court added.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8j6qofdfrom Leagle.com.

Leon M. Soriano, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CALSONIC KANSEI: Irving Levine Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irving Levine Automotive Distributors, Inc., and all others
similarly-situated v. Calsonic Kansei Corporation, Calsonic Kansei
North America, Inc., T.Rad Co., Ltd., T.Rad North America, Inc.,
Mitsuba Corporation, and American Mitsuba Corporation, Case No.
2:17-cv-13147 (E.D. Mich., September 25, 2017), seeks to recover
damages for Defendants' violations of the Sherman and Clayton
Acts.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the antitrust
laws by entering into a continuing conspiracy to rig bids and fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Radiators sold in  the
United States and elsewhere at supra-competitive levels.

Irving Levine Automotive Distributors, Inc. is a Connecticut
corporation with its principal place of business in Danbury,
Connecticut.

The Defendants manufacture, market and sell Radiators that were
purchased throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Fink, Esq.
      Darryl Bressack, Esq.
      Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
      FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
      38500 Woodward Ave Suite 350
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Tel: (248) 971-2500
      E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
              dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com
              nfink@finkandassociateslaw.com

          - and -

      Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
      Randall B. Weill, Esq.
      Michael S. Smith, Esq.
      PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
      One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
      Portland, ME 04101
      Tel: (207) 791-3000
      E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
              rweill@preti.com
              msmith@preti.com

          - and -

      Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
      William G. Caldes, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Spector
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 496-0300
      E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
              bcaldes@srkw-law.com
              jjagher@srkw-law.com
              jspector@srkw-law.com


CATALINA RESTAURANT: Court Denies Bid for Rule 11 Sanctions
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion for
Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 in the case
captioned JERI FARRAR, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. CATALINA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. and FOOD MANAGEMENT PARTNERS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-09066 DDP (JCx) (C.D. Cal.).

Presently before the court is Defendants' motion for Rule 11
sanctions against Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs Keri Farrar, Kyle Whitney, Gary Graham, Bill Dizon,
Francisco Jiminez, and Gina McMahon brought the putative class
action against Defendants Catalina Restaurant Group, Inc. and Food
Management Partners, Inc., for violations of the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), and the California
WARN Act, both resulting reduction in force at Catalina Restaurant
Group's corporate headquarters.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, a complaint must, to the
best of the attorneys knowledge, information, and belief, formed
after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, contain
factual contentions with evidentiary support or if specifically so
identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a
reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' complaint violates Rule 11 as
its claims are identical to the claims raised in another action,
Ross v. Catalina Restaurant Group, Case No. CV 15-02626 DDP (JPR)
(Ross). In Ross, a different set of plaintiffs sued one of the
same defendants, Catalina Restaurant Group (Catalina), for federal
and state WARN Act violations arising from a similar set of
operative facts.

In Ross, the court granted the defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment, in part because the Ross plaintiffs did not dispute that
Catalina did not lay off more than fifty people in the aggregate
at the corporate headquarters in the ninety days before, or the
ninety days after.

Plaintiffs counter that they are not bound by the judgment in
Ross. First, they are a completely separate set of plaintiffs than
in Ross, and represented by a different set of attorneys.

Although a previous set of plaintiffs in Ross failed to contest
Defendants' evidence regarding the number of employees laid off
Catalina's corporate headquarters, this fact does not bind a
subsequent set of plaintiffs in a separate lawsuit.

Therefore, at this juncture, the court is inclined to credit
Plaintiffs' declarations that they have evidence of their factual
contention about the number of employees laid off at Catalina's
corporate headquarters, and that the present lawsuit against
Defendants is not baseless or brought in bad faith.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yckfqqa2from Leagle.com.

Jeri Farrar, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff R. Dingwall, Eight and
Sand PC, 110 W "C" St Ste 1903, San Diego, CA 92101

Kyle Whitney, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff R. Dingwall, Eight
and Sand PC.

Gary Graham, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff R. Dingwall, Eight and
Sand PC.

Bill Dizon, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff R. Dingwall, Eight and
Sand PC.

Francisco Jimenez, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff R. Dingwall,
Eight and Sand PC.

Gina McMahon, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff R. Dingwall, Eight
and Sand PC.

Catalina Restaurant Group Inc, Respondent, represented by Jennifer
L. Santa Maria -- Jennifer.santamaria@ogletree.com -- Ogletree
Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC, Spencer C. Skeen --
spencer.skeen@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart PC & Marlene Marie Moffitt --
marlene.moffitt@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
& Stewart PC.

Food Management Partners, Inc., Respondent, represented by
Jennifer L. Santa Maria, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart
PC, Spencer C. Skeen, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC &
Marlene Marie Moffitt, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC


CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Misonzhnik" Suit in E.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit
Services LLC.  The case is styled as Dovid Misonzhnik, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff
v. Central Credit Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05688
(E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2017).

Central Credit Services is a collection agency that has been in
business since 1987.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Scott+Scott Named Interim Class Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, granted the Parties' Joint Motion for
Consolidation and Appointment of Interim Class Counsel/Leadership
Structure in the case captioned BELLWETHER COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION,
and ALCOA COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN
GRILL, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-cv-1102-WJM-STV,
Consolidated with Civil Action No. 17-cv-1283-WJM-STV (D. Colo.).

The Court previously granted the Joint Motion in part as to the
parties' joint request for consolidation; however, it reserved
ruling on the Plaintiffs' unopposed request for appointment of the
interim class counsel and a leadership structure.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to: (i) appoint Joseph P. Guglielmo
(Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP) and Arthur M. Murray (Murray
Law Firm) as interim co-lead class counsel; (ii) appoint Bryan L.
Bleichner (Chestnut Cambronne, PA) as chairman of the executive
committee; and (iii) appoint an executive committee comprising of
Karen H. Riebel (Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP), Gary F. Lynch
(Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP), Brian C.
Gudmundson (Zimmerman Reed, LLP), and Karen S. Halbert (Roberts
Law Firm, PA).

The Plaintiffs contend that the Court should appoint this well-
organized, cohesive group of law firms to oversee their
consolidated case, as they will provide the highest caliber of
representation through a client-driven leadership structure that
is committed to maximizing recovery on behalf of the Plaintiffs
and ensuring the efficient prosecution of this litigation.  They
further assert that the interim co-lead class counsel will
coordinate with the Court and defense counsel and members of the
executive committee will coordinate with and assist the interim
co-lead counsel and contribute to the costs required to litigate a
case of this size on a contingent basis.

Judge Martinez is satisfied that the Plaintiffs' proposed interim
co-lead class counsel are both amply qualified to act as counsel
for the putative class.  Similarly, the proposed executive
committee chairman and the executive committee members have all
been engaged in complex litigation throughout the country and have
successfully prosecuted and defended class litigation addressing
substantive legal questions in the field of data security
breaches.  In sum, he concludes that all requirements outlined in
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A) have been satisfied.

Accordingly, Judge Martinez (i) granted the Parties' Joint Motion
as to the Plaintiffs' request for appointment of interim co-lead
class counsel and a leadership structure; (ii) appointed Mr.
Joseph P. Guglielmo and Mr. Arthur M. Murray as the Interim Co-
Lead Class Counsel; (iii) appointed Mr. Bryan L. Bleichner as the
Chairman of the Executive Committee; and (iii) appointed Ms. Karen
H. Riebel, Mr. Gary F. Lynch, Mr. Brian C. Gudmundson, and Ms.
Karen S. Halbert as members of the Executive Committee.


A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/5PlLT4 from Leagle.com.

Bellwether Community Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan
L. Bleichner -- #bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut &
Cambronne, P.A..

Bellwether Community Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by
Arthur Mahony Murray, Murray Law Firm, Brian C. Gudmundson --
brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P., Carey
Alexander -- CALEXANDER@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott & Scott,
Attorneys at Law, LLP, Caroline Thomas White -- CThomas@murray-
lawfirm.com -- Murray Law Firm, Erin Green Comite --
ECOMITE@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- ScottScott, Attorneys at Law, LLP,
Karen Hanson Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P., Kate M. Baxter-Kauf -- kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -
- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Rachel M. Bohman, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Stephen John Teti, Scott & Scott, LLP &
Joseph Peter Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com --
ScottScott, Attorneys at Law, LLP.

Alcoa Community Federal Credit Union, Consol Plaintiff,
represented by Karen Sharp Halbert --
KARENHALBERT@ROBERTSLAWFIRM.US -- Roberts Law Firm, P.A..

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul
Gregory Karlsgodt -- pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler,
LLP & Xakema Henderson -- xhenderson@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler, LLP.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Lewis" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc.  The case is styled as Jodiann Lewis, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05701
(E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2017).

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is an IT service management
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CREDIT ONE: Court Denies Move to Stay "Hiemstra"
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Stay the
case captioned RHONDA HIEMSTRA, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT ONE BANK,
Defendant, No. 2:16-cv-02437-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal.).

Many defendants in Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases have
moved to stay their cases pending a decision in the D.C. Circuit's
opinion in ACA International, No. 15-1211, and the Ninth Circuit's
opinion in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, No. 14-56834.

Plaintiff Rhonda Hiemstra sues Defendant Credit One Bank, seeking
damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and
California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(Rosenthal Act).  Plaintiff alleges Defendant used an automatic
telephone dialing system (ATDS) or artificial or pre-recorded
voice technology to call Plaintiff several times within the last
year to collect a debt.  But this debt belonged to a different
individual whose telephone number had been reassigned to
Plaintiff.

Defendant contends a stay is warranted pending the D.C. Circuit's
opinion in ACA International.

The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent
in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its
docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel,
and for litigants. Only in rare circumstances will a litigant in
one cause be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another
settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both. The
moving party has the burden to show that a stay is appropriate.
In order to have its request for a stay granted, Defendant here
must establish that under the specific claims, issues and facts
involved in this action, a stay will result in judicial
efficiency, will not prejudice Plaintiff, and that denying
Defendant's request will impose hardship and inequity on
Defendant.

Defendant leads with a judicial efficiency argument, contending a
favorable ruling in ACA International would narrow the issues here
and so it is unnecessary to litigate potentially moot issues.
Plaintiff disagrees, arguing ACA International will minimally
affect this case, making a stay unwarranted.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Defendant's assertion that ACA
International and Marks will moot Plaintiff's claims and preclude
the need for discovery is speculative. No matter the results in
these appeals, Defendant must still produce discovery to, at the
very least, settle factual disputes regarding its pre-recorded
voice technology.

In sum, Defendant has not shown a stay would serve judicial
efficiency.

Defendant also fails to make out a clear case of hardship or
inequity" if required to move forward. Defendant cites costly
discovery, but this alone does not state a compelling need as to
why this Court should impose a stay.

Lastly, staying this case would prejudice Plaintiff.  Discovery
has not yet started and, again, Defendant must still produce
discovery to settle the factual disputes regarding its pre-
recorded voice technology and whether Defendant previously
obtained consent of the individual it was allegedly trying to
reach. Plaintiff's pre-recorded-voice basis for her TCPA claim and
her Rosenthal Act claim will remain, no matter the result in ACA
International.

The Court therefore denies Defendant's motion to stay.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yblgjfzbfrom Leagle.com.

Rhonda Hiemstra, Plaintiff, represented by Tammy L. Hussin, Hussin
Law, 6408 Merlin Dr, Carlsbad, CA 92011

Credit One Bank, Defendant, represented by David Jay Kaminski --
kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP & Stephen Albert
Watkins -- watkinss@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP.


CVS HEALTH: Class Action Over Generic Drug Pricing Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Blank, writing for DrugTopics, reports that CVS Health
executives are pleased that a class action lawsuit, which alleged
that the pharmacy chain colluded with PBMS to drive up the cost of
generic drugs, was recently withdrawn.

The plaintiff in the Rhode Island suit, a CVS customer, said she
paid more out-of-pocket for drugs when she used her health
insurance than she would have if she had paid cash.  She blamed
the pricing disparity on CVS's collusion with third parties such
as PBMs.

However, the lawsuit against CVS Health was voluntarily withdrawn
a few weeks ago, Michael DeAngelis, Senior Director of corporate
communications for CVS Health, told Drug Topics.

"The complaint contained numerous demonstrably false assertions
that a reasonable prefiling investigation by the law firm would
have discovered.  As such, we are pleased that the suit was
voluntarily withdrawn," Mr. DeAngelis said.

The same plaintiff also filed a similar class action suit against
Walgreens, also alleging PBM collusion on drug pricing. That legal
action appears to be moving ahead.  "Our case against Walgreens
was not dismissed and will remain on file until we achieve a just
outcome for consumers," said Steve Berman, managing partner of
Hagens Berman, the law firm that filed the suit.

"The complaint lacks merit and we will vigorously defend against
the allegations," Jim Cohn, a spokesperson for Walgreens, told
Drug Topics.

For its part, CVS Health notified Hagens Berman that the complaint
"contained numerous factual misstatements that, when corrected,
make it clear that the plaintiff named in the suit was not
overcharged for her prescriptions at CVSPharmacy,"
Mr. DeAngelis said.

The complaint misrepresented the cash prices for drugs the
plaintiff purchased at CVS, erroneously comparing her insurance
copays against the cash prices of different drugs, dosages and/or
quantities than what was actually purchased by the plaintiff,
Mr. DeAngelis explained.

"In this withdrawn suit, the plaintiff either compared her
copayments for brand name drugs against the cash prices of the
generic versions of those drugs, or compared her copayments to the
cash prices of those medications at half the dosage or quantity
than what was prescribed and dispensed," Mr. DeAngelis said.  "The
plaintiff's copayments were, in fact, less than the cash prices
for each correct drug, dosage and/or quantity."

In addition, even though the CVS complaint brought claims on
behalf of patients making purchases with their insurance, the
plaintiff did not actually use insurance for most of her purchases
identified in the complaint, according to
Mr. DeAngelis.  "The few medications the plaintiff did use
insurance to make the purchases were not included in the suit's
list of 'affected drugs' that were alleged to be intentionally
overpriced."

However, Mr. Berman said the law firm is not done with CVS.  "We
plan to refile the lawsuit against CVS related to its generic drug
pricing scheme promptly," Mr. Berman said. [GN]


DELANO FARMS: Class Counsel Must Supplement Request for Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SABAS ARREDONDO, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DELANO FARMS COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:09-cv-01247-
MJS (E.D. Cal.), Judge Michael J. Seng of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California ordered the class counsel
to either withdraw their requests for costs or supplement same
with a sworn declaration from a person competent to attest that
the costs presented were actually and necessarily incurred on
behalf of the Plaintiffs in the action.

In relation to final approval of the settlement of these class
actions, the Plaintiffs have filed a motion for attorney's fees
and costs.  The request seeks costs on behalf of five law firms
that represented the Plaintiffs during the lengthy course of the
action.  It is supported by the declaration of Mario Martinez, the
current class counsel and an attorney at one of the five firms.
He submits cost billing for each of the five firms and states that
the billing was provided to him by those firms for use in the
motion.  No declaration is submitted by any representative of Ball
& York or Wilcoxen Callaham attesting that the costs actually were
incurred in the course of the litigation, or that they were
necessary for prosecution of the action.  Furthermore, no support
is provided for any of the costs, other than the description
listed on the cost billing.  No invoices, receipts, copies of
checks, or postage and copy logs accompanied the request.  As some
of the billing is only minimally descriptive, Judge Seng is unable
to discern the nature of all of the claimed costs.

In order to assist with his evaluation of counsels' cost requests,
Judge Seng ordered Ball & York or Wilcoxen Callaham to either
withdraw their requests for costs or supplement same with a sworn
declaration from a person competent to attest that the costs
presented were actually and necessarily incurred on behalf of the
Plaintiffs in the action.

Additionally, all the counsel are ordered to supplement their
requests by identifying, by date, description, and amount sought,
of all costs associated with the falsified survey conducted by
California Survey Research Services, including costs of the
survey, depositions, expert invoices, travel expenses, copying and
messenger services, or any other costs associated therewith or
occasioned thereby.  For each such expense, the counsel will
indicate when the expense was incurred and in relation to which
stage of the survey.  The Counsel will also provide a declaration
stating whether any reimbursements were sought or received in
relation to this survey.

Additionally, the following firms are invited by the Judge to
supplement their requests with further support for the following
claimed costs:

     a. Ball & York: $12,196.30 in transcripts from Wood Randall
for unidentified deponents

     b. Wilcoxen Callaham: $10,573.38 in unspecified costs from
Jay-Allen Eisen Law Group

     c. Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold: (i) $74,757.28
in unspecified professional services from Morrison & Foerster LLP;
(ii) transcripts for unidentified deponents (over $3,100); (iii)
travel expenses for unspecified purposes (over $14,000); and (iv)
$973.70 in express postage

     d. Wasserman, Comden & Casselman: (i) $1,000 bond paid to
court on Aug. 13, 2010, and whether it has been or will
berefunded; and (ii) $7,039.55 in travel expenses to attend
September 2011 mediation

     e. Martinez, Aguilasocho & Lynch: the difference between the
$21,987.12 in requested costs and the $13,755.66 in billed costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/0nytYo from Leagle.com.

Sabas Arredondo, Plaintiff, represented by Allen R. Ball --
aball@ballandYorkelaw.com -- Law Office of Ball & Yorke.

Sabas Arredondo, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Ramirez --
gramirez@ballandyorkelaw.com -- Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones &
Feingold, LLP, James Engel Perero -- jperero@mwgjlaw.com -- Myers,
Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP, Jessica Arciniega --
jarciniega@alrb.ca.gov -- Wasserman, Comden & Casselman, Mario
Martinez -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- Martinez Aguilasocho &
Lynch Aplc, William Cooper Callaham -- wcallaham@wilcoxenlaw.com -
- Wilcoxen Callaham, Katherine Winder -- kwinder@condonlaw.com --
Condon & Forsyth LLP, Marcos Rodrigo Camacho, Marcos Camacho, A
Law Corporation & Melissa Meeker Harnett, Wasserman, Comden,
Casselman & Esensten, L.L.P..

Jose Cuevas, Plaintiff, represented by Allen R. Ball, Law Office
of Ball & Yorke, Gregory Ramirez, Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones &
Feingold, LLP, Jessica Arciniega, Wasserman, Comden & Casselman,
Mario Martinez, Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch Aplc, William Cooper
Callaham, Wilcoxen Callaham, James Engel Perero, Myers, Widders,
Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP & Katherine Winder, Condon & Forsyth
LLP.

Hilario Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by Allen R. Ball, Law Office
of Ball & Yorke, Jessica Arciniega, Wasserman, Comden & Casselman,
Mario Martinez, Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch Aplc, William Cooper
Callaham, Wilcoxen Callaham, Gregory Ramirez, Myers, Widders,
Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP, James Engel Perero, Myers, Widders,
Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP & Katherine Winder, Condon & Forsyth
LLP.

Irma Landeros, Plaintiff, represented by Allen R. Ball, Law Office
of Ball & Yorke, Jessica Arciniega, Wasserman, Comden & Casselman,
Mario Martinez, Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch Aplc, William Cooper
Callaham, Wilcoxen Callaham, Gregory Ramirez, Myers, Widders,
Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP, James Engel Perero, Myers, Widders,
Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP & Katherine Winder, Condon & Forsyth
LLP.

Rosalba Landeros, Plaintiff, represented by Allen R. Ball, Law
Office of Ball & Yorke, Jessica Arciniega, Wasserman, Comden &
Casselman, Mario Martinez, Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch Aplc,
William Cooper Callaham, Wilcoxen Callaham, Gregory Ramirez,
Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP, James Engel Perero,
Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP & Katherine Winder,
Condon & Forsyth LLP.

Delano Farms Company, Defendant, represented by Ryan Solomon,
Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP, pro hac vice, William C. Hahesy --
bill@hahesylaw.com -- Law Offices of William C. Hahesy, Cynthia A.
Stross, Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP, pro hac vice, David N. Bruce --
dbruce@sbwllp.com -- Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP, pro hac vice,
Howard A. Sagaser -- has@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland,
PC, James P. Savitt -- jsavitt@sbwllp.com -- Savitt Bruce & Willey
LLP, pro hac vice, Miles A. Yanick -- myanick@sbwllp.com -- Savitt
Bruce & Willey LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah Gohmann Bigelow --
sgohmannbigelow@sbwllp.com -- Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP, pro hac
vice.

Cal-Pacific Farm Management, L.P., Defendant, represented by D.
Greg Durbin, McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth LLP &
Laura A. Wolfe, McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP.

T & R Bangi's Agricultural Services, Inc., Defendant, represented
by D. Greg Durbin -- greg.durbin@mccormickbarstow.com -- McCormick
Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth LLP & Laura A. Wolfe --
laura.wolfe@mccormickbarstow.com -- McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard,
Wayte & Carruth LLP.

Kern Ag Labor Management Inc., Defendant, represented by D. Greg
Durbin, Martin Law Firm.

Elite Ag Labor Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by D. Greg
Durbin, McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth LLP.

Anderson & Middleton Company, Unknown, represented by William C.
Hahesy, Law Offices of William C. Hahesy.

Wasserman, Comden & Casselman, LLP, Claimant, represented by
Leonard Jesse Comden, Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten,
LLP.

Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP, Claimant,
represented by Kelton Lee Gibson -- KGibson@mwgjlaw.com -- Myers,
Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold LLP.


DISPARTI LAW GROUP: Faces "Durrett" Suit in M.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Disparti Law Group,
P.A., a Florida Profit Corporation. The case is styled as Brandi
Durrett, on her own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Disparti Law Group, P.A.
a Florida Profit Corporation and Lawrence Disparti, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02257-CEH-TBM (M.D. Fla., September
28, 2017).

The Disparti Law Group, P.A. is dedicated to providing legal
representation for those who have been injured or are unable to
work.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, Tampa P.A.
   7th Floor
   One Tampa City Center
   201 N Franklin Street
   Tampa, FL 33602-5157
   Tel: (813) 223-5505
   Fax: (813) 257-0572
   Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


DITECH FINANCIAL: NRS200.260 Has No Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Nevada issued an Opinion affirming the
Decision of the District Court that the NRS 200.620 has no
extraterritorial jurisdiction in the case captioned DITECH
FINANCIAL LLC, F/K/A GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, Appellant, v.
SANFORD BUCKLES, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Respondent, No.70475 (Nev.).

In response to a certified question submitted by the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, the Supreme Court of
Nevada is asked to consider whether NRS 200.620 applies to
telephone recordings made by a party outside Nevada who uses
equipment outside Nevada to record telephone conversations with a
person in Nevada without that person's consent.

In his complaint, Buckles alleges Ditech violated NRS 200.620 by
unlawfully recording certain telephone conversations without
Buckles's consent.

Ditech moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing NRS 200.620 does
not apply to telephone calls recorded by persons and on equipment
located outside of Nevada, and if NRS 200.620 does apply, the
extraterritorial application of NRS 200.620 would violate the
United States Constitution's Due Process Clause and Dormant
Commerce Clause.

The federal court concluded: "If NRS 200.620 does not apply to
recordings made outside of Nevada by Ditech, Ditech's motion to
dismiss is due to be granted. If the statute applies to telephone
recordings made outside of Nevada by Ditech, however, this Court
must decide Ditech's constitutional challenge to the statute under
the Due Process Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause of the
United States Constitution. The necessity of reaching these
serious constitutional questions depends upon resolution of prior,
potentially dispositive, questions of Nevada statutory law."

The two certified questions ask essentially the same thing:
whether NRS 200.620 applies to recordings of telephone
conversations with a person in Nevada without that person's
consent when the recordings are made by a party who is located and
uses recording equipment outside of Nevada.

The state supreme court answers the question in the negative and,
therefore, it does not need not address the parties' arguments
concerning retroactivity.

The state supreme court explains that NRS 200.620 does not apply
to telephone conversations intercepted out of state.

In relevant part, NRS 200.620(1)(a) provides that it is unlawful
for any person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire
communication unless the interception or attempted interception is
made with the prior consent of one of the parties to the
communication, the court explains.  Defining intercept as the
aural acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral
communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical or
other device or of any sending or receiving equipment, the court
noted.

This court has concluded that the tape-recording of telephone
conversations constitutes an intercept, and interpreted NRS
200.620 to prohibit the taping of telephone conversations with the
consent of only one party.

Mclellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263, 182 P.3d 106 (2008), did not
address whether someone could be found guilty of violating NRS
200.620 for recording a phone call outside of Nevada; rather, it
addressed whether an out-of-state recording of a conversation with
a person in Nevada made without that person's consent could be
admitted as evidence at their criminal trial.

This court ultimately held that Nevada law allows the admission of
evidence legally obtained in the jurisdiction seizing the
evidence.  To reach that holding, this court concluded that the
interception in Mclellan was lawful at its inception in California
because California requires only one party to consent to police
monitoring the communication.  While the central issue concerned
admissibility, this court concluded that because the recording was
permissible in California, it was admissible in a Nevada criminal
trial even though the manner of interception would violate Nevada
law had the interception taken place in Nevada.

Consistent with its analysis in Mclellan, the state supreme court
held that NRS 200.620 does not apply when the act of interception
takes place outside Nevada.  The test for whether a recording of a
conversation or communication is lawful is determined under the
laws of the place of the recording. Accordingly, whether the
interception of telephone conversations with Buckles and other
putative class members was lawful is determined according to the
laws of Arizona and Minnesota, the places where the conversations
were intercepted and recorded, not according to the laws of Nevada
where the calls were received.

Therefore, the state supreme court answers the certified question
in the negative, concluding that NRS 200.620 does not apply to
recordings of telephone conversations with a person in Nevada
without that person's consent when the recordings are made by a
party who is located and uses recording equipment outside of
Nevada.

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's September 14, 2017
Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycvnpsh7from
Leagle.com.

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP and Daniel F. Polsenberg --
dpolsenberg@lrrc.com -- and Joel D. Henriod -- jhenroid@lrrc.com -
- Las Vegas; Brooks Hubley LLP and Michael R. Brooks --
mbrooks@brookshubley.com -- and Gregg A. Hubley --
ghubley@brookshubley.com -- Las Vegas; Bradley Arant Boult
Cummings, LLP, and Elizabeth A. Hamrick, Michael R. Pennington --
mpennington@bradley.com -- and Scott Burnett Smith --
ssmith@bradley.com -- Huntsville, Alabama, for Appellant.
Haines & Krieger, LLC, and David H. Krieger, 8985 S. Eastern Ave.
Suite #350, Beltway Corporate Center, Las Vegas, NV 89123, ;
Kazerouni Law Group, APC, and Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com --
and Michael Kind, Las Vegas, for Respondent.

Peterson Baker, PLLC, and Tamara Beatty Peterson --
tpeterson@petersonbaker.com -- Las Vegas, for Amicus Curiae.


EQUIFAX INC: Breach Likely to Bring Litigation Challenges
---------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Williams-Alvarez, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that one week after Equifax Inc. revealed a cybersecurity incident
impacting some 143 million U.S. consumers, the credit reporting
behemoth is facing legal and reputational repercussions of massive
proportions.

For a legal department led by corporate vice president and chief
legal officer John Kelley III, who seemingly has the last word on
company security and compliance matters, the coming months and
years are sure to be rife with high costs and what will likely be
hard-fought battles to limit the damage done by class action
suits.

Will Class Actions Survive?
Current external troubles for Equifax, which declined to comment
for this story, began with the Sept. 7 announcement that sensitive
consumer information, such as Social Security numbers, driver's
license numbers, birth dates and addresses, had been compromised.
The incident, which was first discovered on July 29, prompted a
number of investigations, backlash because of the company's
response and criticism due to a credit report monitoring site
that's vulnerable to hackers.  Added to that are more than 20
proposed class actions suits, and counting.
Just hours after the announcement of the breach, a proposed class
action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon in Portland, claiming Equifax negligently failed to
maintain adequate technical safeguards to protect consumers.  At
least 22 proposed class actions have followed, claiming everything
from violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and federal
securities laws to breach of contract and violation of the
California Data Breach Act.

Historically, data breach class actions have been far from a sure
thing for consumers, largely because courts sometimes find that
there's no tangible injury.  In a May 2 decision, for instance,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the
argument that the threat of future harm as a result of a data
breach at a Michaels Stores Inc. location was enough to establish
standing.

On the other hand, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, the Seventh Circuit and the Third Circuit have all ruled
recently that victims may pursue data breach claims without
showing actual loss.

These cases are often dismissed because it's very difficult to
show causation of harm, according to Laura Jehl --
ljehl@bakerlaw.com -- a partner at Baker & Hostetler, who was
formerly general counsel and chief privacy and security officer at
Resolution Health Inc., a subsidiary of Anthem Inc., where she
helped handle a January 2015 cyberattack affecting 80 million
customer records.  If somebody steals a person's identity or goes
and files a fraudulent tax return, she explained, it's a challenge
to prove it was Equifax because it could be the result of any
other of a number of breaches, which leads to courts having a
"difficult time with standing."

What's more, if someone's identity is compromised, for many it's
an uphill battle to show a tangible injury, as claims often center
around the concern that there may be issues in the future, said
Guillermo Christensen -- gchristensen@brownrudnick.com -- partner
at Brown Rudnick, who was formerly a CIA intelligence officer.

But with the cases against Equifax, given the high sensitivity of
data that was compromised, he said plaintiffs might be able to get
over this hurdle in court.  "I think you have a stronger potential
to show that you are going to spend the rest of your life or the
next couple of years, anyway, at risk of people taking advantage
of [compromised] information and that that prospect will impact
your choices and what you do and how you do things," he said.

It's one thing to have credit card info compromised, said
Edward McAndrew -- mcandrewe@ballardspahr.com -- partner at
Ballard Spahr.  "It's quite another to have dates of birth, Social
Security numbers, driver's licenses numbers accessed."

"I think that's why the standing analysis is going to be far
different here than any of the other data breach cases we've
seen," he added.

At the moment, there's a push to consolidate all the class actions
against Equifax into multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, but it's not yet
decided if or where MDL will take place, and this could be key to
the outcome for Equifax's legal department.

Initially, Ms. Jehl explained, these cases were often consolidated
in the home district of the entity, which would be Georgia for
Equifax, but more recently the jurisdiction where the predominant
number of cases have been filed is also being considered.

"There's often a lot of strategizing among plaintiffs' counsel and
among others in trying to get that center of gravity in a place
where it may be more favorable," Ms. Jehl said. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Legal Department May Face Probes Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Williams-Alvarez, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that after the revelation that a cybersecurity incident impacted
roughly 143 million consumers in the United States, Equifax Inc.
is facing fallout from the company's response to the breach,
planned probes from Congress, investigations from state attorneys
general -- including New York's AG -- and potential class action
litigation.

At the helm of the consumer credit reporting company's legal
department, and surely a major player in handling the company's
legal and reputational risks, is John Kelley III, whose
responsibilities include security and compliance, according to
Equifax's website.

Mr. Kelley, who could not immediately be reached for comment, has
been Equifax's corporate vice president and chief legal officer
since 2013, presumably having a hand in guiding the company
through a number of previous security issues.  Along with security
and compliance, he is also responsible for everything from
corporate governance and privacy functions to government and
legislative relations.  In a March 24 U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission filing, Equifax noted that Kelley's total compensation
last year was nearly $2.8 million, adding that he had received a
"distinguished" rating on several individual performance
objectives. Listed among these goals: "Continuing to refine and
build out the company's global security organization."
In a 2012 independent service auditors' report from KPMG, the
"global security organization" at Equifax was described as a unit
that reports to the general counsel and CLO and is responsible for
"defining information security policies and standards and
monitoring compliance with security policies and standards" as
well as conducting monthly security scans of the Equifax network.
Going forward, Mr. Kelley and Equifax's legal department will face
litigation related to the breach, which though revealed, was
actually discovered on July 29.  A Sept. 7 suit filed just hours
after the announcement in U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon in Portland -- which reportedly may seek as much as $70
billion in damages and requested class certification -- alleged
that Equifax "negligently failed to maintain adequate
technological safeguards" to protect consumers' information from
hackers.

It will also be necessary in the coming weeks and months to
outline the steps taken by Equifax to mitigate harm and possibly
to even prove how the company is going to protect its customers
going forward.  Two committees in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Financial Services Committee and the Energy
and Commerce Committee, have already announced hearings on the
breaches.  And in a Sept. 8 letter, the U.S. Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation requested that Equifax
provide a number of details about the breach, including a detailed
timeline of events and the types of data compromised, no later
than Sept. 15.

Beyond just answering to consumers and regulators, Mr. Kelley will
have questions to answer from other company leaders.

In recent years, top legal execs have taken on more of a role when
it comes to cybersecurity efforts within a company.  And while
it's true that a company the size of Equifax, which has
approximately 9,500 employees worldwide, likely has others in the
legal department who focus on cybersecurity, it's often the case
that the top lawyer takes ultimate responsibility when there are
issues.

It wasn't too long ago, for instance, that Ron Bell, formerly
general counsel and secretary at Yahoo Inc., took the fall for the
company's two massive data breaches. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Stock Sales Raise Concerns Following Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
C. Ryan Barber, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
just days after Equifax Inc. discovered it had been hacked, three
executives sold off $1.8 million worth of shares, a move that
would avoid the price plummet that followed the credit bureau's
public disclosure of one of the largest data breaches in U.S.
history.

Equifax has maintained the executives were unaware of the breach,
which the company said it learned about on July 29, when they made
those trades on Aug. 1.  Still, published reports about the stock
sales raise "fundamental questions," two partners at the law firm
Dorsey & Whitney said in an article published on
Sept. 15 at the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance
and Financial Regulation.

"Under Equifax's insider trading policy, was there a mandatory
pre-clearance policy requiring the executives to get approval
prior to placing their sell orders? If so, why were the sales
approved in light of the existence of a data breach? Did Equifax
invoke a blackout period as soon as it knew of the data breach
and, if not, why not?" Dorsey & Whitney partners Cam Hoang --
hoang.cam@dorsey.com -- and Gary Tygesson --
tygesson.gary@dorsey.com -- both in Minneapolis, said in the
article.

Scrutiny of the stock sales is only part of the Atlanta-based
company's problems right now.  The Federal Trade Commission said
on Sept. 14 the agency is investigating the breach, which
potentially compromised the sensitive personal information of more
than 143 million Americans.  Meanwhile, class actions are piling
up in federal courts around the country.  The company has turned
to King & Spalding's Phyllis Sumner to lead the defense of those
lawsuits.

Here's a snapshot from the Dorsey & Whitney report about issues
surrounding the stock sales, and guidance for companies that are
watching how Equifax responds to the cyber breach for any wider
lessons about what to do -- and perhaps what not to do.

1. Be worried about the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
and have a policy in place for trading.  A bipartisan group of
U.S. senators called on the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice
to "conduct a thorough examination of any unusual trading,
including any atypical options trading, for violations of insider
trading law." The Dorsey & Whitney team offered this guidance: "A
well-crafted and implemented insider trading policy can help
prevent insiders from inadvertently violating these laws and
incurring civil and criminal liability, and can protect the
company from circumstances that would otherwise result in
premature disclosures or 'control person' liability."

2. It's not just quarterly financial reports that should trigger
trading "blackout." It is common for companies to prevent
directors, executives and others involved in the financial
reporting process from trading during a pre-established time
period leading up to a quarterly filing.

But companies shouldn't stop there, Messrs. Hoang and Tygesson
wrote in their article.  In addition to restrictions around the
time of quarterly filings, they wrote, companies should provide
event-specific blackout periods when material nonpublic
information -- a data breach, for instance -- is known internally
but not yet disclosed.

Beyond issues with insider trading, any stock sales by employees
could force a company to disclose a material event earlier than it
would prefer, the Dorsey & Whitney team wrote.

Here's what Messrs. Hoang and Tygesson had to say: "The importance
of event-specific blackout periods cannot be understated.  The
anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws generally do
not impose an affirmative duty on public companies to disclose
material inside information unless, among other things, the
company or its insiders are trading in the company's securities.
Therefore, trading by insiders essentially forces a company to
disclose material inside information at a time when it may be
disadvantageous to the company and would not have otherwise been
required."

3. Freshen up on insider-trading compliance protocols. Compliance
with insider-trading policies can get tricky.  Messrs. Hoang and
Tygesson said companies should name a point person -- the general
counsel, for instance -- to answer any questions. And at least
once a year, directors and executives should be reminded about
trading restrictions, including the scheduled blackout periods.
Those restrictions might also be necessary for consultants and
contractors.  "Periodic educational sessions for the various
classes of individuals subject to the insider trading policy are
advisable," Messrs. Hoang and Tygesson wrote. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Regulatory Scrutiny May Tighten Following Hack
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALM Media reports that the credit bureau's leakage and widely
reported missteps in its assessment tool could proffer a
cautionary tale for other organizations.

Most cybersecurity experts now agree that organizations should be
planning incident response strategies for when, not if, their
companies experience data breaches.

Credit reporting agency Equifax learned this lesson the hard way
when it was hit by a cyberattack that exposed addresses, Social
Security numbers and financial information for 134 million
customers.  Equifax is the latest in a line of breaches at large
companies, following major incidents at Wells Fargo and Yahoo,
among others, in the last year.

In the current cybersecurity threat landscape where breaches are
all but guaranteed, companies often fall short of the regulatory
standards set forth for data security.  Regardless, regulators
don't seem to be letting up.

The Government's Privacy Pressure

Although cybersecurity's regulatory landscape has perhaps not kept
pace with the rate of data collection and hacker exploits, it has
certainly expanded over the last few years at both the federal and
local levels. These emerging regulations keep information
governance staff on their toes.  Specifically to Equifax, the Fair
Credit Reporting Act of 1970 (FCRA) and its amendments in the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA) were
instituted at the federal level to ensure that third-party credit
bureaus can use and retain consumer information.

Steve Rubin -- srubin@moritthock.com -- head of the cybersecurity
practice at Moritt Hock & Hamroff, expects that both will likely
prove problematic for Equifax.  Those were both enacted to deal
with companies like Equifax, Rubin said.

Although Equifax may have taken all reasonable steps to secure its
data, it's often not possible to be one step ahead of
cyberattacks.  Nevertheless, Mr. Rubin said that the sensitivity
of information at many companies like Equifax at this point is
likely a stronger factor than how hard the company may have tried
to secure that information.  They had to do what they needed to
do.  That all said, you can't be hack-proof.  It's possible at the
end of the day they did take all reasonable measures, Rubin said.

Settlements will occur well before they find out if [Equifax] took
reasonable measures.  They had to take fairly extraordinary
measures to protect the data; I don't know if they did that, Rubin
added.

Karen Hornbeck, senior manager at Consilio, further explained that
if companies are going to retain highly sensitive consumer
information, especially identifying information that cannot
readily be changed, data handling processes set forth by
regulators are a reality that companies will need to deal with.

"Companies have to start doing more from the technical and the
people aspect, or they can only expect more and more regulation to
start coming down the pipe.  It's one or the other.  If companies
don't start doing it themselves, then the government is going to
have to," Ms. Hornbeck said.

"In fact, the inevitability of cyberattack is prompting
legislators at the state level to step up data breach notification
and remediation policy in their states.  I think we're going to
see more and more states at the state level come out with
regulations for companies that do business in their state and for
issues that impact residents of their states.  This is just going
to spur it on more and more," Ms. Hornbeck said.

While the Equifax hack can be attributed to external hackers,
oftentimes data breaches are caused by internal mishaps.  Wells
Fargo's recent data breach, which exposed financial information
for over 50,000 of the bank's customers, was the result of an
attorney unintentionally handing over highly sensitive client
financial information to another litigator.

Regulators, however, don't differentiate in how they apply these
mandates to data breaches caused by malicious hackers and those
caused by human error.  The human component is just as important
as the tech component, Mr. Rubin said, adding that he didn't
anticipate regulators would apply policy any differently based on
the type of breach.  Wells Fargo's recent breach drew scrutiny
from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

Planning for Disaster

Regulatory scrutiny around FCRA and FACTA paired with the high
likelihood of a data breach make incident response a key piece of
a company's success following a data breach.  Equifax's response
showed strength in some places, but significant weaknesses in
others.

Shortly after Equifax notified consumers of the data breach, the
credit bureau launched a website, EquifaxSecurity2017.com, to help
users assess whether their information had been leaked in the data
breach and sign up for one year of free identity theft protection
and credit file monitoring.

Equifax may have created new problems for itself, however, in the
form of an arbitration clause and class action waiver the company
included in the tool's terms of agreement.  While Equifax included
a note in its Frequently Asked Questions section that the
arbitration clause does not apply to the cybersecurity incident,
swift and furious backlash from consumers forced the company to
make a formal announcement on the website that use of its service
does not require that users waive their rights to class action
litigation.

Ms. Hornbeck said that while the company did a great job of
putting together and publicizing the impact check website quickly,
she found Equifax's decision to quietly include the language in
its terms of agreement interesting.

It's a mess to be honest, from the corporate perspective, from the
response perspective, Ms. Hornbeck said of the arbitration clause
and its respective backlash.

Mr. Rubin added that the arbitration clause would likely be
difficult to enforce.  The credit bureau is already obligated to
provide free credit monitoring in the event of such a breach under
a number of state laws.  Mr. Rubin pointed specifically to
Connecticut's data breach amendments, which calls for businesses
to offer one year of free identity-theft protection service,
meaning that Equifax would be obligated to provide this service
regardless of whether or not consumers opted to forgo their right
to form a class.  There's no exchange there, Mr. Rubin explained.

Further complicating matters, Equifax has also drawn public
scrutiny and litigation from allegations that three company
executives sold $1.8 million worth of stock before notifying
customers of the data breach.

Ms. Hornbeck said that a big way that companies can learn from
these mistakes is by bolstering their incident response planning.
While it's now more common practice to set up a formalized plan,
Ms. Hornbeck noted that many organizations fail to drill their
testing procures, leaving them susceptible to unanticipated
problems.

"It is absolutely not enough to just have an incident response
plan written down.  You have to test that thing; you have to be
sure it's been developed and documented in such a way that it's as
airtight as it can possibly be," she said.

This means, ideally, making sure that issues never arise.  Regular
penetration testing and third-party assessments can help
organizations figure out how to begin addressing potential issues,
including human error.

Andy Wilson, CEO and founder of Logikcull, said that for
organizations using third-party vendors, as the attorney in the
Wells Fargo breach attributed data leakage to, thinking through
how to apply incident response standards outward is worth
considering.

"I would demand to see what their quality control checklist was.
If you're going to use a human vendor, I would demand to see the
checklist completed prior to the shipment of production.  You
don't want to ship something before its ready," he explained.

"For Wells Fargo, some of the human error could have also come
from confusing user interface design, something that could have
potentially been avoided with a workflow assessment.  Most people
don't have enough time to evaluate their own workflow and look for
new tools," Mr. Wilson added.

"Although keeping pace with potential hackers and leaks can seem
like a truly Sisyphean task given the current complexity of
cybersecurity work today, but the need to protect sensitive client
data is worth the fight.  In the eyes of regulators, it absolutely
has to be.

"We are where we are. For whatever reason were not keeping up with
the bad guys.  States are going to do what they feel is correct to
protect their residents," Ms. Hornbeck said. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Taps King & Spalding Partner to Defend Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Daily Report, reports that Equifax
Inc. has turned to Phyllis Sumner -- psumner@kslaw.com -- at King
& Spalding to serve as lead defense counsel in more than 70 class
actions brought over its massive data breach, according to sources
familiar with the litigation.

Ms. Sumner, a partner in Atlanta and King & Spalding's chief
privacy officer, is head of the data security and privacy practice
at the firm and has represented Equifax in other class actions.
She also represented Home Depot Inc. in settlements over its 2014
data breach.

Ms. Sumner and a spokeswoman for Equifax, which is based in
Atlanta, did not respond to requests for comment.

The breach, announced on Sept. 7, has compromised the names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates and other personal
information of an estimated 143 million people.  Lawyers filed
motions before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
to have all the cases transferred to Georgia.

Many of the class actions brought over the data breach have
focused on the Fair Credit Reporting Act -- specifically, that
Equifax failed to protect customer data and furnished sensitive
information to third parties in violation of the statute.
The FCRA allows for individual statutory damages of up to $1,000,
punitive damages and attorney fees and costs.  Equifax has lobbied
Congress arguing it should limit damages under the FCRA.

Ms. Sumner has defended Equifax in other FCRA cases, including
complaints that have alleged the credit reporting agency provided
inaccurate information about individuals in their credit reports.

Ms. Sumner is no stranger to handling crises on behalf of her
clients. In November, she told The Daily Report: "I truly enjoy
being a crisis manager and bringing order and strategy to managing
complex litigation and multiple work flows.  Clients respond with
confidence and a sense of relief and we all work as a team more
effectively."

In April, she was a panelist alongside Laura Riposo VanDruff,
assistant director in the division of privacy and identity
protection at the Federal Trade Commission, at a seminar on
cybersecurity and privacy hosted by King & Spalding.  The topic of
her panel was "The Government's Regulatory and Law Enforcement
Authority in the Cybersecurity and Privacy Arena: Developments in
the Courts and in the Executive Branch."

On Sept. 14, the FTC confirmed that it had launched a probe into
the Equifax breach. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Class Actions May Be Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Miller, writing for PennLive, reports that an avalanche of
federal lawsuits is expected to come thundering down on Equifax
Inc. over the massive security breach that has put the private
information of 143 million Americans in peril.

At least one of those class-action suits against the credit bureau
is coming from Pennsylvania.

Yet even though it was filed in the Keystone State, the suit
Michelle F. Austin of Eagleville lodged in U.S. Eastern District
Court isn't likely to be fought out in Pennsylvania.

Instead, attorneys for other clients who have filed federal cases
against Equifax are asking that the Austin case, and all others
filed across the nation, be consolidated and addressed in federal
court in Georgia.

Equifax, one of the nation's three main credit bureaus, is based
in Atlanta.  On Sept. 7, the agency reported that hackers breached
its system on July 29, gaining access to consumers' Social
Security numbers and other confidential data.

Austin, like others who are suing Equifax, are trying to hold the
firm legally responsible for exposing them to likely identity
theft. Austin also attacks Equifax over how long it took to report
the hack, which she claims has caused the victims to lose access
to their financial accounts.

She accuses Equifax of violating the Fair Credit Reporting and
also makes claims for invasion of privacy and negligence.

The filing of Austin's suit was promptly followed by a request to
move the case to Georgia, where a prior class-action lawsuit was
filed against Equifax by Joseph Kuss and Stacy Markowitz.

In making that request, the lawyers for Kuss and Markowitz noted
that at least 30 similar suits have so far been filed in 19
federal judicial districts.  They contend the consolidation will
allow for more efficient handling of the cases. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------
Sam King, writing for Fox 9, reports that a Ramsey County man is
among the growing number of consumers who have filed suit against
Equifax following a massive data breach which put nearly 143
million people's information at risk.

The Minnesota suit, filed on Sept. 15, alleges Equifax "acted
willfully or recklessly in their failure to safeguard the personal
information at issue" in the case.  Attorneys estimate that across
the country, at least 100 similar suits have been filed so far.

"Unlike some of the other data breaches have occurred recently
when people's credit card numbers and maybe their address have
been revealed, this involves very personal data," said
Dan Hedlund, an attorney with Gustafson Glueck in Minneapolis, the
firm that filed the suit.  "Certainly it's problematic, and we
think certainly that Equifax should have done a better job to
protect the data of its customers."

The suit also alleges the company violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, and a ruling could cost the company anywhere from
$100 to $1,000 per affected customer.

The lawsuit is also seeking more ways for consumers to better
protect their data, including free credit monitoring.  At this
point, those who are potentially impacted by the breach have only
until Nov. 21 to avail themselves of free services offered by
Equifax.

"The important thing that people are focused on, is not only money
damages, but also making sure now that this has happened, people
are going to be protected in the future," Mr. Hedlund said.

Equifax has made also changes in policies and personnel following
the revelation of the breach.

"We cannot comment on pending litigation, but want to reassure
consumers that we are remaining focused on helping them to
navigate this situation and providing the best customer support
possible," the company said in a statement to Fox 9.  "We are
listening to issues consumers have experienced and their
suggestions, which are helping to further inform our actions as we
continue to improve this process."

Mr. Hedlund said a federal judge in St. Louis will decide later
this year whether to consolidate the lawsuits into one class
action.

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson has joined many of her
counterparts in other states in investigating the breach.  A
spokesperson for the office says two million Minnesotans may have
been impacted. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deon Roberts, writing for The Charlotte Observer, reports that a
North Carolina couple has filed a lawsuit in Charlotte against
credit-reporting company Equifax over the firm's disclosure this
month of a hack that potentially exposed highly personal data of
millions of Americans.

George Tate and Jeannie Tate, of Rutherford County, say in court
documents that they filed the federal class action on behalf of
all North Carolina citizens whose information was affected by the
breach.  The Sept. 18 suit says the size of the class totals
millions of people who could incur significant out-of-pocket
costs, as they obtain credit reports and take other protective
measures.

According to an Equifax statement, the company cannot comment on
pending litigation.  But the firm said it wants "to reassure
consumers that we are remaining focused on helping them to
navigate this situation and providing the best customer support
possible."

Atlanta-based Equifax has been reeling since its Sept. 7
disclosure that hackers obtained access to company data,
potentially compromising information of about 143 million U.S.
consumers.  Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and
driver's license numbers are among the data involved, in what's
become one of the largest data breaches of recent years.

In their suit, the Tates say the class as a whole has been damaged
in an amount exceeding $5 million.  In addition to costs
associated with protecting and repairing their financial security,
class members have been exposed to "substantial" risk of identity
theft and other harm, the suit says.

Attorneys for the Tates could not be reached for comment.

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein said in a statement
that the breach exposed personal data of nearly 5 million North
Carolinians.

Equifax, one of the country's three major credit reporting firms,
has faced withering criticism over the breach, which has sparked
state and federal scrutiny.  On Sept. 15, the company announced
the retirement of two top executives: its chief information
officer and chief security officer.

Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the matter, reported on
Sept. 18 the U.S. Justice Department has opened a criminal
investigation into whether top officials at Equifax violated
insider trading laws when they sold stock before the company
disclosed it had been hacked. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Collins" Suit in Southern District of Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The
case is captioned as Robert L. Collins on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00187 (S.D. Tex., Sep. 11, 2017). The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Rolando Olvera.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Francis Hetherington, Esq.
          Kendall Johan Burr, Esq.
          EDISON MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
          1001 Fannin Street, Ste 2700
          Houston, TX 77002-6770
          Telephone: (713) 337 5583
          Facsimile: (713) 337 8843
          E-mail: tom.hetherington@emhllp.com
                  kendall.burr@emhllp.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Davis" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is captioned as Jeremy Davis, Amanda Gurtis, and John Hughes,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-
06883-VB (S.D.N.Y., Sep. 11, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip A Tortoreti, Esq.
          Kevin Peter Roddy, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER (NJ)
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 726 6221
          Facsimile: (732) 726 6542
          E-mail: ptortoreti@wilentz.com
                  kroddy@wilentz.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Perkins" Suit over Massive Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Dallas Perkins, Jeffrey Pryor, Kenneth Yoeckel, and LaShawn Brown,
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03479-ELR (N.D. Ga., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks to redress Equifax's
unlawful and negligent disclosure of millions of consumers'
confidential personal identifying information ("PII"), including
their names, birth dates, addresses, social security numbers,
driver's license numbers, and credit card numbers in violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Georgia data breach notification
law, Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Massachusetts' consumer
protection law, New York's General Business Law Sec. 349, and
common law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to fulfill its
legal duty to protect consumers' PII which was stored in its
systems. Equifax's willful, reckless, and negligent disregard for
its obligations to safeguard individuals' PII resulted in a
massive data breach that occurred from mid-May through July of
this year ("Data Breach" or "Breach"). The Plaintiffs bring this
action on behalf all persons who reside in the United States whose
PII was compromised as a result of the Data Breach, and,
alternatively, on behalf of Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, and
New York residents whose PII was likewise compromised.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel DeWoskin, Esq.
          DEWOSKIN LAW FIRM, LLC
          535 N. McDonough Street
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 987 0026
          Facsimile: (404) 920 3341
          E-mail: dan@altantatrial.com

               - and -

          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          Chantal Khalil, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP.
          445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298 3281
          Facsimile: (914) 908 6709
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                  ckhalil@fbfglaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Summit Credit Suit Sues over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Summit Credit Union, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated credit unions, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03483-AT (N.D. Ga., Sep. 11,
2017), seeks declaratory judgment stating that Equifax owed and
continues to owe a duty to adequately and appropriately secure
consumers' sensitive personal and financial information, and that
Equifax has a duty to timely disclose to the public any breach of
that data.

This litigation stems from the largest data breach in history of a
financial services industry gatekeeper charged with one primary
task: collecting and maintaining consumers' most sensitive
personal and financial information.  Equifax, the complaint says,
utterly failed at this task, allowing hackers to breach the gates
and gain unfettered access to the sensitive information of
millions. In so doing, Equifax set off a chain reaction that
threatens the trustworthiness and stability of the financial
system for individuals and institutions alike. On September 7,
2017, Equifax announced that hackers had exploited a vulnerability
in Equifax's U.S. website to illegally gain access to consumer
files. Equifax must now be held accountable for its failures and
for a cybersecurity incident so massive that it could prove
detrimental to overall American economic growth.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robins Kaplan LLP
          Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
          William H. Stanhope, Esq.
          James Kitces, Esq.
          Sam E. Khoroosi, Esq.
          Susan Brown, Esq.
          Michael Ram, Esq.
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612 349 8500
          Facsimile: 612 339 4181
          E-mail: sslaughter@robinskaplan.com
                  wstanhope@robinskaplan.com
                  jkitces@robinskaplan.com
                  skhoroosi@robinskaplan.com
                  sbrown@robinskaplan.com
                  mram@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Mary C. Turke, Esq.
          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Turke & Strauss LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: 608 237 1775
          Facsimile: 608 509 4423
          E-mail: mary@turkestrauss.com
                  sam@turkestrauss.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Tirelli" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services LLC. The case is captioned as Linda Tirelli and Brooke
Merino, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs. v. Equifax Information Services LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06868-VB (S.D.N.Y., Sep. 11, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Javier Luis Merino, Esq.
          DANN LAW
          1 Meadowlands Plaza, Suite 200
          E. Rutherford, NJ 07073
          Telephone: (216) 373 0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373 0536
          E-mail: jmerino@dannlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Anderson" Suit over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Christine Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00156-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks to
enjoin Defendants from engaging in further negligent, unfair, and
unlawful business practices.

The Plaintiff bring this action case against Equifax Inc. for its
failure to secure and safeguard consumers' personally identifiable
information ("PII") which Equifax collected from various sources
in connection with the operation of its business as a consumer
credit reporting agency, and for failing to provide timely,
accurate and adequate notice to Consumer Plaintiffs and other
Class members that their PII had been stolen and precisely what
types of information were stolen.

According to the complaint, Equifax has acknowledge the existence
of a cybersecurity incident (Data Breach) potentially impacting
approximately 142 million U.S. consumers. Equifax has admitted
that credit card numbers for approximately 209,000 U.S. consumers,
and certain dispute documents with personal identifying
information for approximately 182,000 U.S. consumers, were
accessed. Equifax has acknowledged that it discovered the
unauthorized access on July 29, 2017, but has failed to inform the
public why it delayed notification of the Data Breach to consumers
for nearly six weeks. Instead, Equifax executives were focused on
themselves and their own self-interests, and sold at least $1.8
million worth of shares before the public disclosure of the
breach. It has been reported that its Chief Financial Officer John
Gamble sold shares worth $946,374, its president of U.S.
information solutions, Joseph Loughran, exercised options to
dispose of stock worth $584,099, and its president of workforce
solutions, Rodolfo Ploder, sold $250,458 of stock on August 2,
2017. The PII for Plaintiff and the class of consumers he seeks to
represent was compromised due to Equifax's acts and omissions and
their failure to properly protect the PII. Equifax could have
prevented this Data Breach. Data breaches at other companies,
including one of its major competitors, Experian have occurred.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex C. Davis, Esq.
          Jasper D. Ward IV
          JONES WARD PLC
          The Pointe
          1205 E. Washington St., Suite 111
          Louisville, KE 40206
          Telephone: (502) 882 6000
          Facsimile: (502) 587 2007
          E-mail: alex@jonesward.com
                  jasper@jonesward.com

               - and -

          Steven W. Teppler
          ABBOTT LAW GROUP
          2929 Plummer Cove Road
          Jacksonville, FL 32223
          Telephone: (904) 292 1111
          Facsimile: (202) 253 5670
          E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com


EQUIFAX INC: Boundy et al. Sue over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------
SAMUEL BOUNDY, FREDERICK GARDNER, MATTHEW RYBAK and GREG PESEK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. EQUIFAX, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03480-TWT (N.D. Ga., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks to remedy the harms
they have suffered on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
consumers whose personally identifiable information ("PII") was
stolen as a result of the Equifax Data Breach.

The Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant Equifax for its
failure to secure and safeguard consumers' PII, which Equifax
collected from various sources in connection with the operation of
its business as a consumer credit reporting agency, and for
failing to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated consumer victims that
their PII had been stolen and precisely what types of information
were stolen.

On September 7, 2017 Equifax revealed that from mid-May through
July 2017 it experienced one of the largest security breaches in
United States history (Data Breach), potentially impacting more
than half of the U.S. population, exposed sensitive information,
including social security numbers, birth dates, credit card
numbers, drivers' license numbers and personal addresses, of up to
143 million Americans.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrea S. Hirsch, Esq.
          Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
          Steve Herman, Esq.
          HERMAN GEREL, LLP
          60 Lenox Pointe
          Atlanta, GA 30324
          Telephone: (404) 880 9500
          Facsimile: (770) 450 9236
          E-mail: ahirsch@hermangerel.com
                  ldavis@hhklawfirm.com
                  sherman@hhklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592 1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592 4663
          E-mail: ALevin@lfsblaw.com
                  CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com
                  www.LFSBLaw.com

               - and -

          Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES
          Keith Scranton, Esq.
          Hugh Z. Balkin, Esq.
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014
          Telephone: (303) 757 3300
          Facsimile: (303) 757 3206
          E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com
                  scrantonk@fdazar.com


EQUIFAX INC: "Tada" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Caralyn Tada, Craig Nowinsky, and
Lori Pobiner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EQUIFAX, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-06620-JAK-KS, was moved on Sep 11, 2017 to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:17-cv-06666-JAK-KS to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John G Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON SCOTT LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Telephone: (281) 488 8854
          Facsimile: (281) 488 8867
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

               - and -

          Mark A Ozzello, Esq.
          OZZELLO PRACTICE PC
          17383 West Sunset Boulevard Suite A-380
          Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
          Telephone: (844) 774 2020
          Facsimile: (310) 454 5970
          E-mail: mark@ozzellolaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel M Ward, Esq.
          Stephen R Basser, Esq.
          BARRACK RODOS AND BACINE
          One America Plaza
          600 West Broadway Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230 0800
          Facsimile: (619) 230 1874
          E-mail: sward@barrack.com
                  sbasser@barrack.com


EQUIFAX INC: Spector, et al. Ask Panel to Transfer 22 Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
In MDL No. 2800 Re: Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, a
group of Plaintiffs ask the Judicial Panel on Multi-district
Litigation to issue an Order transferring 22 actions listed in a
Schedule of Actions, as well as all subsequently filed related
actions, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The Plaintiffs are James McGonnigal and Brian F. Spector,
Plaintiffs in the case styled McGonnigal, et al. v. Equifax, Inc.,
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Case No.
1:17-cv-03422, and Randolph Jefferson Cary III, William R. Porter,
and Robin D. Porter, Plaintiffs in the case styled Cary III, et
al. v. Equifax, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Temporary Case No. 1:17-mi-99999-UNA.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs Randolph Jefferson Cary III, William
R. Porter, and Robin D. Porter:

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          J. Austin Moore, Esq.
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714 7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714 7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  vahle@stuevesiegel.com
                  moore@stuevesiegel.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs James McGonnigal and Brian F.
Spector:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Marisa Glassman, Esq.
          MORGAN& MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223 5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  mglassman@forthepeople.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs James McGonnigal, Brian F.
Spector, Randolph Jefferson Cary III, William R. Porter,
and Robin D. Porter

          Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
          John R. Bevis, Esq.
          J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
          THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
          31 Atlanta Street
          Marietta, GA 30060
          Telephone: (770) 419 8505
          Facsimile: (770) 590 8958
          E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com
                  bevis@barneslawgroup.com
                  ctribble@barneslawgroup.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Pavesi" Suit over Consumer Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES PAVESI, JR. and PAUL TUROK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EQUIFAX, INC.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03476-AT (N.D. Ga., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks
remedies available under their respective state data breach
statutes, including but not limited to damages suffered by
Plaintiffs and Class Members, equitable relief, including
injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney fees and costs, as
provided by law.

The case is a class action on behalf of all residents of the
United States whose personally identifiable information was
compromised in the data breach as a result of Equifax's negligence
and violations of consumer protection laws.

According to the complaint, on September 7, 2017, Equifax released
a statement to the public announcing that there had been a breach
of consumers' personally identifiable information by hackers, and
that Equifax had been made aware of the breach on July 29, 2017.
The personally identifiable information that had been compromised
includes names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, credit card
numbers, driver's license numbers, and documents pertaining to
disputed charges. In total, an estimated 143 million consumers in
the United States have been impacted by the data breach.

Equifax set up a site, equifaxsecurity2017.com, so that consumers
could check on whether their personal or financial information was
compromised. Equifaxsecurity2017.com was not registered under
Equifax's domain name, the site ran on WordPress, and it
apparently lacked adequate safeguards while requiring consumers to
input their last name and last 6 digits of their Social Security
Numbers. The equifaxsecurity2017.com website placed consumers at
further risk of being targeted by criminal elements.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Page A. Pate, Esq.
          Jess B. Johnson, Esq.
          PATE & JOHNSON, LLC
          101 Marietta Street, Suite 3300
          Atlanta, GA 30303

               - and -

          Stephen G. Lowry, Esq.
          Jeffrey R. Harris, Esq.
          Jed D. Manton, Esq.
          Madeline E. McNeeley, Esq.
          HARRIS LOWRY MANTON LLP
          1201 Peachtree Street NE - Suite 900
          Atlanta, GA 30361


EQUIFAX INC: Richmond et al. Sue over Consumer Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
DAN RICHMOND, KIMBERLY RICHMOND, HEATHER DUENAS, KORY HERSHKOWITZ,
CATHERINE ALDERMAN, DONALD PERSON and RICKY LEE HALE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
EQUIFAX, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03477-LMM (N.D.
Ga., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks damages on account of Equifax's massive
failure to secure and safeguard consumers' personally identifiable
information ("PII"), which Equifax collected from various sources
in connection with the operation of its business as a consumer
credit reporting agency, and for failing to provide timely,
accurate and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class members
that their PII had been stolen and precisely what types of
information were stolen.

According to the complaint, Equifax has acknowledged that a
cybersecurity incident ("Data Breach") potentially impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers occurred.  Equifax has
acknowledged that it discovered the unauthorized access on July
29, 2017, but has failed to inform the public why it delayed
notification of the Data Breach to consumers for nearly six weeks.
Instead, Equifax executives were focused on themselves and their
own self-interests, and sold at least $1.8 million worth of shares
before the public disclosure of the breach. It has been reported
that its Chief Financial Officer John Gamble sold shares worth
$946,374, its president of U.S. information solutions, Joseph
Loughran, exercised options to dispose of stock worth $584,099,
and its president of workforce solutions, Rodolfo Ploder, sold
$250,458 of stock on August 2, 2017.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          David J. Worley, Esq.
          Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq.
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
          8100 A. Roswell Road, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Telephone: (404) 205 8400
          Facsimile: (404) 205 8395
          E-mail: david@ewlawllc.com
                  jim@ewlawllc.com
                  kristi@ewlawllc.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Carin L. Marcussen, Esq.
          Joshua D. Wells, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235 1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239 2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                  clm@federmanlaw.com
                  jdw@federmanlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces Suit by Rust et al. over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
TRACEY LORRAINE RUST, KIRBY PAYNE RUST, COREY STEDMAN, AVIVA
YAGHOOBIA, PATRICK SHONTER KELLEY, KANDYCE CONNERLEY KELLEY,
ROBERT CLARK, BRANDON PARR, LAURA ROUDABUSH, and JEFF ROUDABUSH
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. EQUIFAX, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03471-CAP (N.D. Ga., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks to recover damages,
equitable relief including injunctive relief to prevent a
reoccurrence of the data breach and resulting injury, restitution,
disgorgement, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and all other
remedies this Court deems proper.

The case is a consumer class action against Defendant for its
failure to secure and safeguard the sensitive personal information
of approximately 143 million Americans, including, but not limited
to, their credit card numbers ("Payment Card Data" or "PCD"),
names, Social Security numbers, driver's license
numbers, birth dates, and addresses ("Personally Identifiable
Information" or "PII").

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert W. Killorin
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          3975 Roswell Rd., Suite A
          Atlanta, GA 30342
          Telephone: (404) 847 0617
          Facsimile: (404) 506 9534
          E-mail: rkillorin@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr. , Esq.
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
          E-mail: tpeter@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Strauchman" Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is captioned as Luke Strauchman, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03482-TCB (N.D. Ga., Sep. 11, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher B. Hood, Esq.
          James F. McDonough, Esq.
          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON & DAVIS, LLC - AL
          2224 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326 3336
          E-mail: chood@hgdlawfirm.com
                  jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com
                  wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: Corboy & Demetrio Files Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Reardon, writing for KABC News, reports that chances are
your personal and financial information may have been stolen.  As
a result, a Chicago law firm has filed a class action lawsuit
against Equifax following the massive security breach that
compromised millions of

Americans' personal information, including names, full Social
Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license numbers
and credit card numbers.

Attorney Ken Lumb is a partner at Corboy & Demetrio, one of the
attorneys representing the plaintiffs and he had this to say about
Equifax.

"They operate their business kind of in the shadows. We are not
really customers of them.  They suck up your personal information,
they collect it. They bring it all together and they sell it.
And, they make a lot of money doing it."

The lawsuit accuses Equifax of failing to put in place reasonable
procedures to protect the information and also for failing to
notify victims of the breach in a timely manner.  Mr. Lumb says it
doesn't have an easy fix and this could potentially cause problems
for years.

"The scope and breadth of the breach is really massive and the
failure to prevent it simply inexcusable."

The suit also accuses Equifax of trying to get customers to sign a
waiver and arbitration agreement by falsely saying it's free for
one year, when in fact, you have to remember to opt out after a
year, or you will continue to be billed. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Massachusetts AG Files Suit Following Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Sweet, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Equifax,
under pressure from a massive data breach, says it had a separate
incident earlier this year.  That may mean even more scrutiny as
the company deals with the aftermath of a security failure that
exposed the information of 143 million Americans.

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Attorney General has filed suit
against Equifax.  And Equifax says about 100,000 Canadian
consumers may have had their personal information compromised.

Here's the latest on the breach:

AN EARLIER BREACH

Equifax says it had a security breach earlier this year that
involved a different part of the company than the one accessed in
the larger hack.

The breach involved TALX, which is Equifax's human resources and
payroll service.  The company said there's no evidence that the
TALX breach, which happened between March and April this year, and
the wider breach are related.

The TALX breach, which at the time was relatively minor, is likely
to attract additional scrutiny.

Three executives at Equifax were found to have sold stock in the
days leading up to the time when Equifax disclosed the more
serious breach.  Equifax says the three executives, which includes
the company's second-highest ranking employee, its chief financial
officer, were unaware of the bigger breach when they sold their
shares.

Equifax hired the same cybersecurity company, Mandiant, to handle
both breach investigations.

STATE ACTION

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey sued Equifax on
Sept. 19, making it the first state to take direct legal action
against the company following the breach. Its lawyers say that
Equifax's negligence exposed more than half the state's adult
population to the breach, and the company was negligent in dealing
with security threats, including the software vulnerability that
has become the center of the investigation.

Attorney General Healey is seeking unspecified civil penalties,
restitution and damages for the impacted residents.

TRANSUNION AND EXPERIAN NOW UNDER STRUTINY

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is questioning two
other credit-monitoring companies, TransUnion and Experian, about
what precautions they have taken to protect sensitive consumer
information. In letters to company executives, the Democratic
attorney general asked them to describe their existing security
systems, as well as what changes they've made since the Equifax
hack.

The breach, he wrote, "has raised serious concerns about the
security of private consumer information held by the nation's
largest consumer credit reporting agencies." The letters also ask
whether the companies are considering waiving the fees for
consumer credit freezes. The costs of those vary by state. .

CANADIAN TALLY

Equifax said on Sept. 19 that approximately 100,000 Canadian
consumers may have had personal information breached, including
names, addresses, social insurance numbers and in some cases
credit card numbers.

Equifax Canada's president and general manager Lisa Nelson
apologized to consumers whose data may have been compromised.  The
company says the investigation is still going on.

Canada's privacy watchdog has said it is looking into the breach
and Equifax has committed to notifying those affected in writing
as soon as possible.

WHAT IS EQUIFAX DOING?

Equifax's CEO has been called to testify before Congress on
Oct. 3, and the company announced last week that its chief
information officer and chief security officer would be leaving
the company immediately.  It also has bulked up its call centers
and is waiving fees for credit freezes.

The credit data company also released a detailed, if still
muddled, timeline of how it discovered and handled the breach.

Equifax's stock has fallen more than a third since the scandal
broke.

WHAT SHOULD I DO?

Consumers should be vigilant and diligent. That means:

   -- Closely monitoring their credit reports, which are available
free once a year, and stagger them to see one every four months.

   -- Keeping watch, possibly for a long time. Scammers who get
ahold of the data could use it at any time -- and with 143 million
to choose from, they may be patient.

   -- Considering freezing your credit reports.  That stops
thieves from opening new credit cards or loans in your name, but
it also prevents you from opening new accounts.  So if you want to
apply for something, you need to lift the freeze a few days
beforehand. [GN]


EXPERIAN: Berger & Montague Sues Over Consumer Reports
------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C., a national plaintiffs' law firm, on Sept.
19 disclosed that it has filed class action lawsuits in
Pennsylvania and Massachusetts courts on behalf of individuals who
have received consumer reports from Experian and TransUnion with
inaccurate tax lien information.  This is the fourth lawsuit
Berger & Montague has filed against credit reporting agencies on
this issue.

The complaints allege that Experian and TransUnion, two of the
"big three" U.S. consumer reporting agencies, willfully violated
the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") by reporting tax liens that
were already paid and failing to follow reasonable procedures to
ensure that the tax lien information they reported was as accurate
as possible.

Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax are all being sued around the
country for releasing inaccurate consumer reports -- Berger &
Montague's four lawsuits bring the total number of class actions
against the "big three" to at least 26.

According to the Complaints, Experian and TransUnion are well
aware that they have problems with failing to accurately report
public record information.  The lawsuits allege that both consumer
reporting agencies receive the public information that they
include on their reports from a third party.  Despite knowing that
the tax lien information they obtain from this third party is
often inaccurate or out of date, neither agency takes any action
to check the records at the source before reporting the
information.

The lawsuits further allege that neither Experian nor TransUnion
has a systemic, reasonable procedure to assure that, when tax
liens are paid, satisfied, or released, the updated status is
promptly obtained and reflected on a consumer's credit report.

"The Big Three's problem with public records reporting is no
longer a dirty little industry secret.  The wave of litigation on
these issues has helped cast light on a pernicious problem in an
industry that is more concerned about its bottom line than it is
about the accuracy and privacy of the information it reports,"
said E. Michelle Drake -- emdrake@bm.net -- a shareholder at
Berger & Montague and the co-chair of the firm's consumer
protection practice.

Plaintiffs and the proposed class members are seeking an award of
statutory, actual, and punitive damages from the inaccurate tax
lien reporting.  They also seek to ensure that Experian and
TransUnion cease reporting inaccurate public record information
and update the public record information they obtain and report
about consumers.

Affected consumers can find additional information about the
lawsuits at www.bergermontague.com/tax-liens.

Berger & Montague, P.C. -- http://www.bergermontague.com-- is a
national plaintiffs' law firm based in Philadelphia with
additional offices in Minneapolis and Washington, D.C.  The firm
litigates consumer protection cases in federal and state courts
throughout the United States and employs more than 60 attorneys.
[GN]


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC.  The case is styled as Hindy Kalmenson, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff
v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05680
(E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2017).

Firstsource Advantage provides debt collections services to the
leading credit card issuers, financial institutions, and
healthcare providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Wants 9th Circuit to Toss Power Steering Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy and Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, report that Ford
Motor Co. on Sept. 15 urged the Ninth Circuit not to revive a
proposed class action over alleged power steering defects, saying
recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent bars the consumers from
letting Ford win the case in order to appeal the lower court's
class certification denial.

Ford Focus and Fusion drivers sued the automaker in 2014, claiming
there were design defects in their vehicles' power steering
systems that caused the cars to lose power.  U.S. District Judge
Lucy H. Koh refused to certify their three proposed classes in
December, and then granted Ford's request for summary judgment in
February after finding that the drivers had conceded the win to
Ford.  The drivers did so, Ford argued on Sept. 15, to expedite
their appeal of Judge Koh's class certification ruling.

When Ford moved for summary judgment, the drivers voluntarily
dismissed all non-California claims and offered to let Ford win on
the ground that they had no admissible evidence of damages. The
sides failed to reach a deal and the drivers ultimately opposed
Ford's bid, but didn't provide any admissible evidence regarding
alleged damages, Judge Koh said in February.  Because damages were
an essential part of each of the drivers' claims, failure to
provide such evidence conceded victory to Ford, the judge held.

Ford argued that the Supreme Court's June decision in Microsoft
Corp. v. Baker explicitly forbade plaintiffs from appealing class
certification denials after allowing a trial court to rule in
favor of a defendant, meaning that the Ninth Circuit has no
jurisdiction over the instant appeal and it should be dismissed.

John Tangren -- jtangren@dlcfirm.com -- of DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC told Law360 on Sept. 18 that he and his clients are confident
that the Ninth Circuit will find that it has jurisdiction. He
pointed out that unlike in Baker, where the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed all his claims, the appeal in the instant suit stems
from Judge Koh's final judgment granting summary judgment for
Ford.

But Ford argued that Judge Koh's decision was not actually a final
judgment.

"This court may review only 'final decisions of the district
courts,'" Ford argued.  "The Supreme Court held that this tactic -
- agreeing to judgment in favor of the defendant as a means to
appeal the otherwise non-appealable denial of class certification
-- does not result in a final judgment."

Even if the Ninth Circuit does have jurisdiction over the appeal,
the drivers further failed to provide any arguments for reversing
Judge Koh's judgment, abandoning any appeal of that order, Ford
said.

The power steering system at issue in the dispute, known as
electronic power assisted steering, or EPAS, began to replace the
traditional hydraulic systems in some Ford vehicles in 2009.
Occasionally, the new system experienced "faults," when the power
would shut off, rendering power steering unavailable, Ford said.

In 2011, the automaker discovered a potential problem with EPAS
and fixed it, but a few owners still complained about loss of
power.  Ford later found that some cables had been damaged during
the assembly of 2010-2012 Fusions and voluntarily recalled them to
fix the issue, Ford said.  Those Fusion models, along with 2012-
2014 Focuses, are the subject of the instant suit.

After the recall, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration closed its investigation into the issue, finding
that there had been no significant injuries tied to the alleged
problem and that the projected failure rate for nonrecalled
vehicles over a 10-year period was no more than 1 percent.  The
agency thus concluded no further action was necessary, Ford said.

The automaker noted that it does not know of any EPAS failure that
has caused an injury, a statistic it said is unsurprising given
that failures virtually never happened at speeds faster than 10
miles per hour.

The drivers had sought to certify three classes of California
residents: anyone who bought or leased new 2010-2012 Fusions or
2012-2014 Focuses; anyone who spent money diagnosing, repairing or
replacing their power steering systems; and anyone who currently
owns one of the relevant cars.

When Judge Koh rejected all three, she found that the method the
drivers' damages expert had used to calculate damages wasn't
consistent with the drivers' theory of liability and that common
issues didn't predominate, among other reasons for denying class
certification.

Ford is represented by Andrew Chang -- achang@shb.com -- Amir
Nassihi -- anassihi@shb.com -- and Kevin Underhill --
kunderhill@shb.com -- of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, and Adam H.
Charnes -- Acharnes@kilpatricktownsend.com -- and Thurston H. Webb
-- TWebb@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of Kilpatrick Townsend &
Stockton LLP.

The drivers are represented by Roland K. Tellis, Mark P. Pifko,
David W. Fernandes III and S. Ann Saucer of Baron & Budd PC, Adam
J. Levitt and John E. Tangren of DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, and
Niall A. Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- and Nathan B. Atkinson
-- natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- of Spilman Thomas & Battle PLLC.

The case is William Philips, et al., v. Ford Motor Co.,
Case No. 17-15323 (9th Cir.).  The case was filed February 23,
2017. [GN]


FOREMOST INSURANCE: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in "Braden" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DAVID BRADEN and DALE BROWN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, Defendant, Case
No. 4:15-cv-4114 (), Judge Susan O. Hickey of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division,
denied the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant unlawfully depreciated
labor in calculating their payment obligations under the parties'
insurance contracts.  In their Class Action Complaint, they allege
that Arkansas law prohibits an insurance company from depreciating
the cost of labor.  The Plaintiffs claim that, by depreciating
this cost in initial "actual cash value" payments made to
insureds, the Defendant breached its contract with them.

On Dec. 1, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, seeking to certify a class of individuals defined
as all persons and entities that received actual cash value
payments, directly or indirectly, from Foremost for loss or damage
to a dwelling or other structure located in the State of Arkansas,
such payments arising from events that occurred on or after Nov.
21, 2008, where the cost of labor was depreciated.

The Plaintiffs state that the putative class period is based on
the applicable five-year statute of limitations under Arkansas
law, and the fact that the five-year period was tolled under
American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, during the pendency of
Keller v. FCOA, LLC, d/b/a/Foremost Insurance Co., which was filed
with this Court on Nov. 21, 2013, and was dismissed with prejudice
on Jan. 8, 2016.

On Feb. 16, 2017, the Defendant filed the instant motion for
judgment on the pleadings, moving the Court to limit the
Plaintiffs' putative class period to only include claims accruing
on or after Dec. 10, 2010, five years prior to when this lawsuit
was filed.  Specifically, the Defendant argues that all putative
class claims accruing before that date fall outside of the
applicable five-year limitations period, barring them under
Arkansas law.  It argues further that American Pipe tolling cannot
be applied in this context to save the time-barred claims.

The Plaintiffs argue in response that American Pipe tolling
applies to save the pre-Dec. 10, 2010 claims.  They Plaintiffs
also argue as a threshold matter that the Court need not reach the
instant motion's merits because the relief sought is premature.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs argue that the putative class members
are not presently parties to the case who are subject to being
bound by any judgment, and this issue would instead be properly
raised after the class-certification stage.

Judge Hickey agrees with the Plaintiffs.  The Defendant's motion
for judgment on the pleadings does not seek dismissal of any of
Plaintiff Braden or Plaintiff Brown's claims.  If she were to
grant the relief the Defendant seeks-limiting the class period --
it would, in effect, require the Court to dismiss certain putative
class claims.  The pre-certification stage of litigation is not
the proper time to address this issue.  Instead, this matter is
better raised following class certification, should a class be
certified in this case.

For these reasons, Judge Hickey denied as premature at this time
the Defendant's motion.  If the Court orders certification of a
class in this case, the Defendants may then renew their motion for
judgment on the pleadings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/CYDKI0 from Leagle.com.

David Braden, Plaintiff, represented by A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III -
- aftomt2001@yahoo.com -- Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner &
Castleberry.

David Braden, Plaintiff, represented by D. Matt Keil --
mkeil@kglawfirm.com -- Attorney at Law, James M. Pratt, Jr., James
M. Pratt, Jr., P.A., John C. Goodson, Keil & Goodson, Kenneth P.
Castleberry -- caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com -- Murphy, Thompson,
Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, Stevan Earl Vowell, Taylor Law
Firm, Timothy J. Myers -- tmyers@taylorlawpartners.com -- Taylor
Law Firm, W.H. Taylor, Taylor Law Firm, William B. Putman --
wbputman@taylorlawpartners.com -- Taylor Law Partners, Jason
Earnest Roselius, Mattingly & Roselius, R. Martin Weber, Jr. --
mweber@crowleynorman.com -- Crowley Norman LLP & Richard E. Norman
-- norman@crowleynorman.com -- Crowley Norman LLP.

Dale Brown, Plaintiff, represented by A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III,
Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, D. Matt Keil,
Attorney at Law, James M. Pratt, Jr., James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A.,
John C. Goodson, Keil & Goodson, Kenneth P. Castleberry, Murphy,
Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, Stevan Earl Vowell,
Taylor Law Firm, Timothy J. Myers, Taylor Law Firm, W.H. Taylor,
Taylor Law Firm, William B. Putman, Taylor Law Partners, Jason
Earnest Roselius, Mattingly & Roselius, R. Martin Weber, Jr.,
Crowley Norman LLP & Richard E. Norman, Crowley Norman LLP.

Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan, Defendant,
represented by J. Dennis Chambers -- dchambers@arwhlaw.com --
Atchley, Russell, Waldrop & Hlavinka, Marilyn Montano --
mbrown@jw.com -- Jackson Walker L.L.P. & Stacy Allen --
stacyallen@jw.com -- Jackson Walker LLP.


FRONT RANGE: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss "Sanchez" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado granted in part, mooted in part, and denied
in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned JOHN
SANCHEZ, ABBY KINDELL, MITYAH THORNTON, and TERRENCE THORNTON,
Individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FRONT RANGE TRANSPORTATION d/b/a Front
Range Shuttle and Tours, a Colorado limited liability company, and
COREY WATSON, an individual, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-cv-
00579-RBJ (D. Colo.).

Front Range provides shuttle and "executive car" service primarily
between Colorado Springs or Pueblo and the Denver International
Airport.  The original complaint was brought by two former
employees: Brandon Smith, a dispatcher and driver; and Donald
Hickman, a driver.  Purporting to represent themselves and a class
of similarly situated individuals, these gentlemen asserted that
they had not been paid for all the hours they worked, and that
they had not been properly paid for overtime work, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Colorado Minimum
Wage Order (CMWO").  They also alleged that they had been
improperly classified as independent contractors during portions
of their employment, allegedly supporting claims of tax fraud
contrary to the Internal Revenue Code; violation of the Colorado
Wage Protection Act ("CWPA"); and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint, still naming Mr. Smith
and Mr. Hickman as the Plaintiffs, whittled the claims down a bit.
The tax fraud, CWPA and unjust enrichment claims remained.  The
CWPA claim was expanded into two new claims.  The FLSA claims were
dropped.

Their Second Amended Complaint named two additional Plaintiffs:
Sanchez, a former administrative assistant; and Kindell, a former
dispatcher.  Again, the tax fraud and unjust enrichment claims of
Mr. Smith and Mr. Hickman remained.  However, several FLSA claims
were asserted on behalf of Mr. Smith and Ms. Kindell, including
that they were not compensated for all hours worked (required to
work "off-clock" hours).  In addition, the Plaintiffs asserted
claims of retaliation in violation of the FLSA on behalf of Mr.
Hickman and Mr. Sanchez.

Their Third Amended Complaint, which now is the operable
complaint, added two more Plaintiffs: Thornton, a former
dispatcher/administrative assistant, and her husband Terrence,
also a former dispatcher.  The Plaintiffs assert the following
claims: (i) tax fraud in violation of the Internal Revenue Code
(Smith, Hickman, and M. Thornton - purportedly class claims); (ii)
unjust enrichment (same); (iii) FLSA based on unpaid "off-clock"
hours (Sanchez, Kindell, M. Thornton - purportedly collective
action claims); (iv) FLSA based on unpaid overtime (M. Thornton);
(v) CMWO based on failure to provide breaks (Kindell - purportedly
a class action); (vi) FLSA based on retaliation (Sanchez); (vii)
FLSA based on retaliation (M. Thornton); and (viii) FLSA based on
retaliation (T. Thornton).

The Defendants then filed the pending motion for partial
dismissal, i.e., to dismiss the first, second and fifth claims
under either or both of Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b).  In response,
among other things, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
claims of the original Plaintiffs Smith and Hickman, hence the
change of the caption that the Judge now orders.  The Plaintiffs
also withdrew their second claim (unjust enrichment) entirely.
Accordingly, what remains for decision by the Court at this time
are (i) whether the First Claim sufficiently states a claim for
tax fraud on behalf of M. Thornton (and the purported class); and
(ii) whether the Fifth Claim sufficiently states a claim regarding
the lack of breaks on behalf of Kindell (and the purported class).

Having studied the several district cases, Judge Jackson is
persuaded by the thorough examination of the issue and reasoning
of Judge Ellis in Liverett v. Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions
LLC, as were the three district courts that decided the issue
subsequent to Liverett (Jayo Vera, Derolf and Tran).  The
Plaintiffs rely on pre-Liverett cases that did not have the
benefit of Judge Ellis' analysis and, respectfully, did not in
Judge Jackson's view examine the language of 26 U.S.C. Section
7434(a), the context provided by Sections 7434(e) and (f), and the
legislative history in the same depth.  Therefore, although he
finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that
misclassification of Ms. Thornton as an independent contractor was
willful, the Judge nevertheless concludes that the Plaintiffs have
not stated a claim of tax fraud in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section
7434(a) as a matter of law.

Even were plaintiffs confined to a suit to recover the unpaid
balance of a minimum wage, Judge Jackson would not grant the
motion.  Front Range points out that the Plaintiffs have not pled
that Ms. Kindell was not paid for the hours she worked.  The Judge
agrees.  But because she was (allegedly) denied reasonable rest
periods, for which she would have been paid, she effectively
provided the equivalent number of minutes of work to Front Range
without additional compensation.  That was essentially the
conclusion in Lozoya v. AllPhase Landscape Construction, Inc.  The
Defendants disagree with Judge Kane's reasoning and holding in
that case.  Judge Jackson does not.

For these reasons, Judge Jackson granted in part, mooted in part
and denied in part the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss.  The
Judge granted it as to the Plaintiffs' First Claim (tax fraud)
which is dismissed with prejudice.  It is mooted as to the
Plaintiffs' Second Claim (unjust enrichment) which the Plaintiffs
have withdrawn.  It is denied as to Plaintiffs' Fifth Claim (lack
of breaks during the workday).

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/vLSnHi from Leagle.com.

John Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Gary M. Kramer, Gary
Kramer Law, LLC.

Abby Kindell, Plaintiff, represented by Gary M. Kramer, Gary
Kramer Law, LLC.

Mityah Thornton, Plaintiff, represented by Gary M. Kramer, Gary
Kramer Law, LLC.

Terrance Thornton, Plaintiff, represented by Gary M. Kramer, Gary
Kramer Law, LLC.

Front Range Transportation LLC, Defendant, represented by Bradley
John Sherman, Cornish & Dell'Olio.

Corey Watson, Defendant, represented by Bradley John Sherman,
Cornish & Dell'Olio.


GEL SPICE: Court Partly Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Olsen, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California ordered to
grant in part and deny in part a motion to dismiss and strike
filed by Gel Spice Co. Inc. and Big Lots Stores Inc. over the
allegedly high lead content in turmeric products.

The suit, brought by plaintiff Pamela Caudle, stems from turmeric
powder manufactured by Gel Spice and distributed by Big Lots that
allegedly contained high amounts of lead.  The court's opinion was
written by Judge Jeffrey S. White.

According to the court's July 21 order, in July 2016, Gel Spice
recalled the product after a third-party test concluded there was
high levels of lead.

The plaintiff claims that the company broke its website's promise
of offering high-quality products and as a result she now claims
punitive damages.

The first amended complaint filed by Caudle listed three causes of
action, including violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability and unfair
competition.  The defendants quickly moved to dismiss the suit
stating a lack of Article III standing and failure to state a
claim.

Regarding the motion to strike, the court granted in part due to
the plaintiff's overbroad class definition but denied in part as
it was determined she had adequately plead commonality, typicality
and predominance requirements.

Additionally, the court granted the defendant's argument to
dismiss the implied warranty claim against Big Lots but denied the
same claim for Gel Spice.

In addition to the order, the court made a point of addressing the
conduct of the defendants in the suit.  The conclusion of the
order states that counsel for the defendants did not argue the
validity or merit of the plaintiff's complaint but rather argued
that the attorneys had misrepresented the law.

The court determined the defendants' argument to be "at best
unhelpful," and that "accusations of dishonesty on the part of
opposing counsel should be reserved for those instances where the
record clearly supports the charge, and not used as a mere
rhetorical flourish." The court warned the defendants that the
behavior would not be tolerated in the future.

Caudle will have an opportunity to amend her complaint around the
granted motions. [GN]


HERBALIFE: Faces Class Action in Florida
----------------------------------------
ValueWalk reports that a class action complaint was filed on Sept.
18 in Florida.  Bears opine, that one main difference between this
class action and the Bostick class action -- and even the FTC
complaint -- is that several individual, high-level Herbalife
distributors are named as defendants.  Those people are going to
have to retain counsel and figure out how much they want to fight.
Some may be tempted to enter into early settlements where they
might agree to provide plaintiffs with documents and information
that can be used against the company.

Herbalife will either distance itself from those distributors or
take over their defense.  So they'll either be condemning their
conduct or endorsing it.  Other high level distributors will have
to worry about whether they will be added to the lawsuit.

The other big difference between this and Bostick is the new
complaint alleges a RICO conspiracy -- a corrupt enterprise
consisting of the company and many top distributors -- and it
alleges that their sales-event methods violate the FTC order as
well as other fraud statutes.

A copy of the complaint is available at https://is.gd/K5kPhk
[GN]


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Court Grants Bid to Stay Medicine To Go Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Steele of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division, granted the
Defendant's Motion to Stay the case captioned MEDICINE TO GO
PHARMACIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-0310-WS-MU (S.D. Ala.).

The case is one of two putative nationwide class actions pending
in this District Court against Impax and alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act based on Impax's purported
transmission of unsolicited fax advertisements.  The earlier of
the two actions is styled Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC v. Impax
Laboratories, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-0053-WS-MU, and was filed
in this District Court on Jan. 30, 2017.  The case at bar, by
contrast, was initially filed by Medicine to Go in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 14, 2017,
and was subsequently transferred to this District Court for
consolidation with the Family Medicine Action.

Less than three weeks after the transfer was completed, however,
and before any consolidation of the two matters had taken place,
the parties to the Family Medicine Action announced on July 24,
2017 that they had reached an agreement in principle regarding
class settlement, including the total settlement fund and amount
of attorney's fees, at a mediation session in Birmingham.

In light of that development, Judge Steele announced in an Order
dated July 24, 2017 that the Court will not sua sponte consolidate
these two cases pursuant to Rule 42(a).  Last week, Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class was filed in the
Family Medicine Action.  The Motion for Preliminary Approval
remains pending before the undersigned at this time.

Impax filed a Motion to Stay the action, reasoning that Medicine
to Go is a member of the Family Medicine settlement class, that
moving forward with the Medicine to Go Action in these
circumstances would result in duplicative litigation and
purposeless discovery, and that Medicine to Go would not be harmed
by a stay because it would still have a full and fair opportunity
to evaluate the settlement and decide whether to opt out of it or
object to it.

In response, Medicine to Go balks that it has been unable to
determine whether it is a member of the Family Medicine settlement
class and has not had a full and fair opportunity to evaluate the
settlement.  Nonetheless, Medicine to Go indicates that it does
not oppose Impax's Motion to Stay provided that it is permitted an
opportunity to obtain discovery regarding the settlement and to
determine whether its class claims are encompassed by the
settlement.

In the exercise of his discretion, Judge Steele granted the
Defendant's Motion to Stay.  The action is stayed until 14 days
after a ruling on the motion for preliminary approval in the
Family Medicine Action, at which time the stay will be lifted and
Medicine to Go will be ordered to notify the Court and Impax
within a reasonable time as to whether it intends to proceed with
this action or not.  Medicine to Go's request for discovery in the
interim concerning the scope and terms of the Family Medicine
Action settlement is denied as unnecessary.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/dthnnz from Leagle.com.

Medicine To Go Pharmacies, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew
T. Thomasson, pro hac vice.

Medicine To Go Pharmacies, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
Edelman -- dedelman@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs, Latturner,
Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice, Dulijaza Clark -- jclark@edcombs.com -
- Edelman, Combs, Latturner, Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice, Micah
Stephen Adkins, The Adkins Firm & Philip D. Stern, Stern Thomasson
LLP, pro hac vice.

Impax Laboratories, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sidney Stewart
Haskins, II -- shaskins@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, LLP, pro hac
vice, Zachary A. McEntyre -- zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- King &
Spalding, LLP, pro hac vice & M. Warren Butler --
wbutler@starneslaw.com -- Starnes Davis Florie LLP.


JODAT LAW: Faces "Hinkle" Suit in Middle District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jodat Law Group,
P.A.  The case is styled as Jayne Hinkle, on her own behalf, and
on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
Jodat Law Group, P.A., a Florida Profit Corporation and Gary
Jodat, individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02255-CEH-TBM
(M.D. Fla., September 28, 2017).
Jodat Law Group, P.A. represent the rights of people with personal
injuries caused in auto accidents and other negligence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, Tampa P.A.
   7th Floor
   One Tampa City Center
   201 N Franklin Street
   Tampa, FL 33602-5157
   Tel: (813) 223-5505
   Fax: (813) 257-0572
   Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Files Motions to Discard $417MM Talc Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that Johnson &
Johnson has filed motions asking a Los Angeles trial court to
discard a record $417 million verdict in a talcum powder products
liability case.

In its court papers J&J said a new trial was needed partly because
of alleged misconduct of jurors in the deliberations room.  The
verdict was handed up on a 9-3 vote.

A Sept. 15 motion for new trial cites "jury misconduct" and
"irregularities in the proceedings" among the list of reasons for
overturning the verdict -- the largest so far to come out of
lawsuits alleging Johnson & Johnson's baby powder caused women to
get ovarian cancer.

"The jury's misconduct confirms the need for a new trial on all
issues," wrote Johnson & Johnson attorney Bart Williams, a partner
at Proskauer Rose in Los Angeles in the motion, which includes
declarations from two of the three jurors who sided with Johnson &
Johnson, including the foreman.  "It shows that passion and
prejudice tainted the verdict."

The motion provides an inside glimpse into the normally secretive
discussions that go on in the jury room: By Friday night, jurors
were at an impasse following two days of deliberations and
"passions were running high."  One juror even turned her chair
away from the table and began writing a letter to the judge,
stating "she no longer wanted to participate," according to the
foreman's declaration.  Another angry juror "said we had no choice
but to reach a verdict," according to the declaration of a second
juror.

By Monday morning, the jury had reached a vote for the plaintiff
but -- in violation of the jury's instructions and Johnson &
Johnson's due process rights, the motion says -- the three
holdouts were left out of the discussions over damages.  One juror
siding with the plaintiff "angrily said that those of us who had
favored the defense should not participate in the discussion of
damages," according to the second juror's declaration.

The nine other jurors then proceeded to include improper costs
into their calculation of $70 million in noneconomic damages, such
as attorney fees and taxes -- then based the amount on Johnson &
Johnson's net worth, according to the motion and the two juror
declarations.

Apart from what transpired in the jury room, Johnson & Johnson
also argued that the award, which also included $347 million in
punitive damages, was excessive.  It blamed plaintiffs attorneys'
statements during the trial, improper evidence and an expert whose
findings should have been excluded.

"The size of the verdict, contrasted with the serious deficiencies
in the evidence offered at trial, raise a broader concern about
runaway juries imposing staggering liability based on speculative
science -- a concern that is amplified by the fact that this is
only one of more than a thousand talc-related cases pending
nationwide," Mr. Williams wrote.  "The verdict is seriously flawed
in so many respects that it cries out for this court's
intervention."

In addition to a motion for new trial, Johnson & Johnson on Sept.
15 filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict that
argued there was not enough evidence at trial to demonstrate that
Eva Echeverria's use of talcum powder caused her to be diagnosed
with ovarian cancer in 2007 or that Johnson & Johnson failed to
warn about known risks.  The evidence at trial also failed to
support malice on the part of any of its executives, the motion
says.

A Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman did not respond to a request for
comment.

Plaintiffs attorney Mark Robinson, of Robinson Calcagnie Inc. in
Newport Beach, California, declined to comment beyond stating,
"We're looking at their brief and our response is due Monday."  He
previously credited the jury's punitive damages award to his
team's presentation of internal documents dating back to 1964 that
showed Johnson & Johnson knew its product had health risks.

The Aug. 21 verdict is the latest to come out of the talcum powder
litigation, which involves thousands of women with claims
primarily in Missouri, New Jersey and California. Previous
verdicts, all in Missouri, have totaled $300 million in awards,
the highest of which was $110 million.

At the start of the California trial, Mr. Williams objected
numerous times during plaintiffs attorney Allen Smith's opening
statement.  He even moved for a mistrial based on how Smith, of
The Smith Law Firm in Ridgeland, Mississippi, described the
California standard for negligent failure to warn, one of two
causes of action in the case.

In its motion for new trial, Johnson & Johnson said those same
misstatements likely confused the jury.

"While that argument may appeal to a jury's sympathies that
companies should, out of an abundance of caution, provide warnings
for any possible risk, it is not the law," Mr. Williams wrote.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Probes Pennsylvania Connections
--------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the judge overseeing pelvic mesh mass tort litigation said the New
Jersey-based defendant may have had a "strong" relationship with a
Pennsylvania mesh-manufacturer, but he questioned whether that
relationship would be enough to allow the Keystone State to retain
jurisdiction over 90 pelvic mesh cases involving out-of-state
plaintiffs.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Arnold New heard
arguments on Sept. 13 over whether the U.S. Supreme Court decision
in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California meant 90
out-of-state plaintiffs suing New Jersey-based medical device
company Ethicon will have their cases tossed from the mass tort
program, leaving just 30 pelvic mesh cases pending in
Philadelphia.

The Bristol-Myers Squibb decision, which has been characterized as
a game-changing decision by some, made clear that out-of-state
plaintiffs can't sue companies where the defendants aren't
considered to be "at home," or haven't conducted business directly
linked to the claimed injury.

That ruling hinged on the relationship between drugmaker Bristol-
Myers Squibb and McKesson Corp., a California drug distributor.
The plaintiffs had argued that, because McKesson distributed
Plavix, the drug at issue in the case, California had jurisdiction
over hundreds of Plavix-related claims.  However, the justices
determined the relationship between McKesson and Bristol-Myers
Squibb was not adequate to establish jurisdiction in the Golden
State.

Since that ruling came out in June, numerous defendants have
pointed to Bristol-Myers and asked courts to toss out-of-state
plaintiffs from mass tort programs in state courts across the
country.

In the pelvic mesh program, plaintiffs have pointed to the fact
that Secant, a Pennsylvania-based company, manufactured the
plastic mesh materials used in the mesh implants as the basis for
their argument that jurisdiction is proper in Pennsylvania even
though the main defendant, Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon,
is based in New Jersey.

Early in the nearly 90-minute hearing on Sept. 13, Judge New asked
Drinker Biddle & Reath attorney Alicia Hickok to discuss Ethicon's
relationship with Secant in comparison to Bristol-Myers Squibb's
relationship with McKesson.

"Your honor, it's a different relationship," Ms. Hickok said.
"I agree," Judge New cut in.  "It's a stronger relationship."

However, Ms. Hickok said the relationship needs to go directly to
the causes of action each plaintiff has alleged in their lawsuit.

In the case of the pelvic mesh plaintiffs, those causes of action
are defective design and failure to warn, but Ms. Hickok noted
that those decisions and related regulatory submissions were all
conducted by Ethicon executives in New Jersey.

"These were not responsibilities as to people who were in
Pennsylvania," Ms. Hickok said.  Using a roll of mesh manufactured
in Pennsylvania "is not enough to say the cause of action arises
out of it."

Ms. Hickok also noted that Secant was previously dismissed as a
defendant in the pelvic mesh litigation, but New seemed dismissive
of that argument, noting the prior ruling regarding Secant hinged
on issues arising out of the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act.

"That's an entirely different definition than would be applicable
to what's before us today, which is jurisdiction," Judge New said.
[GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Awards $57.1MM Damages in Ebaugh Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
Philadelphia jury has handed up a $57.1 million verdict against
Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon after a trial over
allegations that its transvaginal mesh product was defective.
The jury award, handed up on Sept. 7 in Ebaugh v. Ethicon, was
composed of $7.1 million in compensatory damages and $50 million
in punitive damages.

According to a review of The Legal's archives, the verdict is a
record award for the pelvic mesh program in Philadelphia, which
has seen several multimillion-dollar verdicts since the first
pelvic-mesh-related case was tried in late 2015.  The verdict is
more than twice the second-largest award out of the program, a $20
million verdict a jury handed up in May.

The case was tried by Kline & Specter attorneys Kila Baldwin --
Kila.Baldwin@KlineSpecter.com -- Tracie Palmer --
Tracie.Palmer@KlineSpecter.com -- and Elia Robertson.

"I am pleased the jury recognized the recklessness of J&J and I
hope the company takes notice of the verdict and adjusts its
practices accordingly," Ms. Baldwin said in a statement.

A spokeswoman for Ethicon said the company plans to appeal.
"We believe the evidence showed Ethicon's TVT and TVT-Secur
devices were properly designed, Ethicon acted appropriately and
responsibly in the research, development and marketing of the
products, and the products were not the cause of the plaintiff's
continuing medical problems," Kristen Wallace said in an emailed
statement.

Kat Gallagher -- kgallagher@beckredden.com -- of Beck Redden tried
the case for Ethicon.

The trial lasted about a month, and the jury deliberated for more
about two days, according to Ms. Baldwin.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael Erdos presided
over the trial.

More than 100 cases are pending in Philadelphia's pelvic mesh mass
tort program. J&J, however, has recently stepped up efforts to
have those cases removed from Philadelphia based on a U.S. Supreme
Court ruling from June that some have described as "game-changing"
for mass tort programs.

That Supreme Court's decision, which came in the case Bristol-
Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, made clear that out-
of-state plaintiffs can't sue companies in states where the
defendants aren't considered to be "at home," or haven't conducted
business directly linked to the claimed injury.
That ruling is not likely to factor into Ebaugh, as plaintiff Ella
Ebaugh is a Pennsylvania resident, according to court papers.

According to Ebaugh's pretrial memo, she is in her 50s and was
diagnosed with urinary incontinence in 2005.  In 2007, she had
TVT-Secur mesh installed, but, after she reported that it did not
provide any relief, a second device was implanted about two months
later.  According to the memo, over the following few years, that
device eroded through her urethra on three occasions, requiring
three revision surgeries between 2011 and 2016. [GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Postpones Hip Implant Bellwether Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that a Dallas
federal judge has delayed a planned Sept. 5 hip implant trial
after a split federal appeals panel requested that he halt the
proceedings due to his own "grave error."

Here's a breakdown of the Fifth Circuit's decision:
Judge Jerry Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit and Judge Edith Jones, both Ronald Reagan appointees,
found that Kinkeade abused his discretion in finding that Johnson
& Johnson had waived venue for all trials in the Pinnacle MDL.
"That was grave error," Judge Smith wrote.  Addressing an issue of
first impression, he wrote that a Lexecon waiver must be "clear
and unambiguous."

But Judge Smith and Judge Jones parted on whether to grant
mandamus.  Judge Jones opted to do so.  "There are numerous
ongoing ramifications of the court's erroneous decision that harm
not only these petitioners but, importantly, the plaintiffs in
these 9,000+ cases," she wrote.  "For the remaining thousands, the
goal of the bellwether process will have been perverted by
unreliable judgments, delayed by the appeals, and undermined when
those judgments are reversed."  But Judge Smith sided with Circuit
Judge Gregg Costa, a Barack Obama appointee, that Johnson &
Johnson's petition shouldn't be granted because it could raise the
matter in an appeal of a potential verdict in the fourth
bellwether trial.

Judge Costa added that the panel shouldn't even have decided the
merits of Johnson & Johnson's petition.  "After being told by a
court of appeals that it reached a 'patently erroneous' result,
what district court is going to go forward with the trial
petitioners are trying to prevent?" he wrote.  He also raised
concerns that the majority's holding on venue gives "more power in
the hands of appellate judges rather than the trial judge who has
lived with the case for six years and knows the ins and outs of
the parties' representations." [GN]


KRAFT HEINZ: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin entered a summary judgment in the
Defendant's favor in the case captioned RICHARD GRUSS, PEGGY COOK,
GERALD HERMANSON, for themselves and all persons similarly
situated, and UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKER'SLOCAL UNION 538,
Plaintiffs, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, INC., Defendant, No. 15-
cv-788-wmc (W.D. Wis.).

The Defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation, with deep, historic
operations in this judicial district, including a prominent meat
processing plant in Madison, Wisconsin, where food products were
made and sold under the "Oscar Mayer" brand name, though the
factory has now closed.

The Individual Plaintiffs were hourly employees at the Oscar Mayer
plant until they retired.  While employed at the Oscar Mayer
plant, each was represented for purposes of collective bargaining
by Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Worker's Local Union 538,
and the terms and conditions of employment for each were governed
by a series of collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") between
the Union and Kraft.

In light of the timing of their retirements, the Named Plaintiffs'
claims are governed by different CBAs.  Because Hermanson retired
Sept. 1, 1990, the 1989 CBA governs his claims.  In contrast,
Gruss retired Oct. 1, 2002, making the 2000 CBA operative for his
claims.  Finally, Eldon Cook retired on May 1, 2008, meaning the
2004 CBA governs the claims of his wife Peggy.

In this putative class action, the Named Plaintiffs and the Union
allege that the Defendant violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") when it terminated retiree health
care benefits.  The Defendant originally filed a motion to dismiss
arguing that the health care benefits at issue were not vested
rights, and therefore the Plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a
claim for relief.  In an earlier opinion, the Court converted that
motion to a motion for summary judgment, while providing the
Plaintiffs an opportunity to conduct discovery and then directing
the parties to meet the court's filing obligations for such a
motion.

The three Individual Plaintiffs seek to represent a class
consisting of all former Local 538-represented employees who are
participants in the Kraft retiree health and prescription drug
insurance plans and who are age 65 and older.

Judge Conley finds that the ultimate, substantive issue in the
case is whether the Plaintiffs' claimed health care benefits
survived the termination of the CBAs.  As a question of contract
interpretation, the answer is a matter of law absent some
ambiguity in the CBA and plan documents.

In their proposed findings of facts, the Plaintiffs point to a
course of conduct in an effort to demonstrate vested benefits.
Largely through the declaration of the current Union President,
Douglas Leikness, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant
consistently recognized this right over 25 years when it agreed to
rescind changes made by third parties to these benefits.  As the
Plaintiffs acknowledge, however, this evidence constitutes
extrinsic evidence that the Court could only consider if there
were an ambiguity in the contract or related documents.  Having
found none, Judge Conley is compelled, as a matter of contract
interpretation and ERISA, to conclude that none of the plan
documents vest health care benefits past the respective
termination dates of each of the three CBAs at issue.

With the benefit of an evidentiary record -- particularly,
authenticated collective bargaining agreements that set forth the
scope of the three Named Plaintiffs' benefits -- the Judge
concludes as a matter of binding caselaw interpreting ERISA that
the Plaintiffs have no vested right to health care benefits upon
retirement.

Accordingly, Judge Conley granted the Defendant's converted motion
for summary judgment; denied the Defendant's motion to strike
Leikness declaration; granted the Plaintiffs' motion to file reply
to the Defendant's response to their proposed findings of facts;
and denied as moot the Defendant's motion for leave to file
supplemental authority.  The clerk of court is directed to enter
judgment in the Defendant's favor and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/mah6MO from Leagle.com.

Richard Gruss, Plaintiff, represented by Kurt C. Kobelt, Law
Offices of Kurt C. Kobelt.

Peggy Cook, Plaintiff, represented by Kurt C. Kobelt, Law Offices
of Kurt C. Kobelt.

Gerald Hermanson, Plaintiff, represented by Kurt C. Kobelt, Law
Offices of Kurt C. Kobelt.

United Food and Commercial Worker's Local Union 538, Plaintiff,
represented by Kurt C. Kobelt, Law Offices of Kurt C. Kobelt.

Kraft Heinz Food Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bernard
J. Bobber -- bbobber@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP & Kimberly
Jones -- kimberly.jones@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins.


LG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Feinberg" Suit in District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LG ELECTRONICS
U.S.A., INC. The case is captioned as DANIEL FEINBERG, JOHN
MCBRIDE, SYLVESTER SCARBOROUGH, DAVID LOW, and ROBERTA SCHIFF,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-06931-CCC-SCM (D.N.J., Sep. 11, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi.

LG Electronics manufactures and sells home appliances,
entertainment products and mobile communications products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642 8500
          E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com


LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS: Class Settlement Has Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon,
Portland Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for
Final Approval of the Proposed Class Settlement in the case
captioned JESUS VILLANUEVA, JR., et al., Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY
ACQUISITIONS SERVICING, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 3:14-
CV-01610-HZ (Lead Case), 3:15-CV-02354-HZ (Trailing Case)(D.
Ore.).

On May 8, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
proposed Settlement between Representative Plaintiff and
Defendants Liberty Acquisitions Servicing, LLC ("LAS"), Liberty
Holdings, LLC ("Holdings"), Javlin One, LLC ("Javlin One") and
Javlin Capital, LLC ("Javlin Capital") (Javlin One and Javlin
Capital collectively, "Javlin Parties") (LAS, Holdings and Javlin
Parties collectively, "Defendants").

The proposed Settlement resolves all of the Class's claims against
Defendants in exchange for LAS' agreement to pay certain amounts
to eligible Class Members as set forth in the Agreement. On
September 14, 2017, this Court held a fairness hearing to consider
whether to grant final approval to the Settlement and to consider
Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
costs, and for payment of a Class Representative Service Award to
the Representative Plaintiff. The Court heard argument from
counsel. No other individuals elected to appear to voice their
support for, or objection to, the Settlement and/or the Fee
Application.

The Court approves the Settlement and finds the Settlement is, in
all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, within
the authority of the parties, and the result of extensive arm's
length negotiations with the guidance of an experienced mediator.

The Court confirms the Class, as defined in the Court's Order
Granting Class Certification and as described in the Settlement
Agreement, has been appropriately identified by the parties.

As payment in compensation for the time, effort, and risk he
undertook as representatives of the Class, the Court awards
$9,000.00 to Jesus Villanueva, Jr.

The Court approves Class Counsel's Fee and Cost Application and
awards to Class Counsel fees and costs in the total aggregate
amount of $600,000.00.  All these fees are in lieu of statutory
fees that Representative Plaintiff and/or the Class might
otherwise have been entitled to recover.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybe82rhxfrom Leagle.com.

Jesus Villanueva, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Keil M. Mueller -
- kmueller@stollberne.com -- Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter
P.C..

Jesus Villanueva, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Kelly D. Jones,
Kelly D. Jones, Attorney at Law, 819 SE Morrison St #255,
Portland, OR 97214, USA & Joshua L. Ross -- jross@stollberne.com -
- Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter, PC.

Liberty Acquisitions Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey I. Hasson, Hasson Law, LLC.

Liberty Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel C.
Peterson -- dpeterson@cosgravelaw.com -- Cosgrave Vergeer Kester,
LLP & Robert E. Sabido -- rsabido@cosgravelaw.com -- Cosgrave
Vergeer Kester, LLP.

Javlin One, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Buescher --
Brian.Buescher@KutakRock.com -- Kutak Rock LLP, pro hac vice &
Jonathan Mark Radmacher -- jonathanr@mcewengivold.com -- McEwen
Gisvold LLP.

Javlin Capital, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Buescher,
Kutak Rock LLP, pro hac vice & Jonathan Mark Radmacher, McEwen
Gisvold LLP.


MAC'S CONVENIENCE: Temporary Foreign Workers' Class Action Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charmaine de Silva, writing for CKNW, reports that a class-action
lawsuit brought forward by a group of temporary foreign workers
has been certified against Mac's Convenience Stores and several
immigration companies.

The workers say they paid recruitment fees and were promised jobs,
but when they arrived in Canada were left high and dry.

The class-action suit certified in B.C. Supreme Court covers
temporary foreign workers who made payments to Overseas
Immigration Services Inc., Overseas Career and Consulting Services
Ltd., and/or Trident Immigration Services Ltd., and then received
contracts to work at Mac's stores in B.C., Alberta, the Northwest
Territories, and Saskatchewan.

Lawyer Susanna Quail -- saquail@aqwlaw.ca -- who represents the
migrant workers, said the certification is important because it
gives a voice to a vulnerable group of people who arrived in
Canada with no support or access to help.

"Many people affected in this particular lawsuit ended up, for
example, living in homeless shelters."

Quail said they want fees paid by the migrants to be returned, to
be reimbursed for travel, and for wages they didn't receive.

"Each individual migrant worker who was affected by this
particular scam doesn't have the resources to pursue legal action,
but when you bring -- we say there's up to about 450 of them --
when you bring all of them together, then it's at a scale where
there is the possibility to take this forward and justice to all
of those individuals," said Ms. Quail.

Natalie Drolet, Executive Director and Staff Lawyer with West
Coast Domestic Workers' Association said the certification of this
case is a victory for all Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada.

"Cases like this have the ability to send a strong message to
employers if they engage in these kinds of illegal recruitment
activities."

The lawsuit still needs to be argued on its merits, and a trial
date has not been set.

Lawyer Andrew Borrell -- aborrell@fasken.com -- who represents
Mac's Convenience Stores, said it's too early to comment, but
notes his client in in the process of carefully reviewing the
decision. [GN]


MAGIC MOUNTAIN: Miranda et al. Sue over Debit Card Transactions
---------------------------------------------------------------
IRENE MIRANDA, ELIZABETH ALVARADO, ELVIN ALVARADO, JOSE
RAUL TURCIOS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MAGIC MOUNTAIN LLC, a California
limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No.BC675685 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 11, 2017),
seeks to recover statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees, and a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants
from continuing their unlawful practice of willfully violating
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act's provisions intended to
safeguard against identity theft and credit and debit card fraud.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants accepted credit and debit
cards from customers to make purchases at its theme parks.
Plaintiffs each used a debit or credit card to make a purchase at
one or more of Defendants' theme parks in August, 2017. More than
the last five digits of their credit or debit card numbers were
printed on the receipts generated and provided to them at the
point of sale. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants printed more
than the last five digits of credit and/or debit cards on receipts
provided to their customers for transactions since at least August
2012.

Defendants have owned and/or operated one or more theme parks in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
          Sepideh Ardestani, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101
          Calabasas, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 703 8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703 8984
          E-mail: ken@gaineslawfirm.com
                  daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
                  alex@gaineslawfirm.com
                  sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 91403
          Telephone: (415) 543 1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543 7861
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com


MGM MIRAGE: Approval of $75MM Deal in Securities Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re: MGM MIRAGE SECURITIES LITIGATION.
LUZERNE COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM; PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF PENSIONS
AND RETIREMENT; ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM; STICHTING
PENSIOENFONDS METAAL EN TECHNIEK, Lead Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. NICKOLAS A. KACPROWSKI, Objector-Appellant, v. MGM
MIRAGE, AKA MGM Resorts International; JAMES J. MURREN; DANIEL J.
D'ARRIGO; ROBERT C. BALDWIN; DEBORAH HOWER LANNI, Co-Executor of
the Estate of J. Terrence Lanni, Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-
15534 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
issued a memorandum affirming the district court's approval of a
$75 million settlement in a securities fraud class action related
to a construction on the Las Vegas strip.

Objector Kacprowski appeals the district court's approval of a $75
million settlement in a securities fraud class action related to a
construction on the Las Vegas strip.

The extensive notice efforts of the claims administrator, Gilardi
& Co. LLC, satisfied the requirements of due process and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2).  The parties sought and obtained
a continuance of the settlement hearing and an extension of the
deadlines to permit more time for absent class members to receive
notice, opt out, object, and submit their claims.  The Court
concludes that these procedures gave sufficient time and adequate
notice to all class members whose names and addresses may be
ascertained through reasonable effort, and provided the best
practicable notice under the circumstances.

The Court finds that the district court did not clearly abuse its
discretion in approving the settlement.  The parties reached a
settlement after extensive negotiations before a nationally
recognized mediator, retired U.S. District Judge Layn R. Phillips.
Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in approving the
allocation plan, which set a minimum threshold of $10 to receive a
distribution from the settlement fund.  It was not clearly
erroneous for the district court to find that issuing very small
checks to class members would cause a disproportionate
administrative expense to the fund because of the costs of mailing
the checks, tracking and accounting for each payment, following up
on uncashed checks, and reissuing checks not cashed during their
valid periods.  The district court properly relied on
uncontroverted evidence showing that smaller checks, such as those
under $10, in many instances are never cashed.  In addition, the
court cited numerous cases that have approved similar or higher
minimum thresholds.

Lastly, the Court finds that the district court did not abuse its
broad discretion in awarding class counsel the benchmark award of
25% of the settlement fund as attorneys' fees.  There were no
special circumstances indicating that the 25% benchmark award was
either too small or too large.

Accordingly, for these reasons, the Court affirmed the district
court's approval of a $75 million settlement.  The Objector will
bear all costs of appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/kGw7oE from Leagle.com.


MURPHY OIL: Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Arbitration Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ceilidh Gao, writing for Newsweek, reports that credit giant
Equifax, after suffering a massive data breach, drew public fury
for offering consumers an identity theft monitoring service -- but
only if they signed away their right to join class action lawsuits
against the company.

People were rightfully outraged -- but soon the Supreme Court will
decide whether your boss can to do the same thing to you.

Soon, the Supreme Court will hear Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis -- a
landmark case to be decided with two other cases raising the same
issue -- to rule on whether employers can forbid class actions and
force you into individual arbitration.

Most of us couldn't say what an arbitration clause is, but they
have become very popular among corporations and have grave
consequences for workers. In the last 30 years, wealthy
corporations have quietly rigged the rules against working people
by burying forced arbitration clauses into routine paperwork.

How does this work? Let's say it's your first day at a new job,
and you sign a stack of forms, or maybe a manual from human
resources.  Most of us don't think twice about it; for the average
American in need of a job, negotiating isn't an option. But buried
in the fine print is a forced arbitration clause that you have
unknowingly signed.

These clauses take away your day in court should a dispute arise
with your employer. Instead of a jury of your peers or an
impartial judge, the decisionmaker in arbitration proceedings is
often an individual hired by the company.  The company also writes
the rules--for example, deadlines, fees, and whether or not you're
on the hook for the company's legal fees if you lose.  And the
decisions made in forced arbitration proceedings are final --
meaning in most cases they can't be appealed in a court of law.

Unsurprisingly, studies show that workers win less frequently and
receive lower awards when they are forced to go to arbitration.
Arbitrators have reported that they feel pressure to rule for the
company -- after all, it's the company who signs the paychecks and
decides whether the arbitrator is going to get hired again.

In a court where your opponent writes the rules and you can't
appeal the outcome, is it really court at all?

When Sheila Hobson -- an employee at a Murphy Oil gas station in
Calera, Alabama and a party in the upcoming Supreme Court case--
realized she was getting ripped off by her employer, she decided
to do something about it.  Ms. Hobson joined together with three
other Murphy Oil employees to sue the company, alleging that
Murphy Oil had shorted them on overtime and forced them to work
off the clock, in violation of federal law.

Ms. Hobson and her coworkers expected to have their day in court,
but because Murphy Oil had made Ms. Hobson and the other workers
sign forced arbitration clauses upon hiring, the company demanded
that they drop their group complaint and enter into individual
arbitrations.  The workers demanded that they be able to bring
their cases together -- not in individual arbitrations -- which
set their case on the path to the Supreme Court.

The "individual" case requirement is key to seeing the real
injustice behind forced arbitration.  In the consumer context,
this can mean that companies can effectively pick the pockets of
thousands of customers, with no legal recourse.

When a credit card company steals $250 from each customer, it's
hard to imagine any one person spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars to pursue an individual case.  Likewise, individual
workers like Ms. Hobson might not be owed much on an individual
basis, making it difficult if not impossible for them to seek
justice if they can't join together with coworkers.

Class actions exist for this very reason, so that regular people
can pool their small claims and get a lawyer to take the case.
Without this option, companies are essentially free to steal
millions of dollars -- so long as they only steal a little from
each person.

Like many of us, Ms. Hobson was starting a job and signed a few
forms with fine print.  Let's hope that when the Supreme Court
hears oral arguments on the case on October 2, the Justices will
side with regular working people like Ms. Hobson, not with the big
bosses and corporations who want to use the fine print to rig the
rules against the rest of us. [GN]


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Judge Appoints Expert to Look Into Attorney Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the judge overseeing the National Football League's $1 billion
concussion settlement has appointed an expert to look into the
reasonableness of attorney fees in the case.

U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on Sept. 14 appointed Harvard Law School professor
William Rubenstein to provide an expert opinion on whether the
court should cap the percentage of recovery any class member would
be required to pay his attorney.  Judge Brody's order also asked
Rubenstein to consider how high or low the cap should be, weigh
the reasonableness of requiring class members to pay 5 percent of
their recoveries to the common benefit fund, and how to avoid any
question of "double-dipping."

Earlier this year, class counsel asked Judge Brody to set aside
$112.5 million for attorney fees and costs stemming from the $1
billion settlement intended to compensate about 20,000 former
players suffering from concussion-related injuries.  The NFL has
agreed to pay the money in addition to the money for the class
members.

Judge Brody's order said that she, and not Mr. Rubenstein, will
make the final decision on the size of the fund.

Mr. Rubenstein's report is due Dec. 1 under Judge Brody's order,
and the parties will be given a chance to comment in writing.

Christopher Seeger of Seeger Weiss and Sol Weiss of Anapol Weiss,
who are lead counsel for plaintiffs in the matter, each did not
return a call seeking comment.

Lubel Voyles attorney Lance Lubel in Houston objected to
Rubenstein's appointment, saying his resume and disclosures showed
he had performed work as an expert on behalf of Anapol Weiss in
the litigation.

On Sept. 15, Mr. Lubel said he was "surprised" by Rubenstein's
appointment.

"I really thought the court would find somebody else," he said,
adding that he's considering filing for reconsideration.

In a footnote, Judge Brody said Mr. Rubenstein disclosed that
Anapol Weiss had paid him to attend and speak at a meeting of
plaintiffs lawyers, but Rubenstein said he had no further
involvement in the matter since that date.

The footnote said parties will be able to "pursue any concerns
that professor Mr. Rubenstein's attendance at this meeting biased
his opinions."

The attorney fee issue is one of several disputes that have arisen
in recent months in the concussion litigation.

Class counsel made a fee request in February, and several
objections were quickly lodged.

In February, Mr. Lubel filed a motion for a group of roughly 30
former players saying the fee request was premature.

"If unilaterally decided which attorneys are 'entitled' to an
award of fees, the decision has not been communicated to this
court or to the counsel involved," the motion said.

A group of four Florida firms called the Neurocognitive Football
Lawyers PLLC also filed an objection to attorney liens in nearly
200 cases, saying the liens were filed by attorneys who had
previously represented their former clients, but had done little
to no work.

The filing lists The Holliday Karatinos Law Firm, Gibbs & Parnell,
Jeff Murphy Law, and The Yerrid Law Firm as the firms making up
the Neurocognitive Football Lawyers. [GN]


NATIONAL CONSUMER: Faces "Albritton" Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Consumer
Telecom & Utilities Exchange, Inc. The case is captioned as Judy
Albritton and Ronald Albritton, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. National Consumer
Telecom & Utilities Exchange, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-03481-WSD-RGV (N.D. Ga., Sep. 11, 2017). The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.

National Consumer is a credit reporting agency.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifton Dorsen, Esq.
          James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR AND FEAGLE
          2374 Main Street, Suite B
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Telephone: (404) 373 1978
          E-mail: cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
          jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          19th Floor, Land Title Building
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735 8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940 8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
          Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP -WOODSTOCK
          133 Mirramont Lake Drive
          Woodstock, GA 30189
          Telephone: (770) 427 5600
          Facsimile: (404) 601 1855
          E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  krisskaar@aol.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Sola, Esq.
          ROBERT S. SOLA, P.C.
          1500 SW First Avenue, Suite 800
          Portland, OR 97201
          Telephone: (503) 295 6880
          Facsimile: (503) 243 4546
          E-mail: rssola@msn.com


NEBRASKA ALLIANCE: Court Vacates Certification of "Bewer" Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NEBRASKA ALLIANCE REALTY COMPANY, Appellant,
v. MICHAEL A. BREWER; NADINE BREWER; JAMES ROWE, LAURENCE ZIELKE
III, RZR REALTY, LLC, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED; LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT;
AND VALUE FINANCE CORPORATION, Appellees, No. 2017-CA-000062-ME
(Ky. App.), Judge Denise Clayton of the U.S. Court of Appeals of
Kentucky vacated Jefferson Circuit Court's orders granting
Appellees' motion for class certification, and remanded for
further proceedings.

This case involves allegations that NARC, which purchases
delinquent tax bills, committed two tortious acts: first, it
overcharged prelitigation attorney's fees during collection
efforts; and second, it charged interest not permitted by statute.
Appellees claim NARC charged these fees and interest to hundreds
of people in Kentucky, and it sought to certify a class on these
two claims because it alleged the facts underlying the claims were
common and typical of all class members.

In summary, Appellees' first claim is that because NARC kept no
records detailing its work and simply charged blanket fees for
each letter, it cannot prove that its fees to anyone in the
purported class are either reasonable or actual.

Appellees' second claim is straightforward.  Appellees allege that
NARC charged interest on prelitigation fees in violation of KRS
134.125 and 134.452.  They proffer that NARC's owner admitted
during a deposition that he charged interest on administrative and
prelitigation fees.

After delays for discovery, and following multiple, lengthy
hearings on Appellees' class-certification motion, the trial court
entered two orders.  The first order analyzed the rule-based
requirements for certifying a class and directed the parties to
brief and present evidence at a hearing regarding the class's
ascertainability.  The second order then granted the motion and
certified the class of all persons who, on or after Jan. 30, 2008,
made payments to NARC on a certificate of delinquency purchased by
NARC, which included: (i) payment towards prelitigation attorney's
fees but for which no attorney performed or was paid for work
attendant to that particular certificate of delinquency; and/or
(ii) payment towards interest charged on money due and owing for
anything other than the purchase price of the certificate of
delinquency.  NARC timely brought the interlocutory appeal
pursuant to CR 23.06.

Judge Clayton finds that the trial court conducted multiple,
thorough hearings before deciding to certify a class in the
instant case.  Its two orders that certify a class are deficient
because they lack the requisite factual findings and legal
conclusion.  They also do not fully define the class and the class
claims, issues, or defenses, and appoint class counsel under CR
23.07.  Because of these deficiencies, the Judge holds that the
trial court abused its discretion by certifying the class.  Thus,
she vacated and remanded the Jan. 5, 2016 and Dec. 29, 2016-
entered orders.

As demonstrated in the class-action jurisprudence, on remand the
trial court should enter detailed factual findings and legal
conclusions resolving the motion to certify a class, Judge Clayton
notes.  Should the trial court elect to certify a class on remand,
its order must address the four prerequisites of CR 23.01
(numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy) and one of the
three requirements of CR 23.02.  It must also define the class and
the class claims, issues, or defenses, and must appoint class
counsel under CR 23.07.

After defining the class, the trial court may consider
ascertainability if the parties raise it.  She cautions the trial
court that ascertainability is not an explicit requirement in CR
23, and it may not even be an implicit requirement for certifying
a class under Kentucky law.  Regardless, if the trial court
undertakes an ascertainability analysis, it needs to support its
legal conclusions with detailed factual findings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/4GSlJS from Leagle.com.

Chadwick A. McTighe -- cmctighe@stites.com -- Joseph L. Hamilton -
- jhamilton@stites.com -- Marjorie A. Farris -- mfarris@stites.com
-- Louisville, Kentucky, Brief for Appellant.

John H. Dwyer, Jr., Louisville, Kentucky, Brief for Appellee.


NEW ZEALAND: PSA Outbreak Class Action Costs Taxpayer Over $3MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
LawFuel reports that the long-running kiwifruit class action claim
against the government over the PSA outbreak has cost the taxpayer
over $3 million so far, according to an NBR report following an
Official Information Act claim.

This accords with what has been previously reported on the costs
of mounting the defence, headed by QC Jack Hodder together with
former Crown Counsel and now Simpson Grierson partner Sally
McKechnie.

The report indicates that the Crown has spent $267,000 on expert
witnesses and litigation 'support costs' of $67,000.

A further $381,000 has been spent on fees to Mary Scholtens QC,
Jack Hodder and Rachael Schmidt-McCleave, while $33,500 was paid
to Simpson Grierson for Ms McKechnie's services, who remains on
the case.

A further $840,000 has been budgeted for Simpson Grierson fees for
Ms McKechnie's involvement as well as any support services
required from the firm, plus $300,000 for Queens' Counsel.

The claimants' say their costs will be about the same.  Lead
lawyer is Davey Salmon. [GN]


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Faces "Leyva" Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nissan North
America, Inc. The case is captioned as Waldo Felix Leyva,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Nissan North America, Inc., a
California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06682
(C.D. Cal., Sep. 11, 2017).

Nissan North America, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets Nissan and Infiniti vehicles in the United States, Canada,
and Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Karen L. Wallace, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Jordan L Lurie, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  karen.wallace@capstonelawyers.com
                  tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com


NOVO NORDISK: Berman, Cecchi Named Lead Atty in Insulin Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cogan Schneier, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge chose two lawyers on Sept. 18 to serve as lead
counsel in a putative class action against drug manufacturers and
pharmacies alleging antitrust violations, following squabbling
from several firms eager to take the leading role.

U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti of the District of New Jersey
appointed Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and James
Cecchi of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello to
represent the putative class of patients with diabetes who
purchased insulin from certain drugmakers.

The suit alleges drug manufacturers including Novo Nordisk,
Sanofi-Aventis and Eli Lilly and Co., as well as pharmacy benefit
managers like CVS Health, who act as middlemen between drug
companies and insurers, are engaged in an "anticompetitive scheme"
to raise prices for insulin products.

The lawsuit is a consolidation of three separate suits, all
alleging similar claims of collusion and price-setting by the
drugmakers and pharmacy benefit managers.  The judge chose Berman
and Cecchi from a pool of lawyers from different firms vying to
represent the class, including attorneys from Keller Rohrback,
Weitz & Luxenberg and Berman DeValerio.

Lawyers from Weitz & Luxenberg and Berman DeValerio argued Hagens
Berman should not get the nod because the firm represents a drug
wholesaler, FWK Holdings, in a putative class action against
Sanofi in a Massachusetts federal court.  The lawyers wrote in a
letter to the court that Berman's work in Massachusetts is a
conflict because awarding damages there would reduce damages in
New Jersey.

Lawyers for Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne said there is no
conflict because the Massachusetts case involves Sanofi's alleged
efforts to prevent competition in the insulin marketplace, where
as the New Jersey cases allege harm to consumers.

"The court finds Hagens Berman's efforts to prove anticompetitive
behavior in FWK Holdings are distinct from its efforts to prove
fraud in this case," Judge Martinotti wrote in the opinion.
"[Hagens Berman] further argues the distinct legal bases for the
claims in each case preclude 'any overlap in damages between the
two cases.' The court agrees."

Judge Martinotti wrote that all the lawyers in the case "are
highly regarded," but that Mr. Berman, Mr. Cecchi and their teams
invested more than a year developing their claims, filed their
complaint first and "successfully tried similar claims against
comparable defendants."

Mr. Berman is the managing partner of Hagens Berman, a major
plaintiffs firm based in Seattle.  He's represented plaintiffs in
various major class actions against large corporations such as
Enron, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Microsoft.  Mr. Cecchi is a former
assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey and is a partner in Carella
Byrne's litigation department. [GN]


NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Class Decertification in "Lambert" Flipped
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TROY LAMBERT, on Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP., Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-56423 (9th Cir.),
Judge Richard A. Paez of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (i) reversed the district court's orders granting the
Defendant's motion for class decertification and denying the
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration; and (ii) remanded for
further proceedings.

Lambert purchased "Cobra Sexual Energy," an alleged aphrodisiac
dietary supplement manufactured and marketed by Nutraceutical,
which the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had not approved.
According to Lambert, Cobra Sexual Energy violated the FDA's
aphrodisiac drug rule because it claimed to increase sexual desire
but had not been through clinical testing, as required by 21
C.F.R. Section 310.528(c); nor had it received FDA approval, as
required by 21 C.F.R. Section 310.528(b).  The product also failed
to display prominently a disclaimer that it had not been evaluated
by the FDA, in alleged violation of 21 U.S.C. Section
343(r)(6)(C).  Moreover, Lambert alleges that the supplement
contained an ingredient, yohimbe, which is dangerous for certain
persons in certain doses, yet the product label contained no
warning of that risk.

Lambert brought a consumer class action for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  He brought his class action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which provides that a
class may be certified if questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members.

The district court initially granted class certification on the
basis of the full refund damages model.  The case was subsequently
reassigned to a different district judge because the original
judge retired.  Discovery proceeded and closed.  Nutraceutical
then filed a motion for decertification of the class, upon which
the newly assigned district judge held a hearing.

On Feb. 20, 2015, the district court granted the motion to
decertify.  The district court found that Lambert's full refund
damages model was consistent with his theories of liability.  The
district court required Lambert to provide the actual average
retail price, and Lambert had provided only the suggested retail
price.

During a March 2, 2015 status conference, 10 days after the order
decertifying the class, Lambert informed the court of his
intention to file a motion for reconsideration.  The district
court instructed Lambert to file the motion for reconsideration
within 10 days -- i.e., within 20 days in total from the order
decertifying the class.

As directed by the district court, 10 days later, on March 12,
2015, Lambert moved for reconsideration and asked for
recertification.  In his motion for reconsideration, Lambert
pointed to evidence he had presented in his class certification
motion showing that the suggested retail price could be used in
conjunction with other evidence to establish the full refund
damages model.  He also argued for the first time that, as an
alternative, he could prove damages through non-restitutionary
disgorgement.

The district court denied Lambert's motion for reconsideration
three months later.  In addition to declining to recertify the
class, the order set forth a plan for notifying the class
regarding decertification.

Within 14 days of the order denying his motion for
reconsideration, Lambert filed in this Court a Rule 23(f) petition
for permission to appeal the district court's orders granting the
motion for class decertification and denying the motion for
reconsideration.

Upon the filing of that petition, the district court stayed
proceedings pending appeal.  A motions panel of the Court
conditionally granted Lambert's Rule 23(f) petition, instructing
the parties in addition to all other issues they wish to raise in
their briefs in the appeal, to address the timeliness of the
petition.

Judge Paez holds that (i) Rule 23(f)'s deadline is not
jurisdictional, (ii) equitable exceptions therefore apply, such
that (iii) motions for reconsideration filed within 14 days toll
that deadline.  He also holds that (iv) equitable circumstances
beyond a formal motion to reconsider filed within 14 days can toll
the Rule 23(f) deadline.  Equitable circumstances tolled the Rule
23(f) 14-day deadline so that Lambert's Lambert's motion for
reconsideration was timely filed in the Court.

As Lambert's petition was timely, the Judge turns to the merits,
and concludes that the district court abused its discretion in
decertifying the class on the basis of Lambert's inability to
prove restitution damages through the full refund model.  Although
Lambert did not present evidence of the actual average retail
price, he did present evidence of both unit sales and the
suggested retail price over the relevant time period.
Accordingly, because Lambert's damages model matched his theory of
liability, and because Lambert had shown that his damages model
was supportable on evidence that could be introduced at trial, the
class should not have been decertified.  Whether Lambert could
prove damages to a reasonable certainty on the basis of his full
refund model is a question of fact that should be decided at
trial.

For these reasons, Judge Paez concludes that Lambert's Rule 23(f)
petition was timely.  Accordingly, he reversed the district
court's order decertifying the class, and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with his opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/nvDi7M from Leagle.com.

Gregory Weston -- gweston@winston.com -- (argued) and David
Elliott, The Weston Firm, San Diego, California; Ronald A. Marron
-- admin@consumersadvocates.com -- The Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marron APLC, San Diego, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Steven N. Feldman (argued) and John C. Hueston, Hueston Hennigan
LLP, Los Angeles, California; Jon F. Monroy, Monroy Averbuck &
Gysler, West Lake Village, California; for Defendant-Appellee.


OHIO: Court Dismisses RCI Inmates' Class Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued
a Report and Recommendation in the case captioned RAY SCOTT HEID,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARK HOOKS, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action 2:17-cv-650 (S.D. Ohio), recommending that the Court
dismiss Plaintiffs' equal protection claim and their class action
allegation and that Plaintiffs be permitted to proceed on their
claim of deliberate indifference to a risk of serious harm under
the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Plaintiffs, Ray Scott Heid and James E. Damron, state prison
inmates who are proceeding without the assistance of counsel,
bring this action under 42 U.S.C. Second 1983 against employees of
Ross Correctional Institution (RCI).  This matter is before the
Court for the initial screen of Plaintiffs' Complaint under 28
U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A to identify cognizable claims
and to recommend dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint, or any
portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of white inmates at RCI.
They allege, inter alia, that black inmates who are members of
prison gangs control access to the telephones in the cell block in
which Plaintiffs reside. Attempts by white inmates to gain access
to the telephones result in violence and threats of violence,
according to Plaintiffs' allegations.

Plaintiffs do not state an equal protection claim upon which this
Court may grant relief, the Court held.

To state an equal protection claim, a prisoner need only allege
sufficient plausible facts to show that a state actor
intentionally discriminated against [him] because of membership in
a protected class.

Plaintiffs' allegations about the actions and inaction of
Defendants Hook and Howard do not begin to approach that standard.
They have also failed to allege discriminatory intent or purpose
or anti-white bias on the part of Defendants Hooks and Howard. In
the portion of their Complaint devoted to the equal protection
claim specifically, Plaintiffs allege only that "those in
authority's charge will not force integration for the benefit of
equality for the Plaintiffs and, generally, those of the White
race.

Without additional plausible allegations of intent or purpose on
Defendants' part, Plaintiffs may not maintain their equal
protection claim. It is, therefore, recommended that the Court
dismiss that claim.

Plaintiffs have, on the other hand, alleged plausible facts in
support of their claim under the Eighth Amendment that Defendants
Hooks and Howard were deliberately indifferent to a known risk of
serious harm in the form of violence among inmates over telephone
access.

Prisoners are entitled to protection from violence at the hands of
other inmates, and prison officials must take reasonable steps to
guarantee inmate safety.

Plaintiffs may not, however, represent a class of similarly-
situated prisoners. Plaintiffs are non-attorneys proceeding pro
se. They cannot adequately represent a class.

It is recommended, therefore, that Plaintiffs be permitted to
proceed only on their own Eighth Amendment claim.

It is recommended that Plaintiffs' equal protection claim be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure
to state a claim for relief on which relief can be granted. It is
further recommended that Plaintiffs' class action allegation be
dismissed and that Plaintiffs be permitted to proceed on their
Eighth Amendment claim on their own behalf only.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017 Report
and Recommendation is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybe2uamm
from Leagle.com.

Ray Scott Heid, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

James E. Damron, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


OHIO STATE: Seeks Dismissal of Spielman's Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jack Baer, writing for landof10.com, reports that Ohio State has
requested a federal judge dismiss a class-action lawsuit by former
Buckeyes star Chris Spielman regarding use of athlete's images,
the Associated Press reports.

According to the report, Ohio State believes the federal courts
don't have jurisdiction over Mr. Spielman's complaint and the case
should instead be decided in the Ohio Court of Claims.  The
University also noted Mr. Spielman hasn't alleged any "market-wide
anticompetitive effect" from its actions.

"[Spielman] has not alleged that he sought and was denied a
trademark license from Ohio State or that he was in any way
precluded from exercising his own intellectual property rights by
Ohio State's contracts."

Spielman, a two-time All-American with the Buckeyes and three-time
All-Pro with the Detroit Lions, is suing Ohio State as well as
Nike, Honda and the IMG Sports Radio Network for their use of
players' images in promotions without their consent.

Mr. Spielman has previously stated that he would donate any
personal winnings to the Ohio State athletic department. [GN]


PARADIGM CREDIT: Faces "Rosenshein" Suit in New York State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paradigm Capital
Funding LLC. The case is captioned as ROSENSHEIN, ARNOLD D/B/A
PARK WEST REALTY CO & ED RACE O/B/O THEMSELVES & ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. KUSHNER, DAVID , JEFFREY
MESHEL, WAYNE STURMAN, MARC GLEITMAN, PARADIGM CREDIT CORP,
PARADIGM CAITAL GROUP LLC, PARADIGM CAPITAL FUNDING LLC, MERCURY
CREDIT CORP, PARADIGM CF CORP F/K/A MERCURY CAPITAL CORP, PARADIGM
MONROE CENTER III LLC, PARADIGM EXCHANGE LLC, EXCHANGE PARTNERS
GROUP LLC, PCF EXCHANGE LLC, PARADIGM ELIZABETH LLC, PARADIGM EAST
HANOVER, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 1715/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Sep. 11, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James
P. Mccormack.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          LAW OFFICE ANTHONY A. CAPETOLA
          2 Hillside Avenue, Ste. C
          Williston Park, NY 11596
          Telephone: (516) 746 2300

The Defendants are represented by:

          ALAN B. HERTZ, PC
          934 East 19th St
          Brooklyn, NY 11230
          Telephone: (718) 258 4774


PRESTIGE DELI: "Odeh" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAT ODEH and JOHN DOE, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiffs, v. PRESTIGE DELI AND
GROCERY CORP. d/b/a FRESH LINE DELI, ULTIMATE STATE DELI CORP.
d/b/a STATE STREET GOURMET DELI, YASIF ELMULAKI and ABDUL RAHMAN
ELMULAKI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05312-DLI-LB (E.D.N.Y.,
Sep. 11, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime, unpaid wages due to time-shaving, liquidated damages and
(attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and the other FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have
had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and
are and have been subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies,
plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and
rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay
them the proper minimum wage; and overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one half times the regular rate for work in excess
of 40 hours per workweek; and the unpaid wages due to time-
shaving.

The Delicatessens operate as a single integrated enterprise.
Specifically, the Delicatessens are engaged in related activities,
share common ownership and have a common business purpose.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


REX PERFORMANCE: Settlement in "Slaght" Has Prelim. Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted
preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the case
captioned CHRISTOPHER SLAGHT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. REX
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, LLC, f/k/a MICHIGAN FOAM AND FABRICATION, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-10159 (E.D. Mich.).

The Action involves claims relating to alleged unpaid back wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and a breach of
contact claim for failure to pay compensation for all time worked,
as both a collective action and Rule 23 class action.

Judge Leitman set the following schedule for the further approval
and administration of the settlement:

     a. Deadline for CAFA Notice mailing - within 10 calendar days
after filing the Motion for Preliminary Approval

     b. The Defendants will provide the Administrator with an
Excel spreadsheet containing the name and last known days after
Preliminary Approval of all Class Members other than Current Opt-
Ins residential address, e-mail addresses, and phone number within
5 business days.

     c. The Defendants will transfer the Gross Settlement Amount
By July 15, 2017 to an escrow account.

     d. The Administrator will mail the Notice Form to each
Current Opt-In within 10 business days after Preliminary Approval.

     e. The Administrator will mail to all Class Members a package
containing the Notice Form, and a postage-paid envelope returnable
to the Administrator within 10 business days after Preliminary
Approval.

     f. Deadline for Class Members to submit exclusion - Within 45
days after mailing of notice, requests, or objections to the
Settlement

     g. Deadline for Parties to file responses to objections -
Within 10 days after objection deadline

     h. Deadline for objectors to file replies in support of
objections - Within 3 days after response deadline

     i. The Defendants will provide Administrator with a report
showing the amounts payable before the calculation of pro-rata
payments for each Claimant within 7 calendar days of Preliminary
Approval.

     j. The Administrator will send to the Class Counsel and the
Defendants' Counsel all timely requests and completed exclusion
Within 50 calendar days after mailing Notice Form.

     k. The Administrator will provide the Class Counsel and the
Defendants' Counsel with a report identifying the Settlement Share
payments to be paid to each Class Member Within 60 calendar days
after mailing Notice Form.

     l. The Class Counsel will file Motion for Final Approval at
least 7 calendar days before Final Approval Hearing.

     m. Final Approval Hearing and Entry of Final Approval [TBD] -
Easrliest possible date: Nov. 6, 2017

     n. Effective Date 31 days after Final Approval.

     o. Deadline for Administrator to deliver attorneys' fees to
the Class Cousel - Within 7 calendar litigation expenses, and
incentive award days after Effective Date

     p. Deadline for Administrator to mail individual payments to
the Class Members - Within 14 calendar days after Effective Date

     q. Deadline for cashing checks by the Class Members - Within
60 days after the Effective Date

The Judge, in conducting the settlement approval process required
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, certified, for purposes of settlement only,
the Settlement Class described as all individuals who worked as
Shift Leaders, Technicians, Laminators, Hi-Lo Drivers, General
Labors, and Operators, during the Settlement Period of Nov. 1,
2013 to May 1, 2016.

Further, Judge Leitman appointed the Named Plaintiffs as the
representatives for the Settlement Class and appointed Kevin J.
Stoops of Sommers Schwartz, P.C. and Brian Delekta of Delekta &
Delekta P.C. as the Class Counsel for the Plaintiff and the
Settlement Class.

Judge Leitman preliminarily approved the Class Counsel's request
for an award of fees of $41,666.67 and litigation expenses in an
amount not to exceed of $10,000.72.  Further, he preliminarily
approved the proposed Named Plaintiff's incentive award.

Any member of the Settlement Class who wishes to object to the
Settlement Agreement may file an objection within 45 days after
the Preliminary Approval Order.

The addresses for filing objections with the Court and service on
counsel are as follows: SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. Kevin J. Stoops One
Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, Michigan 48076 Fax: (248)
936-2138 Upon Defense Counsel at: McDonald Hopkins, PLC Miriam
Rosen 39533 Woodward Ave. Suite 318 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
48304 Fax: (248) 646-5075 Upon Settlement Administrator at:
Simpluris Class Action Settlement Administration 3176 Pullman
Street, Suite 123 Costa Mesa, CA 92626.

Any objector or his, her, or its counsel (if any) must effect
service of copies of the objection on the counsel listed and file
it with the Court by no later than the date set forth.  If an
objector hires an attorney to represent him, her, or it for the
purposes of making such objection pursuant to this paragraph, the
attorney must both effect service of a notice of appearance on
counsel listed and file it with the Court by no later than the
date set forth.

The Defendants' counsel and the Class Counsel will promptly
furnish each other with copies of any and all objections that come
into their possession, and will make sure the same are
electronically filed with the Court.

The Counsel will file their Motion for Final Approval and
Attorneys' Fees no later than the date set forth.  A hearing is
scheduled for the date set forth at the Court.

The expenses of printing and mailing and publishing all notices
required hereby will be paid as described in the Settlement
Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/cnHrox from Leagle.com.

Christopher Slaght, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Delekta --
brian@delektalaw.com -- Delekta & Delekta P.C..

Christopher Slaght, Plaintiff, represented by Jesse L. Young --
jyoung@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz & Kevin J. Stoops --
kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, PC.

Jeffrey Megie, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Delekta,
Delekta & Delekta P.C., Jesse L. Young, Sommers Schwartz & Kevin
J. Stoops, Sommers Schwartz, PC.

Steven Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Delekta, Delekta
& Delekta P.C., Jesse L. Young, Sommers Schwartz & Kevin J.
Stoops, Sommers Schwartz, PC.

Rex Performance Products, LLC f/k/a Michigan Foam and Fabrication,
Defendant, represented by James J. Boutrous, II --
jboutrous@mcdonaldhopkins.com -- McDonald Hopkins & Miriam L.
Rosen -- mrosen@mcdonaldhopkins.com -- McDonald Hopkins PLC.

Maxwell Morgan, LLC, Defendant, represented by James J. Boutrous,
II, McDonald Hopkins & Miriam L. Rosen, McDonald Hopkins PLC.

Don Tate, Defendant, represented by James J. Boutrous, II,
McDonald Hopkins & Miriam L. Rosen, McDonald Hopkins PLC.

John Ballinger, Defendant, represented by James J. Boutrous, II,
McDonald Hopkins & Miriam L. Rosen, McDonald Hopkins PLC.

Rex Hansen, Defendant, represented by James J. Boutrous, II,
McDonald Hopkins, Kevin J. Stoops, Sommers Schwartz, PC & Miriam
L. Rosen, McDonald Hopkins PLC.


ROCKET FUEL: Court Approves Dismissal of "Debnath"
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order approving
parties' stipulation dismissing as moot the case captioned ARNAB
DEBNATH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ROCKET FUEL INC., E. RANDOLPH WOOTTON III, MONTE
ZWEBEN, RICHARD A. FRANKEL, SUSAN L. BOSTROM, RONALD E. F. CODD,
WILLIAM W. ERICSON, CLARK M. KOKICH, and JOHN J. LEWIS,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04615-RS (N.D. Calif.), and retaining
jurisdiction to determine plaintiff's counsel's potential joint
application for fees and expenses.

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated Section 14(d) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 14d-9 promulgated there under by causing an
allegedly materially incomplete and misleading Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, which recommended that Rocket Fuel Inc. stockholders
tender their shares in favor of approving a transaction between
Rocket Fuel and Sizmek Inc.

Plaintiff further alleged that Defendants violated Section 14(e)
of the Exchange Act by issuing the Recommendation Statement in
which they made allegedly false and misleading statements or
allegedly omitted material facts.

The parties stipulated, and the Court approves, the Plaintiff's
voluntarily dismissal of the action as moot.

The claims pleaded in the Complaint are dismissed with prejudice
as to Plaintiff and without prejudice as to the unnamed members of
the putative class.

The Court will retain jurisdiction over the parties in the Action
solely for the purpose of adjudicating the Fee Application, should
an application prove necessary.

Because the dismissal is with prejudice as to the named Plaintiff
only, and not on behalf of a putative class, and no class has been
certified, notice of dismissal is not required.

The parties to the Related Actions are directed to meet and confer
concerning Plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees and expenses.  To
the extent that the parties are unable to reach an agreement
concerning Plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees and expense, they
will contact the Court to set a stipulated briefing and hearing
schedule with respect to the Fee Application.  If the parties
reach an agreement concerning Plaintiffs' claim for attorneys'
fees and expenses, they will notify the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya2admk2from Leagle.com.

Arnab Debnath, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas, Levi &
Korsinsky LLP, 44 Montgomery St, Suite 650, San Francisco, CA
94104.


SHOWTIME NETWORKS: Vance Sues over Mayweather v. McGregor Fight
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE VANCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SHOWTIME NETWORKS INC., and SHOWTIME
DIGITAL INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06894-VSB
(S.D.N.Y., Sep. 11, 2017), seeks to recover damages as a result of
Defendants' breach of contract over Mayweather fight viewing.

The case is a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased
the Showtime pay per view ("PPV") live stream to view the August
26, 2017 Floyd Mayweather, Jr. vs. Conor McGregor fight and
undercard through the Showtime app, Showtime PPV website, or
through any other means or media. As a result of server failure or
other technical failures on Defendants' part, Plaintiff and the
Class were unable to view the Mayweather fight, and some Class
Members were unable to view substantial portions of the entire
Mayweather fight.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class entered
into contracts with Defendants to view the Mayweather fight
through Defendants' live stream in exchange for money. Plaintiff
and the Class provided payment to Defendants in consideration for
Defendants' promise to provide a live stream of the Mayweather
fight. Instead, Defendants breached the contracts by failing to
provide a complete viewing of the Mayweather fight. As a result of
Defendants' breach of contract, Plaintiff and the Class have been
damaged.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          GERAGOS & GERAGOS
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
          Telephone (213) 625 3900
          Facsimile (213) 232 3255
          E-mail: Geragos@Geragos.com


SHUTTERFLY INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Monroy" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned ALEJANDRO MONROY,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SHUTTERFLY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16 C 10984
(N.D. Ill.).

Shutterfly is the operator of websites that allow users to upload,
organize, and share digital photographs.  When a user uploads a
photo, Shutterfly's facial recognition software scans the image,
locates each of the faces in the image, and extracts a highly
detailed "map" or "template" for each face based on its unique
points and contours.

Monroy alleges that in September 2014, an unnamed Shutterfly user
residing in Chicago uploaded a photograph of Monroy onto a
Shutterfly site.  According to the complaint, Shutterfly
automatically located the Plaintiff's face, analyzed the geometric
data relating to the unique contours of his face and the distances
between his eyes, nose and ears, and used that data to extract and
collect his scan of face geometry.  Monroy further says that
Shutterfly prompted the uploader to tag the face with a name, and
that the user entered "Alex Monroy."

The complaint also states that Shutterfly then stored Monroy's
biometric data in its database, and that based on the scan, it
extracted and stored additional information regarding his gender,
age, race, and geographical location.  Monroy does not use
Shutterfly and never consented to Shutterfly's extraction and
storage of data representing his face geometry.

Monroy brings the putative class action alleging that the
Defendant violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA").  According to Monroy, Shutterfly's collection and
storage of the data violates BIPA.  Monroy brings the suit on
behalf of himself and a putative class consisting of all
individuals who are not users of Shutterfly and who had their
biometric identifier, including scan of face geometry, collected,
captured, received, or otherwise obtained by Shutterfly from a
photograph uploaded to Shutterfly's website from within the state
of Illinois.  Shutterfly moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Shutterfly first contends that BIPA's statutory text demonstrates
that the act does not apply to biometric data obtained from
photographs.  For several reasons, Judge Gottschall is not
persuaded. As an initial matter, Shutterfly's argument that the
other biometric identifiers listed in the definition can be
obtained only via in-person processes is incorrect.  For example,
it appears that fingerprints and retinal scans can be obtained
from images and photographs.  She is also unconvinced by
Shutterfly's insistence that BIPA is narrowly concerned with the
use of biometric data in the context of commercial transactions.
Nothing in the text of the law itself evinces an intent to limit
its application to commercial entities.  In short, the Judge sees
nothing in BIPA's statutory text to indicate that it lacks
application to data of the sort obtained by Shutterfly's facial-
recognition technology.

Turning from BIPA's text to its application, Shutterfly next
argues that Monroy's complaint must be dismissed because BIPA does
not apply extraterritorially, and because applying the statute to
the facts of this case would violate the U.S. Constitution's
Dormant Commerce Clause.  At this stage, Judge Gottschall is not
persuaded by Shutterfly's extraterritoriality argument.
Shutterfly may raise the argument at a later time, if and when the
record affords a clearer picture of the circumstances relating to
Monroy's claim.  At this point also, the Judge has no basis for
concluding that applying BIPA in the case would entail control
over out-of-state conduct in a way that would run afoul of the
dormant commerce clause.  For these reasons, she is unpersuaded at
this stage that Monroy's suit requires BIPA's application
extraterritorially or in a way that violates the Dormant Commerce
Clause.

As a final basis for dismissal of Monroy's suit, Shutterfly argues
that Monroy has failed to allege that he suffered actual damages
as a result of Shutterfly's conduct.  The Judge ultimately is not
persuaded by Shutterfly's position.  Nothing in BIPA makes
recovery dependent upon a showing of "adverse effects."  While the
matter is not free from doubt, Judge Gottschall declines to hold
that a showing of actual damages is necessary in order to state a
claim under BIPA.  In light of this conclusion, she needs not
address the question of whether, in alleging that Shutterfly
invaded his privacy, Monroy has in fact alleged that he suffered a
form of actual damage.  She notes, however, that Shutterfly has
failed to address this issue.  Thus, the Judge declines to dismiss
Monroy's suit based on his alleged failure to allege actual
damages.

For these reasons, Judge Gottschall denied Shutterfly's motion to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/Wtj3D6 from Leagle.com.

Alejandro Monroy, Plaintiff, represented by Frank S. Hedin --
fhedin@careyrodriguez.com -- Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP,
pro hac vice.

Alejandro Monroy, Plaintiff, represented by Katrina Carroll --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, David P.
Milian -- dmilian@careyrodriguez.com -- Carey Rodriguez O'Keefe
Milian Gonya, LLP, pro hac vice, Ismael Tariq Salam --
isalam@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, Kyle Alan
Shamberg -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg,
LLC, Meredith S. Lierz -- mlierz@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot &
Wolfson, PC, pro hac vice, Robert R. Ahdoot --
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, Pc, pro hac vice &
Tina Wolfson -- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson,
Pc, pro hac vice.

Shutterfly, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lauren R. Goldman --
rgoldman@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, John Nadolenco --
jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer, Brown & Platt, pro hac vice &
Michael Evan Rayfield -- mrayfield@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown
LLP, pro hac vice.


SINGING RIVER: Court Denies Objectors' Bid to Stay "Jones"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THOMAS JONES, et al., on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SINGING
RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., Defendants, Cause No. 1:14CV447-LG-
RHW, Consolidated with No. 1:15CV1-LG-RHW., 1:15CV44-LG-RHW (S.D.
Miss.), Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court, S.D.
Mississippi, Southern Division denied the Objectors' Motion to
Stay Proceedings.

On July 27, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
entered an opinion vacating and remanding this Court's Order and
Final Judgment approving the settlement of these consolidated
class action lawsuits.  The Fifth Circuit did not hold that the
settlement should not be approved, or cannot be approved as
modified, but remanded the case for further consideration of
certain issues.

The Objectors to the settlement filed a Petition for Rehearing En
Banc, seeking reconsideration of certain findings made by the
Fifth Circuit, including its determination that the release of
Jackson County, Mississippi, pursuant to the proposed settlement
agreement would not render the settlement agreement inadequate.
On Sept. 6, 2017, the Fifth Circuit denied the Petition for
Rehearing En Banc.  The Judgment and Mandate were issued on Sept.
14, 2017.

Pursuant to the Mandate and the Fifth Circuit's opinion, this
Court entered an Order Scheduling a Pretrial Status Conference for
Sept. 25, 2017.  The Objectors filed the present Motion to Stay
Proceedings, stating they have 90 days from the denial of the
Petition, or until Dec. 5, 2017, to file their Petition for
Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, and aver that the certiorari
petition will present a substantial question, showing good cause
for a stay in this proceeding.  No additional argument was
included in the Motion and no legal authority was cited in the
Motion.

The Judge concluded that the Objectors have not identified any
authority that would enable him to issue a stay of proceedings
without deviating from the Fifth Circuit's mandate.  Furthermore,
the Objectors have not demonstrated that their expected petition
of certiorari would likely be granted or that good cause otherwise
exists for granting a stay of the proceedings pending filing of
the Objector's petition with the Supreme Court.  Finally, further
delay in this matter would likely harm the retirees who
participate in the pension plan that is the subject of these
consolidated class action lawsuits.  Of course, his decision to
deny the Objectors' Motion to Stay does not prevent the Objectors
from filing a petition for certiorari and/or a motion for a stay
with the U.S. Supreme Court.  Judge Guirola denied the Objectors'
Motion to Stay Proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/lvi7p3 from Leagle.com.

Thomas Jones, Plaintiff, represented by David G. Wirtes, Jr. --
dgw@cunninghambounds.com -- CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC.

Thomas Jones, Plaintiff, represented by George W. Finkbohner, III
-- gwf@cunninghambounds.com -- CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, pro hac
vice,

James R. Reeves, Jr., LUMPKIN, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC, Lucy
Elizabeth Tufts -- let@cunninghambounds.com -- CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS,
LLC,

pro hac vice, Steven L. Nicholas -- sln@cunninghambounds.com --
CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, pro hac vice, Matthew G. Mestayer, REEVES
& MESTAYER, PLLC & Thomas W. Busby, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC.

Joseph Charles Lohfink, Plaintiff, represented by David G. Wirtes,
Jr., CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, George W. Finkbohner, III, CUNNINGHAM
BOUNDS, LLC, pro hac vice, James R. Reeves, Jr., LUMPKIN, REEVES &
MESTAYER, PLLC, Lucy Elizabeth Tufts, CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, pro
hac vice, Steven L. Nicholas, CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, pro hac
vice, Matthew G. Mestayer, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC & Thomas W.
Busby, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC.

Sue Beavers, Plaintiff, represented by David G. Wirtes, Jr.,
CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, George W. Finkbohner, III, CUNNINGHAM
BOUNDS, LLC, pro hac vice, James R. Reeves, Jr., LUMPKIN, REEVES &
MESTAYER, PLLC, Lucy Elizabeth Tufts, CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, pro
hac vice, Steven L. Nicholas, CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, pro hac
vice, Matthew G. Mestayer, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC & Thomas W.
Busby, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC.

Rodolfoa Rel, Plaintiff, represented by David G. Wirtes, Jr.,
CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, George W. Finkbohner, III, CUNNINGHAM
BOUNDS, LLC, pro hac vice, James R. Reeves, Jr., LUMPKIN, REEVES &
MESTAYER, PLLC, Lucy Elizabeth Tufts, CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, pro
hac vice, Steven L. Nicholas, CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, pro hac
vice, Matthew G. Mestayer, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC & Thomas W.
Busby, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC.

Hazel Reed Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by David G. Wirtes, Jr.,
CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, George W. Finkbohner, III, CUNNINGHAM
BOUNDS, LLC, pro hac vice, James R. Reeves, Jr., LUMPKIN, REEVES &
MESTAYER, PLLC, Lucy Elizabeth Tufts, CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, pro
hac vice, Steven L. Nicholas, CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, pro hac
vice, Matthew G. Mestayer, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC & Thomas W.
Busby, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC.

Martha Ezell Lowe, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Angelique M.
Cooper, A. COOPER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC, pro hac vice, Joe R.
Whatley, Jr., WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP, Richard P. Rouco, QUINN,
CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO, LLP, pro hac vice & Roger K.
Doolittle, ROGER K. DOOLITTLE, ATTORNEY.

Transamerica Retirement Solutions Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Marianne Hogan -- marianne.hogan@morganlewis.com --
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, pro hac vice, William J. Delany --
william.delany@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP,
pro hac vice & Ashley Eley Cannady -- acannady@balch.com -- BALCH
& BINGHAM, LLP.

KPMG, LLP, Defendant, represented by Amelia Toy Rudolph --
amelia.rudolph@sutherland.com -- EVERSHEDS SOUTHERLAND (US) LLP,
pro hac vice, Patricia Anne Gorham --
patricia.gorham@sutherland.com -- EVERSHEDS SOUTHERLAND (US) LLP,
pro hac vice, R. David Kaufman -- dkaufman@brunini.com -- BRUNINI,
GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC-Jackson & Taylor B. McNeel --
tmcneel@brunini.com -- BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC-
Biloxi.


SPOTLESS: Seeks to Remove Embarrassing Manus Island Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
lawyers for catering and cleaning group Spotless are seeking to
remove "embarrassing" allegations about the company's bid for the
Manus Island contract from a Federal Court class action claim.

The centre of the allegations is that Spotless ignored its owned
guidelines and booked costs from bidding to operate Manus Island
centre as profit when it should have known it would not win the
contract.

Spotless' lawyers were also lashed by Justice Bernard Murphy for
their push to remove the allegations with the judge saying the
move was "a waste of time and a waste of money".

Spotless is facing a combined class action from Slater and Gordon
over its 2015 profit downgrade.

The company shocked the market in November 2015 when it downgraded
its guidance for 2016.  Downer EDI has since seized control of 88
per cent of Spotless' shares.

The downgrade saw Spotless' shares fall 50 per cent in a single
day.  Only three months earlier, Spotless said its results would
materially exceed the previous financial year.

Spotless explained its profit downgrade at the time as being based
on problems with the integration of acquisitions,
underperformance, market slowdown and expensing of previously
capitalised bid costs.

Spotless spent $7 million preparing its bid for the contract to
operate the Manus Island detention centre but did not list the
expense in its accounts because it considered it would probably
win the contract.

By not treating the pre-contract bid costs as an expense item,
Spotless was able to increase its net profit, the court heard.

Peter Collinson QC told the court, Spotless' decision it was
probable it would win the contract was against its own measures to
test the profitability of the bid.

"Profitability would be influenced by a number of factors. The
number of competing bidders, the stage of the tender process,
whether Spotless was the incumbent provider . . . that would
increase the prospects to secure the contract," Mr Collinson said.

"Spotless was competing with eight other bidders.  Broadspectrum
was the incumbent rather than Spotless."

Mr Collinson said Spotless also operated no offshore camps at the
time and had not historically served the immigration sector.

"It was not probable that Spotless would win the DOI [Department
of Immigration] contract," Mr Collinson said.

"According to Spotless, the allegation is embarrassing.  We would
not have thought that the DOI contract was embarrassing,"
Mr Collinson said.

Lawyer for Spotless Michael Gardner told the court the allegations
were embarrassing because they were being presented as conclusions
"without the facts".

"Discovery could aid in standing this up," Mr Gardner said.

A spokesperson for Spotless said that Spotless was not embarrassed
by any aspects of this claim. Spotless intends to vigorously
defend all aspects of the class action and remains confident in
the outcome.

Justice Murphy gave Spotless' legal team two weeks to decide on
whether to push ahead with its application to strike out the
allegations.

"My preference is to get on with the case but to allow you to
bring on a strike out whenever you want to," he said. [GN]


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Sued Over Defective Defibrillators
----------------------------------------------------
A nationwide class action lawsuit has been filed by law firms
DiCello Levitt & Casey and Tousley Brain Stephens on behalf of
third party insurance payors against St. Jude Medical, Inc. and
its parent company Abbott Laboratories, related to the
manufacture, sale and distribution of defective Implantable
Cardiac Defibrillator (ICD) and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
Defibrillator (CRT-D) devices.  The medical products in question,
which provide pacing therapy to support slow heart rhythms and
electrical shock or pacing therapy to treat fast heart rhythms,
were officially recalled on October 10, 2016 due to defects
related to lithium-based battery depletion.

The complaint alleges that St. Jude knew of a significant battery
depletion defect as early as 2011, but failed to adequately
investigate and report this known risk-instead waiting nearly five
years before issuing a recall of the defective devices. During
these intervening years, the overwhelming economic impact of St.
Jude's conduct fell on the shoulders of public and private health
insurance payors.

Several models of ICDs and CRT-Ds are at issue in the case,
including the Fortify(TM), Fortify Assura(TM), Quadra Assura(TM),
Unify(TM), Unify Assura(TM) and Unify Quadra(TM) models.  The
class action lawsuit, filed on behalf of ASEA/AFSCME Local 52
Health Benefits Trust, and similarly-situated plaintiffs
nationwide, seeks restitution and damages related to third party
payors' coverage of these defective ICDs and CRT-Ds, and related
medical costs.

Adam Levitt, a DiCello Levitt & Casey partner and co-counsel for
plaintiffs, said "St. Jude concealed a serious--and potentially
deadly--battery defect that was endemic in hundreds of thousands
of its pacemakers.  As a result, not only did St. Jude expose a
significant segment of the American public to a severe health
risk, but St. Jude's conduct caused public and private health
insurance payors to pay for defective devices or costly, second
surgeries that patients should never have had to undergo."

The defect, which ultimately led to the product recall, is caused
by deposits of lithium known as "lithium clusters," which can form
within the battery and create abnormal electrical connections that
cause the battery to short circuit, leading to rapid battery
failure.  The complaint alleges that, despite having knowledge of
this substantial defect, defendants failed to adequately report
and disclose the risk posed by ICDs and CRT-Ds, including to the
FDA, the entity which initially approved the devices.

"Physicians, patients and payors were deliberately kept in the
dark by St. Jude with respect to ongoing battery issues," said Kim
Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- partner at Tousley Brain
Stephens and one of plaintiffs' co-counsel.  "Defendants have
purportedly agreed to reimburse patients for their out-of-pocket
costs associated with the implantation of these devices, but what
about the health insurance payors who have shelled out millions of
dollars on these defective pacemakers?"

Health insurance payors who have issued payments related to ICDs
and CRT-Ds should call 888-778-8880 to determine their legal
rights and learn more about the case.

The case is ASEA/AFSCME Local 52 Health Benefits Trust v. Abbott
Laboratories, et al., No. 1:17-cv-6704 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.  A copy
of the complaint is available upon request.

                  About DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC

DiCello Levitt & Casey is a plaintiffs' firm specializing in
commercial litigation, class action litigation, mass tort
litigation, catastrophic injury litigation, medical malpractice
litigation and civil rights litigation.

                 About Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC

Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC is a Seattle law firm with a
nationally recognized litigation practice and a renowned Pacific
Northwest transaction practice.  Having recovered billions for its
class action clients, the firm is known for creative advocacy and
practical advice. [GN]


STANDARD INSURANCE: $2.4MM Settlement in "Woods" Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRETT F. WOODS AND KATHLEEN VALDES, FOR
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v.
STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, AN OREGON INSURANCE COMPANY, MARTHA
QUINTANA, A NEW MEXICO RESIDENT, AND THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION, Defendants,
Case No. 1:12-cv-01327-KBM/KRS (D. N.M.), Chief Magistrate Judge
Karen B. Molzen of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico granted the Plaintiffs'/Class Representatives' Motion and
Memorandum in Support of Final Approval of Settlement and
Application for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Class
Representative Incentive Fees.

The Court entered its Order of Preliminary Approval of the
Settlement, and conducted a Final Fairness Hearing on Sept. 14,
2017.

Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen granted final approval of the
Settlement.  She awarded the Class Counsel, Charles Peifer, Robert
Hanson, and Matthew Jackson, Peifer, Hanson & Mullins, P.A. and
William H. Carpenter, Carpenter Law Office Ltd., 30% of the
Settlement Amount of $2,400,000, plus applicable New Mexico gross
receipts taxes thereon.  The Gross receipts taxes will be
calculated as applicable based upon the location of the attorney
receiving the fee.  The Class Counsel are awarded in addition
$9,177.29 as reimbursement for litigation expenses and taxes
incurred thereon in prosecuting the settled claims.  Woods and
Valdes are also awarded $10,000 as a Class Representative Fee from
the Settlement Amount.

Based on Dahl's incurred costs of $87,342.55 and its estimated
future costs of $77,695 for a total of $165,037.55, the Chief
Magistrate Judge approved $82,518.78 to be paid from the
Settlement Amount for the Class' portion of Dahl's incurred and
future costs of administration.  She further approved the Class
Counsel's request of additional reserved funds from the Settlement
Amount to cover future anticipated costs of administration in the
amount of $5,000.  Any reserved funds remaining after the payment
of the future anticipated costs of administration will be
distributed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

The attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and the
Class Representative Fee will be paid from the Settlement Amount,
as set forth and described in the Settlement Agreement upon entry
of the Order.  Standard and Martha Quintana will not be liable for
any taxes, including New Mexico's gross receipts tax, in
connection with the awards.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, as soon as practicable after
Final Approval, the net Settlement Amount will be distributed
among all Class Members by Dahl, in accordance with Paragraph
2.1(d) of the Settlement, after deduction of any court-approved
expenses of administration and any taxes, administrative, and
related fees.  Standard and Martha Quintana will not be liable for
any taxes, including New Mexico's gross receipts tax, in
connection with the distributions.

In allocating settlement proceeds to Eligible Class Members as
provided in the Settlement Agreement, Dahl is authorized to rely
upon the data provided by the State.

The Court, without affecting the finality of the Order, retains
and reserves jurisdiction over: (i) enforcement of the Settlement
Agreement, (ii) implementation of the Settlement and any
distribution under the terms and conditions of the Settlement
Agreement, and pursuant to further orders of this Court; (iii)
disposition of the Settlement Amount under the terms and
conditions of the Settlement Agreement and Additional Notice; (iv)
the settled claims until the date upon which this Order Granting
Final Approval of Settlement is no longer subject to further
appeal or review; (v) entry of final judgment in the case; and
(vi) any award of attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/H6q6iv from Leagle.com.

Brett F. Woods, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Robert Peifer --
cpeifer@peiferlaw.com -- Peifer, Hanson & Mullins, PA.

Brett F. Woods, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Eric Jackson --
mjackson@peiferlaw.com -- Peifer, Hanson, & Mullins P.A., Robert
E. Hanson -- rhanson@peiferlaw.com -- Peifer, Hanson & Mullins, PA
& William H. Carpenter, William H. Carpenter Law Office, Ltd..

Kathleen Valdes, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Robert Peifer,
Peifer, Hanson & Mullins, PA, Matthew Eric Jackson, Peifer,
Hanson, & Mullins P.A., Robert E. Hanson, Peifer, Hanson &
Mullins, PA & William H. Carpenter, William H. Carpenter Law
Office, Ltd..

Standard Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by W. Mark
Mowery -- mmowery@rodey.com -- Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin &
Robb, Ryan McComber -- ryan.mccomber@figdav.com -- Figari &
Davenport, LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy A. Daniels --
tim.daniels@figdav.com -- Figari & Davenport LLP, pro hac vice.

Martha Quintana, Defendant, represented by W. Mark Mowery, Rodey,
Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, Ryan McComber, Figari & Davenport,
LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy A. Daniels, Figari & Davenport LLP,
pro hac vice.

State of New Mexico General Services Department, Defendant,
represented by Lisa Entress Pullen -- pullenl@civerolo.com --
Civerolo, Gralow & Hill, P.A..


TESORO REFINING: Court Names Hadsell Stormer Interim Lead Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to
Consolidate Cases and Appointment of Interim Lead Counsel in the
captioned CHRIS AZPEITIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TESORO REFINING &
MARKETING COMPANY LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00123-
JST (N.D. Cal.).

Before the Court are Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate Azpeitia v.
Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company LLC et al., Case No. 17-cv-
00123-JST, and Jinetra Bonner v. Tesoro Refining & Marketing
Company, LLC, Case No. 17-cv-03850-JST, and Plaintiffs' request
for appointment of proposed interim lead counsel.

The Azpeitia Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  Jinetra Bonner filed suit in Sacramento Superior
Court, alleging the same claims and one additional claim.

Defendants removed the Bonner action to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California.  The Bonner
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Change Venue to the Northern District
of California and a Notice of Related Case in the Azpeitia action.
Bonner.  The Bonner court granted the motion to transfer.  This
Court related the two actions.

When actions involving a common question of law or fact are
pending before the court, it may order all the actions
consolidated. The district court has broad discretion under this
rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.

The two related actions clearly involve common questions of law
and fact. Accordingly, both matters require a determination of
whether Defendants' alleged conduct violates wage and hour law,
the Court says.  Moreover, the Court is not aware of any delay or
prejudice to either party that would result from consolidation of
the two cases, particularly where both cases are in the early
stages of litigation and where the parties have stipulated to
extend the time for Defendants to respond to a possible
consolidated complaint to avoid duplication of efforts.

The Court accordingly grants Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate.

Plaintiffs also move for an order designating Hadsell Stormer &
Renick, LLP, as interim lead class counsel in order to best
protect the interests of the putative class and promote efficiency
of case management.

Rule 23(g)(3) provides that the court may designate interim
counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining
whether to certify the action as a class action. This rule
authorizes a court to designate interim counsel during the pre-
certification period if necessary to protect the interests of the
putative class.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' proposal and concludes that
lead class counsel comprised of Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP,
would "fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.
The firm has done extensive work identifying, investigating, and
prosecuting the potential claims. The firm has experience handling
complex litigation and knowledge of the applicable law.

The firm has established that it will commit adequate resources to
representing the class. Having one lead class counsel for the
consolidated action will also promote judicial efficiency, and all
three firms representing the Plaintiffs agree that Hadsell Stormer
& Renick, LLP should be appointed interim lead class counsel, with
the hours expended litigating the action to be distributed evenly
between the firms.

Accordingly, the Court designates Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP as
interim lead class counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya8vxwkafrom Leagle.com.

Chris Azpeitia, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelia Dai --
cdai@hadsellstormer.com -- Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP.
Chris Azpeitia, Plaintiff, represented by Randy R. Renick --
rrr@hadsellstormer.com -- Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP, Jay
Edward Smith -- js@gslaw.com -- Gilbert & Sackman, A Law
Corporation & Joshua Finley Young -- jyoung@gslaw.org -- Gilbert &
Sackman, A Law Corporation.

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

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

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

Jinetra Bonner, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Michael David
Singer -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, James
Jason Hill, Cohelan Khoury & Singer& Timothy Douglas Cohelan,
Cohelan Khoury & Singer, 605 C St # 200. San Diego, CA 92101
Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC, Defendant, represented by
Michael Warner Kopp -- mkopp@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Mary Deanna Manesis, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 333 S Hope St Ste 3900,
Los Angeles, CA 90071, Timothy Michael Rusche --
trusche@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & William James Dritsas
-- wdritsas@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Tesoro Logistics GP, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael Warner
Kopp, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Mary Deanna Manesis, Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Timothy Michael Rusche, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & William James Dritsas,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


TEXAS: Judge Says 600 Heat-Sensitive Inmates Qualified for Relief
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meagan Flynn, writing for Houston Press, reports that since
inundating the Texas coast at the end of August, Hurricane Harvey
has done virtually nothing good for anyone -- but there's at least
one group of people who are an exception: approximately 600 heat-
sensitive prison inmates who, thanks to Harvey, are about to get
some air conditioning.

Here's how that happened: According to Texas Department of
Criminal Justice spokesman Jason Clark, three prisons located near
the overflowing Brazos River -- the Terrell, Ramsey and
Stringfellow units -- were at risk of severe flooding as Harvey
pounded the area.  So the prisoners -- about 4,500 of them -- were
evacuated to facilities on higher ground.  One such location was
the Wallace Pack Unit in Navasota -- which is currently under
federal court oversight after a judge found that its extreme heat
violates the right of prisoners to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment.

U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison ruled in July that heat-
sensitive inmates in the Pack Unit could not be subjected to
temperatures higher than 88 degrees, and therefore would have to
be kept in air conditioning or transferred to other units where
there is a/c.  About 75 percent of prison units don't have it --
including the notoriously sweltering Pack Unit, which can often
see temperatures upwards of 100 degrees during the summertime and
which Judge Ellison said poses "substantial risk of serious injury
or death as a result of overheating."  Plaintiffs in the class
action cited 23 heat-related deaths since 1998.

Now, because TDCJ even temporarily housed just over 1,000 inmates
from Stringfellow at the Pack Unit, Judge Ellison ruled that the
estimated 600 heat-sensitive inmates from that group automatically
qualified for the relief under the class action.

Lawyers for TDCJ argued they should be allowed to "temporarily
suspend" Judge Ellison's order given that the inmates from
Stringfellow weren't supposed to be staying at the prison long,
and given that with all the chaos caused by Harvey, prison
officials were unable to avoid bringing the heat-sensitive inmates
to the un-air-conditioned prison.  But Judge Ellison denied that
request, saying, "The risk of harm to these individuals when they
are housed in dangerously hot areas has not changed."

Mr. Clark said TDCJ is now in the process of determining the exact
number of heat-sensitive inmates brought to the Pack Unit from
Stringfellow.  They will then be brought to air-conditioned beds.

Even though the waters have receded, Mr. Clark said these inmates
have been unable to return to Stringfellow.  The reason TDCJ had
to bring them to the Pack Unit in the first place, Mr. Clark said,
is that "the alternative was for buses to pass [the Pack Unit] and
continue on dangerous roadways and place those offenders in
another facility's gymnasium," thus facing the risk of flooding
the bus.

"The department strongly disagrees with [the] judge's ruling," Mr.
Clark said.  "We stand by our decision to keep offenders out of
harm's way."

And apparently to keep them in stifling temperatures. [GN]


THOUSAND OAKS, CA: Ranch Mobile Home Class Action Settlement OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Harris, writing for Ventura County Star, reports that a
class-action rent-control settlement has been reached between 42
elderly, low-income residents of the Ranch Mobile Home Park in
downtown Thousand Oaks and the park's owner.

Under the settlement approved by Ventura County Superior Court
Judge Kent Kellegrew, the most the 42 residents' rent can increase
for the rest of their lives -- or until they sell their properties
-- is $119 a month more than their rent was in October 2011.

While residents of the 74-unit park own their mobile homes, they
rent the space the properties are on, said resident Jim Wolf, a
spokesman for the residents.

Under a 2011 Thousand Oaks mobile home rent control measure, the
city approved a $191.95 monthly rent increase for the park, to be
phased in over seven years, according to court papers.

Mr. Wolf said that with interest, the hike would have been much
higher at the end of the seven years.

Mr. Wolf is treasurer of the Senior Alliance for Empowerment, a
nonprofit group formed by the park's residents, which called the
settlement "a huge victory for elderly low-income residents."

"This settlement allows the most fragile of our community to live
the remainder of their lives free from the stress of being on
welfare or becoming homeless."

"This settlement allows the most fragile of our community to live
the remainder of their lives free from the stress of being on
welfare or becoming homeless," the alliance said in a statement.
"It is especially critical because the current city ordinance
covering rent control expires in 2021, and there is no plan to
continue rent control for the elderly and aged, very low-income
residents of the city's mobile home parks.

"Most important, the members of the class are protected from any
further rent increases for the remainder of their lives or until
their home is sold, whichever occurs first," the alliance said.

The class consists of the 43 people who bought a home at the park
after Sept. 11, 1977, and were leasing a space there as of October
2011 when the park owner imposed rent increases pursuant to the
city's rent stabilization ordinance, Judge Kellegrew wrote in his
order.  One of the 43 has since moved, Mr. Wolf said.

Members of the class include Holocaust survivors, World War II and
other veterans and disabled people, he said.

The settlement does not apply to residents who are not members of
the class.

The residents' lead attorney, Les Brown, said, "We're extremely
pleased that we were finally able to come up with a solution to
protect the residents of the park." Mr. Brown and other lawyers
worked on the settlement on behalf of the park's residents for
free.

Waterhouse Management Corp., the Roseville-based company that
manages the park, did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.  Neither did attorney Bill Dahlin, who represents the
park's owners.

In a separate but parallel case, a state appellate court in March
upheld Thousand Oaks' rent control ordinance, finding that it does
not violate the federal Fair Housing Act.  The ruling ended a
five-year legal battle between the city and residents of the
mobile home park.

The California 2nd District Court of Appeal's ruling affirmed a
2015 ruling by Judge Kellegrew, who also sided with the city
against the residents of the mobile home park.

The residents, who had sued the city in 2012, appealed Judge
Kellegrew's ruling, but lost in the appellate court's March 13
ruling.

The residents promised not to further appeal to the California
Supreme Court in return for the city agreeing not to try to
recover a small portion of its legal costs from the plaintiffs,
Assistant City Attorney David Womack said in April.

But in the parallel case, the residents had sued the park's then-
owner, A.V.M.G.H. Five, the Ranch Limited Partnership.

The two cases stem from the city's mobile home rent control
measure, enacted to protect tenants from excessive rent increases
and provide mobile home park owners a fair and reasonable return
on their investments, the appellate court wrote in its 22-page
ruling.

"Because these goals may conflict, (the measure) was bound to
spawn litigation," the court noted.

Under the measure, the city approved the $191.95 monthly rent
increase for the park over seven years, the court stated.

The park's owner had requested a rent increase of $620.11 per
month and considered the measure "a slap in the face," but
nonetheless accepted the law as valid, the court said.

Unhappy about the rent increase, Karen Montana, the daughter of
late Ranch resident Leo Rampersad, and the alliance sued the city.
They argued in part that the measure violated the Fair Housing
Act.

Both Judge Kellegrew and the appeals court rejected that argument.

The city's legal documents in the case "show that (the measure) is
required to maintain affordable rents, provide mobile home park
owners a fair and reasonable return on their investments and to
establish consistent rent control regulations," the appellate
court stated.

Residents of the Ranch Mobile Home Park "enjoy the lowest rents in
the area, with all the benefits of a rent control ordinance," the
court noted.

"There is no housing discrimination or equal protection violation
because disabled tenants are treated the same as non-disabled
tenants," the ruling stated.

Wolf said the settlement was initially reached with the park's
previous owner, A.V.M.G.H. Five, the Ranch Limited Partnership.
After the park was sold, the new owners -- Ronald and Esther
Ubaldi -- accepted the agreement, Wolf said.

The new owners "cooperated with us 100 percent," he said. [GN]


TRANSUNION LLC: Wins Bid for Rule 11 Sanctions vs. Letren, Atty
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NEIL F. LETREN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. PX 15-3361 (D. Md.), Judge Paula Xinis
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted
the Defendant's motions for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 and the inherent powers of the Court; and denied as
moot any available relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 and 15
U.S.C. Section 1681.

According to the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff obtained several
mortgage loans in 2007, including mortgage loans being reported to
his credit reports by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.  In September of
2008, the Plaintiff's property was foreclosed upon.

On Dec. 1, 2009, the Plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.
His bankruptcy petition included a Schedule F of accounts to be
discharged in the bankruptcy and listed five accounts, including
three mortgage deficiencies from American Home Mortgage Acceptance
("AHMA"), Aurora Loan Services, and National City Mortgage.  The
Chase Account was not listed on the Schedule F.

In September of 2013, the Plaintiff obtained his Trans Union
credit file.  The report showed that the Chase Account had a
balance of $0 as of Oct. 6, 2008 with former terms of $4,222 due
monthly and the status of the account was "CBL: Chapter 7
Bankruptcy."  The Plaintiff proceeded to dispute the accuracy of
the report with Trans Union, first claiming on Sept. 16, 2013 that
the Chase Account should be deleted because Chase could not
adequately demonstrate that it was the legal holder of the note.
Then, in a series of written disputes with Trans Union over the
next eleven months, he shifted his allegation of the error.  In
April 2015, the Chase Account was automatically removed from the
Plaintiff's credit file because the account had been closed for
seven years.

On July 17, 2015, Letren, and co-plaintiff Candice Alston filed an
amended class action complaint through counsel Kevin Chapple
against Experian Information Solutions, Inc.  The allegations
against Experian rely in part on the misreporting of Letren's
Chase Account -- claiming that the Chase Account, among other
mortgage accounts, was erroneously reported as due and owing and
not in bankruptcy.  The Amended Complaint also contends the Chase
Account was a duplicate of an account reported by Homeward
Residential.

Almost three months later, on Oct. 6, 2015, Letren, proceeding pro
se, filed a class action complaint against three consumer
reporting agency -- Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax
Information Services, LLC, and Trans Union for alleged violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").

The Complaint asserts that Trans Union falsely reported the Chase
Account as due and owing when the Chase Account was discharged in
bankruptcy.  The Complaint provides no allegations of a duplicate
account -- specifically, no allegations involving Homeward
Residential, or a third mortgage loan company, AHMA.

Chapple then entered his appearance in the instant action for
Letren on Nov. 16, 2015.  Several weeks later, Chapple filed on
behalf of the Plaintiff an amended class action complaint.  The
Amended Complaint maintained both class and individual claims,
alleging that Defendant Trans Union violated 15 U.S.C. Section
1681e(b) (Count I and II) and 15 U.S.C. Section 1681i(a) (Count
III and IV) of the FCRA.

With regard to the Plaintiff's individual claims, the Amended
Complaint specifically alleged that the Chase Account not only
existed as of 2007, but was discharged in his 2009 bankruptcy.
The Amended Complaint unambiguously faults Trans Union for
inaccurately reporting the Chase Account as due and owing instead
of discharged in bankruptcy.

From the beginning of this case, Trans Union vigorously disputed
the veracity of the Plaintiff's claims.  Repeatedly, Trans Union
pressed the Plaintiff, through counsel, for any documentary
evidence demonstrating that the Chase Account had been discharged
in bankruptcy.  At no point did Letren or his attorney, Chapple,
produce any documentary proof supporting the Plaintiff's
allegations.

Then in June of 2016, Letren changed his story in his deposition.
He testified that he never had a Chase Account and the real error
was Trans Union reporting the account at all.  Letren and Chapple
maintained this new position despite Trans Union having proof that
Chase had repeatedly verified the existence of the mortgage
account and that it had been closed prior to Letren filing for
bankruptcy.

After a failed settlement conference, Trans Union moved for
summary judgment, arguing inter alia that Trans Union had
accurately reported the Chase Account as due and owing.  The
Defendant further moved for summary judgment as to the class
allegations because Plaintiff had done nothing to advance those
claims.

The Plaintiff not only filed a formal opposition, but separately
cross-moved for summary judgment.  In both pleadings, the
Plaintiff persisted in his new argument that he did not hold a
Chase Account at all, and even argued that it was Trans Union's
burden to show that the Chase Account in fact existed.

On Feb. 2, 2017, the Court granted Trans Union's motion for
summary judgment, denied the Plaintiff's motions, and dismissed
his remaining claims.  The Court dismissed the action because the
Plaintiff failed to proffer any evidence supporting the elements
of his claims other than his own self-serving declaration.

Following the Court's ruling, Trans Union filed the instant motion
for sanctions pursuant to Procedure 11, Section 1927, Section
1681, and the inherent powers of the Court.  Trans Union contends
that sanctions are warranted because the Plaintiff pursued claims
in the face of its repeated warnings that the claims were
factually baseless.

In response, Plaintiff, through Chapple, offered yet a wholly new
theory of liability: that the Chase Account is the same as his
American Home Mortgage Account that had been included in Letren's
2009 bankruptcy.  Then, following dismissal of Chapple as Letren's
counsel and the entrance of Quinn Lobato as plaintiff's counsel,
Ms. Lobato offered a final theory of liability -- that the
duplication of the trade line on the Trans Union consumer report
was due to Chase's status not as a purported noteholder, but
rather as a loan servicer.

Judge Xinis concludes that the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint,
response to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement and his
own Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement lacked a good faith factual
justification, warranting sanctions for Chapple.  Nor is there any
evidence that Letren conducted an objectively reasonable
investigation for his claims prior to pursuing them.  Finally,
despite the Defendant's repeated entreaties for the Plaintiff to
produce such evidence or else face a motion for Rule 11 sanctions,
the Plaintiff ignored them.  For all of these reasons, the nature
and severity of the misconduct counsels strongly in favor of
significant sanctions.

The Judge accepts that the counsel is experienced, able and
skilled in this particular litigation.  Further, the attorneys'
hourly rate of $175.75 per hour is reasonable and appropriate.
However, when considering that the case is hardly novel or
complex, the number of defense hours expended -- 325 seems
disproportionately high.  Trans Union's request for such
reimbursement of hundreds of attorney hours runs counter to their
claim that the Plaintiff's lack of candor was simple,
straightforward and obvious.  Accordingly, these factors counsel
in favor of reducing the proposed attorneys' fee.

Judge Xinis concludes that the Plaintiff's history as a frequent
filer in the Court, combined with the ease with which he
contradicted his complaint allegations with sworn testimony,
merits sanctions against him individually.

Finally as to ability to pay, the record reflects that the
Plaintiff currently can afford this sanction.  Accordingly, the
Judge will impose sanctions of $200 on Letren and $4,000 on
Chapple, each to bear its own sanction.  The Plaintiff's
misconduct, with the assistance of Chapple, infected the entire
course of litigation.  Thus, based on the all the facts and
circumstances, she concludes that an appropriate sanction is the
Defendant's attorneys' fees in the amount of $4,200.

For these reasons, Judge Xinis granted Trans Union's Motion for
Sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 and the inherent powers of the
Court, and awards Trans Union $4,200 in sanctions, jointly and
severally against Letren and Chapple.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/jVijyW from Leagle.com.

Neil F. Letren, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin L. Chapple,
Chapple Law Firm.

Neil F. Letren, Plaintiff, represented by Quinn Breece Lobato,
Lobato Law.

Trans Union, LLC, Defendant, represented by Henry Mark Stichel --
HMStichel@ghsllp.com -- Gohn Hankey Stichel & Berlage LLP, Robert
J. Schuckit -- rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com -- Schuckit & Associates,
P.C. & Katherine Carlton Robinson -- krobinson@schuckitlaw.com --
Schuckit and Associates PC, pro hac vice.


TURN INC: Loses Bid to Invoke Verizon's Arbitration Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
C. Ryan Barber, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
appeals panel on Sept. 5 rejected a digital advertising firm's
effort to invoke Verizon Wireless' arbitration agreement to push a
subscriber class action over data collection practices out of
court.

Verizon customers Anthony Henson and William Cintron in 2015 sued
Turn Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California over claims the internet advertising firm unlawfully
collected browsing histories and other data with "zombie" cookies
that consumers could not detect, block or delete.  The plaintiffs,
suing on behalf of all Verizon customers, accused Turn -- which
had a contract with Verizon to deliver ads to mobile subscribers -
- of recreating the cookies after users deleted them and proceeded
to collect data without their knowledge.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in Oakland ruled for Turn,
saying that consumer contracts with Verizon required the privacy
lawsuit to be sent to arbitration.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit on Sept. 5 reversed that ruling.  The judges, ruling
unanimously, said the agreement between consumers and Verizon
"provides that only the subscriber and Verizon 'agree to resolve
disputes only by arbitration.'"

"Turn is not a signatory to the customer agreement," the panel
wrote in its per curiam decision.

Turn, represented by a team from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
in San Francisco, argued that Verizon's arbitration agreement
should apply because the company provided a service to the
consumers that was closely connected to their wireless service.

The Ninth Circuit panel pointed to language in Turn's agreement
with Verizon that said the companies "are independent of each
other" and that "neither party shall have the authority to bind
the other in any way."

The appeals court panel noted that Verizon was not accused of
colluding with Turn.

"On the contrary, Mr. Henson alleges that 'Turn conducted its
practices in secret' and acted without Verizon's knowledge,
consent or approval. Indeed, Mr. Henson claims that Verizon
publicly rebuked Turn's alleged practices upon discovering them,"
the judges wrote.

Still, Verizon took an active interest in the litigation. In a
brief filed with the Ninth Circuit, the wireless provider --
represented by Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick partner
Scott H. Angstreich -- sangstreich@kellogghansen.com -- in
Washington -- wanted the subscribers' case against Turn sent into
arbitration.

"Although petitioners elected to sue only the advertising partner
-- in a strategic effort to evade the arbitration clause in their
contracts with Verizon -- if this litigation persists in federal
court, Verizon will be forced to participate, and the meaning of
its terms of service with petitioners will be squarely at issue,"
Mr. Angstreich wrote. "Litigation will thus subject Verizon to
precisely the burdens that it contracted with petitioners to
avoid, including the class procedures petitioners and the unnamed
class members agreed to forgo, in favor of individualized
arbitration."

A lawyer for Messrs. Henson and Cintron -- represented by a team
from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein -- were not immediately
reached for comment on Sept. 5.

Turn's data collection practices have faced regulatory scrutiny.
In December, the Redwood City, California, company reached a
settlement with the Federal Trade Commission to resolve claims
that it continued tracking tens of millions of Verizon customers
even after they blocked or deleted cookies from websites.  The FTC
settlement requires Turn to stop misrepresenting the extent of its
online tracking and to provide an effective opt-out for consumers
who don't want their information used for targeted advertising.

"Turn tracked millions of consumers online and through mobile apps
even if they had taken steps to block or limit tracking," Jessica
Rich, then the director of the FTC's consumer protection bureau,
said in December.  "The FTC's order will ensure the company honors
consumers' privacy choices."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Arbitration Issue in Drivers' Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc on Sept. 20 would urge a U.S. appeals court to
rule that arbitration agreements signed by many of its drivers
were valid because they were not mandatory, a key step in its bid
to beat back four separate lawsuits by drivers.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
San Francisco would consider Uber's appeals of a series of
decisions by a federal judge who said arbitration agreements
signed by drivers that contained class-action waivers violated the
National Labor Relations Act, even though they contained opt-out
provisions. [GN]


UNILEVER UNITED: Faces Class Action Over Flammable Vaseline Gel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon, writing for Reuters, reports that a California couple
has filed a lawsuit against Unilever United States Inc, alleging
its Vaseline Petroleum Jelly can ignite, causing severe burns and
other injuries.  In their lawsuit filed on Sept. 18 in U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Colleen
Clarke and her husband Robert claim she sustained third degree
burns in October 2016 when the Vaseline she applied to her skin
ignited. [GN]


UNITED PROPANE: Class Certification in "Purcell" Suit Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Allison Jones of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky vacated
McCracken Circuit Court's order granting the Appellees' motion for
class certification in the case captioned UNITED PROPANE GAS,
INC., Appellant, v. FAYE PURCELL, CAROLYN SEAY, INDIVIDUALLY,
CAROLYN SEAY, ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS OF SIMILIARILY SITUATED
CONSUMERS THEY SEEK TO REPRESENT, RICHARD SEAY, ON BEHALF OF THE
CLASS OF SIMILARILY SITUATED CONSUMERS THEY SEEK TO REPRESENT, &
RICHARD SEAY, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellees, No. 2016-CA-001037-MR (Ky.
App.).

Purcell, on behalf of herself and on behalf of the class of
similarly situated consumers, filed a class action complaint
against United Propane in McCracken Circuit Court on Aug. 7, 2014.
Faye's complaint alleged that United Propane had dishonored
thousands of Agreements it had entered with its customers, and
asserted claims under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, breach
of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and unjust enrichment.

Faye amended her complaint on Dec. 12, 2014, to add two additional
Named Plaintiffs, Richard and Carolyn Seay.  United Propane filed
an answer to the first amended complaint on Feb. 4, 2015.
Following United Propane's filing its answer, the parties took
numerous depositions and engaged in written discovery.

On Feb. 25, 2016, the Appellees filed a motion for class
certification.  United Propane responded on April 25, 2016.  The
Appellees replied to United Propane's response on May 18, 2016.

The circuit court heard arguments concerning the class
certification on June 6, 2016.  That same day, the circuit court
entered an order certifying the class.  Due to a clerical error,
the parties entered into an agreed order vacating the June 6,
2016, order.  On July 8, 2016, the circuit court entered a
corrected order certifying the class.

The order simply stated as follows: (i) the case is certified as a
class action pursuant to [CR] 23.01 and [CR] 23.02; (ii) the
definition of the class is defined as all residential customers
who paid for a 2013-2014 "Pre-Purchase Prebuy Keepfull Gas Supply
Agreement" from United Propane and/or its subsidiaries and/or
affiliates; (iii) Ms. Purcell, Mr. Seay, and Ms. Seay are
appointed as Class Representatives; and (iv) Robert W. Joe Bishop,
John S. Fried, and Tyler Z Korus of Bishop Korus Friend, P.S.C.,
Hilton Tomlinson of Tomlinson Law, L.L.C., and Michael Pitman of
Haverstock, Bell, and Pitman, L.L.P. are appointed as the Co-Lead
Counsel for the Class.  The appeal followed.

United Propane asserts that the circuit court's class
certification is deficient under CR 23.01, CR 23.02, and CR 23.03.

Judge Jones agrees.  The circuit court failed to make necessary
findings of fact required by CR 23.01 and CR 23.02 and does not
comply CR 23.03.  Accordingly, she vacated and remanded the order
certifying the class.  Should the court find that class
certification is appropriate on remand, she is instructed the
circuit court to enter an order by which it conducts the proper
analysis under CR 23.01 and CR 23.02 and complies with CR 23.03.

Any future class certification order entered by the circuit court
must comply with CR 23.03 by defining "the class and the class
claims, issues, or defenses, and must appoint class counsel under
CR 23.07.  However, nothing in her Opinion should be read as
expressing an opinion on the propriety of certifying a class as
her review concerned only the issue of whether the circuit court
performed the proper analysis prior to certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/QBNMZL from Leagle.com.

David L. Kelly -- dkelly@kkhblaw.com -- Robert W. Goff --
rgoff@kkhblaw.com -- Paducah, Kentucky, Briefs for Appellant.

John S. Friend, Robert W. Bishop, Tyler Z. Korus, Louisville,
Kentucky, Frank H. Tomlinson, Birmingham, Alabama, Mike Pittman,
Murray, Kentucky, Brief for Appellees.


UNITED STATES: Oct. 6 Status Conference in Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned Y AND J PROPERTIES, LTD., individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
BRYANT BANES, NEVA BANES, CARLTON JONES, AND NB RESEARCH, INC., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
MATTHEW SALO AND GABRIELA SALO, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons and entities, Plaintiffs, ANGELA
BOUZERAND, WAYNE PESEK, AMY PESEK, AND FRED PAUL FRENGER,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, VAL ANTHONY ALDRED, HAGAN HAMILTON HEILIGBRODT,
WILLIAM LANGE KRELL, JR., BEVERLY FECEL KRELL, AND SHAWN S.
WELLING, appearing individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, KENNETH LEE SMITH AND CONSTANCE
SMITH, Plaintiffs, GARNER TIP STRICKLAND, IV AND MEGAN K.
STRICKLAND, Plaintiffs, BONNIE CLARK GOMEZ AND JORGE L. GOMEZ,
Plaintiffs, VIRGINIA MILTON AND ARNOLD MILTON on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Nos. 17-1189L, 17-
1191L, 17-1194L, 17-1195L, 17-1206L, 17-1215L, 17-1216L, 17-1232L,
17-1235L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Susan G. Braden of the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims will convene a status conference on Oct. 6, 2017 at
10:00 a.m. to ascertain the counsel's view on how these cases
should proceed.

Specifically, the captioned nine cases have been randomly assigned
to six different judges of the court, including Judge Braden.
Five of these cases have been filed as potential class actions;
the other four are filed by the Individual Plaintiffs and appear
not to seek class action certification.

Judge Braden ordered that the counsel should be prepared to advise
about these issues and others that may arise:

     a. Whether some or all of these cases should be consolidated
before one judge to supervise discovery and adjudicate liability;

     b. Whether some or all of these cases should be consolidated
before one judge to supervise discovery and adjudicate liability
for all of the proposed class actions and one or more judges to
supervise discovery and adjudicate liability for the individual
Plaintiffs' cases;

     c. Whether one of the proposed class actions should be
designated as a lead case and the other proposed class actions be
stayed;

     d. Whether one of the individual cases should be designated
as a lead case or should each case proceed separately or should
any case be stayed;

     e. An estimate of the amount of time the counsel believes is
required to conduct sufficient discovery to determine whether
liability can be adjudicated by summary judgment;

     f. Whether the parties anticipate requesting that the issue
of liability be certified for an interlocutory appeal; and

     g. Any other proposals the counsel may have to assist the
court reach an efficient and expeditious adjudication of
liability.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/FzDFcP from Leagle.com.

IRGINIA MILTON, Plaintiff, represented by Rand P. Nolen --
rand_nolen@fleming-law.com -- Fleming, Nolen & Jez, L.L.P..

ARNOLD MILTON, Plaintiff, represented by Rand P. Nolen, Fleming,
Nolen & Jez, L.L.P..

USA, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Camille Brown, U.S.
Department of Justice.


UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Appeal OPM Data Breach Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cogan Schneier, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge dismissed two lawsuits on Sept. 19 stemming from a
massive breach of government data, but plaintiffs wasted little
time, appealing one of those decisions within an hour.

Lawyers representing the National Treasury Employees Union filed
an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on
Sept. 19 following a ruling from U.S. District Judge Amy Berman
Jackson that dismissed their lawsuit, along with another, over a
2015 Office of Personnel Management data breach.  The breach
affected more than 21 million people, and lawsuits over it were
consolidated in multidistrict litigation in the District of
Columbia in October 2015.

Paras Shah, assistant counsel at NTEU, said his team was "ready to
review" Jackson's decision and "upon reading it found it
appropriate to file our appeal."  The union alleged that the
breach violated its members' rights under the Constitution's Fifth
Amendment to privacy of information.

"Our legal theory is that, if the government cannot disclose
inherently personal information that's given to it to unauthorized
individuals, then it can't recklessly disregard its obligation to
protect that information. . . .  The government can't leave [the
information] somewhere and leave the doors and windows open so
that somebody may find it."

In addition to NTEU's lawsuit, which was brought by the union and
some individual members, another government union, the American
Federation of Government Employees, brought a class action lawsuit
that was consolidated with others from across the country.  In the
ruling on Sept. 19, Judge Jackson also dismissed that suit, which
alleged violations of federal law prohibiting the dissemination of
individuals' personal information by the government.

Daniel Girard, managing partner of Girard Gibbs in San Francisco,
was lead counsel on that lawsuit.  Mr. Girard did not immediately
say whether he planned to file an appeal.

"We are reviewing the court's opinion and will be discussing
options with our clients and co-counsel," Mr. Girard said in an
email.

Judge Jackson wrote in her opinion that the plaintiffs in both
lawsuits failed to show they had standing to bring their claims.
None of the plaintiffs, the judge wrote, could show a cognizable
injury from the breach that the court could address.

"It may well be that the Supreme Court or the D.C. Circuit will
someday announce that given the potential for harm inherent in any
cyberattack, breach victims automatically have standing even if
the harm has yet to materialize, and even if the purpose behind
the breach and the nature of any future harm have yet to be
discerned," Judge Jackson wrote.  "But that has not happened yet,
and the court is not empowered to expand the limits of its own
authority, so it cannot find that plaintiffs have standing based
on this record."

The ruling comes at a critical point for case law surrounding data
breaches. Courts are split over what constitutes as a cognizable
injury in data breach suits.  Meanwhile, lawsuits are piling up
across the country related to the recently announced breach at
Equifax, which affected nearly half the country.  In August, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the dismissal
of a case related to a 2014 breach at health insurer CareFirst,
writing that the district court had taken too narrow a view of the
harm to plaintiffs.

Judge Jackson wrote that the circumstances were different in the
OPM case, although she added that the circuit court's ruling meant
"standing is a very close and difficult question in this case."

She wrote there was no evidence that "the means to commit credit
card or bank fraud were included in this breach," nor was there
evidence that the stolen information had been used to commit such
fraud. She wrote that while the CareFirst hack was a "domestic
crime," the OPM hack appeared to be sponsored by a foreign state,
according to media reports.

As for the class action, Judge Jackson wrote, the federal
government has sovereign immunity from its claims.

Meanwhile, Judge Jackson said the constitutional claims in the
NTEU suit did not hold up. [GN]


VEON LTD: Fails to Avert Investors' FCPA Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Newsham, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on Sept. 19 ruled that European telecommunications company
Veon Ltd., which admitted to paying bribes in Uzbekistan, can't
escape a proposed class action for failing to disclose its crimes
to investors, finding that the suit was "in large part" strong
enough to survive dismissal.

Veon, formerly known as VimpelCom, was sued by investors after it
disclosed that it was being investigated by authorities, including
the U.S. Department of Justice, for paying bribes to the daughter
of Uzbekistan's then-leader so it could do business in the central
Asian country.  Although the company paid a whopping $795 million
to resolve the criminal charges, it said the civil fraud suit was
too weak to merit discovery.

U.S District Judge Andrew Carter Jr. found that the complaint met
all the requirements to advance, however.  Although Veon said the
suit was an effort by private attorneys to play policeman and
treat all violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as
securities fraud, the judge rejected that argument, noting that
the suit was similar to one against corruption-tainted
petrochemical firm Braskem SA that was allowed to advance earlier
this year and settled for $10 million.

"The court finds that [disclosures about growth, without mention
of bribery] are in line with those that the district court found
actionable in Braskem, where the defendant disclosed certain
reasons supporting the price it paid for a particular raw
material, but did not disclose that the price also was due to a
side agreement the company had secured through bribery," the judge
wrote.

The court concluded that the proposed class definition may have to
be modified and said the investors can't get damages for certain
classes of alleged misstatements and omissions, but the company
will still have to start forking over records and preparing its
people for depositions.  The only claims cut from the suit relate
to Veon's statements about regulation of the Uzbek telecom sector
and allegations of failure to abide by internal controls, mere
"mismanagement" that can't be the subject of a securities fraud
suit, the judge said.

Judge Carter put himself on the conservative side of what he
viewed as a divide among courts that have evaluated claims of
securities fraud tied to hiding illegal conduct, but he said this
suit is still viable.  Companies may not have to confess all their
sins in their financials, but they can still be held liable for
failing to disclose criminal conduct when that makes other
disclosures -- such as touting great success in the Uzbek mobile
market -- materially misleading, the judge said.

"Many of the statements identified by plaintiffs are nothing more
than a narrative restatement of accurate financial reporting that
is not, without more, actionable," he said.  "However, certain
other of the statements -- particularly, those in Veon's [reports
of] quarterly earnings -- sufficiently place the reasons for
growth in Uzbekistan at issue to make further disclosure
necessary."

The shareholders say Veon struck deals with a company secretly
controlled by Gulnara Karimova, the Uzbek president's daughter who
was convicted of a litany of crimes in her homeland, to sell and
buy back a stake in its Uzbekistan wireless business at prices
that netted $37.5 million for Karimova's company.  The complaint
was amended last year to include other bribes that were detailed
in the U.S. government's criminal probe of Veon.

The investors seek damages from Veon and five former chief
executive and financial officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. The investors have not been certified as a class
yet, and no amount of damages has been stated.

Lawyers for both sides didn't immediately respond to requests for
comment on Sept. 19.

The proposed class is represented by Thomas J. McKenna and Gregory
M. Egleston of Gainey McKenna & Egleston.

Veon is represented by John P. Coffey -- scoffey@kramerlevin.com -
- Kerri Ann Law -- klaw@kramerlevin.com -- and Adina C. Levine --
alevine@kramerlevin.com -- of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

The case is In re Veon Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:15-cv-08672 (S.D.N.Y.).  The case is assigned to Judge Andrew L.
Carter, Jr. The case was filed November 4, 2015. [GN]


VOLVO CARS: Faces "Middien" Suit in District of Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volvo Cars of North
America. The case is captioned as Robert Middien, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Volvo
Cars of North America, LLC and Volvo Car USA, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-11721-LTS (D. Mass., Sep. 11, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin.[BN]

Volvo Cars of North America, LLC provides marketing, sales,
distribution, parts service, and training support for Volvo brand
passenger cars in United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          Two Seaport Lane, 6th Flr.
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439 3939
          Facsimile: (617) 439 0134
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com


WOLFGANG'S VAULT: Faces Greg Kihn Copyright Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that when entrepreneur
William Sagan opened up "Wolfgang's Vault" in 2006, and began
streaming a massive archive of concert recordings online, he also
opened up knotty legal dispute.

Mr. Sagan has been sued a half dozen times over the years,
including by the Grateful Dead and Led Zeppelin, for alleged
copyright infringement. T he latest to get in on the action is
Greg Kihn, of the power pop act the Greg Kihn Band, known for
early '80s hits "Jeopardy" and "The Breakup Song (They Don't Write
'Em)."

In a suit filed in San Francisco federal court on Sept. 14, Kihn
alleges that Wolfgang's Vault is selling access to more than a
dozen live concert recordings from 1976 through 1986, as well as
Kihn's appearances on the "King Biscuit Flower Hour" radio show.

Mr. Sagan is also currently fighting a federal suit in New York
against six groups of music publishers.  Kihn's suit is filed as a
class action, and seeks to represent the artists whose recordings
appear on the site.

In 2002, Mr. Sagan acquired the archive of San Francisco concert
promoter Bill Graham, said to be one of the largest private
collections of concert recordings.  Mr. Sagan supplemented his
holdings by acquiring a dozen other collections, including the
King Biscuit radio show. Wolfgang's Vault sells access to the
recordings for $39.99 per year.

In the dispute with the music publishers, Mr. Sagan's attorneys
have alleged that he has paid out royalties under compulsory
licenses, and that the plaintiffs failed to object to that
arrangement in a timely fashion.  The publishers' attorneys have
countered that the performances are ineligible for compulsory
licenses because they were originally made without the artists'
permission and because Wolfgang's Vault failed to give advance
notice as the law requires.  Both sides are seeking summary
judgment in their favor.

Mr. Sagan's attorney, Michael Elkin, did not immediately respond
to a request for comment on the new lawsuit.  Neville Johnson --
njohnson@jjllplaw.com -- of Johnson & Johnson LLP, and Daniel
Warshaw, of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, are representing the
plaintiffs. [GN]


XTREME CUISINE III: "Crenshaw" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Crenshaw, and all others similarly-situated v. Xtreme
Cuisine III, LLC dba Piranha Killer Sushi, Case No.  1:17-cv-00926
(W.D. Tex., September 25, 2017), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Crenshaw is an individual residing in Austin,
Texas who was employed by the Defendant.

The Defendant operates a restaurant in Arlington, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Forester, Esq.
      FORESTER LAW PC
      1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 288-8519
      Fax: (214) 346-5909


YAHOO! INC: Court Dismisses "Wahl" Suit with Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, dismissed with
leave to amend the case captioned ANDREW WAHL, Plaintiff, v.
YAHOO! INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02745-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Wahl, a resident of Missouri, brings this putative class action
against Yahoo for engaging in a pattern of unfair and unlawful
business practices through its allegedly deceptive sales of
monthly and annual subscriptions to its Rivals website.  He
alleges that he signed up for a one-year subscription to Yahoo's
"rivals.com" website, but was not informed of how to cancel the
subscription.  He alleges that he was automatically charged for a
second and third year of the subscription, even though during the
second year he decided he no longer wanted to continue his
subscription.  After his subscription renewed for the third year,
Wahl noticed the charge on his credit card statement and visited
the website to "attempt to cancel" his subscription and obtain a
refund, at which point he learned that subscription/membership
fees for rivals.com were non-refundable.

The complaint contains a single cause of action for violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").  Wahl argues that the
Complaint states a cause of action under the "unlawful" and
"unfair" prongs of the UCL.

He argues that Yahoo's UCL liability under the "unlawful" prong
arises from its alleged violation of two predicate statutes: (i)
California's Automatic Renewal Law, and (ii) a liquidated damages
statute.  Wahl argues that under any of three lines of authority
that have developed among the California Courts of Appeal, Yahoo's
deception of customers, punitive no refund policy and violation of
multiple statutes, all of which are clearly pled, qualifies as
"unfair."

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Freeman finds that Wahl has not pled facts to establish a
violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law.  He also failed
to adequately plead a violation of Cal. Civ. Code Section 1671,
which governs liquidated damages provisions in contracts.  The
Complaint does not allege any liquidated damages arising from a
breach of the contract and Wahl does not plausibly allege
liability under the UCL for a violation of Section 1671.  Because
Wahl fails adequately to allege an unlawful act upon which to base
a derivative UCL claim, he has not stated a claim under the
"unlawful" prong of the UCL.

Judge Freeman further finds that the violations of the predicate
statutes on which Wahl relies are not clearly pled in the
Complaint.  Wahl does not point to a single specific factual
allegation in the Complaint to support liability under the
"unfair" prong.  Given that Wahl has failed plausibly to allege a
statutory violation, and his remaining factual basis for his claim
under the "unfair" prong of the UCL is unclear, Judge Freeman
cannot find that the Complaint states a plausible claim for a
violation of the UCL under any of the tests.  Therefore, the
Complaint fails to state a claim for violation of the UCL under
both the "unfair" and "unlawful" prongs.

However, the Judge will grant Wahl leave to amend the factual
support for his claim under the "unfair" prong along with facts
related to alleged statutory violations under the "unlawful"
prong.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Freeman granted with leave to
amend Yahoo's motion to dismiss the Complaint.  Leave to amend is
limited to the claims in the original complaint.  The Plaintiff
may not add additional claims or parties without express leave of
Court or a stipulation between the parties.  Any amended pleading
addressing the deficiencies identified in the Order or stated on
the record at the hearing Sept. 14, 2017 will be filed on or
before Oct. 16, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ZuqSpd from Leagle.com.

Andrew Wahl, Plaintiff, represented by Darius C. Ogloza --
dogloza@oglozafortney.com -- Ogloza Fortney LLP.

Andrew Wahl, Plaintiff, represented by David Christopher Fortney -
- dfortney@oglozafortney.com -- Ogloza Fortney LLP, Joseph
Kronawitter -- jkronawitter@hab-law.com -- Horn Aylward and Bandy
& Micah David Nash -- mnash@oglozafortney.com -- Ogloza Fortney
LLP.

Yahoo! Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy William Loose --
tloose@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Matthew
Stewart Kahn -- mkahn@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
LLP, Perlette Michele Jura -- pjura@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn
Crutcher LLP & Peter C. Squeri -- psqueri@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP.


* Congress Urged to Fight CFPB's New Arbitration Rule
-----------------------------------------------------
Lisa A. Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform, in an article for Washington Examiner, reports that the
timing of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's new rule
pushing class action lawsuits at the expense of consumer
arbitration agreements is a bit ironic.  Although Congress might
still block him, CFPB Director Richard Cordray is trying with this
rule to force consumers and their complaints into the class action
lawsuit system at the very moment Congress is making its most
serious attempt in a decade to fix that system.

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, or FICALA, is an
effort to repair a class action system that, today, is a tool of
enrichment for plaintiffs' lawyers rather than a path to justice
for consumers. Among other things, FICALA would ensure that the
consumers in a class action lawsuit would get paid from a
settlement or judgment first, rather than the lawyers.  It would
mandate that lawyers only get paid a percentage of the money
consumers actually claim from these lawsuits, not of the headline
dollar amount awarded, much of which might go unclaimed. And it
would require that lawyers only include in their class action
lawsuits those consumers who have actually been harmed.

While these principles might seem straightforward to most people,
they are needed now precisely because class actions today don't
include these consumer protections.

Even the CFPB's own study, designed to fit its own pre-determined
conclusion favoring class actions over arbitration, acknowledged
the serious flaws of these lawsuits.  It showed that in 87 percent
of the class actions it studied, consumers got no benefit at all,
either because they were dismissed or settled with payments only
to the named plaintiffs -- and the lawyers, of course.  It also
showed lawyers reaped an average $1 million in fees per settled
case, while the few consumers who participated in settlements,
only 4% of those eligible, averaged $32.

Take Edwards v. First American, a 2016 case involving title
insurance.  Only 48,000 of the estimated 713,000 class members
received notice of the settlement and the claims administrator
reported 358 claims filed.  The total payout to plaintiffs was
less than $650,000, while the lawyers got $5.26 million.

Examples like this have prompted Congress to move in the opposite
direction from the CFPB.  Incredibly, the Bureau dismissed the
clear benefits arbitration has over class actions -- including how
little consumers pay for the process, how they often have their
claims favorably resolved, and how convenient arbitration is over
the courts.

Certainly the evidence suggests consumers prefer arbitration to
the courts.  In 2014, the Kaiser health plan in California, whose
7 million members use arbitration to address consumer complaints,
found that 90 percent who used the system said it was equal to or
better than going to court.  A survey of consumers who
participated in class actions, meanwhile, showed that only 14
percent believed they received anything of value.  These data were
submitted to the CFPB for its study, and promptly ignored.

The CFPB claims its rule still allows companies to use arbitration
clauses, but few if any will do so if they are also left exposed
to the financially draining threat of class actions. And here's
the rub: Most consumer complaints will never even have the chance
of becoming part of a class action, because they are uniquely
individual and cannot easily be bundled together into a single
lawsuit.

The CFPB's anti-arbitration rule has effectively created a
consumer cul-de-sac.  This is reason enough for a Congressional
Review Act resolution to reverse this damage by undoing the rule.
And Congress has less than 60 legislative days to act, or the CRA
option is dead and the rule becomes final.

The good news is that the House took the first step in July by
passing its CRA resolution.  The Senate, which has introduced its
own CRA bill, must work quickly to follow suit and get it to the
president's desk.

If Congress is serious about showing the American people they can
pass laws that will indeed help everyday consumers, stopping the
CFPB's anti-consumer arbitration rule should be one of the easiest
votes they'll take this year. [GN]


* Harrison Pensa Attorneys Discuss Carriage Motion Issues
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Foreman, Esq. -- jforeman@harrisonpensa.com -- and Jean-
Marc Metrailler, Esq. -- jmetrailler@harrisonpensa.com -- of
Harrison Pensa LLP, in an article for The Lawyer's Daily, report
that class action litigation is a unique part of the legal
universe in Canada.  These special cases tend to have a high
profile and affect a wide range of stakeholders on both sides of a
deeply adversarial divide.

Class actions are the result of a deliberate legislative action to
address recurrent weaknesses in the modern legal system for
claimants, such as economic barriers to accessing the courtroom,
other natural imbalances in procedural power and lack of access to
skilled advisers.

They also have special technical and procedural machinery that
sets them apart from other kinds of litigation -- the
certification motion and requirements to notify class members, for
example.  Because of the scope and impact of these proceedings,
public policy elements also play a regular role in such cases.

As a result, class actions can give rise to a number of ethical
and professionalism issues that do not occur elsewhere.  It is
useful to highlight some professionalism issues found in recent
case law that could only arise in the class action context.

'Carriage' disputes

Put simply, a carriage motion is necessary where there are
multiple class actions filed in the same jurisdiction, all seeking
to prosecute essentially the same case.  Multiple filings cannot
be permitted to stand and only one case can move forward. In a
carriage motion, the case that is selected will move forward and
all others will be stayed or dismissed.

Carriage motions allow clear mandates to be created so that cases
can proceed to a certification motion and a resolution on their
merits.  The problem is that they can balloon into heavy
litigation quite quickly, and disputes between competing
candidates for carriage will delay progress in the case. In
addition, the defendant stands on the sidelines watching the
competing would-be class counsel highlight the other's weaknesses.

Most firms on the plaintiff side quickly resolve carriage issues
and get on with the case.  But in other cases, it is clear that
there are heavily mismatched objectives between contestants. There
can even be examples where it appears one party's objective might
be to contest carriage in order to negotiate a share of fees that
will be earned by the successful counsel in exchange for standing
down.  In those circumstances, is a fee-sharing agreement
acceptable, since it dispenses with delay and other difficulties,
or is the whole concept an outrage that should be prohibited?
Therein lies the ethical question.

In Bancroft-Snell v. Visa Canada Corp. 2016 ONCA 896, the Ontario
Court of Appeal confronted the payment of fees, out of settlement
recoveries, to a former carriage contestant under a fee-sharing
agreement reached to settle a carriage motion.

The Court of Appeal refused to approve the proposal to pay any
portion of the contingency fees to a former carriage contestant
and took the opportunity to weigh in on these arrangements.  It
found that the fee-sharing agreement improperly required class
members to pay, out of their recoveries, for work done by a firm
that had provided them with no actual benefit.  The court further
held that class counsel "should pay the fees out of their own
pockets as part of their variable costs of doing business and not
expect that the counsel walking away will have direct access to
payment out of the contingency fee."

The Appeal Court also upheld a decision by the motion judge to
reduce the requested class counsel fees by 10 per cent to "reflect
his view of legal services that were not earned."

One message made abundantly clear is that the court disapproved of
an undeserved windfall to the counsel "walking away."  That is a
welcome sentiment for any committed counsel with a genuine desire
to litigate class action cases without interference from ongoing
carriage contests.

But that view also appears to have teeth for the successful
contestant in the carriage motion.  The court's decision suggests
that class counsel can enter into these agreements if they so
choose, but with the specific direction that they should fund them
out of their own pockets.  The message is clear that the courts
may deliver a penalty, through the reduction of a contingency fee
that might otherwise have been paid, to signify their disapproval.

There may be plenty of practical questions that remain in the
ultimate execution of the Court of Appeal's reasoning, but all
contestants to carriage should be warned: Clear disincentives
abound for both payor and payee if a fee-sharing agreement is
reached.

Defendant communications

There have been a number of instances where defendants or their
counsel have set out to communicate with class members in some
fashion.  While some communications seem to be innocuous and
justified, especially in the context of an ongoing business
relationship, others raise serious ethical concerns.  Defendants
and their counsel must be aware of their ethical, professional and
legal obligations in this context.

Where a putative class member has formally retained plaintiff's
counsel, or where the class has been certified, Ontario defence
counsel must abide by Rule 7.2-6 of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, which prohibits direct communication or negotiation
between defence counsel and a represented class member without the
consent of class counsel.

Serious questions are also raised in the context of a court-
approved communications program, such as a notice of
certification, which includes the opportunity for a class member
to opt out of a class action. In that setting, what if a defendant
decides to engage in a campaign of its own to encourage class
members to opt out?

Some important ethical and philosophical questions emerge: Should
opt-out processes be like elections and either party can engage in
"campaigns" to sway the class members to either opt out or remain
in the case? Or should they be sacrosanct and subject to
communications "blackouts," other than court-approved
communications and reasonable responses to questions initiated by
class members?

In ALS Society of Essex County v. Windsor (City) 2016 ONSC 676,
Ontario's Superior Court of Justice was asked to regulate a
particularly acute example of a communications campaign by a
defendant in a class action.  The plaintiffs organized a
certification notice to a class of charities that had been
allegedly overcharged by municipalities for fundraising licences,
and the defendants participated in approval hearings.  As a
result, the defendants had full details of the plaintiffs'
communications plans.

Without notice to the plaintiffs or to the court, the defendants
launched a massive counter campaign, concurrent with the
certification notice, using such things as superior media
placements and billboards.  The campaign encouraged class members
to opt out of the class action.

The court said the campaign "went over the line" because it
claimed that the expense of any judgment in the case would
ultimately be borne by municipal taxpayers, creating "a situation
that pits taxpayers against each other," and encouraged "potential
claimants not to pursue a valid claim."  The court further
concluded that "the effect of the entire opt-out campaign results
in claimants not being 'free from undue influence.' "

The court noted a history of cases on the topic of defence
communications with class members, and stated that a court will
interfere where a defendant's communications to class members are
"inaccurate, intimidating or coercive or made for some other
improper purpose aimed at undermining the process of the court."

Clearly the thrust of the jurisprudence is that defendants can
only communicate directly with class members at their own risk.
After all, they are adversaries to the class members in
litigation.  Communications with any hint of a strategic objective
in the litigation can easily backfire and qualify as a
communication that will require regulation or even prohibition by
the court.

Class actions are an area ripe with unique questions surrounding
ethics and professionalism issues.  Because these issues have the
potential to affect or even frustrate the goals of class
proceedings legislation, it is important that all stakeholders be
aware of the unique ethical landscape that exists in the class
actions context. [GN]


* Merkel Says Class Actions Not Compatible with German Law
----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Donahue, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
Angela Merkel's main challenger, Social Democrat Martin Schulz,
sought to take a tougher line on the German auto industry and said
he'd respond more forcefully to U.S. President Donald Trump as his
party's position in the polls continued to slip.

Six days before Germany's Sept. 24 election, Mr. Schulz escalated
his rhetoric against Ms. Merkel, blaming the chancellor for
slowing new rules that would make it easier to take legal action
against carmakers in the diesel scandal.  He also said the German
leader was too timid toward leaders such as Trump, Russian
President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan.

"On this notion that there are no differences -- oh yes, there are
differences, and you can vote on them on the 24th,"
Mr. Schulz told a town hall meeting on Sept. 18 in Luebeck,
broadcast on ARD television.

As polls show the Social Democrat's chances of seizing the Federal
Chancellery from Ms. Merkel fading, Mr. Schulz has strained to
counter the accusation that he hasn't presented a sharp enough
alternative to Ms. Merkel.  In the campaign's sole televised
debate, Mr.  Schulz failed to make a breakthrough.  Merkel has
dismissed his demand to hold another one.

Ms. Merkel's Christian Democratic-led bloc slipped a half point to
36 percent, while the Social Democrats dropped 1.5 percentage
points to 22 percent, according to an INSA poll for Bild newspaper
published on Sept. 18.

Insisting that he would be tougher on a German auto industry
grappling with the diesel scandal, Mr. Schulz said attempts to
make it possible for group legal challenges similar to U.S.-style
class-action lawsuits had stopped at Ms. Merkel's desk.

"I don't know why," Mr. Schulz said.  "I can possibly imagine,
perhaps it's one or the other lobby association."

The chancellor has said such class-action lawsuits aren't
compatible with German law.  Should Ms. Merkel's Christian
Democratic-led bloc form a government with the business-friendly
Free Democrats, "then I can guarantee that there will be
absolutely nothing," Mr. Schulz said.

In a 75-minute debate that touched on issues from taming rising
rents to filling a labor shortage in nursing care to disposing of
food waste, the Social Democratic leader was asked how he'd fill
Ms. Merkel's shoes as a respected world leader.

As a former president of the European Parliament, Mr. Schulz said,
"most of the people Merkel sees at G-7 and G-20 meetings I know
very well."

"I have another way of working," Mr. Schulz said.  "Ms. Merkel has
a very restrained attitude in a time of Erdogan, Trump and Putin.
I won't be that way." [GN]


* States Broaden Investigation Into Opioid Industry Amid Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Mulvihill, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Attorneys general from most states are broadening their
investigation into the opioid industry as a nationwide overdose
crisis continues to claim thousands of lives.

They announced on Sept. 19 that they had served subpoenas
requesting information from five companies that make powerful
prescription painkillers and demanded information from three
distributors. Forty-one attorneys general are involved in various
parts of the civil investigation.

The probe into marketing and sales practices seeks to find out
whether the industry's own actions worsened the epidemic.

If the industry cooperates, the investigation could lead to a
national settlement.  Connecticut Attorney George Jepsen said in
an interview that there are early indications that drugmakers and
distributors will discuss the matter with the states.

"The advantage of the multi-state approach is that it's not simply
about providing a paycheck for damages to states,"
Mr. Jepsen said. "It provides the opportunity to address broader
policy concerns and industry practices."

Companies that received the requests said in statements that they
were already taking steps to stem the opioid crisis.  The
drugmaker Janssen, for instance, said it's trying to educate
prescribers about the drugs, and distributor Cardinal Health said
it supports a variety of efforts to fight the epidemic and would
work with attorneys general.  Another distributor,
AmerisourceBergen, said it has prevented tens of thousands of
suspicious opioid orders from shipping.

Allergan spokesman Mark Marmur said his company would cooperate
with the investigation but noted that its two branded opioids
haven't been promoted for years and made up less than 1 percent of
opioids prescribed in the U.S. last year.

PhRMA, a trade group representing drugmakers, declined to comment
on the investigation but said it is trying to deter and prevent
drug abuse.

The group and some of its members met on Sept. 18 with New Jersey
Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican who is the head of President
Donald Trump's task force on opioids, and pledged to try to
develop technologies to reduce the risk of addiction and abuse.

The Healthcare Distribution Alliance said in a statement that it's
not responsible for the volume of opioid prescribing but that it
does want to work on solving the public health crisis.

"While distributors play a vital role as logistics companies, to
suggest that they are responsible for the volume of opioids
prescribed lacks a fundamental understanding of how the supply
chain works and is regulated," John Gray, the group's president
and CEO, said in a statement.  "Distributors have no ability to
influence what prescriptions are written."

The other drug companies targeted in the requests for information
are Endo and Teva.  The attorneys general also asked for more
information from Purdue Pharma; an investigation of that company
was announced in June.  The other distributor involved is
McKesson.

Drug overdoses have become a crisis across the country.  The U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that in 2015,
they killed more than 52,000 Americans.  Most of the deaths
involved prescription opioids such as OxyContin or Vicodin or
related illicit drugs such as heroin and fentanyl.  People with
addictions often switch among the drugs.

"Too often, prescription opioids are the on-ramp to addiction for
millions of Americans," New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman said in a statement.  He said he sees the
investigation as one piece of a broader effort to crack down on
opioid abuse that includes measures such as the state's
requirement that doctors check a database of prescriptions for
controlled substances -- a way to keep patients from getting
multiple prescriptions from multiple doctors.

Dozens of local and state governments have already filed,
announced or publicly considered lawsuits against drugmakers or
distributors.

Lawyers for the city of Everett, Washington, argued this week that
their case against Connecticut-based Purdue Pharma, maker of
OxyContin, should be allowed to move ahead after the company asked
a judge to dismiss the case.

State and local governments have been taking other action as the
epidemic has deepened, with steps ranging from increasing access
to naloxone, a drug that reverses overdoses, to restricting
initial prescriptions.

On Sept. 18, a group of 37 attorneys general called on health
insurance companies to offer incentives for other forms of pain
treatment including non-opioid drugs and massage, saying that as
it stands now, insurers cover opioids more than other approaches
to pain treatment.

The industry group America's Health Insurance Plans said in a
statement that it's already working on using education, prevention
and other means in an effort to eradicate addiction. [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  * * *