CAR_Public/171012.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Thursday, October 12, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 202



                            Headlines

23ANDME: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Health Reports
ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Loses Bid to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Sharon" Suit in E. Dist. New York
ANES LEVENTHAL: Faces "Schock" Suit in E. Dist. New York
ARC LOGISTICS: Faces "Jacobs" Suit in Southern District of NY

AT&T CORP: Can Compel Arbitration in Farrow Road's Suit
ATLANTIS EVENTS: Faces "Bauer" Suit in S. Dist. New York
BIG JOHN'S PIZZA: Faces "Rubal" Suit in S.D. of Florida
BOWLMOR LANES: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S. Dist. New York
BURGER KING: Court Denies Bid to Stay "Gesten" FACTA Suit

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces "Villegas" Suit in E.D. of New York
CAIN INDUSTRIES: Dixie Plumbing Suit Alleges JFPA Violation
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Gendelberg" Suit in E.D. of New York
CHELSEA PIERS: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S. Dist. New York
CLIFF SANDERS: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. of Arkansas

CMB SERVICES: Faces "Jones" Suit in E. Dist. Mich.
CONGREGATION OF HOLY CROSS: Appeals Ct. Green Lights Class Action
CREDICO (USA): "Scott" Suit Remanded to Superior Court
CYTEC RETIREMENT: "Claudet" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
D&J REAL ESTATE: Faces "Taveras" Suit in S.D. of New York

DAIRYAMERICA INC: Can't Compel Production of Docs in "Carlin"
DICK SMITH: Hit With Class Action Over Misleading Conduct
DON HUMMER TRUCKING: Faces "Ratliff" Suit in N.D. Illinois
DR PEPPER: Bids to Dismiss Ginger Ale Mislabeling Suit Denied
DUNKIN DONUTS: Faces Class Suit Over Systematic Discrimination

EPIC SYSTEMS: Case Threatens to Set Back Workers' Rights by Yrs
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Feehrer" Suit over FCRA Violation
EQUIFAX INC: "Gulf Winds" Suit Alleges FTCA Violations
EQUIFAX INC: "Halpin" Suit Seeks Damages over FCRA Violations
EQUIFAX INC: "Lewis" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations

EQUIFAX INC: Burt Langley Files Class Action Over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Sen. Leahy Wants Class Action Suits to Proceed
FIDELITY MGMT: Bid to Dismiss "Fleming" Under Rule 12(b)(6) OK'd
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Rozenberg" Suit in Connecticut
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Suit

GEICO GENERAL: Faces Coastal Wellness Suit in S.D. Florida
GOV'T EMPLOYEES: Faces Town Health Center Suit in S.D. of Fla.
HONEY BUCKET: Judge Certifies Lawsuit as Class Action
IDAHO: Court Denies IDHW's Bid to Dismiss Olmstead Claims
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Nov. 27 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set

ISRAMCO: Court Allows $12.7-Bil. Class Action to Proceed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Thousands of Women Sue Over Baby Powder
KIA MOTORS: Faces "Kondash" Suit in Middle District of Georgia
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Oct. 12 Class Cert. Hearing in Securities Suit
MDL 2744: Objections to Denial of Protective Order Bid Overruled

MISSOURI: Ct. Denies AT's Bid for Attys' Fees in "Van Orden"
MODESTO IRRIGATION: Faces Suit for Electricity Bills Overcharge
NATIONAL GRID: GBL Claims in "Jenkins" Dismissed w/o Prejudice
NEW YORK LIFE: Class Settlement in TCPA Suit Has Final Approval
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Carlton Fields Discusses 9th Circuit Ruling

OMEL FLOWERS: Faces "Diaz" Suit in Southern District of Florida
PUEBLO CITY: Low-Income Renters File Class Action in Newark
REAL VALUE: "Camp Drug" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
ROCHE HOLDING: Gardeck Named Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
SAN DIEGO, CA: City Trash Worker Wins Labor Rights Lawsuit

SCANA CORPORATION: Motley Rice Files Class Action Lawsuit
SCENIC EMISSIONS: "Judkins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Judge Decertifies FLSA Lawsuit
SHAY NO. 1: Hit With Class Action Over BIPA Violations
SI WIRELESS: Must Face Class Action Over Automated Text Messages

SONIC CORPORATION: Hit With Class Suit Over POS Data Breach
STARKIST: Faces New Class Action Over Under-filled Tuna Cans
SUNRISE CREDIT: Faces "Morris" Suit in S. Dist. Calif.
SYNGENTA SEEDS: Settles Class Action Over Viptera Corn Seed
SYSCO CORP: Ct. Refuses to Extend Discovery Deadline in "Freiri"

T&A OF CITRUS: Faces "Vaughan" Suit in Middle District of Fla.
THEATRE DEVELOPMENT: Faces "West" Suit in S.D. of New York
TIER ONE: "Ceuric" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
TINTRI INC: Faces "Tuller" Suit in Northern District of Cal.
TOKIO MARINE: Court Dismisses "Azad" Suit Without Prejudice

TWIN DONUT: Faces "Alvarado" Suit in S. Dist. of New York
ULTRAMAR LTD: Price-Fixing Suit Denied Access to Fed Evidence
UNDER ARMOUR: "Brianas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Suit Over Retirement Plan Dismissed
VAN RU CREDIT: Faces "Dykes" Suit in Eastern District of Va.

VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Kambanis" Suit in E.D. of New York
WOW BAO: Facial Recognition System Leads to Class Action
XENITH BANKSHARES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Seeks Dismissal of CoolSculpting System Suit

* Mandatory Class Action Waivers in Employment Agreements
* More Than Half of American Workers Can't Sue Their Employer
* US Chamber of Commerce Warns of Risks of Dutch CA System





                            *********


23ANDME: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Health Reports
---------------------------------------------------------
Weartv.com reported that genetics testing company 23andMe is
agreeing to settle a class action lawsuit over health reports.

For several years, 23andMe promised to provide extensive
screenings for medical conditions. In 2013, the FDA ordered the
company to stop providing their health service.
The lawsuit was filed by customers who claimed the company
misrepresented their service.

If you bought a test kit from 23andMe for personal use between
October 16, 2007 and November 22, 2013, you are a member of the
class.

Class members can choose a $12.50 cash payment or a $40 discount
for a new test kit.

Additional details are available at the 23andMe Settlement
website. [GN]


ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Loses Bid to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois
federal judge declined to dismiss a putative class action brought
against a debt collection agency, ruling that under the Supreme
Court's Spokeo decision the named plaintiff may have suffered an
injury when she received a letter that threatened to add interest
and other fees to the delinquent credit card debt.

U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer denied Absolute Resolutions
Corp.'s motion to dismiss the case that named plaintiff Carmen
Aguirre had originally brought against the debt collection agency,
along with the law firm that sent the letter, Blatt Hasenmiller
Leibsker & Moore LLC, in 2015.

Though the defendants had alleged Aguirre had not sufficiently
alleged a true injury caused by their letter to her attempting to
collect on delinquent credit card debt, Judge Pallmeyer used the
U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins to
back up her order, writing that Aguirre's claim under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act was still valid.

"Looking to either historical or congressional precedent,
plaintiff Aguirre has alleged a concrete injury here," Judge
Pallmeyer wrote.  "Plaintiff claims that the letter contained
threatening language which defendants could not, and did not, act
upon in the attempt to collect on a debt.  This allegation is well
within the heartland of common law fraud."

Aguirre's case stems from her receipt of a letter from Absolute
Resolutions and Blatt Hasenmiller that was seeking repayment of
credit card debt that Aguirre had originally owed to Capital One.
Aguirre alleged that the collection agency and the firm had
falsely misrepresented the nature of the debt and employed unfair
and "unconscionable" means to collect on the debt by inserting a
sentence into the collection letter that "threatened" to add
interest and other fees to the sum owed.

Though the debt collectors had attempted to argue that the
decision in Spokeo raised the bar higher for plaintiffs to allege
a concrete injury, Judge Pallmeyer wrote that Aguirre's FDCPA
injury claim was concrete enough to clear any hurdle set by
Spokeo.

"Spokeo does not indiscriminately sweep aside all the legal rights
created by Congress that confer standing where no injury would
otherwise exist," Judge Pallmeyer wrote.  "Furthermore, such a
view would make little sense in the context of the FDCPA, given
that Congress made statutory damages available -- a clear
indication that it did not view the lack of direct pecuniary harm
as a disqualifier."

Representatives for Aguirre, Absolute Resolutions and Blatt
Hasenmiller could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.

Ms. Aguirre is represented by Michael Wood and Celetha Chatman of
Community Lawyers Group Ltd.

Absolute Resolutions Corp. is represented by Dara Tarkowski --
dara.tarkowski@akerman.com -- Alyx Pattison and Julian Dayal --
julian.dayal@akerman.com -- of Akerman LLP.

Blatt Hasenmiller Leibsker & Moore LLC is represented by David
Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- and John Ryan --
jryan@hinshawlaw.com -- of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

The case is Aguirre v. Absolute Resolutions Corp. et al., case
number 1:15-cv-11111 (N.D. Ill.).  The case is assigned to Judge
Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.  The case was filed December 10,
2015. [GN]


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Sharon" Suit in E. Dist. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled as Ella Sharon, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Alltran
Financial, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05820 (E.D. N.Y.,
October 4, 2017).

Alltran Financial is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


ANES LEVENTHAL: Faces "Schock" Suit in E. Dist. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anes, Leventhal &
Snyder, PLLC. The case is styled as Diane Schock, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Anes,
Leventhal & Snyder, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05812-JFB-
AKT (E.D. N.Y., October 4, 2017).
Anes, Leventhal & Snyder, PLLC is a debt collection law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph Mauro, Esq.
   The Law Office of Joseph Mauro, LLC
   306 McCall Avenue
   West Islip, NY 11795
   Tel: (631) 669-0921
   Fax: (631) 669-5071
   Email: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


ARC LOGISTICS: Faces "Jacobs" Suit in Southern District of NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arc Logistics
Partners LP. The case is styled as Hakeem Jacobs, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arc
Logistics Partners LP, Vincent T. Cubbage, Barry L Zubrow, Sidney
L. Tassin, Gary G. White, Eric J. Scheyer, Edward P. Russell and
John Pugh, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07579-RWS (S.D.N.Y.,
October 4, 2017).

New York-based ARC Logistics Partners LP owns, operates, develops
and acquires a diversified portfolio of complementary energy
logistics assets.  The Company is specifically engaged in the
terminalling storage, thoroughput and transloading of crude oil
and petroleum products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Juan Eneas Monteverde, Esq.
   Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
   685 Third Avenue
   26th Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 983-9330
   Fax: (212) 983-9331
   Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


AT&T CORP: Can Compel Arbitration in Farrow Road's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Farrow Road Dental Group, P.A., and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AT&T Corp., and Bellsouth
Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T Southeast or d/b/a AT&T South
Carolina, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-01615-CMC (D.
S.C.), Senior District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie Judge of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of South Carolina,
Columbia Division, granted AT&T's motion to compel arbitration as
to all claims and to stay the action pending arbitration.

Farrow Road is a dental practice that utilized AT&T for its phone
service from 2006 to 2015.  In 2011, Farrow Road ordered one line
of service from AT&T.  As is its practice, AT&T mailed an order
confirmation letter and BSA to Farrow Road.  In 2014, Farrow Road
renewed its current phone line and added four more lines of
service.  Again, AT&T mailed the order confirmation letter and BSA
to Farrow Road.

In September of 2015, Farrow Road requested all five telephone
numbers then in service with AT&T be transferred to another
service provider, Time Warner Cable.  AT&T disconnected the phone
numbers or otherwise failed to properly port the numbers.
Therefore, Farrow Road's existing patients and potential patients
contacting Farrow Road through its phone numbers received an
automatic message the numbers were no longer in service, and
advised callers to "press 1 now" to be connected to a "new"
dentist.  This directed existing and new patients to dentists
other than Farrow Road.  This message was received by callers from
September 2015 to Jan. 28, 2016.

Based on AT&T's alleged failure to properly disconnect, transfer,
and/or port the telephone lines, the Plaintiffs assert four causes
of action: negligence, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and
negligence per se in violation of the Telecommunications Act of
1996.  Through this putative nationwide class action, the
Plaintiff seeks recovery from Defendants AT&T and Bellsouth
Telecommunications for damages arising out of the parties' former
business relationship.  That relationship was governed, at least
in part, by a Business Service Agreement ("BSA").

The matter is before the Court on AT&T's motion to compel
arbitration as to all claims and to stay the action pending
arbitration.  The motion relies on an arbitration clause found in
the BSA.

Farrow Road argues it did not consent to the arbitration clause
and there was no evidence AT&T had even provided the BSA to Farrow
Road.  However, in response, AT&T produced evidence, both in the
form of its policy and procedure and in a declaration and
supporting documentation from AT&T's system, that its Confirmation
Letters were sent to Farrow Road in 2011 and 2014.  Therefore,
Farrow Road consented to the terms of the BSA, which governed the
parties' contractual relationship and included an arbitration
clause.

In addition, Farrow Road argues the contract was not supported by
consideration.  However, unlike the case cited by Farrow Road,
Noohi v. Toll Bros., which required only one party to bring its
claims in arbitration, in this case the BSA requires both parties
to submit any disputes to arbitration.  Therefore, valid
consideration was provided to both sides, and the arbitration
clause is not unenforceable for lack of consideration.

Next, Farrow Road argues the arbitration clause in the BSA is
unenforceable because it is an unconscionable term in a contract
of adhesion.  In South Carolina, unconscionability is defined as
the absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party due to
one-sided contract provisions, together with terms that are so
oppressive that no reasonable person would make them and no fair
and honest person would accept them.  In determining whether the
parties had meaningful choice, six factors are considered: the
nature of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff; whether the
plaintiff is a substantial business concern; the relative
disparity in the parties' bargaining power; the parties' relative
sophistication; whether there is an element of surprise in the
inclusion of the challenged clause; and the conspicuousness of the
clause.

Judge Currie, in considering these factors, finds the balance
favors arbitration.  One factor, the nature of injuries suffered
by the Plaintiff, may favor Farrow Road, as it allegedly suffered
injury to its business when its phone lines were not ported
properly and callers received a message directing their call to a
different dentist.  In addition, the second factor likely favors
Farrow Road, which does not appear to be a "substantial business
concern" compared to AT&T.  As the weight of the factors favor
AT&T, the court finds the arbitration clause is not
unconscionable.

Farrow Road argues the events in dispute in this case took place
after it terminated service with AT&T, and therefore the BSA and
arbitration clause no longer governed the parties' relationship.
However, Judge Currie finds explains that even if service was
terminated, that does not mean the obligation to arbitrate
disputes ended.  Under South Carolina law, arbitration clauses are
separable from the contracts in which they are imbedded the
general rule is that the duty to arbitrate under an arbitration
clause in a contract survives termination of the contract.
Therefore, the arbitration clause is not rendered void by the
cancellation of service provided by AT&T.  Accordingly, Farrow
Road's claims are subject to arbitration.

For these reasons, Judge Currie granted AT&T's motion to compel
arbitration, and stayed the matter pending arbitration.  The
parties are directed to initiate arbitration within 14 days and
file a status report no later than 180 days from the date of entry
of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 22, 2017 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/kYoRuu from Leagle.com.

Farrow Road Dental Group, P.A., Plaintiff, represented by Bradley
D. Hewett -- bhewett@mklawgroup.com -- Mike Kelly Law Group.

AT&T, Corp., Defendant, represented by Benjamin Rush Smith, III --
rush.smith@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough, Carmen Harper Thomas --
carmen.thomas@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough, Phillips Lancaster McWilliams --
phillips.mcwilliams@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough & Kevin S. Ranlett -- kranlett@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown, pro hac vice.

Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Benjamin Rush Smith, III, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough,
Carmen Harper Thomas, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough,
Phillips Lancaster McWilliams, Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough & Kevin S. Ranlett, Mayer Brown, pro hac vice.


ATLANTIS EVENTS: Faces "Bauer" Suit in S. Dist. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantis Events,
Inc. The case is styled as Ph.D William Bauer and Carlos Sanchez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Atlantis Events, Inc. and Richard Campbell,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-mc-00381 (S.D. N.Y., October 4, 2017).
Atlantis Events, Inc. operates as a vacation company. It provides
gay and lesbian cruises and resort vacations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE.


BIG JOHN'S PIZZA: Faces "Rubal" Suit in S.D. of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big John's Pizza,
Pasta & Subs Co.  The case is styled as Maivi Rubal and other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Big John's Pizza,
Pasta & Subs Co., Frank Sipos also known as: Frantisek Sipos and
Claudia Jonisova, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-10081-JLK (S.D.
Fla., October 9, 2017).

Big John's Pizza, Pasta & Subs Co. is an Italian restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
   Saenz & Anderson, PLLC
   20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
   Aventura, FL 33180
   Tel: (305) 503-5131
   Fax: (888) 270-5549
   Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


BOWLMOR LANES: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S. Dist. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bowlmor Lanes LLC.
The case is styled as Richard Baldelli and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bowlmor Lanes LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07717 (S.D.N.Y., October 9, 2017).

Bowlmor Lanes is the upscale brand of ten-pin bowling and
entertainment centers operated by Bowlmor AMF. There are currently
18 Bowlmor Lanes centers, nine of which are former AMF 300 centers
and three are former AMF Bowling Centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks
   280 Park Avenue South
   New York, NY 10010
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (212) 254-4202
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


BURGER KING: Court Denies Bid to Stay "Gesten" FACTA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida denied the Defendant's Motion to Stay
Proceedings in the case captioned Ryan D. Gesten, Plaintiff, v.
Burger King Corporation d/b/a Burger King, Defendant, Civil Action
No. 17-22541-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.), Pending Resolution of Motion
to Dismiss.

The Plaintiff brings this purported class action under the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") to recover for the
Defendant's alleged violation of FACTA's prohibition on printing
transaction receipts that reveal more than the last five digits of
a consumer's debit or credit card number.  The Defendant has moved
to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
arguing that the Plaintiff does not have standing to pursue his
claims.

The Defendant has moved to stay the proceedings pending resolution
of the motion to dismiss.  In support of its motion to stay, the
Defendant argues that resolution of the motion to dismiss could
dispose of this entire matter, and the Plaintiff has served overly
broad, burdensome, and unnecessary discovery requests that will
force defendant to expend considerable time and resources.  The
Plaintiff opposes the motion to stay.

Having preliminarily examined the Defendant's motion to dismiss,
the Plaintiff's response thereto, and the Defendant's reply, Judge
Scola cannot say that there is such a strong likelihood that the
motion will be granted that it outweighs the Plaintiff's need to
conduct discovery and the potential case management and scheduling
problems that may result from a stay.  He notes that at the same
time that the Defendant requested the stay, the Defendant also
requested a 30-day extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's
discovery requests.  The Defendant then filed an Unopposed Motion
to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines by Thirty Days, indicating
that the Plaintiff had agreed to the Defendant's requested 30-day
extension of time to respond to discovery, provided that the
Defendant file a motion to enlarge all deadlines in the Scheduling
Order by 30 days.

He granted the motion to extend all deadlines in the Scheduling
Order by 30 days, which should relieve some of the burden on the
Defendant while he considers the motion to dismiss.  If the
Defendant has legitimate concerns that the Plaintiff's discovery
requests are overly broad, burdensome, or unnecessary, the
Defendant can raise the issue in the appropriate manner before
Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres, as set forth in his Order
Setting Discovery Procedures.

Therefore, Judge Scola denied the Defendant's Motion to Stay
Proceedings Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 22, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/k99pi3 from Leagle.com.

Ryan D. Gesten, Plaintiff, represented by Bret Leon Lusskin, Jr. -
- blusskin@lusskinlaw.com -- Bret Lusskin, P.A..

Ryan D. Gesten, Plaintiff, represented by Keith James Keogh --
Keith@Keoghlaw.com -- Keogh Law, Ltd., Sean Martin Holas, Scott D.
Owens -- scott@scottdowens.com -- P.A. & Scott David Owens --
scott@ScottDOwens.com -- SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A..

Burger King Corporation, Defendant, represented by Anthony Nolan
Upshaw, McDermott Will & Emery, Jeremy Marc White, McDermott Will
& Emery, LLP & Kerry Alan Scanlon, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP,
pro hac vice.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces "Villegas" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cablevision Systems
New York City Corporation. The case is styled as Jurtreau
Villegas, Patrick Schiano and William Gilbert Garvin, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Cablevision Systems New York City Corporation, Cablevision Systems
Corporation, CSC Holdings, LLC, Altice USA, Inc. and Altice
Technical Services US Corp, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05824-
DLI-VMS (E.D. N.Y., October 4, 2017).

Cablevision Systems was an American cable television company with
systems serving areas surrounding New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Christopher Quincy Davis, Esq.
   The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis
   225 Broadway, Suite 1803
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (646) 430-7930
   Fax: (646) 349-2504
   Email: cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com

      - and -

   Rita Marie Lenane, Esq.
   Law Office of Christopher Davis PLLC
   225 Broadwa, Suite 1802
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (646) 430-7930
   Email: rlenane@workingsolutionsnyc.com

      - and -

   Rachel Meredith Haskell, Esq.
   The Law Office of Christopher Davis
   225 Broadway, Suite 1803
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (646) 430-7930
   Fax: (646) 349-2504
   Email: rhaskell@workingsolutionsnyc.com


CAIN INDUSTRIES: Dixie Plumbing Suit Alleges JFPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dixie Plumbing Specialties Inc., and all others similarly-situated
v. Cain Industries, Inc. and John Does 1-5, Case No. 1:17-cv-03866
(N.D. Ga., October 3, 2017), seeks damages for Defendants'
violation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

Plaintiff Dixie Plumbing Specialties, Inc.'s line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of hydronic plumbing and
heating equipment and supplies.  Plaintiff's principal place of
business is in Marietta, Georgia.

Defendant Cain Industries, Inc. manufactures waste heat recovery
systems for gas and diesel cogeneration systems, boiler exhaust
stack economizer systems, fume incineration systems, and
industrial spiral finned tubing markets. Defendant's principal
place of business is in Germantown, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony C. Lake, Esq.
      GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE LLC
      One Securities Centre, Suite 1050
      3490 Piedmont Road, N.E.
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Tel: (404) 842-9700
      Fax: (404) 842-9750
      E-mail: aclake@gwllawfirm.com

          - and -

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Tel: (847) 368-1500
      Fax: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Gendelberg" Suit in E.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services, LP. The case is styled as Leonard R. Gendelberg, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Capital Management Services, LP, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-05809 (E.D. N.Y., October 4, 2017).

Capital Management is a nationally licensed and recognized
collections agency, providing the highest level of delinquent
receivables resolution.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CHELSEA PIERS: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S. Dist. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chelsea Piers L.P.
The case is styled as Richard Baldelli and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chelsea Piers L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07723 (S.D. N.Y., October 9, 2017).

Chelsea Piers L.P. provides entertainment facilities. The Company
offers sports, amusement, and recreation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks
   280 Park Avenue South
   New York, NY 10010
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (212) 254-4202
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


CLIFF SANDERS: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. of Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cliff Sanders, a
Florida corporation. The case is styled as Jeremy Duncan, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Cliff Sanders, individually and in his official capacity as a
police officer for the City of Elaine, Arkansas, and in his
official capacity as a police officer for the City of Helena-West
Helena, Arkansas, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00179-KGB (E.D.
Ark., October 4, 2017).

The Defendant is a police officer at Helena-West Helena,
Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Luther Oneal Sutter, Esq.
   Sutter & Gillham, PLLC
   Post Office Box 2012
   Benton, AR 72018
   Tel: (501) 315-1910
   Fax: (501) 315-1916
   Email: luthersutter.law@gmail.com


CMB SERVICES: Faces "Jones" Suit in E. Dist. Mich.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CMB Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Akira Jones, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CMB Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-13304-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., October 9,
2017).

CMB Services, Inc. is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
   Marcus & Zelman LLC
   1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
   Ocean, NJ
   Tel: (845) 367-7146
   Fax: (732) 298-6256
   Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


CONGREGATION OF HOLY CROSS: Appeals Ct. Green Lights Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC reports that the Quebec Court of Appeal has authorized a new
class-action lawsuit against a major Roman Catholic organization
for alleged sexual abuse committed by some of its members.

The decision overturns a 2015 Superior Court of Quebec ruling
rejecting the class action request.

The Congregation of Holy Cross apologized and paid up to $18
million in 2013 to compensate victims for abuse that occurred at
three Quebec institutions over a five-decade span.

$18M settlement approved for Quebec sex abuse victims

That agreement stemmed from an out-of-court mediated settlement,
spurred by the threat of a class-action lawsuit.

A spokesperson for a victims' rights group says the landmark
settlement prompted about 40 new alleged victims to come forward.

Sebastien Richard says the current class-action names more
institutions, including Montreal's iconic Saint Joseph's Oratory.

In a phone interview, Richard pointed out that the oratory is
Canada's largest church and reports directly to the Vatican, which
could lead to embarrassment on the church's part if the class-
action is successful.

He also accused the religious order of doing what it could to
"drag out" the process, noting that time is running out for many
of the alleged victims, many of whom are elderly.

"They're also people who have kept silent for a long time -- too
long," he said on September 27.

The Congregation of Holy Cross did not respond to a request for
comment. [GN]


CREDICO (USA): "Scott" Suit Remanded to Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California remanded the case captioned TASHIAN SCOTT,
Plaintiff, v. CREDICO (USA) LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-
cv-02846-EMC (N.D. Cal.) to Alameda County Superior Court.

Scott brought this action against the Defendants and Alon Brener
on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated
employees, alleging several violations under the California Labor
Code and California Business and Professions Code, in Alameda
County Superior Court.

The Defendants removed the case was removed from the Alameda
County Superior Court on May 18, 2017, and came before this Court
for hearing on the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and motion to
compel arbitration on Aug. 17, 2017.  At the hearing, the Court,
sua sponte, expressed its concern that it may lack subject matter
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), and
ordered supplemental briefing.

The Defendants contend that the CAFA requirements are likely met,
but may be lacking depending on how the Court calculates the
amount in controversy and estimates attorneys' fees.  The
Plaintiff agrees that the CAFA requirements are met.  However,
because subject matter jurisdiction cannot be a product of
consent, the Court is obligated to review the matter
independently.

The revised calculation for damages, excluding Section 558
penalties and accounting only for unpaid wages, reflects a total
amount of $3,801,594.90.  The Defendants seek to add attorneys'
fees of 25% of recovery to boost the amount in controversy. But
the argument lacks merit because contingency fees based on a
common fund recovery are not damages, hence, they should not be
counted as part of the amount in controversy.

Even assuming that the largest estimate applies, i.e., fees likely
to be recovered upon resolution, the Defendants have failed to
present any evidence to support an estimate of attorneys' fees
that the Plaintiff might recover based on a projected lodestar.
Nor have the Defendants presented a basis for the Court to
conclude that a 25% benchmark provides a reasonable proxy for the
lodestar estimate.  In any event, even if 25% were deemed a
reasonable proxy for statutory fees, the total recovery including
fees would be $4,751,993.70 -- still short of the $5 million
threshold.  Accordingly, the Defendants have not demonstrated, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.

For the reasons stated, Judge Chen concludes that it lacks
jurisdiction under CAFA because the amount in controversy does not
exceed $5 million.  Lacking subject matter jurisdiction, the Court
is also without power to resolve the Defendants' pending motions
to dismiss and to compel arbitration.  Judge Chen instead remanded
the matter to the Alameda County Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 22, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/4tfF2b from Leagle.com.

Tashian Scott, Plaintiff, represented by David Albert Rosenfeld --
drosenfeld@unioncounsel.net -- Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld.

Tashian Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Caren P. Sencer --
csencer@unioncounsel.net -- Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld & David
W.M. Fujimoto -- dfujimoto@unioncounsel.net -- Weinberg, Roger &
Rosenfeld.

Credico (USA) LLC, Defendant, represented by William Martin
Woolman, Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC, Howard Alan Sagaser,
Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland PC & Ian B. Wieland, Sagaser, Watkins &
Wieland, PC.

Sprint Corporation, Defendant, represented by Pietro A. Deserio --
pdeserio@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP & Nicole Ann
Eichberger -- neichberger@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, pro
hac vice.

Sprint/United Management Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Harold M. Brody -- hbrody@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP,
Pietro A. Deserio, Proskauer Rose LLP & Nicole Ann Eichberger,
Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice.

Legion, Defendant, represented by Elise Charlotte O'Brien --
elise@rjlaw.com -- Rynn Janowsky LLP.

Latitude Group, Defendant, represented by Elise Charlotte O'Brien,
Rynn Janowsky LLP & June T. Monroe -- june@rjlaw.com -- Rynn and
Janowsky, LLP.

Alon Brener, Defendant, represented by Elise Charlotte O'Brien,
Rynn Janowsky LLP & June T. Monroe, Rynn and Janowsky, LLP.


CYTEC RETIREMENT: "Claudet" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Aman Joseph Claudet Jr., and all others similarly-situated v.
Cytec Retirement Plan, Cytec Industries Inc., and Solvay USA,
Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-10027 (E.D. La., October 3, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for alleged unlawful reduction of
vested retirement benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement
Security Act.

Plaintiff Aman Joseph Claudet Jr. is a resident of St. Charles
Parish, Louisiana and worked for Cytec for over 30 years and
retired on December 31, 2001.

Defendant Cytec Retirement Plan is an ERISA governed plan.  The
Plan currently provides pension benefits to individuals, including
Plaintiff, residing within this District.

Defendant Cytec Industries Inc., is a specialty materials and
chemicals company, focusing on developing, manufacturing, and
selling value-added products for aerospace and industrial
materials, mining, and plastics industries. Its principal business
establishment in Louisiana is located at 10800 River Road,
Weswego, Louisiana.

Defendant Solvay USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation licensed to
do business in Louisiana and doing business in Louisiana. Its
principal business establishment in Louisiana is located at 1275
Airline Highway in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Solvay is the U.S.
subsidiary of Solvay SA, a Belgium-based international
conglomerate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
      STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
      318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104
      New Orleans, LA 70124
      Tel: (504) 267-0777
      Fax: (504) 513-3084
      E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com

          - and -

      Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
      WILLIAMS LITIGATION LLC
      639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Tel: (504) 308-1438
      Fax: (504) 308-1446
      E-mail: Chris@williamslitigation.com


D&J REAL ESTATE: Faces "Taveras" Suit in S.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D&J Real Estate
Management II, L.L.C.  The case is styled as Antonio Taveras,
Pascual Rosa and Victor Catedral, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. D&J Real Estate
Management II, L.L.C., 3171 Rochambeau Ave. LLC, Bronx Boynton
Ave. LLC, XYZ Corporations #1 through #10 and David Sedgh,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07567 (S.D. N.Y., October 4, 2017).
The Defendants are engaged in the real estate industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


DAIRYAMERICA INC: Can't Compel Production of Docs in "Carlin"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denied the Defendant's motion to compel the
Plaintiffs to produce retainer agreements between the class
counsel and the class representatives in the case captioned GERALD
CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL ROZWADOWSKI and DIANA WOLFE, individually
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, COMPEL PLAINTIFFS' RETAINER v. DAIRYAMERICA, INC., and
CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:09-cv-00430-AWI-
EPG (E.D. Cal.).

DairyAmerica's third request for production ("RFP") of documents
contain the following requests:

     a. RFP 8: All Documents relating to the manner in which You
became a party to this Action, including, but not limited to
advertisements or news articles, solicitations, emails, notices,
or correspondence.

     b. RFP 9: All Documents that refer or relate to the payment
of attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs with respect to this
Action.

     c. RFP 10: All Documents that refer or relate to who will
advance and/or who is responsible for payment of the costs and
expenses incurred in connection with this Action.

     d. RFP 11: All Documents that refer or relate to the
Plaintiffs' responsibilities as a proposed class representative.

     e. RFP 12: All Documents that refer or relate to whether a
fee in this Action will be shared with any person or entity not a
member of the attorneys' law firms.

     f. RFP 13: All Documents that refer or relate to the fee
sharing arrangement(s) between or among any law firm with respect
to this Action including but not limited to: (i) Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, PLLC; (ii) Berman DeValerio; (iii) Keller Rohrback
L.L.P.; (iv) Hudson, Mallaney, Shindler and Anderson, PC (a/k/a
Hudson Law Firm); (v) Tostrud Law Group, P.C; (vi) Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP; and (vii) Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg
Urias & Ward PA.

     g. RFP 14: All Documents relating to any representations,
agreements, promises or assurances the Plaintiffs received about
any monetary recovery they might receive as a result of their
participation as plaintiffs in this Action.

     h. RFP 15: All documents relating to the terms by which they
retained attorneys for the preparation and filing of the
complaints in this Action and the maintenance of this Action.

On Oct. 14, 2016, the Plaintiffs served objections and responses
to DairyAmerica's third request for production of documents.
Subject to the objections, they agreed to produce responsive, non-
privileged documents in their possession, custody, or control.
The Counsel for DairyAmerica and the Plaintiffs engaged in
subsequent meet and confer negotiations regarding the Plaintiffs'
objections to DairyAmerica's RFPs.  On May 11, 2017, the
Plaintiffs' counsel sent an email communication to counsel for
DairyAmerica saying that as they conveyed during a meet and confer
several months ago, the Plaintiffs have no documents that are
responsive to Requests 7, 12-14, and with respect to Requests 8-
11, 15, the only responsive documents are retainer agreements with
the Named Plaintiffs and emails transmitting them, which are
privileged communications.

On June 29, 2017, the Plaintiffs served amended objections and
responses to DairyAmerica's third request for production.
Specifically, they amended their objections to RFPs 8-12 and 15.

On June 13, 2017, the parties initiated discovery dispute
proceedings before the Magistrate Judge.  After a hearing on June
23, 2017, the parties were granted leave to file motions to
compel.  On July 5, 2017, the parties filed motions for discovery.
In compliance with this District's local rules, the parties filed
a joint statement regarding discovery disputes on July 19, 2017.
A discovery dispute conference was held on July 26, 2017.  The
Court took under advisement the issue of whether the Plaintiffs
are required to produce the retainer agreements under the
circumstances presented in this case.  The remaining dispute is
whether the responsive documents fall within the scope of
discovery.

DairyAmerica argues that production of the Plaintiffs' retainer
agreements should be compelled because the documents are relevant
to class certification issues.  Judge Grosjean does not disagree
with DairyAmerica that the existence of an incentive agreement is
relevant and should be disclosed at the class certification stage.
However, the counsel for the Plaintiffs has repeatedly represented
to DairyAmerica and to the Court that no incentive agreement, as
discussed in Rodriquez, exists here.

Furthermore, DairyAmerica has come forward no evidence that would
cause the Court to have concerns about the terms of the retainer
agreements.  Under these circumstances, the Judge does not have
cause to test the veracity of the representations made by officers
of the court.  Without a specific argument for the relevance of
the agreements, the Judge will not grant a motion to compel.

Nor does Judge Grosjean agrees with DairyAmerica's much broader
proposition -- that retainer agreements between class
representatives and class counsel must always be produced in class
action litigation because they are relevant to adequacy issues.
The Ninth Circuit cases cited by DairyAmerica do no support such a
broad disclosure requirement.  While she agrees that the terms of
the retainer agreement could eventually become relevant, there is
no settlement or award requiring court approval at this time.
DairyAmerica may raise the issue again at the appropriate time.

Under the circumstances presented here and considering the factors
in Rule 26(b)(1), Judge Grosjean does not find the retainer
agreements relevant to DairyAmerica's defenses and proportional to
the needs of the case.  Accordingly, she denied DairyAmerica's
motion to compel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 22, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/14hSQf from Leagle.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bimemiller Candice, Unknown, represented by Edward Zusman, Markun
Zusman Freniere & Compton LLP.

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

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

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

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

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

California Farmers Union, Amicus, represented by Daniel Bennett
Harris.

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

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


DICK SMITH: Hit With Class Action Over Misleading Conduct
---------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Woodhill, writing for The Australian, reports that
disgruntled shareholders have launched a class action against the
collapsed retailer formerly known as Dick Smith Holdings, alleging
misleading conduct.

The action against DSHE Holdings, filed by Bannister Law, also
targets former Dick Smith chief executive Nick Abboud and former
CFO Michael Potts.

Dick Smith went into receivership in January 2016.

It came as litigation firm Investor Claim Partner told The
Australian it would soon be filing a second, separate class action
against Dick Smith on behalf of shareholders.

The class action formally filed by Bannister Law on September 27
in the NSW Supreme Court, on behalf of shareholders, alleges that
the company and directors published misleading and deceptive
financial information to the stock market in 2015.

Financial information released "did not give a true and fair view
of the financial performance of DSHE and were not prepared in
accordance with the Australian Accounting Standards," a statement
released by Bannister Law said.

The class action claims that financial statements released by the
company artificially inflated its reported profit.

"The inflated reported profit and overstatement of EBITDA meant
that shareholders did not have an accurate picture of the
financial health of the company when they purchased DSHE shares
throughout 2015," Bannister Law principal Charles Bannister said.

"They have collectively lost several million dollars," Mr
Bannister said.

"We are eager to pursue this class action so that affected
shareholders can be compensated for the misleading and deceptive
conduct of DSHE and its two former directors."

Bannister Law senior solicitor Milan Cakic said the claim is
against a $150m insurance policy covering Dick Smith's
liquidation.

"We understand that there might be other parties such as a
syndicate of banks, they may be looking to claim against that same
policy so it's a matter of who gets to it first," he said.

"The case is likely to run for two years.

"This will not be a walk in the park."

The class action has been launched on behalf of shareholders who
purchased shares between February 16, 2015 and January 3, 2016, in
which period $803 million worth of shares traded.

It's being funded by dispute resolution funders Vannin Capital.

The expected Investor Claim Partner action will take in claims
going back to original float prospectus back in 2013.

Shareholder Rodney Van Royden said he relied on the Dick Smith
annual report and trusted that it gave an accurate picture of the
company.

"It is apparent that there was a lack of transparency around the
company's true state of affairs," Mr Van Royden said.

"Wrongdoers should be held accountable. The victims deserve
compensation."

Dick Smith was offloaded by Woolworths to a private equity firm in
2012 for $94 million and subsequently floated on the share market
a year later with a value of $520 million.

But its value plummeted and it was wiped from the share market's
top 200 companies in December, 2015, before going into voluntary
administration the following month after failing to secure funds
from its lenders.

Lenders National Australia Bank and HSBC filed a claim against the
company earlier this year after Dick Smith's collapse. [GN]


DON HUMMER TRUCKING: Faces "Ratliff" Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Don Hummer Trucking
Corporation, an Iowa corporation. The case is styled as Jerome
Ratliff, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Don Hummer Trucking Corporation, an Iowa
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07173 (N.D. Ill., October
4, 2017).

Don Hummer Trucking provides dependable transportation services
across America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam C York, Esq.
   Kamber Law LLC
   220 N Green St.
   Chicago, IL 60607
   Tel: (312) 620-0232
   Email: ayork@kamberlaw.com


DR PEPPER: Bids to Dismiss Ginger Ale Mislabeling Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California denied the Defendant's
motions to dismiss the case captioned JACKIE FITZHENRY-RUSSELL, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00564 NC (N.D. Cal.) for lack of
personal jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6).

Plaintiffs Fitzhenry-Russell and Robi Dale both purchased Canada
Dry Ginger Ale within the last five years.  Both allege to have
seen and relied upon the wording on the cans of Canada Dry that
stated it was "Made From Real Ginger."  Fitzhenry-Russell alleges
that this commercial reinforced her belief that Canada Dry
contained real ginger.  Dale does not allege he ever watched one
of the commercials.

Neither Fitzhenry-Russell nor Dale allege that they ever visited
Canada Dry's website, which at some point had emblazoned across
its front page the phrase "Made From Real Ginger."

This putative class action was filed in Santa Cruz County Superior
Court on Dec. 28, 2016, and was removed to this Court on Feb. 3,
2017.  Dr. Pepper previously moved to dismiss the complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  The Court
ruled from the bench on April 19, 2017, granting in part the
motion to dismiss, and giving the Plaintiffs leave to amend.

Dr. Pepper then moved to dismiss the amended complaint, but that
motion was mooted by the Court's June 28, 2017 order that the
Plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint.  The consolidated
amended complaint ("complaint") now before the Court contains only
California state law claims, which are for (i) the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act; (ii) false advertising; (iii) common law fraud,
deceit, and/or misrepresentation; and (iv) unlawful, unfair, and
fraudulent trade practices.

The Court also consolidated the follow-on Hashemi action with this
case.  Dr. Pepper subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint
under Rule 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6).  All parties consented to the
jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c).

For all of its arguments, Magistrate Judge Cousins concludes that
Dr. Pepper has not presented the Court with persuasive argument --
much less binding law -- compelling the extension of  Bristol-
Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California to class actions.

Based on the parties' arguments, he is not persuaded to extend
Bristol-Myers to the class action context on these facts.  The
Court has personal jurisdiction over Dr. Pepper as to the putative
nationwide class claims.

Because, the Magistrate Judge finds personal jurisdiction lies
over Dr. Pepper as to the nationwide class, the motion to strike
is denied as moot.

In carefully reading the complaint, the Magistrate Judge further
concludes that the allegations regarding the website were inserted
to show that Dr. Pepper intended to deceive the public into
believing Canada Dry contained ginger root.  Thus, the Plaintiffs'
fraud, and fraud-related claims based on the Dr. Pepper's Canada
Dry commercials survive the motion, and the allegations regarding
the Canada Dry website may remain in the complaint because they go
to Dr. Pepper's alleged intent to deceive the public.

The most recent of the Canada Dry commercials, when combined with
(i) the "Jack's Ginger Farm" sign, (ii) the field that appears to
be growing ginger, and (iii) the words that appear on the screen
at the end of the commercial, also lead the Magistrate Judge to
conclude that the commercial cannot simply be considered puffery.
These factors could lead a reasonable consumer to believe that
Canada Dry Ginger Ale contains ginger root.  The question is
whether the commercials lead reasonable consumers to believe
Canada Dry contains ginger root.  Whether a drink does or does not
contain ginger root is not a vague or subjective question, it is a
clear fact-based question.

As to Fitzhenry-Russell's allegation that Dr. Pepper's
advertisements made her want to purchase Canada Dry ginger ale,
and, in fact, she did purchase Canada Dry Ginger Ale after viewing
the advertisements and in reliance upon the truthfulness of the
claims in the advertisement, Magistrate Judge concludes these
allegations are sufficient to plead reliance by Fitzhenry-Russell.
Thus, the Plaintiffs need not further allege reliance on the
commercials as to fraud.

Lastly, for purposes of the motion, the Magistrate Judge is not
persuaded that the Plaintiffs' claims are preempted.  The
Plaintiffs do not seek to change the labeling on Canada Dry from
describing its flavors as "natural" to being described as
"artificial," as Dr. Pepper suggests.

For the reasons stated, Magistrate Judge Counsins denied Dr.
Pepper's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and
its motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).  Dr. Pepper must file
an answer to the complaint by Oct. 6, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 22, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3zua03 from Leagle.com.

Jackie Fitzhenry-Russell, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gutride -
- adam@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP.

Jackie Fitzhenry-Russell, Plaintiff, represented by Kristen
Gelinas Simplicio -- Kristen@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier
LLP, Marie Ann McCrary, Gutride Safier LLP, Seth A. Safier --
seth@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Matthew Thomas
McCrary -- matt@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP & Seth
Adam Safier, Gutride Safier LLP.

Robin Dale, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gutride, Gutride Safier
LLP, Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Gutride Safier LLP, Marie Ann
McCrary, Gutride Safier LLP, Seth A. Safier, Gutride Safier LLP,
Matthew Thomas McCrary, Gutride Safier LLP & Seth Adam Safier,
Gutride Safier LLP.

Arash Hashemi, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Ann Rohr --
brohr@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP, Benjamin Heikali --
bheikali@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi LLP & Stuart J. Guber
-- sguber@faruqilaw.com -- pro hac vice.

Natasha Safaradi, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Ann Rohr,
Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP, Benjamin Heikali, Faruqi and Faruqi LLP &
Stuart J. Guber, pro hac vice.

Gegham Margaryan, Plaintiff, represented by Hovanes Margarian --
info@margarianlaw.com -- Law Offices of Hovanes Margarian.

Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jessica
Elaine Underwood -- jessica.underwood@bakerbotts.com -- Baker
Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice, Van H. Beckwith --
van.beckwith@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice &
Jonathan Acker Shapiro -- jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com -- Baker
Botts L.L.P..


DUNKIN DONUTS: Faces Class Suit Over Systematic Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to court papers filed, the only African American female
franchisee in the country for Dunkin Donuts is suing the brand for
systematic discrimination and unfair business practices -- that
has allegedly negatively impacted many women and Black franchisees
for the brand.

The Maryland small business owner alleges that Dunkin Donuts does
not give its female and Black franchisees the same support,
opportunities, access, consideration, resources, information and
respect that the brand offers its male and non-Black franchisees.
According to court papers, to date, all of Dunkin's Black
franchisees in Maryland constituted the majority of African
American franchisees for the brand at one point have allegedly
reported similar complaints against Dunkin.

The complaint filed contends that Dunkin Donuts partnered with
NAACP in 2013 to increase African American franchisees, however,
the number of Black franchisees has substantially decreased which
resulted in the intervention of the NAACP in this specific matter.
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland on Monday, September 25 (case 8:17-cv-02846-
TDC). According to Jerry Marks, co-counsel in this case, this
lawsuit seeks to end the occurrence of similar stories by other
female and/or Black franchisees and employees of corporate giants
like Dunkin Donuts. [GN]


EPIC SYSTEMS: Case Threatens to Set Back Workers' Rights by Yrs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Parloff, writing for Yahoo Finance, reports that kicking off
its new term with a splash, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a
trio of cases on October 2 that threaten to set back workers'
rights by more than 80 years, labor-side employment lawyers claim.

The suits, known as Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, pose the question
of whether employers can force employees, as a condition of
employment, to agree to submit almost any federal legal claim they
have against the company to individual arbitration, effectively
waiving their right to bring class actions or other joint legal
proceedings.

The specific employers involved in the cases before the court are
Epic Systems, which makes healthcare-related software; Murphy Oil
(MUR), which runs more than a thousand gas stations in 21 states;
and accounting giant Ernst & Young. Like a rapidly growing number
of U.S. employers, they require nearly all their workers, as a
condition of employment (or of even filing a job application), to
sign arbitration clauses that include class-action waivers.

As unions have lost strength in the country, class actions have
gained importance as a key means of vindicating employee rights,
whether with respect to wage and hours claims or race, age, and
sex discrimination. So if employers win a simple way to knock that
weapon out of workers' hands, that will be a big deal.

"This is probably the most important employment, civil rights, or
labor case I can remember," says Cliff Palefsky, who is co-counsel
on an amicus brief for 10 major labor unions, including the
Service Employees International Union and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters.

In a series of opinions in recent years -- including three
authored between 2011 and 2013 by the late conservative Justice
Antonin Scalia -- the court has repeatedly ruled that consumers
were barred from bringing class actions by arbitration clauses
they had signed as a condition of receiving a product or service.
The employers in the three cases being heard -- supported by
amicus groups from 17 outside groups, including the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and Business Roundtable -- maintain that those
precedents dictate the outcome of these employment cases, too.

Also supporting the employers will be the U.S. Department of
Justice, which switched sides in these disputes after the Trump
administration took office in January. Though it filed a petition
last September advancing the pro-employee stance that the National
Labor Relations Board has taken on these questions since 2012, the
department filed a new brief in June supporting the employers.
September 25th's argument will feature the rare spectacle of one
federal attorney, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, arguing
against another, NLRB general counsel Richard Griffin, Jr. (In
August CBS News reported that employees at The Trump Organization
had been ordered to sign arbitration clauses, including class
waivers, as a condition of retaining their jobs. This past
September 25, when the U.S. Senate confirmed William Emanuel,
President Donald Trump's second appointee to the NLRB, control of
the five-member board passed to Republicans. But it's unlikely
that the board would vote to change its position in this case
before the argument.)

Are Class Actions "Concerted Activities"?

In the first three years after the court's pro-arbitration ruling
in AT&T Mobility (T) v. Concepcion in 2011, the number of
companies using arbitration clauses to preclude employee class
actions jumped from 16.1% to 42.7%, according to a survey by
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, a consulting firm that advises
employers. A more recent survey, whose results were published by
the Economic Policy Institute, reports that 24.7 million private-
sector, nonunion employees in the U.S. are now subject to class
waivers contained in arbitration clauses.

The employees in these suits are individuals who, notwithstanding
having signed arbitration contracts, later filed lawsuits seeking
class-action status, claiming that they had been wrongfully denied
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The employees argued that the class waivers they had signed were
unenforceable under two federal labor law statutes which protect
the rights of employees to engage in "concerted activities." The
Norris LaGuardia Act of 1932 bars employers from requiring
employees to sign agreements, known as yellow-dog contracts, that
bar them from collective bargaining or "other concerted activities
for the purpose of . . . . mutual aid and protection." Similarly,
the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 makes it an "unfair labor
practice" for companies to "interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees" in the exercise of comparably defined "concerted
activities."

In response, the employers maintain that those labor laws,
notwithstanding their broad language, were targeting union-related
activities, like picketing, and don't confer a right to bring
class-action suits, a phenomenon that did not become common until
the 1960s.

Rather, they insist, courts are obligated to enforce the class
waivers within arbitration clauses under the command of the
Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, which declares arbitration
contracts to be "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable" unless they
suffer from a failing (like duress or mutual mistake) that would
invalidate them under traditional contract law principles. In its
pro-arbitration precedents, the court has said that unless a
federal statute incorporates a specific "congressional command"
against arbitration -- which, the employers contend, neither the
Norris LaGuardia Act, the NLRA, nor the Fair Labor Standards Act
contains -- legal claims brought under it are subject to
arbitration.

"The Court has assessed six federal statutes [in previous
rulings]," writes attorney Andrew Pincus in a brief for the
Chamber of Commerce, "and found that not one contained the
'contrary congressional command' needed to displace the Federal
Arbitration Act."

The federal courts of appeals have split over whether the labor
laws forbid class waivers in arbitration contracts, with courts
based in New Orleans and St. Louis ruling for employers, while
panels in Chicago, San Francisco, and Cincinnati sided with
employees.

Though the three specific cases before the court all involve
overtime claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the precedent
that will be created appears likely also to impact class claims
brought under the Equal Pay Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act.

Thirty civil-rights advocacy groups, led by the NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, have filed one of the 10 amicus
briefs supporting the employees in the case. They warn that if
employers win this case, workers may be precluded in the future
from seeking court orders against systemic discrimination -- a
type of relief that has been obtained in the past against such
defendants as Coca-Cola (KO), Comcast (CMSA) FedEx (FDX), Morgan
Stanley (MS), and Wal-Mart (WMT).

Concerted activity in the gig economy

Another argument employees advance for treating class actions as a
modern form of concerted activity relates to the rise of the so-
called Gig Economy. Older forms of collective action, like
picketing, are poorly suited to this new world, argues a brief
submitted on behalf of Susan Fowler, a former engineer at ride-
hailing giant Uber Technologies, while class actions are.

"22% of all workers, and 43% of workers with advanced degrees,
work remotely (at least on occasion)," argues Fowler, whose blog
account alleging sexual harassment at Uber led to multiple firings
and an internal investigation led by former Attorney General Eric
Holder. "They are connected to their co-workers, managers, and
customers by email, phone, computer networks, and video
conferencing," continues her brief, authored by San Francisco
attorney Chris Baker. (Four class-actions against Uber were stayed
by the federal appeals court in San Francisco pending the Supreme
Court's decision in the Epic Systems cases.)

The only personnel change on the court since its three pro-
arbitration rulings earlier this decade -- two of which were
decided 5-4, on ideological lines -- has been the replacement of
the late Justice Scalia with Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has said he
shares Scalia's jurisprudential outlook. Accordingly, matters look
bleak for the employees unless they can convince one of the other
conservative justices -- perhaps Justice Anthony Kennedy or Chief
Justice John Roberts, Jr. -- that, as employment attorney Palefsky
puts it in an interview, "employment is different."

"If you sue over a problem with a cellphone, you don't need to
worry about retaliation," he says. "But it's not practical for
employees to negotiate for themselves or sue for themselves. You
put a target on your chest."

Still, the safe money has to be on the conservative faction
prevailing, and the Court extending its string of pro-arbitration
rulings. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Feehrer" Suit over FCRA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Wesley Feehrer and Peter Malvasi, and all others similarly-
situated v. Equifax, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-07803 (D.N.J., October
3, 2017), seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Plaintiffs Feehrer and Malvasi reside in New Jersey and were
affected by the Defendant's security breach.

Defendant Equifax is a nationwide consumer reporting agency and
purveyor of credit monitoring and identity theft protection
services. Equifax is a Georgia corporation headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Lee Squitieri, Esq.
      SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
      32 East 57th St. 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 421-6492
      Fax: (212) 421-6553
      E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com

          - and -

      Joseph R. Santoli, Esq.
      340 Devon Court
      Ridgewood, NJ 07450
      Tel: (201) 926-9200
      Fax: (201) 644-0981
      E-mail: josephsantoli@aol.com


EQUIFAX INC: "Gulf Winds" Suit Alleges FTCA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Gulf Winds Federal Credit Union, and all others similarly-situated
v. Equifax, Inc., and Equifax Information Services LLC, Case No.
1:17-cv-03873 (N.D. Ga., October 3, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Plaintiff brings this class action on its own behalf and on behalf
of other financial institutions that have suffered, and continue
to suffer, financial losses as a direct result of Equifax's
failure to take adequate and reasonable measures to protect the
personal identifying information of some 145.5 million U.S.
consumers, credit card numbers of some 209,000 consumers, and
dispute information from some 182,000 consumers, that was stored
in its data systems (the "Confidential Consumer Data").

Plaintiff Gulf Winds Federal Credit Union is a federally-chartered
credit union with its principal place of business in Pensacola,
Florida.  Gulf Winds operates 12 branches in the Florida panhandle
and in South Alabama.  As a credit union, Plaintiff is a
cooperative whose more than 60,000 primary members are consumers.

Defendant Equifax is a nationwide consumer reporting agency and
purveyor of credit monitoring and identity theft protection
services.  Equifax is a Georgia corporation headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. McGlamry, Esq.
      N. Kirkland Pope, Esq.
      POPE McGLAMRY, P.C.
      3391 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 300
      Atlanta, GA 30326
      Tel: (404) 523-7706
      Fax: (404) 524-1648
      E-mail: efile@pmkm.com

          - and -

      Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
      Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
      PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
      2001 Park Place North
      1100 Park Place Tower
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 322-8880
      Fax: (205) 328-2711
      E-mail: PDH-efiling@pittmandutton.com


EQUIFAX INC: "Halpin" Suit Seeks Damages over FCRA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Halpin and Brian Els, and all others similarly-situated v.
Equifax, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-03872 (N.D. Ga., October 3, 2017),
seek statutory damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and
state consumer protection statutes, reimbursement of out-of-pocket
losses, other compensatory damages, further and more robust credit
monitoring services with accompanying identity theft insurance,
and injunctive relief including an order requiring Defendant to
implement improved data security measures.

Plaintiff Patrick Halpin is a resident of the state of California.
Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.

Plaintiff Brian Els is a resident of the state of Oregon.
Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.

Defendant Equifax is a nationwide consumer reporting agency and
purveyor of credit monitoring and identity theft protection
services. Equifax is a Georgia corporation headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James M. Evangelista, Esq.
      David J. Worley, Esq.
      Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq.
      EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
      8100A Roswell Road Suite 100
      Atlanta, GA 30350
      Tel: (404) 205-8400
      Fax: (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
      Tel: (405) 235-1560
      Fax: (405) 239-2112
      E-mails: wbf@federmanlaw.com
               clm@federmanlaw.com
               jdw@federmanlaw.com

          - and -

      Robert S. Green, Esq.
      James Robert Noblin, Esq.
      GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
      2200 Larkspur Landing Circle Suite 101
      Larkspur, CA 94939
      Tel: (415) 477-6700
      Fax: (415) 477-6710
      E-mail: gnecf@classcousel.com


EQUIFAX INC: "Lewis" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
-------------------------------------------------
John Lewis, and all others similarly-situated v. Equifax, Inc.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03863 (N.D. Ga., October 3, 2017), seeks
statutory damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and state
consumer protection statutes, reimbursement of out-of-pocket
losses, other compensatory damages, further and more robust credit
monitoring services with accompanying identity theft insurance,
and injunctive relief including an order requiring Defendant to
implement improved data security measures.

Plaintiff John Lewis is a resident of the state of California.
Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.

Defendant Equifax is a nationwide consumer reporting agency and
purveyor of credit monitoring and identity theft protection
services. Equifax is a Georgia corporation headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
      Lee A. Cirsch, Esq.
      Reagan E. Bradford
      THE LANIER LAW FIRM
      6810 FM 1960 West
      Houston, TX 77069
      Tel: (713) 659-5200
      Fax: (713) 659-2204
      E-mail: WML@LanierLawFirm.com
              Lee.Cirsch@LanierLawFirm.com
              Reagan.Bradford@LanierLawFirm.com

          - and -

      Ranse M. Partin, Esq.
      CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN LLP
      4200 Northside Parkway, NW
      Building One, Suite 300
      Atlanta, GA 30327
      Tel: (404) 467-1155
      E-mail: ranse@conleygriggs.com


EQUIFAX INC: Burt Langley Files Class Action Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dillon Davis of Citizen Times reports that an Asheville law firm
is the latest to file a class-action lawsuit against credit
reporting agency Equifax over a data breach that exposed sensitive
information of potentially 143 million Americans.

The suit was filed on September 27 in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina in Asheville. Plaintiffs Terra
Weaver and David Le allege Equifax -- one of three major U.S.
credit reporting agencies -- was negligent in safeguarding
consumers' personal information, allowing it to be exposed to a
cyber attack. They also argue the Atlanta-based company failed to
disclose details of the hack to consumers in a timely manner.

Katherine Langley, co-founder of Burt Langley PC, which filed the
suit along with Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings PLLC of Nashville,
said on September 28 that Equifax's conduct appears "particularly
egregious."

She argues the company failed to have "even the most basic data
security measures in place" to guard against theft of sensitive
information.

"This conduct has caused -- and will continue to cause -- great
harm to millions of people," Langley was quoted as saying in a
news release, "and we look forward to having our opportunity to
use the court system to right this wrong perpetrated by Equifax
allowing cyber criminals to gain access to its data systems."

USA Today reported more than 70 class-action lawsuits have been
filed against Equifax since the company disclosed the leak on
Sept. 7, though legal experts told the publication it can be
difficult to prove actual harm done. Equifax said the hack began
in mid-May and was discovered July 29. Bloomberg also reported the
company suffered another unrelated breach of its systems in March.

The security breach is considered one of the largest of consumers'
private financial data in history.

As a result, company CEO Richard Smith said he is "retiring
immediately." He was replaced on an interim basis by Paulino do
Rego Barros Jr., who penned a column in the Wall Street Journal
apologizing for the data breach.

"On behalf of Equifax, I want to express my sincere and total
apology to every consumer affected by our recent data breach," he
wrote. "People across the country and around the world, including
our friends and family members, put their trust in our company.

"We didn't live up to those expectations."

Both Weaver and Le are residents of Buncombe County, court filings
show.

Their lawsuit argues they and others now face years of "constant
surveillance of their financial and personal records, monitoring
and loss of rights" due to the breach. They are requesting damages
suffered by plaintiffs and class-action members, equitable relief
as well as attorney fees and costs paid. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Sen. Leahy Wants Class Action Suits to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Free Press reported that Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is
pushing to preserve a new federal rule that would make it easier
for American consumers to file class-action lawsuits against
financial companies.

Republicans and business groups have opposed the rule, but Leahy
and other Democrats are hoping the outrage over the recent
security breach at credit bureau Equifax could sway some opinions.

Americans currently sign away their ability to sue, sometimes
without realizing it, when they open credit or bank accounts.
Contracts often require that complaints be resolved through
individual mandatory arbitration, rather than in court.

The federal government's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is
poised to implement a new rule that would allow consumers to band
together in class-action lawsuits. Supporters argue that the
current system of mandatory arbitration disadvantages consumers.

"I've talked with a number of people who are potential
arbitrators," Leahy said at a September 27 news conference with
Senate Democrats. "They know if they ever rule against one of the
big companies, these arbitrators, they'll never get picked again.
These are inherently unequal relationships."

Opponents of the rule, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say
the change would enrich trial lawyers at consumers' expense.
Equifax says arbitration is "quick and cost effective."

Equifax recently came under fire for limiting consumers' right to
sue in the wake of the massive security breach that affected an
estimated 143 million people, though the company now says those
restrictions do not apply to claims that may be filed because of
the breach.

Democrats are using the uproar over Equifax to argue against
mandatory arbitration.

"We're urging our Republican colleagues to say no to immunity for
Equifax, Wells Fargo, or anyone else who does such horrible
financial misdeeds," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

The new rule was finalized in July. The U.S. House of
Representatives passed a resolution to overturn the rule. Rep.
Peter Welch, D-Vt., voted against the resolution. The Senate is
now preparing for a vote.

If the rule survives congressional review, it would apply only to
future agreements made after the rule's effective date.

Separately, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a
subcommittee hearing on the Equifax breach next October 4. [GN]


FIDELITY MGMT: Bid to Dismiss "Fleming" Under Rule 12(b)(6) OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KATHERINE FLEMING, EDWARD R. HADUCK, and
VICTORIA WENDEL, Plaintiffs, v. FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY
and FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-cv-10918-ADB (D. Mass.), Judge
Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim, and denied as moot the
Plaintiffs' motion to strike.

The Plaintiffs in this putative class action filed their Complaint
on May 20, 2016, alleging various violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  They claim that
Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA and
engaged in transactions that ERISA prohibits.

The Plaintiffs are individual participants within the meaning of
ERISA, in the Delta Family-Care Savings Plan.  The Defendants FMTC
and FIIOC were hired to provide certain services to the Plan.  As
trustee of the Plan, FMTC holds the Plan's investment assets and
executes investment transactions as instructed by the Plan and
individual Plan participants.  FIIOC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
FMTC, provides trust services, record-keeping, and information
management services to the Plan.

The assets of the Plan are held in and invested through a Master
Trust.  The trust is controlled in all material respects by a
Master Trust Agreement involving the Plan sponsor (Delta Air
Lines, Inc.), the named fiduciary (the Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Benefit Funds Investment Committee), the Plan administrator (the
Administrative Committee of Delta Air Lines, Inc.), and the
trustee (FMTC).

The Complaint alleges wrongdoing in two particular aspects of the
Plan, although the Plan sponsor, named fiduciary, and
administrator are not parties to the case.  First, it challenges
the relationship between the Defendants and a third party,
Financial Engines Advisors, LLC ("FE").  Second, the Complaint
attacks "BrokerageLink," the portal through which individual Plan
participants are permitted to invest their savings on a self-
directed basis.

The gravamen of the Plaintiff's allegations regarding FE is that
Defendants and FE have agreed to an improper "pay to play"
arrangement.  Basically, they allege that FE, in exchange for
being included as the Plan's investment advisor, agreed to pay the
Defendants a significant percentage of the fees that FE collects
from individual Plan investors.

The Complaint alleges that when individual Plan participants use
BrokerageLink to invest in mutual funds with different share
classes, the Defendants acquire shares with higher fees, which
typically include revenue-sharing payments made to parties who
distribute the shares or provide other services.  The Defendants,
in turn, get a cut of these higher fees in the form of revenue-
sharing payments.

On July 22, 2016, the Defendants filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) seeking dismissal of the Complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  Accompanying the
motion was a declaration by the Defendants' counsel, along with
three exhibits, two of which were filed under seal.  The
Plaintiffs opposed this motion on Sept. 12, 2016, and filed a
motion to strike one of the exhibits attached to the declaration,
and related factual assertions contained in the memorandum in
support of the motion.  The Defendants opposed the motion to
strike on Oct. 17, 2016.

Shortly thereafter, on Nov. 3, 2016, the Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1).  The Plaintiffs responded to this motion on Dec.
12, 2016, and the Defendants filed a reply on Jan. 12, 2017.

Judge Burroughs finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly
allege that the Defendants were exercising a fiduciary function
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(21)(A) when they decided which
securities to make available through BrokerageLink because Delta
retained ultimate authority to include or reject the BrokerageLink
product from the list of investment options made available to Plan
participants.  Thus, Count III must be dismissed.

Insofar as the Complaint challenges the amount of the fees that
the Defendants collect from FE, the Courts have held that plan
service providers (such as the Defendants) are not acting in a
fiduciary capacity when they negotiate with plan sponsors for
their own compensation, so long as the final agreement with the
plan does not give the service provider the ability to determine
or control the actual amount of its compensation.  Accordingly,
Count I must be dismissed.

Judge Burroughs explains that the Department of Labor has advised
that the "assets of a plan" are defined by applying ordinary
notions of property rights.  This typically requires consideration
of any contract or other legal instrument involving the plan, as
well as the actions and representations of the parties involved.
Here, that principle requires consideration of the Master Trust
Agreement, which incorporates by reference the pre-existing fee-
sharing agreements between Defendants and the mutual funds, and
the Defendants and FE.  Those agreements, alongside the facts
pleaded in the Complaint, support the view that the challenged
fees are directed to the mutual funds and to FE rather than to the
Plan.  Accordingly, Count IV must be dismissed.

Finally, Judge Burroughs concludes that the Plaintiffs' claim for
equitable relief fails.  The equitable relief permitted under
ERISA does not authorize appropriate equitable relief "at large,"
but rather only such relief as will enforce the terms of a plan or
ERISA itself.  Here, the Plaintiffs' claim for equitable relief
rises or falls with the viability of their claims alleging
violations of Sections 1106(a) and 1106(b).  The Complaint seeks
to hold Defendants liable because they "knew or should have known"
that their arrangement with FE violated Sections 1106(a) and
1106(b).  For the reasons already discussed, those underlying
violations are dismissed.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' claim for
equitable relief also fails.

For these reasons, Judge Burroughs denied the Defendants' motion
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1); allowed the Defendants' motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); and denied as moot the Plaintiffs'
motion to strike.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 22, 2017 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/3mWSAw from Leagle.com.

Katherine Fleming, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Micheletti -- cmicheletti@zelle.com -- Zelle LLP, pro hac vice.

Katherine Fleming, Plaintiff, represented by Ellen T. Noteware --
enoteware@bm.net -- Berger & Montague PC, pro hac vice, Garrett W.
Wotkyns -- gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky LLP, pro hac vice, Heather T. Rankie --
hrankie@zelle.com -- Zelle LLP, pro hac vice, John J. Nestico --
jnestico@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky

Wotkyns LLP, pro hac vice, Mark T. Johnson --
mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Brayton Konecky LLP, pro hac vice, Shanon J. Carson --
scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Todd S.
Collins -- tcollins@bm.net --  Berger & Montague, pro hac vice,
Todd Schneider -- tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, pro hac vice, Todd M.
Schneider, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, pro hac
vice, Jeffrey A. Gordon -- jgordon@zelle.com -- Zelle LLP & Paul
T. Sullivan -- psullivan@zelle.com -- Zelle LLP.

Edward R Haduck, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Micheletti, Zelle LLP, pro hac vice, Ellen T. Noteware, Berger &
Montague PC, pro hac vice, Garrett W. Wotkyns, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky LLP, pro hac vice, Heather T. Rankie, Zelle LLP,
pro hac vice, John J. Nestico, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP, pro hac vice, Mark T. Johnson, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, pro hac vice, Todd S. Collins,
Berger & Montague, pro hac vice, Todd Schneider, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, pro hac vice, Todd M. Schneider,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey A. Gordon, Zelle LLP & Paul T. Sullivan, Zelle LLP.

Victoria Wendel, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Micheletti, Zelle LLP, pro hac vice, Ellen T. Noteware, Berger &
Montague PC, pro hac vice, Garrett W. Wotkyns, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky LLP, pro hac vice, Heather T. Rankie, Zelle LLP,
pro hac vice, John J. Nestico, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP, pro hac vice, Mark T. Johnson, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, pro hac vice, Shanon J. Carson,
Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Todd S. Collins, Berger &
Montague, pro hac vice, Todd Schneider, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP, pro hac vice, Todd M. Schneider, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey A.
Gordon, Zelle LLP & Paul T. Sullivan, Zelle LLP.

Fidelity Management Trust Company, Defendant, represented by James
R. Carroll -- james.carroll@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Michael S. Hines -- michael.hines@skadden.com
-- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Alison V. Douglass --
adouglass@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP & Jaime A. Santos
-- jsantos@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP.

Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by James R. Carroll, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Michael S. Hines, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Alison V. Douglass, Goodwin Procter, LLP &
Jaime A. Santos, Goodwin Procter LLP.


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Rozenberg" Suit in Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontier
Communications Corporation. The case is styled as Larisa
Rozenberg, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Frontier Communications Corporation, Daniel
J. McCarthy, Ralph Perley McBride, John M. Jureller and Donald W.
Daniels, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01672-MPS (D. Conn., October
4, 2017).

Frontier Communications Corporation is a corporation with
principal place of business in Connecticut, and state of
incorporation in Delaware. It is engaged in the sale and
distribution of internet and telephone services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
   Levi & Korsinksy, LLP-Stamford
   733 Summer St, Suite 304
   Stamford, CT 06901
   Tel: (212) 363-7500
   Fax: (866) 367-6510
   Email: shopkins@zlk.com


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontier
Communications Corporation ("Frontier" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:FTR) in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Frontier securities on the open
market from April 1, 2016 through May 2, 2017, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Frontier
acquired a substantial number of non-paying accounts as part of
its acquisition of the wireline operations of Verizon
Communications, Inc.; (2) consequently, Frontier would be required
to increase its reserves and write off amounts from accounts
receivable associated with the non-paying accounts; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Frontier's
business, operations and prospects were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 27, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston,
Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail
at -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. Corporation ("Frontier" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:FTR) in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Frontier securities
on the open market from April 1, 2016 through May 2, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Frontier
acquired a substantial number of non-paying accounts as part of
its acquisition of the wireline operations of Verizon
Communications, Inc.; (2) consequently, Frontier would be required
to increase its reserves and write off amounts from accounts
receivable associated with the non-paying accounts; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Frontier's
business, operations and prospects were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 27, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston,
Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail
at -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com. --

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


GEICO GENERAL: Faces Coastal Wellness Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GEICO General
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Coastal Wellness Centers,
Inc., a Florida corporation, other Marlene Williams, Plantation
Spinal Care Center, Inc. a Florida corporation,
other Mary Ann Balbo, and Tower Health Center, Inc., a Florida
corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
other Julie David, Plaintiffs v. GEICO General Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61963-BB (S.D. Fla., October 4, 2017).

GEICO provides personal automobile insurance products. The company
operates as a private passenger auto insurer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Barbara Perez, Esq.
   Aronovitz Law
   2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3700
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 372-2772
   Fax: (305) 397-1886
   Email: bp@aronovitzlaw.com

      - and -

   Theophilos George Poulopoulos, Esq.
   Corredor, Husseini and Snedaker, P.A.
   9130 South Dadeland Blvd
   Datran II Center, Suite 1902
   Miami, FL 33156
   Tel: (978) 621-4636

      - and -

   Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
   Aronovitz Law
   One Biscayne Tower
   2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3700
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 372-2772
   Fax: (305) 397-1886
   Email: ta@aronovitzlaw.com


GOV'T EMPLOYEES: Faces Town Health Center Suit in S.D. of Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Government Employees
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Town Health Center, Inc.,
a Florida corporation on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, other Valerie Maddox, Plaintiff v. Government Employees
Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61962-WPD (S.D.
Fla., October 4, 2017).

Government Employees Insurance Company is an American auto
insurance company headquartered in Chevy Chase, Maryland. It is
the second largest auto insurer in the United States, after State
Farm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Barbara Perez, Esq.
   Aronovitz Law
   2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3700
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 372-2772
   Fax: (305) 397-1886
   Email: bp@aronovitzlaw.com

     - and -

   Theophilos George Poulopoulos, Esq.
   Corredor, Husseini and Snedaker, P.A.
   9130 South Dadeland Blvd
   Datran II Center, Suite 1902
   Miami, FL 33156
   Tel: (978) 621-4636

      - and -

   Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
   Aronovitz Law
   One Biscayne Tower
   2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3700
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 372-2772
   Fax: (305) 397-1886
   Email: ta@aronovitzlaw.com


HONEY BUCKET: Judge Certifies Lawsuit as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Christine Willmsen, writing for Seattle Times, reports that a
judge certified a lawsuit against Honey Bucket as a class action
on September 27, allowing residents in Pacific who have complained
of odors to join the case.

Initially, four neighbors filed a lawsuit against Northwest
Cascade and its Honey Bucket and FloHawks divisions, stating that
odors, gases and fumes exacerbated their asthma, caused headaches
and devalued their properties.

Pierce County Superior Court Judge Helen Whitener's order allows
property owners from about 40 lots in the same neighborhood to
become plaintiffs.

Northwest Cascade operates a small wastewater-treatment facility
and cleaning station for Honey Buckets, which are portable
bathrooms.

Vacuum pumper trucks suck the contents of the Honey Buckets,
wherever they are located, and transport the waste to the property
in Pacific, south of Auburn. The sewage is pressed into biosolids
that are used for agriculture and landscaping. The remaining
partially treated wastewater is sent through the King County
Wastewater Treatment system. The toilets are hauled to the Pacific
facility, power washed and stored there until needed again.

Since 2014, when the Honey Bucket operation expanded, neighbors
have smelled sewage. [GN]


IDAHO: Court Denies IDHW's Bid to Dismiss Olmstead Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Idaho denied Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW)'s
motion to dismiss the case captioned K.W., by his next friend
D.W., et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD ARMSTRONG, in his official
capacity as Director of the Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare; PAUL LEARY, in his official capacity as Medicaid
Administrator of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; and
the IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, a department of the
State of Idaho, Defendants. TOBY SCHULTZ, et al. Plaintiffs, v.
RICHARD ARMSTRONG, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 1:12-cv-22-BLW,
3:12-CV-58-BLW (D. Idaho).

The Plaintiffs are developmentally disabled adults who qualify for
benefits under Medicaid.  When their Medicaid payments were
reduced, they brought this action against IDHW, alleging, among
other things, that the IDHW's budgeting methodology -- referred to
as the budget tool -- improperly reduces assistance for some
recipients, that the notice that IDHW uses to inform participants
of reductions in their assistance was insufficient, and that the
process for appealing budget reductions was unfair.

The Court certified a class of disabled adults to challenge the
budget tool, notice form, and hearing procedures used by the IDHW.
In addition to these class claims that challenge the system-wide
processes of IDHW, there are individual claims brought by 16 Named
Plaintiffs alleging that reductions to their budgets puts them at
risk for being institutionalized.  These individual claims are
referred to as the Olmstead claims, after the Supreme Court
decision requiring those in the position of the Plaintiffs to show
that the challenged state action creates a serious risk of
institutionalization.

The parties then reached a settlement of the class claims.  The
IDHW agreed to develop a new budget tool, and to keep the
Plaintiffs' benefits at their prior high level until the new
budgets could be approved and implemented.  The settlement gave
the IDHW two years to develop and test the new budget tool.

The Court approved the class action settlement, and set a trial
date for the Olmstead claims.  The IDHW now seeks to dismiss the
Olmstead claims on the ground that they are moot because the
Plaintiffs have been awarded the relief they sought in this
lawsuit.  In the alternative, the IDHW argues, the Court should
proceed to trial on the Olmstead claims immediately.

The Plaintiffs have not, however, obtained all the relief they
sued for.  The class settlement relies on funding from the State
Legislature and approval by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services for the required programmatic changes.  Even if the
funding and approvals are forthcoming and the new budget tool is
implemented, it may reduce budgets, putting some participants in
danger of institutionalization, thereby potentially violating
Olmstead.  In other words, the Plaintiffs have only a proposal at
this point, not a final product.

The Winmill cannot find, therefore, that the Plaintiffs' Olmstead
claims are moot.  While the Olmstead claims remain alive, they are
not ready for trial until the new budget tool is approved and used
to determine new individual budgets for the Plaintiffs.  Only then
will the parties know whether the new budgets are reduced to the
point where the Plaintiffs are in danger of being
institutionalized.

That time is more than a year away, and so this case will sit for
an extended period before the parties will know whether they must
proceed to trial on the Olmstead claims or whether those claims
will be truly moot.

These circumstances call for the case to be administratively
terminated, without prejudice to the right of any party to reopen
the case for any reason.  Once the budget tool has been
implemented, and applied to the Plaintiffs, the parties can reopen
the case to determine whether the Olmstead claims need to be
dismissed or tried.

In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth, Judge
Winmill denied IDHW's motion to dismiss and administratively
closed without prejudice the case to the right of either party to
reopen the case for any reason.  The parties will notify the Court
when the Olmstead issues are either ready for trial or are to be
dismissed.  The Court will not set any trial date until that
point, if necessary.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 22, 2017 Memorandum Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/f7dJ1V from Leagle.com.

K W, Plaintiff, represented by James Marshall Piotrowski, HERZFELD
& PIOTROWSKI.

K W, Plaintiff, represented by Marty Durand, Herzfeld &
Piotrowski, LLP & Richard Alan Eppink, American Civil Liberties
Union of Idaho Foundation.

Christie Mathwig, Plaintiff, represented by James Marshall
Piotrowski, HERZFELD & PIOTROWSKI, Marty Durand, Herzfeld &
Piotrowski, LLP & Richard Alan Eppink, American Civil Liberties
Union of Idaho Foundation.

C L, Plaintiff, represented by James Marshall Piotrowski, HERZFELD
& PIOTROWSKI, Marty Durand, Herzfeld & Piotrowski, LLP & Richard
Alan Eppink, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation.

A L, through her guardian EB, Plaintiff, represented by James
Marshall Piotrowski, HERZFELD & PIOTROWSKI.

A L, Plaintiff, represented by Marty Durand, Herzfeld &
Piotrowski, LLP & Richard Alan Eppink, American Civil Liberties
Union of Idaho Foundation.

K S, Plaintiff, represented by James Marshall Piotrowski, HERZFELD
& PIOTROWSKI, Marty Durand, Herzfeld & Piotrowski, LLP & Richard
Alan Eppink, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation.

Matthew S, Plaintiff, represented by James Marshall Piotrowski,
HERZFELD & PIOTROWSKI, Marty Durand, Herzfeld & Piotrowski, LLP &
Richard Alan Eppink, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho
Foundation.

N R, Plaintiff, represented by James Marshall Piotrowski, HERZFELD
& PIOTROWSKI, Marty Durand, Herzfeld & Piotrowski, LLP & Richard
Alan Eppink, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation.

T F, Plaintiff, represented by James Marshall Piotrowski, HERZFELD
& PIOTROWSKI, Marty Durand, Herzfeld & Piotrowski, LLP & Richard
Alan Eppink, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation.

Richard Armstrong, Defendant, represented by Brian V. Church,
Office of the Attorney General, Civil Litigation Division, Clay R.
Smith, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, Cynthia Lin Yee-Wallace, Office
of Attorney General & W. Scott Zanzig, Office of the Idaho
Attorney General, Civil Litigation.

Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Defendant, represented by
Brian V. Church, Office of the Attorney General, Civil Litigation
Division, Clay R. Smith, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, Cynthia Lin
Yee-Wallace, Office of Attorney General & W. Scott Zanzig, Office
of the Idaho Attorney General, Civil Litigation.

Lisa Hettinger, Defendant, represented by Brian V. Church, Office
of the Attorney General, Civil Litigation Division, Clay R. Smith,
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, Cynthia Lin Yee-Wallace, Office of
Attorney General & W. Scott Zanzig, Office of the Idaho Attorney
General, Civil Litigation.

Idaho Care Providers Network, Amicus, represented by James
Marshall Piotrowski, HERZFELD & PIOTROWSKI & Marty Durand,
Herzfeld & Piotrowski, LLP.


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Nov. 27 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on September 27, 2017, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Intercept
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:ICPT).  The complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is May 31, 2016 through September 20, 2017.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Intercept
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock
during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as
described above.  You may move the Court no later than Monday,
November 27, 2017 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire
Class.  However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal
requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: -- rkh@federmanlaw.com --
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN]


ISRAMCO: Court Allows $12.7-Bil. Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Sue Surkes, writing for Times of Israel, reports that the
Israel Supreme Court on September 28 gave the green light for a
NIS 45 billion ($12.7 billion) class action against the private
consortium that operates Israel's only functioning natural gas
production complex.

In ruling against the consortium's appeal to reject the class
action bid, the court also ordered it to pay legal costs of NIS
40,000 ($11,300), the Globes financial daily reported.

The petitioner, one Moshe Nazri -- who like most Israelis, is a
consumer of electricity -- claims the companies are exploiting
their monopoly over the Tamar gas field to charge the Israel
Electric Corporation unfairly high prices.

Among the companies targeted by the suit, the biggest in Israel's
history, are Isramco, Dor Energy, Delek Drilling, Avner Oil & Gas
Exploration, the Delek Group and US-based Noble Energy.

On the day he submitted his petition in June 2014, Nazri said the
group was exploiting its position to charge the IEC $5.40 for a
unit of gas-generated energy (mmbtu) when the real cost was $2.34.

An aerial view of the Tamar gas-processing rig off the southern
coastal city of Ashkelon, June 23, 2014. (Moshe Shai/Flash90)
Backed up by a professional opinion from an American expert on the
gas economy, Prof. James Smith, Nazri claimed that this would reap
for the consortium profits of some NIS 2 billion ($567 million) a
year.

Smith claimed, among other things, that the Tamar consortium was
making a profit of around 57% a year on its investment.

After failing to convince the Tel Aviv District Court to throw out
the request for a class action against it, the consortium appealed
to the Supreme Court, which issued its ruling on September 28.

Nazri's lawyers Yitzhak Yaari, Esq. and Gilad Barnea, Esq.
welcomed the court's decision, saying it "removes one of the most
significant legal obstacles on the way to compensating IEC
consumers.

"In addition to the District Court, the Supreme Court also
rejected the Tamar monopoly and the attorney general's attempt to
prevent a deep and thorough discussion about the fairness of the
natural gas prices charged by the Tamar consortium."

The court clarified that approval of the framework did not signify
approval of the price.

"We are convinced that at the end of the legal process, it will be
found that the Tamar monopoly is using its monopolistic power to
charge the most excessive price for the natural gas that belongs
to every citizen of Israel."

A statement from the consortium said that despite the two courts'
decisions, they were still confident that Nazri's attempt was
"futile" and destined to fail.

Nazri's claims were exaggerated, and were cut off from the way the
industry set prices and signed contracts for natural gas, the
statement said.

The consortium charged that Israel was only now rehabilitating
"the considerable damage caused to its reputation" by the long-
delayed natural gas industry framework signed by the government.

Referring to last week's discovery of a fault in an undersea
pipeline serving Tamar, which forced temporary closure of the pipe
for repairs and forced the IEC to resort to coal, which is
costlier than gas, the statement said, "Only in the past week did
the citizens of Israel understand how significant the contribution
of natural gas is to the reduction of electricity prices and the
reduction of air pollution in Israel."

The Tamar field, which was discovered in 2009 and began production
in 2013, has estimated reserves of up to 238 billion cubic meters
(8.4 trillion cubic feet).

Leviathan, discovered in 2010 and set to begin production in 2019,
is estimated to hold 535 billion cubic meters (18.9 trillion cubic
feet) of natural gas, along with 34.1 million barrels of
condensate. [GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Thousands of Women Sue Over Baby Powder
----------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Hsu, writing for New York Times, reports that thousands of
women across the country are suing the consumer goods giant
Johnson & Johnson over its baby powder, claiming that talcum
particles in the popular product caused their ovarian cancer.

The plaintiffs, however, are not working as a team. They are
taking the company to court one at a time.

In many product liability complaints, class action status is
difficult to win, given the various ways the product can be sold
and used. Such cases often end up being individually litigated
with the expectation that there will eventually be a mass payout.

This approach can be effective, according to plaintiffs' lawyers.
Each successive verdict, they say, sends a signal about how much
plaintiffs can expect to be paid if, and when, a company agrees to
settle.

"You can't get to a global settlement until both sides have a
really clear sense of the strengths and weaknesses and value of
these claims," said Nora Freeman Engstrom, a professor at Stanford
Law School. "And the only way to test that is on the battlefield,
which is trial."

But going to court is expensive and risky -- for both sides.

The tally of damages from verdicts against Johnson & Johnson is
already in the hundreds of millions of dollars. And the harm to
the company is not just financial: Its reputation could suffer if
baby powder, one of its longest-standing products, is seen by the
public as unsafe.

The cases are emotionally compelling.

Many of the plaintiffs -- 4,800 as of July 2 -- are extremely ill.
In addition to seeking restitution, they are asking that Johnson &
Johnson add a warning to its baby powder label or replace the
product entirely with a similar one formulated with cornstarch.

Class action status "ends up taking the individuality out of the
cases," said Allen Smith, a lawyer who has represented plaintiffs
in all of the cases to go to trial. And, he said, each victim
"deserves the opportunity to have her day in court as fast as
possible."

But the safety concerns are based on inconclusive science.

Talcum powders contain talc, which includes moisture-absorbing
particles of oxygen, magnesium and silicon. Asbestos, a known
carcinogen that sometimes appears in natural talc, was stripped
from all commercially used talc in the 1970s, according to the
American Cancer Society.

Plaintiffs in the talc cases, citing studies from 1971 on, said
that talc in baby powder can be absorbed by the reproductive
system and cause inflammation in the ovaries when applied for
feminine hygiene purposes.

But the National Cancer Institute said on its website that "the
weight of evidence does not support an association between
perineal talc exposure and an increased risk of ovarian cancer."

As for sending a signal, the cases are mixed at this point.

Johnson & Johnson has lost six of the seven cases decided so far.
A New Jersey state court judge dismissed two other complaints last
year before they reached trial, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked
credible scientific evidence.

Johnson & Johnson, which is appealing the verdicts that favored
plaintiffs, said in a statement that it was "guided by the
science." It did not comment on whether it planned to pursue a
global settlement.

"Ovarian cancer is a devastating diagnosis and we deeply
sympathize with the women and families impacted by this disease,"
said Carol Goodrich, a spokeswoman for the company. "We are
preparing for additional trials in the U.S. and will continue to
defend the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder."

The company is no stranger to enormous legal challenges.

As of early July, Johnson & Johnson faced lawsuits stemming from
its blood thinner Xarelto, which 20,000 plaintiffs said caused
uncontrollable bleeding. Another 55,500 cases concern pelvic mesh
for women, which attorneys general in Washington and California
said caused urinary dysfunction, loss of sexual function,
constipation and other complications.

The first talc trial was in 2013 in Federal District Court in
South Dakota. A jury found Johnson & Johnson negligent in a
complaint filed by a Sioux Falls resident, Deane Berg, 60, but did
not award her damages.

Ms. Berg, who used the company's baby powder for 40 years and
developed ovarian cancer in 2006, said she had turned down a $1.3
million settlement offer from the company. She instead wanted, but
failed to force, the company to put warning labels on the product
or to remove it from shelves.

Ms. Berg said she had endured "brutal" chemotherapy for six months
and had also sustained permanent hearing loss, nerve damage,
anemia and depression. Her cancer is in remission.

"It would be better to put all of these cases together and go
after Johnson & Johnson for the whole thing," she said.

So far, pretrial procedures in nearly 900 talc cases have been
consolidated into what is known as a multidistrict litigation, or
MDL. Complaints filed in different federal courts are being
transferred to a single bundle in Federal District Court in New
Jersey, where Johnson & Johnson is based and where many of its
employees would probably serve as witnesses.

MDLs tend to reduce costs and time. Only one set of expert
witnesses needs to be called. Lead lawyers chosen for each side
oversee the process.

More consistency from the courts could mean a smaller legal bill
for Johnson & Johnson.

By 2007, three years after the drugmaker Merck removed its Vioxx
pain medication from pharmacy shelves, the company had paid more
than $1 billion in legal fees over nearly 20 trials before
agreeing to spend $4.85 billion to settle 27,000 lawsuits.
Plaintiffs claimed, and evidence showed, that the drug increased
the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

For Johnson & Johnson, which recorded $806 million in net
litigation expenses for the 2016 fiscal year and at least $400
million during the second quarter of fiscal 2017, the most painful
blow in the talc litigation came on Aug. 21.

That was when a jury in Los Angeles County Superior Court awarded
Eva Echeverria, 63, of California, $417 million in her case
against the company.

The decision included $347 million in punitive damages, which are
awarded in only 5 percent of civil trials in which plaintiffs are
successful, according to government data. Juries typically tack on
punitive damages to a standard compensatory award when they deem a
defendant's behavior to be especially harmful.

"To me, that's a very prudent, reasonable award, to be honest,"
said Mr. Smith, one of Ms. Echeverria's lawyers.

Clients must wait out the appeals process before receiving a
payout, Mr. Smith said. Not that Johnson & Johnson, which recorded
$16.5 billion in profits last year, would appear to be too worried
about the money.

"In the history of major litigation cases against big pharma,
there's only been a few that really raise the bar to impacting the
stock, but we haven't seen those in a long time," said Damien
Conover, an analyst at Morningstar. "There's a lot of room for a
company like Johnson & Johnson to digest legal costs." [GN]


KIA MOTORS: Faces "Kondash" Suit in Middle District of Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia Motors America
Inc. The case is styled as Tom Kondash, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kia Motors America
Inc, Kia Motors Corporation, Defendants, Hyundai Motor
Manufacturing of Alabama LLC, Case No. 4:17-mc-00006-CDL (M.D.
Ga., October 4, 2017).
The Defendants are manufacturer of motor vehicles.

The Movant is represented by:

   CLINTON T SPEEGLE, Esq.
   Email: cspeegle@lightfootlaw.com

      - and -

   HARLAN I PRATER, IV, Esq.
   400 20TH ST N CLARK BLDG
   BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203
   Tel: (205) 581-0700
   Email: hprater@lfwlaw.com

      - and -

   Jackson Roger Sharman, III, Esq.
   400 20 ST N
   BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203
   Tel: (205) 581-0789
   Fax: (205) 380-9189
   Email: jsharman@lightfootlaw.com

      - and -

   RACHEL M LARY, Esq.
   Email: rlary@lightfootlaw.com


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Oct. 12 Class Cert. Hearing in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re LENDINGCLUB SECURITIES LITIGATION.
This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Case Nos. C 16-02627 WHA, C
16-02670 WHA, C 16-03072 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hear all the putative intervenors' motions -- to shorten
time, to intervene, and objecting to class certification -- at the
same time as the class certification motion on Oct. 12, 2017 at
8:00 a.m.

On Sept. 21, 2017, the class representatives in a certified class
action pending in California Superior Court, In re Lending Club
Corp. S'holder Litig., No. CIV 537000 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo
City) moved for an order shortening time so that the Court could
consider their motion to intervene for the purpose of objecting to
class certification in the captioned action.  Along with their
motion to shorten time, the putative intervenors filed a motion to
intervene and a motion objecting to class certification.

All parties in the captioned action may separately respond to each
of these motions by noon on Oct. 5, 2017.  The Putative
intervenors will not be permitted to reply due to the lateness of
their filing, but they may appear on the motions to shorten time
and to intervene, and if intervention is granted on the motion for
class certification.  All motions will be heard at the same time
as the class certification motion on Oct. 12, 2017 at 8:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 22, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/tkR4S8 from Leagle.com.

Steeve Evellard, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom &
Gross LLP, pro hac vice.

Steeve Evellard, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Nicole Wertz, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Allen Walker --
jake@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP & Lesley Elizabeth Weaver
-- lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP.

LendingClub Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Michael
Grable -- davegrable@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
Sullivan LLP, Joseph Caldwell Sarles --
josephsarles@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and
Hedges, Diane M. Doolittle -- dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com --
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John Mark Potter --
johnpotter@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, Kyle Kenneth Batter -- kylebatter@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Robert Patrick Vance, Jr. --
bobbyvance@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan, LLP & Victoria Blohm Parker --
vickiparker@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan,
LLP.

Renaud LaPlanche, Defendant, represented by Scott Alexander
Edelman, Milbank Tweed, pro hac vice, Adam Joshua Fee, Milbank
Tweed, pro hac vice, Lisa Marie Damm Northrup, Milbank, Tweed,
Hadley and McCloy LLP, Robert John Liubicic, Milbank Tweed & Sarah
L. Rothenberg, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy LLP.

Carrie L Dolan, Defendant, represented by Charlene Sachi Shimada -
- charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Lucy Han Wang -- lucy.wang@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Susan Diane Resley -- susan.resley@morganlewis.com -
- Morgan Lewis & Bockius.

Daniel T. Ciporin, Defendant, represented by David Michael Grable,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John Mark Potter, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Joseph Caldwell Sarles, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, Kyle Kenneth Batter, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, Robert Patrick Vance, Jr., Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP & Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, LLP.

Jeffrey Crowe, Defendant, represented by David Michael Grable,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John Mark Potter, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Joseph Caldwell Sarles, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, Kyle Kenneth Batter, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, Robert Patrick Vance, Jr., Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP & Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, LLP.

Rebecca Lynn, Defendant, represented by David Michael Grable,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John Mark Potter, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Joseph Caldwell Sarles, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, Kyle Kenneth Batter, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, Robert Patrick Vance, Jr., Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP & Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, LLP.

John J. Mack, Defendant, represented by David Michael Grable,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John Mark Potter, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Joseph Caldwell Sarles, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, Kyle Kenneth Batter, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, Robert Patrick Vance, Jr., Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP & Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, LLP.

Mary Meeker, Defendant, represented by David Michael Grable, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John Mark Potter, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
& Sullivan, LLP, Joseph Caldwell Sarles, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
Oliver and Hedges, Kyle Kenneth Batter, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
Sullivan, Robert Patrick Vance, Jr., Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan, LLP & Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
Sullivan, LLP.

John C. (Hans) Morris, Defendant, represented by David Michael
Grable, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Diane M. Doolittle,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John Mark Potter, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Joseph Caldwell Sarles, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, Kyle Kenneth Batter, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Robert Patrick Vance, Jr., Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP & Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, LLP.

Lawrence H. Summers, Defendant, represented by David Michael
Grable, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Diane M. Doolittle,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John Mark Potter, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Joseph Caldwell Sarles, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, Kyle Kenneth Batter, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Robert Patrick Vance, Jr., Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP & Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, LLP.


MDL 2744: Objections to Denial of Protective Order Bid Overruled
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: FCA US LLC MONOSTABLE ELECTRONIC
GEARSHIFT LITIGATION, MDL No. 2744, Case No. 16-md-02744 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge David M. Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, overruled the
Plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge David R. Grand's
order denying their motion for protective order.

The Plaintiffs' motion for protective order specified that their
depositions must be taken either (i) in the largest city within 75
miles of an Individual Plaintiff's place of residence; or (i) by
use of video conference facilities under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 30(b)(4).

In his order denying the Plaintiffs' motion, the Magistrate Judge
reviewed with exemplary detail and clarity the factual background
of the dispute and the applicable principles of law, and concluded
that the motion should be denied because the Plaintiffs had not
articulated any factual basis to show that any of them would
suffer a "clearly defined and serious injury" sufficient to
warrant the relief sought.

After reviewing the record of proceedings and the Plaintiffs'
objections, Judge Lawson finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
identify any clear error in the Magistrate Judge's ruling, and
agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the Plaintiffs
have failed to articulate any sufficient basis for a finding that
there is "good cause" to impose the geographic limitations on the
taking of their depositions that they propose.

As an initial matter, the Plaintiffs' reliance on the geographic
specifications for the places of taking depositions by subpoena
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 is misplaced.  Rule 45 is
procedurally inapplicable in the context of a party's deposition,
which may be taken upon issuance of a written notice, without need
for a subpoena.

Judge Lawson further finds that the Magistrate Judge also did not
err in finding that the Plaintiffs failed to supply in support of
their motion any evidence to show that any of them would suffer a
clearly defined and serious injury -- or any discernible hardship
at all. The plaintiffs' motion was not supported by affidavits of
any of the named plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs did not even
proffer any specific information relating to their individual
financial or personal circumstances. Their conclusory
representations, unsupported by any specific facts or evidence,
are insufficient to support a finding that any Individual
Plaintiff would suffer a clearly defined and serious injury as a
result of being compelled to travel to the forum in which they
chose to file their lawsuits to be deposed.

In sum, Judge Lawson concludes the plaintiffs have failed to put
forth any factual basis to justify the relief sought in their
motion for a protective order, and the Magistrate Judge did not
err in reciting or applying the pertinent principles of law that
preclude the relief that they seek.  Accordingly, Judge Lawson
overruled the Plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge's
order denying their motion for protective order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 22, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/uqSTTz from Leagle.com.

In Re FCA US LLC Monostable Electronic Gearshift Litigation,
represented by Larry J. Saylor -- saylor@millercanfield.com --
Miller, Canfield.

Bruce Vosburgh, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller --
epm@miller.law.com -- The Miller Law Firm, Sharon S. Almonrode --
ssa@miller.law.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C. & Dennis A.
Lienhardt -- dal@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C..

Timothy Weber, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm, Joseph H. Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Peter A. Muhic -- pmuhic@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Sharon S. Almonrode, The
Miller Law Firm, P.C. & Tyler S. Graden, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP.

Bernadine Hartt, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Honigman --
dhonigman@manteselaw.com -- Mantese Honigman, PC, Douglas Toering
-- dtoering@manteselaw.com -- Mantese Honigman, P.C., Gerard V.
Mantese -- gmantese@manteselaw.com -- Mantese Honigman, P.C., E.
Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, James A. Buster, Mantese
Honigman, P.C., Kevin A. Seely, Robbins Arroyo LLP, Krista M.
Hosmer, Mantese Honigman, P.C., Leonid Kandinov, Robbins Arroyo
LLP, Matthew Thomas Prewitt, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP & Robert
K. Shelquist  -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal
Nauen PLLP.

Berardino D'Onofrio, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Honigman,
Mantese Honigman, PC, Douglas Toering, Mantese Honigman, P.C.,
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Honigman, P.C., E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm, James A. Buster, Mantese Honigman, P.C., Kevin A.
Seely, Robbins Arroyo LLP, Krista M. Hosmer, Mantese Honigman,
P.C., Leonid Kandinov, Robbins Arroyo LLP, Matthew Thomas Prewitt,
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP & Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Marc Hughes, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Gustafson --
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC & E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Andre Barfield, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm, Kevin F. O'Shea -- kfo@miller.law -- Miller Law
Firm & Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C..

Nina Walker, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Gustafson,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

David Goldsmith, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Christopher
R. Pitoun -- christopherp@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman, E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Elizabeth A. Fegan --
beth@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP & Thomas Eric
Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Michael Vincent Nathan, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Christopher R. Pitoun,
Hagens Berman, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Elizabeth A.
Fegan, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser --
toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Pascual Pietri, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Christopher R. Pitoun, Hagens Berman, E.
Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Elizabeth A. Fegan, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Amanda J. Hettinger --
ahettinger@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, Kathy A.
Wisniewski -- kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn
LLP, Larry J. Saylor, Miller, Canfield, Sharon B. Rosenberg --
srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, Stephen A.
D'Aunoy, Thompson Coburn LLP, Cheryl A. Bush -- bush@bsplaw.com --
Bush, Seyferth & Paige, PLLC, Michael R. Williams --
williams@bsplaw.com -- Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC & Thomas L.
Azar, Jr. -- tazar@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP.


MISSOURI: Ct. Denies AT's Bid for Attys' Fees in "Van Orden"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOHN VAN ORDEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFF
STRINGER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:09CV00971 AGF (), Judge
Audrey G. Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied both Armstrong
Teasdale LLP ("AT")'s motion for attorney's fees and costs, and
its motion requesting oral argument on the same.

AT moves the Court for $3,504,047.88 in attorney's fees and
$423,410.46 in costs.  Attorney Richard B. Scherrer from AT was
appointed by the Court beginning on Sept. 2, 2009, to represent
the Plaintiffs in this class action challenging the care and
treatment provided to civilly committed residents of the Missouri
Department of Mental Health's Sex Offender Rehabilitation and
Treatment Services facilities.  Scherrer withdrew as lead counsel
in January 2014 for medical reasons, and at his request, the Court
at that time appointed Eric M. Selig from Rosenblum Schwartz, P.C.
as the new lead counsel for the Plaintiffs, with the understanding
that other attorneys from AT would remain as co-counsel, but only
in a supporting role.  Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties
Union of Eastern Missouri also entered and remained the co-counsel
of record for the Plaintiffs.

However, AT apparently elected to increase its role over the
course of litigation, and an attorney from AT, John H. Quinn, III
took a co-lead role at the April 2015 bench trial in the liability
phase of this case.  Although the Court's Memorandum Opinion after
that trial ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs on some liability
issues, the Court later vacated that ruling based on the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's decision in Karsjens v.
Piper.  The Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendants on
July 6, 2017.

AT acknowledges that the Plaintiffs were not prevailing parties in
this litigation.  However, it argues that the Court should
nevertheless award the fees and costs requested because (i) under
Missouri law, which AT argues should apply because the Plaintiffs
pleaded both federal and pendant state law constitutional claims,
attorneys' fees are recoverable when a successful litigant
benefits a group of similarly situated individuals under an
equitable "balancing the benefits" doctrine; and (ii) the
Plaintiffs may be considered successful litigants even though they
lost their case, under a "catalyst rule," which deems the
Plaintiffs successful if they achieved a desired result because
their lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's
conduct.  The Defendants oppose AT's motion.

After carefully considering the parties' briefs and the
authorities cited therein, Judge Fleissig will deny AT's motion.
Even if AT were correct that Missouri law governs its request for
attorney's fees (which is doubtful), AT has pointed to no Missouri
case law or other authorities persuading the Court that Missouri
would decline to follow Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va.
Dep't of Health & Human Resources and would instead authorize an
equitable award of attorney's fees to losing plaintiffs as a
result of voluntary changes made by the defendants.

Moreover, without discounting the tremendous amount of time and
energy that Scherrer, Quinn, and the other attorneys from AT
devoted to this case, granting AT's motion for fees and costs
would be problematic in light of the unique circumstances of this
case.  As the parties are aware, at a time when the Memorandum
Opinion faced significant risk of reversal, either by an appeal in
this case or the then-pending appellate decision in Karsjens,
Scherrer and Quinn opposed the proposed class action settlement
that other class counsel, including lead counsel, supported.  That
settlement, as it turned out, would have provided substantially
more benefits to the Plaintiff class.

Accordingly, Judge Fleissig denied both AT's motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 22, 2017 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/HqkBg9 from Leagle.com.

John R. Van Orden, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION.

John R. Van Orden, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel K. O'Toole --
dotoole@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, John H.
Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak --
skozak@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP,
Christopher LaRose -- clarose@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE LLP, Gillian R. Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Omri E. Praiss, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E. Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Michael D. McCord, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Gillian R. Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI, essie M. Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Omri E. Praiss, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E. Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Joseph Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Gillian R. Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Omri E. Praiss, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E. Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Macon Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Gillian R. Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E. Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Chance Tyree, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Gillian R. Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI, Jessie M.

Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION,
Omri E. Praiss, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI
FOUNDATION & Thomas E. Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Walter W. Ritchey, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Gillian R. Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Omri E. Praiss, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E. Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

David Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Gillian R. Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Omri E. Praiss, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E. Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Anthony Amonette, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Gillian R. Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Omri E. Praiss, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E. Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Richard Tyson, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Gillian R. Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Omri E. Praiss, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E. Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Harold Myers, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI.

Alan Blake, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI.

Julie Inman, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI.

Jay Englehart, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI.

Justin Arnett, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI.

Rick Gowdy, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI, Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI &
Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI.

Robert Reitz, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI, Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI &
Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI.

Linda Moll, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI, Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI &
Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI.

Daman Longworth, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI.

Donna Augustine, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI.


MODESTO IRRIGATION: Faces Suit for Electricity Bills Overcharge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garth Stapley, writing for Modbee, reports that a potential class-
action lawsuit accusing the Modesto Irrigation District of
overcharging electricity customers to subsidize farmers is on
hold.

Attorneys on both sides agreed to wait until the California
Supreme Court rules on another case from Redding with similar
elements. That could happen in coming months.

The Modesto lawsuit seeks refunds for perhaps 100,000 power
customers -- just about everyone paying for electricity in
Modesto, Salida, Empire and Waterford as well as parts of Oakdale,
Riverbank, Escalon and Ripon.

MID's profit from selling electricity has averaged more than $93
million a year since 2010. The district uses the extra money to
repay debt, build reserves and cover the farm water subsidy
because growers pay far less than MID's actual cost for delivering
that water.

Overcharging electricity customers might be legal under state law
if voters were asked to approve the arrangement, but MID has not.
Neither has the MID board -- a majority of whose members are
farmers -- raised power rates in recent years, since an attorney
in 2012 warned the board that doing so without letting customers
vote might be illegal.

The district initially faced two class actions brought separately
by Andrew Hobbs and Dave Thomas, both Modesto residents, in mid-
2015. They since have merged.

The Modesto and Redding cases both are based on interpretations of
Propositions 218 and 26, respectively, approved by California
voters in 1996 and 2010, both treating charges for government and
utility services.

Appellate justices found that Redding collects some $6 million
each year in what amounts to a hidden tax on electricity customers
because the money is transferred to the city's general fund for
other purposes. Attorney Walter McNeill, representing those
challenging the transfer, had warned agencies not to depend on
such cash cows, in a Modesto Bee article published a year before
Hobbs and Thomas sued MID.

"These agencies that think they can get away with what they're
doing are making a bad bet and jeopardizing their future," McNeill
said then. "If they don't wean themselves off this bad money,
they're going to be in a world of hurt when it goes away."

Opposing McNeill is attorney Michael Colantuono, Esq. of
Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC. who represents the city of
Redding as well as MID in the local lawsuit.

The Supreme Court generally hears oral arguments about two years
after receiving written briefs. That happened in July 2015 for the
Redding case, but its oral arguments have yet to be scheduled.

Once the Redding decision comes down, things should move quickly
for the MID case. The parties have agreed to confer within two
weeks of the decision, including talking about how to notify all
MID electricity customers since November 2015 that they will join
the lawsuit unless they opt out. All farmers who buy MID water
also will be excluded, court documents say. [GN]


NATIONAL GRID: GBL Claims in "Jenkins" Dismissed w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joanna Seybert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York dismissed without prejudice Plaintiffs' New
York General Business Law ("GBL") claims in the case captioned
JARRETT JENKINS, EMMOT STEELE, and FRANCES ROYAL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., KEYSPAN GAS EAST
CORPORATION, NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION, and THE BROOKLYN
UNION GAS COMPANY, Defendants, No. 15-CV-1219 (JS) (GRB) (E.D.
N.Y).

The National Grid is a utility company that provides gas and
electricity to consumers in the northeast United States.  Three of
the Defendants -- Niagara Mohawk Power, Keyspan East Corporation,
and the Brooklyn Union -- are distributors of electricity and/or
natural gas and subsidiaries of National Grid.  The remaining
Defendant, National Grid USA renders services, to companies in the
National Grid USA holding company system," including, inter alia,
accounting, customer services and property acquisition and
management.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants and their agents
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Ac ("TCPA") by calling
customers' cellular telephone numbers using automated telephone
dialing systems and automated or prerecorded voice messages
without prior consent.  In addition to calls made by the
Defendants on their own behalf, the Plaintiffs maintain that the
Defendants are vicariously liable for violations of the TCPA by
third parties hired by the Defendants, including debt collectors
hired to collect outstanding bills.  Additionally, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants called New York customers' residential
and cellular telephone numbers and left prerecorded messages that
violated NY GBL Section 399-p.

On April 14, 2017, after two motions to dismiss, the Plaintiffs
filed the Revised Second Amended Complaint, asserting the
following three causes of action: (i) Count I - violations of the
TCPA on behalf of Plaintiffs Royal and Steele, and a class of
customers directly contacted by National Grid; (ii) Count II -
violations of the TCPA on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class of
customers contacted by third parties; and (iii) Count III -
violations of NY GBL Section 399-p on behalf of the Plaintiffs
Steele and Royal and a class of  New York customers directly
contacted by National Grid.

On Nov. 4, 2016, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the GBL
Claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  On Dec. 2, 2016,
the Plaintiffs filed their opposition, and on Dec. 16, 2016, the
Defendants filed their reply in further support of the motion.

Judge Seybert is not persuaded that the same underlying harms
animate the purpose behind both the TCPA and GBL Section 399-p,
and that New York lawmakers enacted GBL Section 399-p to redress
concerns about consumer privacy and avoiding or preventing
harassing robo-calls.  She finds that the Plaintiffs' conclusory
allegation claiming invasion of privacy, harassment, and nuisance
is insufficient to demonstrate a concrete injury.

Moreover, the Judge he finds that the messages' omissions did not
present a material risk of harm to the purported disclosure
interest underlying Section 399-p.  The Judge rejects the
Plaintiffs' argument that the statutory violations alone are
sufficient to establish standing.  Based on the Plaintiffs'
allegations in the case, Judge Seybert finds that the Plaintiffs
have failed to demonstrate a concrete injury resulting from the
Defendants' violations of GBL Section 399-p.

For these reasons, Judge Seybert granted the Defendants' motion
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' GBL claim on behalf of Royal, Steele,
and the putative class (Count III of the Revised Second Amended
Complaint).

With respect to the Plaintiffs' request leave to amend the Revised
Second Amended Complaint, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have
not filed a proposed amended pleading or described the new
allegations.  She is hesitant to permit another amendment
considering the current disposition of the case and the prior
amendments.  Moreover, due to seemingly endless motion practice,
the Defendants have not yet filed an answer.  In light of these
concerns, the Judge denied the leave to amend at this time.
Should the Plaintiffs wish to amend the Revised Second Amended
Complaint, they may file a proper motion to amend along with the
proposed Third Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 22, 2017 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/Uq419D from Leagle.com.

Jarrett R. Jenkins, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Hutchinson
-- dhutchinson@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP,
pro hac vice.

Jarrett R. Jenkins, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Ian
Cuthbertson -- dcuthbertson@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, John T. Nicolaou -- jnicolaou@lchb.com -- Lieff,
Cabrager, Heimann & Berstein, Jonathan D. Selbin --
jselbin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP &
Joseph S. Tusa --info@tpcnylaw.com -- Tusa, P.C..

Emmot Steele, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Hutchinson,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas Ian
Cuthbertson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, John T.
Nicolaou, Lieff, Cabrager, Heimann & Berstein, Jonathan D. Selbin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Joseph S. Tusa, Tusa,
P.C..

Frances Royal, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Hutchinson,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas Ian
Cuthbertson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, John T.
Nicolaou, Lieff, Cabrager, Heimann & Berstein, Jonathan D. Selbin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Joseph S. Tusa, Tusa,
P.C..

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Richard H. Brown -- rbrown@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney LLP &
Anthony Joseph Marchetta -- amarchetta@daypitney.com -- DAY PITNEY
LLP.

Keyspan Gas East Corporation, Defendant, represented by Richard H.
Brown, Day Pitney LLP & Anthony Joseph Marchetta, DAY PITNEY LLP.

The Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Defendant, represented by Richard
H. Brown, Day Pitney LLP & Anthony Joseph Marchetta, DAY PITNEY
LLP.

National Grid USA Service Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Anthony Joseph Marchetta, DAY PITNEY LLP & Richard H. Brown, Day
Pitney LLP.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by Chris J. Lopata -- cjlopata@jonesday.com -- Jones
Day.

Allied Account Services, Inc., Interested Party, represented by
Arthur Sanders -- asanders@bn-lawyers.com -- Barron & Newburger,
P.C.


NEW YORK LIFE: Class Settlement in TCPA Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ERIC B. FROMER CHIROPRACTIC, INC., a
California corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK LIFE
INSURANCE AND ANUITY CORPORATION, NYLIFE SECURITIES LLC, and JOHN
DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. CV 15-04767-AB (JCx) (C.D. Cal.),
Judge Andre Birotte, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California granted the parties' Motion for
Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

The Settlement Class is defined as all persons who (i) on or about
March 25, 2015 or on or about March 31, 2015 (ii) were
successfully sent telephone facsimile transmissions titled
"Savings and Investing 20/20 for Medical Professionals."

The Defendants have created the Settlement Fund to pay valid class
member claims, class action settlement notice and administration
costs, attorney's fees, costs, and expenses, and an incentive
award to the Plaintiff as determined and awarded by the Court.  If
the value of the claims does not exceed 15% of the Settlement Fund
($165,000), the difference between the value of claims made and
15% of the Settlement Fund will be paid to charity as cy pres.
The Court has selected The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights to
receive cy pres in this case.  The remaining unclaimed monies in
the Settlement Fund will revert back to the Defendants as outlined
and agreed upon in the Settlement Agreement.

As agreed in and subject to the Settlement Agreement, each member
of the Settlement Class who submitted a timely and valid Claim
Form will be mailed a check not to exceed $400 from the Settlement
Fund.  The Claims Administrator received 119 claims corresponding
to 314 fax transmissions.  The Claims Administrator will cause
those checks to be mailed after receiving the Settlement Funds
from Defendants.  The checks issued to the claiming Settlement
Class members will be void 181 days after issuance and any amount
from voided checks will be retained by Defendants.  The total
amount to be paid for claims is $125,600.  In accordance with the
Settlement Agreement, the amount will be paid from the Settlement
Fund as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

The total amount for the cy pres award to The Lawyers Committee
for Civil Rights to receive will be $39,400 ($165,000 minus
$125,600).  In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, that
amount will be paid from the Settlement Fund as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.

Judge Birotte approved the Class Counsel's attorneys' fees in the
total amount of $106,177.50 and out-of-pocket expenses of $12,770,
which includes the costs of settlement administration.  In
accordance with the Settlement Agreement, that amount will be paid
from the Settlement Fund as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

He approved a $1,000 incentive award to Eric B. Fromer
Chiropractic, Inc., for serving as the Class Representative.  In
accordance with the Settlement Agreement, that amount will be paid
from the Settlement Fund as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

The action, by or on behalf of the Plaintiff and all Settlement
Class members against the Defendants by reason of the March 25,
2015 and March 31, 2015 fax transmissions titled "Savings and
Investing 20/20 for Medical Professionals" are dismissed with
prejudice and without taxable costs to any Party.

The Court retains jurisdiction for 180 days over this action.  The
Plaintiff and all members of the Settlement Class and the
Defendants to determine all matters relating in any way to the
Final Judgment and Order, the Preliminary Approval Order, or the
Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to, their
administration, implementation, interpretation or enforcement.
The Court further retains jurisdiction to enforce the Order.

Judge Birotte finds that there is no just reason to delay the
enforcement of the Final Approval Order and Judgement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 22, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/lcsTYp from Leagle.com.

Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Geragos and Geragos APC.

Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian
J. Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson and Wanca, pro
hac vice, Ross M. Good -- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson and
Wanca, pro hac vice, Ryan M. Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com --
Anderson and Wanca, pro hac vice, Wallace C. Solberg --
wsolberg@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson and Wanca, pro hac vice &
Mark John Geragos -- mark@geragos.com -- Geragos and Geragos APC.

New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Lewis S. Wiener -- lewiswiener@eversheds-
sutherland.com -- Eversheds Sutherland US LLP, pro hac vice &
Scott J. Hyman -- sjh@severson.com -- Severson and Werson APC.

NYLIFE Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Lewis S. Wiener,
Eversheds Sutherland US LLP, pro hac vice & Scott J. Hyman,
Severson and Werson APC.


NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Carlton Fields Discusses 9th Circuit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Ann Shepard, Esq. -- kshepard@carltonfields.com -- and
Paul Williams, Esq. -- pwilliams@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton
Fields, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that within 10 days after
the district court decertified a Rule 23(b)(3) aphrodisiac dietary
supplement class for failure to show a class wide method for
calculating damages, plaintiff orally advised the court of his
intention to seek reconsideration.  The district court then set a
10-day deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration -- in
other words, 20 days after the decertification order.

Plaintiff complied with the court's schedule.  The district court
denied the motion for reconsideration, and plaintiff filed a Rule
23(f) petition within 14 days of the order denying
reconsideration.

In a matter of first impression, the Ninth Circuit held that the
Rule 23(f) deadline -- which allows a litigant to seek an
interlocutory appeal of a district court's order granting or
denying class certification within 14 days after the order is
entered -- is procedural, not jurisdictional.  Thus, the deadline
can be tolled as a result of additional equitable circumstances to
allow a good faith litigant to have her day in court.  In doing
so, the Ninth Circuit split from other circuits that strictly
construe the language of Rule 23(f).  In finding that the motion
for reconsideration equitably tolled the 14-day Rule 23(f)
deadline, the court reasoned that the plaintiff acted in good
faith in following the district court's order regarding timing of
the motion for reconsideration, and that motions for
reconsideration also cause delay yet are frequently given the
benefit of equitable tolling; the court further noted that Rule
23(f) review of certification decisions may in fact increase the
level of certainty for litigants by providing appellate guidance
on the certification issue prior to trial.

Second, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the decertification order
for abuse of discretion, holding that as long as a method for
calculating damages has been proposed, uncertainty regarding the
amount of damages does not prevent class certification. Because
plaintiff proposed that class damages be calculated by multiplying
the average retail price by the number of units sold, his failure
to provide evidence of the average retail price was not fatal to
certification.

Troy Lambert v. Nutraceutical Corp., No. 15-56423 (9th Cir.
September 15, 2017). [GN]


OMEL FLOWERS: Faces "Diaz" Suit in Southern District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omel Flowers &
Design Corp., a Florida corporation. The case is styled as Harry
Diaz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Omel Flowers & Design Corp., a Florida corporation
and Maria Andrade, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
23638-FAM (S.D. Fla., October 4, 2017).
Omel Flowers & Design Corp. is a flower shop & florist.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

  Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
  Law Office of Keith M. Stern, P.A.
  2300 Glades Road, Suite 360W
  Boca Raton, FL 33431
  Tel: (561) 299-3844
  Fax: (561) 288-9031
  Email: hsolis@workingforyou.com

      - and -

   Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
   Law Office of Keith M. Stern, P.A.
   One Flagler
   14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
   Miami, FL 33132
   Tel: (888) 505-9941
   Fax: (561) 288-9031
   Email: employlaw@keithstern.com


PUEBLO CITY: Low-Income Renters File Class Action in Newark
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Mullen and Ken Serrano, writing for Asbury Park Press,
report that a young mother of four who has battled rats and
cockroaches and stood up against the landlord of a Newark housing
complex deemed seriously deficient by the federal government has
sued the owners of the complex where she lives.

A class action suit was filed on behalf of Yanira Cortes and other
unnamed renters of the 20-unit property, owned by Pueblo City
Housing Co., in Superior Court, Newark, on Sept. 22.

Ms. Cortes's story was highlighted in an investigation by the
Asbury Park Press called "Renter Hell" examining the plight of
low-income renters stuck in a system that favors property owners.

The lawsuit alleges many of the problems faced by Cortes and
others that the series uncovered.

According to the complaint:

The property at 86 New Brunswick Ave. is unsecured, allowing for
illicit drug use in common areas.

Ms. Cortes' two-bedroom apartment where she and her four young
children live is infested with rats and cockroaches, as is other
sections of the building.

The front window of her home does not latch properly, creating a
safety hazard, and there are leaks in two rooms.

Messages for Pueblo City Housing Co. left with Realty Management
Associates, which represents Pueblo City Housing Co., were not
returned. A woman who answered the phone at the realty company's
Chantilly, Virginia, office said her office would have received a
copy of the complaint but it has not been served. She declined to
give her name.

Ms. Cortes and her attorneys, Christopher Placitella and Dennis
Geier, both of Red Bank, have also declined to comment.

The complex lies in a blighted neighborhood on Newark's south
side.

The residents there qualify for housing subsidies under Section 8
of the Housing Act of 1937 managed by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.  They pay about a third of their
incomes for housing and the program picks up the difference.

Cortes, whose rent fluctuates depending on her employment, paid
about $440 month for the two-bedroom apartment during the first
quarter of this year.

Recently, the state Bureau of Housing Inspection found safety
violations that include defective fire escapes, bad lighting,
standing water in the basement, dangerous wiring, broken windows
and missing smoke detectors.  An inspection as recent as June
turned up unsafe living conditions, according to the complaint.

Recent inspections by HUD have found the property to have "serious
deficiencies.", As a result, HUD on Aug. 31, 2017 found Pueblo
City to be in default of its housing assistance payments contract.
HUD noted severe unsanitary conditions, a damaged roof, mold and
mildew among other problems.

The owners have 60 days to correct the problems.

If they fail to, "the Section 8 assistance may be reduced,
suspended, abated or terminated," according to a letter from HUD.

HUD's Real Estate Assessment Center, which rates properties on a
scale of 1-100, rated the Pueblo City property a 10. A passing
score is 60.

The government routinely counts and catalogs housing problems, but
the billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded rent checks still keep
some of the worst landlords in business, the Press found in its
series.

Under current law, it's difficult for the state to stop subsidies,
giving landlords little incentive to improve their units.

A bill sponsored by state Sen. Jennifer Beck, R-Monmouth, and Sen.
Ronald Rice, D-Essex would give new powers to the state to crack
down on unscrupulous landlords sheltered by shell companies who
refuse to fix problem-plagued housing.  The bill was introduced in
May and remains in the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee.

The state and federal governments spent more than $1.3 billion of
taxpayer money in 2016 on private subsidized housing in New
Jersey, yet more than 1 in 3 families below the poverty line
endure rats, mice and vermin in their rental homes, according to
the federal 2015 American Housing Survey.  Subsidized housing in
New Jersey is getting worse, according to HUD inspection data.
Average inspection scores in the state are down 10.5 percent from
2013 to 2016.

Ms. Cortes is standing up against a system where inertia has
maintained the status quo for decades.

"I'm a problem. Why? Because I report everything that goes wrong,"
Ms. Cortes said in the Press' series.  "If that makes me a
troublemaker, so be it." [GN]


REAL VALUE: "Camp Drug" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Camp Drug Store, Inc., and all others similarly-situated v. Real
Value Products, Corp. dba Hospital Pharmaceutical Consulting, Case
No. 3:17-cv-01065 (S.D. Ill., October 3, 2017), seeks damages,
injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees against the
Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent unsolicited
advertisements by facsimile.

Plaintiff Camp Drug Store is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Madison County, Illinois.

Defendant Real Value is a wholesale pharmacy supplier offering
prescription pharmaceuticals, including name brand and generic
drugs.  The Defendant's principal place of business is in San
Antonio, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
      David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
      BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
      134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 658-5500
      Fax: (312) 658-5555


ROCHE HOLDING: Gardeck Named Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THOMAS BIONDOLILLO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ROCHE
HOLDING AG, SEVERIN SCHWAN, and ALAN HIPPE, Defendants, Civ. No.
17-04056 (D. N.J.), Judge Anne E. Thompson of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted Kevin Gardeck's
Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Approve Lead Piaintiff's
Selection of Counsel.

The case is a securities class action, pending class
certification, by the Plaintiff, on behalf of others similarly
situated, against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding the efficacy of two breast cancer
treatments, which artificially inflated Roche Holding's stock
price.  He claims that he, and others who purchased securities
pursuant to this misleading information, would not have done so
otherwise.

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 6, 2017.  On Aug. 7,
2017 Movant filed the Motion to Appoint, which has not been
opposed by other members of the proposed class or the Defendants.

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. issued a notice the day the Complaint was
filed on BusinessWire wire service.  The notice included the basis
of the Plaintiff's claims, the class period, the nature of the
class, and the right to move the Court to be the Lead Plaintiff by
Aug. 7, 2017 -- 60 days after the publication of the notice.  As a
threshold matter, the notice published in the case meets the PSLRA
notice standards.

The Movant claims that from March 2, 2017 to June 5, 2017, he
purchased 10,250 shares of Roche Holding securities, spent a total
of $329,955, and ultimately lost $7,490.  Because no other
individuals have come forward attesting to their losses, Judge
Thompson finds that the Movant articulates a sufficiently
significant financial interest.  She has no information before her
to suggest unfair or inadequate representation or unique and
contradictory defenses to defeat the presumption of the most
adequate Plaintiff.  Therefore, she finds that the Movant should
be appointed the Lead Plaintiff.

Next, the Judge finds the Movant's retention of The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A. as proposed Lead Counsel persuasive.  The Rosen Law
Firm wrote the Complaint and published the notice in this case.
With its extensive experience in securities litigation and
securities class actions, the Judge approved the Movant's choice
of counsel.

For the reasons stated, Judge Thompson approved the Movant's
motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 22, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/KcwW2C from Leagle.com.

Kevin Gardeck, Movant, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

THOMAS BIONDOLILLO, Plaintiff, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN,
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.


SAN DIEGO, CA: City Trash Worker Wins Labor Rights Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Wndy Fry, writing for NBC San Diego, reports that the city has
agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by a San Diego
trash collector. The suit alleged missed meal breaks, unpaid
overtime and doctored time cards that he said falsely made it
appear like the city was providing adequate breaks.

The proposed settlement, announced on September 28, is in the
amount of $500,000 and will be divided among the plaintiffs, all
city trash workers. It still must be approved by a judge.

A May 23, 2014, complaint against the city alleges the city
violated the labor rights of trash collector Thomas Perez and his
coworkers.

The case, which involves about 220 trash truck drivers in the
City's Environmental Services Department, claims the city failed
to pay overtime wages or meal breaks to employees working more
than five hours and additional meal periods for employees working
in excess of 10 hours from May 2011 to present.

The lawsuit also claimed the city doctored time cards to make it
appear like the meal periods were taken. One of the issues, as
stated in the lawsuit, is that trash collectors are responsible
for their trash trucks and are required to stay on their
collection routes during lunch.

The city does not admit fault in the settlement agreement.
The San Diego City Council is scheduled to approve the tentative
agreement on September 28.

An attorney for the plaintiffs said he could not comment until the
deal was finalized.

A spokesman for the City Attorney's office said this about the
suit:

"The City disputes liability. Nevertheless the parties accepted a
mediator's proposal to settle for $500,000, inclusive of attorney
fees and payments to drivers, to resolve the matter," said Gerry
Braun from the City Attorney's office.

"In settling the City admits no wrongdoing; rather, the settlement
avoids further risk and exposure to taxpayers." [GN]


SCANA CORPORATION: Motley Rice Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Motley Rice LLC ("Motley Rice"), along with co-counsel, announced
that it has filed a class action on behalf of purchasers of SCANA
Corporation ("SCANA") (NYSE: SCG) common stock between January 19,
2016 and September 22, 2017 (the "Class Period"). This action,
Norman vs. SCANA Corp., et al., No. 3:17-cv-02616-MBS, is filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The
complaint alleges SCANA and certain of its officers violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, contact plaintiff's counsel, Motley Rice at
1.800.768.4026 or via e-mail. A copy of the complaint may be
viewed online. Any member of the putative class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

SCANA is a $7.3 billion energy-based holding company headquartered
in Cayce, S.C. SCANA is principally engaged, through its
subsidiaries, in regulated electric and natural gas utility
operations in South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia.

Over the past decade, SCANA has spent more than $9 billion on a
project to build two nuclear reactors at the V.C. Summer Nuclear
Station in South Carolina (the "Nuclear Project"). Despite this
massive expenditure -- financed by public investors as well as by
raising customers' electrical rates nine times -- SCANA recently
announced that it would abandon the Nuclear Project. Evidence then
came to light that, for at least the prior 18 months, SCANA
appeared to know of severe problems plaguing the Nuclear Project.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding the construction of the Nuclear
Project, assuring investors that costs spending was prudent and
substantial progress was being made, even when cost overruns and
other delays began to materialize. As a result of defendants'
false statements and/or omissions, SCANA's common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On July 31, 2017, SCANA announced that it would abandon
construction of the nuclear project because of cost overruns and
delays. On August 4, 2017, the South Carolina Attorney General
("SC AG") announced the opening of an investigation into SCANA's
abandonment of the Nuclear Project. On the same day, South
Carolina state senators called for a special legislative session
to investigate SCANA. On September 22, 2017, the SC AG publicly
requested that the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division
launch a criminal investigation into the Nuclear Project.

As a result of this news and other disclosures, SCANA's stock
price has declined $20.90 per share, or 27.5%, to close at $55.22
per share on September 22, 2017, from its closing price high of
$76.12 per share on July 6, 2016.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
SCANA common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Motley Rice attorneys Marlon E.
Kimpson, William S. Norton, Joshua C. Littlejohn, along with co-
counsel David P. Abel of U.S. Market Advisors Law Group PLLC.

Shareholders who owned SCANA Corporation, stock between January
19, 2016 and September 22, 2017 may have a claim. Motley Rice
securities attorneys have represented investors in numerous
securities fraud class actions as well as other complex
shareholder matters and may be reached 1.800.768.4026 or by email.

                         About Motley Rice LLC

Motley Rice is one of the nation's largest plaintiffs' litigation
firms. With a tradition of representing those whose rights have
been violated, Motley Rice attorneys gained recognition for their
pioneering asbestos lawsuits, their work with the State Attorneys
General in the landmark litigation against Big Tobacco, and their
representation of 9/11 families in the ongoing lawsuit against
terrorist financiers. The firm continues to handle complex
litigation in numerous areas, including securities fraud;
antitrust; consumer protection; mesothelioma; environmental
contamination; prescription and over-the-counter drugs; other
medical devices; human rights; aviation disasters; and wrongful
death. Motley Rice is headquartered in Mt. Pleasant, S.C., and has
additional offices in Connecticut; Louisiana; Washington, D.C.;
New York; Missouri; Rhode Island; and West Virginia. For more
information, contact Motley Rice attorney Joshua C. Littlejohn
(SC) at 1.800.768.4026 or visit www.motleyrice.com. Connect with
us on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter [GN]


SCENIC EMISSIONS: "Judkins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ray Judkins, and all others similarly-situated v. Scenic
Emissions, LLC and James Williams, Case No. 1:17-cv-03859 (N.D.
Ga., October 3, 2017), seek to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Ray Judkins worked as an hourly paid emission inspector
for Defendants from approximately January 2014 to August 2017.

Defendant, Scenic Emissions, is a Georgia Limited Liability
Company that operates and conducts business in Gwinnett County,
Georgia.

Defendant James Williams owns and operate Scenic Emissions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
      P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Tel: (407) 420-1414
      Fax: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Judge Decertifies FLSA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reports that a group of former
Schlumberger equipment operators and trainees who have accused the
company of cheating them out of wages were dealt a blow on
September 28 when a federal judge decertified their case as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

U.S. District Judge Ralph R. Erickson granted a bid from
Schlumberger Technology Corp. and Schlumberger Ltd. to decertify
the previously conditionally certified FLSA collective, finding
that the workers who brought the suit had failed to show that they
were similarly situated. He also denied the bid of the workers to
certify their case as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

"Contrary to the plaintiffs' argument, the differences among the
plaintiffs' claims are more than mere job responsibilities," the
judge wrote. "The differences are legally significant, requiring
individual assessment of each plaintiff's claims."

Judge Erickson pointed out that while some workers claimed damages
for unpaid training time, some others haven't and that while some
got bonuses, yet others didn't. Additionally, some workers said
that they had been paid below the minimum wage based on only
salary and some others didn't, according to the judge.

The judge said that while the workers' proposed solution to
account for the differences in their claims was to create
subclasses, that suggestion only divides the workers according to
their job duties.

"The plaintiffs have not convinced the court that the class
members are similarly situated to the representative plaintiffs
due to their wide-ranging employment and factual settings that
give rise to their individual claims," Judge Erickson wrote.

The former employees have accused Schlumberger, an oilfield
services company, of violating the FLSA by paying equipment
operators and trainees under the "fluctuating workweek method."
This method, the judge said, allows employers to pay workers
overtime at a rate less than time-and-a-half when an employment
agreement meets various conditions.

The workers have said that Schlumberger violated the fluctuating
workweek method because it didn't pay a fixed salary, properly
calculate overtime or pay minimum wage rates, Judge Erickson
wrote.

The workers filed the case in September 2013 under the FLSA and a
North Dakota law seeking to recover allegedly unpaid minimum wages
and overtime, according to court documents.

In 2015, the court conditionally certified a collective class of
equipment operators, trainees and other similar employees who
worked at Schlumberger's location in Williston, North Dakota, and
who were paid under the fluctuating workweek method for at least a
week during a three-year period prior to the filing of the suit.
In January, the plaintiffs moved for Rule 23 class action
approval.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on September 28.

The plaintiffs are represented by Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. and Don
J. Foty, Esq. of Kennedy Hodges LLP and Leo F.J. Wilking, Esq.  of
the Wilking Law Firm.

Schlumberger is represented by Robert P. Lombardi, Esq. --
rpl@kullmanlaw.com -- of the Kullman Firm and M. Daniel Vogel,
Esq. and Robert B. Stock, Esq. of the Vogel Law Firm.

The case is Elliott v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation et al.,
case number 3:13-cv-00079, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of North Dakota. [GN]


SHAY NO. 1: Hit With Class Action Over BIPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Enquirer Democrat reports three individuals who worked at Shay No.
1 coal mine in Carlinville or Deer Run coal mine in Hillsboro have
filed a class action complaint against the mining companies in
connection with requirements that they clock in and out of their
work shifts by having their hands scanned to verify their
identity.

The lawsuit was filed Aug. 16 by Robert Yeske, Dan Hopley and
Ronald Stout, "individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated," against Macoupin Energy LLC, MaRyan Mining LLC,
Hillsboro Energy LLC and Patton Mining LLC, though it was only
recently made available as part of the public record.

Yeske, a resident of Montgomery County, worked at Shay No. 1 coal
mine in rural Carlinville (owned by Macoupin Energy and MaRyan
Mining) from approximately 2001 to December 2016; Hopley, a
resident of Cass County, worked at Deer Run coal mine near
Hillsboro (owned by Hillsboro Energy and Patton Mining) from
approximately 2010 to August 2015; and Stout, a resident of
Madison County, worked at Deer Run coal mine from approximately
May 2012 to late 2014. They are being represented by Brandon Wise
and Paul A. Lesko of Peiffer Rosca Wolf Abdullah Carr and Kane,
APLC.

According to the complaint, the Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA) obligates the defendants to obtain a written release from
an individual as a condition of employment in order to capture,
collect and store that individual's biometric identifiers,
including a fingerprint or hand scan, and biometric information
derived from it, as well as inform employees in writing that the
biometric identifier or information is being collected and stored;
how long it will be stored; for what purposes that is being done;
and when it will be permanently destroyed. It states that under
BIPA, no biometric identifiers or information may be captured,
collected, stored or recorded if those requirements are not met.

The suit alleges that the defendants did not properly obtain the
written release and did not make the required disclosures.

The action is brought by Yeske on behalf of a Macoupin County
class including "all persons who were enrolled in the biometric
timekeeping system and subsequently hand scanned when clocking in
or clocking out of work at the Shay No. 1 coal mine."  Hopley and
Stout brought the action on behalf of a Montgomery County class
defined identically for those at Deer Run coal mine. The number of
potential class members is unknown but estimated to be in excess
of 200.

The suit claims that under BIPA, the defendants and the class
members are entitled to liquidated damages of $1,000 per violation
or actual damages, whichever is greater, which they seek. In
addition to that and the certification of the Macoupin and
Montgomery county classes, with the plaintiffs as representatives,
they also seek a judgment awarding the plaintiffs and class
members all damages available to them under applicable law,
including statutory or liquidated damages, and providing
commensurate injunctive relief; attorney's fees and costs incurred
in the litigation; other and further relief as the court deems
just and appropriate; and a "trial by jury on all issues so
triable." [GN]


SI WIRELESS: Must Face Class Action Over Automated Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison - St. Clair
Record, reports that District judge Nancy Rosenstengel denied SI
Wireless's motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging it
wrongfully sends automated text messages, holding that the
defendant failed to prove an arbitration agreement binds the
parties.

"The text sent by Si Wireless was inadequate to communicate its
intent to add a mandatory arbitration clause to the original
contract or to support a finding that Campbell received reasonable
notice of such terms," she wrote in her Sept. 5 order.

"Thus, SI Wireless's attempt to modify the first contract by
adding the arbitration clause fails.  Further, the second contract
does not mandate arbitration because the plain language of the
clause carves out a specific exception for actions related to the
failure to pay bills in a timely manner," she continued.

Tennessee resident Andrea Campbell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed the complaint on Dec. 8,
2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois against SI Wireless LLC for allegedly violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The putative class is
represented by Jeremy Glapion of The Glapion Law Firm LLC in Wall,
NJ.

Ms. Campbell alleges she fell behind on her payments in 2016 and
began receiving automated text messages demanding she make a
payment or risk having her service suspended.

She alleges the messages were disruptive and attempted to revoke
her consent for the automated messages but was told there was no
way to stop the messages.

SI Wireless filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for improper
venue or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration on Jan. 5
through attorney Lorna Geiler -- lgeiler@meyercapel.com -- of
Meyer Capel in Champaign, Ill.

The defendant argues that its cellular telephone service agreement
requires arbitration of any dispute "arising from or relating in
any way" to the services provided. It also argues that the
agreement sets the venue for arbitration in McCracken County, Ky.,
or Madison County, Tenn.

In her order, Judge Rosenstengel wrote that the issue before the
court is whether the arbitration clause is enforceable.

"If the arbitration clause is enforceable, venue would not lie
with this Court because only a district court in one of the forums
selected has authority to compel arbitration," she wrote.

Judge Rosenstengel concluded that the text message used by the
defendant to notify Campbell of the arbitration clause was
inadequate to create an arbitration agreement.

She explained that the evidence presented "indicates the link in
the relevant text connected to a web page that did not contain the
arbitration language."

"There is no evidence, therefore, that the terms of the
arbitration clause were communicated to Campbell or that she was
provided with notice that SI Wireless intended to add an
arbitration clause.  Thus, there is no enforceable arbitration
agreement arising out of the first contract," Judge Rosenstengel
wrote.

Campbell's second contract includes an arbitration clause, but
relates to a different phone number than the one at issue in the
complaint.

"Nothing in the second contract expressly states the intent of the
parties to modify or incorporate the arbitration clause into the
earlier contract," Judge Rosenstengel wrote.

Further, SI Wireless's arbitration clause contains an exception
for "actions relating to failure to timely pay billed charges,"
which are allowed to be brought in "small claims or another court
with jurisdiction."

"If the texts sent by SI Wireless arise from or relate to
Campbell's failure to pay her bill on time, the arbitration clause
will be applicable, but so will the exception.

"Thus, even if the arbitration clause in the second contract can
relate back to the phone line in the first contract, the explicit
terms of the arbitration clause exclude Campbell's complaints from
the mandatory arbitration provision," Judge Rosenstengel wrote.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 3:16-cv-1320[GN]


SONIC CORPORATION: Hit With Class Suit Over POS Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Doug Olenick, writing for SC Magazine, reports that two Sonic
Drive-In customers are taking legal action against Sonic for
allowing their payment card data to possibly have been compromised
when the fast-food chain's POS system was hacked and are demanding
the company pay for credit monitoring services for those affected.
Two Oregon residents, Michelle Vanderzanden and James Carlson, are
looking to represent all potentially affected Sonic customers with
their lawsuit that was filed on September 28 in the U.S. District
Court, District Court of Oregon, Portland Division. Court
documents state the two are filing this suit on behalf of the
possible five million people who may be affected and the
plaintiffs believe their information was compromised due to
negligence on Sonic's behalf.

"In an attempt to increase profits, Sonic Corporation negligently
failed to maintain adequate technological safeguards to protect
plaintiffs' information from unauthorized access by hackers. Sonic
Corporation knew and should have known that failure to maintain
adequate technological safeguards could eventually result in a
massive data breach," the court document states.

On Sept. 27 a Sonic spokesperson told SC Media the company was
notified by its credit card processor that there was unusual
activity involving cards used at Sonic restaurants.

KrebsonSecurity is reporting that a recent dump of credit card
info on a dark web credit card market called Joker's Stash
contains card numbers recently used at Sonic, which were on sale
for $25-$50 and are most likely tied to the breach.

Christi Woodworth, Sonic's vice president of public relations told
SC Media in an emailed note, "As Sonic's investigation is ongoing
into this matter, it is premature to discuss the size and scope of
this matter. We have a longstanding practice to not discuss
pending or current litigation in the media.

In an earlier communication the company told SC that the company
had no new information regarding the breach itself. [GN]


STARKIST: Faces New Class Action Over Under-filled Tuna Cans
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Smith, writing for Undercurrent News, reports that a man in
Oregon and a woman in California have sued US tuna giant Starkist
in a proposed class-action lawsuit arguing that the brand under-
filled tuna cans even after a similar claim ended with a 2015
settlement.

The new lawsuit, filed on Sept. 13 by Donald Puckett and Melanie
Axe in a Portland, Oregon, federal court, alleges that they
purchased 12-ounce cans of tuna from Starkist, which is owned by
South Korea's Dongwon Enterprise.

The cans -- which included four products: solid white albacore
tuna in water; solid white albacore tuna in vegetable oil; chunk
light tuna in water; chunk light tuna in oil -- reportedly
contained less tuna in them than advertised in violation of
federal guidelines, the suit states.

These purchases were made after the settlement of a similar case
brought by lead plaintiff Patrick Hendricks, a California
resident, in 2013.  Starkist agreed to pay $12 million to settle
those claims.

That agreement defines the settlement class to include all US
residents who bought Starkist products between Feb. 19, 2009
through Oct, 31, 2014.

The new lawsuit filed by Puckett and Axe referenced the Hendricks
case.

"Defendant's failure, after the notice provided by the Hendricks
case, to check and monito compliance of its accused products with
its PDP (Principal Display Panel) labeling and with the FDA
underfilling regulations shows reckless indifference and disregard
toward the accuracy of its representations and/or intentional
misrepresentation," the suit claims.

The plaintiffs' lawyers describe the suit as a "proposed" class-
action, though it has yet to be certified as such by the court.

According to the complaint, there are "over 150,000 class members
in the proposed class", including over 5,000 in Oregon and over
50,000 in California.

Starkist, which did not immediately respond to a request for
comment, has been under repeated legal fire lately with
accusations including criminal price-fixing as well as a slew of
related civil suits and claims that the company violated
wastewater discharge rules at its American Samoa cannery, among
others. [GN]


SUNRISE CREDIT: Faces "Morris" Suit in S. Dist. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrise Credit
Services, Inc.  The case is styled as Florence Morris,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Sunrise Credit Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
02075-LAB-JMA (S.D. Cal., October 9, 2017).

Defendant is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYNGENTA SEEDS: Settles Class Action Over Viptera Corn Seed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Meersman, writing for Star Tribune, reports that tens of
thousands of farmers -- including an estimated 22,000 in Minnesota
who filed a class-action lawsuit -- have reached a pending
settlement with Syngenta Seeds LLC over a dispute about lost sales
and lower corn prices.

The settlement also would affect an estimated 60,000 to 70,000
Minnesota farmers who filed individual lawsuits and farmers in
half a dozen other states including Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska and
Illinois.  A dollar amount for the settlement was not released.

"It's a global settlement," said Lewis Remele, Minneapolis
attorney and co-lead counsel for the Minnesota farmers. "It's
intended to resolve the litigation in several states for all the
farmers and the nonproducers, which are the elevators and ethanol
plants."

At issue is whether the company, a Minnetonka-based subsidiary of
agri-giant Syngenta AG, was negligent in putting a genetically
modified corn seed called Agrisure Viptera on the market too soon,
before it had been approved by Chinese regulators.  Syngenta
launched the product in 2010 for planting in 2011 after its
approval by U.S. agencies.  The seed was genetically modified to
kill corn earworm, cutworm and other insects.

China rejected U.S. shipments that had any traces of Viptera
beginning in late 2013.  Minnesota farmers in the lawsuit alleged
that they lost $450 million in sales and saw lower corn prices.
The settlement also applies to another Syngenta corn seed called
Agrisure Duracade, approved by U.S. regulators in 2013 and first
planted in 2014.

Settlement fund

China approved Viptera for import in 2014 and Duracade in 2017 and
has recently begun increasing its purchases of U.S. corn.

Under the pending settlement, subject to court approval, Syngenta
would establish a fund for those who claim they lost money on
selling corn or corn byproducts after Sept. 15, 2013.  More
details about the fund and the claims process will become
available after both sides execute the settlement and submit it
and other papers to the court later this year. Some of the
lawsuits also include Syngenta's parent company and other
subsidiaries.

The settlement was announced in court in Minneapolis, where a jury
in its third week of hearing testimony in the Minnesota class-
action case was dismissed.  A federal jury in Kansas in June
ordered Syngenta to pay nearly $218 million to more than 7,300
Kansas farmers in a similar lawsuit.  Also in June, an Ohio judge
dismissed a case against Syngenta filed by an ethanol company in
state court.

The global settlement does not include Canada. It also does not
include exporters including Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill
that have also filed separate lawsuits that are pending.

'Actions were appropriate'

"Syngenta will continue to vigorously defend those cases," said
company spokesman Paul Minehart in a statement.  "Syngenta firmly
maintains that its actions were appropriate and continues to
believe that American farmers should have access to the latest
U.S.-approved technologies to help them increase their
productivity and crop yield."

Syngenta's parent company, Syngenta AG, is headquartered in
Switzerland and has been acquired in a $43 billion deal by China
National Chemical Corp., a state-owned company.  The acquisition
was announced last year and completed in May 2017.  Regulatory
approval is still pending in Argentina and Costa Rica, the company
said. [GN]


SYSCO CORP: Ct. Refuses to Extend Discovery Deadline in "Freiri"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California denied the Plaintiff's ex
parte application to extend the deadlines for both discovery and
the time to file a motion for class certification in the case
captioned RICK FRIERI, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff, v. SYSCO CORPORATION; SYSCO SAN DIEGO, INC.; AND DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS (S.D. Cal.).

This case presents a putative class action of truck drivers for
alleged wage and hour violations while employed as drivers for the
Defendants.  The Plaintiff alleges violations on behalf of a
state-wide putative class.  Their motion for class certification
is due to be filed by Nov. 10, 2017.

The parties have been engaged in discovery, presenting two
separate disputes for judicial determination.  The Court also
previously granted a continuance of 90 days to facilitate
discovery of the parties prior to class certification.

The Plaintiff requests an extension of time of an additional 90
days to review any email production and complete two depositions.
He argues it has been meeting and conferring and working
diligently to complete discovery, but cannot do so without
documents and depositions.  The Defendant opposes any such
extension of time on several grounds, including (i) that
production will be complete within the discovery period; (ii) it
has provided deposition dates within the discovery cut-off; and
(iii) the Plaintiff's counsel's alleged failure to timely meet and
confer.

The Court previously granted an extension of 90 days to permit
additional discovery, and set deadlines for compliance consistent
therewith.  The Defendant represents discovery will be complete
prior to the cut off and deposition dates have been provided.
Judge Stormes concludes that the Plaintiff has not shown good
cause to justify an additional three months, for a combined total
of six months of extension for class discovery alone.  Therefore,
she denied the Plaintiff's request.

In the event production of documents is not completed by the
discovery cut-off date, the Plaintiff may re-file a request for an
extension of time.

The Judge issued an order to show cause as to why the Defendants
have not produced documents consistent with the time periods set
forth and should not be subject to discovery sanctions in an
amount to be determined for each day that production is tardy.
The Defendants must file explanatory briefing and/or declarations,
totaling no more than 10 pages, by Sept. 29, 2017.  Failure to do
so will result in discovery sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 22, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/GpQ400 from Leagle.com.

Rick Frieri, Plaintiff, represented by William D. Turley --
bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law Firm, APLC.

Rick Frieri, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Evan Crawford, The
Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC.

Sysco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Julie Kwun --
jkwun@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hosteler, LLP, Margaret Rosenthal --
mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, Sabrina Layne
Shadi -- sshadi@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP & Vartan S.
Madoyan -- vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP.

Sysco San Diego, Inc., Defendant, represented by Julie Kwun, Baker
& Hosteler, LLP, Margaret Rosenthal, Baker & Hostetler LLP,
Sabrina Layne Shadi, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Vartan S. Madoyan,
Baker and Hostetler LLP.


T&A OF CITRUS: Faces "Vaughan" Suit in Middle District of Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against T&A of Citrus
County, Inc. doing business as: Olive Tree Restaurant a Florida
for profit corporation. The case is styled as Carol Vaughan, on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees,
Plaintiff v. T&A of Citrus County, Inc., doing business as: Olive
Tree Restaurant a Florida for profit corporation and Pavlos
Parnos, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00451-JSM-PRL
(M.D. Fla., October 4, 2017).

T&A of Citrus County Inc. is a small organization in the business
services industry located in Beverly Hills, FL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Peter Bober, Esq.
   Bober & Bober, PA
   1930 Tyler St
   Hollywood, FL 33020
   Tel: (954) 922-2298
   Fax: (954) 922-5455
   Email: peter@boberlaw.com


THEATRE DEVELOPMENT: Faces "West" Suit in S.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Theatre Development
Fund, Inc. The case is styled as Mary West, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Theatre
Development Fund, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07718 (S.D.
N.Y., October 9, 2017).

The Theatre Development Fund is a non-profit corporation dedicated
to assisting the theatre industry in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TIER ONE: "Ceuric" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Michael Ceuric, and all others similarly-situated v. Tier One, LLC
dba Tier 1 Rental and Distribution, Case No. 2:17-cv-01240-RCM
(W.D. Pa., September 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages under Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendant is a rental and distribution company operating
primarily in Pennsylvania with headquarters in Pittsburgh and a
satellite location in Beaver County. Tier 1 specializes in
trucking, solids control equipment, consulting and cut-dry
solidification services. Tier 1 employs consultants such as Solids
Control Operators to carry out its work.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: (412) 766-1455
      Fax: (412) 766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

          - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
              adunlap@mybackwages.com

          - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


TINTRI INC: Faces "Tuller" Suit in Northern District of Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tintri, Inc. The
case is styled as Lance Tuller, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tintri, Inc., Ken Klein
and Ian Halifax, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-05714-WHO (N.D.
Cal., October 4, 2017).

Tintri, Inc. develops and markets an enterprise cloud platform
combining cloud management software technology and a range of all-
flash storage systems for virtualized and cloud environments in
the United States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Laurence M Rosen, Esq.
   The Rosen Law Firm. P.A.
   355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
   Los Angeles, CA 90071
   Tel: (213) 785-2610
   Fax: (213) 226-4684
   Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Caz Hashemi, Esq.
   Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &Rosati
   650 Page Mill Road
   Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
   Tel: (650) 493-9300
   Fax: (650) 565-5100
   Email: CHASHEMI@WSGR.COM


TOKIO MARINE: Court Dismisses "Azad" Suit Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California dismissed without prejudice the
case captioned MOHAMMED AZAD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOKIO MARINE
HCC - MEDICAL INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-00618-PJH (N.D. Cal.) and struck Proposed Plaintiff
Ladan Abdollahi's notice of voluntary dismissal.

On Feb. 7, 2017, Plaintiffs Azad and Danielle Buckley initiated
this putative class action.  After complete briefing and hearing
on the matter, on July 14, 2017, the Court granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.  The Plaintiffs were granted leave to file an
amended complaint by Aug. 7, 2017.  However, they were prohibited
from adding claims or parties without leave of court or
stipulation of the Defendants.

On Aug. 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs accepted settlement offers from
HCC Medical Insurance Services, LLC and HCC Life Insurance
Company.

On Aug. 4, 2017, the parties stipulated to a two-week extension
for the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.  In its order
granting the stipulated extension, the Court reiterated that if
they intended to add or substitute new class representatives, they
must either obtain the consent of the Defendants, or file a motion
for leave of court by the Aug. 21, 2017 deadline.

On Aug. 17, 2017, Azad and Buckley executed settlement agreements
releasing all claims against HCC.  On Aug. 21, 2017, they timely
filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint which sought
substitution of a new Plaintiff and class representative, Ladan
Abdollahi.  On Aug. 31, 2017, the parties' stipulation extending
the time for the Defendants to respond to the motion to Sept. 12,
2017, was approved by the Court.

On Sept. 11, 2017, Azad and Buckley voluntarily dismissed, with
prejudice, all claims made against all the Defendants in this
action.  Notwithstanding that dismissal, the Defendants filed
their opposition to the motion to amend on Sept. 12, 2017.  On
Sept. 19, 2017, Proposed Plaintiff Abdollahi withdrew her motion
for leave to amend.  The next day, Abdollahi filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of her claims.

Judge Hamilton finds that this case must now be dismissed without
prejudice.  The Named Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims against all the Defendants with prejudice.  At this time,
therefore, there is neither a Named Plaintiff nor an operative
complaint.

Judge Hamilton also struck Abdollahi's notice of voluntary
dismissal.  Abdollahi withdrew her proposed complaint before it
was ever approved by the Court.  Abdollahi is therefore not a
party to this case and has no claims against any Defendant to
voluntarily dismiss.  The Judge directed the Clerk to close the
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 22, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/lCQsDc from Leagle.com.

Ladan Abdollahi, Plaintiff, represented by Rachel Geman, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Garry W. O'Donnell -- garry.odonnell@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon
Marder, P.A. & Daniel J. Herling -- DJHerling@mintz.com -- Mintz
Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo P.C..

HCC Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Gerard G.
Pecht -- gerard.pecht@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose
Fulbright -- US LLP, Joshua David Lichtman, Norton Rose Fulbright
US LLP, Michael Scott Incerto --
scott.incerto@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, Michelle Lynnea Mello --
michelle.mello@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP & Sumera I. Khan -- sumera.khan@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice.

Tokio Marine HCC - Medical Insurance Services Group, Defendant,
represented by Gerard G. Pecht, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP,
Joshua David Lichtman, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Michael Scott
Incerto, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Michelle Lynnea Mello,
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP & Sumera I. Khan, Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice.

Consumer Benefits of America, Defendant, represented by Howard
Michael Garfield -- hgarfield@hbblaw.com -- Haight, Brown, &
Bonesteel, David W. Evans -- devans@hbblaw.com -- Haight Brown &
Bonesteel LLP & Renata Louise Hoddinott -- rhoddinott@hbblaw.com -
- HAIGHT BROWN BONESTEEL LLP.


TWIN DONUT: Faces "Alvarado" Suit in S. Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twin Donut, Inc. The
case is styled as Felix Cantalicio-Alvarado and Ismael Cantalicio-
Alvarado, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Twin Donut, Inc., Jerome TD LLC, 218 TD LLC, George P. Psathas and
Kathy Cabral, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07597 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 4, 2017).

The Defendants are engaged in yhr restaurant industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
   Cilenti & Cooper, P.L.L.C.
   708 Third Avenue
   6th Flr
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 209-3933
   Fax: (212) 209-7102
   Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


ULTRAMAR LTD: Price-Fixing Suit Denied Access to Fed Evidence
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mia Rabson, writing for Globe and Mail, reports that a class-
action suit that alleges oil companies and fuel retailers in
Quebec were engaged in fixing the price of gasoline hit a pothole
when Canada's highest court blocked it from accessing evidence
from a related criminal investigation.

The Supreme Court ruling means lawyers for the claimants in the
class action cannot interview the chief investigator of the
Competition Bureau or get access to evidence, including 220,000
wiretap conversations.

"Disappointed," said George Iny, executive director of the
Automobile Protection Association, one of the parties behind the
class-action suits.

"It will make our case a lot harder, but it's still possible to do
it."

However, Iny said the ruling pertains only to the discovery
process -- the preliminary work of gathering evidence for a
possible trial. He said he hopes that during the trial itself, the
investigator can be compelled to testify or produce documents.

In other words, he said, "We're still in the game."

A spokeswoman for the Competition Bureau called the decision a
welcome one.

"It will allow the bureau to focus its efforts and resources on
ongoing priority cases," Marie-France Faucher said in an email.

"The Competition Bureau has collaborated with the class-action
plaintiffs and will continue to do so, within the scope of its
mandate."

Iny's organization filed two class-action suits after the
Competition Bureau found evidence of price fixing among gas
retailers in four cities in Quebec and charged 39 individuals and
15 companies.

A handful of the criminal cases are still before the courts, but
most of the accused pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial,
resulting in some jail sentences and fines.

Earlier this year, one of the class actions related to the four
cities where charges were laid resulted in a $17-million
settlement with two-thirds of the companies involved.

The second suit, however, involves retailers and companies in 26
other cities, where the Competition Bureau investigated evidence
of price fixing but did not lay any charges.

That is the suit at the heart of the Supreme Court ruling.

When the lawyers for the protection association sought to
interview the Competition Bureau's chief investigator and obtain
thousands of documents and wiretap evidence uncovered during the
investigation, the bureau's lawyers said no.

They cited a federal law which they say provides immunity to the
Crown -- in this case represented by the Competition Bureau -- in
cases where the Crown is neither suing or being sued.

Lower courts in Quebec found the law didn't expressly grant such
immunity and ruled the bureau had to submit to discovery.

The Supreme Court disagreed on September 28 in a 7-0 ruling,
saying that, in the absence of specific language in the law
lifting the immunity when the Crown isn't directly involved, the
assumption is that the immunity still exists.[GN]

The case is Attorney General of Canada, Appellant, and Daniel
Thouin and Automobile Protection Association, Respondents; And
Between Ultramar Ltd., Olco Petroleum Group ULC, Irving Oil
Limited, Alimentation Couche-Tard inc., Depan-Escompte Couche-Tard
inc., Couche-Tard inc., Global Fuels Inc., Global Fuels (Quebec)
Inc., Philippe Gosselin & Associes ltee, Celine Bonin and Claude
Bedard, Appellants, and Daniel Thouin and Automobile Protection
Association, Respondents, and Attorney General of Quebec,
Intervener, 2017 SCC 46.

A copy of the Canada Supreme Court's decision is available at
https://is.gd/8usKUP


UNDER ARMOUR: "Brianas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Brianas, and all others similarly-situated v. Under
Armour, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-02928 (D. Md., October 3, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, Maryland Wage and Hour Law and Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Baltimore City, Maryland and worked
as an allocation analyst for the Defendant.

Defendant Under Armour, Inc., is in the business of developing,
distributing and selling athletic apparel, footwear and
accessories. Defendant's principal office is in Baltimore City,
Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
      Joseph E. Spicer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Tel: (410) 244-7005
      Fax: (410) 244-8454
      E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
              jspicer@nicholllaw.com




UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Suit Over Retirement Plan Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan E. Troy, Esq., Thomas Horan, Esq., and Amanda A. Sonneborn,
Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote
Seyfarth Synopsis: Since August 2016, sixteen elite colleges and
universities have faced class action lawsuits related to
management of their retirement plans. After five cases previously
survived motions to dismiss, the University of Pennsylvania became
the first college to secure a complete victory when accused of
retirement plan mismanagement.

On September 21, 2017, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled
in favor of the University of Pennsylvania on every count in a
proposed class action, which challenged the school's retirement
plan fees, investment lineup, and use of multiple plan record
keepers. The proposed class action specifically alleged that both
Penn and the administrator of its defined contribution retirement
plan breached their fiduciary duty by "locking in" participants'
options to two investment companies, allowed the plan to pay too
much in administrative fees, and charged excessive investment fees
for access to an underperforming portfolio.

Citing Renfro v. Unisys Corp., 671 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2011), the
court rejected the claim that by "locking in" arrangements with
two investment companies, the plan fiduciaries' imprudently failed
to monitor the investment options offered to participants.
Specifically, the court found that plaintiffs' claims amounted to
impermissible second-guessing of the fiduciaries' investment
decisions just because they turned out to lose money. The court
noted that, standing alone, the decision to "lock in" arrangements
with investment companies is not imprudent. The court likened
locking a plan into an arrangement with an investment company for
a stated period to cell phone companies offering discounted rates
in exchange for two-year contracts, and found that plans are often
able to obtain favorable terms in exchange for committing to
providing a predictable period of business to investment
companies.

The court found that plaintiffs' administrative fee claims failed
because there are lawful explanations for not offering the
absolute lowest-available fees to participants. In dismissing
these claims, the court stated: "the plaintiffs need something
more than a claim that there may be (or even are) cheaper options
available. The plaintiffs must show that there were no reasonable
alternatives given to plan participants to choose from, which the
plaintiffs have not pled."

Similarly, with respect to the unreasonable investment management
fees claim, the court stated: "The plaintiffs' argument that
fiduciaries must maintain a myopic focus on the singular goal of
lower fees was soundly rejected in Renfro." Plaintiffs also argued
that, by offering too many investment options, there was
participant confusion. Because they failed to point to a single
participant that was confused by the investment options, however,
the court dismissed the claim. The court also found no cause of
action for plaintiffs' claims that certain funds were outperformed
in the market.

The Court characterized plaintiffs' prohibited transaction claims
as an impermissible attempt to shoehorn their fiduciary breach
claims into prohibited transaction rules. The court found that
accepting plaintiffs' arguments would mean that administrators
commit prohibited transactions every time they contract with a
party to provide services to a plan for money, and dismissed the
claims because there was no evidence of an intent to benefit
parties at participants' expense.

This decision is a significant victory for the University of
Pennsylvania and a change in course for the cases against colleges
and universities. The Court's reliance on Renfro requires
plaintiffs in these cases to do more than second-guess fiduciary
decisions where they lose money, and instead holds them to the
burden to plausibly allege systematic mismanagement that left
participants with a choice between participating in a poorly-
performing retirement plan or no plan at all. It remains to be
seen whether the impact of Renfro will be limited to the Third
Circuit or whether it will expand to other circuits as well. [GN]


VAN RU CREDIT: Faces "Dykes" Suit in Eastern District of Va.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Van Ru Credit
Corporation. The case is styled as Carolyn Dykes, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Van Ru
Credit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01111-AJT-JFA
(E.D. Va., October 4, 2017).

Van Ru provides accounts receivables services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Thomas Ray Breeden, Esq.
   Thomas R. Breeden PC
   10326 Lomond Drive
   Manassas, VA 20109
   Tel: (703) 361-9277
   Fax: (703) 257-2259
   Email: trb@tbreedenlaw.com


VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Kambanis" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Andreas Kambanis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Vital Recovery Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-05806 (E.D. N.Y., October 4, 2017).

Vital Recovery Services, LLC owns and operates a third-party
collection agency in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq.
   RC Law Group PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: dkohn@rclawgroup.com


WOW BAO: Facial Recognition System Leads to Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jack Greiner, writing for Cincinnati.com, reports that a national
restaurant chain is currently a defendant in an Illinois lawsuit
that hopes to become a class action resulting from the
restaurant's use of facial recognition technology.

The defendant Wow Bao, according to the complaint, is a restaurant
chain "that serves traditional Asian flavors in a fast-paced
casual setting throughout the United States, including locations
in Illinois." Wow Bao, according to the complaint, uses a
"biometric tracking system through their self-order kiosks that
use customers' facial biometrics as a means of authentication for
food and beverage purchases." The plaintiff in the suit, Regina
Morris, used the system. And that's where the trouble started.

In 2007, a company called Pay By Touch, filed for bankruptcy. Pay
By Touch had supplied retailers throughout Illinois with
fingerprint scanners. The bankruptcy created the risk that
sensitive fingerprint data of millions of customers could be sold
through the bankruptcy proceedings. In response, the Illinois
legislature passed the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Without
going into a lot of detail, the act, known as BIPA, requires
entities that use the biometric technology to inform users in
writing about how the data will be stored, how it will be used,
and for how long.

As you might have guessed, the complaint alleges Wow Bao did not
comply with BIPA because it failed to make the requisite
disclosures to Ms. Morris. It of course begs the question how a
restaurant is supposed to go about providing this written
information to random customers who are likely in a hurry to get
their orders filled. But that is, in all likelihood, the
restaurant's problem.

The complaint makes claims for the violation of BIPA and for
negligence. As in many privacy cases, Ms. Morris apparently hasn't
sustained any actual dollar losses resulting from Wow Bao's
failure to comply with BIPA. She claims mental anguish arising
from the anxiety over how her information may get misused, but as
yet, there isn't any evidence that it has fallen into the wrong
hands.

Whether the absence of current, concrete harm will doom the case
is still an open question. Traditionally, the absence of harm
would mean the plaintiff lacked "standing" to proceed with the
lawsuit. There is an argument that the ability to recover
statutory damages is enough to confer standing for a class action,
regardless of whether the plaintiff suffered any actual damages.
In a 2016 decision, however, the United States Supreme Court
indicated that statutory damages, standing alone, did not confer
standing. But it also indicated that "risk of real harm" may be
sufficient. This issue will likely be one of the first issues to
be argued as this case proceeds.

But the bigger lesson for companies who are considering
incorporating new technology in the customer service business is
to make sure it complies with federal and state privacy laws
BEFORE implementing it. Unless you want a class action with that
burger. [GN]


XENITH BANKSHARES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on Sept. 27 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of holders of Xenith
Bankshares Inc. ("Xenith") (NASDAQ:XBKS) common stock in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Xenith by Union
Bankshares Corporation ('Union') announced on May 22, 2017 (the
'Complaint').  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Xenith, its Board of
Directors (the 'Board'), and Union, is captioned Parshall v.
Xenith Bankshares Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00612 (E.D. Va.).

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

On May 19, 2017, Xenith entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Union.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of Xenith will receive 0.9354
shares of Union common stock for each share of Xenith common stock
they own (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 16, 2017.  The Complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement, which recommends that Xenith stockholders vote in favor
of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary
to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to
vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material information
with respect to Xenith's and Union's financial projections, the
analyses performed by the companies' financial advisors, and
potential conflicts of interest.  The Complaint seeks injunctive
and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Xenith
common stock.

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

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


ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Seeks Dismissal of CoolSculpting System Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dee Thompson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
defendant in a class action regarding a "cool sculpting" product
supposed to reduce body fat is seeking dismissal of the suit.

Zeltiq Aesthetics Inc. filed its motion to dismiss first amended
class action complaint on Aug. 21 arguing that the plaintiffs'
claims brought under federal consumer protection laws must fail
because Zeltiq actually did receive clearance by the Food and Drug
Administration for its CoolSculpting System.

Defendants refute the plaintiffs' claim that the phrase "FDA
approved," when in fact the device was only "FDA cleared," is
misbranding.

Carmen Otero and Abbey Lerman filed suit in April against Zeltiq
Aesthetics Inc. alleging that the CoolSculpting system it markets
to spas and businesses is advertised falsely as being approved by
the Food and Drug Administration.

Plaintiffs argue that FDA approval, which requires rigorous
testing and trials, is very different from FDA clearance.  They
allege that consumers are misled into thinking that FDA
"clearance" in the same things as "FDA approved," when it is not
the same.

In its motion, Zeltiq argues that "Zeltiq had no duty to educate
consumers on parameters of the 510(k) process or clarify that FDA
Cleared is not the same as FDA Approved."

Zeltiq also notes that ". . . their attempt to impose an
additional, novel duty of disclosure on Zeltiq is contrary to
California law, which rejects a broad obligation to disclose.
Instead, the law imposes liability on manufacturers for omissions
only where the undisclosed information relates to a known defect
in a product that creates an unreasonable safety hazard," the
motion states.

The company promotes its product as ". . . an innovative way to
contour your body by freezing unwanted fat away with no surgery or
downtime" on its website.

Zeltiq is represented by Hueston Hennigan LLP law firm in Newport
Beach, California.  Plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law APC
in Los Angeles. [GN]


* Mandatory Class Action Waivers in Employment Agreements
---------------------------------------------------------
Frank C. Morris, Jr., Esq., and Shira M. Blank, Esq., of Epstein
Becker & Green, P.C., in an article for The National Law Review,
wrote that many employers use or have considered using arbitration
agreements that both require all employment-related claims to be
adjudicated in arbitration and preclude class and/or collective
claims. These agreements can be invaluable tools to limit costly
and time-consuming class and collective actions brought by, or on
behalf of, large groups.

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the
Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq. ("FAA"), to
enforce arbitration agreements despite objections mounted by the
plaintiffs' bar and some state courts.

While the Supreme Court has upheld class action waivers in the
consumer context, it is unclear whether the FAA's liberal approach
to arbitration applies in the employment context. The National
Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board") contends that these
provisions are unlawful because the potential formation of class
or collective actions contesting employment issues is a "group
activity" allegedly embraced by the National Labor Relations Act's
("NLRA's") Section 7 right of employees to engage in "protected
concerted" activities.

On October 2, 2017, the first day of its fall 2017 term, the
Supreme Court will hear arguments in three related cases involving
the legality of class action waivers in arbitration agreements for
employment-related claims: Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, Epic
Systems Corp. v. Lewis, and NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. In all
three cases, the plaintiffs, who had previously signed arbitration
agreements containing waivers, asserted collective action claims
under the FLSA, as well as state law wage claims. The defendant
employers moved to dismiss the collective actions and compel
individual arbitration of the employees' claims. At issue in all
three cases is whether arbitration agreements prohibiting class
and/or collective actions are enforceable or barred by the NLRA.

The Circuit Court Split
The Fifth Circuit, in NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 808 F.3d 1013
(5th Cir. 2015), rejected the NLRB's position and held that
adjudicating a claim collectively is not a substantive right
protected by the NLRA, and that the Board's interpretation of the
NLRA impermissibly conflicts with the FAA. The Second and Eight
Circuits have also held that class action waivers are enforceable.

The Seventh and Ninth Circuits, on the other hand, have adopted
the Board's position that such agreements are a violation of the
NLRA, in Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir.
2016), and Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir.
2016), respectively.

In Lewis, the Seventh Circuit declined to enforce a clause that
precluded employees from seeking any class, collective, or
representative remedies in wage and hour disputes. The court found
that the clause was unenforceable because it required employees to
stipulate away their NLRA Section 7 rights. Moreover, the court
found that the clause was unenforceable under the FAA. Because the
court viewed the clause as unlawful under Section 7 of the NLRA,
it was therefore an illegal provision and met the criteria of the
FAA's saving clause for non-enforcement.

A few months later, the Ninth Circuit in Morris also held that the
NLRA precludes agreements requiring employees to waive concerted
legal claims regarding wages, hours, and terms or conditions of
employment.

What Will the Supreme Court Do?

As noted, the Supreme Court has demonstrated a preference for
arbitration in recent years. The confirmation of Justice Neil
Gorsuch may also favor the enforcement of class action waivers in
arbitration agreements. Justice Gorsuch's past arbitration rulings
demonstrate that he favors the FAA's liberal approach to
enforcement of arbitration agreements and sees the FAA as
establishing substantive federal law favoring arbitration that
preempts conflicting state law doctrines. Moreover, past decisions
show a reluctance to defer to administrative agency
interpretations and skepticism of aggressive agency action. He has
already expressed the view that the NLRB should have a more
limited scope of authority. Accordingly, Justice Gorsuch may, in
the case of a split, cast the deciding vote, and there is reason
to believe that the Court will again find in favor of the legality
of class action waivers.

While we cannot definitively predict the Supreme Court's decision,
we can be sure that the decision will greatly impact employers and
employees alike, and that it will provide much-needed clarity on
this key issue.

Takeaways
Once the Supreme Court issues its ruling, employers should (i)
promptly review their existing mandatory arbitration and class
waiver agreements and (ii) consider adopting them (if not already
in use) if the Court rejects the NLRB's arguments. [GN]




* More Than Half of American Workers Can't Sue Their Employer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Preeti Varathan, writing for Quartz, reports in the past two
years, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Oracle have faced
various high-profile lawsuits related to their employment
practices. And while those cases generated headlines, workers in
almost every sector sue their bosses over emotional abuse, unpaid
wages, and discrimination (to cite just a few examples).

The ability to sue over wrongful treatment at work is essential to
the balance of bargaining power between employer and employee.
Unfortunately, more than half of non-union, privately employed
Americans -- some 60 million people -- have signed away this
right. They are instead beholden to a process known as
arbitration.

Signing a mandatory arbitration agreement is theoretically
voluntary, but refusing to do so can cost a candidate their job
offer. Once signed, the agreement strips the employee of the right
to take her employer to court for unfairly low pay, termination
because of pregnancy, race-based discrimination, loss of paternity
or maternity leave, and much more. Any legal claims filed under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, The Americans with Disabilities
Act, The Family and Medical Leave Act, or the Fair Labor Standards
Act won't see their day in court. Instead, such claims are
funneled through a pre-written arbitration procedure. Since the
worker has no say in how that procedure takes shape, these legal
battles often end in the company's favor. (Unionized workplaces
differ: The labor-arbitration system used to resolve conflicts
between unions and management is run, developed, and designed by
both parties.)

According to a study published by Alexander Colvin of Cornell,
more than half (54%) of private, non-unionized workplaces have
mandatory arbitration procedures. For larger companies (over 1,000
workers), that jumps to 65%. By contrast, in 2003 Colvin found
that just 14% of companies had arbitration agreements -- it's
worth noting that the 2003 study had differing methodology -- and
separate studies from the early 90s pegged that rate at or below
8%. While the comparison isn't apples to apples, Colvin says it's
clear that asking employees to sign arbitration agreements is far
more common today.

Class-action lawsuits -- where an employee files a suit on behalf
of herself and coworkers -- still tend to fall outside of
mandatory arbitration. (The case against Google is class-action.)
But this could soon change, too. Next week, the US Supreme Court
will decide whether arbitration agreements that include collective
or class-action suits are legal. In National Labor Relations Board
v. Murphy Oil USA, the NLRB argues that such agreements violate
the National Labor Relations Act, which protects collective
bargaining. The Supreme Court will also hear two more cases (Ernst
& Young LLP v. Morris and Epic Systems v. Lewis) before ruling on
the constitutionality of such agreements.

As it stands, 41% of employees who sign mandatory arbitration
agreements also waive their right to file a class-action lawsuit.
If the Supreme Court upholds the legality of such agreements, it's
likely that far more private workers will soon lose that right as
well. [GN]


* US Chamber of Commerce Warns of Risks of Dutch CA System
----------------------------------------------------------
DutchNews.nl reported that the Netherlands is moving into
dangerous territory by rolling out the red carpet for
organisations that bring class action suits against international
companies, the US Chamber of Commerce has told the Financieele
Dagblad.

The organisation's executive vice president Lisa Rickard told the
paper in an interview that class action suits are becoming popular
in Europe and a growing number of large American law firms are
currently opening offices in the EU. 'They believe there is money
to be made here,' Rickard told the paper.

The European Commission is expected to present a new proposal for
legal rules shortly but Rickard say the Netherlands largely
ignores the guarantees against abuses included in previous
guidelines, which date from 2013.

'It is very worrying that the Netherlands is positioning itself as
a hub for this type of mass claim and suggesting that the rulings
of the Dutch courts also have extra-territorial effect,' she said.
'It could prove very harmful for large companies in the country if
the Netherlands becomes a magnet for these class actions.'

Rickard said there is fierce competition between London and
Amsterdam to attract this type of case and that Brexit will tip
the balance in favour of Amsterdam. [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. Agravante, 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  * * *