CAR_Public/171018.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Wednesday, October 18, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 206



                            Headlines

ACCIDENT FUND: Refuses to Pay Interest Under IWCA, Beatty Claims
AETNA INC: Faces "S.A." Suit in E. Dist. Penn.
ALIBABA.COM INC: Faces Copyright Infringement Class Action
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: "Larey" Class Settlement Has Prelim Approval
ARKEMA: Faces Second Class Action Over Crosby Plant Explosion

BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "O'Dell" Suit in W. Dist. Va.
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Rhodes" Suit in E. Dist. Va.
BANK OF AMERICA: Fights Class Action Over Inflated Appraisals
BANK OF NEW YORK: Court Denies Bid to Strike Putative Class Rep
BASKIN-ROBBINS LLC: "Abedi" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

BAYER CORP: Essure Class Action Remanded to State Court
BMW AG: Newton Files Suit Over Sherman Act Violation
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment in MBCASA Member's Suit
BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Affirms Denial of Discretionary Review
CACH LLC: Court Allows Substitution for Deceased Party

CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses All Claims in "Corena" Suit
CAMDEN COUNTY, NJ: Court Dismisses "Cunningham" Pro Se Complaint
CARLSON RESTAURANTS: Judge Tosses $19.1-Mil. Wage-Hour Settlement
CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Approves Extension of Briefing Schedule
CITIMORTGAGE INC: 9th Cir. Reversed Dismissal of "Kester" Suit

COCA-COLA CO: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Enslin" Class Suit
CONNECTICUT: Settlement in Inmates' Class Suit Has Final OK
CONVERGYS CORP: Texas Employers Can Enforce Class Action Waivers
COOPER CITY, FL: "Joliff" Final Judgment Flipped in City's Favor
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Espinoza" Suit

DELAWARE: Medicaid Loosens Up Hepatitis C Treatment Criteria
DEUTSCHE BANK: Seeks Review of Class Cert. Order in "Moreno" Suit
DODEKA LLC: Ohio App. Flips Summary Judgment in "Keith"
DR HORTON: Court Denies Move to Compel Mediation Attendance
DRAFTKINGS: Court Dismisses Ex-Football Players' Copyright Case

EDEGREEADVISOR LLC: Court Dismisses "Priester" TCPA Suit
EQUIFAX INC: Ignored Known Flaws in Security, Alexander Suit Says
EQUIFAX INC: Partridge Sues Over Failure to Secure Consumers' PII
EQUIFAX INC: Accused by "Kohn" Suit of Failing to Protect Info
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Prejean" Suit in Hawaii Over Data Breach

EQUIFAX INC: O'Dell Sues for Small Businesses Over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Sued by Rajput for Failing to Secure Consumers' PII
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Falco" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
EQUIFAX INC: Army Aviation Suit Alleges FTCA Violations
EQUIFAX INC: 500+ Credit Unions Mull Data Breach Class Action

EQUIFAX INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Pennsylvania
EQUIFAX INC: Face Congressional Hearings Following Data Breach
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Fausz Says
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Foley Consumer Class Action in Minn.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sued by Hingle for Not Securing Private Info

EXPLOITS VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Air Canada Runway Crash
FERRING PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit for Breach of Warranty
FIRED UP: Ex-Employees' WARN Class Action Put on Hold
FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: "Bernardez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
FOUND MY ANIMAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Class Action in Conn.
GATE GOURMET: "Little" FLSA Class Settlement Has Prelim Approval
GREEN PHARMACEUTICAL: Snoring Aid Class Action Dismissal Reversed
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Court Dismisses "Levins" FDCPA Suit
HOMEADVISOR INC: Court Strikes Notice to Intervene

JASPER COUNTY, MS: Bid to Certify Inmates Class in "Askew" Denied
JASPER COUNTY, MS: Bid to Certify Class in "Wilson" Denied
JASPER COUNTY, MS: Inmates Class Cert in "Thigpen" Denied
LANDTEK INC: Johnson Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
LEWIS ENERGY: Guerra Sues on Behalf of Welders Over Unpaid OT

LEXINGTON TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Levy" Suit Says
LTI TRUCKING: Faces "Ratliff" Suit in N. Distr. Ill.
MAJU PUNCAKBUMI: Apartment Owners' Class Action Begins
MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Freeborn Challenges Merger With Harland
MDL 2284: Ct. Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Willses' Appeal

MY PILLOW: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss "Marlowe" Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Student-Athletes File FLSA Class Action
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Rich" Suit in S. Dist. New York
NORTHWEST CASCADE: Faces Class Action Over Porta Potty Plant Odor
NY NJ RESTORATION: Faces "Gomez" Suit in E. Dist. New York

PACIFIC COAST: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
PHARMERICA CORP: Faces "Berg" Suit Over Sale to Phoenix
PIZZA ON STONE: Faces "Moran" Suit in S. Dist. New York
PLUSFOUR INC: Court Denies Bid to Transfer "Cardinali"
POLTER BERRY: "Blas-Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

POTBELLY SANDWICH: Faces "Bryant" Suit in S. Dist. New York
PRECISION MOTOR: Faces "Ratliff" Suit in N. Dist. Ill.
PRICELINE.COM: Must Face Spirit Ticket Pricing Class Action
PROVIDENCE LITTLE: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Court Stays "Cook" Pending SCOTUS Ruling

ROMA PHARMACY: Faces "Diaz" Suit in E. Dist. New York
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Liberty of the Seas Passengers File Class Action
SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Barber" Suit Alleges Invasion of Privacy
SCRIPPS NETWORKS: Inzlicht-Sprei Challenges Sale to Discovery
SECOND CHANCE: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Guarantees

SENECA RESOURCES: Accused by McLaughlin of Misclassifying Workers
SLICE TECHNOLOGIES: "Cooper" Suit Moved From Calif. to S.D.N.Y.
SMITH TRANSPORT: Faces "Ratliff" Suit N.D. Ill.
SOCIAL SECURITY: Fed. Cir. Affirms Removal in ALJ Candidate List
STARRETT CITY: Montgomery Sues Over Denied Air-Conditioning

STEARNS LENDING: Faces "Olachea" Suit in C. Dist. Cal.
TAURUS: Opens Pistol Class Action Settlement Claims Period
TGI FRIDAYS: Averts Class Action Over Drink-Pricing Policies
TRISTAR PLUMBING: Faces "Luo" Suit in E. Dist. New York
UNITED NATIONS: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "LaVenture" Suit

UNITED STATES: Court Denies Govt's Move to Dismiss PACER Suit
UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL: Refuses to Pay OT Under FLSA, Giner Alleges
US BANK: Ohio App. Affirms Denial of Counterclaims in "Schubert"
VIKING CLIENT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Broderick" FDCPA Suit
WELD SPEC: Faces "Fithian" Suit in E. Dist. Tex.

WELLS FARGO: To Refund Mortgage Rate-Lock Extension Fees
WELLS FARGO: Two Law Firms File ARM Class Action in California
WEST OF CHICAGO RESTAURANTS: Faces "Wilson" Suit in Ca. Super. Ct
WISE ELECTRICAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Electricians' Unpaid Wages
ZM PRIVATE EQUITY: Court Dismisses "Gibbons" Due to Res Judicata

* Lawmakers Debate Over Tip Pool at Legislative Hearing
* NLRB Withdraws Argument on Mandatory Arbitration Programs
* PracticePanther Attorney Discusses Various Class Actions






                            *********


ACCIDENT FUND: Refuses to Pay Interest Under IWCA, Beatty Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL E. BEATTY, M.D. d/b/a THE SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS PLASTIC &
HAND SURGERY ASSOCIATES, individually and as the Representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons v. ACCIDENT FUND GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY; ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA;
ACCIDENT FUND NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; ACUITY, A MUTUAL
INSURANCE AMERICAN COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN ZURICH
INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; AUTO OWNERS
INSURANCE COMPANY; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE INSURANCE COMPANY;
BROADSPIRE SERVICES INC.; CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC.; CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES, LLC; CHUBB INDEMNITY INSURANCE
COMPANY; COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC; CONTINENTAL
CASUALTY COMPANY, INC.; AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING
PENNSYLVANIA; CORPORATE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC; COUNTRY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY; CREATIVE RISK SOLUTIONS LLC; ESIS, INC;
FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE
COMPANY; FIRST LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION; GENERAL CASUALTY
COMPANY OF WISCONSIN; GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC; HARTFORD
ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY; HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY;
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY
OF ILLINOIS; HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST; HARTFORD
UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY; ILLINOIS NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY; INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; INSURANCE
COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY; NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE
COMPANY; PMA COMPANIES; PERKIN INSURANCE COMPANY; QBE INSURANCE
COMPANY; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; SENTRY
CASUALTY COMPANY; SYNERGY INSURANCE COMPANY; TRAVELERS PROPERTY &
CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA; TRISTAR INSURANCE GROUP, INC.; AND
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:17-cv-01001 (S.D.
Ill., September 19, 2017), seeks redress for the Defendants'
alleged failure and refusal to pay interest due under the Illinois
Workers' Compensation Act, which has resulted in a loss of the
Plaintiff's property and a detriment to his business.

The Defendants are corporations, who are either authorized to and
have issued Workers' Compensation Insurance Policies in Illinois
covering workers employed in Illinois, or Third Party
Administrators (TPAs) employed by Illinois employers to administer
Illinois workers' compensation claims of their employees, or
claims adjusting companies employed by insurance carriers or TPAs
to administer Illinois workers' compensation claims in consequence
of which they are subject to the provisions of the Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          Kevin M. Carnie, Jr., Esq.
          Benjamin R. Askew, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com
                  kcarnie@simonlawpc.com
                  baskew@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Robert H. Wendt, Esq.
          THE WENDT LAW FIRM
          1015 Locust Street, Suite 1036
          Saint Louis, MO
          Phone: (314) 588-0097
          E-mail: rwendt@wendtlawfirm.com


AETNA INC: Faces "S.A." Suit in E. Dist. Penn.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AETNA, Inc. The case
is styled as S.A. on behalf of himself individually and of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AETNA, Inc., AETNA Health
of California Inc. and DOES 1 TO 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
04442-JS (E.D. Penn., October 5, 2017).

Aetna caters to HIV patients and mail-orders their HIV medicines.
However, HIV medication prescriptions are sent in an opaque
envelope with a large transparent glassine window clearly
indicating the name of the patient, thus failing to respect the
privacy rights of people who are taking HIV-medications, says the
complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   TORIN aaron Dorros, Esq.
   DORROS LAW
   8730 WILSHIRE BLVD SUITE 350
   BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211
   Tel: (310) 997-2050

The Defendants are represented by:

   Donna L. Wilson, Esq.
   MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS
   11355 W OLYMPIC BLVD
   LOS ANGELES, CA 90064
   Email: dwilson@manatt.com

     - and -

   Matthew P. Kanny, Esq.
   MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS
   11355 W. OLYMPIC BLVD
   LOS ANGELES, CA 90064
   Tel: (310) 312-4225
   Email: mkanny@manatt.com


ALIBABA.COM INC: Faces Copyright Infringement Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Alibaba.com Inc.
has been hit with a class action lawsuit claiming that its network
of e-commerce websites is home to rampant copyright infringement
of visual artwork.

The lawsuit brought on behalf of professional Indiana artist
Michel Keck seeks to certify a class of copyright holders who have
seen their work copied and sold on Alibaba's network of websites.
The 81-page complaint, filed on Oct. 2 in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, spins a Kafkaesque tale about
Mr. Keck's attempts to get dozens of China-based sellers to stop
selling knock-offs and copies of her work -- primarily modern
abstract canvas prints that feature dog portraits and religious
themes.

Mr. Keck claims she first became aware that sellers in China were
offering unauthorized copies of her work on Alibaba sites at
"significantly lower" prices than she was charging after receiving
a tip in late 2015 from an art dealer who had stopped buying
paintings from her.  Mr. Keck claims that she repeatedly filled
out online forms to report the alleged infringement to Alibaba,
only to run into error messages, requests for documentation, or
messages in Chinese. Often, she claims, she simply received no
response.

According to the complaint, Mr. Keck eventually contacted
officials at the U.S. embassy in Beijing in November 2016, who
then put her in contact with IP officials with the company based
in the United States, who ultimately routed her back through the
company's official channels in China.  One of Mr. Keck's lawyers,
Doris Cheng of Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger, said in a
phone interview on Oct. 3 that despite the effort, her client's
copyrighted works are still being infringed.

"We're not seeing any systems in place to deal with the level of
infringement by sellers on the sites," said Ms. Cheng, whose firm
filed suit alongside lawyers at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings and
Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton in Birmingham, Alabama.  "Alibaba
knows that there's a problem."

Representatives for Alibaba didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment on Oct. 3.

Alibaba for years has faced allegations that its network of sites
have allowed counterfeiters to traffic in knock-offs of branded
goods.  But the company seemed to have turned a corner in August
when it reached a deal with the company behind luxury brands such
as Gucci and Saint Laurent to establish a task force to work with
law enforcement and share information to combat counterfeiting.

The new suit from Keck seeks to certify a class of all copyright
holders of pictorial, graphic, or visual works who have had at
least one of their works sold on an Alibaba site without
authorization as well as subclasses of those who have attempted to
provide notice of infringement to Alibaba.

"The evidence demonstrates the extreme carelessness that Alibaba
showed, in fact, just ignoring" Mr. Keck's notices, Ms. Cheng
said.  "That's how this came to be a lawsuit." [GN]


ALLSTATE PROPERTY: "Larey" Class Settlement Has Prelim Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, Texarkana Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's
Agreed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement in the
case captioned MICHAEL H. LAREY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:14-cv-4008 (W.D.
Ark.).

The following Class is conditionally certified for settlement
purposes only:

     All Persons in Arkansas who had a Covered Loss, where
estimated labor depreciation was initially deducted from the claim
payment, and where the claim was paid at less than the limit of
liability (accounting for deductible) as set forth on the
declarations page of the applicable Policy.

Michael H. Larey is preliminary appointed as the representative of
the Class and the Court preliminarily finds that the following
attorneys for Plaintiff satisfy the adequacy requirement of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and appoints the counsel for
the Class:

     D. Matt Keil, Esq.
     John C. Goodson, Esq.
     KEIL & GOODSON P.A.
     406 Walnut Street
     Texarkana, AR 71854

        -- and --

     R. Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
     Richard E. Norman, Esq.
     CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
     Three Riverway, Suite 1775
     Houston, TX 77056

        -- and --

     James M. Pratt, Jr., Esq.
     JAMES M. PRATT, JR. P.A.
     144 Washington NW, P.O. Box 938
     Camden, AR 71701

        -- and --

     Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq.
     Richard A. Russo, Jr., Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZERCHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087

        -- and --

     William B. Putman, Esq.
     TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS
     303 E. Millsap Road, P.O. Box 8310
     Fayetteville, AR 72703

        -- and --

     A.F. "Tom" Thompson, III, Esq.
     Kenneth P. Castleberry, Esq.
     MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD,
        SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
     P.O. Box 2595
     555 East Main Street, Suite 200
     Batesville, AR 72503

        -- and --

     Jason Earnest Roselius, Esq.
     Jack Austin Mattingly, Jr., Esq.
     Tanner Hicks, Esq.
     MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS, PLLC
     13182 N. MacArthur Blvd.
     Oklahoma City, OK 73142

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 25, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y77njustfrom Leagle.com.

Michael H. Larey, Plaintiff, represented by D. Matt Keil, Attorney
at Law, 611 Pecan St, Texarkana, AR 71854

Michael H. Larey, Plaintiff, represented by George L. McWilliams,
Law Office of George L. McWilliams, P.C., PO Box 58, Texarkana, TX
75504-0058, John C. Goodson, Keil & Goodson, 611 Pecan St,
Texarkana, AR 71854, William B. Putman, Taylor Law Partners, A.F.,
303 E. Millsap Road, Fayetteville, AR 70703, (Tom) Thompson, III,
Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, 1141 East Main
Street, Suite 300 P.O. Box 2595, Batesville, Arkansas 72501, Jack
Austin Mattingly, Jr., Mattingly Roselius PLLC, 215 East Oak
Avenue, Seminole, OK 74868,  James M. Pratt, Jr., James M. Pratt,
Jr., P.A., 144 Washington Street, Northwest, Camden, AR 71701,
Jason Earnest Roselius, Mattingly & Roselius, 13182 N. MacArthur
Blvd. Oklahoma, OK 73142, Kenneth P. Castleberry, Murphy,
Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, 555 E Main St
Ste 200, Batesville, AR 72501-4645, Matthew L. Mustokoff --
mmustokoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP, R. Martin
Weber, Jr. -- mweber@crowleynorman.com -- Crowley Norman LLP,
Richard E. Norman -- rnorman@crowleynorman.com -- Crowley Norman
LLP, Richard A. Russo, Jr. --rrusso@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer Check LLP & Tanner Hicks, Mattingly Roselius PLLC, 13182
N. MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma, OK 73142.

Allstate Property and Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by
Christopher J. Heller --heller@fridayfirm.com -- Friday, Eldredge
& Clark, Mark L. Hanover, Dentons US LLP, pro hac vice & Leah R.
Bruno, Dentons US LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7800,
Chicago, IL 60606-6404


ARKEMA: Faces Second Class Action Over Crosby Plant Explosion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Kuzydym and Scott Noll, writing for KHOU, report that
a Texas state trooper, Harris County sheriff's deputy, and
sergeant are among the more than a dozen Crosby residents who
filed a class action lawsuit against Arkema on Oct. 3 in federal
court in Houston.

This is the second lawsuit to be filed against the global chemical
company after the plant's organic peroxides ignited after back-up
generators were flooded and failed during Hurricane Harvey.

The lawsuit alleges testing on soil, water and ash samples found
on the plaintiff's property revealed residents were exposed to
toxic substances released from the facility.

The lawsuit also states that the 15 plaintiffs, some of whom live
nearly seven miles from the Crosby factory, suffered personal
injury, emotional distress, property damage, loss of income and
more.

One of the plantiffs, Shannan Wheeler, told KHOU he found more
than 40 pieces of black ash on his property.  His frustration, he
was outside the evacuation zone.  He says Arkema gave no warning.
He showed KHOU pictures of what he describes as a chemical burn.
One of the many problems we heard about affecting people's health,
property and livelihood.

"After I'd mowed the yard, I was picking up grass clippings, I
still had gloves on but grass had gotten up behind the part of my
gloves, at first I felt stinging and some redness, thought maybe I
got ants, looked no it's not ants, couple more handfuls, it's
burning," said Mr. Wheeler.

Arkema's Crosby facility made national news when chemical
explosions began around 2 a.m. on Aug. 31, then continued for
several days.  Nearly half a million pound of liquid organic
peroxides were stored at the facility in six containers.

The organic peroxides must remain cool.  But as Hurricane Harvey
released historic rain across Southeast Texas, the plant flooded
under six feet of water.  The company says that triggered a chain
reaction of failures that allowed the chemicals to heat up and
explode, releasing smoke into the air.

Arkema did release a statement saying, "We won't comment on
specific ongoing litigation.  Based on testing results received to
date, Arkema has not detected chemicals in off-site ash, soil,
surface or drinking water samples that exceeded Residential
Protective Concentration Levels established by TCEQ for soil and
groundwater.  We do not know what these lawyers tested for.  We
are cooperating with authorities in ongoing investigations and we
will not comment further on these lawyers' accusations."

The initial lawsuit against Arkema was filled by first responders
on Sept. 7.  Nearly two weeks later, more first responders and
some Crosby residents joined the lawsuit.  That lawsuit, filed in
district court, sought at least $1 million.

The federal lawsuit, thus far, includes only residents, including
one who operates a horse stable west of the factory.  The
plaintiff returned to the stables each day following the explosion
because "the valuable horses under his care would not have
survived had he not fed and watered them."  Attorney say that
triggered respiratory issues and eye irritation.  Tests of his
property found toxic compounds contaminated his property,
according to the suit.

The lead counsel for the new lawsuit is Dennis Spurling. [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "O'Dell" Suit in W. Dist. Va.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America,
N.A.  The case is styled as Dana O'Dell and Kathy O'Dell, on
behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-
00467-MFU (W.D. Va., October 5, 2017).

Defendant owns and operate full service banks, which serve the
general public with call centers, throughout the United States,
including California, where Castillo worked as a call center
agent. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Andrew Joseph Guzzo
   Kelly & Crandall, PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7570
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

      - and -

   Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall, PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7570
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: casey@kellyandcrandall.com

      - and -

   Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall, PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7572
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Rhodes" Suit in E. Dist. Va.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America,
N.A.  The case is styled as Adam Rhodes and Stacie Rhodes, on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs v. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00678-JAG (E.D. Va., October 5, 2017).

Defendant owns and operate full service banks, which serve the
general public with call centers, throughout the United States,
including California, where Castillo worked as a call center
agent. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7570
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

      - and -

   Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7570
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: casey@kellyandcrandall.com

      - and -

   Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7570
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Fights Class Action Over Inflated Appraisals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Newsham, Bonnie Eslinger, Daniel Siegal, Shayna Posses and
Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, report that Bank of America
Corp. urged a California federal judge on Oct. 2 not to recognize
a proposed class of borrowers who accuse BofA and Countrywide
Financial Corp. of making them use a crooked home appraisal
company, saying the alleged wrongdoing varies too widely for a
class action to be appropriate.

The bank, which snapped up Countrywide and its appraisal
subsidiary LandSafe Inc. during the financial crisis in 2008,
asserted that there are too many problems with the proposed class
and its representatives for the consolidated cases to move
forward.  The plaintiffs have argued that Countrywide and BofA had
LandSafe and affiliates bang out inflated appraisals so they could
make irresponsible loans, but the bank and its
co-defendants argued that the whole theory "makes no sense."

For starters, the defendants asserted, none of the plaintiffs fit
the proposed class definition.  Several of their loans originated
with Countrywide KB Home Loans LLC, a nonparty, and another's home
wasn't even appraised at a high enough value for her to get the
loan she was seeking, the bank said. And one has said she can't
make time for a trial, the defendants said, while another wasn't
even a borrower -- her husband was.

"In short, plaintiffs have produced no evidence of common proof,
such as of classwide defective appraisals, that could justify
class certification," the bank said.

The bank said two of the proposed class representatives reached
out to one of the plaintiffs' law firms so long ago that the
statute of limitations for claims under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, which could lead to triple damages,
had passed by the time the suit was filed.  Three of them can't
show that they paid for the appraisals they seek refunds for, and
another can't sue under the laws of the state where she lives,
BofA asserted.

Although much of the latter half of the bank's brief was redacted,
it argued that individual issues outweigh the commonalities among
proposed class members.  In other parts of the brief, BofA said
LandSafe worked with a wide array of independent appraisers who
are not parties to the suit, and it cited witnesses who said there
was no coordination or common enterprise between the bank and
appraisers.  They exercised independent judgment, BofA said.

The bank also filed motions to strike portions of two declarations
submitted by the plaintiffs' experts.  The documents were almost
completely redacted.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment on Oct. 3.

In March, a judge rejected Bank of America and LandSafe's bid to
dismiss one of the consolidated cases, saying that although the
transactions at issue in the June 2016 suit occurred in 2006 and
2007, well outside RICO's four-year statute of limitations, the
plaintiffs had satisfactorily alleged they couldn't have known
that they had a claim until the 2012 unsealing of a qui tam
complaint over the same scheme brought by whistleblower Kyle
Lagow.

The plaintiffs seek certification of two classes: a nationwide
RICO class that would include U.S. residents who, from Jan. 1,
2003, through Dec. 31, 2008, obtained an appraisal from LandSafe
in connection with a loan originated by Countrywide; and a Texas
unjust enrichment class for Texas residents during the same period
who got a Countrywide loan that came with a LandSafe appraisal.

The plaintiffs are represented by Christopher R. Pitoun, Steve W.
Berman and Thomas E. Loeser of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
and Daniel Alberstone, Roland Tellis, Mark Pifko and Evan Zucker
of Baron & Budd PC.

The defendants are represented by Robert E. Boone III --
reboone@bryancave.com -- Douglas A. Thompson --
douglas.thompson@bryancave.com -- Linda C. Hsu --
linda.hsu@bryancave.com -- and Richard P. Steelman Jr. --
ricky.steelman@bryancave.com -- of Bryan Cave LLP.

The cases are Waldrup v. Countrywide Financial Corp. et al., case
number 2:13-cv-08833, and Williams et al. v. Countrywide Financial
Corp. et al., case number 2:16-cv-04166, in the U.S. (C.D. Cal.).
The case is assigned to Judge Christina A. Snyder.  The case was
filed June 10, 2016. [GN]


BANK OF NEW YORK: Court Denies Bid to Strike Putative Class Rep
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued an Order Denying Defendant's motion to strike putative
class representative in the case captioned ASHBY HENDERSON and
THOMAS HERSHENSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-10599-PBS
(D. Mass.).

The Court defers ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification until the Court has the opportunity to review full
briefing on summary judgment.

The plaintiffs move for class certification. As part of its
opposition, BNY Mellon moves to strike putative class
representative, Ashby Henderson, on the basis of inadequacy.  BNY
Mellon also filed its motion for summary judgment ahead of
schedule and sought to defer decision on class certification until
after adjudication of its motion to strike and its motion for
summary judgment.

This proposed class action claims that defendant, the trustee for
thousands of trusts, breached its fiduciary duties to its trust
beneficiaries in two ways: by imprudently investing trust assets
in poorly performing proprietary and affiliated investment
vehicles and by charging unauthorized fees for the preparation of
tax returns.

BNY Mellon's instant motion challenges only the adequacy prong of
Rule 23, under which a class action may proceed only if the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. The First Circuit has stated that there
are two elements to the adequacy requirement: first that the
interests of the representative party will not conflict with the
interests of any of the class members, and second, that counsel
chosen by the representative party is qualified, experienced and
able to vigorously conduct the proposed litigation.

The District Court finds that Henderson has demonstrated
sufficient knowledge of her claims to serve as class
representative. At her deposition, Henderson was able to explain
the essential nature of her claims, at least to the extent that is
reasonable to expect from a layperson class representative in a
complex financial case.  Henderson's level of understanding of her
claims was greater than that of putative class representatives
that courts found to be inadequate in some of the cases cited by
BNY Mellon. Henderson did not display a disqualifying lack of
knowledge or interest in the case by displaying some uncertainty
about whether her trust level fee claim remained in the latest
amended complaint or by responding to certain deposition questions
on some of the details of her claims by deferring to her counsel.

The Court also finds that Henderson has not ceded control of the
litigation to lawyer Brian McTigue. Her continued contact with
McTigue does not give rise to a conflict with the class. Last
summer, the Court was made aware of discord among the plaintiffs'
counsel that resulted in McTigue firing the other plaintiffs'
counsel. Henderson represented to the Court that she was only
willing to serve as named class representative if McTigue was
appointed as interim co-lead or sole lead class counsel. The Court
denied McTigue's motion to be appointed interim lead class counsel
upon finding that his conduct during the litigation was deeply
disturbing contumacious, and uncivil.

Subsequently, plaintiffs' counsel came to an agreement in which
Bailey & Glasser LLP and the Howard Law Firm would serve as
interim co-lead counsel and McTigue's firm would serve on an
Executive Committee under the direction of the colead counsel. The
Court engaged in a colloquy with Henderson regarding this
arrangement. Henderson stated that while she wanted McTigue to be
involved, she did not demand that McTigue serve as lead counsel
and she was willing to work with the other plaintiffs' lawyers.
The Court confirmed that Henderson understood that even if McTigue
served as her contact person, the whole team of plaintiffs'
lawyers was representing the putative class.

The Court finds that Henderson has adequate knowledge of the case
to serve as class representative, that she has not ceded control
of the case to unfit class counsel, and that her interests do not
conflict with the interests of the class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 25, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8xxyrjo
from Leagle.com.

Ashby Henderson, Plaintiff, represented by J. Brian McTigue,
McTigue Law LLP, pro hac vice, 4530 Wisconsin Avenue, NorthWest,
Suite 300 Washington, DC 20016

Ashby Henderson, Plaintiff, represented by Regina M. Markey,
McTigue Law, LLP, pro hac vice, Brooke Edwards, McTigue Law LLP,
4530 Wisconsin Avenue, NorthWest, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20016
pro hac vice, Benjamin Lajoie --blajoie@baileyglasser.com --
Bailey & Glasser LLP, Derek G. Howard -- derek@derekhowardlaw.com
--  Derek G. Howard Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Elizabeth A.
Ryan,- eryan@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser LLP, Gregory Y.
Porter -- gporter@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser LLP, pro
hac vice, John J. Roddy --jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey &
Glasser LLP & Michael Murphy -- mmurphy@baileyglasser.com --
Bailey & Glasser LLP, pro hac vice.

Thomas J. Hershenson, Plaintiff, represented by John J. Roddy,
Bailey & Glasser LLP, Benjamin Lajoie, Bailey & Glasser LLP &
Gregory Y. Porter, Bailey & Glasser LLP.

The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association,
Defendant, represented by K. Issac deVyver --
kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice,
Nellie E. Hestin -- nhestin@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP,
Mary J. Hackett -- mhackett@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP,
pro hac vice & Melissa M. Taylor -- mmtaylor@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice.

BNY Mellon, National Association, Defendant, represented by K.
Issac deVyver, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Nellie E. Hestin,
McGuireWoods LLP, Mary J. Hackett, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice
& Melissa M. Taylor, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice.


BASKIN-ROBBINS LLC: "Abedi" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Deeba Abedi, and all others similarly-situated v. Baskin-Robbins
LLC, and Does 1-100, Case No. 1:17-at-00749 (E.D. Ca., October 4,
2017), seeks damages and injunctive relief for the Defendants'
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the County of Merced, State of
California.

Defendant Baskin-Robbins LLC operates and franchises a chain of
ice cream specialty shops.  The Defendants conducted business in
the State of California and in the County of Merced. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BAYER CORP: Essure Class Action Remanded to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Sam Knef, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that U.S. District
Judge Stephen Limbaugh for a second time has granted plaintiffs'
request to remand a proposed class action against Bayer over its
birth control product, Essure, to state court.

In a ruling filed Sept. 27, Judge Limbaugh, of the Eastern
District of Missouri, held that the defendants' removal was not
"procedurally proper" as it was not filed within 30 days of
receiving the original state court complaint.

He was not persuaded by the arguments of Bayer attorneys who
removed the case July 18 after the landmark ruling a month earlier
in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California. In that
ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court cannot "exercise
specific personal jurisdiction where a nonresident fails to show a
connection between the nonresident's specific claim and the
forum," Judge Limbaugh wrote.

Bayer had argued that the Bristol-Myers Squibb decision triggered
a new removal period.

"But Bristol-Myers is a separate case with different parties," he
wrote.

In its second removal action, Bayer also cited a Missouri Supreme
Court decision in State ex rel. Bayer Corp. v. Moriarty to support
its position, "a ruling which issued a preliminary writ of
prohibition, ordering a circuit court judge to show cause 'why a
writ of prohibition should not issue prohibiting [her] from doing
anything other than vacat[ing]' an order denying Bayer's motion to
dismiss," the order said.

And a third case that Bayer cited was Jordan v. Bayer in which
Limbaugh found that the Bristol-Myers Squibb decision was
dispositive of the specific jurisdiction issue in denying a
plaintiffs' motion to remand.

In those two cases, Judge Limbaugh held that neither one formed
the basis of an "order or other paper."

The case that Judge Limbaugh remanded for a second time involves
94 plaintiffs from 26 different states and was originally filed
Nov. 7, 2016.

After Bayer's first removal action, Judge Limbaugh ruled that the
plaintiffs had not fraudulently joined or fraudulently misjoined
non-Missouri plaintiffs and remanded it. [GN]


BMW AG: Newton Files Suit Over Sherman Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------
RENEE NEWTON, OREN ARBIT, BILTRITE FURNITURE, INC., DENNIS LANE,
MARK ROSEN, TYLER CARVER, MILES ROSEN, and FRANK PALUMBO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, BMW OF NORTH AMERICA,
LLC, DAIMLER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, MERCEDESBENZ USA, LLC, VOLKSWAGEN
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., AUDI
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC, DR. ING. H.C. F. PORSCHE
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, and PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
2:17-cv-07267 (D.N.J., September 20, 2017), is brought on behalf
of a class of all persons similarly situated in the United States,
who purchased or leased a new Circle of Five vehicle.

The Plaintiffs bring the action under the Clayton Act for
equitable and injunctive relief against the Circle of Five for
violating the Sherman Act.  The Plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the Defendants' conspiracy limited the pace and
extent of innovation, causing the Circle of Five Vehicles to have
fewer features and lesser performance than they would absent the
conspiracy.

A "Circle of Five Vehicle" is defined herein to include all cars
sold in the United States by Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, Daimler,
or BMW since January 1, 1990.

Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft ("BMW AG") is a German
corporation with its principal place of business located in
Munich, Germany.  BMW of North America, LLC, is a Delaware limited
liability corporation with its principal place of business located
in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  BMW America is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of BMW AG that imports and distributes vehicles sold
under the Mini and BMW brands in all 50 states.

Daimler Aktiengesellschaft is a German corporation with its
principal place of business located in Stuttgart, Germany.
Daimler AG is the parent corporation of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and
numerous other companies globally.  Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, is a
Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal place of
business located in Montvale, New Jersey.  MB USA is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Daimler AG that markets and distributes
Mercedes-Benz vehicles in all 50 states.

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft is a German corporation with its
principal place of business in Wolfsburg, Germany.  Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation with its
principal place of business located in Herndon, Virginia.  VW
America is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and it
engages in business, including the advertising, marketing and sale
of Volkswagen automobiles, in all 50 states.

Audi Aktiengesellschaft is a German corporation with its principal
place of business in Ingolstadt, Germany.  Audi AG is the parent
of Audi of America, LLC and a subsidiary of the Audi Group, which
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of VW AG.  Audi of America, LLC, is a
Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
business located in Herndon, Virginia.

Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche Aktiengesellschaft is a German
corporation with its principal place of business located in
Stuttgart, Germany.  Porsche AG designs, develops, manufacturers,
and sells luxury automobiles.  Porsche AG is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of VW AG.  Porsche Cars North America, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located
in Atlanta, Georgia.  Porsche America is a wholly-owned U.S.
subsidiary of Porsche AG, and it engages in business, including
the advertising, marketing and sale of Porsche automobiles, in all
50 states.

The Defendants engineered, designed, developed, and manufactured
BMW Circle of Five Vehicles and exported these vehicles throughout
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
          Wilson M. Dunlavey, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
                  efastiff@lchb.com
                  bglackin@lchb.com
                  dharvey@lchb.com
                  wdunlavey@lchb.com

               - and -

          David S. Stellings, Esq.
          Abbye R. Klamann, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com
                  aklamann@lchb.com

               - and -

          Dan Drachler, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
          1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 223-2053
          Facsimile: (206) 343-9636
          E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Zwerling, Esq.
          Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
          Sona R. Shah, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 223-3900
          Facsimile: (212) 371-5969
          E-mail: jzwerling@zsz.com
                  rschachter@zsz.com
                  sshah@zsz.com


BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment in MBCASA Member's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, Southern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
ROBERT JAMES TOWNSEND, Plaintiff, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et. al., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-CV-301 (N.D. Ala.).

Plaintiff Robert Townsend worked as a deck hand on a crew boat in
the Gulf of Mexico between Brownsville, Texas, and Key West,
Florida, during the months of August and September 2010.
Townsend's vessel delivered cargo to boats in Mobile Bay that were
assisting with the containment of the oil spill.  Townsend claims
that he was exposed to chemical dispersants and crude oil, as well
as a fish-kill that occurred during August and September 2010.
Townsend states that he has experienced the following health
problems as a result of the exposure: shortness of breath,
abdominal pain, lymph gland enlargement, acute sinusitis, upper
respiratory infection, hypertension, chronic back pain, stomach
pain, swollen lymph nodes, headaches, dizziness, severe sea
sickness, high blood pressure, kidney pain, contact dermatitis,
and what he believes to be nerve damage.

The "Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement," approved
by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana on January 11, 2013, governs claims arising from clean-
up efforts surrounding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The
MBCASA defines the "Medical Benefits Settlement Class" so as to
include "all natural persons who resided in the United States as
of April 16, 2012, and who . . . worked as clean-up workers at any
time between April 20, 2010, and April 16, 2012."  Plaintiff falls
under this definition and is therefore a class member whose claims
are governed by the MBCASA.

To prevail on his claims, Plaintiff must prove exposure to the
dispersants and crude oil, their toxicity, and that their toxicity
caused his illnesses.  This type of proof requires expert
testimony.  Thus, to survive summary judgment, Plaintiff must put
forth reliable expert testimony showing that there is a genuine
issue for trial.

Plaintiff's evidentiary submissions regarding his alleged injuries
only consist of medical records indicating multiple occasions on
which he sought treatment for various types of sickness. Because
this case is a toxic tort, Plaintiff must provide expert testimony
linking these illnesses to exposure to toxic chemicals Plaintiff
encountered in the clean-up efforts. Plaintiff did not provide any
expert testimony showing either exposure to toxic chemicals or
that such exposure caused any injury.

The court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact
and BP is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore due to be granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 25, 2017
Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8thpz3bfrom
Leagle.com.

Robert James Townsend, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

BP Exploration & Production Inc, Defendant, represented by Harlan
Irby Prater, IV -- hprater@lightfootlaw.com -- LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN
& WHITE LLC, Jonathan R. Little -- little@lightfootlaw.com --
LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC & William H. Morrow --
wmorrow@lightfootlaw.com -- LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC.

BP America Production Company, Defendant, represented by Harlan
Irby Prater, IV, LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC, Jonathan R.
Little, LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC & William H. Morrow,
LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC.


BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Affirms Denial of Discretionary Review
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CLAIMANT ID 100128765, Requesting Party --
Appellant, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP
AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., Objecting Parties --
Appellees, Case No. 16-31087 (5th Cir.),  Judge Thomas Morrow
Reavley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the district court's denial of Bickford Appraisal Group's
petition for discretionary review.

The appeal involves a claim under the Deepwater Horizon Economic
and Property Damages Settlement.  Appellant Bickford is a real-
estate-appraisal company located in Hammond, Louisiana.  It filed
a "Business Economic Loss" claim under the Settlement.  The
Settlement divides various geographic regions in the Gulf of
Mexico into four economic loss zones: A, B, C, and D. It is
undisputed that Bickford is a zone D claimant.

In order to recover for losses pursuant to the Settlement, a zone
D claimant is required to establish causation through one of
various tests.  In a hearing before the claims administrator,
Bickford sought to establish causation pursuant to the "Decline
Only" test.

That Exhibit set out three subparts to the test, summarized in
Policy Statement 474 in this abbreviated way:

     a. The first prong of this test examines the decline in
percentage of revenue over three consecutive post-Spill months in
2010 compared to the same months in the Benchmark Period.

     b. The second prong requires the claimant to provide specific
documentation that identifies factors outside the control of the
claimant that prevented the recovery of revenues in 2011.

     c. The third prong examines the decline in the share of total
revenue generated by certain customers over the same period of
three consecutive post-Spill months in 2010 as used in the first
prong compared to the same three consecutive month period in 2009.
The Settlement Program refers to this analysis as the Customer Mix
Test.

In an attempt to satisfy the second prong, Bickford submitted two
articles from an appraisal trade publication.  It alleged that
these articles explained that appraisal companies struggled in
2011 after the 2010 passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act.

According to Bickford, Dodd-Frank required lenders to go through
appraisal management companies to bid out appraisals, while before
the enactment, lenders could contract directly with appraisal
companies to request appraisals.  It contends that the new
requirements had the effect of driving down an appraiser's
revenues.

The claims administrator denied Bickford's claim, because Bickford
has not provided documents sufficient to establish that its lost
revenue occurred as a result of the Spill, in accordance with
Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement.  Bickford sought
reconsideration, but the request was denied.

The appeal panel then upheld the denial of Bickford's claim.  The
appeal panel interpreted the specific documentation requirement in
Section III.C as necessitating objective third-party
documentation.  The appeal panel concluded that the articles and
the information within the articles were not objective.  Bickford
then sought discretionary review from the district court.  The
district court denied review.

Having reviewed the district court's denial of discretionary
review for abuse of discretion, Judge Reavley concludes he needs
not consider whether the appeal panel applied a legally incorrect
definition of "objective" when dismissing the documentation
because Bickford's Dodd-Frank articles do not address any of the
factors required by Section III.C.  Bickford did not satisfy
Section III.C because it failed to provide specific documentation
addressing one of the enumerated factors.  The district court
therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Bickford's
petition for discretionary review.  Accordingly, Judge Reavley
affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 27, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ZE8jl5 from Leagle.com.

Don Keller Haycraft -- dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- for Objecting
Party-Appellee.

James M. Garner, for Requesting Party-Appellant.

Martha Y. Curtis, for Requesting Party-Appellant.

James Andrew Langan -- andrew.langan@kirkland.com -- for Objecting
Party-Appellee.

Richard Cartier Godfrey -- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- for
Objecting Party-Appellee.

Kevin Michael McGlone, for Requesting Party-Appellant.

Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Sr. -- jeffrey.clark@kirkland.com -- for
Objecting Party-Appellee.

Aaron Lloyd Nielson -- aaron.nielson@kirkland.com -- for Objecting
Party-Appellee.

Martin R. Martos, II -- martin.martos@kirkland.com -- for
Objecting Party-Appellee.


CACH LLC: Court Allows Substitution for Deceased Party
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Idaho issued
an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Substitution in the case
captioned CHRISTOPHER E. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. CACH, LLC, and
MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00383-BLW
(D.Idaho).

Defendant CACH filed a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  During
informal discussions between the Court's staff and counsel via
email, counsel for both sides appeared to agree that the Court may
proceed with this case as to the non-debtor party that the case is
only stayed as to CACH.

Defendants asked the Court to dismiss Johnson's claims or order
the case to arbitration.  The Court granted the motion in part by
ordering all claims to arbitration.  Since then, Johnson has filed
a number of motions, and Defendant CACH, LLC, has filed a notice
of bankruptcy.

Johnson asks the Court to reconsider its order requiring
arbitration. The motion originally asked the Court to reconsider
its entire decision, but later withdrew the motion as to CACH
because of the bankruptcy. Still, Johnson asks that the withdrawal
be made without prejudice in case the bankruptcy is dismissed or
unsuccessful.

Here, Plaintiff argues that the Court committed clear error.
However, the motion essentially just asks the Court to reconsider
its earlier decision based on the same arguments Plaintiff
initially made. The Court explained its earlier reasoning in
detail, and nothing in the motion to reconsider changes the
Court's mind.  Accordingly, the motion to reconsider will be
denied.

Plaintiff asks the Court to amend the Complaint to remove
defendant CACH and any claim brought under North Carolina law.
Plaintiff suggests leave should be freely given under Rule
15(a)(2). However, that rule requires that leave be freely given
when justice so requires. Here, justice does not so require.

First and foremost, the case is stayed as to defendant CACH. Thus,
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 362, the Court cannot address the
motion if it affects CACH. Second, the Court has already ordered
all claims to arbitration in a detailed Order.

Regarding the motion to substitute, Plaintiff asks to substitute
the Estate of Johnson for Johnson as the plaintiff because Johnson
recently passed away. Although the case was pled as a class
action, no class has been certified, no motion to certify has been
filed, and the case has been ordered to arbitration. Thus, nothing
stands in the way of substituting the Estate of Johnson for
Plaintiff Johnson, or the case proceeding to arbitration as
ordered by the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 25, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y927e6av
from Leagle.com.

Estate of Christopher E Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Richard
A. Hearn, HEARN LAW, PLC, 155 South 2nd Ave., Pocatello, ID, 83404

Estate of Christopher E Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by T.
Jason Wood, Wood Law Group, PC., 2539 Channing Way, Suite 115
Idaho Falls, ID, 83404

Cach, LLC, Defendant, represented by William T. Sali, William T.
Sali, Attorney, 175 Linke Court, Kuna, ID 83634

Mandarich Law Group, LLP, Defendant, represented by William T.
Sali, William T. Sali, Attorney.


CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses All Claims in "Corena" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JORGE CORENA, Plaintiff, v. KIM HOLLAND, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01025-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.  He filed a complaint on July 15, 2016, alleging, among
other things, that he was assaulted by Defendants Rodriguez,
Cerveza, and Doe.

On Aug. 26, 2016, the Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge
jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c),
and no other parties have made an appearance.

Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California screened the Plaintiff's
complaint and found that it stated a claim for excessive force in
violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Rodriguez,
Cerveza, and Doe, and a claim for retaliation in violation of the
First Amendment against Defendants Rodriguez and Doe.  The Court
allowed him to choose between going forward with the claims the
Court found cognizable, filing a First Amended Complaint, or
standing on the complaint subject to dismissal of claims and
defendants as laid out in the order.

On Jan. 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
purported to be a class action.  It did not include detailed
factual allegations.  He also claimed that the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation needs to develop a
policy against civil rights violations.  As he was attempting to
file a class action, and as the First Amended Complaint did not
include detailed factual allegations, the Court dismissed the
First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

On June 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed his Second Amended
Complaint.

On Sept. 22, 2017, the Court issued a screening order, finding
cognizable claims for excessive force in violation of the Eighth
Amendment against Defendants Rodriguez, Cerveza, and Doe, and for
retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants
Rodriguez and Doe.  The Court also dismissed all other claims and
the Defendants.

Because it was unclear what excessive force claims were allowed,
and because there was an error in not allowing a failure to
protect claim against Defendant Doe, Magistrate Judge Grosjean
issues the amended screening order.

The Magistrate Judge has screened the Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint and finds that it states cognizable claims for excessive
force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants
Rodriguez, Cerveza and Doe, for failure to protect in violation of
the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Doe, and for retaliation in
violation of the First Amendment against defendants Rodriguez and
Doe.  She also finds that the Second Amended Complaint states no
other cognizable claims.

The Magistrate will not permit further leave to amend.  It is the
Plaintiff's third complaint, and the Court has given him ample
legal guidance.  Additionally, the Plaintiff's original complaint
and Second Amended Complaint contain substantially the same
underlying facts.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge ordered that this action proceed
on the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Rodriguez, Cerveza,
and Doe for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment,
against Defendant Doe for failure to protect in violation of the
Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Rodriguez and Doe for
retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.  All other claims
and the Defendants are dismissed.

The service of the Plaintiff's complaint which was filed on June
19, 2017, is appropriate for the following defendants: (i)
Correctional Officer Rodriguez; and (ii) Correctional Officer
Cerveza.

The instructions for completing and returning the service
documents remain unchanged.  The deadline for the Plaintiff to
complete and return the service documents remains unchanged.
Failure to complete and return the service documents within the
applicable time period may result in the dismissal of this action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2017 Amended Screening
Order is available at https://is.gd/e6GsDw from Leagle.com.

Jorge Corena, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CAMDEN COUNTY, NJ: Court Dismisses "Cunningham" Pro Se Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion dismissing, for failure to state a claim, the
Complaint in the case captioned DAVID CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff, v.
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendant, Civil Action No.
17-0257(JBS-AMD) (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff alleges that he was detained at the CCCF and remained in
the facility for the following two years.  He further alleges that
during this time he was forced to endure deplorable and inhuman
living conditions such as sleeping on the floor by the toilet,
being in a cell with four other inmates, living in a filthy living
area in which exposed me to the flesh eating bacteria known as
Mercer.  Plaintiff requests that the Court to add him as a class
member to the class action suit and to award him $1,250 in
damages.

The Court must sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.  This action is subject to sua sponte screening
for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) because
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.

The allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement at CCCF
would have been immediately apparent to Plaintiff at the time of
his detention; therefore, the statute of limitations for
Plaintiff's claims expired in 2010 at the latest, well before this
complaint was filed in 2017. Plaintiff has filed his lawsuit too
late.

Although the Court may toll, or extend, the statute of limitations
in the interests of justice, certain circumstances must be present
before it can do so. Tolling is not warranted in this case because
the state has not actively misled" Plaintiff as to the existence
of his cause of action, there are no extraordinary circumstances
that prevented Plaintiff from filing his claim, and there is
nothing to indicate Plaintiff filed his claim on time but in the
wrong forum.

The complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a
claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 6, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yccqdgo8from Leagle.com.

DAVID CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CARLSON RESTAURANTS: Judge Tosses $19.1-Mil. Wage-Hour Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Norris Bass, Esq. -- ebass@steptoe.com -- of Steptoe &
Johnson LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on September
21, 2017, a federal district judge rejected a $19.1 Million
proposed deal to end a nationwide wage-hour class action against
the TGI Friday's restaurant chain. In Zorrilla v. Carlson
Restaurants Inc., 14-cv-2740 (SDNY), a class of nearly 29,000
tipped workers in nine states alleged violations of the FLSA and
state wage-hour laws, including that the restaurant improperly
took a tip credit, required an unlawful tip pool, and failed to
pay spread-of-hours and uniform-related expenses.  After more than
four years of litigation, the parties reached perhaps the largest
wage-hour settlement for the restaurant industry and sought court
approval as required under the FLSA.

The court rejected the settlement agreement without prejudice to
renew based on two common wage-hour class action settlement
pitfalls: (1) confidentiality provisions, and (2) release and
waiver provisions.

The court first rejected the confidentiality provisions because
they could be construed to prevent employees and their counsel
from discussing the case publicly and the parties did not offer
"compelling justifications" for requiring confidentiality. As a
general rule, courts rarely approve wage-hour settlements with
confidentiality provisions.

The court then rejected the release and waiver provisions as
overly broad because they required plaintiffs to waive
"discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or hostile work
environment claims of any kind," which have "no relationship to
wage-and-hour issues."  The court required the parties to limit
the releases "to wage-and-hour claims relating to the existing
suit." Notably, not all courts impose such strict requirements on
releases in wage-hour settlements.

On September 28, 2017, plaintiffs filed a revised settlement
agreement and request for court approval.

According to the plaintiffs' motion for settlement approval, the
restaurant employed a Rule 68 pick-off strategy early on in the
litigation, offering between "$82,000.00 and $2,500.00" to more
than 23 proposed named plaintiffs.

Tip credits and tip pooling have proved hot topics for wage-hour
class action plaintiffs in recent years and can lead to
substantial liability.  Employers taking advantage of tip credits
should carefully scrub pay policies and practices to ensure
compliance, which at a minimum requires proper notice and
recordkeeping. [GN]


CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Approves Extension of Briefing Schedule
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order approving Joint Stipulation for
Extension of Briefing Schedule in the case captioned ROBERT CRAGO,
Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., and THE CHARLES SCHWAB
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-3938-RS (N.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, Lead Plaintiffs Robert Wolfson and
Frank Pino and Defendants Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., and The
Charles Schwab Corporation, by and through their counsel,
stipulated the new deadlines as follows:

   October 4, 2017: Opposition to motion to dismiss
   October 25, 2017: Reply in support of motion to dismiss
   November 13, 1017: Hearing on motion to dismiss

Lead Plaintiffs' deadline to file an opposition to Schwab's motion
will be October 4, 2017.

Schwab's deadline to file the reply in support of its motion will
be October 25, 2017.

The hearing on Schwab's motion to dismiss will be held on November
13, 2017, or another date as determined by the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 25, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yb928hblfrom Leagle.com.

Robert Crago, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Christopher McCall,
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP.

Robert Wolfson, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay -
- rprongay@glancylaw.com --  Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, David
Jay Stone, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., 885 3rd Ave Ste 3040
New York, NY 10022, Jeffrey H. Squire, Bragar Eagel & Squire,
P.C., 885 3rd Avenue, Suite 3040, New York, NY 10022, pro hac
vice, Joshua L. Crowell -- jcrowell@glancylaw.com  --  Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Lawrence Paul Eagel -- eagel@bespc.com --
Bragar Eagel and Squire, P.C., pro hac vice & Todd Harris
Henderson -- henderson@bespc.com -- Bragar Eagel and Squire, P.C.,
pro hac vice.

Frank Pino, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, David Jay Stone, Bragar Eagel &
Squire, P.C., Jeffrey H. Squire, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., pro
hac vice, Joshua L. Crowell, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lawrence
Paul Eagel, Bragar Eagel and Squire, P.C., pro hac vice & Todd
Harris Henderson, Bragar Eagel and Squire, P.C., pro hac vice.
K. Scott Posson, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua L. Crowell,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Gilbert Ross
Serota -- gilbert.serota@apks.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
LLP & Jee Young You, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

The Charles Schwab Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gilbert
Ross Serota, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP & Jee Young You,
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

Scott Posson, Movant, represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt, Levi
and Korsinsky & Adam Christopher McCall, Levi Korsinsky, LLP, 1101
30th St NW, Washington, DC, 20007-3708


CITIMORTGAGE INC: 9th Cir. Reversed Dismissal of "Kester" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terrence Berg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the case
captioned DAVID A. KESTER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; et
al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-15774 (9th Cir.) and
remanded for further proceedings.

Kester filed a putative class action suit alleging that
CitiMortgage and CR Title knowingly caused the recording of
invalid property documents in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat.
("A.R.S.") Section 33-420(A).  The district court granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Judge Berg finds that Kesler has standing to bring the action,
despite the fact that A.R.S. Section 33-411(C) provides that an
instrument affecting real property containing any defect, omission
or informality in the certificate of acknowledgment and which has
been recorded for longer than one year will be deemed to have been
lawfully recorded on and after the date of its recording.

The Judge concludes that the district court incorrectly held that
A.R.S. Section 33-420(A) requires Kester to allege "material"
invalidity in the trustee's sale documents.  Arizona caselaw does
not clearly resolve the question whether a plaintiff must allege
materiality to state any claim under A.R.S. Section 33-420(A),
rather than just for alleged "misstatements or false claims."

The Defendants and the district court relied on two Arizona
intermediate appellate cases, Sitton v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust
Co., and Stauffer v. Premier Service Mortgage, to argue that
materiality is a necessary element of all claims under A.R.S.
Section 33-420(A).  The Judge says those cases, however, interpret
only the statute's requirement that a "material misstatement or
false claim" gives rise to liability under A.R.S. Section 33-
420(A). They do not clearly hold that a plaintiff must plead
materiality to state a claim for recording of "forged,"
"groundless," or "otherwise invalid" documents.

Finally, even if Stauffer and Sitton did stand for the proposition
that materiality is an element of any and all claims under Section
33-420(A), the plain text and purpose of the statute constitute
"convincing evidence" that the Arizona Supreme Court would not
follow this broad reading of the word "material" in Section 33-
420(A).

Judge Berg further concludes that the district court erred in
concluding that any invalidity of the Assignment and Substitution
was cured "by operation of law" pursuant to the governing
recording statutes A.R.S. Section 33-411 and the Deed of Trust Act
A.R.S. Section 33-811(B).  The district court's reasoning
fundamentally misunderstands the significant distinction between a
cause of action for damages pursuant to A.R.S. Section 33-420(A),
and a cause of action to quiet title, which seeks a judicial
determination of title, rather than damages.  The recording
statutes and the Deed of Trust Act deal with the latter, by
protecting bona-fide third-party purchasers and essentially
quieting title as to such purchasers.  Neither provision precludes
a prior owner's cause of action under Section 33-420(A) for
recording irregularities that occurred prior to the sale.

For the reasons stated, Judge Berg reversed and remanded for
further proceedings consistent with his disposition.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 29, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/lOuyCC from Leagle.com.


COCA-COLA CO: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Enslin" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Shane E. Enslin filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Shane Enslin v. Coca Cola Co., et al., Case No.
2-14-cv-06476, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Shane Enslin
filed the complaint November 12, 2014, seeking damages under the
Drivers Piracy Protection Act for negligence, fraud, conspiracy
and other claims.  Enslin said he entrusted the soda giant with
his personal identifying and financial information.  Coke
allegedly sent Enslin a letter in February, alerting him to the
fact that his PII was "stored on or accessed from at least one of
the 55 laptops stolen sometime between January of 2007 and
December of 2013."  The breach on the company's largest bottler,
Coca-Cola Enterprises, compromised the PII of at least 74,000
current and former Coke employees, according to the complaint.

Mr. Enslin blames Coca-Cola for failing to properly encrypt such
PII, which the thieves used "to wreak havoc on the plaintiff's
life."  He said the thieves used his bank account to pay for more
than $958 worth of Bloomingdale's merchandise, delivered to Staten
Island.  They also allegedly had more than $825 of Fingerhut
merchandise shipped to that Staten Island address, which the
thieves tried to make the primary address for all of Enslin's
accounts, according to the complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Shane Enslin v. Coca Cola Co.,
et al., Case No. 17-3153, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SHANE E. ENSLIN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq.
          HAVILAND HUGHES
          111 South Independence Mall East
          The Bourse, Suite 1000
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 609-4661
          E-mail: haviland@havilandhughes.com

               - and -

          William H. Platt, II
          FLAMM WALTON
          4905 West Tilghman Street
          Suite 310, Westfield Corporate Center
          Allentown, PA 18104
          Telephone: (610) 336-6800
          E-mail: whplatt@flammlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees COCA COLA CO., COCA COLA REFRESHMENTS USA
INC., COCA COLA ENTERPRISES INC., KEYSTONE COCA COLA AND BOTTLING
AND DISTRIBUTION CORP., KEYSTONE COCA COLA BOTTLING CO., KEYSTONE
COCA COLA BOTTLING CO INC., and KEYSTONE COCA COLA BOTTLING CORP.
are represented by:

          Mark S. Melodia, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          136 Main Street
          Suite 250, Princeton Forrestal Village
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 987-0050
          E-mail: mmelodia@reedsmith.com


CONNECTICUT: Settlement in Inmates' Class Suit Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Connecticut, issued
an Order granting Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of
Settlement Agreement in the case captioned VALERIE WEST, ET AL.,
v. COMMISSIONER JOHN R. MANSON, ET AL., Civil No. 2:83-CV-366(RNC)
(D. Conn.).

The parties, including the plaintiff classes of women who are or
who in the future will be confined in Connecticut's correctional
institution for women, and the plaintiff class of children of
these women and the Defendant Commissioner of the Department of
Correction (DOC) jointly move for the final approval of the
Stipulation preliminarily approved by the Court.

The provisions of the Consent Judgment, approved and adopted on
January 9, 1989, resolve the existing disputes and issues in the
case between the plaintiffs, individually and those similarly
situated as present and future inmates confined at The Connecticut
Correctional Institution at Niantic (CCIN), and the defendants,
all of whom are officials and employees of the Connecticut
Department of Corrections, and Department of Children and Youth
Services.

Rule 23(e) requires court approval for a class action settlement
to insure that it is procedurally and substantively fair,
reasonable and adequate.

The Court finds that the parties have worked out a meaningful
agreement for defendant to contract/arrange for attorneys or
paralegals to conduct trainings and seminars on legal proceedings
and remedies in civil family court, and facilitate access to legal
self-help materials and forms on CTLawhelp.org that will benefit
all inmates regardless of gender. Moreover, the Settlement
Agreement preserved the provision of these services to female
inmates which were at risk of immediate termination.

On balance, the agreement is substantially fair in light of the
attendant risks and costs of further litigating this issue. At the
fairness hearing, all counsel moved for approval of the Settlement
Agreement. The Court finds that experienced and able counsel
reached a fair, adequate and reasonable compromise to the benefit
of all incarcerated individuals of both genders, while preserving
for the plaintiff classes those kinds of legal assistance for
which the most interest and need has been demonstrated during the
operation of the consent decree.

Accordingly, the Court approves the parties' Settlement Agreement.

The parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
Agreement is granted. Defendants' Motion to Immediately Terminate
Prospective Injunctive Relief Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section3626(b)(2) as to Section IX, Paragraph 2 of the 1989
Consent Judgment is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycr72z85from Leagle.com.

Valerie West, Plaintiff, represented by Lynn B. Cochrane, Greater
Hartford Legal Aid, 999 Asylum Ave Fl 3, Hartford, CT, 06105-2431

Valerie West, Plaintiff, represented by Toya Alek Graham, Toya
Alek Graham, 30 Mystic StArlington, MA 02174-1155, Alexis S.
Gettier -- agettier@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney LLP, Dan Barrett,
American Civil Liberties Union, Giovanna E. Shay, Greater Hartford
Legal Aid & Linda Allard, Greater Hartford Legal Aid, 999 Asylum
Ave Fl 3, Hartford, CT, 06105-2431.

Passion Rayne West, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Barrett,
American Civil Liberties Union, Lynn B. Cochrane, Greater Hartford
Legal Aid, Toya Alek Graham, Toya Alek Graham & Alexis S. Gettier,
Day Pitney LLP-Stmfd.

Victoria Bellavita, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Barrett,
American Civil Liberties Union, Lynn B. Cochrane, Greater Hartford
Legal Aid, Toya Alek Graham, Toya Alek Graham & Alexis S. Gettier,
Day Pitney LLP.

Joann Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Barrett, American
Civil Liberties Union, Lynn B. Cochrane, Greater Hartford Legal
Aid, Toya Alek Graham, Toya Alek Graham & Alexis S. Gettier, Day
Pitney LLP.

Donnielle Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Barrett, American
Civil Liberties Union, Lynn B. Cochrane, Greater Hartford Legal
Aid, Toya Alek Graham, Toya Alek Graham & Alexis S. Gettier, Day
Pitney LLP.

Linda Shelton, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Barrett, American
Civil Liberties Union, Lynn B. Cochrane, Greater Hartford Legal
Aid, Toya Alek Graham, Toya Alek Graham & Alexis S. Gettier, Day
Pitney LLP.

John R. Manson, Defendant, represented by Steven R. Strom, Office
of the Attorney General.

Marie Cerino, Defendant, represented by Steven R. Strom, Office of
the Attorney General.

Comm., DCYS Mark Marcus, Defendant, represented by Steven R.
Strom, Office of the Attorney General.

James A. Harnage, Movant, Pro Se.


CONVERGYS CORP: Texas Employers Can Enforce Class Action Waivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Keith Clouse of Dallas Employment Lawyer on Oct. 4
disclosed that employers may require employees to sign class
action waivers as a condition of employment, and the Fifth Circuit
has made it clear that such waivers will be enforceable against
employees -- preventing them from litigating disputes as a class
or collective action. Convergys Corp. v. National Labor Relations
Board, No. 15-60860 (5th Cir. Aug. 07, 2017), available at
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1869998.html

This ruling is good news for Texas employers because defending
class action lawsuits often results in costly legal fees and the
potential for large verdicts against the company.  Utilizing class
action waivers, either as part of an arbitration agreement or an
employment contract, forces employees to bring any disputes with
the company as individual claims -- saving both time and money for
employers.

However, this employer protection may not last for long -- there
is currently a split among circuit courts regarding whether such
waivers are valid and enforceable in the employment context.  The
United States Supreme Court is expected to address the issue this
term with the three consolidated class action waiver cases which
are currently pending before the Court.

The circuit court split is the result of varying interpretations
of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) which,
"guarantees employees the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection."  Additionally,
Section 8 of the NLRA makes it an "unfair labor practice" for an
employer to "interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7."

In the Convergys Corp. case, the National Labor Relations Board
argued that class action waivers are unenforceable because they
violate an employee's rights under Section 7 of the NLRA to
"engage in other concerted activities."  However, the Fifth
Circuit ultimately rejected this argument and reiterated its view
that the NLRA does not give employees any substantive right to
bring class actions suits; rather, the right to bring suit as a
class action is procedural.  This distinction between what the
court classifies as a substantive vs. a procedural right is
important because substantive rights cannot be waived, while
procedural rights may be waived.

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are set to begin in
October.  However, until a decision is reached by the Court,
employers in Texas will remain protected from class action suits
by employees who have signed such waivers as part of their
employment agreement. [GN]


COOPER CITY, FL: "Joliff" Final Judgment Flipped in City's Favor
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CITY OF COOPER CITY, Appellant, v. WALTER S.
JOLIFF, BARBARA JOLIFF and BRENDA J. KEZAR, Appellees, Case No.
4D16-2504 (Fla. Dist. App.), Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz of the
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, reversed the
circuit court's final judgment and remanded for entry of judgment
in favor of Cooper City.

In 1999, Cooper City passed Ordinance 99-7-1, levying a special
assessment for Fire Rescue Services.  The ordinance defined "Fire
Rescue Services" as "Emergency Medical Services and Rescue
Services."

Three years later, in City of North Lauderdale v. SMM Properties,
Inc., the Florida state Supreme Court held that emergency medical
services do not provide a "special benefit" to property and,
therefore, cannot be the basis for a special assessment.  In
accordance with that decision, Cooper City amended the ordinance,
removing the term "emergency medical services" from the definition
of "Fire Rescue Services."  Thereafter, for 2006, 2007, 2008, and
2009, Cooper City passed annual resolutions implementing the
special assessment without emergency medical services as an item
for which the property owner was being assessed.

In 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a two-count putative class action
lawsuit against Cooper City.  Count I sought damages for
assessments collected for the years 2006 through the present; and
Count II sought a declaratory judgment determining the Fire
Protection Assessment set forth in the Ordinance lacks foundation
and thus is improperly apportioned.

The circuit court granted a motion to certify the putative class
and certified the class as any and all record title owners of
residential real property located within Cooper City subject to
the Cooper City Fire Rescue Assessment, who paid the Cooper City
Fire Rescue Assessment for the fiscal tax years commencing Oct. 1,
2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.  The court affirmed the court's class-
certification order.

After the court affirmed the certification order, the Plaintiffs
renewed a previously-filed motion for summary judgment.  Cooper
City filed its own motion for summary judgment, asking the circuit
court to decide whether a 21-day deadline contained in the
ordinance barred the Plaintiffs' claims.

The Plaintiffs argued the 21-day deadline in this provision was
inapplicable; that rather, the four-year statute of limitations in
section 95.11, Florida Statutes (2011), controlled the time within
which they were required to file their complaint.  Therefore, they
asserted that even if the claims were voidable, the majority of
their claims were timely filed.

The court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment,
denied Cooper City's motion, and found the special assessments
void.

Importantly, the Plaintiffs then moved to voluntarily dismiss
Count I and to amend Count II, seeking supplemental relief for the
second count.  The court granted the motion, and then entered
final judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs.

Cooper City appealed, asking that this Court reverses the judgment
in favor of the Plaintiffs and enter judgment in its favor or,
alternatively, reverse the summary judgment for further
proceedings.

Both parties twice confirmed at oral argument that the sole issue
remaining in this case is the apportionment of Cooper City's
special assessment.  Judge Kuntz disagrees with the circuit court
that the special assessment is void and, therefore, the 21-day
deadline to challenge it is inapplicable.  The Plaintiffs limited
their challenge to Cooper City's apportionment of the special
assessment and the improper apportionment of a special assessment
renders it voidable.  As a result of the special assessment being
voidable, rather than void, the deadline to challenge the special
assessment applied.  Having failed to do so, Judge Kuntz concludes
that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to judgment in their favor.
Cooper City was.  Accordingly, he reversed the circuit court's
judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Cooper
City.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 27, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/m0yHtG from Leagle.com.

Edward G. Guedes -- eguedes@wsh-law.com -- and Adam A.
Schwartzbaum -- aschwartzbaum@wsh-law.com -- of Weiss Serota
Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., Coral Gables, Jamie A. Cole --
jcole@wsh-law.com -- and Matthew H. Mandel -- mmandel@wsh-law.com
-- of Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., Fort Lauderdale,
for appellant.

Christopher J. Lynch of Christopher J. Lynch, P.A., Coral Gables,
and David Frankel, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Espinoza" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beverly B. Martin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the
case captioned JORGE E ESPINOZA, SILVIA ESPINOZA, individually and
on behalf of a class similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Counter
Defendants-Appellants, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,
other, BAC home Loans Servicing, L.P., MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., FANNIE MAE,
Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees, Case No. 14-13933 (11th
Cir.).

The Espinozas obtained a loan from Amerimortgage Bankers, LLC, to
purchase a home in Miami-Dade County.  Their promissory note
required them to repay the loan, in monthly installments, by Sept.
1, 2035.  To secure the note, they executed a mortgage on their
property, which Amerimortgage later assigned to Countrywide.  The
mortgage contained an optional acceleration clause allowing the
holder to accelerate all amounts due and foreclose in the event of
a default.

The Espinozas defaulted on their payments on Aug. 1, 2008.  On
that day, Countrywide notified the Espinozas of its intent to
trigger the acceleration clause unless the Espinozas cured their
default by Oct. 16, 2008.  The Espinozas failed to cure, and
Countrywide filed a foreclosure complaint in state court on March
26, 2009.  The foreclosure action was dismissed without prejudice
on Sept. 13, 2013, due to Countrywide's failure to produce loan
documents.  The Espinozas remained in their home, where they
continue to reside today.

In January 2014, the Espinozas filed a class action suit to quiet
title against Countrywide, Amerimortgage, Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc., and the Federal National Mortgage
Association ("Countrywide") in state court.  They argued that
Countrywide could not foreclose on their property because its 2008
notice of intent to foreclose had triggered Florida's five-year
statute of limitations for such actions; they sought declaratory
and injunctive relief nullifying the note and mortgage, expunging
the lien from their property's title, and preventing Countrywide
from collecting on payments more than five years old or reporting
the Espinozas' default to credit agencies.  They also sought to
quiet title.  Countrywide removed the case to the district court
and moved to dismiss.

The district dismissed the Espinozas' second amended complaint
with prejudice.  The Espinozas timely appealed.  After they filed
their initial brief, this Court stayed their appeal pending the
Supreme Court of Florida's resolution of Bartram v. U.S. Bank
National Ass'n.  After Bartram was decided, the Court lifted the
stay and ordered Countrywide to file a response brief.  The
Espinozas' counsel moved to withdraw, and the Court granted their
motion.

The Espinozas argue that the statute of limitations began running
as to the entirety of the loan -- and so bars Countrywide from
foreclosing now -- on either Aug. 1, 2008, the date Countrywide
notified them that it would foreclose if they did not cure their
default, or March 23, 2009, the date it filed its first
foreclosure action.  They concede, however, that despite the fact
that Countrywide threatened to trigger the acceleration clause in
its notification, it did not actually do so until it filed its
foreclosure complaint.

In Bartram, the Supreme Court of Florida said that the statute of
limitations on the balance under the note and mortgage does not
continue to run after an involuntary dismissal of a foreclosure
action, and thus the mortgagee is not barred by the statute of
limitations from filing a successive foreclosure action premised
on a separate and distinct default.  Rather, after the dismissal,
the parties are simply placed back in the same contractual
relationship as before, where the residential mortgage remained an
installment loan, and the acceleration of the residential mortgage
declared in the unsuccessful foreclosure action is revoked.  Thus,
under Florida law, a mortgage-lender's acceleration of a loan is
not effective before final judgment in favor of the mortgagee-
lender in a foreclosure action.

Applying Bartram to the facts of this case, Judge Martin concludes
that neither Countrywide's notice of intent to foreclose nor its
prior foreclosure action that was dismissed without prejudice
triggered the statute of limitations, as neither resulted in a
foreclosure judgment in Countrywide's favor.  As such, the
district court properly dismissed the Espinozas' complaint.
Accordingly, Judge Martin affirmed the district court's dismissal
of Espinozas' complaint.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's Sept. 26, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/nzJy0Q from Leagle.com.

Dora Faye Kaufman -- dfk@lgplaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

James Randolph Liebler -- jrlii@lgplaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

John H. Ruiz, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Karen Jill Barnet-Backer, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Douglas E. Winter, for Defendant-Appellee.

Joshua Robert Levine -- jrlevine@bakerdonelson.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Jennifer A. Jackson -- jjackson@bryancave.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Alejandro Raul Alvarez -- intake@integrityforjustice.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Phillip Edward Holden, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jed P. White -- jed.white@bryancave.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Robert Edward Boone, III -- reboone@bryancave.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


DELAWARE: Medicaid Loosens Up Hepatitis C Treatment Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Andrews, writing for WABE, reports that Valerie Green is
still waiting to be cured.

The Delaware resident was diagnosed with hepatitis C more than two
years ago, but she doesn't qualify yet for the Medicaid program's
criteria for treatment with a new class of highly effective but
pricey drugs.

The recent approval of a less expensive drug that generally cures
hepatitis C in just eight weeks may make it easier for more
insurers and correctional facilities to expand treatment.

The drug, Mavyret, is the first to be approved by the Food and
Drug Administration that can cure all six genetic types of
hepatitis C in about two months in patients who haven't previously
been treated.  Other approved drugs generally require 12 weeks to
treat the disease and often aren't effective for all types of
hepatitis C.

In addition, Mavyret's price tag of $26,400 for a course of
treatment is significantly below that of other hepatitis C drugs
whose sticker price ranges from about $55,000 to $95,000 to beat
the disease. Patients and insurers often pay less, however,
through negotiated insurance discounts and rebates.

"It certainly stands to reason that the continual march downward
on cost would lead to continual opening up of criteria," says Matt
Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid
Directors.

Hepatitis C is a viral liver infection spread through blood that
affects an estimated 3.5 million people in the United States.  It
can take years to cause problems. Many baby boomers who contracted
it decades ago before blood was screened for the virus don't
realize they have it until they develop liver disease.  In
addition, the growing heroin epidemic is adding to the problem as
people become infected by sharing contaminated needles.

"Direct-acting antiviral" therapies like Harvoni, a once-a-day
pill introduced in 2014 that generally cured hepatitis C in 12
weeks, are much more effective than earlier treatments that
required weekly interferon injections and multiple daily pills for
nearly a year.  But the newer regimens came at a price: $94,500,
in Harvoni's case.

State Medicaid programs, which cover a high proportion of people
with hepatitis C, balked at the high prices, even with the 23
percent drug discount the programs typically receive.  Many threw
up roadblocks to limit drug approval until the disease was
advanced. Some required people to be drug- and alcohol-free for
six months or more before treatment would be approved.

Those moves prompted advocates to push for better access, in some
cases filing suit to force the programs to cover more people.

Faced with a lawsuit in Delaware, the state Medicaid program began
loosening up treatment criteria this year, and in January
will begin approving enrollees regardless of the severity of their
disease.

The state joins more than a dozen others that no longer (or never
did) restrict hepatitis C treatment based on disease severity,
says Kevin Costello, director of litigation at Harvard Law
School's Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, which has
been a key player in litigation in Delaware and other states.

It can't happen soon enough, says Green.  She is 58 and believes
she contracted the disease 31 years ago when she suffered
complications during childbirth and required a blood transfusion.
Although her liver isn't damaged, Green says, she has suffered
with abdominal and joint pain, weight loss and fatigue for decades
-- all symptoms her doctors attribute to the hepatitis C virus.

"It's been a difficult fight for us Medicaid patients," she says.

People who are incarcerated face an even tougher battle to get
treatment for hepatitis C.  A recent study of state prisoners
suggested that roughly 17 percent of prisoners are infected with
hepatitis C, compared with about 1 percent of the general
population.

Prisons have a duty not to be deliberately indifferent to the
medical needs of incarcerated people.  Prisons don't get the price
discounts that the Medicaid programs have, and their budgets are
fixed.

"Administrators have to make do with what is there," says
Dr. Anne Spaulding, an epidemiologist and associate professor at
Emory University's public health school, who has worked as a
medical director in corrections and published research on
hepatitis C among prisoners.

Lawyers in a handful of states are pursuing class action lawsuits
to force prisons to provide hepatitis C treatment.  Mavyret may
make a difference, says David Rudovsky, a civil rights lawyer
who's litigating a class action lawsuit against the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections.

"Everyone recognizes that it's going to make it easier to cover
people," he says.

Coverage for drugs that treat hepatitis C is typically less
problematic for people who have private insurance (though some
obstacles remain).  For example, Mavyret is one of seven hepatitis
C drugs that are included in the 2018 national preferred formulary
by Express Scripts, which manages the pharmacy benefits for 83
million people.

"The benefit to patients and payers is the additional competition,
which brings down costs across the class, thus resulting in
greater access and affordability," says Jennifer Luddy, director
of corporate communications at Express Scripts. [GN]


DEUTSCHE BANK: Seeks Review of Class Cert. Order in "Moreno" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp., et al., filed an
appeal from the District Court's class certification order entered
in the lawsuit entitled RAMON MORENO, DONALD O'HALLORAN, OMKHARAN
ARASARATNAM, BAIJU GAJJAR, and RAJATH NAGARAJA, individually, as
representatives of a class, and on behalf of the Deutsche Bank
Matched Savings Plan v. DEUTSCHE BANK AMERICAS HOLDING CORP.,
DEUTSCHE BANK MATCHED SAVINGS PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, DEUTSCHE
BANK AMERICAS HOLDING CORP. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, RICHARD
O'CONNELL, JOHN ARVANITIS, ROBERT DIBBLE, TIM DOWLING, RICHARD
FERGUSON, JAMES GNALL, LOUIS JAFFE, PATRICK MCKENNA, DAVID
PEARSON, JOSEPH RICE, SCOTT SIMON, ANDREW THREADGOLD, and JAMES
VOLKWEIN, Case No. 1:15-cv-09936-LGS, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon.
Lorna G. Schofield granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class with respect to their claims asserted on behalf of the
Deutsche Bank Matched Savings Plan.

The Plan is a defined contribution plan, or 401(k) plan, for
eligible employees of Defendant Deutsche Bank Americas Holding
Corp. ("DBAHC") and its affiliates.  It entitles eligible
employees to contribute a certain portion of their earnings into
individual investment accounts.  The Plaintiffs are five current
or former participants in the Plan.

The Third Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants mismanaged
the Plan by favoring high-cost proprietary funds to benefit
Defendants at the expense of participants.  Citing the report
prepared by their proposed expert, Dr. Steven Pomerantz, which was
filed in support of the motion, the Plaintiffs contend that three
of the 10 proprietary funds offered by the Plan were passive
"index" funds that consistently charged higher fees than non-
proprietary funds that tracked the same index.

The appellate case is captioned as RAMON MORENO, et al. v.
DEUTSCHE BANK AMERICAS HOLDING CORP., et al., in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The two questions presented to the Second Circuit are:

   1. In light of the Supreme Court's decision that a 401(k) plan
      participant can bring an individual action to recover for
      alleged harm to her individual investment account, LaRue v.
      DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc., 552 U.S. 248, 256 (2008),
      may a class of 401(k) plan participants seeking monetary
      relief based on alleged harm to their individual investment
      accounts be certified under Rule 23(b)(1) without a showing
      that "individual adjudications would be impossible or
      unworkable." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338,
      361 (2011)?

   2. Does a class of "all participants" "whose individual
      accounts suffered losses as a result of the conduct alleged
      in Counts One through Four of the Third Amended Complaint"
      fail Rule 23's ascertainability requirement or create an
      impermissible fail-safe class where (a) the definition
      contains no objective criteria that establishes a
      membership with definite boundaries and instead simply
      incorporates by reference ten pages of allegations in the
      complaint, and (b) the Plaintiffs' failure to meet their
      burden of proving loss causation -- an element of an ERISA
      claim -- would prevent an adverse judgment from binding
      absent class members?[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Carl Engstrom, Esq.
          Jacob Schutz, Esq.
          Kai Heinrich Richter, Esq.
          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Michele Renee Fisher, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3233
          E-mail: cengstrom@nka.com
                  jschutz@nka.com
                  krichter@nka.com
                  lukas@nka.com
                  fisher@nka.com

The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:

          James O. Fleckner, Esq.
          Alison V. Douglass, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          100 Northern Avenue
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 570-1000
          Facsimile: (671) 523-1231
          E-mail: jfleckner@goodwinprocter.com
                  adouglass@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Strassberg, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          The New York Times Building
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 813-8800
          Facsimile: (212) 355-3333
          E-mail: rstrassberg@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          Jaime A. Santos, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          901 New York Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 346-4000
          Facsimile: (202) 346-4444
          E-mail: jsantos@goodwinlaw.com


DODEKA LLC: Ohio App. Flips Summary Judgment in "Keith"
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Portage County,
issued an Order reversing the Judgment of the District Court
granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned DODEKA, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CINDY KEITH,
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, RICHARD J. WELT, Third
Party Defendant-Appellee, No. 2016-P-0043 (Ohio App.).

Cindy Keith appeals two decisions granting summary judgment
against her on her counterclaims and third-party complaint.

In September 1991, appellant was married to Andrew Keith.  At that
time, Andrew submitted an application to U.S. Bank for a credit
card.  After receiving the card, Andrew continued to use it
throughout the next eleven years.  During that time frame,
appellant's name appeared on the various account statements that
were mailed to the Keith residence.

In 2000, the Keiths were divorced pursuant to a judicial decree.
As part of the distribution of the marital property, Andrew was
held solely responsible for any debt under U.S. Bank card.
However, no steps were ever taken to remove appellant's name from
the account, and the account statements mailed to Andrew at his
separate address continued to have her name on them.

In November 2007, U.S. Bank's interest in the Keith account was
sold to Dodeka, LLC.  Accordingly, that entity sought recovery on
the outstanding balance, $10,964.56.  Within one year of the
transfer, Dodeka filed an action for money damages against
appellant in the Portage County Municipal Court.

After a ten-month delay, appellant answered the complaint and
asserted multiple counterclaims against Dodeka.  She also filed a
third-party complaint against Dodeka's original counsel, Attorney
Richard J. Welt, advancing the same claims against him as were
raised in the counterclaims against Dodeka.  Appellant alleged
that Dodeka and Welt violated both the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act
in three respects: (1) by seeking attorney fees when Ohio law does
not allow the recovery of such fees in a consumer debt collection
case; (2) by asserting a claim that is barred under the statute of
limitations; and (3) by basing that claim upon fraudulent
documentation.  In addition, she maintained that her counterclaims
should go forward as a class action.

After appellant's summary judgment motion was pending for nearly
fifteen months, Dodeka moved for summary judgment on all of her
counterclaims.

After Dodeka also filed a response to the show cause judgment, the
trial court issued a separate entry that granted summary judgment
in favor of appellant as to Dodeka's account complaint and summary
judgment in favor of Dodeka in regard to all of appellant's
counterclaims.

As to appellant's attorney fees counterclaim, the court concluded
that because the choice of law provision in the July 2002 amended
credit card agreement was enforceable against appellant, Dodeka
was permitted under North Dakota law to request attorney fees as
part of its relief under its account claim.

Approximately one month later, Attorney Welt filed a motion for
summary judgment on appellant's third-party complaint asserting
many of the same arguments as Dodeka's. Appellant responded and
the trial court issued a second entry granting Attorney Welt's
motion and dismissing appellant's third-party complaint against
him. This ruling was based upon the same analysis followed in
granting summary judgment in favor of Dodeka.

In appealing the summary judgment ruling in favor of Dodeka and
Welt, appellant asserts that the trial court committed prejudicial
error in granting summary judgment. Appellant contends the trial
court erred in concluding that North Dakota law rather than Ohio
governs the attorney fee issue in light of the choice-of-law
provision.

In granting summary judgment against appellant as to her attorney
fee counterclaim, the trial court predicated its entire analysis
upon its conclusion that North Dakota law was controlling as to
whether Dodeka and Attorney Welt could request such fees in
Dodeka's complaint. Yet, in order for North Dakota law to apply,
the trial court had to first find that appellant was a party to
the credit card agreement. Not only did the trial court fail to
make the necessary determination, but Dodeka had not even moved
for summary judgment on the crucial issue.

Therefore, the trial court's summary judgment analysis as to the
attorney fee counterclaims is flawed.

Besides her attorney fee counterclaims, appellant raised
counterclaims alleging that Dodeka and Attorney Welt violated
consumer protection laws by asserting a claim that was barred
under the applicable statute of limitations and was based upon
fraudulent documentation.

In moving for summary judgment, Dodeka and Attorney Welt presented
separate arguments on these counterclaims. In dismissing all of
appellant's counterclaims and third-party complaint, the trial
court did not address the merits of the counterclaims themselves
or the parties' arguments regarding them.

Thus, the granting of summary judgment was also inappropriate as
to the other two counterclaims.

Since the trial court did not engage in the necessary analysis to
determine whether the choice-of-law provision in the credit card
agreement is enforceable against appellant, Dodeka and Attorney
Welt were not entitled to prevail on the attorney fee
counterclaims as a matter of law. As summary judgment should not
have been granted, appellant's sole assignment has merit. The
judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas is reversed,
and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.

A full-text copy of the Ohio App.'s September 5, 2017 Opinion is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y7p458m8from Leagle.com.

Ralph C. Megargel, Megargel & Eskridge Co., LPA, 231 South
Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Anand N. Misra, The Misra Law Firm, L.L.C., 3659 Green Road, #100,
Beachwood, OH 44122 and Robert S. Belovich, 9200 South Hills
Boulevard, Suite 320, Broadview Heights, OH 44147 (For
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant).

Lawrence G. Reinhold -- lreinhold1@neo.rr.com -- Jewish Family
Services of Akron, 525 Rocky Hollow Drive, Akron, OH 44313-5945
(For Third Party Defendant-Appellee).


DR HORTON: Court Denies Move to Compel Mediation Attendance
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Attendance at
Mediation in the case captioned AZURE MANOR/RANCHO DE PAZ
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff(s), v. D.R. HORTON, INC.,
Defendant(s), Case No. 2:14-cv-02222-JCM-NJK (D. Nev.).

Plaintiff Azure Manor Community's Homeowner's Association brings
suit in the instant case on behalf of the homeowners for alleged
construction defects.  Defendant constructed 103 of the 202 homes
in the community.

Nevada Revised Statute (N.R.S.) requires a plaintiff in a
construction defect claim to provide the defendant with the
opportunity to inspect the alleged defect and determine if the
defendant will repair the damage or proceed with litigation.

In the parties' attempts to schedule and conduct the N.R.S.
Section 40.680 mediation, Defendant requested the presence of each
of the homeowners of the 64 homes it inspected to attend the
mediation in the stead of the HOA representative.  Plaintiff,
nonetheless, scheduled a mediation without the presence of the
homeowners, knowing Defendant would not participate.

Plaintiff has standing to sue and therefore possesses full
settlement authority.

A named plaintiff in a class action has the authority to decide
matters of litigation strategy on behalf of the class throughout
the life of an action.  Pre-litigation attempts to resolve a
matter include the decision to settle through methods of
alternative dispute resolution such as mediation, settlement
conferences, and early neutral evaluations.  Courts may grant
conditional class certification prior to issuing a final
determination on the merits, under the appropriate circumstances.

By granting conditional class certification, the Court found that
Plaintiff has standing to sue and to dictate the litigation
strategy, as well as the required full authority to reach a
settlement on behalf of the homeowners.

Therefore, the Court finds that the individual homeowners are not
required to be present at the mediation.

Plaintiff has the required full settlement authority to
participate in a mediation on behalf of the homeowners.  Defendant
told Plaintiff on three separate occasions it would not
participate in the mediation unless all the homeowners were
present  Instead of filing a motion with the Court to ensure
Defendant's required attendance, Plaintiff finalized the timing of
the mediation, attended the mediation, and submits that the
mediation as conducted is complete and sufficient.  Although two
subcontractors participated in the mediation, Defendant, did not.
Therefore, the Court finds that the N.R.S. Section 40.680
mediation has not yet occurred.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 25, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yb9klq9f
from Leagle.com.

Azure Manor/Rancho de Paz Homeowners Association, Plaintiff,
represented by Anna Mirijanian --annamirijanian@yahoo.com --
Angius & Terry, LLP.

Azure Manor/Rancho de Paz Homeowners Association, Plaintiff,
represented by Bradley Epstein, Angius & Terry LLP, Paul P. Terry,
Jr., Angius & Terry LLP, Scott P. Kelsey, Angius & Terry LLP &
David Bray, Angius & Terry LLP,  1451 River Park Drive, Suite 285,
Sacramento, CA 95815

D.R. Horton, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley Alexandria
Balducci -- abalducci@wshblaw.com -- Wood Smith Henning & Berman
LLP, Elisa Wyatt -- ewyatt@wshblaw.com -- Wood, Smith, Henning &
Berman LLP, Joel D. Odou -- jodou@wshblaw.com -- Wood Smith
Henning & Berman LLP & Anthony S. Wong -- awong@wshblaw.com --
Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman.


DRAFTKINGS: Court Dismisses Ex-Football Players' Copyright Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Beckett, writing for Casino.org, reports that DFS giants
DraftKings and FanDuel have won a class action lawsuit, brought by
a group of college football players, that posed a potential
existential threat to their business model.

Former northern Illinois University football players Akeem
Daniels, Cameron Stingily and Nicholas Stoner claimed in their
filing that the sites had used their names and images unlawfully.
They brought the case on behalf of all football players in
America.

At the time of the lawsuit appeared, in 2016, both sites offered
contests on college football and basketball, although they
subsequently ceased to do so as part of an agreement with the NCAA
later that year.

On Sept. 29 the suit was dismissed by the US District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, which ruled that the use of
football players' names and images was legal under Indiana law due
to allowable exemptions based on the newsworthiness and public
interest of the plaintiffs.
Defining 'Newsworthy'

According to the law, a "person may not use an aspect of a
personality's right of publicity for a commercial purpose during
the personality's lifetime or for one hundred (100) years after
the date of the personality's death without having obtained
previous written consent . . ." The term "right of publicity"
includes an individual's name and likeness.

But FanDuel and DraftKings argued their usage was exempt from the
general prohibitions of the Indiana statute, that it was protected
under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and that
copyright laws protected them from liability.

It was the first time the court had had to define "newsworthiness"
in relation to a copyright case and it chose to define it broadly.
It accepted that the notion of newsworthy extended beyond the
dissemination of current affairs and into the realms of data and
entertainment.

Thus, the achievements of athletes are considered to be
"newsworthy" because they are closely followed by a large segment
of the public.

Close Call

The court concluded that DraftKings and FanDuel could be seen as
"reference sources" for those consuming sports in general.

"The Court acknowledges that this is a close call," wrote the
judge.  "But given Indiana's interpretive preference to read
statutes in a manner that avoids constitutional issues, as well as
other Circuits' reasoning on similar issues, the Court concludes
that Defendants' materials constitute 'reporting.'"
Neither DraftKings nor FanDuel offered have comment on the courts'
decision but they're likely breathing a sigh of relief. [GN]


EDEGREEADVISOR LLC: Court Dismisses "Priester" TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ROOSEVELT
PRIESTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EDEGREEADVISOR, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:15-cv-04218-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

Presently before the court is Defendant's motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint (FAC) under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff Roosevelt Priester alleges in this putative class action
that Defendant eDegreeAdvisor, LLC, violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  Plaintiff alleges Defendant
"provides online and campus-based colleges and universities with
highly engaged leads of consumers of have express an interest to
enroll."  Plaintiffs alleges Defendant contacted him on his
cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit Defendant's services.
According to Plaintiff, these calls were made using an automatic
telephone dialing system, were perhaps obviously not for emergency
purposes, were made to a telephone number for which Plaintiff
incurs a charge for incoming calls, and were made without prior
express consent.

Defendant argues the Complaint fails to state a violation of the
TCPA because it does not plausibly establish Defendant made calls
to Plaintiff using an "automated telephone dialing system, or
ATDS."

Defendant's purported use of an ATDS when calling Plaintiff is
only addressed once in the FAC. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
used an automatic telephone dialing system, as defined by 47
U.S.C. Section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to
solicit its services. That statement is a classic conclusory
allegation.

Plaintiff argues the court can infer that Defendant utilized an
ATDS from other allegations in the FAC. To that end, Plaintiff
notes the allegation that Defendant persistently continued to call
after Plaintiff told Defendant to stop and revoked any consent
provides sufficient indirect or contextual facts to support
Plaintiff's allegation that called were placed using an ATDS. The
court is not persuaded.

The problem for Plaintiff is that his sparse factual allegations
are insufficient to plausibly suggest, even indirectly, that
Defendant used an ATDS when it called him. The simple facts that
calls were numerous,  or that Plaintiff received calls after
revoking consent, do not separately or jointly make it any more
likely that Defendant used an ATDS; indeed, it is just as
plausible to infer those calls were placed manually. And there are
no other allegations relevant to this issue in the FAC.

For example, Plaintiff does not allege anything about the specific
content of the calls he received or explain how that content
demonstrates the use of an ATDS. Plaintiff does reference
information from a certain website in his opposition, but those
allegations are nowhere in the FAC, and the court cannot consider
them in support of the FAC's plausibility.

In sum, the court finds the FAC fails to plausibly allege
Defendant's use of an ATDS. Because the causes of action fail on
an essential element of a claim under the TCPA, the FAC must be
dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 25, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybnvudle
from Leagle.com.

Roosevelt Priester, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian R. Bacon, Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., 21550 Oxnard St Ste 780.
Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7104

Roosevelt Priester, Plaintiff, represented by Suren Naradha
Weerasuriya, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., Adrian R.
Bacon, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. & Todd Michael
Friedman --tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C., 21550 Oxnard St Ste 780. Woodland Hills, CA 91367-
7104

eDegreeAdvisor, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark Ewell Ellis,
Ellis Law Group, LLP, 740 University Ave Ste 100. Sacramento, CA
95825


EQUIFAX INC: Ignored Known Flaws in Security, Alexander Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ALEXANDER and RODNEY WILLIAMS, (Missouri) consumers,
individually and on behalf of all others v. EQUIFAX INC., Case No.
4:17-cv-00788-DW (W.D. Mo., September 20, 2017), accuses the
Defendant of failing to implement adequate security measures to
safeguard consumers' data and ignoring known weaknesses in its
data security, including its information systems.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax advised the general public that
information that it collected on behalf of over 143 million
consumers was the subject of a data breach, in which unauthorized
individuals accessed the personal and credit information of those
individuals.

Equifax Inc. is a multi-billion dollar Georgia corporation that
provides credit information services to millions of businesses,
governmental units, and consumers across the globe.  Equifax
operates through various subsidiaries, including Equifax
Information Services, LLC, and Equifax Consumer Services, LLC aka
Equifax Personal Solutions aka PSOL.  Equifax is one of the major
credit reporting agencies in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nimrod T. Chapel, Jr., Esq.
          THE CHAPEL LAW GROUP, LLC
          219 E. Dunklin, Suite A
          Jefferson City, MO 65101
          Telephone: (573) 634-8884
          Facsimile: (573) 635-6291
          E-mail: nimrod@chapellaw.com

               - and -

          Jason O. Barnes, Esq.
          BARNES AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
          219 E. Dunklin, Suite A
          Jefferson City, MO 65101
          Telephone: (573) 634-8884
          Facsimile: (573) 635-6291
          E-mail: jaybarnes5@gmail.com


EQUIFAX INC: Partridge Sues Over Failure to Secure Consumers' PII
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BARRON PARTRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all other
residents of the State of Alabama similarly situated v. EQUIFAX,
INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00423-WS-B (S.D. Ala., September 20, 2017),
is brought against Equifax for its alleged failure to secure and
safeguard consumers' personally identifiable information, which
Equifax collected from various sources in connection with the
operation of its business as a consumer credit reporting agency.

Equifax, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Delaware with its principal place of business located in
Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax is one of three nationwide credit-
reporting companies that track and rate the financial history of
U.S. consumers.  The companies are supplied with data about loans,
loan payments, and credit cards, as well as information on such
things as child-support payments, credit limits, missed rent and
utilities payments, addresses, and employer history.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven A. Martino, Esq.
          W. Lloyd Copeland, Esq.
          W. Bradford Kittrell, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Metzger, Esq.
          TAYLOR MARTINO, P.C.
          P.O. Box 894
          Mobile, AL 36601
          Telephone: (251) 433-3131
          Facsimile: (251) 405-5080
          E-mail: stevemartino@taylormartino.com
                  lloyd@taylormartino.com
                  bkittrell@taylormartino.com
                  kenny@taylormartino.com

               - and -

          Richard R. Rosenthal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. ROSENTHAL, P.C.
          Title Building, Suite 200
          300 North Richard Arrington Jr., Blvd.
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 533-9909
          E-mail: rosenthallaw@bellsouth.net


EQUIFAX INC: Accused by "Kohn" Suit of Failing to Protect Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT KOHN, SUSAN KOHN, and MARK ISACOFF, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. EQUIFAX, INC., and EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-07257-RBK-AMD (D.N.J.,
September 19, 2017), accuses the Defendants of failing to protect
the Plaintiffs' most highly secretive information causing them
substantial injury.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax publicly disclosed one of the
largest data breach incidents in United States history,
implicating the release of confidential and secure information
belonging to 143 million United States consumers.

Equifax Incorporated is a global consumer credit reporting agency
and information solutions company incorporated in Georgia, with
its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.
Equifax Information Services LLC is a subsidiary of Equifax
Incorporated that collects consumer information and reports that
information to financial institutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David S. Stone, Esq.
          Robert A. Magnanini, Esq.
          Jason S. Kanterman, Esq.
          STONE & MAGNANINI LLP
          100 Connell Dr., Suite 2200
          Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922
          Telephone: (973) 218-1111
          Facsimile: (973) 218-1106
          E-mail: dstone@stonemagnalaw.com
                  rmagnanini@stonemagnalaw.com
                  jkanterman@stonemagnalaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Prejean" Suit in Hawaii Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT N.J. PREJEAN and THERESA M. GALPIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. EQUIFAX INC., Case No.
1:17-cv-00468-HG-RLP (D. Haw., September 19, 2017), arises from
the Defendant's alleged failure to secure and safeguard the
private information of approximately 143 million Americans.

On July 29, 2017, Equifax discovered unauthorized access to
databases storing the confidential and private consumer
information of millions of U.S. consumers.  On September 7, 2017,
Equifax publicly announced that due to a vulnerability in its
systems, its files were accessed by criminals for at least the
period of mid-May through July of 2017.

Equifax Inc. 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:

          John Francis Perkin, Esq.
          Brandee J.K. Faria, Esq.
          James J. Wade, Esq.
          PERKIN & FARIA, LLLC
          841 Bishop Street, Suite 1000
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 523-2300
          Facsimile: (808) 697-5302
          E-mail: perkin@perkinlaw.com
                  bjkfaria@perkinlaw.com
                  jwade@perkinlaw.com

EQUIFAX INC: O'Dell Sues for Small Businesses Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
O'DELL PROPERTIES, LLC, O'DELL & O'NEAL, P.C., JELLI DONUTS, LLC,
ONE CENT LANE, LLC CHASELIGHT, LLC, RAFCO, LLC, RAHUL FARUQI,
MICHAEL CHASE, and JUSTIN O'DELL, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. EQUIFAX, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-
03618-AT (N.D. Ga., September 19, 2017), is brought on behalf of
small businesses across the United States and their owners against
Equifax for damages (current and future) resulting from the
September 2017 cybersecurity incident that impacted approximately
143 million individuals and their businesses.

Equifax, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax, a global
corporation, "organizes, assimilates and analyzes data on more
than 820 million consumers and more than 91 million businesses
worldwide, and its database includes employee data contributed
from more than 7,100 employers," according to its Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason R. Doss, Esq.
          Samuel T. Brannan, Esq.
          THE DOSS FIRM, LLC
          36 Trammell Street, Suite 101
          Marietta, GA 30064
          Telephone: (770) 578-1314
          Facsimile: (770) 578-1302
          E-mail: jasondoss@dossfirm.com
                  stbrannan@dossfirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: Sued by Rajput for Failing to Secure Consumers' PII
----------------------------------------------------------------
SANJAY KUMAR RAJPUT v. EQUIFAX, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-01606-HNJ
(N.D. Ala., September 19, 2017), is a national class action on
behalf of over 140 million consumers across the country harmed by
Equifax's alleged failure to secure and safeguard consumers'
personally identifiable information which Equifax collected from
various sources, and for failing to provide timely, accurate and
adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other Class members that
their information had been stolen and precisely what types of
information were stolen.

Equifax is a multi-billion-dollar Georgia corporation that
provides credit information services to millions of businesses,
governmental units, and consumers across the globe.  Equifax
operates through various subsidiaries, including Equifax
Information Services, LLC, and Equifax Consumer Services, LLC, aka
Equifax Personal Solutions aka PSOL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
          D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
          MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
          301 Washington St., Suite 302
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 532-2222
          Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
          E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com
                  tony@mastandoartrip.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Falco" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc.  The
case is styled as Paige Abramowitz, Joe Falco, Maria Falco, Robert
W. Larkin, Jr., Jane Guzi Macedonia, Summer Nicole Starbuck, Brian
Sternemann and Phyllis Sternemann, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v Equifax Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07642-DLC (S.D.N.Y., October 5, 2017).

Equifax Inc. operates a consumer credit reporting agency in New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
   Law Offices of Paul C. Whalen, P.C.
   768 Plandome Road
   Manhasset, NY 11030
   Tel: (516) 627-5610
   Fax: (212) 658-9685
   Email: paul@paulwhalen.com


EQUIFAX INC: Army Aviation Suit Alleges FTCA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Army Aviation Center Federal Credit Union, Greater Cincinnati
Credit Union, and Credit Union National Association, and all
others similarly-situated v. Equifax Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-03892
(N.D. Ga., October 4, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Plaintiff Army Aviation Center Federal Credit Union is a federally
chartered credit union with a principal place of business in
Daleville, Alabama.

Plaintiff Greater Cincinnati Credit Union is an Ohio-chartered
credit union with a principal place of business in Cincinnati,
Ohio.

Plaintiff Credit Union National Association is a Wisconsin
membership corporation whose members are financial institutions.

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:

      Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
      Anthony C. Lake, Esq.
      GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
      8 E. Liberty Street
      Savannah, GA 31401
      Tel: (912) 447-8400
      Fax: (912) 629-6347
      E-mail: twithers@gwllawfirm.com
              aclake@gwllawfirm.com

          - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      Erin Green Comite, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10169
      Tel: (212) 223-6444
      Fax: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
              ecomite@scott-scott.com

          - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
      Bryan A. Fox, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
      KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Fax: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
              jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
              bfox@carlsonlynch.com

          - and -

      Karen Hanson, Esq.
      Riebel Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
              kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

          - and -

      Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
      Stephen B. Murray Sr., Esq.
      Caroline W. Thomas, Esq.
      MURRAY LAW FIRM
      650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 525-8100
      Fax: (504) 584-5249
      E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com
              smurray@murray-lawfirm.com
              cthomas@murray-lawfirm.com

          - and -

      Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
      1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 341-0400
      Fax: (612) 341-0844
      E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

          - and -

      Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
      CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE
      17 Washington Avenue North Suite 300
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-7300
      Fax: (612) 336-2940
      E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com

          - and -

      Charles H. Van Horn, Esq.
      BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C.
      3475 Piedmont Road, Suite 1100
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Tel: (404) 261-7711
      Fax: (404) 233-1943
      E-mail: CVanHorn@bfvlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: 500+ Credit Unions Mull Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Orem, writing for Credit Union Times, reports that CUNA said
on Oct. 4 that it held a members-only conference call with more
than 500 credit unions on Oct. 3 to share information about
potential participation in class-action lawsuits against Equifax.

The call, which also included CUNA's outside counsel, discussed
credit unions' legal rights and the pros and cons of directly
participating in a lawsuit against the credit-reporting agency
over its massive data breach.

"From time to time you will work with attorneys to review
documents such as the complaint, and be involved in discovery.
Equifax will want to take some information as to the losses and
damages that the credit union has suffered," said
Joseph Guglielmo, who is an attorney with Scott and Scott, LLP.
"You'll also be involved in settlement discussions and review and
approve the settlement, to the extent we're able to obtain one."

Credit unions interested becoming named plaintiffs will need to
retain a law firm to file on their own behalf and stay involved at
key junctures in the case, CUNA added.

In the lawsuit, Summit Credit Union claims outdated software may
have contributed to the Equifax data breach.

The Equifax breach, announced September 7, affects 143 million
U.S. consumers.  Compromised information primarily includes names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and in some cases
driver's license numbers.  The breach also jeopardized credit card
numbers for about 209,000 people, as well as dispute documents for
about 182,000 consumers.

At least three credit unions have already sued Equifax. Madison,
Wis.-based Summit Credit Union filed a class-action lawsuit
against Equifax on September 11; Colorado Springs, Colo.-based
Aventa Credit Union and New Castle, Pa.-based First Choice Federal
Credit Union, along with the New Orleans-based Bank of Louisiana,
filed their own class-action complaint against Equifax on
September 22.

Summit Credit Union has $2.8 billion in assets and about 167,000
members. Aventa Credit Union has $175 million in assets and about
23,700 members; First Choice Federal Credit Union has $44 million
in assets and about 6,700 members.

On September 29, CUNA announced plans to file its own lawsuit
against Equifax over the credit bureau's massive data breach.

"Equifax needs to be held accountable for this massive data breach
that gave hackers access to the personally identifiable
information of 143 million Americans and the credit card
information of 209,000 people," CUNA president and CEO Jim Nussle
said in a statement.  "Equifax's disregard for protecting this
highly sensitive data means credit unions are left bearing the
brunt for damages in replacing members' cards payment cards,
covering fraudulent purchases and taking protective measures to
reduce risk of identity theft and false loans."

CUNA said credit unions and other financial institutions will
likely have to shoulder these costs over the long term.  They will
also suffer reputational harm and have to bear the burden of
notifying consumers of potential fraudulent activity, it added.
[GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that an
Erie man and a Fairless Hills woman have filed a class action
lawsuit against Equifax Inc. and Equifax Credit Information
Services Inc. over allegations the credit reporting agencies
failed to take adequate steps to protect consumers' personal
information.

Leslie Whipper and Roberta Serafine filed a complaint on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Sept. 13 against
Equifax Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services Inc., citing
the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege they were
damaged from having their personal information stolen in the
defendants' May to July data breach.

The plaintiffs hold Equifax Inc. and Equifax Credit Information
Services Inc. responsible because the defendants allegedly failed
to implement sufficient safety measures to protect the personal
information of the plaintiffs from their system.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek injunction against
the defendants; compensatory, consequential, incidental and
statutory damages; restitution and disgorgement; monetary relief;
court costs; interest and any further relief the court grants.
They are represented by Saba Bireda -- sbireda@sanfordheisler.com
-- Jeremy Heisler, Andrew Melzer -- amelzer@sanfordheisler.com --
and Kevin H. Sharp -- ksharp@sanfordheisler.com -- of Sanford
Heisler Sharp LLP in Washington, D.C.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case
number 1:17-cv-00248-SPB [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Face Congressional Hearings Following Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Perez, writing for Fast Company, reports that Equifax,
which allowed financial records of more than 145 million Americans
to be exposed to hackers, was blasted at congressional hearings --
even as lawmakers continue to consider anti-consumer legislation
that would benefit the credit reporting giant.

The company's political action committee donated $100,000 to
federal candidates during the 2016 election cycle, with 85% of the
money going to Republicans, according to data compiled by the
Center for Responsive Politics.  So far this year, the company has
spent at least $500,000 on lobbying; the Consumer Data Industry
Association, a trade association affiliated with Equifax, has
spent $400,000.

Equifax is one of three primary credit reporting agencies in the
United States.  The firm and its competitors collect extensive
personal information to create credit reports and help banks make
decisions on loan and credit card applications.  Though Equifax
has come under fire in recent weeks, the company successfully
pursued its agenda in Congress for most of the year.

The firm has lobbied lawmakers to overturn a Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule that would prevent companies like
Equifax from including mandatory arbitration clauses in the fine
print of their contracts to block consumers from filing class-
action lawsuits against them.  House Republicans passed a
resolution under the Congressional Review Act to eliminate the
CFPB's rule in July.  Reuters reported that Senate Republicans
plan to vote on the resolution soon.

Both Equifax and its trade association have lobbied Congress on a
Republican bill that would set a $500,000 cap on the amount of
money consumers can win in class action lawsuits filed against
credit reporting agencies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA).

Republicans held a hearing on the legislation last month, on the
same day that the Atlanta-based company announced its data breach.
While the bill's sponsor, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., argued
that the measure wouldn't grant immunity to Equifax for its recent
security lapse, he said the House Financial Services Committee
wasn't moving forward with it just yet.

Hearings in the House and Senate on Oct. 3 and Oct. 4 featured
bipartisan condemnation for Equifax's failure to protect
consumers.

"How does this happen when so much is at stake?" asked Rep. Greg
Walden, R-Ore on Oct. 3.  "I don't think we can pass a law that,
excuse me for saying this, fixes stupid. I can't fix stupid."

On Oct. 4, several Senate Republicans and Democrats questioned why
Equifax was just recently awarded a contract to help the IRS
prevent fraud.  "Why should anyone hire Equifax for fraud
protection right now after this exposure?" asked Sen. Ben Sasse,
R-Neb., one of 32 lawmakers sponsoring the Senate resolution to
kill the CFPB arbitration rule.

At least one House Democrat accused Republican lawmakers of trying
to reward Equifax in the wake of the security disaster.

"Equifax deserves to be shamed in this hearing, but we should also
ask what Congress has done or failed to do to stop data breaches
from occurring, and what Equifax plans to do," said Rep. Jan
Schakowsky, D-Ill.

She said that Equifax continued to lobby Congress on the FCRA
liability bill in the months after it learned of its data breach -
- and before the company informed the public.

"The 14 Republicans sponsoring this bill should ask themselves
whether this is really the industry they want to be in bed with,"
said Rep. Schakowsky. [GN]


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Fausz Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ella J. Fausz, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No.
3:17-cv-00576-TBR (W.D. Ky., September 19, 2017), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Plaintiff and the Class Members' rights
by disclosing private information about them to third parties and
by failing to properly safeguard their personal information.

In early August 2017, before the breach was made public, Equifax
executives sold shares of Equifax worth at least $1,800,000,
according to the complaint.  On September 7, 2017, Equifax
admitted the breach in a press release.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Equifax Information Services,
LLC, is a limited liability company organized and existing under
the laws of the state of Georgia.  Equifax is engaged in the
business of acquiring, using, furnishing, and disseminating
consumer information in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary L. Taylor, Esq.
          Nina B. Couch, Esq.
          TAYLOR COUCH PLLC
          2815 Taylorsville Road, Suite 101
          Louisville, KY 40205
          Telephone: (502) 625-5000
          Facsimile: (502) 822-2500
          E-mail: ztaylor@taylorcouchlaw.com
                  ncouch@taylorcouchlaw.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Foley Consumer Class Action in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN HENRY FOLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 0:17-cv-
04320-JNE-FLN (D. Minn., September 20, 2017), is a consumer class
action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act against Equifax, a
national consumer reporting agency.

In violation of the FCRA, Mr. Foley alleges, Equifax prepares and
furnishes consumer reports that include tax liens that: (a) the
FCRA prohibits Equifax from reporting; and (b) that have been paid
in full, satisfied or cancelled, but are not reported by the
Defendant as paid, satisfied or cancelled.

Equifax is a "person" and "consumer reporting agency" and is
authorized to do business in the state of Minnesota.
Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, the Defendant is one of the
"big three" credit reporting agencies in the United States.  The
Defendant sells consumer reports about millions of consumers
annually, including consumers in Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Lyons, Esq.
          LYONS LAW FIRM P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          E-mail: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com

               - and -

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


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sued by Hingle for Not Securing Private Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WALDON MICHAEL HINGLE v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 2:17-cv-09370 (E.D. La., September 20, 2017), alleges that as
a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged failure to secure
and safeguard the private information it collects, stores, and
sells, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was
accessed and stolen by hackers.

Equifax is a limited liability company incorporated under the laws
of the state of Georgia with a principal place of business in
Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax is a "Consumer Reporting Agency" as
defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Equifax is in the
business of collecting, assessing, storing, and maintaining the
information of approximately 800 million worldwide consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Hingle, Esq.
          Bryan Pfleeger, Esq.
          MICHAEL HINGLE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          220 Gause Boulevard
          Slidell, LA 70458
          Telephone: (985) 641-6800
          Facsimile: (985) 646-1471
          E-mail: wmhipad@hinglelaw.com
                  bryan@hinglelaw.com


EXPLOITS VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Air Canada Runway Crash
----------------------------------------------------------------
VOCM reports that a St. John's lawyer is proceeding with a class
action lawsuit on behalf of passengers aboard an Exploits Valley
Air Services flight which had a rough landing in Gander last year.

The Air Canada Express flight with 14 passengers and two crew left
Goose Bay for Gander last April, but struck a snowbank during the
landing.  The landing gear collapsed and the blades of the
propeller separated.  A portion of a blade penetrated the cabin
wall. Three people sustained what are being described as minor
injuries.

The Transportation Safety Board says blowing snow, reduced
visibility and strong crosswinds were contributing factors.  TSB
says neither pilot considered landing at night, in reduced
visibility with a crosswind to be a potential hazardous situation.
It has recommended more training for pilots.

Lawyer Bob Buckingham says three people may have suffered minor
physical injuries, but people are nervous of flying in the best of
times.

He says they survived an airplane crash on a very windy night in
the middle of winter, then all were left on the tarmac for a long
period of time with no assistance from either of the pilots. [GN]


FERRING PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit for Breach of Warranty
----------------------------------------------------------
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
District Council 47 Health and Welfare Fund, and all others
similarly-situated v. Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No.
2:17-cv-07897 (D. N.J., October 4, 2017), is brought against the
Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, violation of the various consumer
fraud statutes and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Plaintiff American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, District Council 47 Health and Welfare Fund, is a
health and welfare trust fund providing medical benefits,
including prescription drug coverage, to participants and their
dependents, representing active or retired employees of the City
of Philadelphia.

Defendant Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures, warrants,
advertises, and sells Bravelle, the brand name version of the
generic drug urofollitropin designed to treat infertility in
women. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
      Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      211 W. Wacker Drive Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 750-1265
      Fax: (312) 212-5919
      E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
              kshamberg@litedepalma.com
              isalam@litedepalma.com

          - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA  19103
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Fax: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              josterwise@bm.net

          - and -

      Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
      LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Tel: (215) 592-1500
      Fax: (215) 592-4663
      E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com


FIRED UP: Ex-Employees' WARN Class Action Put on Hold
-----------------------------------------------------
Sarah Self-Walbrick, writing for Amarillo.com, reports that the
class-action lawsuit filed last month by former Lubbock and
Amarillo Fired Up Holding Company employees against their ex-
employers is temporarily on hold after one of the defendants filed
for bankruptcy.

Magdalena Baier, a business partner at Fired Up, filed for Chapter
7 bankruptcy.  Chapter 7 bankruptcy allows for "liquidation" --
the sale of a debtor's nonexempt property and the distribution of
the proceeds to creditors, according to the U.S. Courts website.

In the filed documents, Baier's business partner, Richard Foote,
was listed as a co-debtor.

Some of the assets listed in the document relate to Fired Up
Holding Co., specifically debts owed to the 50-plus former
employees who are a part of the lawsuit.  Requests for comment
from Ms. Baier or her legal representative went unanswered by late
on Oct. 4.

The bankruptcy puts a minimum 21-day hold on the civil case
against Fired Up Holding Co. as the court processes the
bankruptcy.  Amarillo lawyer Jeff Blackburn, who is representing
the spurned employees, said the motion may prolong the case, but
it won't make it go away.

"Under the law, you can't absolve yourself of wrongdoing like
this," Mr. Blackburn said.

He described the bankruptcy filing as "not unexpected" and said
business people in this legal position often file for bankruptcy.
He said it is different when CEOs of large corporations go through
this process.  In this case, he said average people are being
affected.

"The real tragedy of this is that all we want is for these people
to get paid the money they're owed," Mr. Blackburn said.

A class-action lawsuit was filed against Baier and Foote, as well
as R Tequila Acquisition, Chalak Mitras Group and Gurdev and
Rajeev Singh Gill, in September.

Chalak Mitras, a Dallas-based investment group, sold the four Ruby
Tequila's locations to Fired Up Holdings in May.  The completion
of that sale is debated by the two parties, with Foote previously
telling A-J Media it was never finalized.

When Ruby Tequila's closed in July, the lawsuit alleges several
former employees lost their homes and were unable to collect
unemployment benefits.

The lawsuit states the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act was violated by the defendants, since notice of
the mass layoffs and the required steps to help former employees
find new work were not followed.

Blackburn and Young & Newsom legal partner Jeremi Young have yet
to identify the damages they seek but will ask for at least 60
days of wages and benefits for employees.

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was filed by
Rajeev and Gurdev Gill in later September.  The motion claims The
Gills had no role in paying or managing employees and they should
be removed from the lawsuit.  The motion has yet to be decided on.

Jeffrey Tate, one of the seven named plaintiffs in the suit and a
former dishwasher at a Lubbock Ruby Tequila's, told the Amarillo
Globe-News in September that he wants to stop Foote from doing
this again.  Foote has had numerous restaurants fail in the past,
including the closure of Bennigan's in Amarillo two months after
its purchase.

"We can't let (Foote) get away with this.  He's done it before and
he's still able to go into business and open restaurants," Mr.
Tate told the Globe-News.  "He came here and messed with the wrong
people." [GN]


FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: "Bernardez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Bernardez and Tawanna Pittman, and all others similarly-
situated v. Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC dba MedAssist, Case No.
3:17-cv-00613 (W.D. Ky., October 4, 2017), seek to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and attendant regulations.

Plaintiff Alan Bernardez is a resident of the State of Virginia.
He worked for the Defendant as a Patient Service Representative
and then became a Team Lead.

Plaintiff Tawana Pittman is a resident of the State of Virginia
and also worked as a Patient Service Representative for the
Defendant.

Defendant Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC, dba MedAssist, provides
revenue cycle management services to healthcare providers. The
company provides patient access services, including call center
operations, insurance verification and certification, financial
counseling, eligibility prescreening, patient notification of
expected liability, emergency department verification, and point
of service collections. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Trent Taylor, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel: (800) 274-5297
      Fax: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

          - and -

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Tel: (201) 630-0000
      Fax: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
              nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


FOUND MY ANIMAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Rene Jefferson, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Found My Animal, LLC, Case No. 518415/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., September 25, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of New York Labor Law.

Found My Animal, LLC is engaged in the business of making and
selling accessories and other products for animals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 355-9668
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Class Action in Conn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Eslinger, writing for Law360, reports that Frontier
Communications Corp. was hit with a putative class action on
Oct. 4 in Connecticut federal court alleging the communication
services provider violated securities law by hiding financial
concerns related to a mass of unpaid user accounts acquired with
its $10.5 billion Verizon Communications Inc. purchase.

The suit filed by investor plaintiff Larisa Rozenberg accuses
Frontier of selling its securities at artificially inflated prices
in the 13 months after it acquired the wireline operations of
Verizon in California, Texas and Florida in April 2016 -- and thus
securities holders were damaged upon the revelation of the
company's alleged corrective disclosures earlier this year.

"As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, plaintiff and other class members have suffered
significant losses and damages," the suit states.

After the company publicly stated on Feb. 27, that it suffered a
net loss of $80 million for the fourth quarter of 2016 as a result
of the company's efforts to resolve "nonpaying" accounts acquired
in California, Texas and Florida, the Company's stock price fell
$0.36 per share, almost 11 percent to close at $2.93 per share on
February 28, 2017, according to the complaint.

During a Feb. 27 conference call to discuss the company's
financial results, during which Frontier Financial Officer Ralph
Perley McBride provided a timeline of the account cleanup matter
and said Verizon stopped treatment of overdue accounts in February
2016 "in anticipation of the deal close," Frontier "continued non-
treatment" of the accounts through to July 2016, the company then
began working on the account cleanup process, including
disconnecting non-paying accounts in August 2016.

Then, on May 2, Frontier Financial Officer Ralph Perley McBride
said during a conference call to discuss the company's first
quarter financial results and said handling the account "cleanup,"
including disconnecting users with unpaid bills, reduced revenue
that quarter by $16 million.  On this news, the Frontier's stock
price fell $0.32 per share, or more than 16 percent, to close at
$1.61 per share on May 3, 2017, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Frontier and its officials knew when it
purchased the Verizon holdings that it was taking on a substantial
number of non-paying accounts as part of its acquisition, and as a
result the company would have to take such curative measures as
increasing its reserves, and writing off those unpaid debts.

The suit against the company also names as defendants company CEO
Daniel J. McCarthy, Senior VP/Controller Donald W. Daniels, former
CFO John M. Jureller and McBride.

"As officers and/or directors of a publicly-held company, the
individual defendants had a duty to disseminate timely, accurate,
and truthful information with respect to Frontier's businesses,
operations, future financial condition and future prospects," the
suit states.  "As a result of the dissemination of the false and
misleading reports, releases and public statements, the market
price of Frontier securities was artificially inflated."

The suit seeks payment of damages, including prejudgment and
postjudgment interest, along with attorney's fees and other costs.

Frontier first announced it agreed to buy a wireline service
provider network from Verizon in early 2015, a move the company
said would significantly strengthen its presence in California,
Florida and Texas.

The Verizon network in the three states provided residential,
commercial and wholesale customers service with 3.7 million voice
connections, 2.2 million broadband connections and 1.2 million
FiOS video connections, and generated more than $5.7 billion in
revenue last year alone, according to a joint press release issued
by the parties when the deal was announced.  In a written
statement, Mr. McCarthy said the acquisition would "maximize value
for our shareholders and create a great experience for new
customers."

Representatives for Verizon and the plaintiff did not immediately
respond to requests for comment on Oct. 4.

Plaintiff Larisa Rozenberg is represented by Shannon L. Hopkins of
Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Jeremy A. Lieberman
and J. Alexander Hood II of Pomerantz LLP, and Peretz Bronstein of
Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman LLC.

Counsel information for Frontier Communications Corporation was
not immediately available on Oct. 4.

The case is Rozenberg v. Frontier Communications Corp., et al.,
number 3:17-cv-01672 (D. Conn.).  The case is assigned to Judge
Michael P. Shea.  The case was filed October 4, 2017. [GN]


GATE GOURMET: "Little" FLSA Class Settlement Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Settlement in the
case captioned ALFONSO LITTLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GATE
GOURMET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01084-L-AGS (S.D.
Cal.).

In this putative class action, Alfonso Little and Shantel Gates
allege that Defendant Gate Gourmet, Inc., violated provisions of
the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions
Code, and the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay all owed
straight time and overtime wages, failing to provide rest and meal
periods or compensatory premium payments, and by failing to
provide adequate pay stubs, pay upon termination of employment,
and reimbursement of business expenses.

The Court finds that this Action meets the class certification
requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3).
Accordingly, and solely for the purposes of the proposed
settlement, the Class is provisionally certified as follows:

     all persons who are, have been, or will be employed by
Defendant in a non-exempt position in California at any time
during the period of March 30, 2012 through the date of
Preliminary Approval. It shall be an opt-out class.

The Court confirms CPT Group, Inc., as the claims administrator.

Having found the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(g) met, the Court appoints William Turley, Esq., David Mara,
Esq., Jill Vecchi, Esq., Kevin T. Barnes, Esq., Gregg Lander,
Esq., and Emil Davtyan, Esq., as Class Counsel, solely for the
purposes of the proposed settlement.

The Court confirms Alfonzo Little and Shantel Gates as the Class
Representatives, solely for the purposes of the proposed
settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 25, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycw2lgcgfrom Leagle.com.

Alfonso Little, Plaintiff, represented by David Mara, The Turley &
Mara Law Firm, APLC. 7428 Trade St. San Diego, CA 92121

Alfonso Little, Plaintiff, represented by William D. Turley --
bturley@turleylawfirm.com --  The Turley Law Firm, APLC & Jill M.
Vecchi, The Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC, 7428 Trade St
San Diego, CA, 92121-2410

Shantel Gates, Plaintiff, represented by Emil Davtyan -- 21900
Burbank Blvd #300, Woodland Hills, CA 91367, USA -- Davtyan PLC,
Gregg Lander --Lander@kbarnes.com -- Law Offices of Kevin T Barnes
& Kevin T. Barnes, Law Offices of Kevin Barnes.

Gate Gourmet, Inc., Defendant, represented by Diana Tabacopoulos -
- dtabacopoulos@seyfarth.com --  Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Rocio Herrera,
Los Angeles City Attorney, David Duane Jacobson --
djacobson@la.seyfarth.com  --  Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Kristen M.
Peters, Seyfarth & Shaw LLP. 800 Third Avenue, 24th Floor, New
York, NY 10022


GREEN PHARMACEUTICAL: Snoring Aid Class Action Dismissal Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, writing for Law360, reports that a California
appellate panel on Oct. 4 reversed the dismissal of a class action
alleging that a homeopathic snoring aid was nothing more than a
sugar pill, saying that the lower court wrongly disregarded expert
testimony that the snore remedy and homeopathy in general is
ineffective.

The Fourth Appellate District panel said that, while the lower
court didn't expressly reject expert witness Dr. Lynn Willis'
testimony on the inefficacy of Green Pharmaceutical's SnoreStop
and homeopathy, it did disregard his testimony and mischaracterize
parts of it in its decision.  For example, the lower court said
that the pharmacologist testified about the remedy's individual
ingredients, but couldn't testify about the product as a whole.

However, Dr. Willis testified that each individual active
ingredient in SnoreStop wouldn't have an effect on snoring, nor
would it shrink swollen tissues that block air passage in the back
of the throat.  He also testified that he wasn't aware of any
credible scientific evidence that the combination of ingredients
would shrink those tissues and believed that they wouldn't,
according to the panel.

The lower court had also said that neither lead plaintiff
Rachel Rosendez nor Willis had shown proof that a clinical study
referenced on SnoreStop's label was flawed, but in fact, Willis
had testified about a number of the study's flaws, the panel said.

According to the panel, the principles of homeopathy date back to
the 1700s.  One tenet holds that "like cures like," or in other
words, a substance that can cause certain symptoms when given to a
healthy person can cure those same symptoms in someone who is
sick.  The other main principle is that a drug's therapeutic power
is increased when it's diluted.

"Willis' testimony about the inefficacy and scientific
implausibility of homeopathy in general alone was sufficient to
satisfy plaintiffs' burden of proving the inefficacy of SnoreStop
as a snoring remedy," the panel said.

The lower court based its ruling that Ms. Rosendez had failed to
meet her burden of proof largely on the fact that neither she nor
Willis had tested the actual tablets.  However, given the list of
active ingredients and dilution levels of those ingredients on the
SnoreStop label, Willis didn't need to test the actual product to
opine on its efficacy, the panel said.

The panel also noted that the lower court had found that the
testimony of Green's homeopathic expert wasn't credible.

"The debate is now over, and homeopathy lost: A unanimous Court of
Appeal has held that 'the fundamental principles of homeopathy
have no basis in science,'" Scott J. Ferrell --
sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com -- of Pacific Trial Attorneys,
lead counsel for the plaintiff and class, told Law360 on Oct. 4.
"Game, set, match."

The appellate court also reversed the class' decertification and
ordered the lower court to determine the class' damages and
restitution and award those to the class.

Mr. Ferrell said that they believe classwide damages amount to
more than $50 million.

Ms. Rosendez filed suit in 2011, alleging violations of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, unfair competition law
and false advertising law.  In 2013, the court certified a class
of Californians who bought SnoreStop since June 28, 2007.

Eric Lampel of The Lampel Firm, attorney for Green
Pharmaceuticals, told Law360 on Oct. 4 that the company will
appeal the "unfortunate and error-ridden" decision to the
California Supreme Court.

"The court of appeal completely ignored the compelling lack of
evidence that the trial court relied upon in dismissing plaintiffs
claims," Mr. Lampel said.  "Green Pharmaceuticals has been in
business for decades with no complaints of any kind against it.
It produces effective and superior products."

Ms. Rosendez is represented by Scott J. Ferrell and Ryan M.
Ferrell of Newport Trial Group.

Green Pharmaceuticals is represented by Eric P. Lampel and Carlos
F. Negrete of The Lampel Firm.

The case is Rosendez et al. v. Green Pharmaceuticals, case number
CIVDS1108022, in the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District,
for the State of California. [GN]


HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Court Dismisses "Levins" FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert B. Kugler of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, dismissed the case captioned
ELAINE LEVINS and WILLIAM LEVINS, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE
RECOVERY GROUP, LLC D/B/A ARS ACCOUNT RESOLUTION SERVICES, AND
JOHN and JANE DOES 1 THROGH 25 CORRECTIONS, et al. Defendants,
Civil No. 1:17-cv-00928 (RBK/KMW) (D. N.J.).

The Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of the class
they seek to represent, allege that HRRG used false, deceptive,
misleading, harassing, and abusive practices in connection with
its attempt to collect alleged debts from the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated customers.  HRRG operates as a debt collector,
with its principal place of business in City of Sunrise, Florida.

The Plaintiffs specifically contend that HRRG collection practices
violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), because
the practices: (i) fail to provide meaningful disclosure of HRRG's
identity; (ii) use false representations and deceptive means to
collect or attempt to collect any debt and to obtain information
concerning a consumer; and (iii) use the name of any business,
company, or organization other than the true name of the debt
collections business, company, or organization.

The Plaintiffs allegedly owe a medical debt which was assigned,
placed, or transferred to HRRG for collection.  HRRG then
contacted the Plaintiffs and third parties via telephone and left
messages in an attempt to collect the alleged debt, which HRRG
contends is in default.

The Plaintiffs allege that HRRG's pre-recorded message violates
FDCPA.  They further contend that it is deceptive and improper to
abbreviate "ARS Account Resolution Services" as "ARS" for the
purposes of collection because "ARS" is not the Defendant
corporation's true name.  They have thus brought this case as a
class action on behalf of all persons with addresses in the State
of New Jersey for whom HRRG left such a voice message.

The Defendant moves motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' suit for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Judge Kugler finds that HRRG's use of "ARS" constitutes a "true
name" and provides meaningful disclosure of HRRG's identity.  The
Plaintiffs and/or least sophisticated consumers can tell who is
calling and for what reason.  While the Plaintiffs argue that the
inclusion of a phone number and internet website improperly shifts
the burden to the consumer to investigate the nature of the call,
this is not so.  Instead, these additions constitute further means
of ensuring that there are not any mistaken or false
representations about either identity or purpose.

Furthermore, HRRG warns consumers that any information provided in
these calls will be used to collect a debt.  Thus there is no
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692(e)(10), as any attempts to
collect information have been explicitly flagged and are therefore
not deceptive.

Because the complaint as pleaded does not present facts, accepted
as true, that give rise to any plausible entitlement to relief,
Judge Kugler granted the Defendants motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/vZC1Av from Leagle.com.

ELAINE LEVINS, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL ADAM FRISCHBERG,
LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW B. FINBERG, LLC.

ELAINE LEVINS, Plaintiff, represented by PHILIP D. STERN --
webinquiry@philipstern.com -- STERN THOMASSON LLP & ANDREW T.
THOMASSON, Stern Thomasson LLP.

WILLIAM LEVINS, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL ADAM FRISCHBERG,
LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW B. FINBERG, LLC, PHILIP D. STERN, STERN
THOMASSON LLP & ANDREW T. THOMASSON, Stern Thomasson LLP.


HOMEADVISOR INC: Court Strikes Notice to Intervene
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas issued
a Memorandum and Order Denying Intervenor Frederick Banks' Motion
to Intervene as of Right and Claim in the case captioned EMERALD
LENGEL, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HOMEADVISOR, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-
2198-KHV (D. Kan.).

Under Rule 24(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., the Court must allow a party to
intervene if (1) his application is timely; (2) he claims an
interest relating to the property or transaction which is the
subject of the action; (3) his interest may as a practical matter
be impaired or impeded and (4) his interest is not adequately
represented by existing parties.

Intervenor fails to allege a sufficient factual basis to establish
a legal interest in this action. In this class action suit,
plaintiffs allege that HomeAdvisor, Inc., violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act because it failed to give job applicants proper
notice before it obtained consumer reports that contained personal
information. The putative intervenor's notice does not claim that
he worked for or applied for a job with HomeAdvisor in the Class
period.  Thus, the Court strikes the notice to intervene.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 25, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yd2mblwa
from Leagle.com.

Emerald Lengel, Plaintiff, represented by Kai H. Richter --
krichter@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice.
Emerald Lengel, Plaintiff, represented by Mark A. Kistler --
mkistler@mbradylaw.com -- Brady & Associates Law Office & Michael
F. Brady -- brady@mbradylaw.com -- Brady & Associates Law Office.
HomeAdvisor, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander C. Clayden
-- aclayden@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop Gage, LLP, Mark A. Samsel -
- msamsel@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage, LLP & Stephen J.
Horace --shorace@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop Gage, LLP, pro hac
vice.

Frederick Banks, Movant, Pro Se.


JASPER COUNTY, MS: Bid to Certify Inmates Class in "Askew" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL ASKEW, Plaintiff, v. GLORIA STEVENS,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-110-KS-MTP (S.D.
Miss.), Judge Keith Starrett of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, Eastern Division, denied the
Plaintiff's attempt to institute a class action.

The Plaintiff files this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section.  He states in the relief portion of the Complaint that he
is requesting for this suit to become a class action.

The Plaintiff and the other inmates referred to in the Complaint
are inmates at the Jasper County Jail, Bay Springs, Mississippi.
The Plaintiff complains about the general conditions of
confinement of the Jasper County Jail.  He also alleges that the
constitutional rights of the detainees are being violated by the
Jasper County court system, including the Jasper County Circuit
Court.

Even though the Plaintiff's allegations, liberally construed,
assert questions of law that are common to all inmates at the
Jasper County Jail, Bay Springs, Mississippi, Judge Starrett finds
the Plaintiff he has not demonstrated that the remaining
requirements for class certification are met.  Therefore, the
denial of class certification is appropriate.  Having reviewed the
Complaint, the Judge further finds that it does not present
allegations and arguments to meet the requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a).  As a result, this civil action will not
be treated as a class action.

The enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995
militates against multi-plaintiff prisoner complaints.
Commingling the various claims of multiple plaintiffs makes it
difficult for the court to discern how the alleged constitutional
violation affected each plaintiff.  Meritorious claims may be
obscured by the frivolous.

With these concerns in mind, and with the objective of achieving
judicial economy and maintaining efficient control of its docket,
Judge Starrett finds that if the other inmates wish to pursue a
civil action concerning the conditions of confinement in the
Jasper County Jail, Bay Springs, Mississippi, they may do so by
filing a separate individual Complaint.

Accordingly, Judge Starrett ordered that to the extent the
Plaintiff is seeking certification of a class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 such a request is denied.  The
case will proceed only as to the claims of Plaintiff Askew.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/y0X0lZ from Leagle.com.

Michael Askew, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


JASPER COUNTY, MS: Bid to Certify Class in "Wilson" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MALCOLM JAMAL WILSON, #198886, Plaintiff, v.
GLORIA STEVENS, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-106-
KS-MTP (S.D. Miss.), Judge Keith Starrett of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Eastern Division,
denied the Plaintiff's attempt to institute a class action.

The Plaintiff files this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section.  He states in the relief portion of the Complaint that he
is requesting for this suit to become a class action.

The Plaintiff and the other inmates referred to in the Complaint
are inmates at the Jasper County Jail, Bay Springs, Mississippi.
The Plaintiff complains about the general conditions of
confinement of the Jasper County Jail.  He also alleges that the
constitutional rights of the detainees are being violated by the
Jasper County court system, including the Jasper County Circuit
Court.

Even though the Plaintiff's allegations, liberally construed,
assert questions of law that are common to all inmates at the
Jasper County Jail, Bay Springs, Mississippi, Judge Starrett finds
the Plaintiff he has not demonstrated that the remaining
requirements for class certification are met.  Therefore, the
denial of class certification is appropriate.  Having reviewed the
Complaint, the Judge further finds that it does not present
allegations and arguments to meet the requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a).  As a result, this civil action will not
be treated as a class action.

The enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995
militates against multi-plaintiff prisoner complaints.
Commingling the various claims of multiple plaintiffs makes it
difficult for the court to discern how the alleged constitutional
violation affected each plaintiff.  Meritorious claims may be
obscured by the frivolous.

With these concerns in mind, and with the objective of achieving
judicial economy and maintaining efficient control of its docket,
Judge Starrett finds that if the other inmates wish to pursue a
civil action concerning the conditions of confinement in the
Jasper County Jail, Bay Springs, Mississippi, they may do so by
filing a separate individual Complaint.

Accordingly, Judge Starrett ordered that to the extent the
Plaintiff is seeking certification of a class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 such a request is denied.  The
case will proceed only as to the claims of Plaintiff Wilson.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/y0X0lZ from Leagle.com.

Malcolm Jamal Wilson, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


JASPER COUNTY, MS: Inmates Class Cert in "Thigpen" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL EUGENE THIGPEN, #133771, Plaintiff,
v. GLORIA STEVENS, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-
108-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss.), Judge Keith Starrett of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Eastern Division,
denied the Plaintiff's attempt to institute a class action.

The Plaintiff files this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section.  He states in the relief portion of the Complaint that he
is requesting for this suit to become a class action.

The Plaintiff and the other inmates referred to in the Complaint
are inmates at the Jasper County Jail, Bay Springs, Mississippi.
The Plaintiff complains about the general conditions of
confinement of the Jasper County Jail.  He also alleges that the
constitutional rights of the detainees are being violated by the
Jasper County court system, including the Jasper County Circuit
Court.

Even though the Plaintiff's allegations, liberally construed,
assert questions of law that are common to all inmates at the
Jasper County Jail, Bay Springs, Mississippi, Judge Starrett finds
the Plaintiff he has not demonstrated that the remaining
requirements for class certification are met.  Therefore, the
denial of class certification is appropriate.  Having reviewed the
Complaint, the Judge further finds that it does not present
allegations and arguments to meet the requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a).  As a result, this civil action will not
be treated as a class action.

The enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995
militates against multi-plaintiff prisoner complaints.
Commingling the various claims of multiple plaintiffs makes it
difficult for the court to discern how the alleged constitutional
violation affected each plaintiff.  Meritorious claims may be
obscured by the frivolous.

With these concerns in mind, and with the objective of achieving
judicial economy and maintaining efficient control of its docket,
Judge Starrett finds that if the other inmates wish to pursue a
civil action concerning the conditions of confinement in the
Jasper County Jail, Bay Springs, Mississippi, they may do so by
filing a separate individual Complaint.

Accordingly, Judge Starrett ordered that to the extent the
Plaintiff is seeking certification of a class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 such a request is denied.  The
case will proceed only as to the claims of Plaintiff Thigpen.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/t7ThB2 from Leagle.com.

Michael Eugene Thigpen, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


LANDTEK INC: Johnson Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
BENNY JOHNSON and DALTON RAY JOHNSON, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated v. LANDTEK, INC., a Domestic Profit
Corporation, and LUCIEN LONGLAIS, Individually, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00191-CDL (M.D. Ga., September 20, 2017), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act to recover from the Defendants alleged
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.

LANDTEK, INC., is a Domestic Profit Corporation, which operates
and conducts business in the City of Columbus, in Muscogee County,
Georgia.  Lucien Longlais is/was an acting Owner and Officer of
LANDTEK.  The Defendants provide landscaping services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


LEWIS ENERGY: Guerra Sues on Behalf of Welders Over Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO GUERRA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LEWIS ENERGY GROUP, L.P. and LEWIS RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-00916 (W.D. Tex., September 19,
2017), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of
all structure/structural welders and pipeline welders, who worked
for the Defendants and were paid hourly but no overtime.

Lewis Energy Group, L.P., is a Delaware limited partnership,
having its principal place of business in San Antonio, Texas.
Lewis Resource Management, LLC, is a Texas limited liability
company, having its principal place of business in San Antonio.
Lewis Energy is a "vertically integrated oil and gas company" that
has been "exploring, drilling and completing wells since 1983,"
according to the Defendants' Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, Tx 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com


LEXINGTON TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Levy" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Levy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated v. Lexington Technologies Inc., Case No. 706381/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., September 26, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40
hours in a week.

Lexington Technologies Inc. is engaged in the business of
providing maintenance and engineering services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LTI TRUCKING: Faces "Ratliff" Suit in N. Distr. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LTI Trucking
Services, Inc.  The case is styled as Jerome Ratliff, Jr., on
behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LTI
Trucking Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07190 (N.D.
Ill., October 5, 2017).

LTI Trucking Services, Inc. provides truckload carrier and
logistic services in the United States.[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


MAJU PUNCAKBUMI: Apartment Owners' Class Action Begins
------------------------------------------------------
Wan Ilaika Mohd Zakaria, writing for The Sun Daily, reports that a
class-action lawsuit involving 137 unit owners, who are seeking
the return of outstanding rentals owed to them by Maju Puncakbumi
Sdn Bhd, the developer of serviced apartment project named The Arc
@ Cyberjaya kicked off at the Shah Alam High Court on Oct. 4.

The apartment owners' claims against the developer include 8%
interest on the outstanding rentals, agreed liquidated damages as
stated in the agreement, general damages, and/or aggravated
damages, as well as exemplary damages.

The Arc @ Cyberjaya is a RM700 million freehold development, which
was launched in 2011, comprising four blocks of serviced
apartments with at an average price of RM350,000 per unit and four
blocks of office towers.

Incorporated in 2009, Maju Puncakbumi offers commercial and
residential property development services.  The company is based
in Subang Jaya and operates as a subsidiary of Meda Inc Bhd.

Vincent Lim, the lawyer representing the owners, told SunBiz today
the owners have applied for summary judgement to be granted by the
court on the decision date, in order to avoid trial.  Shah Alam
High Court judge Datuk Roslan Abu Bakar has fixed Nov 2, 2017 as
the decision date.

It was reported that the owners were given an option to sign up
for a guaranteed rental return (GRR) scheme, which promised a
fixed rental income for up to 25 years, when they signed the sale
and purchase agreement.

The scheme, with an annual return rate of 8%, is offered in
packages lasting six, 10 or 25 years.

Previously, the development project manager, Andaman Property
Management Sdn Bhd (APM), said the scheme is offered to the buyers
to ease their concerns about a possible slowdown and to reduce
fears they may have on finding tenants or collecting rental
payments.

Under GRR scheme, which is also known as a leaseback programme,
the developer will be responsible for looking for tenants and
managing the property for the buyers, with a guaranteed rental
income for a predetermined period.

APM also said it believed it could afford to guarantee the gross
rental rate due to its leasing agreement with Multimedia
University to provide the apartments as hostels for its students
for up to 25 years.

However, the owners claimed they have stopped receiving their
rental after a year, from as far back as March last year. [GN]


MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Freeborn Challenges Merger With Harland
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY FREEBORN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE, INC., JOSEPH EPPERSON,
KEVIN DULSKY, LYNNETTE FRANK, LEN K. JORDAN, and AUGUSTUS TAI,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00479-BO (E.D.N.C., September 20, 2017), seeks to
enjoin the Defendants from closing a proposed transaction or
taking any steps to consummate a proposed merger, unless and until
material information is disclosed to MaxPoint stockholders or, in
the event the proposed merger is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is brought as a class action by the Plaintiff on behalf
of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of
MaxPoint against MaxPoint and members of the Company's board of
directors in connection with the tender offer (the "Proposed
Transaction") by Harland Clarke Holdings Corp. through its wholly-
owned subsidiary Mercury Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), pursuant
to which all of the issued and the outstanding shares of MaxPoint
common stock will be purchased for $13.86 per share.

MaxPoint is a Delaware corporation and maintains its headquarters
in Morrisville, North Carolina.  MaxPoint is a digital advertising
company that helps retailers and brands increase in-store traffic.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


MDL 2284: Ct. Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Willses' Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the
Imprelis Arborist Panel's decision and denying Dennis and Lonell
Wills' appeal in the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS
DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 2:11-md-02284-GEKP
(E.D. Pa.).

The Willes appeal the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel,
claiming that their warranty claim was improperly denied.  In the
fall of 2010, DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide designed
to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-target
vegetation.  After widespread reports of damage to non-target
vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") began
investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of
Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling
Imprelis.

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

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

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

After the Willses discovered and reported Imprelis damage to their
property, they accepted an amended claims resolution agreement to
compensate them for the loss of several trees and the care of
others.  In the fall of 2014, they submitted a warranty claim,
contending that 24 trees that had previously been designated for
tree care had continued to decline and should be removed and
replaced and that two additional trees had also been damaged by
Imprelis.

A DuPont arborist visited the Willses property about a year later
and concluded that one tree should be removed and two others
should receive additional care.  DuPont's warranty resolution
offer reflected these findings, but the Willses objected,
submitting photographs and arguing that the warranty trees not
marked for removal were sufficiently damaged to warrant removal.
DuPont denied the Willses' objections and included with its denial
an addendum including notes and comments from Dr. Richard
Rathjens, an arborist who reviewed the photographs submitted by
the Willses and taken during DuPont site visits and who agreed
with DuPont's assessment of the warranty claim.

The Willses then appealed their warranty claim to the Arborist
Panel.  In that appeal, they claimed that 26 trees on their
property were in need of removal and replacement, and they
included with their appeal a report from their own expert
arborist, Faith Appelquist.  The Appeals Panel granted the appeal
with regard to two trees, one of which was inadvertently removed
without compensation and the other of which was marked for removal
but not yet removed.  As to the remaining trees, however, the
Panel denied the appeal, concluding that those trees did not show
sufficient Imprelis damage to warrant removal.  The Willses appeal
the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel.

The Willses argue on appeal that 24 of their trees are so severely
damaged by Imprelis that they should be removed and replaced.
They argue that if one compares their expert's comments on the
trees in question with Dr. Rathjens's comments, both experts
actually support removal and replacement for the trees in dispute.
Dr. Rathjens's ultimate conclusion, however, was that the trees in
question were not severely damaged enough to warrant removal, and
he questioned whether Imprelis was the cause of all of the damage
displayed in the photographs.  Thus, to the extent that the
Willses attempt to draw parallels between their expert and one of
DuPont's, the clear conclusions drawn by Dr. Rathjens from his own
observations make the Willses' attempt at comparison less than
compelling.

The appeal, then, comes down to a battle of experts.  After a
review of the full record, including the Appelquist report and
photographs, as well as notes from DuPont arborists, the Appeals
Panel observed that the only symptomology seen was old and the
trees in question appear to be showing new growth.  They
determined, therefore, that DuPont's assessment of the 24 trees in
question was correct.  Despite the evidence put forward by the
Willses and after reviewing the record before the Arborist Panel,
Judge Pratter cannot conclude that the Panel's decision was
arbitrary or capricious.  As a result, he affirmed the Arborist
Panel decision and denied the Willses' appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/VNyaz2 from Leagle.com.


MY PILLOW: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss "Marlowe" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TIM MARLOWE, etc., Plaintiff, v. MY PILLOW,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17CV463 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Christopher
A. Boyko of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

Marlowe filed his original Complaint on Jan. 27, 2017 against the
Defendant, alleging three causes of action relating to the
Defendant's advertising campaign.  His First Amended Complaint was
filed on March 9, 2017.  The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss
all claims on April 13, 2017.

According to the Plaintiff's Complaint, he purchased two King
pillows for a total price of $119.96 in response to the
Defendant's "buy one, get one" ("BOGO") offer on or about Dec. 11,
2015.  He asserts, however, that one Kingsize pillow can be
purchased from My Pillow on Amazon for $54.95.  His argument is
that the Defendant's BOGO offer does not result in one free
pillow, but instead inflates the price of the first pillow to
twice its regular price, passing the cost of the second pillow on
to the customer.

The Plaintiff brought class and individual claims alleging a
violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act ("OCSPA"),
unjust enrichment and fraud.  The Defendant filed a Motion to
Dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims.

Judge Boyko concludes that without facts supporting the
proposition that two pillows from My Pillow are of less value than
that which the Plaintiff paid when he bought two pillows, the
Plaintiff has failed to show actual damages as required for
recovery under an OCSPA class claim.  Therefore, the Judge granted
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action OCSPA
claim.

Importantly, this conclusion does not necessarily preclude the
Plaintiff from recovering under an individual OCSPA claim.  The
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged conduct proscribed by Ohio
Admin.  As such, his individual claim under the OCSPA cannot be
dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  Judge Boyko denied the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's individual OCSPA claim.

For recovery under a claim of unjust enrichment, the Judge finds
that even assuming the Plaintiff were able to establish that he
did suffer economic loss that by itself would not support his
claim for unjust enrichment.  Therefore, since the Defendant did
not retain a benefit under circumstances in which it would have
been unjust to retain that benefit, the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment is granted.

Finally, Judge Boyko concludes that a failure to allege actual
damages or any injury beyond the reliance on the misrepresentation
itself is fatal to a fraud claim.  Similarly, the Plaintiff does
not sufficiently allege actual damages, failing to satisfy the
sixth element of a valid fraud claim.  Therefore, the Judge
granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim for
fraud.

Accordingly, Judge Boyko granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
as it relates to the OCSPA Class Action claim, unjust enrichment
claim, and fraud claim, and denied as to the individual OCSPA
claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2017 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/BbO4hE from Leagle.com.

Tim Marlowe, Plaintiff, represented by Frank A. Bartela --
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein.

Tim Marlowe, Plaintiff, represented by Nicole T. Fiorelli --
nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein & Patrick J.
Perotti -- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein.

My Pillow, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel H. Bryan --
dbryan@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister, Michael J.
Zbiegien -- mzbiegien@taftlaw.com -- Jr., Taft Stettinius &
Hollister & Ronald D. Holman, II -- rholman@taftlaw.com -- Taft
Stettinius & Hollister.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Student-Athletes File FLSA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie L. Goutos, Esq. -- Stephanie.Goutos@jacksonlewis.com --
of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review,
wrote that in the latest effort to argue that student athletes
qualify as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
a class action lawsuit was filed in a federal court in
Pennsylvania against the National Collegiate Athletic Association
("NCAA") and 20 universities.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed U.S. District Judge William T. Lawrence's dismissal of a
student-athlete litigation against the NCAA and over 120 NCAA
Division I member schools alleging that student-athletes are
employees who are entitled to a minimum wage under the FLSA.
Berger v. NCAA, No. 16-1558 (7th Cir. Dec. 5, 2016).   Jackson
Lewis had the privilege of representing 30 of the Universities
named in that lawsuit.

Now, Plaintiff Lawrence "Poppy" Livers has filed a lawsuit on
behalf of himself and others alleged to be similarly situated,
claiming that college student athletes who receive scholarships
are employees who are entitled to compensation.  Plaintiff argues
the "crux" of the Complaint is that recipients of athletic
scholarships, which require them to participate in NCAA athletics
under daily supervision of full-time coaching and training staff,
are employees of NCAA member schools as much as, "and arguably
more than, fellow students employed in work study programs, e.g.,
student ticket takers, seating attendants and food concession
workers at NCAA contests."

Further, Plaintiff argues that this Complaint differs from Berger
in that the putative collective in this case "only includes
Scholarship Athletes, and does not address the status of 'walk-
ons,' i.e., student athletes who are not obligated to, and
controlled by, NCAA member schools pursuant to Athletic Financial
Aid Agreements."  The Plaintiffs in Berger attended the University
of Pennsylvania which does not enter into Athletic Financial Aid
Agreements. [GN]


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Rich" Suit in S. Dist. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit
and Collections, Inc. The case is styled as Patricia Rich, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Nationwide Credit and Collections, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-07628-RJS (S.D.N.Y., October 5, 2017).

Nationwide Credit and Collections, Inc. is engaged in the
collection business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
   Lemberg Law, LLC
   43 Danbury Rd
   Wilton, CT 06897
   Tel: (203) 653-2250
   Fax: (203) 653-3424
   Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


NORTHWEST CASCADE: Faces Class Action Over Porta Potty Plant Odor
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara E. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that living by a
porta potty plant really stinks.  And, what's more, it can be
hazardous to one's health and bring down property values.  Four
neighbors filed a lawsuit against Northwest Cascade and the
company's Honey Bucket and FloHawks divisions claiming odors,
gases and fumes caused unbearable headaches, irritated their
asthma and devalued their homes.

Northwest Cascade heads a wastewater-treatment plant and cleaning
station for Honey Buckets, which are porta potty units.  Pumper
trucks extract the contents of the Honey Buckets and transport the
waste to the property.  The sewage is then pressed into biosolids
and used for agricultural and landscaping needs.  Any remaining
wastewater is sent to the King County Wastewater Treatment system,
and the units are taken to the Pacific facility where they are
power washed and stored for future use.

On September 27, Pierce County Superior Court Judge Helen Whitener
certified the case as a class action, allowing additional
residents to join.  This could mean others from the approximately
40 lots in the neighborhood decide to take action.  The Honey
Bucket operation has been expanding since its inception in 2014
and neighbors have smelled sewage.

"Sometimes the smell is so heavy it engulfs your home, whether
your windows are open or not. And it's just really difficult to
live in this environment now," said Samantha Niemi, a mother who
lives in the neighborhood.  She is worried about the health of her
children and others in the area.  "When they're playing outside,
they have their shirts over their faces.  We're really scared
about the future of the kids in the area," Ms. Niemi said. "My
biggest goal in all of this is to literally just have the
processors and the trucks removed."

"I think nobody wants to experience what we experience, even the
company or anybody," resident Ganna Shtogryn, said.  "The smell,
it's the same as a porta-potty standing right next to your door.
It's hard to be outside."

Another resident, Samantha Binder, has a treasure trove of
evidence she's collected for the battle sprawled out in her home.
"This is my life," she said.  "My everyday life."

"The hardest smell we experience is the sewage smell. Plus, we
experience chemicals. Sometimes perfumes. Sometimes they mix
together, so it's like different kind of . . . It depends on what
type of operations the company has at the moment," said plaintiff
Anna Shtogryn.  "This is like a stressful life because we never
know what to expect during the day and during the night."

The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has received complaints about the
facility, according to an agency spokesperson who indicated that
all of the complaints appear to be focused on odors.  The agency
issued two violation notices earlier in 2017, but both incidences
were either dismissed or resolved.

Porta potty use has been linked to life-threatening infections,
including norovirsus, salmonella, Shigellosis, a bacterial
infection that causes rectal pain, vomiting and other bowel
issues, Hepatitis A and the flu.  Just having the facility that
close to their neighborhood, has residents concerned with
contracting serious illnesses. [GN]


NY NJ RESTORATION: Faces "Gomez" Suit in E. Dist. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NY NJ Restoration
Inc. doing business as: NY NJ Restoration. The case is styled as
Cesar Reyes Gomez, Lucas Galindo Ortiz, Manuel Galindo, Sixto
Galindo and Zeferino Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NY NJ Restoration Inc.
doing business as: NY NJ Restoration, Edmund Imeri, Izet Imeri and
Bruno Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05831 (E.D.N.Y., October
5, 2017).

The Defendants are engaged in the construction industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


PACIFIC COAST: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
----------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Leyva, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Pacific Coast Home Furnishings, Inc. and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC677197 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
September 25, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages and failure to provide uninterrupted meal
periods.

Pacific Coast Home Furnishings, Inc. is a California corporation
that manufactures and distributes home furnishings. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHARMERICA CORP: Faces "Berg" Suit Over Sale to Phoenix
-------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BERG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PHARMERICA CORPORATION, GEOFFREY G. MEYERS, GREGORY S.
WEISHAR, FRANK E. COLLINS, W. ROBERT DAHL, JR., MARJORIE W. DORR,
BOB OAKLEY, PATRICK G. LEPORE, PHOENIX PARENT HOLDINGS INC., and
PHOENIX MERGER SUB INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-00582-DJH (W.D. Ky.,
September 20, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant
to which PharMerica will be acquired by Phoenix Parent Holdings
Inc. and Phoenix Merger Sub Inc.

On August 1, 2017, PharMerica's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Phoenix, according to the complaint.  Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of PharMerica will receive $29.25
in cash for each share of PharMerica they own.

PharMerica is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.  Parent is Delaware
corporation and a party to the Merger Agreement.  Merger Sub is a
Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a
party to the Merger Agreement.  Merger Sub and Parent are
affiliates of private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
L.P.

Formed in 2006, PharMerica is an institutional pharmacy services
company that services healthcare facilities, provides pharmacy
management services to hospitals, provides specialty infusion
services to patients outside a hospital setting, and offers the
only national oncology pharmacy in the United States.  PharMerica
is the second largest institutional pharmacy services company in
the United States based on revenues and customer licensed beds
under contract, operating 99 institutional pharmacies, 19
specialty infusion centers, and four specialty oncology pharmacies
in 45 states.  The Company's customers are typically institutional
healthcare providers, such as skilled nursing facilities, assisted
living facilities, hospitals, individuals receiving in-home care,
and patients with cancer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark K. Gray, Esq.
          Jacob E. Levy, Esq.
          GRAY & WHITE LAW
          713 E. Market St. #200
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 805-1800
          E-mail: mgray@grayandwhitelaw.com
                  jlevy@grayandwhitelaw.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rigrodskylong.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

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


PIZZA ON STONE: Faces "Moran" Suit in S. Dist. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pizza on Stone, LLC.
The case is styled as Oscar Enmanuel Carcamo Moran, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pizza on
Stone, LLC. doing business as: Adrienne's Pizzabar, Restaurant on
the Square Inc., doing business as: Adrienne's Pizzabar, Pearl
Stone Restaurant Inc. doing business as: Adrienne's Pizzabar, Nick
Angelis and Harry Polakakos, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07643
(S.D.N.Y., October 5, 2017).

The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
   Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C.
   60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
   New York, NY 10165
   Tel: (212) 317-1200
   Fax: (212) 317-1620
   Email: michael@faillacelaw.com


PLUSFOUR INC: Court Denies Bid to Transfer "Cardinali"
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada denied without prejudice Defendant Experian's motion to
transfer the case captioned LOUIS A. CARDINALI, Plaintiff(s), v.
PLUSFOUR, INC., et al., Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-02046-JAD-
NJK (D. Nev.).

Experian moves to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).
The Plaintiff filed a response to which Experian filed a reply.
Experian filed supplemental authority, and the Plaintiff has filed
a response to the supplemental authority.  The Court held a
hearing on the motion on Sept. 25, 2017.

The motion to transfer is premised in significant part on the
contention that the case is better handled in the Northern
District of Illinois in light of an overlapping nationwide class
action being litigated in that court.  In the latest filing in
relation to this motion, however, the Plaintiff has attached a
minute order from that court allowing the Plaintiff there to
withdraw his class action allegations and his motion to certify a
class.  Further, Experian represented at the hearing that the
primary case on which it premised its motion to transfer has now
been dismissed.

In light of the changed landscape, Judge Koppe denied Experian's
motion to transfer without prejudice.  To the extent Experian
continues to believe circumstances warrant transfer, it may file a
renewed motion to transfer more specifically focused on the
current state of affairs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/1oebnU from Leagle.com.

Louis A. Cardinali, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew I. Knepper -
- matthew.knepper@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark, LLC.

Louis A. Cardinali, Plaintiff, represented by Miles N. Clark --
miles.clark@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark LLC, Sean N.
Payne, PAYNE LAW FIRM LLC & David H. Krieger --
info@hainesandkrieger.com -- Haines & Krieger, LLC.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Adam W. Wiers -- awwiers@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice,
Christopher A. Hall -- chall@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac
vice, Andrew J. Sharples -- asharples@naylorandbrasterlaw.com --
Naylor & Braster Attorneys at Law, PLLC & Jennifer L. Braster --
jbraster@naylorandbrasterlaw.com -- Naylor & Braster.


POLTER BERRY: "Blas-Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aristeo Blas-Lopez, Antonio De Jesus ChavezResendiz, Paz Vargas-
Gonzalez, Miguel Angel Rojo-Trejo, Emiliano Juarez-Trejo, Jairo
Perez-Gonzalez, and Pedro Martinez-Gonzalez, and all others
similarly-situated v. Polter Berry Farm, Inc., Dan L. Polter,
Carol Polter, Steve Polter, Anthony L. Polter, and Pedro Lopez,
Case No. 3:17-cv-02084 (N.D. Ohio, October 4, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiffs are migrant agricultural workers recruited by
Defendants' authorized agents in Mexico in 2016 and 2017 to work
on Defendants' berry and vegetable farm under the H-2A guestworker
program in and around Sandusky County, Ohio.

The Polter Defendants, and Defendant Pedro Lopez were day to day
managers with operational control over Polter Berry Farm, Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Stephen B. Johnston, Esq.
      Law Offices of Stephen B. Johnston
      316 N. Erie St. Suite 416
      Toledo, OH 43604
      Tel: (419) 244-9722
      Fax: (419) 449-9723
      E-mail: sbjlegal@gmail.com

          - and -

      Robert J. Willis, Esq.
      P.O. Box 1828
      Pittsboro, NC 27312
      Tel: (919) 821-9031
      Fax: (919) 821-1763
      E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com


POTBELLY SANDWICH: Faces "Bryant" Suit in S. Dist. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Potbelly Sandwich
Works, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Bryant and Trinton
Hatton, Individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Potbelly Sandwich Works, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07638-CM (S.D.N.Y., October 5, 2017).

Potbelly Sandwich Works, LLC owns and operates a chain of food
restaurants with a registered agent at 111 Eighth Avenue, New
York, New York 10011.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
   Klafter, Olsen & Lesser, LLP
   Two International Drive, Ste 350
   Rye Brook, NY 10573
   Tel: (914) 997-5656
   Fax: (914) 997-2444
   Email: frudich@klafterolsen.com

      - and -

   Seth Richard Lesser, Esq.
   Klafter, Olsen & Lesser, LLP
   Two International Drive, Ste 350
   Rye Brook, NY 10573
   Tel: (914) 997-5656
   Fax: (914) 997-2444
   Email: SLesser@klafterolsen.com


PRECISION MOTOR: Faces "Ratliff" Suit in N. Dist. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Precision Motor
Transport Group, LLC. The case is styled as Jerome Ratliff, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Precision Motor Transport Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-07196 (N.D. Ill., October 5, 2017).

Precision Motor Transport Group, LLC provides automotive logistics
and transportation services to luxury automobile manufacturers in
the Eastern Seaboard and interior of the United States.[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


PRICELINE.COM: Must Face Spirit Ticket Pricing Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tycko & Zavareei LLP on Oct. 4 disclosed that on September 30,
2017, Judge Robert N. Chatigny of the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut denied Priceline's motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's claims, allowing Plaintiff's claims to move
forward against Priceline.com.  The class action lawsuit alleges
that Priceline breaches its "Best Price Guaranteed" promise when
advertising tickets from Spirit Airlines because Priceline adds
its own markup to Spirit tickets, unbeknownst to consumers.  As a
result, Plaintiffs allege, Spirit tickets are always cheaper on
Spirit.com than on Priceline.com, despite Priceline's explicit
promise to the contrary.  Plaintiff, Austin Chapman, brings his
claims on behalf of himself and all consumers nationwide who
purchased Spirit Airlines tickets through Priceline.com.

In his ruling denying Priceline's motion to dismiss in its
entirety, Judge Chatigny held that Plaintiff had adequately stated
a claim for relief because "it is plausible that a reasonable
consumer would interpret the contract language to include a
promise not to add hidden surcharges."

Jeffrey Kaliel, attorney for Plaintiff and the putative class and
a partner with Tycko & Zavareei LLP, commented, "Priceline's
practice of adding surcharges to Spirit Airline tickets is in
violation of its best price guarantee.  The Court's ruling on the
motion to dismiss is the first step toward achieving an important
victory for consumers."

If you purchased Spirit Airlines tickets through Priceline.com or
other travel websites, please contact Tycko & Zavareei LLP for
more information regarding the pending lawsuit and your legal
rights.

                     About Tycko & Zavareei

Tycko & Zavareei LLP, based in Washington, D.C. with offices in
Oakland, California, has a long and successful record of
litigating complex cases.  The firm routinely handles large and
complex matters throughout the country, advocating on behalf of
individuals fighting for their civil rights, consumers seeking
redress for unfair business practices, whistleblowers exposing
fraud and corruption, and non-profit entities and businesses
facing difficult litigation. [GN]


PROVIDENCE LITTLE: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Velika Turner, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated v. Providence Little Company of Mary
Foundation, Providence Health & Services, and Providence Health &
Services Foundation/San Fernando and Santa Clarita Valleys Service
Areas, a California nonprofit, and Does 1-10, Case No. BC676996
(Cal. Super. Ct., September 25, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiff and said members of
the Plaintiff Class for all wages due to them, failure to provide
meal and rest breaks and failure to pay for missed breaks, and
failure to furnish the Plaintiff and Class members accurate,
itemized wage statements required by the California Labor Code
upon payment of wages.

The Defendants operate 6 medical centers including Providence Holy
Cross, Providence Little Company of Mary Torrance and Providence
Little Company of Mary San Pedro, Providence Saint John's Health
Center and their John Wayne Cancer Institute, Providence Saint
Joseph and their Roy and Patricia Disney Family Cancer Center, and
Providence Tarzana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
      BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
      2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (805) 270-7100
      Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
      E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
              kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Court Stays "Cook" Pending SCOTUS Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's
Motion to Stay the case captioned KUREEN COOK, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC., a Delaware
corporation; RENT-A-CENTER WEST, INC., a Delaware corporation;
RENT-A-CENTER FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL INC., a Texas corporation;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, No. 2:17-cv-00048-
MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal.).

RAC moves to dismiss Plaintiff's individual claims on grounds that
under the terms of an arbitration agreement reached with
Plaintiff, Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate all past, present and
future disputes with RAC, including all claims for wages and other
compensation due and any statutory claims (Agreement).

RAC further moves to strike Plaintiff's collective and class
action claims on grounds that the Arbitration Agreement precludes
those claims.

Finally, and in the alternative, since resolution of a case
currently pending before the United States Supreme Court may be
dispositive of much of Plaintiff's action in any event, RAC asks
the Court to stay the entire action if it is disinclined to simply
enforce the terms of the Arbitration Agreement.

Plaintiff Kureen Cook alleges a nationwide collective action claim
against his former employer, Rent-A-Center, for overtime under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as well as numerous Rule 23 class
action claims under California law for alleged unpaid wages,
unpaid overtime, unpaid meal and rest breaks, unreimbursed
business expenses, failure to compensate for split shifts, and
penalties arising from allegedly non-compliant wage statements
under the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code.

The Court agrees that a stay is compelling under the circumstances
of this case. Despite Plaintiff's individual claims, the gravamen
of his lawsuit would appear to rest with the viability of his
collective and class action allegations. If the Supreme Court
agrees with the Fifth, Eighth, and Second Circuit decisions
holding that class action waivers are enforceable, and disagrees
with the contrary position taken by the Ninth Circuit, the
collective and class action claims here will fail. As a practical
matter, that determination could well be dispositive of
Plaintiff's entire lawsuit.

Requiring the parties to go forward with litigation given the
uncertainty in this regard would waste the time and resources of
both the parties and the Court. Engaging in collective and class
action discovery, not to mention handling disputes over
conditional certification, potential class members, and the merits
of the collective/class action allegations themselves, will
require substantial effort on the part of all concerned, efforts
that may well be unnecessary depending on the Supreme Court's
ultimate decision in Morris. Additionally, by forcing RAC to
litigate this matter while the class waiver issue is pending
before the Supreme Court, would effectively deprive RAC of its
right under the Federal Arbitration Act to enforce its Arbitration
Agreement as written.

The Court will stay this lawsuit until such time as the Supreme
Court issues its decision in Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, 137
S.Ct. 809 (Jan. 13, 2017).

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 25, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8xxyrjo
from Leagle.com.

Kureen Cook, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Renee Bagosy --
jennifer.bagosy@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law Group.
Kureen Cook, Plaintiff, represented by Suzy E. Lee --
suzy.lee@capstonelawyers.com --  Capstone Law, APC & Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski --asokolowski@materlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group,
PC.

Rent-A-Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Julie A. Dunne,
Littler Mendelson, PC & Robert F. Friedman, Littler Mendelson,
P.C., pro hac vice.

Rent-A-Center West, Inc., Defendant, represented by Julie A. Dunne
-- jdunne@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.

Rent-A-Center Franchising International, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Julie A. Dunne, Littler Mendelson, PC.


ROMA PHARMACY: Faces "Diaz" Suit in E. Dist. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roma Pharmacy Corp.,
d/b/a First Aid Pharmacy.  The case is styled as Roman Diaz,
individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Roma Pharmacy Corp., d/b/a First Aid
Pharmacy, Desai Ramila and Alpesh Patel, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-07646 (E.D.N.Y., October 5, 2017).

Roma Pharmacy Corp offers Medical Supplies and Equipment in Bronx,
NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Liberty of the Seas Passengers File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, PA, on Oct. 4 disclosed
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Royal Caribbean
in connection to what happened to passengers booked on the Liberty
of the Seas, the week of Hurricane Harvey.

Maritime Attorney Michael Winkleman from Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina
& Winkleman is representing dozens of people who were supposed to
set sail out of Galveston, Texas August 27th Winkleman has filed a
class action lawsuit against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The
Class Action complaint alleges that despite Hurricane Harvey
literally flooding parts of Texas, Royal Caribbean told passengers
they would get no refund if they did not board.  The suit states:

"RCCL's misconduct was predicated on a profit motive because,
simply put, cruise lines like RCCL make no money when passengers
don't sail."

And:

"RCCL's knowing and intentional decision to effectively force
individuals who had purchased a cruise aboard the Liberty of the
Seas leaving August 27, 2017 to fly to Texas while it was in a
state of emergency due to Hurricane Harvey, because RCCL would not
cancel or modify its planned cruise.  In so doing, RCCL forced
hundreds of would be passengers, including children and the
elderly, to be subjected to catastrophic flooding and potential
loss of life."

Before flying in from Canada, with her husband and two kids, Nikki
McIntosh says she repeatedly contacted RCCL asking whether the
cruise would be canceled.  Weather reports showed Harvey would
have an effect on coastal areas of Texas.  Ms. McIntosh says, "We
were told that despite the category 4 hurricane barreling down,
the ship would set sail. We were told repeatedly . . . if we
didn't make it to the port, we would not be refunded."

Ms. McIntosh says, "We ended up being trapped in Houston at our
own expense for 6 days, surrounded by flood waters, our hotel
leaking badly.  Food shortages were a concern.  I didn't know if
we would have to evacuate to a shelter.  It was very stressful and
completely unavoidable.  RCI should not have insisted on a
sailing.  They should have rebooked and offered credit instead of
holding our hard earned money hostage.  Between wasted flights,
hotel and food, we are out over $4500." [GN]


SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Barber" Suit Alleges Invasion of Privacy
-------------------------------------------------------------
TRILEISE BARBER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Case No. 2:17-
cv-01227-CB (W.D. Pa., September 20, 2017), seeks damages and
other remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant
in negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff
on her cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby, invading her privacy.

Santander Consumer USA Inc., a consumer finance company, provides
vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products.  Based in
Dallas, Texas, the Company offers new and used car loans, and auto
and cash-back refinance services.  The Company provides products
through dealers in the United States.  The Company operates as a
subsidiary of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.  The true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          1150 First Avenue, Suite 501
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (888) 595-9111
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: clevin@attorneysforconsumers.com


SCRIPPS NETWORKS: Inzlicht-Sprei Challenges Sale to Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELI INZLICHT-SPREI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. SCRIPPS NETWORKS INTERACTIVE, INC., JARL
MOHN, NICHOLAS B. PAUMGARTEN, JEFFREY SAGANSKY, RONALD W. TYSOE,
GINA L. BIANCHINI, MICHAEL R. COSTA, PHILIP I. KENT, KENNETH W.
LOWE, DONALD E. MEIHAUS, RICHELLE P. PARHAM, MARY MCCABE PEIRCE,
and WESLEY W. SCRIPPS, Case No. 3:17-cv-00420 (E.D. Tenn.,
September 20, 2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On July 31, 2017, Discovery Communications, Inc. and Scripps
announced that they signed a definitive agreement for Discovery to
acquire Scripps in a cash-and-stock transaction valued at $14.6
billion, or $90 per share, based on Discovery's Friday, July 21
closing price.

The Plaintiff contends that the Form S-4 Registration Statement,
filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 14, 2017, in connection with the Transaction, omits
material information with respect to the Transaction.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Transaction or
recover damages resulting from the Individual Defendants'
violations of securities laws.

Scripps is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Ohio and maintains its principal executive offices in
Knoxville, Tennessee.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

Scripps is a global media company with respected high-profile
brands and purports to be a leading developer of lifestyle-
oriented content, providing primarily home, food, travel and other
lifestyle-related programming.  The Company's content is
distributed via multiple methods, including television, the
internet, digital platforms and licensing arrangements.  Scripps
portfolio of networks includes HGTV, Food Network, Travel Channel,
DIY Network, Cooking Channel and Great American Country within and
outside the United States, with the exception of Great American
Country, which is only distributed in the United States, and Fine
Living, Asian Food Channel and TVN S.A.'s portfolio of networks
outside the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          The Freedom Center
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gstranch@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0380
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                  gegleston@gme-law.com


SECOND CHANCE: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Guarantees
------------------------------------------------------------
A Bethesda, Maryland married couple is leading a class action
lawsuit against a charity and an appraisal company for allegedly
misleading them and hundreds of other Maryland consumers.  The
lawsuit, filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
Maryland, details how Baltimore-based Second Chance, Inc. deceived
consumers into donating to the charity and how Virginia-based
NoVaStar Appraisals, Inc. deceived consumers into purchasing its
high-priced appraisals.

The couple, Nitin Gogtay and Kiran Dixit, and their lawyers at
Duane Morris LLP and at New Jersey-based Buttaci Leardi & Werner
LLC, say that Second Chance, through misleading promises of
significant financial benefits in the form of tax refunds and
deductions, persuaded hundreds of consumers to donate their homes
to the charity through what is called "deconstruction" -- a
process that involves dismantling a house and preserving finished
and reusable materials from that house for other uses or purposes.
NoVaStar independently made misleading guarantees of delivering
appraisals of deconstructed homes that would be "IRS compliant"
and that provided consumers "peace of mind" because there would be
"no IRS audits."

The problem, the lawsuit contends, is that Second Chance and
NoVaStar have known for many years that (1) the IRS audited
consumers and did not allow tax refunds or deductions for house
donations made to Second Chance, and (2) that NoVaStar's
appraisals were IRS non-compliant.  According to the complaint,
despite this knowledge, Second Chance and NoVaStar concealed that
information from Maryland consumers, including Gogtay and Dixit.

In 2013, Gogtay and Dixit used Second Chance to deconstruct their
home in Bethesda, Maryland.  They were told by the charity --
through tax planning worksheets, emails, and telephone
conversations -- that donating their house after paying for or
using Second Chance's deconstruction services would produce a net
benefit of $76,000.  That supposed benefit was primarily based on
an expensive and supposed IRS-compliant appraisal from NoVaStar.
Second Chance also persuaded the couple to commit to an additional
cash contribution of $35,000 that would be paid over a three-year
period.

In March 2014, the couple filed their federal and Maryland state
tax returns, claiming a $250,000 non-cash charitable contribution
to Second Chance, as the charity had indicated was allowed and
that NoVaStar declared was valid through its "IRS compliant"
appraisal.  In the fall of 2015, however, the IRS audited the
couple's 2013 federal tax returns and disallowed the deduction in
its entirety, concluding that the appraisal was non-compliant
(among other things).

The class action complaint alleges that such disallowances
happened many other times in the past to other Maryland consumers.
Yet, Second Chance and NoVaStar aggressively marketed its
services, benefits, and appraisals knowing that the IRS disallowed
those benefits and rejected those appraisals.  The class action
complaint further claims that none of this information was public
or otherwise disclosed to Maryland consumers (including Gogtay and
Dixit).  Yet, Second Chance and NoVaStar continued marketing their
services and supposed benefits anyway.

Second Chance still claims on its website
(www.secondchanceinc.org) that donating a house to the charity
"generates generous tax savings" that purportedly "translates into
cash in your pocket!" NoVaStar likewise still claims on its
website that its clients have "never" been audited by the IRS and
that it is "#1" with a "100% IRS success rate."

The class action seeks injunctive and monetary relief to stop
Second Chance and NoVaStar from continuing to make these false
representations to Maryland consumers, and to compensate Gogtay,
Dixit, and other class members for the financial harm caused by
Second Chance's and NoVaStar's misrepresentations.

Gogtay and Dixit are represented by Ugo Colella --
ucolella@duanemorris.com -- John J. Zefutie, Jr. --
jjzefutie@duanemorris.com -- and Michael J. Schrier --
mjschrier@duanemorris.com -- of Duane Morris LLP, and John W.
Leardi of Buttaci Leardi & Werner LLC. For more information on the
class action, or if you have questions as to whether you may
qualify as a member, contact Ugo Colella at
ucolella@duanemorris.com.

                     About Duane Morris

Duane Morris LLP provides innovative solutions to today's legal
and business challenges through the collaborative culture of its
more than 750 attorneys in offices across the United States and
internationally.  The firm represents a broad array of clients,
spanning all major practices and industries.

                     About Buttaci Leardi & Werner

Buttaci Leardi & Werner LLC is a health law and commercial
litigation boutique located in Princeton, New Jersey.  The firm's
practice includes representing individuals in class action
lawsuits challenging systemic misconduct by corporate defendants.
[GN]


SENECA RESOURCES: Accused by McLaughlin of Misclassifying Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY MCLAUGHLIN individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SENECA RESOURCES AND NATIONAL FUEL GAS COMPANY, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00255-NBF (W.D. Pa., September 19, 2017), alleges that
instead of paying overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Defendants
improperly classified Plaintiff and other oilfield workers as
independent contractors and paid them a daily rate with no
overtime compensation.

Seneca Resources is corporation doing business throughout the
United States, including Pennsylvania.  National Fuel Gas Company
is corporation doing business throughout the United States,
including Pennsylvania.

The Defendants are an oil and natural gas exploration and
production company operating throughout the United States,
including Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


SLICE TECHNOLOGIES: "Cooper" Suit Moved From Calif. to S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled JASON COOPER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SLICE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and UNROLLME
INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-02340, was
transferred on September 19, 2017, from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The New York District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-07102-JPO to the proceeding.

Mr. Cooper brings the action against the Defendants to stop their
alleged practice of unlawfully mining and selling data collected
from the private e-mails of millions of unwitting consumers.  The
putative class action seeks (1) to prevent Defendants' unlawful
interception and reading of consumers' e-mails, and (ii) statutory
and punitive damages for violations under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act.

Slice Technologies, Inc., is a corporation existing under the laws
of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business
located in San Mateo, California.  UnrollMe Inc. is a corporation
existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its
principal place of business located in Broadway, New York City.
UnrollMe is a subsidiary of Slice.[BN]

Plaintiffs Jason Cooper and Meghna Parikh are represented by:

          Rafey Sarkis Balabanian, Esq.
          Nina Eisenberg, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  neisenberg@edelson.com

Plaintiff Meghna Parikh is represented by:

          Kathryn Yvette Schubert, Esq.
          Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER AND KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: kschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com

Defendants Slice Technologies, Inc., and UnrollMe Inc. are
represented by:

          Ian Ballon, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1900 University Avenue, 5th Floor
          East Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: (650) 328-8500
          Facsimile: (650) 328-8508
          E-mail: ballon@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Lori Chang, Esq.
          Rebekah Susanne Strawn Guyon, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: changl@gtlaw.com
                  Guyonr@gtlaw.com


SMITH TRANSPORT: Faces "Ratliff" Suit N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smith Transport Inc.
The case is styled as Jerome Ratliff, Jr., on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Smith
Transport Inc and Smith Transport USA, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-07199 (N.D. Ill., October 5, 2017).

Smith Transport is engaged in the trucking business.[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


SOCIAL SECURITY: Fed. Cir. Affirms Removal in ALJ Candidate List
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, issued an
Opinion Affirming Final Decision of the Merit Systems Protection
Board removing Plaintiff from list of eligibles for candidacy as
an Administrative Law Judge in the case captioned  COTTY P.
O'LEARY, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Respondents. No. 2016-2477. (Fed. Cir.)

Cotty O'Leary petitions for review of a final decision of the
Merit Systems Protection Board (Board).  O'Leary was removed from
the 2012 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) certificate of
eligibles for candidacy as an administrative law judge by the
Social Security Administration (SSA).

O'Leary alleged that he had not received three considerations from
the appointing officer, Nancy Peters, as required by the
regulation. Rather, according to O'Leary, Peters performed merely
'ministerial approvals,' while the actual appointment
considerations were made by various other individuals.  O'Leary
also moved to certify a class action on behalf of other candidates
who were similarly removed from the list.

5 C.F.R. Section 332.405 provides that an appointing officer is
not required to consider an eligible who has been considered by
him for three separate appointments from the same or different
certificates for the same position. Known as the rule of three,
Section 332.405 has a long history dating back to 1886, and this
court has specifically held that this regulation is lawful.

The Federal Circuit must affirm the Board's decision unless it is
(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise
not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures
required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3)
unsupported by substantial evidence.

The Federal Circuit agrees with the Board that given the number of
appointments under her auspices, it is reasonable for Peters to
delegate duties to others with first-hand knowledge of the
requirements of the administrative law judge position. Having
effectively delegated her appointment duties, Peters was not
required to personally consider the merits of O'Leary's candidacy
and could appropriately defer to the merits recommendations from
Chief Judge Cristaudo.

The Federal Circuit also affirms the denial of O'Leary's class-
certification motion.

A full-text copy of the Federal Circuit's September 6, 2017
Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybzonga9from
Leagle.com.

COTTY P. O'LEARY, Metairie, LA, pro se.

ALISON VICKS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United
States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondents.
Also represented by CHAD A. READLER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,
ALLISON KIDD-MILLER.


STARRETT CITY: Montgomery Sues Over Denied Air-Conditioning
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Montgomery, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Starrett City, Inc. and Grenadier Realty
Corp., Case No. 518440/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., September 25, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide the
Plaintiff and Class members with air-conditioning, causing them to
endure sweltering temperatures and uninhabitable living
conditions.

The Defendants operate Spring Creek Towers, the largest
government-subsidized residential rental complex in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Israel Klein, Esq.
      Brittany Weiner, Esq.
      IMBESI LAW P.C.
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (646) 767-2265
      Facsimile: (212) 658-9177
      E-mail: Israel@lawicm.com


STEARNS LENDING: Faces "Olachea" Suit in C. Dist. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stearns Lending,
LLC.  The case is styled as Renee Olachea, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stearns
Lending, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01741-JVS-KES (C.D.
Penn., October 5, 2017).

Stearns Lending, LLC provides mortgage lending services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael F Ram, Esq.
   Robins Kaplan LLP
   2440 W El Camino Real Suite 100
   Mountain View, CA 94040
   Tel: (650) 784-4007
   Fax: (650) 784-4041
   Email: mram@robinskaplan.com

      - and -

   Susan S Brown,Esq.
   Robins Kaplan LLP
   2440 West El Camino Real
   Mountain View, CA 94040
   Tel: (650) 784-4040
   Fax: (650) 784-4041
   Email: sbrown@robinskaplan.com


TAURUS: Opens Pistol Class Action Settlement Claims Period
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Terrill, writing for Guns.com, reports that as part of a
class action settlement agreement, the claims period for owners of
defective Taurus pistols opens.

The Florida gun maker sent out an email blast notifying class
members that the claims period runs Oct. 9 through Feb. 6.  Per
the settlement agreement, the company will offer three options: a
cash payment, enhanced warranty, and safety training.

The options will allow participants to either receive up to $200
cash in exchange for the defective pistol or owners to have their
pistol inspected and repaired for no charge.  Taurus will also
publish free online training videos and materials instructing how
to properly operate and handle the Taurus pistols in question.

The company will cover shipping and handling costs, but asks class
members to review state and federal regulations before shipping
the materials.  Detailed instructions are found on the settlement
website.

In July, a federal judge approved the settlement agreement, which
could cost the company up to $239 million.  A range of Taurus
pistols contain an alleged defect that allows the gun to discharge
if dropped.

Taurus pistols subject to the defects include the Millennium,
Millennium Pro, Millennium Pro Compact, Millennium Pro Sub-
Compact, 24/7, and others.

The lead plaintiff in the case, a sheriff's deputy from Iowa, was
injured when his Taurus pistol discharged when the handgun hit the
ground after it fell out of its holster as he pursued a fleeing
suspect.  He never touched the trigger. [GN]


TGI FRIDAYS: Averts Class Action Over Drink-Pricing Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that the state
Supreme Court issued a split decision on Oct. 4 on two class-
action lawsuits that challenged drink-pricing policies at some
South Jersey restaurants.

In a 5-1 vote, the high court ruled against a suit claiming TGI
Fridays, by omitting the price of drinks from its menus, tricked
customers into overpaying for soda, beer and mixed drinks.

But the justices cleared the way for a suit alleging customers
were charged different prices for the same drinks during a single
visit to eateries run by OSI Restaurant Partners LLC, whose
operations include Carrabba's Italian Grill and Bonefish Grill.

The suits, both filed in Burlington County, argued the
restaurants' pricing policies violated the state's consumer
protection laws.

The Fridays' suit was brought by Debra Dugan, a customer at the
chain's outlet in Mount Laurel.  The OSI suit was filed by Ernest
Bozzi, a patron at a Carrabba's in Maple Shade.

Each suit cleared its first hurdle, winning approval to represent
classes of customers from separate state judges in Mount Holly.

But an appeals court overturned the favorable ruling in the
Fridays case, saying those customers could sue only as
individuals.  Among other concerns, it noted the proposed class
"erroneously" included people who had not looked at their menu or
who knew the costs of a drink based on previous visits to Fridays.

The same panel declined to hear an appeal from OSI.

In the Oct. 4 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed the Fridays
challenge did not meet requirements for class-action status.

It said state law "has consistently rejected" the plaintiffs' view
that a customer's loss could be based on the difference between
their actual cost and "what they contend would be 'fair' or
'reasonable' prices."

The Fridays' plaintiffs were prepared to estimate a loss per
customer based on the company's market research that showed
customers on average spent $1.72 less on beverages when prices
were known.

In a dissent, Justice Barry Albin said the majority's decision
"will make it more difficult for a class of many thousands of
defrauded consumers to act collectively in pursuit of a common
remedy against a corporate wrongdoer."

The court's decision said the Bozzi lawsuit could continue with a
narrowed focus on "customers who, in the course of a single visit
to an OSI restaurant, were charged different prices for beverages
of the same brand, type and volume."

The class previously had been defined as any customer who, since
Dec. 23, 2004, had purchased an item "for which no price was
disclosed on the menu or table placard."

Mr. Bozzi filed his suit after he ordered two Peroni beers during
a 2010 meal at Carrabba's and discovered a one-dollar difference
between the prices.  According to the ruling, a restaurant
employee told him "that 'the computer changes the price at certain
times

The ruling said Mr. Bozzi complained to a restaurant staffer, "who
told him that 'the computer changes the price at certain times'
and that it was the restaurant's policy to charge customers
accordingly."

The OSI class is expected to include more than 750,000 New Jersey
customers of Carrabba's, Outback, Bonefish Grille and Fleming's
Steakhouse, said Donald Doherty, a Berlin Township attorney
representing the class.

"Customers were not told the prices of drinks and other items, and
then the prices were raised while they dined," he said, adding the
restaurants "have not stopped the practice."

"Common sense says that's wrong and Carrabba's wanted to push it
to the point of the Supreme Court having to tell them so," Doherty
said.

Justice Lee Solomon did not participate in the Oct. 4 decision.
[GN]


TRISTAR PLUMBING: Faces "Luo" Suit in E. Dist. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tristar Plumbing
Supply Inc.  The case is styled as Hai Qing Luo, individually and
on behalf of all other employee similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Tristar Plumbing Supply Inc., Long River International Group (USA)
Inc., Logo Mechanical Inc., Hao Yang, ZhiZhong Lin, Victor Peng,
Michael Ma and Bao Ling Liang, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05849
(E.D.N.Y., October 5, 2017).

TRISTAR PLUMBING SUPPLY is an Interstate DOT registered company
based in FLUSHING NY. The company operates 2 power units and 2
drivers.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


UNITED NATIONS: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "LaVenture" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Carmen LaVenture, Maggie LaVenture, Marie LaVenture and
Sane LaVenture filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
titled LaVenture, et al. v. United Nations, et al., Case No. 14-
cv-1611, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Brooklyn).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs blame the United Nations for the cholera epidemic that
killed 9,000 people and infected 700,000 more after the 2010 Haiti
earthquake.

Lead plaintiff Marie LaVenture sued March 11, 2014, on behalf of
her parents, who died, "and those additional 1,479 plaintiffs or
deceased parties whose representatives are plaintiffs" in Federal
Court.  The class seeks damages at least equal to the $2.2 billion
it estimates it will cost Haiti to eliminate the cholera that was
brought by the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti.

In the lawsuit, LaVenture claims that studies "by the United
Nations itself, showed definitively that the outbreak was caused
by an Asian strain of cholera imported to Haiti by a Nepalese
peacekeeping force.  Although Nepal was in the midst of a cholera
outbreak, none of the Nepalese peacekeepers were tested for
cholera before being sent to Haiti."

The appellate case is captioned as LaVenture, et al. v. United
Nations, et al., 17-2908, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

Defendants-Appellees are the United Nations; United Nations
Stabilization Mission in Haiti; Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of
the United Nations; Edmond Mulet, former Under Secretary-General
for the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti; Chandra
Srivastava, former Chief Engineer for the United Nations Mission
to Haiti; Paul Aghadjanian, Chief of Mission Support for the
United Nations Mission to Haiti; Pedro Medrano, Assistant United
Nations Secretary General; and Miguel De Serpa, Under Secretary
for Legal Affairs.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Marie LaVenture, each individually and on
behalf of the Estate of Cherylusse LaVenture, and the Estate of
Marie Therese Fleuriciane Delinais, and the additional persons and
their representatives listed on Exhibit 1, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; Maggie LaVenture, each individually and
on behalf of the Estate of Cherylusse LaVenture, and the Estate of
Marie Therese Fleuriciane Delinais, and the additional persons and
their representatives listed on Exhibit 1, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; Sane LaVenture, each individually and
on behalf of the Estate of Cherylusse LaVenture, and the Estate of
Marie Therese Fleuriciane Delinais, and the additional persons and
their representatives listed on Exhibit 1, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; and Carmen LaVenture, each individually
and on behalf of the Estate of Cherylusse LaVenture, and the
Estate of Marie Therese Fleuriciane Delinais, and the additional
persons and their representatives listed on Exhibit 1, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          James Francis Haggerty, Esq.
          JAMES F. HAGGERTY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          45 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 480-0700
          E-mail: jamesfhaggerty@gmail.com

               - and -

          Tim Howard, Esq.
          HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          8511 Bull Headley Road
          Takkahassee, FL 32312
          Telephone: (850) 298-4455
          E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com


UNITED STATES: Court Denies Govt's Move to Dismiss PACER Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
case captioned Theodore D'Apuzzo, P.A., Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. The United States
of America, Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-62769-Civ-Scola (S.D.
Fla.).

The Plaintiff brings this putative class action lawsuit against
the United States government alleging that the Federal Judiciary's
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system
improperly charges users for judicial opinions in violation of the
contract between the Government and PACER users.

D'Apuzzo alleges that the Government breached a contract with him
and the proposed class by improperly charging to access judicial
opinions. He also alleges that the Government breached the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Finally, D'Apuzzo alleges
that the Government's collection of excessive PACER user fees
amounts to an illegal exaction that violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Government argues that the District Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this case or, in the alternative, that
D'Apuzzo's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.

Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The alleged contract at issue is the contract that all PACER users
enter into with the Government when they sign up for PACER
accounts.  According to this contract, PACER users and the
Government agree (mutual agreement, offer, and acceptance) that
the users will pay for access to court records (consideration).
The Fee Schedule, which according to D'Apuzzo is incorporated into
the alleged contract at issue, states that, "[n]o fee is charged
for access to judicial opinions."  Thus, PACER users should have
free access to judicial opinions under PACER's terms and
conditions.  According to D'Apuzzo, the Government has breached
the contract between the Government and PACER users by improperly
charging for access to judicial opinions.  D'Apuzzo has met his
burden of pleading jurisdiction.

Failure to State a Claim

The Government moves to dismiss each cause of action in the First
Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Count One: Breach of Contract

According to the First Amended Complaint, the clickwrap agreement
at issue set forth the obligations of the parties to the contract.
D'Apuzzo, as the PACER user, would pay a ten-cents-per-page fee
for access to documents other than judicial opinions. In return,
the Government would provide D'Apuzzo access to electronic records
and would provide access to judicial opinions free of charge. The
Government claims that these provisions do not create a contract
between the parties.

The Government is effectively asking the Court to conclude that
the clickwrap agreement at issue did not create contractual
obligations on the part of the Government. But such a conclusion
requires the Court to interpret the Agreement, which the Court
will not do at the motion to dismiss stage.  It is noteworthy that
the case law relied upon by the Government throughout its briefing
predominantly addresses this issue at the motion for summary
judgment stage.

And every case relied upon by the Government in arguing that
D'Apuzzo has waived his claims considers the waiver question on a
motion for summary judgment.  That is the appropriate stage to
address the Government's arguments.  But when considering a motion
to dismiss, the Court must accept all of the plaintiff's
allegations as true.  Through the allegations of his First Amended
Complaint, D'Apuzzo has sufficiently pleaded the four elements of
a claim for breach of contract.

Accordingly, the Government's motion is denied as to Count I.

Count Two: Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing

The Government also argues that D'Apuzzo's breach of an implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim should be dismissed.
In support, the Government makes three arguments, two of which are
predicated on its argument that D'Apuzzo has not sufficiently
alleged the existence of a contract or a breach of contract.

Applied to the alleged contract at issue here, this means that an
implied covenant existed in the PACER contract pursuant to which
the Government should have implemented safeguards to ensure free
access to judicial opinions via PACER, so as to not deprive PACER
users of this contractual benefit. This implied covenant is not
duplicative of D'Apuzzo's express contract claims, which allege
that the overcharges themselves violate the PACER contract's
express terms.

The breach of contract claim focuses on the Government's charging
D'Apuzzo for access to judicial opinions in direct contravention
to the PACER contract's terms. The breach of implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing focuses on the Government's failure to
adequately exercise the discretion afforded it under the PACER
contract to insure proper designation of judicial opinions as
such.

The Government attempts to distinguish the Fisher court's in
Fisher v. United States 128 Fed. Cl. 780, 787-88, determination
that claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing are not duplicative of breach of contract claims,
asserting that the factual allegations in Fisher are distinct from
this case. But the Government does not explain how the analysis
should differ in this case, nor is the Court able to discern
sufficient differences to warrant a result contrary to the Fisher
court's ruling.

Therefore, D'Apuzzo's claim for breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing survives, and the Government's motion
is denied as to Count II.

Count Three: Illegal Exaction

The Government argues that the Court should dismiss D'Apuzzo's
illegal exaction claims because he has not alleged that the fees
he paid for judicial opinions were improperly paid.

D'Apuzzo alleges that PACER's governing statutes, codified at 28
U.S.C. Section 1913-14, its policies, and the Fee Schedule
prohibit the AO from charging a fee to access judicial opinions on
PACER. Under D'Apuzzo's theory, any money charged to access
judicial opinions would be paid contrary to law. The entire
premise of D'Apuzzo's case is that he was improperly charged a fee
to access judicial opinions that should have been provided free of
charge. Therefore, D'Apuzzo has sufficiently alleged that the
Government illegally overcharged him contrary to PACER's governing
statutes and policies, and his complaint states a claim for
illegal exaction.

The Government's motion is denied as to Count III.

Accordingly, the Court denies the Government's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 25, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybhevfh6from Leagle.com.

Theodore D'Apuzzo, P.A., Plaintiff, represented by Nicole W.
Giuliano, Giuliano Law, P.A., 500 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1710
Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33394

Theodore D'Apuzzo, P.A., Plaintiff, represented by John Anthony
Van Ness, Van Ness Law Firm PA, 1239 E Newport Center Dr., Ste 110
Deerfield Beach, FL 33442-7711

United States of America, Defendant, represented by Alicia Hayley
Welch, U.S. Attorney's Office.


UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL: Refuses to Pay OT Under FLSA, Giner Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE PERERA GINER and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS CORP., SALIM
MOHAMMED SHEHADEH, Case No. 1:17-cv-23431-JEM (S.D. Fla.,
September 19, 2017), alleges that the Defendants willfully and
intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Unlimited Electrical Contractors Corp. is a corporation company
that regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade County.  Salim
Mohammed Shehadeh is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the
Defendant Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


US BANK: Ohio App. Affirms Denial of Counterclaims in "Schubert"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain County,
issued a Decision affirming the Judgment of the Court of Common
Pleas denying cross-appellant Counterclaims in the case captioned
U.S. BANK NA, Appellants/Cross Appellees, v. DENNIS M. SCHUBERT,
et al., Appellees/Cross-Appellants, C.A. No. 15CA010814 (Ohio
App.).

U.S. Bank, N.A., and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, have appealed a
judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas that
foreclosed on the property of Dennis and Sue Schubert.

The Schuberts obtained a loan from Bank One that they secured with
a mortgage of property they owned in Elyria. Shortly after
obtaining the loan, Mr. Schubert lost his job, which led to the
Schuberts declaring bankruptcy twice.  During this period, the
Schuberts fell behind in their loan payments.  Ocwen began
servicing the loan, and the mortgage was transferred to U.S. Bank.
The Schuberts discovered there was something wrong with the
accounting of the loan.  Ocwen also sent the Schuberts a notice of
default.  Following additional communications, the Schuberts and
Ocwen entered into a forbearance agreement.  Despite the
agreement, the trustee at the time filed a foreclosure action
against the Schuberts.  The court later dismissed the action in
light of the forbearance agreement.

Following a trial to the bench, the court found that the Schuberts
defaulted on the note as modified and that U.S. Bank, as trustee,
was entitled to foreclose on the mortgage. It denied the
Schuberts' counterclaims. U.S. Bank has appealed the trial court's
conclusion that the Schuberts' breach of contract claim was not
subject to a three-year statute of limitations period under the
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

The Schuberts have cross-appealed, assigning five errors.

The loan modification agreement provided that the Schuberts had to
make an initial down payment followed by two equal monthly
payments.  It called those payments the "Trial Period."  It also
provided that, at the end of the trial period, the principle
balance of the loan would be $144,755.26. The Schuberts agreed to
the terms and complied with the agreement through the trial
period. They have not contested the accounting of the loan from
the time of the loan modification, only the payments they made
from 2000 through 2006.

Because those alleged discrepancies preceded their agreement in
2008 about the correct principal balance, and they were aware that
there might be discrepancies in the accounting of their loan
before entering into the modification agreement, we conclude that
the trial court's finding as to the amount owed on the loan was
not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The Schuberts' first assignment of error is overruled.

Whether the Schuberts subjectively believed they had no obligation
to make payments on their loan at the time of the forbearance
agreement, they agreed in that document that they had defaulted on
the note and mortgage and that they were entering into the
agreement to reduce their delinquency. The record, therefore,
demonstrates that there was sufficient consideration for them to
enter into that agreement. Regarding the loan modification
agreement, the Schuberts do not dispute that they were seeking to
reduce their monthly payments, which the modification
accomplished.

The Court, therefore, concludes that they had sufficient
consideration to enter into the loan modification agreement.
The Schuberts' second assignment of error is overruled.

It is not necessary to analyze the merits of the Schuberts'
argument because, even if they are correct, they have not
demonstrated any harm. The trial court denied the Schuberts'
counterclaims against Ocwen, concluding that they were not
entitled to any damages.  Accordingly, even if the trial court
incorrectly found that Ocwen was not U.S. Bank's agent, it is not
grounds for vacating or modifying the court's judgment.

Regarding the complaint that U.S. Bank and Ocwen filed in December
2010 to initiate this action, the trial court found that the
Schuberts failed to establish any false or deceptive practice. The
court found that, to the contrary, the foreclosure action was
proper, noting that the Schuberts admitted that they stopped
paying on their loan in June 2010. The court also noted that the
foreclosure action prevailed.

The court further found that all of the inspections that were done
over the course of the proceedings were appropriate to monitor the
condition of the property and were commercially reasonable. The
Schuberts have not pointed to any evidence in the record that
undermines the trial court's findings. Upon review of the record,
we cannot say that the court's findings were against the manifest
weight of the evidence.

The Schuberts' fourth and fifth assignments of error are
overruled.

Regarding whether this case involves a matter that is one of a
public or great general interest, we note that U.S. Bank and Ocwen
have not identified any cases in which a statute of limitations
question was held to rise to that level. In addition, in light of
their admission that this issue may return to this Court in
connection with the Schuberts' class action, the Court declined to
issue what would constitute an advisory opinion.

U.S. Bank's and Ocwen's assignment of error is overruled.

The Schuberts' assignments of error are overruled. U.S. Bank's and
Ocwen's assignment of error is overruled as moot. The judgment of
the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' September 5, 2017
Decision is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya82bytzfrom
Leagle.com.

BENJAMIN D. CARNAHAN -- bcarnahan@dhplaw.com -- Attorney at Law,
for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

JACK MALICKI, 300 Fourth Street, Second Floor, Elyria, OH 44035
and THOMAS R. THEADO, 401 Broadway Ave, Unit 104, Lorain, OH
44052-1745, Attorney at Law, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.


VIKING CLIENT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Broderick" FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jose L. Linares of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned MARGARET BRODERICK, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VIKNG CLIENT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-1827 (JLL) (D. N.J.).

The Plaintiff brings this putative class action alleging that the
Defendant has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").  Specifically, she alleges that the Defendant is a
Minnesota based collection agency and is in the business of
collecting debts owed by various debtors to banks and/or other
institutions, which had previously extended the debtors some form
of credit.  The Defendant performs such debt collection actions by
utilizing regular mail, telephone calls, and/or emails.

At some point prior to March 17, 2016, the Plaintiff incurred a
debt due and owing to non-party PNC Bank ("PNC").  Also prior to
the aforementioned date, PNC placed said debt incurred by the
Plaintiff with the Defendant for purpose of collections.  The debt
was in default at all times it was in the Defendant's possession
for said purpose.

On March 17, 2016, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter to
collect the outstanding PNC balance of $1,366.83.  According to
her, the language in the Defendant's letter is deceptive since it
is confusing to the least sophisticated consumer because it can be
read to mean the entire amount discharged will be reported to the
IRS, but can also be read to mean only the stated principal
balance can be reported to the IRS.

According to the Plaintiff, the letter is further confusing
because the letter asserts that IRS Reporting may be possible if
the Settlement amount that the consumer agreed to pay results in a
discharge of $600 or more, but the fact of the matter is that such
reporting is not triggered by the amount that the consumer agrees
to pay, but rather by the amount actually paid.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff brought the action asserting that the letter contained
language in violation of the FDCPA and seeking to recover damages.

The Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's
Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  The Plaintiff has submitted Opposition, to which the
Defendant has replied.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint for two
reasons.  First, it asserts that this action is untimely because
it was supposedly filed one year after the date of the subject
letter and is therefore barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.  Additionally, it asserts that the Plaintiff has
failed to plead a prima facie cause of action under the FDCPA.

Judge Linares rejects both of these arguments.  Because the
alleged FDCPA violation occurred on March 17, 2016, the Plaintiff
had until March 17, 2017 to bring her action.  She filed her
lawsuit on March 17, 2017, which was within the one-year statute
of limitations period, and is therefore timely.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiff has pled a prima facie
cause of action under the FDCPA.  Indeed, she has alleged that she
is a consumer and the Defendant is a debt collector as required by
the FDCPA.  Additionally, the Plaintiff concedes she incurred a
debt, which was due and owing to PNC, and that the Defendant, a
debt collector, made attempts to collect the debt, as a debt
collector, by sending her the March 17, 2016 letter.  Finally,
Plaintiff asserts the March 17, 2016 letter violates the FDCPA
because the IRS reporting language is confusing to the least
sophisticated consumer.

With regards to the language in the letter, Judge Linares finds
that, at this stage in the litigation, the IRS reporting language
can be confusing to the least sophisticated consumer.  The first
sentence of the language can be read as a definitive reporting
requirement, while the second makes reporting seem like a
potential, but not definite, occurrence.  Additionally, the IRS
reporting language fails to explain, in clear terms, whether the
entire forgiven amount (including interest), or merely the stated
principal balance, would be reported to the IRS if reporting is
required.  Hence, the Judge is satisfied that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently pled a prima facie cause of action for violation of
the FDCPA and will not dismiss her Complaint.

For these, Judge Linares denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/oT2AFo from Leagle.com.

MARGARET BRODERICK, Plaintiff, represented by LAWRENCE C. HERSH --
lh@hershlegal.com.

VIKING CLIENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by NICHOLAS
M. GAUNCE -- ngaunce@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans & WILLIAM
JOHN BIGHAM -- wbigham@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN
& MELLOT, LLC.


WELD SPEC: Faces "Fithian" Suit in E. Dist. Tex.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weld Spec Inc.  The
case is styled as James Fithian, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Weld
Spec Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00425 (E.D. Tex., October
5, 2017).

Weld Spec Inc. is engaged in Machinery-Rebuild & Repair and
Welders business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Beatriz Adriana Sosa-Morris, Esq.
   Sosa-Morris Neuman, Attorneys at Law
   5612 Chaucer Drive
   Houston, TX 77005
   Tel: (281) 885-8844
   Fax: (281) 885-8813
   Email: bsosamorris@smnlawfirm.com


WELLS FARGO: To Refund Mortgage Rate-Lock Extension Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Raab, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that Wells
Fargo & Co. said on Oct. 4 that it will refund a swath of fees it
assessed to mortgage borrowers whose delays in completing their
loan applications were primarily the bank's fault.

As it looks to win back trust after a scandal over its sales
practices, the San Francisco bank said it will reach out to
customers who paid so-called "rate-lock extension" fees from Sept.
16, 2013, through Feb. 28, 2017, and give refunds to customers who
don't think they should have paid.

The fees are supposed to only be charged when borrowers fail to
finish their paperwork on time and want to retain the initially
quoted interest rate on their home loan.

The San Francisco bank said that roughly $98 million in extension
fees were assessed to about 110,000 borrowers during that period,
but it thinks a substantial number of the fees were appropriately
charged.  The bank said the amount to be refunded probably will be
lower, as not all of the fees assessed were actually paid and some
fees already have been refunded.

In July, The Times reported on a wrongful-termination lawsuit by a
former Wells Fargo mortgage banker who alleged that the bank
falsified records so it could blame mortgage-processing holdups on
borrowers -- and that it fired him for trying to report the
practice.

The mortgage fee matter also has been the subject of a class-
action lawsuit, and the bank reported in August that the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau was investigating the matter.  Wells
Fargo has acknowledged that the controversy was a factor in a
shake-up of bank's mortgage division.

Rate-lock fees can be significant, typically ranging from 0.125%
to 0.25% of the total amount of a mortgage, depending on the size
of the loan and other factors. For a home buyer looking to borrow
$400,000, a 0.25% fee is $1,000.

Wells Fargo is by far the nation's largest mortgage lender,
originating $244 billion in home loans last year, or about 12% of
all U.S. mortgages.

The bank said on Oct. 4 that an internal review "determined a
rate-lock extension policy implemented in September 2013 was, at
times, not consistently applied, resulting in some borrowers being
charged fees in cases where the company was primarily responsible
for the delays that made the extensions necessary."

As of March 1 of this year, the bank said, a centralized review
team is making sure the policy is applied consistently.  The
refunds will start to go out this quarter, it said.

The Oct. 4 announcement comes the day after Wells Fargo Chief
Executive Timothy Sloan was grilled by Senate Banking Committee
members about reforms put in place by the bank since it admitted
that employees created millions of customer accounts without those
customers' knowledge or permission.

The bank has acknowledged that onerous sales goals and a focus on
selling multiple products to consumers were at the heart of the
scandal.  That pressure-cooker sales culture was first described
in a 2013 Los Angeles Times investigation.

In October 2016, then-CEO John Stumpf was ousted after two brutal
Capitol Hill hearings that were held just weeks after the scandal
broke.

Since then, there has been a stream of new disclosures about
wrongdoing in other business units.

The issue of erroneous rate-lock extension fees was first reported
by ProPublica in January. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Two Law Firms File ARM Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Famed class action attorney, Thomas V. Girardi, Esq., of Erin
Brockovich notoriety, and his firm Girardi/Keese, and Los Angeles
attorney Keith M. Fromm, have filed a class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court, in Los Angeles, against Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. seeking, potentially, billions in damages.

The lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo committed thousands of
instances of extortion, theft, mail fraud and racketeering,
against its hundreds of thousands of ARM borrowers throughout the
U.S.

This class action is the latest of many accusations assailing how
Wells Fargo treats its customers.  Wells Fargo's reputation has
recently been tarnished by its own admission (and payment of $185
million in fines and penalties), that it opened up 3.5 million
fake accounts in the names of its customers, resulting in illegal
fees and charges to such customers.  Another lawsuit charges that
Wells Fargo cheated 500,000 of its customers out of millions of
dollars in unnecessary insurance premiums for car loans.  Another
alleges it swindled thousands of its customers out of fees the
bank charged to lock in mortgage rates.

This latest class action complaint alleges that Wells Fargo
intentionally violated its duties under a provision in its own
standard loan documents known as Section 4(F). Section 4(F)
requires the bank to deliver certain mandatory consumer
protections, including the phone number and title of a "single
point of contact", who can answer any questions from a borrower,
before the effective date of any increases in the interest rates
or payments on such ARM's.  The purpose of the provision is to
provide borrowers with personnel who can assist them with
alternatives to foreclosure.

The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo intentionally did not
comply with the provision 4(F) that Wells Fargo itself drafted, so
that it could thwart the consumer protections contained in such
provision.  Such an alleged intentional non-compliance by Wells
Fargo, according to the complaint, resulted in the illegal
collection by Wells Fargo of many millions or billions of dollars,
and the loss of thousands of borrowers' homes, which may have been
saved had they received the consumer protection benefits intended
to be afforded by Section 4(F) and its "single point of contact"
requirement.

The case is LINDA MORAVEC VARGA v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and Does
2-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-09650-DMG-KS.

For information, please contact Keith M. Fromm at
keithfromm@aol.com, or 310-472-1049. [GN]


WEST OF CHICAGO RESTAURANTS: Faces "Wilson" Suit in Ca. Super. Ct
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against West of Chicago
Restaurants Inc.  The case is styled as Elijah P. Wilson, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. West of Chicago Restaurants Inc, Defendant, Case No.
34-2017-00220170-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., October 5, 2017).

The Defendant is engaged in the restaurants industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Shaun Setareh, Esq.
   Setareh Law Group
   9454 Wilshire Blvd Ste 907
   Beverly Hills, CA 90212
   Tel: (310) 888-7771
   Fax: (310) 888-0109
   Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com


WISE ELECTRICAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Electricians' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lenny Perez, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Wise Electrical Services, Inc., Whalen
Construction, Inc. and John Doe Bonding Company, Case No.
158511/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., September 25, 2017), seeks to recover
electricians' unpaid prevailing wages and supplemental benefits
which they are statutorily and contractually entitled to receive
for their services performed on a modernization project at John
Jay College in New York.

Wise Electrical Services, Inc. operates a construction business
located at 6 East 32nd Street, New York, NY 10016.

Whalen Construction, Inc. is engaged in the construction business
and subcontracted electrical work to Wise. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


ZM PRIVATE EQUITY: Court Dismisses "Gibbons" Due to Res Judicata
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned LISA A. GIBBONS and REVIVE
INVESTING, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. QUINN MORGAN, ZM PRIVATE EQUITY
FUND I, L.P., ZM PRIVATE EQUITY FUND II, L.P., and ERICKSON
INCORPORATED, Defendants, No. 14-cv-9061 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y.).

Defendants have moved for summary judgment, arguing that
plaintiffs' claim is precluded as a result of a related class and
derivative settlement approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery
in 2016.

Erickson Incorporated is an aircraft manufacturing and operating
company headquartered in Portland, Oregon.  Erickson acquired 100
percent of the stock of Evergreen Helicopters from Evergreen
Aviation in exchange for a package including: (1) $185,000,000
cash; (2) 4,008,439 shares of Erickson Preferred Stock (Preferred
Stock); (3) a note for $17,500,000; and (4) an additional earn-out
amount.

Defendants ZM Private Equity Fund I, L.P. (ZMPEF1) and ZM Private
Equity Fund II, L.P. (ZMPEF2) (ZM Funds), together with affiliated
entities including ZM EAC LLC (ZMEAC), owned a majority of
Erickson's Common Stock (Common Stock) on the Closing Date.

This action principally concerns a series of transactions that the
ZM Funds and ZMEAC executed in the weeks following the Evergreen
Transaction.  In this action, plaintiffs seek disgorgement of
alleged "short-swing" profits realized by defendants in violation
of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Sec 78p(b).  Defendants have moved for summary judgment, arguing
that plaintiffs' claim is precluded as a result of a related class
and derivative settlement approved by the Delaware Court of
Chancery in 2016.

Although the parties dispute the exact nature and characterization
of those transactions, there is no dispute regarding the precise
amount of Preferred Stock acquired by the ZM Funds and the amount
of Common Stock subsequently sold by ZMEAC. Specifically, ZMPEF1
acquired a total of 913,732.61 shares of Preferred Stock, and
ZMPEF2 acquired a total of 391,559.70 shares on the Closing Date.

An Erickson stockholder (Delaware Plaintiff) filed a derivative
and class complaint (Delaware Action) arising out of the Evergreen
Transaction in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Delaware Court).
The Delaware Action included both: (1) derivative claims brought
on Erickson's behalf; and (2) direct claims brought on behalf of a
class of similarly situated Erickson stockholders. Relevant to the
present action, Count IV of the Delaware Action was a derivative
claim alleging insider trading and breach of fiduciary duty in
violation of Delaware state law.

Based on its review of the operative complaint, the Court
concludes that plaintiffs' Section 16(b) claim is precluded by res
judicata and must be dismissed.

First, the Delaware Court clearly had jurisdiction to adjudicate
the Delaware Plaintiff's claims for breach of fiduciary duty in
violation of Delaware state law.

Second, the Delaware Judgment is no doubt adverse to the current
plaintiffs. The Delaware Judgment, if held applicable to the
plaintiffs and claims in this case, requires this Court to dismiss
the present action; it is therefore adverse to the current
plaintiffs in the truest sense

Third, the Delaware Judgment is unquestionably final. The Delaware
Judgment completely and unequivocally disposed of the Delaware
Action, and plaintiffs do not dispute this point.

In Feldman, 951 A.2d at 733, the Delaware Supreme Court has held
that in order to state a direct claim, the plaintiff must have
suffered some individualized harm not suffered by all of the
stockholders at large. Plaintiffs in this action cannot
demonstrate any individualized harm distinct from that suffered by
all of Erickson's stockholders  there is simply nothing unique or
special about their ownership of Erickson stock that would suffice
to make this a direct suit.

As such, it is clear that plaintiffs' Section 16(b) claim is
derivative under Delaware law. And because both the current claim
and prior claims were brought derivatively on behalf of Erickson,
the parties are in privity for purposes of res judicata.

It is also clear to the Court that the current claim arises out of
the same transaction as the Delaware Action. Plaintiffs' claim
arises from a series of May 2013 transactions in which the ZM
Funds bought, and ZMEAC sold, certain quantities of Erickson
stock.

Count IV of the Delaware Action, alleging insider trading and
breach of fiduciary duty, was based on precisely the same
transactions Thus, the two claims share more than a common nucleus
of operative fact they depend on all of the same facts.

Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 6, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y97mtnlxfrom
Leagle.com.

Revive Investing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Eugene
Doherty, Law Offices of Daniel E. Doherty, 7300 W 110th St Ste 930
Overland Park, KS, 66210-2394 pro hac vice.

Revive Investing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Joseph
Hyland, Hyland Law Firm LLC, 7300 W 110th St Ste 930, Overland
Park, KS, 66210-2394

Lisa A. Gibbons, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Joseph Hyland,
Hyland Law Firm LLC & Daniel Eugene Doherty, Law Offices of Daniel
E. Doherty.

Quinn Morgan, Defendant, represented by Martin Jonathan Crisp --
Martin.Crisp@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP, Robert G. Jones --
Robert.Jones@ropesgray.com --  Ropes & Gray LLP, pro hac vice &
Timothy Ryan Farrell -- Timothy.Farrell@ropesgray.com --  Ropes &
Gray LLP.

ZM Private Equity Fund I, L.P., Defendant, represented by Martin
Jonathan Crisp, Ropes & Gray LLP, Robert G. Jones, Ropes & Gray
LLP & Timothy Ryan Farrell, Ropes & Gray LLP.

ZM Private Equity Fund II, L.P., Defendant, represented by Martin
Jonathan Crisp, Ropes & Gray LLP, Robert G. Jones, Ropes & Gray
LLP & Timothy Ryan Farrell, Ropes & Gray LLP.

Erickson Incorporated, Nominal Defendant, Pro Se.


* Lawmakers Debate Over Tip Pool at Legislative Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------
Colin A. Young, writing for Gloucester Times, reports that the
battle between Dunkin' Donuts and Starbucks popped up at a
legislative hearing, but the conflict was not over which coffee
chain the committee's coffee would come from.

Instead, a representative of independent Dunkin' franchises made
the case for a change in labor laws that would clarify which
employees are entitled to share in a tip pool while union
representatives argued the quick service industry should follow
the lead of Starbucks, which addressed the issue internally.

A 2004 law denying managers tips -- spurred by reports that
restaurants and banquet facilities were forcing wait staff to
share tips with managers -- had unintended consequences because it
did not include a clear definition of managerial authority and
consequently can deny tips to non-managerial workers who otherwise
would be able to supplement their wage with tips.

"In the absence of managerial authority or a definition thereof,
anybody who is operating a cash drawer qualifies as a manager,
anybody who puts the key in the door to open a store in the
morning qualifies as a manager, conversely anybody who puts a key
in the door to close that store at night qualifies as a manager,"
Ed Shanahan, executive director of the Dunkin' Donuts Independent
Franchise Owners Association, said on Oct. 3.  "Anybody who trains
another employee -- notwithstanding their title, notwithstanding
the fact that they may be a 17-year-old employee training a new
16-year-old employee -- they qualify as a manager."

Lawmakers on the Labor and Workforce Development Committee are
considering legislation (H 3142/S 1042) that would revise the tip
law by adopting the federal Fair Labor Standards Act definition of
"employee employed in a bona fide executive capacity" and barring
those employees from participating in a tip pool.

Under the legislation, filed by Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante of
Gloucester and Sen. Michael Rodrigues, supervisors who serve
customers and do not fall under the definition of an "employee
employed in a bona fide executive capacity" would be eligible to
participate in a tip pool.

Opposition to the bill on Oct. 3 came from the AFL-CIO and Unite
Here Local 26, labor unions that argued the problem could be
solved if coffee chains and other quick service restaurants paid
their supervisors more.

"This is a solution in search of a problem," Jaimie McNeil from
Unite Here Local 26 said.  "Starbucks took care of this in 2013.
They said 'look, we have shift supervisors, when you are promoted
or apply for this position . . . you get a higher wage, we don't
want to deal with class action lawsuits, we don't want you to take
from other employees' tips.' "

He added, "This bill would allow shift supervisors to cut into a
lifeline for low-wage workers, making it even harder for working
mothers and fathers to put food on the table."

Mr. Shanahan rejected that notion and said low-wage workers are
the ones being hurt because many store owners have decided not to
allow tip jars at all to avoid the risk of class action lawsuits.

In 2013, then-Senate President Therese Murray quashed an attempt
to alter the tip-pooling law during debate on a bill to raise the
minimum wage, but promised the matter would be a priority the
following year.

Since then, efforts in that area have withered.  The Senate in
2014 narrowly rejected -- by a 19 to 20 vote -- an amendment to an
economic development bill that would have changed the tip-pooling
law after an impassioned speech by then-Sen. Ken Donnelly, who
said the bill would water down the pay of fast-food workers and
remove the incentive for the fast service restaurants to pay their
supervisors more. [GN]


* NLRB Withdraws Argument on Mandatory Arbitration Programs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew L Scroggins, Esq. -- ascroggins@seyfarth.com -- Noah A.
Finkel, Esq. -- nfinkel@seyfarth.com -- David S. Baffa, Esq. --
dbaffa@seyfarth.com -- of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for
Lexology, wrote that the NLRB has withdrawn the significant
concession it offered at oral argument on the nature of the NLRA
rights it seeks to assert in the face of employers' mandatory
arbitration programs.

As noted in Seyfarth Shaw's earlier blog post, the Supreme Court
heard oral argument on October 2, 2017, on one of the most
significant employment law cases in some time, to consider whether
to permit employers to use mandatory arbitration programs that
contain waivers of collective and class actions.

In the most dramatic moment of the morning, the NLRB's General
Counsel Richard Griffin made a significant admission.

In response to a series of questions by a skeptical Chief Justice
Roberts, Mr. Griffin to agree that it would not be an unfair labor
practice for a mandatory arbitration program to require use of a
forum whose rules did not allow class arbitration.  Justice Alito
quickly realized the significance of this point: "if that's the
rule, you have not achieved very much because, instead of having
an agreement that says no class, no class action, not class
arbitration, you have an agreement requiring arbitration before
the XYZ arbitration association, which has rules that don't allow
class arbitration."  Mr. Griffin did not dispute this.  He
commented that "the provisions of the [NLRA] run to prohibitions
against employer restraint."

Next to the podium was counsel for the employees, Daniel Ortiz of
the University of Virginia School of Law.  Mr. Ortiz did not agree
with that concession, thus seeming to highlight a fundamental
dissent from the NLRB's position.  This gap was all the more
notable for the fact that the Solicitor General already had
abandoned the NLRB to side with the employers.

In an unusual development, just one day after the argument, the
NLRB's Griffin sent a short letter to the Court disavowing its
argument and adopting the position staked out by Mr. Ortiz:

"I am writing to correct an inaccurate response I gave at oral
argument in response to the line of questioning by Chief Justice
Roberts found at pages 47-50 of the transcript of the oral
argument.  My responses, to the extent they indicated any
difference from the responses given by employees' counsel,
Mr. Ortiz, to the questions of Chief Justice Roberts found at
pages 60-64 of the transcript of the oral argument, were a result
of my misunderstanding the Chief Justice's questions and were
inaccurate; Mr. Ortiz correctly stated the Board's position and
there is no disagreement between the Board's and the employees'
position on the answers to those questions."

Such letters are not unprecedented.  Still, it is a remarkable
about face.  For the justices who already seemed skeptical of the
NLRB's position, this change of position may only serve to
highlight that the NLRB is not clear in the reasoning of its
position or the effects such reasoning may have if ordered more
broadly by the Court to apply to future cases.

[1] The New York Times highlighted Griffin's concession:

The labor board's general counsel, Richard F. Griffin Jr., argued
for the workers. He made a concession at odds with the position of
another lawyer on his side.

Mr. Griffin said that employment contracts could not require
workers to give up collective action in arbitration but that the
private entities that conduct arbitration could require that cases
be pursued one by one.

If that is so, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. responded, "you have
not achieved very much because, instead of having an agreement
that says no class arbitration, you have an agreement requiring
arbitration before the XYZ arbitration association, which has
rules that don't allow class arbitration." [GN]


* PracticePanther Attorney Discusses Various Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Jaliz Maldonado, Esq., of PracticePanther, in an article for The
National Law Review, wrote that a case filed by a group of people
who are affected by a similar action or product against one
defendant is categorized as a class lawsuit.  Multi-district
litigation and mass tort litigation are other names used to refer
to cases brought by groups of individuals who have experienced
similar losses. People choose to pursue justice in class action
suits when faulty products have caused the damages. These consumer
goods include motor vehicles and pharmaceutical medicines.

Victims can also choose to seek justice against conduct such as
corporate misconduct, employment practices, consumer, and security
fraud.  There is another type of class lawsuits called mass tort
action.  A mass tort action is when a multi-party lawsuit is filed
due to an accident that involves an entire group of people.
Examples of such accidents include a plane crash in which a lot of
people sustain injuries, or worse, death.  There were two hundred
and thirty-four class action cases filed in federal courts in the
year 2015 alone.

The Purpose of a Class Action Lawsuit
When a sizable number of people are involved in an event that
caused the same or similar injuries, more often than not, they do
not seek legal redress as individuals.  If they, however, decide
to stick together, the value of the claims adds up.  Filling a
lawsuit as a class necessitates merging all pieces of the
litigation process including evidence, defendants, witnesses, as
well as attorneys.  Sometimes, when the number of victims affected
by the conduct or product is too high, it might become
unreasonable or even impossible for them to file lawsuits as
individuals.  After being given the go-ahead, they file the suit
with a representative who is referred to as a lead plaintiff or a
named plaintiff.  There are numerous instances of class action
lawsuits, some of which are discussed below.

CITGO Unwanted Text TCPA Class Action Settlement
CITGO Petroleum Corporation Inc. settled an $8 million class-
action lawsuit for allegedly sending text messages to recipients
before written consent.

Case summary: The suit asserts that the accused sent text messages
to the plaintiff's wireless phone numbers without written consent,
which violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act47.  This
lawsuit seeks damages under the TCPA in support of the lead
plaintiff and all the affected individuals in the USA.

Kenneth Cole Unpaid Internship Class Action Settlement
Qualified class members are those who did not receive payment from
Kenneth Cole Consumer Direct, LLC or Kenneth Cole Productions,
Inc. during the 2 December 2008 through 31 July 2017.

Case Summary: This class action lawsuit was filed by one of the
unpaid interns, alleging that the accused failed to pay minimum
wages, which violated the New York labor law.  Oluseyi Awogbile,
the current lead plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others who
are in the same situation, as he declares, seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, interest, costs, and attorney's fees.

The defendants have denied any violation of the law or owing any
wages to the interns.  The accused also denied any liability,
maintaining that they have acted by the law. They have however
suggested that to avoid expenses, the uncertainty of the case and
inconveniences, it would be better to enter into a settlement
agreement.  The case is yet to conclude.

New Hawaii Sea Restaurant Hepatitis Class Action Settlement
The class members of this case included anyone who took a beverage
or consumed food at the New Hawaii Sea Restaurant located at 1475
Williamsbridge Road between 7th of September 2013 through the 19th
of September 2013. It also included anyone who was in proximity to
someone who had consumed a drink and/or food where they later
obtained a blood test, immune globulin, or a vaccination shot for
hepatitis A vaccine (HAV) within thirty days of dining at the
restaurant.  Those who developed HAV infections after eating or
drinking in the restaurant during the class period were not
eligible to participate in this class lawsuit.

Case Summary: New Hawaii Restaurant settled the class action suit
that alleged that customers were exposed to the hepatitis A virus.
The goal of the lawsuit was to obtain compensation for time lost,
medical expenses, and anxiety that was associated with the
incident. The restaurant agreed to settle despite denying any
wrongdoing.

HSBC Overdraft Fee Class Action Settlement
The members of this class action lawsuit include all U.S HSBC
customers who suffered overdraft fees on their accounts as a
result of any transaction that included a debit card on sale
transactions from the lowest to the highest dollar amount.  The
class period of the suit ranges between the 7th of December 2004
through the 13th of June 2010 for consumer accounts, while that of
business accounts ranges between the 7th of December 2004 through
the 11th of November 2011.

Case Summary: The case claims that the bank allowed the customers
to purchase items via their debit cards despite their accounts
being insufficient in order to charge thirty-five dollars as an
overdraft fee.  With that said, the bank used a software program
to reorder transactions that lead to extra overdraft fees
automatically.  The ruling given was to the effect that the
individuals affected after thirtieth June 2007 would automatically
receive compensation.

Sony Mobile Devices Xperia Water Damage Class Action Settlement
Members of the settlement included those who at any time before
the 3rd of August 2017 owned, purchased, or was gifted as a
customer service exchange any mobile devices that are sold,
distributed, marketed, or manufactured by Sony Mobile
Communications in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or any of
the US fifty states.

Case Summary: This suit alleged that Sony sold devices that were
advertised as waterproof while they were not.  The action claimed
that among other things, Sony violated various consumer protection
laws.  The defendant denied claims of any wrongdoing and that the
devices were defective.  Both parties decided to settle the matter
out of court.

Conclusion
In a class action lawsuit, the final decision made by the court
applies to everyone who opted to be included.  Every person who
qualified as a class member is bound to the court's decision,
whether they attended the court sessions or not.  The compensation
for everyone in the class action usually follows a well laid out
distribution plan, and the amount distributed is typically
lessened by the litigation costs and the attorney's fees. [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  * * *