CAR_Public/171019.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Thursday, October 19, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 207



                            Headlines

ALAMO GROUP: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Jarvis" Suit
ALLSTATE FIRE: Can Arbitrate NJ Auto Injury Action After All
AMAZON.COM DEDC: Hargrett Moves to Certify Class of Consumers
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Judge Dismisses Pension Fund's Fraud Suit
ANGIE OF POLK: Faces "Terris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ARCONIC INC: "Lombana" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Jan. 19 Settlement Hearing Set
B&R MOLL: Accused by "Fries" Suit of Not Paying OT Under FLSA
BANK OF AMERICA: May 23 FX Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BANK OF AMERICA: Failed to Correct Credit Reports, Lawsuit Says

BANK OF NAPA: Faces "Parshall" Suit in N.D. of California
BASALITE CONCRETE: Faces "Carrozzella" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BASF CORP: Violates Off-the-Clock Provision of FLSA, Parker Says
BAYER U.S.: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Douglas Says
BERIOZKA REST: "Shulepov" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under Labor Law

BLUE CROSS: Fails to Comply with Provisions of Assembly Bill 72
BOWLS LLC: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in Southern District of New York
BRASKEM SA: Cohen Milstein Discloses Settlement of Class Action
CANADA: 60s Scoop Settlement 'In Best Interest of Class Members
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Face Class Action Over GenX

CINEMEX USA: Collective Action Cert. Sought in "Gutierrez" Suit
CRESTWOOD, IL: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Red Light Camera
CRUISE WEB: Alloways Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Johnson Fistel Starts Investigation
DIAMOND WIPES: Williams Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

EL PUERTO: Faces "Mondragon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: County Also Sues Drug Manufacturers
EPIC SYSTEMS: SC Considers Viability of Waivers
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Dhuka" Suit for Not Protecting Credit Info
EQUIFAX INC: Fails to Properly Protect PII, "Bakken" Suit Alleges

EQUIFAX INC: "Williams" Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages
EQUIFAX INC: Ogburn Sues in Virginia Alleging FCRA Violations
EQUIFAX INC: Michigan CUNA Joins Lawsuit After Data Breach
FINANCIAL AMERICAN: Faces "O'Donnell" Suit in S.D. Fla.
FIRST NATIONAL: "Day" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida

FRIENDLUM INC: "Sandoval" Sues Over TCPA Violation
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: KSF Files Securities Class Action
GEORGIA: Sheriff Indicted After Body Searches of Students
GOOGLE INC: Suit Alleging Women Paid Less Speeded Up by Judge
GOVERNMENT PAYMENT: Miner Renews Bid for Class Certification

HEALTH INSURANCE: Expanded Class Period in Securities Suit
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Rudel Seeks Prelim. OK of Class Settlement
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: $2.5MM Class Action Settlement Gets Judge's OK
HONDA MOTOR: Reaches Settlements in Takata Lawsuits
HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING: "Rowe" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation

HSBC BANK: Faces Royal Park Suit in S.D. of New York
JCM DISTRIBUTORS: Law Office of Timothy Carl Blake Files Suit
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: ERISA Class Suit Against Executives Dismissed
LOS ANGELES, CA: Feb. 14 LADWP Settlement Approval Hearing Set
LULU FROST: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation

MAJU PUNCAK: Meda Responds to Suit By Arc @ Cyberjaya Unit Owners
MDL 2792: "Zamora" Suit v. Samsung Moved to W.D. Okla. Court
MDL 2795: "Allison" Suit Transferred to Minnesota Federal Court
MDL 2795: "Hanifen" Suit Transferred into Minnesota Federal Court
MEADE RECOVERY: Hyer Sues in Utah Alleging Violations of FDCPA

MODANI NY: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
NABORS DRILLING: Calderon Seeks to Certify Class of Rig Welders
NANTKWEST INC: Johnson Fistel Announces Investigations
NEW YORK: Broken Bail System Drives Civil Rights Claims
NEW YORK, NY: Josefina S. Files Suit in S.D.N.Y.

NUTRISYSTEM INC: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in Southern District of NY
OKLAHOMA CTY: Faces "Moreland" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
OREGON: Salem Officials Want City to Sue State on Tax
ORION HEALTHCORP: Singh-Narayan Seeks Unpaid OT under Labor Law
PASTA GUYS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

PATHWAY TO HOPE: "Waymon-Gay" Labor Suit Seek Unpaid OT Wages
PETLAND: Hit With Class Suit Over Bacterial Disease From Puppies
PLY GEM: Faces "Gazzillo" Class Suit in North. Dist. New York
PNC BANK: Not Liable in Ohio Ponzi Scheme, Says Appeals Court
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Horton" Suit Over FDCA Violation

PRICELINE GROUP: Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Faces Tower Health Center Suit in S.D. of Fla
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: "Caceres" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code
PUEBLO COUNTY, CO: Suit Seeks Order to Fix Prison Problems
PURDUE PHARMA: Indianapolis Hires Law Firm to Pursue Legal Action

REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Whitley" Suit in E.D. of New York
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Tim Hortons Franchisees Sue for $850MM
RICE ENERGY: Williford Moves to Certify Class of Oilfield Workers
RISE MEDICAL: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, "Horn" Suit Claims
ROYAL OAK: Class of Terminated Workers Certified in "Bystry" Suit

SAN DIEGO, CA: Trash Truck Drivers Get $500K to Settle Wage Suit
SCANA CORPORATION: "Brown" Suit Moved to South Carolina Court
SCRANTON, PA: Resident Sues Over Sewer Sale Proceeds
SECURA INSURANCE: Face "Kresal" Suit in Western District of Wis
SERAFINA MANAGEMENT: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. of New York

SNAPPER INN: Judicial Intervention Sought in "Orgera" Suit
SNG LAUNDROMAT: Seeks to Dismiss "Baca" Suit
SOCAL PERMANENTE: "Roy" Suit Moved to C.D. California
STARBUCKS CORP: "Wills" Suit Seeks Damages Under FCRA
STATE COLLECTION: Studebaker's Motion to Certify Class Stricken

SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Unlikely Alliance Formed in Sewer Lawsuit
SUGAR LAND, TX: Resident Sues Over Red Light Cameras
SUN BANCORP: "Chetcuti" Suit Seeks to Block Sale to OceanFirst
TACOS EL BRONCO: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TINTRI INC: Faces "Clayton" Securities Class Action

TOOTSIE ROLL: Hit With Class Action Over Junior Mints Packaging
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Settlement Targets Student Loan Trusts
TREASURY WINE: Decision Confirms Shift in CA Closure Process
UNITED STATES: Accused of Targeting "Dreamers" for Deportation
UNITED STATES: Whitaker Files Suit v. Dept. of Commerce

VERTS MEDITERRANEAN: Faces "Young" Suit in S. Dist. New York
VITAMIN WORLD: Faces "Kiler" Class Suit in East. Dist. New York
VOLKSWAGEN: MDL Panel Sends Cases to California
WELCH FOODS: NJ Judge Moves Fruit Snacks CA Across the River
WELLS FARGO: Court Certifies Class & Subclasses in "Nguyen" Suit

WELLS FARGO: Bosses Can't Dodge Shareholder Class Action
WESTAR ENERGY: Pill Seeks to Enjoin Merger With Great Plains
YAHOO INC: Asked to Weigh in On New Data Breach Disclosures
YUMMY FOODS: "Macrae" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

* SC Weighs Whether Workers Must Face Arbitrations Alone






                            *********


ALAMO GROUP: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Jarvis" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
David Jarvis, Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA ex rel. DAVID JARVIS, VARIOUS UNNAMED STATES ex rel. DAVID
JARVIS, and UNAMED GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES ex rel. DAVID JARVIS and
DAVID JARVIS, Individually; and all others similarly situated v.
ALAMO GROUP (IL), INC, and ALAMO GROUP (TX), INC., Case No.
2:14-cv-02318-CSB-JEH, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois (Urbana), appeals from:

   -- the July 6, 2017 Order entered By Judge Colin Stirling
      Bruce Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on Counts I,
      II, III, and IV of the complaint; and

   -- subsequent denials of extension of time to take limited
      discovery to amend the complaint by Text Order, Entered:
      July 27, 2017; and

   -- the Text Order of August 23, 2017, entered by Judge Bruce
      -- denying Plaintiff's 28 U.S.C. Section 636 Motion for
      Relief From the Magistrate Judge's Discovery Ruling, which
      now dismisses the case with prejudice and enters judgment
      in favor of the Defendants.

The appellate case is captioned as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex
rel. DAVID JARVIS, VARIOUS UNNAMED STATES ex rel. DAVID JARVIS,
and UNAMED GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES ex rel. DAVID JARVIS and DAVID
JARVIS, Individually; and all others similarly situated v. ALAMO
GROUP (IL), INC, and ALAMO GROUP (TX), INC., Case No. 17-2953, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Plaintiff-Relator David Jarvis filed the action on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the United States, and
other unnamed states or governmental entities pursuant to the
False Claims Act.  Plaintiff has also filed claims under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and other Illinois laws.

The case concerns alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by
the Defendants, who manufacture heavy duty industrial lawnmowers
and operate under the Rhino brand name, in connection with the
sale of landscaping equipment to governmental entities and other
purchasers.  Relator claims the violations involve the
sale of rotary cutters -- flex-wing lawnmowers -- with gearbox
horsepower ratings that have been falsified and exaggerated under
the Rhino brand name.

The Amended Complaint is based on the Defendants' alleged false
marketing and selling of certain Rhino mowers as having a gearbox
horsepower capacity beyond the known horsepower capacity.  The
gearboxes, according to Relator, actually have a lower than
specified rating, and thus, in instances where the sale is based
on a governmental bid or required specification, the sale would be
a violation because Defendants are knowingly misstating that the
gearbox rating meets a required specification.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant United States of America ex rel. David Jarvis
is represented by:

          Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
          Kenneth T. Goldstein, Esq.
          KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES LTD
          Civic Opera Bldg., Suite 1300
          20 N Wacker Dr.
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 606-0500
          Facsimile: (312) 606-0207
          E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com
                  ken@krislovlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Friedman, Esq.
          Arijana Keserovic, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY FRIEDMAN PC
          120 S State Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 357-1431
          Facsimile: (312) 357-2521
          E-mail: friedman@jmflaw.com
                  keserovic@jmflaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Gilmore, Esq.
          US ATTORNEY
          318 S Sixth
          Springfield, IL 62701-1806
          Telephone: (217) 492-4450
          Facsimile: (217) 492-4512
          E-mail: greg.gilmore@usdoj.gov

Defendants-Appellees ALAMO GROUP (IL), INC., and ALAMO GROUP (TX),
INC., are represented by:

          Jason Micah Ross, Esq.
          DYKEMA COX SMITH
          1717 Main Street, Suite 4200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 462-6400
          Facsimile: (214) 462-6401
          E-mail: jross@dykema.com

               - and -

          Jonathan S. Feld, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          10 S Wacker Dr., Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 627-5680
          Facsimile: (800) 951-0574
          E-mail: JFeld@dykema.com


ALLSTATE FIRE: Can Arbitrate NJ Auto Injury Action After All
------------------------------------------------------------
Darcy Reddan, writing for Law360, reports that an Allstate unit
can force arbitration of putative class action claims brought by a
hospital and car crash victim seeking unpaid medical benefits,
with a New Jersey federal judge granting the insurer's bid to
reconsider an earlier denial and acknowledging that ruling was
wrong.

U.S. District Judge Anne E. Thompson on October 4 found that
Allstate adequately argued that broader arbitration language
within the New Jersey Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act,
which provides for personal injury protection coverage, or PIP,
extends to what's called New Jersey's "Deemer Statute." That law
concerns PIP coverage for out-of-state drivers such as plaintiff
Juan Gonzalez, who, together with the Ambulatory Surgical Center
of Somerset, brought the class suit against Allstate.

Judge Thompson said that her previous decision rejecting
arbitration in the case -- which accuses Allstate of unlawfully
denying coverage for surgeries -- failed to consider the impact of
amendments to the PIP statute that allow insurers to force
arbitration.

"The court's original holding was misplaced, and it would be
unjust and inconsistent with the scheme set forth by the New
Jersey legislature to find otherwise," Judge Thompson said.

Under the Deemer Statute, an out-of-state insured is entitled to
the PIP coverage required under New Jersey law when the covered
vehicle is involved in a New Jersey accident.

Meanwhile, the arbitration provision of the Automobile Insurance
Cost Reduction Act states that disputes regarding the recovery of
medical benefits provided under PIP coverage "may be submitted to
dispute resolution on the initiative of any party to the dispute."

In August, the court denied Allstate's motion to compel saying
there was neither an arbitration agreement nor notice that the
parties could be forced to arbitrate the matter.

However, Judge Thompson on October 4 said she previously relied on
an older interpretation of the Cost Reduction Act's arbitration
provision that gave only claimants the right to compel
arbitration. Insurers were originally excluded because they were
expected to be aware of provisions such as PIP.

"PIP's dispute resolution provision was amended to empower any
party to a dispute to compel arbitration, including insurance
companies," The judge said.

The court ultimately ruled that the amended dispute resolution
provision should be incorporated in the Deemer Statute and an
insurance company can compel arbitration with an out-of-state
claimant.

"The amendment is part of a broader regulatory scheme designed to
promote more efficient handling of insurance claims, specifically
through more frequent extra-judicial dispute resolution," Judge
Thompson said.

Gonzalez and the surgical center launched the proposed class
action against Allstate in September in connection with claims
that the insurer has unlawfully denied coverage for a surgery
Gonzalez underwent at the facility in March 2015.

The surgery was related to injuries Gonzalez sustained in an
August 2011 car accident in Jefferson Township, New Jersey, court
documents state. At the time of the accident, Gonzalez was insured
by an auto policy issued by Allstate in Pennsylvania, court
documents state.

Allstate has refused to reimburse the surgical center for the
procedure, because the code assigned to Gonzalez's surgery was not
listed in New Jersey's auto medical fee schedule for such
payments, according to court documents.

Gonzalez and the surgical center are seeking liability and damages
on behalf of two proposed classes: individuals insured by Allstate
who were injured in car accidents and are entitled to automobile
medical benefits under New Jersey law, and ambulatory surgical
facilities that performed procedures for which there are no codes
listed in the fee schedule and for which Allstate has refused
payment, according to court documents

Representatives for both sides did not return request for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Charles Kannebecker, Esq. --
info@kannebeckerlaw.com

Allstate is represented by David J. D'Aloia, Esq. --
ddaloia@saiber.com -- Michael Grohs, Esq. -- mgrohs@saiber.com --
and Marc E. Wolin, Esq. -- mwolin@saiber.com -- of Saiber LLC.

The case is Ambulatory Surgical Center of Somerset and Juan
Gonzalez v. Allstate Fire Casualty Insurance Co., case number
3:16-cv-05378, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey. [GN]


AMAZON.COM DEDC: Hargrett Moves to Certify Class of Consumers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Hargrett and Michael Austin, two of the Plaintiffs in the
lawsuits titled DONOVAN HARGRETT, et al. v. AMAZON.com DEDC LLC,
Case No. 8:15-cv-02456-RAL-AAS (M.D. Fla.), and MICHAEL AUSTIN and
DEOLINDA S.M. BONDE, et al. v. AMAZON.com DEDC LLC, Case No. 8:15-
cv-2588-T-26JSS (M.D. Fla.), move the Court to certify the Fair
Credit Reporting Act case as a class action for a national class
of consumers who applied for work with Amazon.com and for whom
Amazon obtained consumer reports for employment purposes without
having a statutory basis for doing so.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of this class of consumers, of
which they are members:

     All natural persons in the United States who (1) applied
     online for work at Amazon.com using Salesforce.com; (2) were
     the subject of a consumer report that was procured by
     Amazon.com (or cause to be procured by Amazon) from Accurate
     Background, Inc.; (3) to whom Amazon.com presented the
     disclosure and authorization form attached as Exhibit B to
     Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
     before procuring that report; (4) within two years of the
     filing of this lawsuit through the date the Class List is
     prepared.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven G. Wenzel, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: swenzel@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          Elizabeth Hanes, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Judge Dismisses Pension Fund's Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
State Journal Register reports that Plumbers And Pipefitters Local
137 Pension Fund of Springfield is the lead plaintiff in a
proposed class-action lawsuit against American Express recently
dismissed by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York.
The lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, claimed American Express
defrauded shareholders, including pension fund investors, on the
financial effects when a co-branding partnership with Costco
Wholesale Corp. ended in 2015.

The lawsuit does not seek specific damages but claims the pension
fund would not have purchased American Express stock or would have
purchased the stock at a lower price if the Costco decision had
been properly disclosed. In dismissing the ruling, the judge
concluded American Express properly disclosed what it knew at the
time on the possible loss of Costco. The judge also ruled an
amended lawsuit could be filed. [GN]


ANGIE OF POLK: Faces "Terris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandy Terris, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Angie of Polk County, Inc. d/b/a Manny's
Original Chophouse and Emmanuel Nikolaidis, Case No. 8:17-cv-
02241-VMC-AAS (N.D. Fla., September 27, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 35496 Hwy
27, Haines City, FL 33844-3727. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher James Saba, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Telephone: (813) 321-4086
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: csaba@wfclaw.com


ARCONIC INC: "Lombana" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM LOMBANA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARCONIC, INC., a
Corporation, ALCOA, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
the Defendants, Case No.BC679318 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 12, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under California
Business and Professions Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Order, and the California Labor Code.

Arconic is a company specializing in lightweight metals
engineering and manufacturing. Arconic's products, which include
aluminum, titanium, and nickel, are used worldwide in aerospace
and automotive.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher L. Burrows, Esq.
          BURROWS LAW FIRM
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 526 9998
          Facsimile: (424) 644 2446
          E-mail: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com

               - and -

          Sean M. Novak, Esq.
          NOVAK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (323) 424 4313
          Facsimile: (323) 424 4357
          E-mail: smn@novaklawfirm.com


AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Jan. 19 Settlement Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Avalanche Biotechnologies Securities
Litigation:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

In re AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC.
SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.

Lead Case No. CIV536488
CLASS ACTION
Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Marie S. Weiner
DEPT: 2
DATE ACTION FILED: 12/07/15

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO:

ALL PERSONS THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AVALANCHE
BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. ("AVALANCHE" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK
BETWEEN JULY 30, 2014 AND JUNE 15, 2015 (INCLUSIVE) ("CLASS
PERIOD"), INCLUDING THOSE PERSONS THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED THE COMPANY'S COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE
COMPANY'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS FOR THE COMPANY'S
IPO AND THOSE PERSONS THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE
COMPANY'S COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S
REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS FOR THE COMPANY'S SPO
("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS")

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on January 19,
2018, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Marie S. Weiner at the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Department 2,
Courtroom 2E, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, to
determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement")
of the above-captioned action (the "Action") as well as a federal
action styled In re Avalanche Biotechnologies Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 15-cv-03185, which was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ("Federal Court Action") as set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for
$13,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (2) the Final Judgment as provided under
the Stipulation should be entered; (3) to award Plaintiffs'
Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund
(as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice"), which is discussed below); (4) to pay Plaintiffs the
time and expenses they incurred in representing the Class out of
the Settlement Fund; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate.

This Action and the Federal Court Action are securities class
actions brought on behalf of those Persons who purchased or
acquired the common stock of Avalanche during the Class Period,
against Avalanche, certain of its key executives, directors and
underwriters of Avalanche's IPO and SPO (collectively,
"Defendants") for, among other things, allegedly misstating and
omitting material facts from the Registration Statements filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the IPO and SPO concerning, among other things, the then-
existing data about Avalanche's lead product, AVA-101, which was
in development to treat patients with wet age-related macular
degeneration. Plaintiffs allege that these purportedly false and
misleading statements inflated the price of the Company's stock,
resulting in damage to Class Members when the truth was revealed.
Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED AVALANCHE COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JULY
30, 2014 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 15, 2015, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION AND THE FEDERAL COURT
ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than December
27, 2017) or electronically (no later than December 27, 2017).
Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by December 27, 2017,
will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving
any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this
Action and the Federal Court Action.  If you are a member of the
Class and do not request exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by
the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action,
including, but not limited to, the Final Judgment, whether or not
you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other
settlement documents, online at
www.AvalancheSecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com, or by writing to:

        Avalanche Securities Litigation Settlement
        Claims Administrator
        c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
        P.O. Box 404025
        Louisville, KY 40233-4025

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Plaintiffs' Counsel:

        ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
        James I. Jaconette, Esq.
        655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
        San Diego, CA 92101
        Telephone: 800-449-4900

        FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
        Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
        685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
        New York, NY 10017
        Telephone: 212-983-9330

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY NOVEMBER 27,
2017, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS
OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL
BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY
PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS'
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE
PAYMENT TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR TIME AND EXPENSES. ANY OBJECTIONS
MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL BY
NOVEMBER 27, 2017, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED: September 7, 2017

HONORABLE MARIE S. WEINER
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE FOR THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
SAN MATEO

The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
  www.AvalancheSecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com.


B&R MOLL: Accused by "Fries" Suit of Not Paying OT Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JIM FRIES, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. B&R MOLL, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-04238-ER (E.D. Pa.,
September 21, 2017), accuses the Defendant of improperly failing
to pay the Plaintiff and others overtime compensation pursuant to
the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection
Law.

B&R Moll, Inc., maintains a principal place of business in
Warminster, Pennsylvania.  The Company is a manufacturer of
folder/gluers and specialized bindery in finishing equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 273-1054
          Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
          E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


BANK OF AMERICA: May 23 FX Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Scott+Scott, Attorneys
at Law, LLP and Hausfeld LLP regarding the In re Foreign Exchange
Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS

If you entered into an FX Instrument or FX Exchange-Traded
Instrument between January 1, 2003 and December 15, 2015, you may
be affected by pending class action settlements.

"FX Instrument" means foreign exchange ("FX") spot transactions,
forwards, swaps, futures, options, and any other FX instrument or
FX transaction the trading or settlement value of which is related
in any way to foreign exchange rates.  "FX Exchange-Traded
Instruments" means any and all FX Instruments that were listed for
trading through an exchange, including, but not limited to, FX
futures and options on FX futures.

This Notice is to alert you to proposed Settlements reached with
the following "Settling Defendants":

Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., and Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated ("Bank of America");
The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. ("BTMU");
Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays Capital Inc. ("Barclays");
BNP Paribas Group, BNP Paribas North America Inc., BNP Paribas
Securities Corp., and BNP Prime Brokerage, Inc. ("BNP Paribas");
Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citicorp, and Citigroup Global
Markets Inc. ("Citigroup"); Deutsche Bank AG and Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc. ("Deutsche Bank"); The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
and Goldman, Sachs & Co. ("Goldman Sachs"); HSBC Holdings PLC,
HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC North America Holdings Inc., HSBC Bank USA,
N.A., and HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.  ("HSBC"); JPMorgan Chase &
Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("JPMorgan"); Morgan Stanley,
Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, and Morgan Stanley & Co., International
PLC ("Morgan Stanley"); RBC Capital Markets LLC ("RBC"); The Royal
Bank of Scotland Group PLC, The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, and
RBS Securities Inc. ("RBS");
Societe Generale ("Soc Gen"); Standard Chartered Bank ("Standard
Chartered"); and UBS AG, UBS Group AG, and UBS Securities LLC
("UBS").

Settling Defendants have settled a lawsuit alleging that Settling
Defendants conspired to fix and manipulate prices in the FX market
in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15
U.S.C. Sections 1, 3, and in violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act, 7 U.S.C. Sections 1, et seq.

Settling Defendants deny that the material allegations made
against them in this Action have merit.  In total, Settling
Defendants have paid $2,310,275,000 into a Settlement Fund.  The
litigation is continuing against Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit
Suisse AG, and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC ("Credit Suisse"
or "Non-Settling Defendant," and collectively with Settling
Defendants, "Defendants").  Non-Settling Defendant denies all
allegations of wrongdoing.

The Court has appointed the lawyers listed below to represent the
Settlement Classes in this Action:

          Christopher M. Burke
          Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-233-4565
          cburke@scott-scott.com

          Michael D. Hausfeld
          Hausfeld LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: 202-540-7200
          mhausfeld@hausfeld.com

Who is a member of the Settlement Classes?

The Court preliminarily approved two proposed Settlement Classes
in this case.

Subject to certain exceptions, the proposed "Direct Settlement
Class" consists of all Persons who, between January 1, 2003 and
December 15, 2015, entered into one or more FX Instruments
directly with a Defendant, a direct or indirect parent,
subsidiary, or division of a Defendant, a Released Party, or
co-conspirator where such Persons were either domiciled in the
United States or its territories or, if domiciled outside the
United States or its territories, transacted FX Instruments in the
United States or its territories.

Subject to certain exceptions, the proposed "Exchange-Only
Settlement Class" consists of all Persons who, between January 1,
2003 and December 15, 2015, entered into one or more FX Exchange-
Traded Instruments where such Persons were either domiciled in the
United States or its territories or, if domiciled outside the
United States or its territories, entered into an FX Exchange-
Traded Instrument on a U.S. exchange.

The terms "Released Parties," "FX Instruments," and "FX Exchange-
Traded Instruments" are defined in the detailed Notice of Class
Action Settlements ("Notice") and each of the Settlement
Agreements, which are available at www.FXAntitrustSettlement.com.

If you are not sure if you are included in one of the Settlement
Classes, you can get more information, including the detailed
Notice, at www.FXAntitrustSettlement.com or by calling toll-free
1-888-582-2289 (if calling from outside the United States or
Canada, call 1-330-333-7253).

Will I get a payment?

If you are a member of one of the Settlement Classes and do not
opt out, you will be eligible for a payment under the settlements
if you file a Proof of Claim and Release ("Claim Form").  The
Settlements and Plan of Distribution have been preliminarily but
not finally approved by the Court.  You also may obtain a copy of
the Settlements and Plan of Distribution at
www.FXAntitrustSettlement.com or by calling toll-free 1-888-582-
2289 (if calling from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-
330-333-7253).  Claim Forms must be postmarked by March 22, 2018
or submitted online at www.FXAntitrustSettlement.com on or before
11:59 p.m. Eastern time on March 22, 2018.

What are my rights?

If you are a member of one of the Settlement Classes and do not
opt out, you will release certain legal rights against Settling
Defendants and other Released Parties, as explained in the
detailed Notice and Settlement Agreements, which are available at
www.FXAntitrustSettlement.com.  If you do not want to take part in
the proposed Settlements, you must opt out by February 7, 2018.
You may object to the proposed Settlements, the Plan of
Distribution, and/or Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees
or expenses.  If you want to object, you must do so by February 7,
2018.  Information on how to opt out or object is contained in the
detailed Notice, which is available at
www.FXAntitrustSettlement.com.

Even if you did not transact any FX Instruments with any of the
Settling Defendants, you may be a member of one of the Settlement
Classes if, between January 1, 2003 and December 15, 2015, you
entered into an FX Instrument with Non-Settling Defendant or you
entered an FX Exchange-Traded Instrument; such transactions are
eligible for making a claim under the Settlements, provided that
you are either domiciled in the United States or, if you are
domiciled outside the United States, your transaction occurred in
the United States.  Unless you opt out of the Settlements, you
will be releasing all claims against Settling Defendants and other
Released Parties in connection with your trades with both Settling
Defendants and Non-Settling Defendant.  You will not be releasing
any claims against Non-Settling Defendant.

When is the Fairness Hearing?

The Court will hold a hearing at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007, on
May 23, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. Eastern time to consider whether to
approve the proposed Settlements, the Plan of Distribution, and
Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses.  You or
your lawyer may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at your own
expense, but you do not have to.

For more information, call toll-free 1-888-582-2289 (if calling
from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-330-333-7253) or
visit www.FXAntitrustSettlement.com.

Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for
information about the settlements.


BANK OF AMERICA: Failed to Correct Credit Reports, Lawsuit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that Bank of America has
been hit with a proposed class action accusing it of violating
federal laws by failing to properly investigate when consumers
dispute the mortgage payment information it reports to credit
bureaus.

Filed on October 6 in Roanoke, Virginia federal court, the lawsuit
said the bank "does not conduct a substantive review of any sort"
when consumers point out errors, but leaves damaging material on
credit reports that can hurt their ability to get loans. [GN]


BANK OF NAPA: Faces "Parshall" Suit in N.D. of California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of Napa, N.A.
The case is styled as Paul Parshall, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bank of Napa, N.A.,
Malcolm A. Mackenzie, Dick Anderson, Steve Barlow, Greg Bennett,
Jeff Gerlomes, Kathleen Lucier, Stephen Orndorf, Kelly Solomon,
Anthony Torres, Bank of Marin Bancorp and Bank of Marin,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-05773-RS (N.D. Cal., October 6,
2017).

The Bank of Napa, Napa's only locally owned bank, has been
acquired by the parent company of Bank of Marin. The deal, worth
$51 million, is scheduled to close by Nov. 30.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kip Brian Shuman, Esq.
   The Shuman Law Firm
   885 Arapahoe Avenue
   Boulder, CO 80302
   Tel: (303) 861-3003
   Fax: (303) 484-4886
   Email: Kip@shumanlawfirm.co


BASALITE CONCRETE: Faces "Carrozzella" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Basalite Concrete
Products, LLC. The case is styled as Thereasa Carrozzella, on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Basalite Concrete Products, LLC and Does 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 34-2017-00220214-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
October 6, 2017).

Basalite Concrete Products, LLC manufactures and supplies concrete
masonry products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
   Aiwazian Law Firm
   410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
   Glendale, CA 91203


BASF CORP: Violates Off-the-Clock Provision of FLSA, Parker Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LATOYA PARKER, Individually, and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. BASF CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00250-JM (E.D. Ark., September 21, 2017), asserts
claims for "off-the-clock" and overtime violations pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

BASF Corporation is a Delaware Corporation with its corporate
headquarters located in Wilmington, Delaware.  BASF manufactures
and supplies basic chemicals and intermediates ranging from
solvents, plasticizers, and monomers to glues and electronic
chemicals, as well as raw materials for detergents, plastics,
textile fibers, paints and coatings, plant protection, and
pharmaceuticals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          Paul R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  jholt@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


BAYER U.S.: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Douglas Says
------------------------------------------------------------
DAKOTA M. DOUGLAS on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BAYER U.S. LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, BAYER CORPORATION, an Indiana Corporation,
BAYER BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICE, LLC, a Texas limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. RG-17878626 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 12, 2017),
seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages due to
Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and
the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee working in the State
of California beginning on March 26, 2013. When Plaintiff applied
for employment with Defendants, Defendants performed a background
investigation on Plaintiff. Defendants did not provide legally
compliant authorization and disclosure forms to Plaintiff and the
putative class.

Bayer U.S. is a subsidiary of Bayer AG, a global enterprise with
core competencies in the fields of healthcare, agriculture and
high-tech polymer materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com


BERIOZKA REST: "Shulepov" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIKHAIL SHULEPOV, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BERIOZKA D/B/A CHINAR
RESTAURANT, REST. CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 151038/2017 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Oct. 12, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage,
overtime wages, "spread of hours" compensation, and gratuities,
wrongfully retained by Defendant, for work performed on behalf of
Defendant by Named Plaintiff and other members of the putative
class pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Chinar as a bus person
from January 2013 until July 2013. During his employment,
Plaintiff typically worked approximately three days per week, each
day starting from 12:00 PM to 6:00 AM, amounting to approximately
18 hours of work per day. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess
of 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff was paid approximately $120
per day. The Plaintiff did not receive overtime compensation of
one and one half times his regular rate of pay when he worked over
40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff did not receive an additional
one hour's pay at the minimum wage rate when he worked over 10
hours in a day. The Plaintiff and putative class members are food
service employees, such as waiters, servicers and bus persons, and
furnished labor to Defendant in furtherance of Defendant's
restaurant and food service business.

Chinar is an event venue and/or a restaurant and lounge located in
Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack Newhouse, Esq.
          Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


BLUE CROSS: Fails to Comply with Provisions of Assembly Bill 72
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAN LUIS IMAGING MEDICAL GROUP, INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS OF
CALIFORNIA d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS; ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND
HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC679451 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 12, 2017),
seeks injunction compelling Anthem to adopt and implement systems
and procedures to comply with AB 72, a legal remedy which is not
available under the independent dispute resolution process (IDRP)
but explicitly preserved by AB 72.

The case is a class action lawsuit arising out of defendants'
failure to comply with provisions of Assembly Bill 72 ("AB 72").
That law requires health plans to pay non-contracting providers,
such as Plaintiff, the greater of the average contracted rate or
125% of the Medicare fee-for-service reimbursement rate in
connection with a covered person's stay at a contracted health
facility. Defendants Blue Cross of California d/b/a Anthem Blue
Cross and Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company have
failed to develop arid implement claims processing procedures and
systems necessary to comply with the law, resulting in the
improper processing and underpayment of claims for thousands of
non-contracting providers, at rates lower than the statutory
amount. Anthem has failed to develop and implement the requisite
claims processing procedures and systems despite the fact that AB
72 was signed by Governor Brown in September of 2016 and did not
become effective until July 1, 2017.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
          Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
          Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489 1600
          Facsimile: (213) 489 1611
          E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
                  joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com
                  adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com

               - and -

          Don A. Ernst, Esq.
          Christopher Edgington, Esq.
          Taylor Ernst, Esq.
          ERNST LAW GROUP
          1020 Palm Street
          San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
          Telephone: (805) 541 0300
          Facsimile: (805) 541 5168
          E-mail: dae@emstlawgroup.com
                  ce@emstlawgroup.com
                  te@emstlawgroup.com


BOWLS LLC: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Bowls LLC. The
case is styled as Richard Baldelli and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Bowls LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-07675 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2017).

The Bowls LLC is a six year-old company located in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BRASKEM SA: Cohen Milstein Discloses Settlement of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll PLLC regarding the In Re Braskem, S.A., Securities
Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE BRASKEM, S.A., SECURITIES LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 15-CV-5132-PAE

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED AMERICAN
DEPOSITARY RECEIPTS ("ADR") OF BRASKEM, S.A. ("BRASKEM" OR THE
"COMPANY") (TICKER SYMBOL: BAK) BETWEEN JULY 15, 2010 AND MARCH
11, 2015, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a proposed Settlement has been
reached in this Action.1 A hearing will be held with respect to
the Settlement on February 21, 2018 at 10 a.m. before the
Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom
706, New York, New York.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things,
whether the proposed Settlement of the securities class action
claims asserted in this Action, pursuant to which Braskem, S.A.,
on behalf of all Defendants, will cause to be deposited into a
Settlement Fund the sum of $10 million in exchange for the
dismissal of the Action with prejudice and a release of claims
against the Defendants and other Released Parties, should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the
best interests of the Settlement Class. If you purchased or
otherwise acquired a legal or beneficial ownership interest in
Braskem ADRs (ticker symbol: BAK) during the Class Period, you may
be entitled to share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund if
you submit a Proof of Claim Form no later than January 16, 2018,
and if the information and documentation you provide in that Proof
of Claim Form establishes that you are entitled to a recovery.

This Summary Notice provides only a summary of matters regarding
the Action and the Settlement. A detailed notice (the "Notice")
describing the Action, the proposed Settlement, and the rights of
Settlement Class Members to appear in Court at the Final Approval
Hearing, to request to be excluded from the Settlement Class,
and/or to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or
the request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, has been mailed to persons
or entities known to be potential Settlement Class Members. You
may obtain a copy of that Notice, a Proof of Claim Form, or other
information at www.BraskemSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing
to the following address or calling the following telephone
number.

Braskem, S.A. Securities Litigation
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 10495
Dublin, Ohio 43017-4095
(855) 872-7076
Questions@BraskemSecuritiesSettlement.com

If you are a Settlement Class Member, you have the right to object
to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or the request by
Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation
Expenses, or otherwise request to be heard, by submitting a
written objection in accordance with the procedures described in
the Notice. The objection must be filed no later than January 31,
2018 and served so that it is received no later than February 7,
2018. You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Class
by submitting a written request for exclusion from the Class in
accordance with the procedures described in the Notice. The
request for exclusion must be received no later than January 22,
2018. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, you will be
bound by the Settlement and the Court's Judgment, including the
releases provided for in the Settlement and Judgment, unless you
submit a request to be excluded.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed
Notice referenced above and a Proof of Claim Form, may be made to
Lead Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff:

           Steven J. Toll
           Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
           1100 New York Ave N.W.
           Suite 500, East Tower
           Washington, D.C. 20005
           Tel: (202) 408-4600
           E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com [GN]


CANADA: 60s Scoop Settlement 'In Best Interest of Class Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Taylor, writing for CBC News, reports that a class-action
lawyer is applauding the federal government's decision to give
Sixties Scoop adoptees financial compensation.

"I think it's a historic day," said Garth Myers, an associate with
Koskie Minsky. "I think this settlement is a step in the right
direction in terms of healing and reconciliation between Canada's
Indigenous community and the country."

The settlement comes out of an eight-year court battle on behalf
of Ontario survivors. In February, an Ontario Superior Court judge
found the federal government failed to prevent on-reserve children
from losing their Indigenous identity after they were forcibly
taken from their homes as part of what's known as the Sixties
Scoop.

Myers is representing a Manitoba class action, which was filed in
April 2016.

Koskie Minsky currently has three other class-action suits on
behalf of Sixties Scoop adoptees including in Saskatchewan,
Alberta and a national class excluding Ontario. There are around
18 outstanding class actions across the country.

Myers said since the federal settlement is pan-Canadian, each
outstanding class action will now apply for settlement approval
rather than certification.

"We think this settlement is certainly in best interest of all
class members and I think they're getting benefits in the
settlement that they can never get in court," said Myers.

That includes a reported $50 million set aside for a new
Indigenous Healing Foundation.

"It's purpose is to enable change and reconciliation, in
particular access to education, healing, wellness, and
commemoration activities for  communities and individuals," he
said.

Myers added he thinks compensation of up to $50,000 for each
adoptee is fair. With an estimated 20,000 survivors across Canada,
the settlement is said to be upwards of $800 million.

"I'm grateful to the current government for their willingness to
come forward and make such a generous offer to this class of
vulnerable Indigenous people."

In comparison, residential school survivors' compensation included
a $10,000 "common experience payment, plus $3,000 for every year
spent there. Survivors who were physically or sexually abused and
filed IAP claims received additional payments averaging $111,000
including legal fees.

'That's where you really feel robbed'

One survivor says it's not about money.

"How do you get a cheque for $50,000 and say 'OK, well thanks,'
you know, it's not about money," said Philip Paul-Martin, who was
taken from his mother's arms in the hospital in 1972 and adopted
out two years later.

"I'm supposed to be grateful, that they took me and robbed me of a
chance to know my family and cousins, speak my language," he said.
He says he's one of the lucky one because he was able to reconnect
with family in Attawapiskat First Nation.

"I'm learning slowly, I've lived in my home community on three
occasions, and walked the roads of my rez, knocked on my uncle's
door and had tea with him, and you get home and you start to know
your uncles and they start to leave, pass away, and that's where
you really feel robbed."

Sold as salvation, Sixties Scoop placed children in abusive system
Paul-Martin says he understands that the Canadian legal system
works through monetary compensation.

"But you can't place a dollar value on who you are," he said.

More details of the settlement are expected to be announced on
October 6 morning. [GN]


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Face Class Action Over GenX
---------------------------------------------
Adam Wagner, writing for Star News Online, reports that a
Wilmington man has filed a lawsuit against Chemours and DuPont
alleging the chemical companies were negligent in their release of
chemicals into the Cape Fear River.

Filed on October 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, the suit requests a jury trial and
says Brent Nix represents a class potentially as large as 100,000
residents of the Lower Cape Fear area.

Damages, according to the suit, are related to the discharges of
various perfluorinated chemicals including GenX, causing the loss
of value in properties in the area, the cost of mitigating
contaminated water, the cost of diagnostic testing for diseases
that may be caused by the chemicals and "annoyance, discomfort and
inconvenience." Nix is requesting in excess of $5 million due, the
court documents say, to the potentially large class size.

"Defendants have negligently and otherwise acted to cause toxic
chemicals to be released from the Fayetteville Works Site," the
lawsuit alleges, "which then traveled to and contaminated and
damaged the properties and household water supplies of Plaintiff
and Class Members, and exposed them to toxic chemicals."

A Chemours spokesman did not respond on October 6 to a request for
comment about the lawsuit.

The lawsuit draws connections between DuPont's activities with C8
near Parkersburg, West Virginia, and its manufacture beginning in
2001 of the same chemical at the Fayetteville Works plant about
100 miles up the Cape Fear River. When the company applied for a
discharge permit allowing it to manufacture C8, the lawsuit
alleges, it did not disclose proprietary health documents linking
the chemical to severe health effects in humans and animals.

In 2009, Chemours began manufacturing GenX at Fayetteville Works.
That process must be, according to a consent agreement allowing
the chemical's manufacture, a closed loop with no discharges.
Chemours has insisted since early June that the process is a
closed loop and any discharges are coming from a separate vinyl
ether process that has been operating on the site in intermittent
periods since 1980.

"Defendants knew that (GenX was) created in that vinyl ethers
process," the lawsuit alleges, "and that they were discharging
(GenX) as a result of this process to the Cape Fear River since
1980."

The lawsuit also alleges that leadership at the Fayetteville Works
plant could have taken action to prevent the discharge.

"Defendants knew the manufacturing processes at the Fayetteville
Works Site were sources of discharges and releases of toxic
(chemicals) into the Cape Fear River," the plaintiff's document
says, "which was and is used as a drinking water supply for the
people of Wilmington, North Carolina through the (Cape Fear Public
Utility Authority), and knew that they were in fact discharging
and releasing toxic (chemicals) into the Cape Fear River."

During a meeting with local officials, Chemours employees said
they installed mitigation technology to filter some GenX out of
the water in 2013, but tests taken after that still showed levels
above the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services' health
goal of 140 parts per trillion set this summer.

In addition, the lawsuit discusses the potential health effects of
GenX, noting that DuPont has long been studying the chemical.
According to the court document, DuPont's Haskell Laboratory for
Health and Environmental Sciences submitted in April 2006 a 1963
study for health effects associated with GenX the company had
performed on rats.

"Documents submitted by the DuPont Defendants to U.S. EPA indicate
that GenX has been associated with increased risk of health
effects in laboratory animal studies, including risks of cancer,
increased weight, changes to the immune system and cholesterol
levels, fluctuations in size of kidneys and livers, cancerous
tumors in liver, pancreas and testicles, and reproductive
effects," the lawsuit alleges. "Such health effects are consistent
with the health risks associated with toxic PFAS."

A study of area cancer data conducted by N.C. DHHS in June showed
no discernible trends in cancer's historically linked to C8 for a
four-county region during a period ranging from 1996 to 2015. The
data did indicate that New Hanover County's 20-year testicular
cancer rate was higher than the state average.

The lawsuit only mentions CFPUA customers, not any utilities in
Brunswick or Pender counties.

Nix is represented by the office of Durham attorney James Scott
Farrin and The Hannon Law Firm of Denver, Colorado. In late
September, the law firm associated with Erin Brockovich announced
via a letter to potential clients that it is no longer
investigating GenX because of a lack of available scientific
evidence linking the chemical to health effects. [GN]


CINEMEX USA: Collective Action Cert. Sought in "Gutierrez" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JORGE GUTIERREZ v. CINEMEX
USA REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a CMX BRICKELL, CINEMEX
HOLDINGS USA, INC., CINEMEX USA ENTERPRISES, INC., and LUIS
CASTELAZO, Case No. 1:17-cv-23311-KMM (S.D. Fla.), seeks
collective-action certification of this class of similarly
situated persons ("216(b) Class Members"):

     All persons who worked at the CMX Brickell theater as
     servers and/or bartenders during the three (3) years
     preceding this lawsuit and who earned less than the
     applicable minimum and/or overtime wage for one or more
     weeks.

Mr. Gutierrez initiated the action on August 31, 2017, seeking
damages for him and the 216(b) Class Members for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Gutierrez also moves for an order (i) directing the Defendants
to produce to undersigned counsel within 20 days a list containing
the names and last known addresses of putative 216(b) Class
Members, who worked for Defendants during the last three years,
and (ii) authorizing his counsel to send a notice to all
individuals, whose names appear on the list produced by the
Defendants' counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iso6Kr5g

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com


CRESTWOOD, IL: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Red Light Camera
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Knowles and Ann Pistone, writing for ABC 7 Chicago, reports
that Illinois motorists are fighting a red light camera
intersection in a class action lawsuit filed on October 5.

The lawsuit filed by angry motorists alleges that south suburban
Crestwood is breaking the law with its use of red light cameras at
a questionable intersection the I-Team recently investigated.

"We are seeking to void out approximately 56,000 red light camera
tickets issued, generating $3.1 million for the village," said
attorney Tom Zimmerman.

Three motorists and the group Abolish Red Light Cameras filed a
class action lawsuit against the village of Crestwood over the
intersection at the corner of Cicero Avenue and Cal Sag Road. They
want refunds for those 56,000 tickets, claiming there is no stop
lights for drivers to see when they drive through the designated
right hand turn lane.

Crestwood officials said drivers could see the light to the left,
across the street.

"Cities are suffering and so they are using the faulty system to
collect revenue from citizens," said Bob Fioretti, Esq. attorney
and former Chicago alderman.

At 10 p.m. the I-Team has more from the safety expert who analyzed
the intersection. He spoke exclusively to the I-Team about why he
said the designated right-hand turn lane needs its own light if
drivers are expected to stop. The I-Team also has more from the
Illinois Department of Transportation, and why it says the
intersection meets federal guidelines, and why the village of
Crestwood says that the red light camera at that intersection is
fair. [GN]


CRUISE WEB: Alloways Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMY ALLOWAYS, MISCHELE HIGGINSON and CHRISTY MCGHEE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Employees v. THE CRUISE
WEB, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-02811-PJM (D. Md., September 21,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law,
and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The Cruise Web, Inc., is an incorporated for-profit business that
maintains its principal corporate office in Calverton, Maryland.
The Defendant is a travel agency that specializes in planning
cruises.  The Defendant arranges travel accommodations with
various cruise lines and receives a predetermined fee from each
reservation made through its services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Johnson Fistel Starts Investigation
----------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating
potential violations of the federal securities laws by DENTSPLY
SIRONA Inc. (NASDAQ: XRAY) ("Dentsply") and certain of its
officers. DENTSPLY designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide.

On August 9, 2017, Dentsply announced earnings for the second
quarter 2017 fell below expectations, and disclosed a SEC
investigation "concerning the Company's accounting and
disclosures, including its accounting and disclosures relating to
transactions with a significant distributor of the Company."

Then on October 2, 2017, Dentsply disclosed that its chief
executive officer, executive chairman, and president, tendered
their resignations. On October 3, 2017, The Wall Street Journal
reported the Company's board forced these executives out.

If you have information that could assist in this investigation,
including past employees and others, or if you are a Dentsply
shareholder and are interested in learning more about the
investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact
Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonfistel.com --. If emailing, please
include a phone number.

                         About Johnson Fistel

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The
firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits.

        Jim Baker, Esq.
        JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
        Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]


DIAMOND WIPES: Williams Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHASTA WILLIAMS, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIAMOND WIPES
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through
100, the Defendant, Case No. BC67931S (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 12,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under
California Business and Professions Code, Labor Code, and
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants as a non-exempt employee, who also earned non-
discretionary bonuses, commission and/or other forms of
compensation not excludable as a matter' of law when calculating
an employee's regular rate of pay. Plaintiff was, and is, victim
of Defendants' policies and/or practices, lost money and/or
property, and has been deprived of the rights guaranteed by
California Labor Code.

Diamond Wipes International, Inc. designs and manufactures hot and
cold disposable wet wipes for consumer and industrial applications
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher L. Burrows, Esq.
          BURROWS LAW FIRM
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 526 9998
          Facsimile: (424) 644 2446
          E-mail: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com

               - and -

          NOVAK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          Sean M. Novak, Esq.
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (323) 424 4313
          Facsimile: (323) 424 4357
          E-mail: smn@novaklawfirm.com


EL PUERTO: Faces "Mondragon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ipolita Espinoza Mondragon, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. El Puerto De Acapulco Bar Restaurant Inc.
d/b/a El Puerto de Acapulco Bar & Restaurant, Gonzalo Javier
Campis, and Jose Antonio Campis, Case No. 1:17-cv-05613 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 26, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 9316 A 37th
Ave, Jackson Heights, NY 11372. [BN]

Ipolita Espinoza Mondragon is a pro se plaintiff.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: County Also Sues Drug Manufacturers
-------------------------------------------------------
Tom Giambroni, writing for Salem News, reports that Drug
manufacturers are being added to the lawsuit filed on behalf of
Columbiana County commissioners against drug distributors.

Commissioners on October 4 adopted a resolution amending their
lawsuit to include drug manufacturers as well as distributors,
which was done on the advice of attorney John Lancione, whose
Cleveland-area law firm is serving as the board's local counsel in
the federal class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of numerous
counties in Ohio and adjoining states.

The lawsuit was filed against three major drug wholesalers
responsible for distributing 85 percent of all prescription opioid
painkillers to doctors and pharmacies. The lawsuit alleges these
companies contributed to the "public health and safety crisis"
created by the opioid problem "by refusing to abide by federal
regulations specifically designed to prevent the diversion of
prescription opioids into the illicit market."

In doing so, these distributors dumped millions of prescription
opiates into communities across the county.

Commissioner Mike Halleck said after the meeting they received an
email on October 3 from Lancione advising them to add prescription
opiate manufacturers based on what occurred in July, when it was
announced that a $35 million settlement had been reached between
the U.S. Justice Department and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals. The
drug manufacturer was accused of failing to report large
quantities of oxycodone pills that ended up being diverted to
black markets in Florida. After reviewing the allegations and the
settlement, Halleck said the law firm concluded drug manufacturers
contributed to the opioid crisis by violating federal reporting
requirements and often working together with distributors. [GN]


EPIC SYSTEMS: SC Considers Viability of Waivers
-----------------------------------------------
Brian Morris, writing for National Law Review, reports that on
October 2, 2017, the United States Supreme Court heard oral
argument in Epic Systems v. Lewis, which considers the import of
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) on the enforceability of
class action waivers under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
According to some estimates, approximately 25 million employees
are covered by arbitration agreements that prohibit class actions
or other joint proceedings. Thus, the Supreme Court's decision is
likely to have a significant impact on employment and labor
relations throughout the country.

Summary of Oral Argument
Questioning during oral argument hinted at a divide down
ideological lines. In one interesting exchange, Justice Breyer
appeared to tip his hand:

The [NLRA] protects the worker when two workers join together to
go into a judicial or administrative forum for the purpose of
improving working conditions, and the employers here all said, we
will employ you only if you promise not to do that. . . .That's
the argument against you. . . . .  I haven't seen a way that you
can, in fact, win the case . . . .   without undermining and
changing radically what has gone back to the New Deal, that is,
the interpretation of Norris-LaGuardia and the NLRA.

Notably, Justice Gorsuch (perhaps following the example of his
quiet and contemplative colleague Justice Thomas) did not ask a
single question during argument.

Substantively, the Court focused on the nature of the right
protected by Section 7 of the NLRA. According to Petitioners,
Section 7 protects employees' right to decide to bring class or
representative actions. However, it does not govern the rules
applicable in the judicial or arbitral forum. As Petitioners
characterized it, the "Section 7 right . . . gets you to the
courthouse, it gets you to the Board, it gets you to the
arbitrator. . . . .   But once you're there you're subject to the
rules." Framed this way, the arbitration agreement merely operates
"to set the rules for the forum of arbitration when you get
there."

Just like an employer can contest the appropriateness of class
proceedings based on failure to satisfy the requirements of Rule
23 (e.g., numerosity, commonality, etc.) without running afoul of
the NLRA, it can also do so based on the existence of a bilateral
arbitration agreement.

In contrast, Respondents contended that Section 7 prohibits
employer interference with concerted activities, including
requiring an employee to sign an agreement that precludes class
proceedings in all forums. Justice Alito seemed skeptical of this
formulation, appearing to find scant substantive distinction
between enforcing an agreement precluding class proceedings and a
procedural limitation on employees' ability to engage in
collective litigation. Justice Kagan attempted to address Justice
Alito's skepticism, stating:

Section 7 doesn't extend to the ends of the Earth. If there are
three employees who go out jointly rioting in the streets, they
run up against antiriot laws and they go to jail just like
everybody else. What Section 7 does and what Section 8 does is to
establish a set of rules that deal with how employers can deal
with employees. And one of the things that Section 7 and Section 8
say in concert, if you will, is that employers can't demand as
conditions of employment the waivers of concerted rights. And
that's all you're saying here.

Justice Kennedy, the Court's most frequent swing vote, suggested
that class waivers may not significantly impact employees' ability
to collectively enforce employment rights. Justice Kennedy
presented the following scenario:

[T]hree people . . . .   can[] go to the same attorney and say
please represent us, and we will share our information with you,
we have three individual arbitrations, but you represent all three
of us, they can do that . . . .   [T]hat is collective action. .
. . [T]hey are proceeding concertedly. They have a single
attorney. They are presenting their case. It is going to be
decided maybe in three different hearings . . . .   [M]any of the
advantages of concerted action can be obtained by going to the
same attorney. Sure, the cases are considered individually . . . .

While the availability of one method of collective employee action
would not normally render valid a mandatory waiver of another,
Respondents did not contend that employees were entitled to bring
class proceedings in court. Respondents embraced the more modest
proposition that so long as "joint legal action is available in
one forum, that would be sufficient."

To the surprise of many, General Counsel for the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB), Richard Griffin, agreed that an
arbitration provision that selects an arbitral forum that renders
class proceedings onerous, if not impossible, would be
enforceable. This is illustrated in the following colloquially
with Chief Justice Roberts:

Chief Justice Roberts: Let's say . . . .  the rules of the
arbitral forum says you can proceed individually, but you . . . .
proceed collectively, but only if the class represents more than
50 people. Is that all right under your theory?

MR. GRIFFIN: That's a rule of the arbitral forum, and the employee
takes the rules of the forum as they find them.

. . . .

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: The arbitral forum has rules, just like the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. And what you're saying is . . .
once you get into federal court, of course you've got to follow
the rules of the forum. And we have arbitral forums as well.


MR. GRIFFIN: And I'm saying those rules are equivalent, that . . .
the employee takes the rules of the forum as they find them. What
is prohibited [] under the National Labor Relations Act is an
agreement by the employer that's imposed that limits the
employee's right to take the rules . . . So it would be okay if
the forum said that.

Justice Alito highlighted that a decision adopting the rule
advanced by the General Counsel would be pyrrhic victory for the
NLRB. "[I]f that's the rule, you have not achieved very much
because, instead of having an agreement that says . . . no class
action, no class arbitration, you have an agreement requiring
arbitration before the XYZ arbitration association, which has
rules that don't allow class arbitration."

The Board's General Counsel appears to have belatedly recognized
the import of his concession at oral argument. On October 4,
Griffin sent a letter to the Court correcting the position he
articulated at oral argument, writing:

"I am writing to correct an inaccurate response I gave at oral
argument in response to the line of questioning from Chief Justice
Roberts . . . 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 . . . 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."

The above summary just scratches the surface of the October 2 oral
argument. Not only did the Court and parties contemplate the
issues above, they discussed a variety of other topics, including
whether class waivers are akin to "yellow dog" contracts, and the
operation of the FAA's "savings clause."

The Court's decision will have a significant impact on the
enforceability of widely-used class action waivers and potentially
pending class litigation. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Dhuka" Suit for Not Protecting Credit Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
IMTIYAZ DHUKA, ABUZAR DHUKKA, KEVIN PUTEGNAT, NYDIA PUTEGNAT,
MUMTAZ MAREDIA, and IMTIAZ MAREDIA, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. EQUIFAX, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-
00919-LY (W.D. Tex., September 21, 2017), is brought on behalf of
millions of consumers in Texas against Equifax for failing to take
basic measures to protect and maintain the confidentiality of
their personal identification and credit information, and for
failing to provide adequate notice to those consumers that their
information had been stolen.

Equifax Inc. is a Georgia corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax is a consumer credit
reporting agency.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Benjamin King, Esq.
          REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP
          1601 Elm St., Suite 4250
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 420-8900
          E-mail: bking@rctlegal.com

               - and -

          R. Adam Swick, Esq.
          REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP
          1301 S. Capital of Texas Hwy.
          Bldg. C, Suite 300
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 647-6100
          E-mail: aswick@rctlegal.com

               - and -

          Andrew Kochanowski, Esq.
          Sarah L. Rickard, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 746-4068
          E-mail: akochanowski@somerspc.com
                  srickard@sommerspc.com


EQUIFAX INC: Fails to Properly Protect PII, "Bakken" Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BAKKEN, Keri; and SANCHEZ, Gustavo Carlo v. EQUIFAX, INC., Case
No. 1:17-cv-03676-LMM (N.D. Ga., September 21, 2017), alleges that
the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and the
class of consumers they seek to represent was compromised due to
Equifax's acts and omissions and their failure to properly protect
the PII.

Equifax, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax is one of three
nationwide credit-reporting companies that track and rates 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 everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ranse M. Partin, Esq.
          CONLEY GRIGGS & PARTIN
          4200 Northside Parkway, NW Building One, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 809-2591
          Facsimile: (404) 467-1166
          E-mail: ranse@conleygriggs.com

               - and -

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          K. Scott Wagner, Esq.
          KERKMAN WAGNER & DUNN
          839 North Jefferson Street, Suite 400
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 277-8200
          Facsimile: (414) 277-0100
          E-mail: swagner@kwdlaw.com

               - and -

          Eric Pavlack, Esq.
          PAVLACK LAW LLC
          225 North Alabama Street, Suite 301
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 251-1100
          Facsimile: (317) 252-0352
          E-mail: eric@pavlacklawfirm.com

               - and -

          G. John Cento, Esq.
          CENTO LAW, LLC
          5915 North College Avenue, Suite 100
          Indianapolis, IN 46220
          Telephone: (765) 280-3272
          E-mail: cento@centolaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: "Williams" Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Williams, in behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Credit Information
Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02803, (D. Md.,
September 20, 2017), seeks compensatory, statutory, treble and
punitive damages, costs of suit including the costs of notice of
class action certification and judgment, and reasonable attorneys'
fees resulting from invasion of privacy and violation of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates 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 everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers.

Williams claims to be a victim of the data breach.

Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services LLC are
engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and dispersing
information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing
consumer reports to third parties upon request. [BN]

      H. Vincent McKnight, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      1666 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20009
      Telephone: (202)499-5200
      Facsimile: (202)499-5199
      Email: vmcknight@sanfordheisler.com

             - and -

      Kevin Sharp, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      611 Commerce St., Suite 3100
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Telephone: (615) 434-7001
      Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com

             - and -

      Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
      Andrew Melzer, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      1350 A venue of the Americas, 31st Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (646) 402-5650
      Fax: (646) 402-5651
      Email: amelzer@sanfordheisler.com


EQUIFAX INC: Ogburn Sues in Virginia Alleging FCRA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN OGBURN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EQUIFAX INC., and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00644-JAG (E.D. Va., September 21, 2017), alleges
violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Virginia
Consumer Protection Act, and the Virginia Personal Information
Breach Notification Act.

Equifax acknowledges that, between May 2017 and July 2017, it was
the subject of a data breach in which unauthorized individuals
accessed Equifax's database and the names, Social Security
numbers, addresses, and other Personal Identifying Information
("PII") stored therein.  According to Equifax, the Data Breach
affected as many as 143 million people.  Equifax admits that it
discovered the unauthorized access on July 29, 2017, but failed to
alert the Plaintiff and the Class to the fact of the breach until
September 7, 2017, according to the complaint.

Equifax Inc. is a multi-billion dollar corporation headquartered
in Atlanta, Georgia.  The Company provides credit information
services to millions of businesses, governmental units, and
consumers across the globe.  Equifax Information Services, LLC, is
a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business located
in Atlanta.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Grant Morris, Esq.
          Andrew Melzer, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          1666 Connecticut NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 499-5210
          Facsimile: (202) 499-5199
          E-mail: gmorris@sanfordheisler.com
                  amelzer@sanfordheisler.com


EQUIFAX INC: Michigan CUNA Joins Lawsuit After Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Amber Ainsworth, writing for Click on Detroit, reports that the
Michigan Credit Union League joined the class action lawsuit on
October 4 that the Credit Union National Association filed against
Equifax after a recent data breach.

CUNA filed the lawsuit on October 4, and MCUL joined the lawsuit
on behalf of Michigan credit unions.

More than 145 million consumers were impacted by the data breach.
Compromised information includes Social Security numbers, birth
dates, addresses and driver's license numbers.

"We filed this lawsuit because our member credit unions are very
concerned with the effects of this breach -- everything from re-
issuing compromised cards to adding uncertainty to the loan
underwriting process," CUNA President and CEO Jim Nussle said.
"Credit unions will bear substantial costs dealing with the
fallout from this breach, and this lawsuit is a step toward
recouping those costs."

MCUL said credit unions will suffer long-term harm. Credit unions
will have to cancel and reissue compromised credit and debit
cards, reimburse members for fraudulent charges, increase fraud
monitoring, mitigate identity theft and deal with reputation harm,
according the MCUL. [GN]


FINANCIAL AMERICAN: Faces "O'Donnell" Suit in S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial American
Holdings Corporation.  The case is styled as Sheela K. O'Donnell,
individually and as class representative, Plaintiff v. Financial
American Holdings Corporation, Financial American Life Insurance
Company and Manuel Jacob Millor, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
23675-RNS (S.D. Fla., October 6, 2017).

The Defendants offer life insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
   Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
   1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
   Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326
   Tel: (866) 300-7367
   Fax: (954) 515-0124
   Email: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com


FIRST NATIONAL: "Day" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gregory Day, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. First
National Credit Bureau Inc., a foreign for profit corporation; and
Pinnacle Credit Services LLC, a foreign limited liability company,
Case No. 17-005520-CI, was removed on Oct. 12, 2017 from the 6th
Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 8:17-cv-02397-CEH-JSS to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell.

First National Collection Bureau, Inc. is an agency that collects
debt on behalf of a variety of creditor clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron M. Swift, Esq.
          LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER PA
          NORTHEAST PROFESSIONAL CENTER
          3900 First St North, Suite 100
          St Petersburg, FL 33703-6109
          Telephone: (727) 327 3328
          Facsimile: (727) 327 3305
          E-mail: aswift@leavenlaw.com

               - and -

          James Matthew Gonzalez, Esq.
          Lauren M. Burnette, Esq.
          BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C.
          450-106 State Road 13 N. Suite 326
          St. Johns, FL 32259
          E-mail: jgonzalez@bn-lawyers.com
                  lburnette@bn-lawyers.com


FRIENDLUM INC: "Sandoval" Sues Over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Rene Sandoval, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Friendlum, Inc. (d/b/a Direct Home Energy
Solutions) Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01917, (S.D. Cal.,
September 20, 2017), seeks damages, injunctive relief and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and invasion
of Plaintiff's privacy.

Sandoval received a telephone call on his cellular telephone from
Defendants using an automatic telephone dialing system where an
agent requested to set an appointment with her supervisor to
discuss home energy solutions. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      Kevin Lemieux, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26
      Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com
             kevin@westcoastlitigation.com

             - and -

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: KSF Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until November 27, 2017 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Frontier
Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:FTR), if they purchased the
Company's securities between April 1, 2016, and May 2, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Frontier and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email ( --
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com --), or visit
http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ftr/to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by November 27, 2017.

                        About the Lawsuit

Frontier and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On February 27, 2017, Frontier revealed a Q4 2016 net loss of $80M
from the "resolution of nonpaying acquired CTF accounts," an
account cleanup process since July 20, 2016 related to its April
2016 purchase of Verizon Communications operations in California,
Texas and Florida.  On May 2, 2017, Frontier reported a $75M Q1
2017 net loss and a Q1 revenue decline of $53M by year, including
$16M from CTF non-paying accounts and automation of legacy non-pay
disconnects.

On this news, the price of Frontier's shares plummeted.

                 About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on
securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along with
merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against
publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has
offices in New York, California and Louisiana. [GN]


GEORGIA: Sheriff Indicted After Body Searches of Students
---------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Swenson, writing for Washington Post, reports that a
Georgia grand jury indicted Sheriff Jeff Hobby and two deputies
for their part in a Worth County High School high school raid.

The sound system squawked at 8 a.m., just as the school day was
revving up at Worth County High School. The campus was now on
lockdown, the announcement said. Neither the teachers nor students
at the south Georgia school knew what was going on.

For the next four hours, 40 uniformed officers -- the entire staff
of the Worth County Sheriff's Office -- fanned through the school
in Sylvester, ordering students against the walls of classrooms
and hallways, demanding the students hand over their cellphones.

All 900 students were searched, part of a drug sweep ordered by
Sheriff Jeff Hobby, according to court documents.

He did not have a warrant. He had a "target list" of 12 suspected
drug users. Only three of the names were in school that day, April
14.

By noon, when cellphones were handed back and classes resumed, no
drugs had been found.

The sheriff's full-court press, however, would yield legal
consequences -- for Hobby and his office. In the days following
the sweep, students came forward charging they had been
inappropriately groped and manhandled by deputies. A class-action
federal civil suit followed.

And now, a grand jury indicted Hobby and two deputies for their
part in the high school raid. Hobby faces charges of sexual
battery, false imprisonment, and violation of oath of office,
according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

"The sheriff's position is that he's not guilty," Hobby's
attorney, Norman Crowe Jr., told the news outlet. The sheriff was
at the school for the raid but personally did not touch students,
the lawyer maintained. "He's committed no crime."

The search brought unwanted national attention on the department.
As the controversy broke, Hobby gave an off-camera interview to
WALB in which he said the searches were legal because school
administrators were present.

In a statement released on April 18, Hobby elaborated that in "the
weeks leading up to April 14, the Sheriff's Office received
information and complaints from the citizens of Worth County
regarding illegal drugs at the high school. The Sheriff contacted
the Superintendent of the Worth County School District and the
Principal of the high school to inform them of the situation and
the Principal and the Sheriff agreed on the day of the pat down."

School officials, however, have countered the idea they were
willing participants in om Hobby's plans.

"We did not give permission but they didn't ask for permission,"
Interim Worth County Superintendent Lawrence Walters told WALB
after the raid. "He just said, the sheriff, that he was going to
do it after spring break."

"I don't think anybody in the school system had any idea that it
would be of the nature of what actually happened," Tommy Coleman,
a lawyer for the school district, told The Washington Post in
June. "I've been doing this a long time, and I've never heard of
anybody doing that kind of thing."

The class-action lawsuit -- filed on behalf of nine unnamed
students -- laid out detailed allegations of groping during the
school search. One student recounted that a deputy "looked down
the back and front" of the student's dress, then "slid her hands"
over her pelvic area and "cupped" the student's "vaginal area and
buttocks," according to the legal complaint.

Another male student recounted a deputy "moving his fingers back
and forth" from his pockets to his groin, the lawsuit stated. The
deputy's fingertips touched the student's "penis and testicles,
over clothes, four to five times."

A third student recounted how a deputy "reached up under" her
shirt, "lifted her bra, and touched her bare breasts, including
her nipples."

In June, when the lawsuit was filed, one of the teenagers
recounted his ordeal to The Post. The deputy "came up under my
privates and then he grabbed my testicles twice," the student
said. "I wanted to turn around and tell him to stop touching me. I
wanted it to be over and I just wanted to call my dad because I
knew something wasn't right."

Following the outcry, Hobby acknowledged in his April statement
that "one of the deputies had exceed the instructions given by the
Sheriff and conducted a pat down of some students that was more
intrusive than instructed." The sheriff said "corrective action"
was taken -- but the office has not publicly offered further
detail.

The grand jury indicted two deputies along with the sheriff: Tyler
Turner faces one felony count of violation of oath of office and
one misdemeanor count of sexual battery. Deidra Whiddon was
indicted on one count of violation of oath of office.

Local prosecutors also announced copies of the indictment would be
sent to Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, who has the legal authority to
suspend Hobby. The Journal-Constitution reported the Georgia Peace
Officer Standards and Training Council has already suspended the
law enforcement certifications of Hobby and his deputies. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Suit Alleging Women Paid Less Speeded Up by Judge
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Baron, writing for Silicon Beat, reports that a lawsuit by
three women alleging Google has a "sexist culture" and
systematically pays women less than men has been speeded up, with
a legal designation that paves the way for it to become a class
action.

The three ex-Googlers claim in the suit filed in September that
the Mountain View search giant "segregates" women into lower-
paying jobs and career tracks while men with equivalent
qualifications race ahead.

Plaintiff Kelly Ellis said in the lawsuit that she had quit the
firm after about four years because of  "the sexist culture at
Google."

Get tech news in your inbox weekday mornings. Sign up for the free
Good Morning Silicon Valley newsletter.

The other plaintiffs are Holly Pease and Kelli Wisuri.

Google is also faced with a federal probe from the Labor
Department, which has claimed "extreme" pay discrimination against
women at the company. Google has denied that claim and said it
pays women equally to men.

Now, a judge of the California Superior Court in San Francisco has
designated the women's lawsuit a "complex case," which prepares
the suit to become a class action.

Judge Mary Wiss also speeded up the timeline for the case, moving
the case-management conference to Oct. 26 from February 14.

Google declined to comment on the latest development in the case,
but it has said it disagrees with the "central allegations" of the
suit.

"Job levels and promotions are determined through rigorous hiring
and promotion committees, and must pass multiple levels of review,
including checks to make sure there is no gender bias in these
decisions," company spokeswoman Gina Scigliano said in an earlier
statement.

"And we have extensive systems in place to ensure that we pay
fairly. But on all these topics, if we ever see individual
discrepancies or problems, we work to fix them."

The new designation as "complex," which came in an Oct. 2 order,
indicates that the court will be "actively supervising" the case,
and it was given because suit seeks class-action status and will
involve many witnesses, said the plaintiffs' lawyer James Finberg.

The three women seek to bring into the lawsuit all women who
worked at Google for the four years leading up to mid-September.
[GN]


GOVERNMENT PAYMENT: Miner Renews Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL J. MINER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GOVERNMENT PAYMENT SERVICE, INC., d/b/a GOV PAY NET, Case No.
1:14-cv-07474 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to certify this class:

     All residents of the State of Illinois who paid a bail
     deposit with a credit or debit card and who were charged a
     fee by GovPayNet for purported bail bond services during the
     period September 25, 2009, through the date of final
     judgment.

Excluded from the Class are the Defendant and any of its officers,
directors or employees, Class counsel, the presiding judge, named
plaintiffs in any substantially similar actions and members of
their immediate families.  The Plaintiff reserves his right to
amend the class definition based on discovery and the proofs at
trial.

This second renewed motion for class certification is a renewal of
the Plaintiff's prior renewed motion for class certification and
made pursuant to the Court's leave in its Memorandum Opinion and
Order dated September 5, 2017.

Mr. Miner also asks the Court to designate him as representative
of the Class and his counsel as Class counsel.

                          *     *     *

The Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., has stricken as moot the
Plaintiff's previous motion to certify class; as it superseded by
his present renewed motion to certify class, which is entered and
continued generally.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qDMyU8vG

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jkMBM1U5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
          SWEETNAM LLC
          100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757-1888
          E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com

               - and -

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
          100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-7950
          E-mail: ldd@larrydrury.com

               - and -

          Joseph L. Planera, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH L. PLANERA AND ASSOCIATES
          222 Vollmer Road, Suite 2A
          Chicago Heights, IL 60411
          Telephone: (708) 755-5000
          E-mail: jplanera@sbcglobal.net


HEALTH INSURANCE: Expanded Class Period in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in Health
Insurance Innovations, Inc. to the recently filed securities class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, to the expanded class period, and to the November 10, 2017
Lead Plaintiff deadline.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of HIIQ during the expanded class period -- between
March 4, 2016 and September 11, 2017 -- and suffered losses
contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  For more information
visit:

or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation,
by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing -- HIIQ@hbsslaw.com --.

On September 11, 2017, SeekingAlpha published a contributor's
report entitled "Health Insurance Innovations:  Penalties To
Exceed $100 Million And Undisclosed 'Domino Effect'."

The author reported, in part, on HIIQ's efforts in Florida to
obtain a Certificate of Authority to act as a Third-Party
Administrator and Florida's Office of Insurance Regulation ("OIR")
June 1, 2017 determination that HIIQ's application should be
denied.

The author also quoted from the Company's petition to contest the
OIR's decision: "The application denial would trigger a duty to
report (and thus raise the specter of additional renewal denials)
in [. . .] every state in which [HIIQ] would seek to pursue any
form of insurance-related licensure in the future (thus raising
the specter of a domino effect of denials that would have to be
reported)" and "to say that the interests of [HIIQ] as an entity
would be substantially affected is a radical understatement."

This news drove the price of HIIQ shares down $6.55 to close at
$23.75 on September 11, 2017 -- a loss of nearly 22%.

"We're focused on the Company's apparent omissions related to its
back and forth with the OIR and the relative importance of
licensure in Florida to HIIQ's business as a whole," said Hagens
Berman partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding HIIQ
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program.  Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC.  For more information, call Reed
Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email HIIQ@hbsslaw.com.

                        About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national investor-rights law firm headquartered
in Seattle, Washington with 11 offices across the country.  The
firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers
in complex litigation.  More about the firm and its successes can
be found at www.hbsslaw.com.  For the latest news visit our
newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Rudel Seeks Prelim. OK of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled RUDEL CORPORATION,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-02229-AET-LHG
(D.N.J.), moves for an order preliminarily approving the parties'
proposed class settlement, and certifying this settlement class:

     Merchants who processed with Heartland and were subject to
     an American Express Fee Adjustment in their October 2014
     account statements, retroactively implementing an increased
     American Express Discount Fee between the period of July 1,
     2014 and October 31, 2014 and setting new American Express
     pricing going forward.

The Plaintiff also seeks an order:

   1. appointing Rudel Corporation as Class Representative;

   2. appointing the law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as Class
      Counsel;

   3. approving the proposed Notice to the class; and

   4. entering the Preliminary Approval Order.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          Raymond N. Barto, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com
                  raymond@sfclasslaw.com


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: $2.5MM Class Action Settlement Gets Judge's OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Trenton has granted preliminary approval to a
$2.5 million settlement in a class action claiming that Princeton-
based Heartland Payment Systems charged its customers
unauthorized fees to process American Express transactions.

The suit was prompted by a $255 fee that Heartland charged in 2014
to the owners of Jacala Mexican Restaurant in San Antonio, the
lead plaintiff, that was termed an "American Express Fee
Adjustment." Approximately 80,000 merchants were charged similar
fee adjustments by Heartland, and total revenue from the disputed
fee increase was more than $7 million, discovery in the case
revealed.

The extra fee was imposed after Heartland sent Jacala and other
merchants a letter promoting a reduced rate for processing
American Express transactions.

According to the suit, Heartland billed Jacala and other customers
for what it characterized as a miscalculation of fees, but
plaintiffs claimed it was, in fact, a rate increase that violated
the defendant's contract with its customers.

U.S. District Judge Anne Thompson gave the settlement preliminary
approval and granted certification of the class on October 4. The
class consists of merchants who processed credit cards with
Heartland and "were subject to an American Express Fee Adjustment
in their October 2014 account statements, retroactively
implementing an increased American Express Discount Fee between
the period of July 1, 2014 and October 31, 2014 and setting new
American Express pricing going forward."

A final approval hearing is set for Jan. 16, 2018. Heartland
agreed not to oppose a fee award of $833,333 to plaintiff
attorneys or a service award of $15,000 to Jacala, but those
payments are still subject to approval by Thompson.
In June 2014, Heartland began a promotion in which it promised
merchants that they could process American Express transactions at
the same rates it charged for processing Visa and MasterCard
transactions, the suit claimed. The fee that was imposed several
months later meant that Heartland charged customers a higher rate
for processing American Express transactions than for processing
MasterCard and Visa, contrary to its prior assertions, the suit
claimed.

The suit said Heartland's characterization of the fee increase as
a "miscalculation" is a misrepresentation. And even if the
purported miscalculation was a proper fee increase, it violated a
provision of Heartland's contract with members requiring 15 days'
notice before a fee change is implemented, the plaintiffs claimed.
The suit brought claims of breach of contract, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and unjust enrichment.

After Heartland moved to dismiss, Thompson dismissed the Consumer
Fraud Act claim in August 2016 but declined to dismiss the
remainder of the counts. Thompson ruled after finding that Jacala
signed up with Heartland to accept American Express before the
defendant sent out its letter promoting lower fees.

The parties reached their agreement after two sessions of
mediation with former U.S. District Judge William Bassler, now
with FedArb in Red Bank.

Thompson appointed Bassler as mediator in May. After an
unsuccessful mediation, plaintiffs counsel made a motion to
certify the class in June, and both parties moved for summary
judgment. Before the motions were decided, the parties notified
Thompson on Aug. 7 that they had reached an agreement after a
second round of mediation before Bassler, according to the
decision.

Seth Lapidow of Backes & Hill in Lawrenceville, who represented
Heartland, and Stephen Fearon of Squitieri & Fearon in New York,
who represented the plaintiff and the class, did not return calls
about the case. [GN]


HONDA MOTOR: Reaches Settlements in Takata Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------
Eric T. Chaffin, writing for Legal Examiner, reports that
automaker Honda recently agreed to a $605 million settlement of a
class-action lawsuit in which plaintiffs sought economic damages
for losses suffered as a result of Takata airbag defects. Honda
was the automaker most affected by Takata airbag recalls, having
implemented more of the products than other automakers.

The agreement follows those already made between consumers and
other automakers, including Nissan, Toyota, BMW, Mazda and Subaru.
All of these companies will now be helping qualifying consumers to
pay for airbag replacements.

Funds Used to Reimburse Consumers for Airbag Replacement Costs

According to a report in the USA Today, the funds from the Honda
settlement will be used for a number of purposes. Current and
former Honda owners may be eligible for payments of up to $500
apiece, and may have access to a free car rental so they can get
the defective airbags in their Honda vehicles replaced. Other
expenses, like transportation, towing, lost wages, and childcare
costs, may also be reimbursed.

In addition, some of the money will go toward another consumer-
alert program to encourage Honda owners to get their vehicles
repaired. Though about two-thirds of owners have had their Takata
airbags replaced, there are still many more on the road with
older, potentially defective airbags.

These airbags may rupture upon deployment, sending small, sharp
pieces of shrapnel into the interior of the vehicle. The driver
and other vehicle occupants may suffer from knife-like wounds that
can lead to life-threatening bleeding. So far, the airbags have
been linked to about 18 deaths worldwide and nearly 200 injuries.

The problem has resulted in the largest U.S. auto-related recall
of all time. So far, more than 42 million vehicles are affected.
The current Honda agreement covers 11.4 million vehicles that have
already been recalled for defective Takata airbags, and 5.1
million more that may be recalled in the future.

Five Other Automakers Reach Similar Settlements

Nissan reached a similar settlement agreement in early August,
again promising up to $500 in financial aid for qualifying
consumers who need to get their airbags replaced, and promising
reimbursement for things like rental car use, lost wages, and
childcare costs. That agreement also included a new program to
encourage more drivers to get their vehicles fixed. The settlement
totaled $97.7 million.

Settlements with Toyota, Subaru, BMW and Mazda, as well, have
totaled $553 million. All include outreach programs to contact
owners and increase the number of airbag repairs completed.

Thousands of lawsuits have been filed against Takata for their
alleged negligence in dealing with this issue, and federally-filed
cases were consolidated in the Southern District of Florida in
2015. Though pre-trial proceedings are ongoing there, other
lawsuits have been delayed because of Takata's bankruptcy filing.
[GN]


HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING: "Rowe" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zabian Rowe, Plaintiff, v. Hospital Housekeeping Systems, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-09376 (E.D. La., September 19, 2017),
is a collective action seeking overtime compensation for hours
rendered in excess of forty hours per work week with corresponding
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and
expenses of the litigation, prejudgment interest and any other
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hospital Housekeeping Systems (HHS) provides contracted services,
including cleaning, laundry, and dietary services, to medical
facilities such as hospitals and has contracts with several
hospitals and medical facilities within Louisiana State and its
District, including Tulane-Lakeside Hospital where Plaintiff was
employed as a floor tech, stripping and waxing the hospital
floors.

On September 23, 2015, HHS presented Plaintiff with his time audit
report and simultaneously fired him.  Said report shows that HHS
supervisors had, in fact, altered Plaintiff's time records after
the fact and reduced 11 hours from his August 2015 paycheck, says
the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
      STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
      6557 West End Blvd.
      New Orleans, LA 70124
      Tel: (504) 267-0777
      Fax: (504) 513-3084
      Email: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com


HSBC BANK: Faces Royal Park Suit in S.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HSBC Bank USA,
National Association as Trustee.  The case is styled as Royal Park
Investments SA/NV, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HSBC Bank USA, National
Association as Trustee, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07684 (S.D.
N.Y., October 6, 2017).

HSBC Bank USA, N.A., the United States subsidiary of the HSBC
Holdings plc, is a bank with its head office in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
   Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (LI)
   58 South Service Road, Suite 200
   Melville, NY 11747
   Tel: (631) 367-7100
   Fax: (631) 367-1173
   Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com


JCM DISTRIBUTORS: Law Office of Timothy Carl Blake Files Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JCM Distributors,
LLC doing business as: JCM Copiers. The case is styled as Law
Offices of Timothy Carl Blake, P.A., individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JCM Distributors,
LLC doing business as: JCM Copiers, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
23676-PAS (S.D. Fla., October 6, 2017). [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Charles Richard Bennett, Jr., Esq.
   1200 Anastasia Avenue
   Office 360
   Coral Gables, FL 33134
   Tel: (305) 444-5925
   Fax: (206) 333-0792
   Email: richardbennett27@gmail.com

      - and -

   Joshua Aaron Glickman, Esq.
   Social Justice Law Collective, PL
   6709 West 119th Street, #198
   Overland Park, KS 66209
   Tel: (913) 213-3064
   Fax: (866) 893-0416
   Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com

      - and -

   Peter Ashley Bennett, Esq.
   Bennett, Bennett Attorneys at Law
   1200 Anastasia Ave, Suite #360
   Coral Gables, FL 33134
   Tel: (305) 607-4261
   Fax: (206) 333-6340
   Email: peterbennettlaw@gmail.com

      - and -

   Shawn Alex Heller, Esq.
   434 Skinner Blvd.
   APT 206
   Dunedin, FL 34698
   Tel: (202) 709-5744
   Fax: (866) 893-0416
   Email: shawn@shawnheller.com


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: ERISA Class Suit Against Executives Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colby Hamilton, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
another class action attempt by investors in aerospace and defense
contractor L3 over the company's 2014 accounting fraud faced
defeat on October 5. U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni of the
Southern District of New York dismissed Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 claims against the company, finding, as she
did in an earlier suit, that plaintiffs failed to allege plausible
claims against the company's executives.

In April 2016, Caproni ruled in Patel v. L-3 Communications
Holdings, 14-cv-06038, that individual claims against L3
executives Michael Strianese and Ralph D'Ambrosio should be
dismissed over a failure by plaintiffs to show, under the
heightened securities fraud standards, the required scienter on
behalf of defendants.

While the suit was ultimately settled after other allegations went
forward, Caproni noted that the new suit, Price v. Strianese 17-
cv-00652, relied heavily on arguments made in the previous case,
with "numerous" paragraphs copied "verbatim. Plaintiffs allege
that the executives did or should have known that investing in the
company's own stock ahead of the fraudulent accounting activity
becoming known was imprudent.

Caproni, referencing the two suits, said, "Price fares no better
than Patel."

Despite the more "generous" standards under an ERISA claim,
plaintiff was unable to show that the two executives knew or
should have known that the company's stock was inflated and
therefore a bad bet.

Caproni noted that the allegations rely "somewhat inexplicably" on
a cease and desist order and nearly $2 million fine issued by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in early 2017. A November
2013 whistleblower complaint about potential fraud -- the details
of which are absent from both the SEC's actions and plaintiff's
complaint -- led to an internal investigation by the company and,
ultimately, the uncovering of the accounting fraud.

According to Caproni, the failure to detail what that ethics
complaint actually said, it was "particularly implausible to
infer" that defendants knew about the accounting fraud based on
the November 2013 ethics complaint "because, according to the SEC,
the fraud did not occur until December 2013."

Plaintiff likewise failed to allege that ERISA duty prudence
claim. Halting stock purchases, as plaintiff suggests, could have
done more harm than good, as it may have signaled problems inside
the company. Issuing a statement could have similar dire
consequences. Investment in a hedging product was likewise
inadequately pleaded "because the description of the hedging
product is simply too vague for the Court to conclude that it
reflects a viable option."

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett partners Michael Garvey and Paul Curnin
led the defense for Strianese and D'Ambrosio. Through a spokesman
they declined to comment.

Counsel for the plaintiff, Zamansky LLC partner Sam Bonderoff said
in a statement that, though they disagree with Caproni's
dismissal, they intend to amended the complaint.

"To the millions of American employees whose retirement savings
are invested in employer stock plans, it is vitally important that
the Supreme Court's 'more harm than good' standard be applied in a
way that does not strip those employees of their statutory right
to seek compensation from those plans' fiduciaries when those
fiduciaries are derelict in their duties," Bonderoff said. [GN]


LOS ANGELES, CA: Feb. 14 LADWP Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
If You Were A Retail Electricity Customer Of The Los Angeles
Department Of Water And Power from January 29, 2012 to
September 14, 2017, This Class Action Settlement May Affect Your
Rights

A settlement has been reached with the City of Los Angeles (the
"City"), the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power ("LADWP"),
and the LADWP Board of Water and Power Commissioners (together,
"Defendants") in a class action lawsuit claiming LADWP has
embedded in its power (electric) rates an 8% surcharge in order to
fund transfers to the City's Reserve Fund.  The Plaintiffs claim
that the 8% surcharge is a tax that has not been approved by the
electorate, and thus violates California Constitution article
XIII-C, section 2, subdivision (b) and/or (d), and Government Code
sections 53722 and/or 53723.  Defendants deny the allegations, and
the Court has not decided who is right.  Instead, the parties
agreed to a settlement to avoid the expense and risk of continued
litigation.

Who is included? LADWP's records indicate you are included in the
settlement as a Settlement Class Member.  You are a Settlement
Class Member if you, between January 29, 2012 and September 14,
2017, held a retail customer account with LADWP in which there was
a charge for electricity.

What can you get? The City has agreed to create a Settlement Fund,
which is currently estimated to be Fifty-Two Million Dollars
($52,000,000).  After administrative expenses, attorney's fees and
expenses of up to 29% of the Settlement Fund, service awards in
the amount of $5,000 to each of the four Class Representatives,
and a $650,000 payment to non-profit charitable organization(s)
are paid from the Settlement Fund, the balance will be distributed
as a per kilowatt-hour credit to the electric rates of LADWP
retail electricity customers.  The City and LADWP have also agreed
to deduct 8% from the amounts otherwise charged to LADWP retail
electricity customers pursuant to its 2016 Electric Rate Ordinance
and will no longer transfer any funds LADWP collects through the
2016 Electric Rate Ordinance to the City.

Your options. If you do nothing, you are staying in the
Settlement, your rights will be affected, and, if you are a LADWP
retail electricity customer during the first billing period after
the Settlement is finally approved by the Court, you will receive
the benefits described above.  If you do not want to be legally
bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself from it by
December 27, 2017.  Unless you exclude yourself, you will not be
able to sue or continue to sue Defendants for any legal claim
resolved by this Settlement and released by the Settlement
Agreement. If you do not exclude yourself, you may object.
Objections are due December 27, 2017.

The Court's hearing. The Court will hold a hearing in this case
(Eck v. The City of Los Angeles, No. BC577028) at 9:00 a.m. on
February 14, 2018 at the Los Angeles Superior Court, Central Civil
West Courthouse, 600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles,
California 90005.  At this hearing, the Court will decide whether
to approve: the Settlement; Class Counsel's request for attorneys'
fees and expenses; and service awards to the Class
Representatives.  You or your lawyer may appear at the hearing at
your own expense.


LULU FROST: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Lulu Frost, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
05607 (E.D.N.Y., September 26, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Lulu Frost, Inc. owns and operates a jewelry store in New York
City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Shaked, Esq.
      SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
      44 Court Street, Suite 1217
      Brooklyn, NY 11217
      Telephone: (917) 373-9128
      Facsimile: (718) 504-7555
      E-mail: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com

MAJU PUNCAK: Meda Responds to Suit By Arc @ Cyberjaya Unit Owners
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sunday Daily reports that Meda Inc. Bhd on October 6 told
Bursa Malaysia it denies promising a fixed rental income of up to
25 years to 137 apartment owners who have initiated a class-action
lawsuit against its wholly owned subsidiary, Maju Puncak Bumi Sdn
Bhd (MPSB).

MPSB is the developer of Arc @ Cyberjaya, a serviced apartment
project.

Meda said according to an option agreement between owners and MPSB
to exercise their option for a guaranteed rate of return (GRR),
there is a fixed term of three or four years (depending on the
unit), and the option to renew the agreement for up to 20 years
was on MPSB.

"In fact, we have terminated the GRR scheme pursuant to the option
agreement for majority of the units," it said.

The class-action suit is claiming breach of contract in relation
to the option agreement.

The owners are claiming for RM3.97 million being the outstanding
rentals up till May 2017; 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;
5% interest from the judgement till the full payment date; cost;
vacant possession of the unit; and any relief deemed fit by the
court.

"We have already captured all the outstanding rentals amounting to
RM 3.97 million, therefore, there is no financial impact in our
books. Any further updates in respect of any material development
of this case will be made from time to time," Meda said. [GN]


MDL 2792: "Zamora" Suit v. Samsung Moved to W.D. Okla. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Carolina M. Zamora, on Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Samsung Electronics America Inc., Samsung Electronics Co Ltd.,
The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers LLC, Best Buy Co. Inc.,
and Sears Holding Corporation, Case No. 7:17-cv-00154, was
transferred on Oct. 12, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Southern Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01105-D to the
proceeding.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics
and digital products in the United States.

The Zamora case is being consolidated with MDL 2792 in re: Samsung
Top-Load Washing Machine Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
July 20, 2017. This transfer motion covers 24 putative class-
action Complaints filed by forty plaintiffs in twenty separate
federal districts concerning the same Samsung top-load washing
machine models. The Complaints propose overlapping, and in many
cases, identical, putative nationwide classes and/or multiple
state classes. At center stage of each of these Complaints are
allegations that these washers possess certain defects that
manifest themselves during the spin cycle and pose a risk of harm
to consumers and their property, as well as allegations concerning
the damages that consequentially flow therefrom. The Complaints
each claim that Defendants purportedly knew of the defects and
concealed them from consumers while they continued to sell the
machines. In its June 20, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions involved common questions of fact because the plaintiffs
had "uniformly allege[d] that Dollar General fail[ed] to
adequately warn that the products unsuitable for use," and the
plaintiffs "in all the actions allege[d] similar claims for breach
of warranties, unjust enrichment, and violation of various state
consumer protection acts." In addition, despite the presence of
common counsel, the Panel was persuaded by the fact that, "in each
of these actions, [the plaintiffs] would seek to obtain the same
documentary and testimonial evidence from defendants and third-
party witnesses," as well as expert discovery. Presiding Judge in
the MDL is Hon. Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti. The lead case is 5:17-
ml-02792-D.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francisco J Enriquez
          4200-B N Bicentennial
          McAllen, TX 78504
          Telephone: (956) 686 5291
          Facsimile: (956) 618 5064

               - and -

          William B Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N Pennsylvania Ave
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235 1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


MDL 2795: "Allison" Suit Transferred to Minnesota Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Luke Roger Allison, individually
and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
the Plaintiff, v. CenturyLink, Inc., a Louisiana corporation;
CenturyLink Communications, LLC; doing business as: in Arizona as
CenturyLink Communications, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; CenturyLink Public Communications, Inc., doing business
as: in Arizona as Century Link Public Communications, Inc., a
Florida corporation; CenturyLink Sales Solutions, Inc., doing
business as: in Arizona as CenturyLink Sales Solutions, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02162, was transferred on Oct. 12, 2017 from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, to the U.S.
District Court for the U.S. District of Minnesota (DMN). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-04613-MJD-KMM to
the proceeding.

CenturyLink, Inc. is an American telecommunications company,
headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, that provides communications
and data services to residential, business, governmental, and
wholesale customers in 37 states.

The Allison case is being consolidated with MDL 2795 in re:
Centurylink Residential Customer Billing Disputes Litigation. The
MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on October 5, 2017.  The MDL Panel found
these actions involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization of these cases will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of this litigation. The actions share factual questions arising
from allegations that defendants, a family of telecommunications
companies, have engaged in a range of deceptive or otherwise
improper practices, such as billing subscribers for telephone
lines or services that the subscribers did not request, billing
subscribers higher rates than the rates quoted during sales calls,
imposing early termination fees when subscribers cancelled the
services due to the higher-than-quoted rates, charging for periods
of service before the service was connected or products received,
and failing to process subscribers' service cancellation requests
in a timely manner. Centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class
certification and other pretrial matters, and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Michael J. Davis. The
lead case is 0:17-md-02795-MJD-KMM.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq.
          Mark J Geragos, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 625 3900
          E-mail: geragos@geragos.com
                  geragos@geragos.com

               - and -

          Brian C Gudmundson, Esq.
          Hart L Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341 0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341 0844
          E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David A Vogel, Esq.
          Douglas P Lobel, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          11951 Freedom Drive, Ste. 1500
          Reston, VA 20190-5656
          Telephone: (703) 456 8576
          E-mail: dvogel@cooley.com
                  dlobel@cooley.com

               - and -

          Gregory W Falls, Esq.
          Lindsay Hwa Schroeder Hesketh, Esq.
          SHERMAN & HOWARD LLC - PHOENIX, AZ
          201 E Washington St., Ste. 800
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2327
          Telephone: (602) 240 3000
          Facsimile: (602) 240 6600
          E-mail: gfalls@shermanhoward.com
                  lhesketh@shermanhoward.com


MDL 2795: "Hanifen" Suit Transferred into Minnesota Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mandi Hanifen, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. CenturyLink, Inc., a Louisiana corporation;
CenturyTel of the Gem State, Inc., an Idaho corporation;
CenturyTel of Idaho, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00267, was
transferred on Oct. 12, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho, to the U.S. District Court for the U.S.
District of Minnesota (DMN). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 0:17-cv-04616-MJD-KMM to the proceeding.

CenturyLink, Inc. is an American telecommunications company,
headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, that provides communications
and data services to residential, business, governmental, and
wholesale customers in 37 states.

The Hanifen case is being consolidated with MDL 2795 in re:
Centurylink Residential Customer Billing Disputes Litigation. The
MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on October 5, 2017.  The MDL Panel found
these actions involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization of these cases will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of this litigation. The actions share factual questions arising
from allegations that defendants, a family of telecommunications
companies, have engaged in a range of deceptive or otherwise
improper practices, such as billing subscribers for telephone
lines or services that the subscribers did not request, billing
subscribers higher rates than the rates quoted during sales calls,
imposing early termination fees when subscribers cancelled the
services due to the higher-than-quoted rates, charging for periods
of service before the service was connected or products received,
and failing to process subscribers' service cancellation requests
in a timely manner. Centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class
certification and other pretrial matters, and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Michael J. Davis. The
lead case is 0:17-md-02795-MJD-KMM.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq.
          Mark J Geragos, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 625 3900
          E-mail: geragos@geragos.com
                  geragos@geragos.com

               - and -

          Bonner Charles Walsh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BONNER C. WALSH
          21810 PINECREST DR.
          P.O. BOX 7
          BLY, OR 97622
          Telephone: (541) 359 2827
          E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas P Lobel, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          11951 Freedom Dr, Ste. 1500
          Reston, VA 20190-5656
          Telephone: (703) 456 8019
          E-mail: dlobel@cooley.com

               - and -

          Kelly Alfred Cameron, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1111 W. Jefferson St., Suite 500
          Boise, ID 83702-5391
          Telephone: (208) 343 3434
          Facsimile: (208) 343 3232
          E-mail: kcameron@perkinscoie.com


MEADE RECOVERY: Hyer Sues in Utah Alleging Violations of FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JARED HYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. MEADE RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00150-
EJF (D. Utah, September 21, 2017), arises from the Defendant's
attempts to unlawfully and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed
by the Plaintiff, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Meade Recovery is a corporation whose State of Incorporation and
principal place of business is in the state of Utah.  The Company
engages in the business of debt collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theron D. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON + MURFF
          290 25th Street, Suite #102
          Ogden, UT 84401
          Telephone: (801) 392-9324
          Facsimile: (801) 337-2087
          E-mail: theron@morrisonmurff.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com


MODANI NY: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Modani New York,
LLC. T he case is styled as Lawrence Young, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Modani New York, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07676 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 6, 2017).

Modani New York, LLC is a Contemporary outlet showcasing sleek
home furnishings, from couches to lighting & home accents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Bronson Lipsky LLP
   630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com


NABORS DRILLING: Calderon Seeks to Certify Class of Rig Welders
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JOSE CALDERON on behalf of
himself individually, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NABORS
DRILLING TECHNOLOGIES USA INC., and EXPRESS PAYROLL INC., Case No.
4:17-cv-00710 (S.D. Tex.), seeks to conditionally certify a class
defined as:

     All current and former Rig Welders classified as independent
     contractors by Nabors that (1) were paid through Express
     Payroll in Crosby, Texas, Tyler, Texas, Pennsylvania, and/or
     Oklahoma, or (2) were paid through A&W in North Dakota
     and/or Wyoming, at any time during the last three years.

Mr. Calderon alleges that he worked for Nabors as a "Rig Welder"
but was not paid any overtime wages when he worked over 40 hours
in a week due to being misclassified as an independent contractor.
He states after filing this lawsuit, more than 80 other Rig
Welders joined this case as Opt-In Plaintiffs.  Given that
conditional certification will result in an efficient resolution
of this case, he seeks certification under 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and authorization to mail a Court approved
Notice to the Class Members.

Mr. Calderon also asks the Court to require Nabors to produce the
names and all known addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth,
dates of employment, and e-mail addresses for all Class Members so
that notice may be implemented.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
          711 W. Alabama St.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com

               - and -

          Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
          3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (832) 778-8182
          Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
          E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


NANTKWEST INC: Johnson Fistel Announces Investigations
------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating
potential claims against NantKwest, Inc., K12 Inc., and CytRx
Corporation as detailed below:

NantKwest, Inc. (NK)
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announced that it
is investigating whether certain officers or directors of
NantKwest, Inc. (NASDAQ: NK) ("NantKwest") violated federal or
state laws.

On September 20, 2017, a federal court denied a motion to dismiss
a securities fraud class action filed against the company and
certain executives.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants made
misrepresentations and omissions related to a secret warrant
modification that elevated Defendant Patrick Soon-Shiong's
compensation higher than any other executive in the United States,
and a secret related-party lease arrangement NantKwest and Soon-
Shiong made prior to NantKwest's initial public offering, causing
NantKwest to incur millions of dollars of unreported liability.

If you are a long-term shareholder of NantKwest and continuously
held shares since July 2015, you may have standing to hold
NantKwest harmless from the damage the officers and directors may
have caused by making them personally responsible. You may also be
able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to
prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are a long-term NantKwest shareholder continuously holding
shares since July  2015, and are interested in learning more about
your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim --
jimb@johnsonfistel.com -- at 619-814-4471. If you email, please
include your phone number.

K12 Inc. (LRN)
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announced that it
is investigating whether certain officers or directors of K12 Inc.
(NYSE: LRN) ("K12") violated federal or state laws.

On August 30, 2017, a federal court denied in part a motion to
dismiss a securities fraud class action filed against the company
and certain executives.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and failed to
disclose that: (1) K12 was publishing misleading advertisements
about students' academic progress, parent satisfaction, their
graduates' eligibility for University of California and California
State University admission, class sizes, the individualized and
flexible nature of K12's instruction, hidden costs, and the
quality of the materials provided to students; (2) K12 submitted
inflated student attendance numbers to the California Department
of Education in order to collect additional funding; (3) K12 was
open to potential civil and criminal liability due to these
practices; (4) K12 would likely be forced to end these practices,
which would have a negative impact on K12's operations and
prospects, and/or that K12 was, in fact, ending the practices; and
(5) as a result, K12's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the factual details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

If you are a long-term shareholder of K12 and continuously held
shares before October 10, 2013, you may have standing to hold K12
harmless from the damage the officers and directors may have
caused by making them personally responsible. You may also be able
to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to
prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are a long-term K12 shareholder continuously holding shares
before October 10, 2013, and are interested in learning more about
your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker --
jimb@johnsonfistel.com -- at 619-814-4471. If you email, please
include your phone number.

CytRx Corporation (CYTR)
Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential violations of the
federal securities laws by CytRx Corporation (NASDAQ: CYTR)
("CytRx") and certain of its officers.

On August 14, 2017, a federal court denied in part a motion to
dismiss a securities fraud class action filed against the company
and certain executives.

The complaint alleges that defendants made materially misleading
statements and omissions to investors regarding CytRx's pivotal
Phase 3 clinical trial of aldoxorubicin as a second-line treatment
for STS. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

If you are a long-term shareholder of CytRx and continuously held
shares before September 12, 2014, you may have standing to hold
CytRx harmless from the damage the officers and directors may have
caused by making them personally responsible. You may also be able
to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to
prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are a long-term CytRx shareholder continuously holding
shares before September 12, 2014, and are interested in learning
more about your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim
Baker -- jimb@johnsonfistel.com -- at 619-814-4471. If you email,
please include your phone number.

                      About Johnson Fistel

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The
firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits.
[GN]


NEW YORK: Broken Bail System Drives Civil Rights Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News, reports that New York
City's failure to adopt bail reforms two years after a report
labeled the system "deranged" has sparked a federal class action
by three men caught in the crossfire.

Vice News used the language in question in August 2015, and the
Center for Court Innovation shed light on the delays and
improperly extended detentions tied to what it called the city's
"confusing and perplexing" bail system four months later.

Still waiting for enforcement of the recommendations that report
put forward, former detainees James Lynch, Lloyd Jones and Baron
Spencer say they want to represent a class of the thousands of
presumptively innocent detainees who were jailed for hours or days
over the years, "as these well-documented problems went
unaddressed . . . in violation of court orders entitling them to
release upon posting bail."

The men filed their federal class action on October 4 in
Manhattan, alleging false imprisonment and violations of civil
rights.

They note that the concept of bail is simple but its practice in
New York is "byzantine and inhumane."

"Every day and night, friends, family members, and charitable
organizations present themselves at New York City Department of
Correction facilities with cash, cashier's checks, and money
orders, asking to pay bail for a presumptively innocent person who
is in jail -- and they are turned away," the complaint states.
"They are told that the computers or the fax machines are not
working; that the responsible staff is not available; that the
person is not 'eligible' to be released on bail because he or she
is in the midst of the day-long ordeal of being processed for
admission to a jail facility; or another of an endless supply of
excuses. They are told to come back after lunch; to come back
after the next shift change; to come back the next day."

It should take mere minutes, hours at most, to release a detainee
once his bail is paid, according to the complaint.

"Instead, detainees often languish for a day or more after their
bail has been posted -- even though they are, by judicial order,
entitled to release, and there is no lawful basis for continued
restraints on their liberty," the complaint states. "Such
overdetentions are, as courts across the country have long held,
unconstitutional."

City officials effectively admitted, in their adoption of a bail-
efficiency law this past June, that a bail payment should trigger
the release of a detainee within five hours, according to the
complaint.

"The city nonetheless detained members of the class for many hours
or days beyond the three to five hour threshold, without any
legitimate governmental necessity," the complaint states.

"These overdetentions resulted from the city's unconstitutional
policies, practices, usages and/or customs and from its unlawful
deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of class
members."

A spokesman for the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice denied that
the city has no interest in adopting reforms, saying its efforts
are documented in the lawsuit itself.

"This suit quotes extensively from a report commissioned by the
city -- precisely so that we can identify fixes -- which should
show that we are serious about improving the system," spokesman
Patrick Gallahue said in an email.

Gallahue noted that the city is also investing $500,000 a year to
hire 50 "bail expediters," a move that is expected to keep around
2,000 people from being booked into jail every year.

New York City is also developing an online bail-payment system,
Gallahue confirmed, saying they plan to have ATMs in every
courthouse by late 2017.

"New York City has taken a clear-eyed look at the bail system and
has launched a number of efforts to ensure that not only are fewer
people held on bail, but that for those who receive bail, payment
is easier than it has ever been and that defendants can be
released as expeditiously as possible," Gallahue said.

Against these claims, the class calls New York City's bail system
"hopelessly broken." A New York City councilman even likened it to
"the DMV on steroids" in a 2015 interview with Vice News,
according to the complaint.

"The bail process in New York City is like if Kafka wrote a novel
on criminal justice," City Councilman Rory Lancman said, according
to the complaint. "You don't know where to go, you don't know what
to do, and you don't know when your loved one is even getting
out."

Vice called it "probably easier to buy a gun online than free a
loved one from jail."

Pointing to the Center for Court Innovation's 2015 expose, the
class quotes investigators as recommending "that DOC address its
woefully inadequate staffing of the bail process and use the
opportunity of reductions in jail population to 'reallocate DOC
staff in order to adequately staff the bail payment process.'

"On information and belief," the complaint continues, "this
recommendation was ignored."

The DOC likewise ignored a recommendation that defendants should
be afforded the chance to post bail immediately before or during
the intake process.

Further compounding these failures, as found by the audit, is the
DOC's on fax machines and an antiquated paper-records system.

"Stakeholders unanimously believed that DOC's paper-based system
makes every step of the process longer and more difficult," the
report found.

Detainees say the DOC has nevertheless ignored advice to go
digital.

Citing a statistic from 2014, the complaint says nearly half of
the 12,880 defendants whose family or friends had the means to
post bail early in the life of their criminal case were unable to
do so immediately after arraignment, prior to the defendant's
removal from court and transport to a detention facility.

Once transported a detention facility, processing can last between
12 and 22 hours or longer according to the complaint.

"This process consists of invasive and frequently demeaning
medical screening, strip searches, and other jail intake
procedures" the complaint continues.

Each of the three lead plaintiffs says he was detained for many
hours or days beyond the three-to-five hour threshold, without any
legitimate governmental necessity.

The class is represented by Matthew Brinckerhoff, Esq. --
mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com -- of New York City firm Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady.


NEW YORK, NY: Josefina S. Files Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City of New
York. The case is styled as Josefina S., Deaja D., Cynthia Q.,
Shantell S. and Bianca M., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The City of New York, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-07661 (S.D. NY, October 6, 2017).

The City of New York, often called New York City or simply New
York, is the most populous city in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE.


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in Southern District of NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nutrisystem Inc. The
case is styled as Richard Baldelli and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nutrisystem Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07692 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2017).

Nutrisystem, Inc. is a provider of weight management products and
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OKLAHOMA CTY: Faces "Moreland" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Moreland and all others similarly situated inmates, et al.
v. County of Oklahoma, John Whetsel, John Whetsel, PD Taylor, and
PD Taylor, Case No. 5:17-cv-01029-R (W.D. Ok., September 26,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for Civil Rights
violation.

Oklahoma County is a county located in the central part of the
U.S. state of Oklahoma.

Corey Moreland is a pro se plaintiff.


OREGON: Salem Officials Want City to Sue State on Tax
-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Howell, writing for Salem News, reports that the city's
treasurer and income tax administrator are asking council to
consider joining a class action lawsuit that will prevent the
state taxation department from collecting part of the city's
income tax.

Treasurer John Conrad and Income Tax Administrator Fred Pamer
provided council information regarding the lawsuit that seeks an
injunction against the Ohio Department of Taxation permitting
businesses to file their city income tax through its department
instead of directly with the city. The state will then keep .5
percent of the tax collected.

Pamer said a house bill regarding income tax collection passed in
2014 and cities must adopt a resolution allowing businesses to
file through the state by Jan. 1 or forfeit the ability to collect
the tax itself.

If all businesses in the city were to file through the state, the
city could experience a possible loss of $7,500 annually, Pamer
said. And although the initial .5 percent fee does not seem
extreme, there is speculation it could increase at a later date,
he added, noting that the precedent has been set with other state
programs.

Law Director Brooke Zellers shared an additional concern -- the
erosion of the state constitution.

"This is not an issue of being business friendly," he said.
"Municipalities have the right to govern themselves (under the
state constitution)."

Councilwoman Cyndi Dickey, however, disagreed, noting that Pamer
had brought the issue before council last year and council
declined to join the lawsuit at that time. She said she feels it
is an issue of being business friendly since businesses will be
able to make one income tax payment to the state taxation
department, which then disperses it to the cities in which it pays
income taxes.

"Hopefully it generates new businesses and encourages them to
locate (in Ohio)," she said.

Council must decide on participation in the lawsuit by the end of
October, Pamer said. There will be a $4,000 fee to join the
action.

The issue must go before the committee-of-the-whole which would
then make a recommendation to council. A committee meeting was not
scheduled to discuss the issue and no one asked for one at the
council meeting. [GN]


ORION HEALTHCORP: Singh-Narayan Seeks Unpaid OT under Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rookminee Singh-Narayan, and Jairaj Yamraj, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Orion Healthcorp, Inc., and Physicians Practice Plus LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 709520/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 12, 2017),
seeks to recover maximum liquidated damages, unpaid overtime
Wages, non-overtime wages, costs and attorneys' fees under the New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the class of similarly-situated
individuals as to the first cause of action under the NYLL is
defined as current and former employees who worked for the
Defendants as manual workers, in the State of New York and who: 1)
were not paid their non-overtime and/or overtime wages weekly as
also explained above, within at least the six-year period,
preceding the filing of this complaint to the date of disposition
of this action.

Orion is a healthcare services organization providing outsourced
business services to physicians.[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) 740 2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


PASTA GUYS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leila Gonzalez and other similarly situated individuals v. The
Pasta Guys, Inc. d/b/a La Bottega del Maccheron, Massimo Tundo,
and Elisabetta Callegaro, Case No. 0:17-cv-61873-WPD (S.D. Fla.,
September 26, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Pasta Guys, Inc. is a wholesaler of gourmet pasta products.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


PATHWAY TO HOPE: "Waymon-Gay" Labor Suit Seek Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charity Waymon-Gay, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pathway To Hope Counseling Services, Inc.
and Celia Mitchell, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-
00159 (M.D. Ga., September 20, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, interest and such other legal
and equitable relief, and recovery of attorneys' fees and costs to
be paid by Defendants, as provided under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff inputs data, answers phones, updates accounts, submits
requests for treatment and enters system notes for the Defendants.
Pathway terminated Plaintiff for refusing to continue working
without pay for hours over forty in a week. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Adian Miller, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 4200
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Tel: (404) 496-7332
     Fax: (404) 496-7428
     Email: ARMiller@forthepeople.com


PETLAND: Hit With Class Suit Over Bacterial Disease From Puppies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marwa Eltagouri, writing for Washington Post, reports that a
disease linked to puppies sold at Petland, a nationwide chain of
about 80 pet stores, has sickened 55 people and hospitalized 13,
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Since the outbreak began in mid-September, the disease has spread
from seven states to 12 states, with cases reported in Florida,
Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

While Campylobacter is a fairly common bacteria among puppies and
dogs, it's unusual to see a large, multistate outbreak of human
infections, said Mark Laughlin, a CDC veterinarian, in an email.
Most cases are associated with eating raw or undercooked poultry
or meat, or from cross-contamination of these and other foods.

The infection can cause bloody diarrhea, vomiting and fever.

Lab results show that puppies sold through Ohio-based Petland are
probably the source of the outbreak. About 35 of the people
diagnosed recently purchased a puppy from Petland, visited one of
the chain's stores or visited a home with a Petland puppy that was
sold before the outbreak began. Fourteen of the people diagnosed
are Petland employees.

But animals can also be infected, and can spread the disease to
people even though they might not show any symptoms. People who
touch even a small amount of feces on a dog's fur or food bowl,
and then inadvertently touch their mouths, can get an infection,
Laughlin said.

The Campylobacter strain in the recent outbreak appears to be
resistant to commonly recommended antibiotics, Laughlin said. But
most people who get sick don't need antibiotics and can recover
within a week without any specific treatment.

Children under 5, adults over 65 and people with weakened immune
systems might require additional treatment, Laughlin said.

Petland said in a statement on October 3 that "regardless of where
they are from, any puppies and dogs may carry Campylobacter
germs." Petland said it has been able to provide traceback for any
puppy purchased as requested by the CDC. The company is redoubling
its efforts on education regarding proper hand sanitation as well.

"The CDC has no new recommendations for Petland but continues to
advise that Petland reinforces proper hand sanitization before and
after playing with any of our puppies with the many sanitation
stations in each store," Petland officials said in the statement.

The CDC estimates that about 1.3 million cases of Campylobacter
occur in people each year, about two-thirds of which are food-
borne. The remainder of cases come from animals and other sources.
Most of the people infected during the current outbreak are in
Florida or Ohio.

The CDC has seen 13 human outbreaks of Campylobacter infections
linked to contact with dogs since January 2009, Laughlin said.
Those outbreaks have caused 47 illnesses and two hospitalizations.

Most infections related to this bacteria do not spread from one
person to another, but activities such as changing an infected
person's diapers or sexual contact with an infected person can
lead to an infection. During the current outbreak, one person
contracted the disease from sexual contact with a person with a
confirmed illness linked to Petland, according to the CDC.

The CDC announcement has spurred criticism of pet stores that
source puppies from commercial breeding operations, which
increasingly have become the targets of animal-protection groups.
More than 200 cities and counties have enacted laws that ban pet
shops from selling what are known as puppy-mill puppies, and
Petland is now the only major national chain selling dogs from
commercial breeders.

As the CDC continues to investigate the outbreak, the American
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is calling on
states to protect their residents and consumers by stopping the
importation of puppies for resale until the source of the outbreak
is fully determined.

Last month, The Washington Post's Karin Brulliard and Lena H. Sun
reported that the Animal Legal Defense Fund  filed a class-action
lawsuit in July against Petland, saying it defrauded customers by
"guaranteeing" puppies it knew were prone to illnesses and other
defects.

The company, which says it only sells puppies from breeders
licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and with clean
federal inspection reports, provides a "Health Warranty" to
purchasers of puppies and kittens saying the animal has been
examined by two or three veterinarians before being offered for
sale.

But the animal group's director of litigation, Matthew Liebman,
said on October 2 that those inspections are cursory at best and
sometimes "rubber-stamped" by veterinarians who are beholden to
the company. While Campylobacter is not among the conditions that
customers have reported to the group, Liebman said he was not
surprised to hear about the outbreak.

"It's not hard to see how animals raised in these cramped and
unsanitary conditions, trucked hundreds of miles from puppy mills
to the pet stores, intermingled with other fragile young animals
and handled by numerous employees and customers could become
disease vectors," he said.

To avoid contracting the illness, the CDC advises owners of
puppies and dogs to wash their hands well after handling their
pets and to promptly clean up feces, urine or vomit. It's also a
bad idea to let a dog lick your mouth or face, CDC officials said.
[GN]


PLY GEM: Faces "Gazzillo" Class Suit in North. Dist. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Ply Gem
Industries, Inc. d/b/a Ply Gem and Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. d/b/a
Ply Gem.

The case is captioned Clement Gazzillo, Steven Wu, James Rensland,
and Barbara Morris, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. d/b/a Ply Gem and Ply Gem
Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Ply Gem, Case No. 1:17-cv-01077-MAD-CFH
(N.D.N.Y., September 26, 2017).

The Defendants manufacture and sell various products for
residential and commercial construction. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald W. Boyajian, Esq.
      James R. Peluso Jr., Esq.
      DREYER, BOYAJIAN LAW FIRM
      75 Columbia Street
      Albany, NY 12210
      Telephone: (518) 463-7784
      Facsimile: (518) 463-4039
      E-mail: dboyajian@dreyerboyajian.com
              jpeluso@dreyerboyajian.com

PNC BANK: Not Liable in Ohio Ponzi Scheme, Says Appeals Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that PNC Bank does not
have to face a proposed class action accusing it aiding the
perpetrators of a $70 million Ponzi scheme, a federal appeals
court ruled, saying victims suing the bank did show that it
violated the Ohio Securities Act.

In a decision, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals said the victims failed to demonstrate how PNC aided in
the sale of unregistered securities, the crux of their complaint.
[GN]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Horton" Suit Over FDCA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
William Horton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., Case No. 5:17-
cv-04041 (S.D. W. Va., September 26, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C. operates a debt collection
agency in Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher B. Frost, Esq.
      Ralph C. Young, Esq.
      Steven R. Broadwater Jr., Esq.
      HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
      P. O. Box 959
      Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959
      Telephone: (304) 574-2727
      Facsimile: (304) 574-3709
      E-mail: cfrost@hamiltonburgess.com
              ryoung@hamiltonburgess.com
              sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com

PRICELINE GROUP: Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward
---------------------------------------------------
Janeen Christoff, writing for Travwl Pulse, reports that a class
action lawsuit against Priceline will move forward after a judge
ruled in the plaintiff's favor in Connecticut.

Chapman v. The Priceline Group, Inc. was filed on October 10,
2015, in the District of Connecticut and alleges that Priceline
does not honor its "Best Price Guarantee" on flights booked with
Spirit Airlines because Priceline charges a markup fee,
unbeknownst to customers.

Plaintiff Austin Chapman brings the suit on behalf of himself and
consumers nationwide and alleges that, because of the added
markup, tickets are cheaper on Spirit's website despite a
"guarantee" otherwise.

Priceline filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in 2016 but the
online travel agency was unsuccessful.

On September 30, Judge Robert N. Chatigny of the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut denied a motion to
dismiss filed by Priceline.com.


In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Chatigny held that the
Plaintiff "had adequately stated a claim for relief" and found
that "it is plausible that a reasonable consumer would interpret
the contract language to include a promise not to add hidden
surcharges."

"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," said the attorney for the
plaintiff Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. -- jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- of Tycko
& Zavareei LLP.

Priceline previously dodged a bullet with a prior lawsuit brought
by Adam Singer.

The suit, Singer v. The Priceline Group was similar and sought
damages from the company for breaching its consumer agreement for
best hotel prices. A motion to dismiss that case was granted in
July of 2016 by Judge Victor A. Bolden.  [GN]


PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Faces Tower Health Center Suit in S.D. of Fla
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Select
Insurance Company.  The case is styled as Tower Health Center,
Inc. other Alston Lawrence and Plantation Spinal Care Center, Inc.
other Jinnicka Delhomme, Plaintiffs v. Progressive Select
Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61974-DPG (S.D.
Fla., October 6, 2017).

Progressive Select Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers auto, trailers, motorcycles, boats,
renters, condos, flood, life, and health insurance services.
Progressive Select Insurance serves customers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

      - and -

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


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: "Caceres" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER CACERES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES SO CA, a
business entity form unknown; PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC679408 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 12, 2017), seeks to recover overtime and minimum wages,
penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the
filing of this action and through to the present Defendants have
had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including
overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the
State of California in violation of California state wage and hour
laws as a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly
rounding time worked.

Providence Health is a not-for-profit Catholic health care
ministry committed to providing for the needs of the
communities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


PUEBLO COUNTY, CO: Suit Seeks Order to Fix Prison Problems
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Mestas, writing for The Pueblo Cheiftain, reports that
last month, the Pueblo County jail hit a record number of inmates
at the facility -- 162 percent over capacity.

Pueblo County Commissioner Garrison Ortiz says that while
overcrowding at the jail has been an issue for several years, the
most recent surge in inmates over the past two years has put the
county's exposure to potential litigation at another kind of all-
time high.

"At times, I describe the overcrowding issue of our jail in terms
of a 'maximum occupancy' sign that you see in restaurants or other
businesses. Effectively, the sign above our jail is 509 inmates,
and in hitting an all-time high of 808 inmates last month, putting
us at 162 percent over capacity, the time to act is now," Ortiz
said on October 6."

Ortiz, who formed the county's jail task force, said that other
counties across the nation have been sued with even less
overcrowding than Pueblo has at its jail.

The Pueblo County Jail Task Force. in its comprehensive report
released in August, determined that a new jail and a detox and
substance abuse treatment center is the best option to fix
problems at the county's aging jail on the corner of Court and
Tenth streets.

Ortiz and fellow commissioners have since voted to add a question
on the November ballot, asking for a 9/20 percent of one cent per
dollar county-wide sales and use tax increase to pay for a new
detention center and treatment center.

If approved by voters in November, the preferred location for
constructing a new county jail would be across the street from the
Dennis Maes Judicial building.

Ortiz said that courts often have determined that overcrowding is
the cause of many constitutional problems, including increased
incidents of inmate attacks on other inmates and staff; riots; the
spread of communicable diseases; increased incidents of use of
force by deputies upon inmates; suicide; exposure to environmental
hazards/fire hazards; and increased incidents of sexual violence.

Ortiz said that multi-million dollar verdicts are not uncommon in
litigation stemming from insufficient jail facilities, and courts
often exercise their powers of oversight granted in the
constitution, which may include a mandate to remedy any unsafe
jail conditions.

The first-time commissioner said the jail task force's
comprehensive report pointed to multiple lawsuits concerning
conditions in state prisons and county jails that have gone to
trial.

"Some have been adjudicated and many more are currently being
litigated, with shattering results to the finances and budgets of
states and counties across the country," Ortiz said.

One of the example of these cases that Ortiz and the task force
cited is a case in which the American Civil Liberties Union of
Nebraska filed a lawsuit over state prisons overcrowding. In
Sabata v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, the
complaint alleged that the conditions violated inmates' rights.

The class-action lawsuit asked for a court order to require state
officials to fix prison problems.

At the time of the lawsuit, Nebraska prisons overall were
operating at 159 percent of capacity.

Ortiz noted that the Pueblo County jail is operating at
approximately 150 percent over capacity, with a design capacity of
509 beds and an average daily population this year that is
approaching 765.

Ortiz indicated that both designs for a new jail (adjacent to the
judicial center, described above, and another in a more remote
area) are 950-bed facilities. He said that according to the
National Institute of Corrections, jails operate most safely and
efficiently when operating at 80 percent of design capacity.

Ortiz also said the jail is in bad shape and has been for quite
some time.

In an effort to make the public more aware of the jail's problems
and to see firsthand its condition, the sheriff's office will hold
an open house at the facility on October 7, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
Guided tours will be conducted by sheriff's deputies.

Sheriff Kirk Taylor said in addition to the jail tours, there will
be static displays of equipment, including the Bearcat tactical
vehicle, patrol vehicles and fire trucks. Hamburgers, hot dogs and
other snacks will be served while supplies last.

"The county jail belongs to the citizens of Pueblo County and this
is an opportunity for residents to see the facility and observe
jail operations," said Taylor.

Ortiz said people need to see the conditions of the jail.

"Smelling the sewage that permeates the building, seeing the
plastic boats piled side-by-side with bodies on them, and
witnessing one deputy controlling 90 inmates is the only visual
that does justice in communicating the sense of urgency that this
situation commands," Ortiz said. [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Indianapolis Hires Law Firm to Pursue Legal Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS4 reports that the city of Indianapolis has hired a law firm to
pursue legal action against opioid distributors and manufacturers
as Marion County deals with an ongoing drug crisis.

The city hired Cohen and Malad, LLP to handle the case. Mayor Joe
Hogsett said the companies must be held accountable for their role
in the dramatic rise of opioid addiction.

"The companies contributing to this crisis have failed in their
duty to be responsible gatekeepers," Hogsett said.

He suggested that the companies valued "profits over people" and
allowed opioids to proliferate. Hogsett said many of those
struggling with addiction sought pain relief and were prescribed
addiction instead, with many of them eventually turning to heroin.
That has led to increased crime and fatal overdoses -- with 345
deaths in 2016 attributed to drug overdoses in Marion County.

"Opioids are killing Hoosiers," Hogsett said. "Opioids are killing
our neighbors right here throughout the city of Indianapolis."

Hogsett said opioids have been manufactured and prescribed for two
decades without sufficient warning about their addictive qualities
and long-term risks.

"Men and women, young men and young women, mothers, fathers,
professionals, community members -- they all sought relief from
pain and were instead administered addiction," Hogsett said.

Attorney Irwin Levin said the companies have caused irreparable
damage to cities and counties. He added that this isn't a class
action suit, but rather one filed on behalf of the city -- the
firm would only get paid if the city won the lawsuit.

Levin said likely defendants would include Purdue Pharma, Endo
Health, Teva and distributors such as AmerisourceBergen, McKesson
Corporation and Cardinal Health. He said it's time for them to be
held accountable.

"These potential defendants spread the false message that opioids
were safe for chronic pain and not addictive," he said. "They were
at the top of the chain of distribution and saw, unquestionably,
suspicious orders of opioids but turned a blind eye to their legal
duties and obligations to stop and report those orders."

Levin said 75 to 100 similar lawsuits have been filed across the
country, some of which have been successfully litigated.

Hogsett said the lawsuit is another tool in a "holistic approach"
that the city is taking toward criminal justice reform. Other
tools include the Reuben Engagement center, a mobile crisis team
and expanded treatment options. [GN]


REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Whitley" Suit in E.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regional Adjustment
Bureau, Inc.  The case is styled as Tanisha Whitley, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Regional Adjustment Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
05885 (E.D.N.Y., October 6, 2017).

The Regional Adjustment Bureau, Incorporated, engaged in the
collection of debt, maintains a principal place of business in
Cordova, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


RESTAURANT BRANDS: Tim Hortons Franchisees Sue for $850MM
---------------------------------------------------------
Hollie Shaw, writing for Financial Post, reports that Tim Hortons
franchisees who created an association to address their grievances
with parent company Restaurant Brands International Inc. have
filed an $850 million class action lawsuit against the company,
alleging the fast food operator is trying to intimidate its
restaurant owners and force the franchisees who formed the group
out of their restaurants.

Filed on October 6, it marks the second class action lawsuit from
unhappy Tim Hortons store owners this year against their corporate
parent. The legal action comes after months of escalating
animosity between management and franchisees who have taken the
veteran brand's Brazilian-based owners to task for allegedly
passing added costs on to the store owners.

"Since the time of the corporate takeover of Tim Hortons, the
relationship between Tim Hortons and its franchisees has become
more adversarial than amicable," says the statement of claim filed
in Ontario Superior Court on behalf of two store owners, one in
Ontario and one in Alberta, who are board members of the Great
White North Franchisee Association.

The franchisees say that Restaurant Brands (RBI) and its Ontario-
based Tim Hortons operator TDL Group Ltd. issued them default
notices -- essentially, a legal claim by a master franchisor to
take away a franchisee's restaurants -- after management claimed
that they and seven other owners who make up the association's
board group leaked confidential corporate information to the
press. Last month, TDL issued default notices to all nine of
GWNFA's board members, eight in Canada and one in the U.S.

Restaurant Brands has said the franchisees should enlist the
company's elected franchisee board to bring their concerns to
management.

The association was formed in March after franchisees grew
frustrated with the elected franchisee board for failing to
address their complaints. The slow-brewing fight formed in the
wake of Tim Hortons takeover in late 2014 by Burger King owner 3G
Capital, a Brazilian private equity firm that merged the two in
late 2014 to form Restaurant Brands International. In February,
Restaurant Brands bought the Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen chain for
US$1.8 billion, seeking to pursue an aggressive international
expansion strategy for the chicken brand as it has done with
Hortons and Burger King.

The lawsuit also comes amid concerns that Tim Hortons may be
weakening due to market saturation on its home turf. In the second
quarter ended June 30, Tim Hortons reported the second consecutive
quarter of falling same-stores sales in Canada, where it has the
bulk of its locations.

Beyond questions about the use of the advertising fund, the
association has accused management of offloading costs onto
franchisees by eliminating regional area managers and increasing
the wholesale prices that franchisees are charged.

Daniel Schwartz, chief executive officer of Restaurant Brands
International.

In the suit filed on October 6, the plaintiffs called those
allegations false and allege that the company has been interfering
with franchisees' legal right to form an association.

"Franchisees who have sought to or have joined the association
have been subject to intimidation and bullying by the defendants
both in private and in public," have been "threatened with adverse
dealings by TDL and RBI," and who are fearful of being targeted
for joining the group, the suit says.

After the association was incorporated, the claim says, the
defendants "acted jointly and in concert in engaging in a pattern
of conduct which constitutes a breach of its duty of fair dealing
and directly or indirectly seeks to interfere with, restrict,
penalize, or threaten franchisees from exercising their rights to
association."

The statement of claim on October 6 also names Daniel Schwartz,
chief executive of RBI; Sami Siddiqui, president of RBI; Andrea
John, head of finance for RBI and Jon Domanko, head of legal for
RBI as defendants, and is seeking $300 million in individual
damages for alleged breach of duty.

In June, Tim Hortons franchisees in Canada launched a $500-million
class action lawsuit alleging mismanagement of an advertising fund
and rising costs.

In August, Restaurant Brands International's Schwartz called that
suit "baseless," and said he did not want to speculate on whether
or not the franchisee outcry was hurting the Tim Hortons brand.

Both proposed class actions still require certification.

On October 6, Tim Hortons said that it will not interfere with its
franchisees' rights to associate.

"We recently issued default notices to a small group of restaurant
owners who we believe are deliberately releasing confidential
information to the media, which harms the businesses of the
thousands of hardworking restaurant owners who built this great
brand," the restaurant chain said in a statement. "This latest
tactic of filing another unfounded lawsuit and sharing it with the
media is yet another example of their disregard for the brand and
our restaurant owners."

David Hughes, the Alberta-based president of the Great White North
Franchisee Association and one of the two plaintiffs in the case,
said he believes head office issued default notices "to stop us
and instill fear," he said in an interview.

But Hughes said news of the default notices from management has
boosted the association's membership, with the franchisee group
including more than 50 per cent of the Tim Hortons' franchisees in
Ontario and over 50 per cent of those in Alberta. "It's rallied
the troops."

Tim Hortons has more than 3,500 franchised restaurants across
Canada and more than 1,000 franchisees.

The mudslinging could tarnish the brand's name on its home turf,
experts say, if consumers and investors perceive that management
is mistreating its franchisees or that the dispute is affecting
restaurant service.

"Tim Hortons' whole consumer base is predicated on the connection
to communities and they have tried to remain authentic and local,
even though they answer to a big corporation," said Carl Boutet, a
retail strategist with the Montreal-based advisory firm StudioRX.
"The message that 3G is sending here is that they will do what is
right for them instead of what is right for their franchisees."

Les Stewart, an Ontario-based franchisee consultant, said the
issuance of default notices to franchisees is highly unusual.

"This shows a predatory franchisor at its worst and it suggests
(RBI) is taking a juvenile approach towards Canadian law," he
said. "It seems that they don't understand the difference between
a franchisee and an employee."

It is not an easy legal road for master franchisors to take back
healthy franchises, Stewart added.

"The Superior Courts understand how franchising works." [GN]


RICE ENERGY: Williford Moves to Certify Class of Oilfield Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned BURTON WILLIFORD, each
individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. RICE
ENERGY, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00945-AJS (W.D. Pa.), moves for
conditional certification of this class:

     ALL CURRENT AND FORMER OILFIELD WORKERS EMPLOYED BY, OR
     WORKING ON BEHALF OF RICE ENERGY, INC. WHO WERE CLASSIFIED
     AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND PAID A DAY-RATE DURING THE
     LAST THREE (3) YEARS.

Burton Williford also asks the Court to (1) order that judicial
notice proposed by Plaintiff be sent to all Putative Class
Members; (2) order the mailing and e-mailing of the proposed
notice, along with a reminder notice after 30 days; (3) order Rice
to post the notice documents on Rice's jobsites/offices for the
entire opt-in period; (4) authorize follow up calls to ensure
returned notices are delivered to the Putative Class Members; (5)
order Rice to produce to Plaintiff's Counsel the contact
information for each Putative Class Member within 20 days of the
Courts order; and (6) authorize a 60-day notice period for
Putative Class Members to join the case.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ysC2trnv

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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 -

          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 -

          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


RISE MEDICAL: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, "Horn" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE HORN, an individual on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. RISE MEDICAL STAFFING, LLC; and DOES 1 to 10
inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-01967-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal., September
21, 2017), is a California-wide class action against Rise for
failing to (1) include all remuneration in the regular rate of pay
when calculating overtime wages, and (2) timely pay all wages
owing at termination of employment.

Rise Medical Staffing, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability
company that maintains its principal place of business in
Sacramento, California.  The Plaintiff is currently unaware of the
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

Rise is a healthcare staffing company that employs hourly health
care professionals for short-term travel assignments at health
care providers throughout California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
          Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
          HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
          595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 808-4357
          Facsimile: (626) 921-4932
          E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
                  kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com


ROYAL OAK: Class of Terminated Workers Certified in "Bystry" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Janet T. Neff granted the Plaintiff's class
certification motion in the lawsuit styled DUSTY A. BYSTRY, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ROYAL OAK
INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a ROYAL OAK BORING, INC. and BRONSON
PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-00210-JTN-ESC (W.D.
Mich.).

The Class certified is comprised of the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees of Royal Oak: (i) who worked at or
reported to one of Defendant's facilities, (ii) who were
terminated from employment on or about February 15, 2016, within
30 days of that date, or in reasonable anticipation of or as the
reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoffs or plant
closings ordered by Defendant on or about February 15, 2016, (iii)
who are "affected employees" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
Section 2101(a)(5), and (iv) who have not filed a timely request
to opt-out of the class.

Outten & Golden LLP is appointed as Class Counsel and Dusty A.
Bystry is appointed Class Representative.

Judge Neff approves the proposed form of Notice to the Class
submitted to the Court.  Judge Neff orders that within 10 days
after the entry of this Order, the Defendant shall provide Class
Counsel with the names and addresses of the class members as noted
in the Defendant's records.  On or before 10 days after receipt
from the Defendant of the names and addresses of the Class
members, Class Counsel shall provide notice of the pendency of the
class action lawsuit by mailing the Notice, First Class postage
prepaid, to all class members to their last known address as noted
in the records of the Defendant.  After such mailing, Class
Counsel shall serve and file a sworn statement affirming
compliance with this Order concerning the mailing of the Notice.

The deadline for any Class Member to opt-out of the Class shall be
30 days from the date of mailing of the Notice.  After the opt-out
deadline has expired, Class Counsel shall serve and file a sworn
statement listing the names of any persons, who have opted out of
the Class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YoPusZp0


SAN DIEGO, CA: Trash Truck Drivers Get $500K to Settle Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
David GarrickContact, writing for San Diego Union Tribune, reports
that San Diego has agreed to pay $500,000 to drivers of city trash
trucks to settle a dispute over wages deducted from their
paychecks for taking lunch breaks.

A class action lawsuit filed in 2014 claims the city failed to
properly pay hundreds of drivers by deducting half an hour for a
lunch break each shift, even though drivers are required to stay
on their collection routes while eating lunch.

The city, which declined to admit any wrongdoing despite agreeing
to a settlement, contends it doesn't owe the wages because its
status as a "charter city" exempts it from applicable state laws.

"Charter cities are supreme and beyond the reach of legislative
enactments," lawyers for the city said in court documents.

Those lawyers also argued that a labor contract with the drivers
covers rest periods, overtime and other issues related to the
allegedly unpaid wages. And they said drivers have opportunities
to address such concerns by filing grievances.

The City Council approved the settlement on October 3, but it must
get a final OK from the judge in the case because it is a class
action suit affecting potentially hundreds of drivers.

San Diego typically has just over 100 drivers on staff to pick up
trash from residential properties across the city, which it does
without charging fees because of a controversial law known as the
People's Ordinance.

The number of drivers affected by the settlement has been
estimated at 220, because the alleged unpaid wages go back to May
2011 and the city has a relatively high turnover of trash truck
drivers.

The suit was filed on behalf of Thomas Perez, a former city trash
truck driver.

The $500,000 settlement covers payments to driver and attorney's
fees. If the city had lost the case in a civil trial, the payout
would have covered more than six years of back wages, plus
interest, for many of the drivers.

A spokesman for City Attorney Mara Elliott said the motive for
agreeing to a settlement was avoiding any further risk for San
Diego and its taxpayers. The spokesman, Gerry Braun, the city
disputes liability and admits no wrongdoing in the case.

Drivers of city trash trucks typically receive annual salaries of
about $50,000, but many make more than $80,000 when overtime,
benefits and other compensation is included.

The city began requiring drivers to document their lunch breaks in
June 2016. [GN]


SCANA CORPORATION: "Brown" Suit Moved to South Carolina Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hope Brown and Thomas Lott, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. South Carolina Public Service Authority also known
as: Santee Cooper and SCANA Corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
2017-CP-40-05409, was removed on Oct. 12, 2017 from the Court of
Common Pleas Richland County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina (Columbia). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-02764-TLW to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Terry L Wooten.

South Carolina State Public Service Authority operates as a
government owned utility company. The Company serves individuals,
small businesses, and corporations. South Carolina State Public
Service Authority treats, transmits, distributes and sells water.
South Carolina State Public Service Authority is located in Moncks
Corner South Carolinian.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur Camden Lewis, Esq.
          LEWIS BABCOCK LLP
          PO Box 11208
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 771 8000
          Facsimile: (803) 733 3534
          E-mail: acl@lewisbabcock.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Benjamin Rush Smith, III, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH
          PO Box 11070
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 799 2000
          Facsimile: (803) 256 7500
          E-mail: rush.smith@nelsonmullins.com

               - and -

          James Y. Becker, Esq.
          Manton McCutchen Grier, Esq.
          Mary Cothonneau Eldridge, Esq.
          Robert Yates Knowlton, Esq.
          HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD
          PO Box 11889
          Columbia, SC 29211-1889
          Telephone: (803) 779 3080
          Facsimile: (803) 765 1243
          E-mail: jbecker@hsblawfirm.com
                  mgrier@hsblawfirm.com
                  meldridge@hsblawfirm.com
                  bknowlton@hsblawfirm.com


SCRANTON, PA: Resident Sues Over Sewer Sale Proceeds
----------------------------------------------------
Jim Lockwood, writing for The Times-Tribute, reports that a
Scranton resident suing the city, Dunmore and two law firms
involved in the $195 million sale of the municipalities' sewer
system claims the sale's proceeds were improperly disbursed and
should be returned to the Scranton Sewer Authority.

The plaintiff, Anthony Moses of Fisk Street, names as defendants
Scranton and its special counsel for the sewer sale, the
Abrahamsen, Conaboy & Abrahamsen law firm of Scranton; and Dunmore
and its borough solicitor, Cummings Law of Dunmore.

Moses is represented by Philadelphia attorneys Simon Paris, Esq. -
- sparis@smbb.com -- Patrick Howard, Esq. -- phoward@smbb.com --
and Charles Kocher, Esq. -- ckocher@smbb.com -- of the Saltz,
Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky law firm.

The lawsuit filed on October 5 in Lackawanna County Court claims
that under the state Municipal Authorities Act, the sewer
authority was allowed to expend money only for purposes directly
related to its mission. State law prohibited the authority from
transferring sewer sale proceeds to Scranton and Dunmore "for
their general welfare," and for paying their sewer-sale legal
bills out of net proceeds, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit seeks the return of all net proceeds to the sewer
authority, which includes about $70 million transferred to
Scranton, $17 million to Dunmore, $200,000 paid to the Abrahamsen
firm and $256,000 paid to the Cummings firm. The authority also
should be ordered to place the returned money in escrow, "until
the SSA properly settles all outstanding claims against it as
required" by law, the lawsuit says.

One such claim is a separate, class-action lawsuit filed by the
Saltz law firm last October, against the sewer authority over an
issue involving missing sewer-line easements. Moses also is one of
the class-action plaintiffs in that earlier lawsuit, which remains
pending in Lackawanna County Court.

Scranton special counsel Edwin "Ned" Abrahamsen said Moses'
lawsuit has no merit and is being used as leverage in the class-
action lawsuit.

"Although we have not had a full opportunity to review the
complaint, note that plaintiff's law firm is the same law firm
which brought the class-action suit regarding sewer easements,"
Abrahamsen said in an emailed response to a Times-Tribune
reporter's request for comment. "This appears to be an attempt to
force an unreasonable settlement of the class action upon the
citizens of our city. We intend to vigorously defend this baseless
claim."

Attempts to reach Dunmore solicitor Thomas Cummings and Scranton
solicitor Jessica Boyles were unsuccessful.

The authority's sale of the sewer system to Pennsylvania American
Water closed Dec. 29.

Moses' lawsuit does not name the Scranton Sewer Authority as a
defendant. The lawsuit notes that despite a city ordinance in late
December authorizing termination of the sewer authority, it
remains in existence. Since the agency has not been terminated and
its outstanding claims remain pending, the transfers of sale
proceeds to the city and borough should not have occurred, the
lawsuit says.

It also notes that state law allows a ratepayer to an authority to
seek the return of money expended by that authority in violation
of that law.

The authority also placed $17 million of sale proceeds in an
escrow account, of which $12 million was set aside for resolving
the class-action lawsuit over easements. Moses' lawsuit says it's
unclear how that $12 million escrow was determined and "whether it
will be enough to compensate all the property owners who have
undisclosed sewer lines on their properties and, in some cases,
directly underneath their homes," such as Moses. [GN]


SECURA INSURANCE: Face "Kresal" Suit in Western District of Wis
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SECURA Insurance
Holdings, Inc. a/k/a SECURA Insurance, Inc.  The case is styled as
Tanner Kresal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SECURA Insurance Holdings, Inc. a/k/a
SECURA Insurance, Inc., a/k/a SECURA Insurance, a Mutual Company
a/k/a SECURA Insurance Companies and Kohn Law Firm S.C.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00766 (W.D. Wis., October 6, 2017).

SECURA Insurance is a mutual insurance company in the United
States that offers property and casualty insurance through
independent insurance agents in 12 states. The company focuses on
insurance for businesses, homes and autos, farms, non-profit
organizations, and special events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Eric Leighton Crandall, Esq.
   Crandall Law Offices, SC
   PO Box 27
   New Richmond, WI 54017
   Tel: (715) 246-1012
   Fax: (715) 246-1018
   Email: consumerlaw@frontiernet.net

      - and -

   Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq.
   Consumer Justice Center, P.A.
   367 Commerce Court
   Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
   Tel: (651) 770-9707
   Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com

      - and -

   Thomas John Lyons, Sr.
   Lyons Law Firm PA
   367 Commerce Court
   Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
   Tel: (651) 770-9707 x122
   Fax: (651) 770-5830
   Email: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com


SERAFINA MANAGEMENT: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Serafina Management
Group, Ltd.  The case is styled as Lawrence Young, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Serafina Management Group, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
07695 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2017).

Serafina Management Group, Ltd. is a New York City-based
restaurant chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Bronson Lipsky LLP
   630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com


SNAPPER INN: Judicial Intervention Sought in "Orgera" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Request for Judicial Intervention was filed on September 20, 2017
in the case captioned William Orgera, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Snapper Inn, Inc.,
Richard H. Remmer, George H. Remmer, Jr., Karen Remmer Mark, and
any other related corporate entities, Defendants, Case No.
606066/2017, (N.Y. Sup., June 23, 2017).

Defendants are in the restaurant and catering business where
Plaintiffs worked as waiters, bussers and bartenders. Suit seeks
to recover unlawfully retained gratuities pursuant to New York
Labor laws. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550

Snapper Inn, Inc., Richard H. Remmer, George H. Remmer, Jr. and
Karen Remmer Mark are represented by:

      KAUFMAN DOLOWICH SCHNEIDER
      135 Crossways Park Drive, Ste. 201
      Woodbury, NY 11797
      Tel: (516) 681-1100


SNG LAUNDROMAT: Seeks to Dismiss "Baca" Suit
--------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Suyapa Baca and Arlex Escobar, Plaintiffs,
v. SNG Laundromat Corp. (d/b/a 24 HR Laundromat) and Stephen
Gregoretti, Defendants, Case No. 606710/2017, (N.Y. Sup., July 13,
2017), a motion was filed on September 20, 2017, by SNG Laundromat
to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks actual and compensatory damages for failure to
make proper contributions to Social Security; Workers'
Compensation; Unemployment Insurance; New York Disability
Insurance; and Medicare; prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting these claims;
and such other relief resulting from fraud and breach of fiduciary
duties.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants from September 2013 to April
2015, as a laundromat attendant. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil M. Frank, Esq.
      FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      500 Bi-County Boulevard, Suite 465
      Farmingdale, NY 11735
      Tel: (631) 756-0400
      Fax: (631) 756-0547
      Email: Nfrank@laborlaws.com

SNG Laundromat Corp. and Stephen Gregoretti are represented by:

      WEINSTEIN, KAPLAN & COHEN
      1325 Franklin Ave., Suite 210
      Garden City, NY 11530
      (516) 877-2525


SOCAL PERMANENTE: "Roy" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Danny Roy, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, and the general public, the
Plaintiff, v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Inc.,
a California Corporation and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC671424, was removed on Oct. 12, 2017 from
the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:17-cv-07457 to the proceeding.

Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Inc. provides
medical care services to Kaiser Permanente members in Southern
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christian J Rowley, Esq.
          Seyfarth Shaw, Esq.
          560 Mission Street 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397 2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397 8549
          E-mail: crowley@seyfarth.com


STARBUCKS CORP: "Wills" Suit Seeks Damages Under FCRA
-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Wills, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. Starbucks Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03654 (N.D. Ga., September 20, 2017), seeks statutory and punitive
damages, attorney fees and costs and such other relief under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Starbucks owns and operates approximately 12,000 coffee shops
globally.  Starbucks obtained and used a background report
prepared by Accurate Background, Inc. to make an employment
decision regarding Plaintiff. The consumer report provided to
Starbucks included a statement that "Kevin W. Willis" of Minnesota
had been convicted twice of domestic violence. Upon receipt of the
consumer report, Starbucks informed Wills that he could not work
for Starbucks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Feagle, Esq.
      Cliff R. Dorsen, Esq.
      SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
      2374 Main Street, Suite B
      Tucker, GA 30084
      Telephone: (404) 373-1970
      Facsimile: (404) 601-1855

             - and -

      Kris Skaar, Esq.
      Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
      SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
      133 Mirramont Lake Drive
      Woodstock, GA 30189
      Telephone: (770) 427-5600
      Facsimile: (404) 601-1855

             - and -

      Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
      Anthony R. Pecora, Esq.
      O'TOOLE, McLAUGHLIN, DOOLEY & PECORA, CO., LPA
      5455 Detroit Road
      Sheffield Village, OH 44054
      Telephone: (440) 930-4001
      Facsimile: (440) 934-7208
      Email: apecora@omdplaw.com
             mdooley@omdplaw.com


STATE COLLECTION: Studebaker's Motion to Certify Class Stricken
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 22, 2017, in the case
entitled Angel Studebaker v. State Collection Service, Inc., Case
No. 1:17-cv-00841 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr.

The minute entry states that:

   -- by agreement of the Plaintiff, the motion to certify class
      is stricken without prejudice; and

   -- Plaintiff anticipates filing a stipulation of dismissal.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FUVUvD67


SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Unlikely Alliance Formed in Sewer Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Brand, writing for News Day, reports Paul Sabatino, former
chief deputy Suffolk County executive and once the county
legislature's longtime counsel, has gained a major and unlikely
ally in his $259.6 million lawsuit that claims Suffolk has
overcharged the average Southwest Sewer district taxpayer $3,419
each.

The law firm of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, which has 1,000
attorneys worldwide, has joined Sabatino and veteran anti-Shoreham
attorney Irving Like, 93, in their two-year battle in state
Supreme Court. The firm will only be paid if they win. And the
most improbable part is that Arnold & Porter's top attorney will
be Sabatino's one-time arch-foe, James M. Catterson, a former
deputy county attorney.

"It's pure Suffolk County, where the enemy of my enemy is my
friend," said Patrick Halpin, former county executive. "But the
backing of a prestigious law firm should be a concern."

Sabatino and Catterson clashed in the early 1990s over an $18
million plan to lease 1,800 county cars, which was engineered by
Catterson and opposed by Sabatino as wasteful. At the time,
Sabatino was dubbed "the 19th legislator" by supporters and "Darth
Vader" by foes. Catterson is the son of often combative former
District Attorney James M. Catterson Jr. The deal was dumped in
midstream amid county and state investigations. Catterson was
later elected a state Supreme Court justice in 1998 and rose to
become an appellate judge. He was not renominated in 2012, despite
the lobbying of former GOP Gov. George Pataki and former Sen.
Alfonse D'Amato.

While Catterson's firm brings huge resources to the case, Jason
Elan, a spokesman for Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone,
downplayed the impact, calling Sabatino a "political hack" and his
suit frivolous. "James Catterson and his white-shoe law firm isn't
going to put lipstick on this pig," he said. Catterson did not
return calls for comment.

First filed in 2015, the suit claims that the 75,000 district
taxpayers have been repeatedly overcharged because the size of the
sewer fund surplus has ballooned as the bonds on the $1.2 billion
project were paid off. Initially, the suit claimed property owners
were overtaxed $116.9 million, but that has risen to $259.6
million as surpluses grew in the 2016 and 2017 budgets. The suit
also alleges the county used $62.2 million to plug holes in the
county budget. They are awaiting a ruling from state Supreme Court
Justice Peter Meyer for class action status and summary judgment.

"We've already short-circuited a Ponzi scheme that was going to
balance the countywide budget on the back of Southwest Sewer
District taxpayers," said Sabatino, but added the suit is also
crucial to block county officials from "getting free rein to raid
all county funds and move the money around."

Since the suit was filed two years ago, Bellone has lowered
district taxes by $19.2 million and proposed a further $5.6
million cut for next year. Bellone aides have maintained the
surpluses are necessary because there are $423 million in needed
district capital projects, including the $207 million new bay
outfall pipe on which construction will start next year. They also
note $29 million will be repaid to the district by 2029, starting
with first five percent next year.

Bellone's 2018 budget proposed using $80.2 million of the sewer
fund next year to pay cash for sewer projects, including $57.6
million for the outfall pipe, claiming it would save $44 million
in interest and lower the sewer fund surplus to $79 million.
Sabatino said using cash to pay for capital projects that last 40
years penalizes current property owners to foot the bill and gives
a free ride to those who come later.

"It's not exactly a match made in heaven," said Gregory Blass,
former presiding officer during the car lease controversy, of the
Sabatino-Catterson alliance. "But it's a job that needs to be
done, given the wasteful finances of the last few years where
corners were cut and short cuts taken and hands have gotten caught
in the cookie jar." [GN]


SUGAR LAND, TX: Resident Sues Over Red Light Cameras
----------------------------------------------------
Dina Kesbeh, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports a Sugar Land
resident who has spent more than a decade fighting red light
cameras filed a class action appeal against the City of Sugar Land
in the Texas First Court of Appeals District.

Helwig F. Van Der Grinten, founder of Houston Coalition Against
Red Light Cameras, recently received his first red-light camera
ticket, prompting him to seek out attorneys Russell Bowman and
Scott A. Stewart to help overturn the previous dismissal of the
class action against the City of Sugar Land.

In addition to the city, the lawsuit also names Mayor Joe
Zimmerman, Police Chief Doug Brinkley and City Manager Allen
Bogard as defendants.

Three plaintiffs are named in the class action, Grinten, James
Dalton and Anis Hussain. The class action filed would require the
return of fines and late fees paid by those issued red light
tickets over the past two years.

The 275-page brief highlights numerous red light camera lawsuits
across Texas, states that Sugar Land failed to conduct the
required engineering study and alleges that both the hearing
officer and municipal court judge lack jurisdiction.

Grinten said that while the City of Sugar Land continues to
maintain its statistical findings that red light cameras reduce
accidents, he said research is not accurate and that red-light
cameras are unconstitutional.

"It's a gamble, it's a game," Grinten said. "The city is punishing
people basically with taxation by random selection. Even a careful
driver like myself will get a red light camera ticket."
He added that cameras aren't effective because tickets are issued
to the vehicle owner and not the person behind the wheel.

Before the lawsuit, Grinten said he used to stand outside the
courthouse on Mondays, speaking to people protesting red light
tickets and advising them not to pay the fine.
"I am certain we are going to win this lawsuit if the city wants
to continue running this system they are going to have to refund a
large amount of money," Grinten said.

Grinten also seeks injunctive relief, which does not mean monetary
reward but stopping a specific action or pattern of behavior, in
this case barring the city from operating the camera systems.
The suit states "the red light camera laws attempt to deprive a
vehicle owner of a property right, namely his cash by imposing a
civil penalty of $75," which is filed as a violation of due
process in the suit.

The City of Sugar Land website touts a number of statistics
regarding the effectiveness of red light cameras, which include
that red-light cameras in Sugar Land resulted in a 58 percent
decrease in accidents from 2009-2012. [GN]


SUN BANCORP: "Chetcuti" Suit Seeks to Block Sale to OceanFirst
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL CHETCUTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUN BANCORP, INC., JEFFREY S. BROWN, SIDNEY R. BROWN,
ANTHONY R. COSCIA, F. CLAY CREASEY, PETER GALETTO, JR., ELI
KRAMER, JAMES B. LOCKHART III, WILLIAM J. MARINO, THOMAS M.
O'BRIEN, KEITH STOCK, and GRACE C. TORRES, Case No. 1:17-cv-07329
(D.N.J., September 21, 2017), alleges that the Defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties and violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the alleged materially
incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration
Statement filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On June 30, 2017, OceanFirst Financial Corp. and the Company
announced that they had entered into a definitive agreement that
day under which OceanFirst will acquire all of the outstanding
shares of Sun in a cash and stock transaction.  The Proposed
Transaction was valued at approximately $487 million at the time
of the announcement.

In connection with the Proposed Transaction, the Defendants filed
the Registration Statement on August 29, 2017.

Sun is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
state of New Jersey and maintains its principal executive offices
in Mount Laurel, New Jersey.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Founded in 1985, Sun is a $2.3 billion asset bank holding company.
Sun's primary subsidiary is Sun National Bank, a community bank
serving customers throughout New Jersey, and the metro New York
region.

Non-party OceanFirst is a company incorporated under the laws of
the state of Delaware and is headquartered in Toms River, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4292
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com


TACOS EL BRONCO: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Nexticapan Lopez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Tacos el Bronco Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Tacos
el Bronco, Mariano Tapia, and Artemio Tapia, Case No. 1:17-cv-
05656 (E.D.N.Y., September 27, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 4324 4th
Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11232. [BN]

Javier Nexticapan Lopez is a pro se plaintiff.


TINTRI INC: Faces "Clayton" Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Laurence Clayton, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tintri, Inc., Ken Klein, Ian
Halifax, John Bolger, Charles Giancarlo, Adam Grosser, Kieran
Harty, Harvey Jones, Christopher Schaepe, Peter Sonsini, New
Enterprise Associates 12, Limited Partnership, Nea Partners 12,
Limited Partnership, NEA 12 GP, LLC, Silver Lake Kraftwerk Fund,
L.P., Silver Lake Group, L.L.C., Silver Lake Technology Associates
Kraftwerk, L.P., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Keybanc Capital Markets, Inc., Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Needham & Company, LLC, Piper Jaffray
& Co., Defendant, Case No. 17GIV94312, (Cal. Super., September 20,
2017), seeks compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees
and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and
such equitable/injunctive or other relief for violation of federal
securities laws.

Tintri is an information technology company in the United States
and distributes products designed for Enterprise Cloud, virtual
machines and containers. The price of Tintri common stock
plummeted as the market learned, following the IPO, that the
Company's business metrics and financial prospects were not as
strong as represented in the IPO Registration Statement. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James I. Jaconette, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423

             - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173

             - and -

      Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
      HOLZER & HOLZER LLC
      1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Telephone: (770) 392-0090
      Fax: (770) 392-0029


TOOTSIE ROLL: Hit With Class Action Over Junior Mints Packaging
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Fitz-Gibbon, writing for Lohud, reports that when is too
much candy not enough?

For a Manhattan woman, it's when nearly half of a box of candy is
filled with air.

In a federal class-action lawsuit against Tootsie Roll Industries,
Biola Daniel claims the manufacturer of Junior Mints intentionally
deceived sweet-toothed consumers by packaging them in
unnecessarily large boxes topped off with too much air, referred
to as "slack-fill."

"The size of the product's boxes in comparison to the volume of
the candy contained therein makes it appear to plaintiff and class
members that they are buying more than what is actually being
sold," Daniel said in the 36-page suit filed in U.S. District
Court in New York City. "Plaintiff and class members are denied
the benefit of their bargain because they pay for full boxes of
the product but actually receive far less."

According to the 36-page suit, Daniel purchased a 3.5 ounce
package of the chocolate-covered mint candy at a Duane Reade
pharmacy on 125th Street on Sept. 23 for $1.49.

Daniel said the box "contained approximately 40 percent non-
functional slack-fill."

The lawsuit says that's significantly more packaged air than other
comparable candies like Milk Duds and Good & Plenty. Daniel said a
Milk Duds package contains only 23 percent slack-fill, and Good &
Plenty just 12 percent.

"By comparing the box of defendant's product to the boxes of
comparable candies, it is easy to see that the product contains
non-functional slack-fill," the suit says. "Competitors' product
boxes are similar in size to defendant's product boxes -- yet
contain far more candy. This demonstrates that it is possible to
fit a greater quantity of candy into defendant's product's boxes."

Attorneys representing Daniel did not return calls for comment.

The lawsuit is a class-action complaint, which seeks other
plaintiffs to join in the claim. Daniel is the initial lead
plaintiff.

Officials at Chicago-based Tootsie Roll Industries did not return
a call seeking comment. But in a similar lawsuit pending in Los
Angeles, lawyers for the company said those claims were similar to
others that have fallen short in court.

A motion to dismiss the California claim said "plaintiff's
arguments rest almost entirely on the exact same allegations this
court has already found insufficient to confer standing to
challenge the Sugar Babies snack box." [GN]


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Settlement Targets Student Loan Trusts
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Flynn, writing for Gazette, reports that after the meltdown of
the subprime mortgage market and resulting Great Recession came an
epidemic of foreclosures. Creditors initiating these foreclosures
-- mostly investment trusts owning pools of mortgages -- often
couldn't prove ownership of the loans in question, the amounts
owed or both.

Yet these creditors would present affidavits, signed under oath,
to courts and other government officials conducting the
foreclosures, saying all was well and they were entitled to
foreclose -- a practice that became known as robo-signing. This
led to regulatory sanctions and class-action lawsuits, and
foreclosures lacking proper documentation quickly came to a halt.

Now the same thing seems to have happened with private student
loans. As with subprime mortgages, many of these loans were
securitized -- placed into pools held by trusts and with investors
holding interests in the trusts. When loans went into default,
they were sent to collection agencies for aggressive action.
Little attention was paid to proof of ownership, balances owed and
expiration of statutes of limitations, however. Student loan
borrowers found themselves being chased by debt collectors and
named as defendants in lawsuits for unenforceable obligations.

This got the attention of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, which on Sept. 18 announced the settlement of an
administrative action it had brought against 15 Delaware-chartered
student loan trusts, collectively known as the National Collegiate
Student Loan Trusts, and Transworld Systems Inc., the collection
agency used by the trusts.

CFPB Director Richard Cordray (still in the saddle despite efforts
by Republicans in Congress to oust him), said in a release that
"The National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts and their debt
collector sued consumers for student loans they couldn't prove
were owed and filed false and misleading affidavits in courts
across the country."

Under the settlement terms, the trusts will pay "at least" $21.6
million in damages, fines and penalties, and Transworld Systems
will pay another $2.5 million as a civil penalty. The bad conduct
resulting in the CFPB action must cease under an injunction from
the court handling the matter.

Furthermore, and perhaps of greatest interest to student loan
borrowers who haven't yet paid back their loans, the settlement
requires an audit of the 800,000 student loans in the portfolio of
the trusts. This audit will be conducted by an independent auditor
acceptable to the CFPB but will be paid for by the trusts.

"If the audit identifies any additional student loans for which
the trusts lack the documentation needed to prove the consumers
owed the debt, the National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts will
cease all collections on these loans," according to the CFPB
release. That includes reporting negative credit information to
credit reporting agencies.

Notwithstanding continuing efforts on the part of the Republican-
controlled Congress to put the CFPB out of business, or at least
tie its hands, the agency is continuing with other enforcement
actions and a long list of regulation-drafting assignments given
it by a friendlier Congress in 2010, when the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act became law. [GN]


TREASURY WINE: Decision Confirms Shift in CA Closure Process
------------------------------------------------------------
John F. Nucci, Esq., Joel D. Rothman, Esq., Peter M. Saparoff,
Esq., of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in
an article for The National Law Review, wrote that recently, in
Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v. Treasury Wine Estates
Limited ("Treasury Wine"), the Full Court of the Federal Court of
Australia considered a primary judge's class closure order which
broke new ground in group action practice in Australia.  The
Treasury Wine case is part of a growing trend in Australian
securities litigation toward class proceedings similar to the U.S.
model, where investors do not have to be a named plaintiff to
participate in a recovery.  Rather, in this case, prior to the
issuer and the representative plaintiff mediating the case,
investors needed to "register" by submitting their transaction
data.  When the case settled after mediation, those who registered
could recover from the settlement fund, but those who did not
register were shut out of the settlement.  Registering was not
without risks, however, as the mediation could have failed.  Some
investors may have feared that by submitting their transaction
data they were exposing themselves to the defendants and potential
discovery in the event the case did not settle.  However, the case
did settle after mediation, and those who registered were
rewarded.

In an effort to foster settlement, Australian courts often order
class closures before settlement discussions.  Typically, group
members were required to register their interest before any
mediation took place, with any members who did not register being
barred from sharing in any settlement or bringing their claims
after settlement was finalized.  Before Treasury Wine, however,
unregistered group members were also barred from sharing in any
judgment if settlement was not finalized.  Thus, failing to
register as a class member before a closure order issued had the
effect of barring a group member's claims, whether or not
settlement was achieved.

In Treasury Wine, the primary judge issued a class closure order
that broke with this practice.  There, the judge ordered that any
unregistered class members would lose their right to share in a
settlement or bring their claims after settlement was finalized.
However, the judge ordered that if a settlement was not reached,
unregistered group members could still participate in any
subsequent judgment.

The judgment was appealed to the Full Court, which first
considered whether the primary judge was correct in doubting
whether the court could make this type of class closure order.
First, the Court noted that when Australia's Parliament enacted
its representative proceeding statutory scheme (known as the "Part
IVA regime" after Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act),
it "expressed a legislative intent to adopt an opt out rather than
an opt in procedure."  The Court further noted that "[c]lass
proceedings are intended to require little or no active
involvement by class members and class members participate
principally for the limited purpose of taking the benefit or
suffering the burden of the findings made on common questions."

The Court noted that requiring a group member to proactively
register in order to share in a settlement arguably clashed with
the "opt out" nature of Australian class action claims, stating
that "[i]t must be accepted that the requirement for class members
to take active steps to 'register' in order to share in a
settlement of a class action undercuts to some extent the opt out
rationale underpiunning the Part IVA regime." However, it found
that the court's power to make a class closure derived from
section 33ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act, which states
that "the Court may, of its own motion or on application by a
party or a group member, make any order the Court thinks
appropriate or necessary to ensure that justice is done in the
proceeding."

The broad language of section 33ZF essentially allows the court to
make any order that is necessary to facilitate justice.  The Full
Court held that a class closure order falls under this provision,
but "[t]here must be good reason to exercise the discretion to
make a class closure order which may operate to deny the benefits
of a settlement to class members who do not opt out and who do not
take the active steps of registering." The Court further held
that"if a class closure order operated to facilitate the desirable
end of settlement, it may be reasonably adapted to the purpose of
seeking or obtaining justice in the proceeding." The Court
recognized that the idea behind a class closure order is to allow
the parties to know how many group members will share in a
settlement, enabling the parties to base their negotiations on a
known number of beneficiaries.  A class closure order also
provides for finality, in that it assures the parties that if
settlement is reached, they will not be subject to additional
claims on the subject.  The Full Court held that these interests
were sufficient to satisfy section 33ZF.

While the Full Court allowed that a class closure order can be
proper in order to aid in the settlement process, it took care to
note that not all class closure orders are appropriate.  Most
importantly, it cautioned against issuing class closure orders
that would bar group members from sharing in a judgment if
settlement fell through.  It stated that "the facilitation of
settlement is a good reason for a class closure order but, if
settlement is not achieved, an order to shut out class members who
do not respond to an arbitrary deadline is not." The Court noted
various factors that judge's should weigh in determining the
appropriateness of class closure:

Whether it is appropriate to order class closure is a question of
balance and judicial intuition. The Court must take into account
the interests of the class as a whole in requiring class members
to take steps to facilitate settlement, and consider the
surrounding circumstances including the point the case has
reached, the attitude of the parties, and the complexity and
likely duration of the case.

The Court found the closure order in this case appropriate
because, among other things:

the order was made in circumstances where the trial of the case
was imminent and the parties had agreed to mediate within three
months, the proceeding was at a stage where the parties were in a
position to realistically assess the prospects of victory or
defeat, the lawyers for the applicant were experienced in class
action litigation and able to assess whether class closure was in
the interests of class members, and both parties considered that a
class closure order should be made in order to facilitate
settlement.

Hindsight has proven the Court's prediction that class closure
orders of this type will facilitate settlement.  Once the class
was closed in this case, TWE settled the matter, and those who
registered have started to receive distributions.

The development of the framework articulated by the Court bears
watching, particularly for institutional investors with large
holdings in Australian issuers.  As previously mentioned, the
Australian "continuous disclosure" regime may be beneficial to
protect investors from fraud.  However, it appears that
Australia's representative proceeding practice is evolving toward
requiring institutions to carefully monitor "open class action" in
Australia and register their claims in order to take part in any
settlement.  Additionally, as in this case, investors may only
have a few weeks to register their claims after the Court approves
the class closure procedure. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Accused of Targeting "Dreamers" for Deportation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News, reports that the
American Civil Liberties Union marked the Trump administration's
on October 5 deadline for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
Program participants to renew by filing a class action on behalf
of young undocumented "Dreamers" who say federal officials have
unlawfully revoked protections under the program.

In April, President Donald Trump said the "dreamers should rest
easy." But the president threw the fate of 800,000 young
immigrants into serious doubt just a few months later when he
rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program,
known as DACA, which protected them from deportation and allowed
them to work and go to school in the United States.

Trump has urged Congress to come up with a replacement.

A federal complaint filed Thursday, however, says Trump has
further stripped immigrants of protections under DACA "even while
the program winds down." The class action comes as immigration
rights activists took to the streets of Los Angeles to protest the
end of the DACA program -- the last day for recipients, known as
"Dreamers," to reapply to the program.

Recipients could face deportation as early as March 2018 as the
protections are phased out. But according to the class action,
immigration officials aren't waiting until then.

"On his watch, federal immigration authorities have targeted
numerous DACA recipients and unlawfully revoked the grants of
deferred action and work permits they have received, without any
notice or opportunity to be heard, even though these individuals
have abided by all the program rules and have not engaged in any
conduct that would disqualify them from the program," the 34-page
complaint states.

Naming Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and
Customs and Border Protection officials, the lawsuit says the
government's policies and procedures violate the federal
Administrative Procedures Act and the Fifth Amendment's Due
Process Clause.

"President Trump has said that 'Dreamers should rest easy,' yet
his administration has placed these young immigrants directly at
risk," ACLU attorney Michael Tan said in a statement. "Not only is
he ending the protections the government pledged to these young
immigrants who know no other home, but his administration is
targeting them now while the DACA program is still in place."

The "Dreamers" are represented by ACLU attorney Jennifer Chang
Newell.

In a news release, the ACLU said that the policies and procedures
strike at the heart of the Dreamers' immigration status by
targeting them for removal for low-level offenses, including
traffic infractions. Other young immigrants have lost their DACA
status based on unproven allegations, the lawsuit says.

Plaintiff Jes£s Alonso Arreola Robles, 23, says he was a cook at
the famous Chateau Marmont in West Hollywood and working as a
driver for Uber and Lyft when federal immigration agents arrested
him this past February while he was driving.

His complaint says authorities accused him of attempting to
smuggle a customer's family members into the United States.

He says he has been working the two jobs to support his parents,
who are permanent residents that have been in America since he was
a baby. He had no criminal history but found himself facing
deportation, according the lawsuit.

An immigration judge rejected the smuggling charges, and Arreola
was never criminally charged. But the Department of Homeland
Security revoked his DACA status, the suit says.

Arreola was granted DACA status three times, in 2012, 2014 and
again in 2016. In a statement, he said he and his girlfriend are
expecting their first child and he wants to stay in the country to
raise his son.

"I don't want an unfounded accusation to take everything I love
away from me," Arreola said.

Inland Empire-Immigrant Youth Collective joined Arreola in filing
the lawsuit. They want an order that finds the practice of
revoking immigrants' DACA status is unconstitutional. The
plaintiffs also want the government to reinstate DACA status to
those who have lost it or give them a proper opportunity to
challenge their change in status.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.


UNITED STATES: Whitaker Files Suit v. Dept. of Commerce
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Department of
Commerce.  The case is styled as Stephen Whitaker and David Gram,
all similarly situated parties, Plaintiffs v. Department of
Commerce, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00192-gwc (D. Vt.,
October 6, 2017).

The Department of Commerce works with businesses, universities,
communities, and the Nation's workers to promote job creation,
economic growth, sustainable development, and improved standards
of living.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert J. Appel, Esq.
   30 Main Street, Suite 350
   Burlington, VT 05401
   Tel: (802) 595-1544
   Email: rappel@robertappellaw.com


VERTS MEDITERRANEAN: Faces "Young" Suit in S. Dist. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verts Mediterranean
Grill, Inc.  The case is styled as Lawrence Young, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Verts Mediterranean Grill, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
07668 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2017).

VERTS Mediterranean Grill is an Austin-based fast casual
restaurant chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Bronson Lipsky LLP
   630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com


VITAMIN WORLD: Faces "Kiler" Class Suit in East. Dist. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Vitamin World,
Inc.

The case is captioned Marion Kiler, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Vitamin
World, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-05612 (E.D.N.Y., September 26,
2017).

Vitamin World, Inc. is a retailer of vitamins and nutritional
supplements. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Shaked, Esq.
      SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
      44 Court Street, Suite 1217
      Brooklyn, NY 11217
      Telephone: (917) 373-9128
      Facsimile: (718) 504-7555
      E-mail: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


VOLKSWAGEN: MDL Panel Sends Cases to California
-----------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judicial panel has sent two closely watched cases to California
involving Wells Fargo's sales practices and antitrust class
actions related to the Volkswagen emissions scandal.

In an order on October 4, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation sent about 25 cases alleging a cartel among several
German automakers to Charles Breyer, the San Francisco federal
judge who oversaw hundreds of class actions brought over a "defeat
device" that allowed Volkswagen vehicles to cheat emissions tests.
Those cases settled last year for $14.7 billion.

Breyer, who also is one of seven judges on the MDL panel, was a
"logical choice" given the "potential for factual overlap" with
the Volkswagen emissions cases, wrote MDL Panel Chairwoman Sarah
Vance.

"According to some plaintiffs, the VW defendants' adherence to
this illegal agreement necessitated the cheat at the heart of the
VW 'clean diesel' MDL via emissions cheating technology supplied
by defendant Robert Bosch (which is a defendant in some cases in
this litigation," she wrote.

The cases were filed in the wake of a July article in the German
magazine Der Spiegel revealing that Audi, Volkswagen, Porsche, BMW
and Daimler conspired for 21 years to exchange confidential
information about the manufacturing of their vehicles, including
the device at the heart of the emissions scandal.

All the carmakers and many of the plaintiffs' attorneys had
supported sending the cases to New Jersey, where nine of the cases
had been filed.

In a somewhat more uncharacteristic move, the panel sent 14 cases
against San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co. to U.S. District
Judge Andrew Guilford, who is overseeing three of the lawsuits in
Santa Ana, California. The lawsuits claim that Wells Fargo steered
its auto financing customers to National General Insurance Co.,
which signed them up to insurance they didn't want. It's one of
several scandals rocking Wells Fargo, which paid $185 million in
fines and settled class actions for $142 million  following
disclosures that as many as two million accounts were opened
without the consent of customers.

Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan appeared before the Senate Banking
Committee to defend arbitration agreements with class action
waivers.

The settlement over the fake accounts, however, could unravel in
the wake of revelations last month that 1.4 million more accounts
were opened than previously disclosed. U.S. District Judge Vince
Chhabria is overseeing that settlement and, on October 4, U.S.
District Judge Jon Tigar refused to dismiss a related shareholder
derivative class action. Both judges are in San Francisco.
But in the auto insurance cases, the panel appeared influenced by
plaintiffs' attorneys who had supported Southern California
because two companies named as defendants -- a subsidiary called
Wells Fargo Dealer Services and Balboa Insurance Co. -- were based
in Irvine, California. Two individuals from Wells Fargo Dealer
Services, former President Dawn Martin Harp and Bill Katafias,
former head of indirect auto lending, also were named as
defendants.

"Moreover, it is alleged that key entities and individuals with
direct responsibility for the alleged conduct in this litigation
are located in this district and, therefore, relevant documents
and witnesses may be located there," Vance wrote. "Indeed, at oral
argument, Wells Fargo represented that the primary witnesses would
be found in the Central District of California."

Last year, Wells Fargo Dealer Services and Wells Fargo paid more
than $24 million to federal regulators after illegally possessing
413 cars owned by service members. [GN]


WELCH FOODS: NJ Judge Moves Fruit Snacks CA Across the River
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge in Trenton has ordered a New Jersey-based class
action suit against Welch Foods Inc., maker of the popular Welch's
fruit snacks that plaintiffs allege aren't as "natural" as
advertised, must be moved to the Eastern District of New York.
U.S. District Judge Anne Thompson ordered the move on Oct. 5 after
finding that nearly identical litigation has already been filed
and is in discovery in the Eastern District.

"Although the causes of action on the New York litigation are
under different state law . . . the nature of the issues, the
relief sought, the products in question and the defendants all
substantially overlap," Thompson said in Hall v. Welch Foods.
"Plaintiff cannot maintain essentially the same litigation in two
separate district courts, creating unnecessary burdens on the
courts and risking the inefficiency and embarrassment of
conflicting judgments," Thompson said.

The lead plaintiff in the New Jersey case, Lauren Hall, is suing
Welch Foods, based in Concord, Massachusetts, and one of its
licensees, Promotion in Motion Companies, based in Media,
Pennsylvania, over its fruit snacks. The lawsuit alleges breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty, common-law fraud,
violations of the state Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment and
violations of the state Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and
Notification Act.

Hall says the companies falsely claimed that their snacks
contained "significant amounts of natural fruit" and said that
they were nutritious and healthy when they actually contained
large amounts of artificial flavors and ingredients.

Hall initially filed her lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court.
Welch then moved the case to federal court based on diversity
jurisdiction.

Thompson had two competing motions: One by Welch and PIM to move
the case to the Eastern District, and another from Hall asking
that it be remanded to the Superior Court.

Thompson said the case needed to be moved to the Eastern District
so as not to waste judicial resources on essentially the same
matter.

One of Hall's lawyers, Joshua Bauchner, Esq. -- jb@ansellgrimm.com
-- of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC said the firm was prepared to
litigate the case in the Eastern District.

"The defendants can run, but they can't hide," said Bauchner, of
Ansell Grimm & Aaron in Woodland Park. "We will pursue claims
against them wherever necessary."

The lead attorney for Welch Foods and PIM, David King, Esq. --
dking@herrick.com -- of the Newark office of Herrick Feinstein,
said his clients were pleased with the ruling and are ready to
proceed in the Eastern District. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Court Certifies Class & Subclasses in "Nguyen" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joseph C. Spero entered an order in the lawsuit styled
HUY NGUYEN v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No.
3:15-cv-05239-JCS (N.D. Cal.), certifying these class and
subclasses:

     Class:

     All persons who are or have been employed, at any time from
     August 25, 2011 through December 31, 2016, by Wells Fargo
     Bank, National Association in California under the job
     titles Home Mortgage Consultant, Home Mortgage Consultant
     Jr. and Private Mortgage Banker (collectively "HMCS");

     Expense Reimbursement Sub-Class:

     All persons who are or have been employed as HMCs, at any
     time from August 25, 2011 through December 31, 2015, by
     Wells Fargo Bank, National Association in California and who
     participated in either Wells Fargo' s individual HMC website
     program or FASTMail program;

     Commission Pay Sub-Class:

     All persons who are or have been employed as HMCs, at any
     time from August 25, 2011 through December 31, 2016, by
     Wells Fargo Bank, National Association in California;

     Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class:

     All persons who have been employed as HMCs and separated
     from employment (either by involuntary termination or
     resignation), at any time from August 25, 2011 through
     December 31, 2016, by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
     in California and who did not timely receive all of their
     wages at time of separation.

A Further Case Management Conference is set for November 3, 2017,
at 2:00 p.m.  The parties are instructed to meet and confer and
submit a joint Case Management Conference Statement that includes
a proposed schedule for the remainder of the case by October 27,
2017.

Huy Nguyen asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of Home
Mortgage Consultants, who are or were employed by Wells Fargo.
Following summary judgment, the claims that remain in the case are
based on two alleged substantive violations of the California
Labor Code.  First, the Plaintiff asserts that Wells Fargo's
policy of not reimbursing HMCs for certain marketing programs,
namely, the use of Wells Fargo's HMC Web sites and FASTMail
program, violates California Labor Code Section 2802.  Second, the
Plaintiff contends Wells Fargo does not timely pay commissions to
HMCs based on when the commissions are earned under California
law, in violation of California Labor Code Section 204.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vxyb5zIV


WELLS FARGO: Bosses Can't Dodge Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News, reports that Wells
Fargo's board of directors and senior executives cannot dodge a
class action accusing them of misleading investors about the phony
accounts scandal that has cost the bank more than $300 million in
penalties, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar refused to dismiss most claims
against 15 members of Wells Fargo's board of directors and five
senior executives on October 4.

In a 49-page order, Tigar found the executives and directors were
made aware as early as 2011 about the bank's sham accounts
scandal, which the bank acknowledged in August this year included
as many as 3.5 million unauthorized accounts.

Despite knowing of the fraud, shareholders say, the managers
continued to insist that Wells Fargo's cross-selling program was
successful and critical to the bank's revenue growth.

The San Francisco-based bank's "Gr-Eight" cross-selling initiative
pressured its employees to open at least eight accounts for each
customer, leading employees to create unauthorized accounts to
meet the aggressive sales quotas.

Shareholders say the bank misled investors by touting the
company's "adherence to regulatory guidelines" in public filings
and including the fraudulent, cross-sold accounts in those
filings.

In addition to the legal penalties, the scandal has caused Wells
Fargo untold harm in reputational damage, plus the costs of
extensive advertising, in The New York Times and other national
publications, trying to assure consumers that the bank is
addressing the fraud.

Tigar wrote: "The Court finds that plaintiffs have plausibly
alleged that the director defendants made material and misleading
statements through their participation in and approval of Wells
Fargo's public filings."

Tigar found several red flags that should have alerted Wells Fargo
to the scope of the scandal long before it paid $185 million to
federal regulators in September 2016 for the misconduct.

Those red flags include former CEO John Stumpf's testimony to
Congress that he was made aware of "issues" related to sham
accounts in 2011; earlier communications between employees and
board members about the fraudulent activity; lawsuits filed
against the bank alleging creation of fraudulent accounts; a
December 2013 article in the Los Angeles Times exposing the
scandal; investigations by federal regulators as early as 2012;
widespread employee terminations apparently aimed at silencing
whistleblowers; and the company's emphasis on cross-selling in
financial reports.

Tigar concluded that shareholders presented sufficient allegations
to sue three senior executives -- CEO and former COO Timothy
Sloan, former vice president of community banking Carrie Tolstedt,
and CFO John Shrewsberry -- for issuing allegedly misleading
statements.

Tigar also said shareholders can sue former and current executives
Stumpf, Sloan, Tolstedt, Shrewsberry, and chief risk officer
Michael Loughlin, on allegations of insider trading. The investors
say the executives used their inside knowledge to profit from
selling shares back to Wells Fargo through the bank's share
repurchase program.

Tigar dismissed without prejudice securities law claims against
Loughlin, finding the shareholders failed to allege the chief risk
manager made any specific false or misleading statements.

And Tigar refused to let the investors hold the bank's managers
liable to cover Wells Fargo's legal costs for to its alleged
violations of federal securities laws. He found that claim unripe
because no judgment has been reached on whether the bank or its
directors and executives violated securities laws.

But Tigar gave shareholders a green light to seek rescission of
contracts between Wells Fargo and the accused managers for
allegedly violating securities laws while performing their job
duties.

Tigar dismissed California law claims with prejudice, finding that
because Wells Fargo is incorporated in Delaware, its managers can
be sued for violating only Delaware's corporate misconduct laws.

Wells Fargo and attorneys for both sides did not respond to emails
and phone calls seeking comment on October 5 afternoon.

Wells Fargo is represented by Brendan P. Cullen, Esq. --
cullenb@sullcrom.com -- with Sullivan & Cromwell in Palo Alto.

The shareholders' lead attorney is Richard Heimann, Esq. --
rheimann@lchb.com -- with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in
San Francisco.


WESTAR ENERGY: Pill Seeks to Enjoin Merger With Great Plains
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PILL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. WESTAR ENERGY, INC., MOLLIE H. CARTER, JERRY B.
FARLEY, MARK A. RUELLE, CHARLES Q. CHANDLER IV, R. A. EDWARDS III,
SANDRA A.J. LAWRENCE, RICHARD L. HAWLEY, B. ANTHONY ISAAC, S. CARL
SODERSTROM, JR., KING ENERGY, INC., GREAT PLAINS ENERGY
INCORPORATED and MONARCH ENERGY HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-
04086 (D. Kan., September 21, 2017), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from taking any steps to consummate two proposed
transactions or, in the event the Proposed Transactions are
consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
wrongdoing.

The action stems from two related proposed transactions announced
on July 10, 2017, pursuant to which Westar Energy, Inc. and Great
Plains Energy Incorporated will be combined in a "merger of
equals" under a new holding company named Monarch Energy Holding,
Inc.  Pursuant to the July 9, 2017 amended and restated agreement
and plan of merger between Westar, Great Plains, Monarch, and
certain related entities, in one proposed transaction, Great
Plains will merge with and into Monarch, with Monarch to continue
as the surviving corporation.

In the other proposed transaction, Westar will merge with and into
King Energy, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Monarch, with
Westar to continue as the surviving corporation.  Upon completion
of the Mergers, Monarch will be the parent of both Great Plains
and Westar, with the shareholders of Great Plains and Westar
becoming the shareholders of Monarch.

Westar is a Kansas corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Topeka, Kansas.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Westar is the largest electric utility in Kansas, and provides
electric generation, transmission and distribution services to
approximately 700,000 customers in Kansas.  Westar provides these
services in central and northern Kansas, including the cities of
Topeka, Lawrence, Manhattan, Salina and Hutchinson.  Westar's
wholly owned subsidiary, Kansas Gas and Electric Company, provides
these services in south-central and southeastern Kansas, including
the city of Wichita.

Great Plains is a Missouri corporation headquartered in Kansas
City, Missouri.  Great Plains is a public utility holding company
with wholly-owned direct and indirect subsidiaries that include
Kansas City Power & Light Company, KCP&L Greater Missouri
Operations Company, and GPE Transmission Holding Company, LLC.

Monarch is a Missouri corporation and a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of Great Plains, which was formed solely for the
purpose of effectuating the Mergers and has no prior operations.
Monarch will be renamed to a yet-to-be-determined name prior to or
upon completion of the Mergers.  King is a Kansas corporation and
a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Monarch, which was formed
solely for the purpose of effectuating the Mergers and has no
prior operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michelle Moe Witte, Esq.
          JOSEPH, HOLLANDER & CRAFT LLC
          500 North Market
          Wichita, KS 67214
          Telephone: (316) 262-9393
          Facsimile: (316) 262-9006
          E-mail: mmoe@josephhollander.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Joseph, Esq.
          JOSEPH, HOLLANDER & CRAFT LLC
          1508 SW Topeka Blvd.
          Topeka, KS 66612
          Telephone: (785) 234-3272
          Facsimile: (785) 234-3610
          E-mail: cjoseph@josephhollander.com


YAHOO INC: Asked to Weigh in On New Data Breach Disclosures
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
has asked both Yahoo Inc. and plaintiffs pursuing claims against
the company over its massive data breach to weigh in on what the
company's disclosure of additional affected customers means to the
case.

Yahoo parent company Verizon announced that roughly 3 billion
accounts that were active August 2013 were likely affected by the
hack. The disclosure tripled the number previously disclosed by
Yahoo.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of
California, who is overseeing multidistrict litigation on the
breach, issued an order on October 5 pushing back the date that
the parties are set to file a joint case management statement and
ordered Yahoo to expedite producing discovery regarding the recent
disclosure. "Yahoo's recent disclosure may impact the causes of
action alleged in this case, which may delay the case schedule,"
she wrote in the brief two-page order.

In August, Koh allowed portions of the plaintiffs' case to survive
a motion to dismiss. "All plaintiffs have alleged a risk of future
identity theft, in addition to loss of value of their personal
identification information," wrote Koh at the time.

Reached by phone, John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan, lead counsel
for the plaintiffs, said "the biggest class action in history just
became bigger."

"We don't have many more people on the face of the Earth."
Yanchunis said that besides expanding the size of the affected
class, the latest disclosure raises questions about Yahoo's
handling of the breach. Yanchunis said that with the pace of the
litigation, he would have expected the company to discover all of
its 2013 account holders were affected sooner.

"It certainly raises the question to me of 'What kind of forensic
analysis did they do in 2014 when they discovered the
exfiltration?'" he said.

Yahoo's lead lawyer in the case, Ann Marie Mortimer of Hunton &
Williams, didn't immediately respond to an email message on
October 5 afternoon. [GN]


YUMMY FOODS: "Macrae" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MACRAE, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. YUMMY FOODS, LLC, an entity
unknown; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC679159 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 12, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order, Business and Professions Code, Unfair
Competition Law, and California common law.

The complaint challenges Defendants' systemic illegal employment
practices resulting in violations of the stated provisions of the
Labor Code and corresponding IWC Wage Order against the putative
class of employees. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants jointly
and severally acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference
and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in (1)
failing to timely pay all wages due and owing upon termination of
employment, (2) unlawfully taking gratuity left for employees, (3)
failing to reimburse all necessary work-related expenses, (4)
failing to maintain accurate records, and (5) engaging in unfair
business practices.

Ymmy Foods, LLC runs Yummy.com, a grocery delivery service in Los
Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
          Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
          Brian G. Lee, Esq.
          YOON LAW APC
          One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 612 0988
          Facsimile: (213) 947 1211

               - and -

          Joseph M. Hekmat, Esq.
          HEKMAT LAW GROUP
          11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (424) 888 0848
          Facsimile: (424) 270 0242


* SC Weighs Whether Workers Must Face Arbitrations Alone
--------------------------------------------------------
Yuki Noguchi, writing for NPR, reports that suing one's employer
can be scary enough, but it's even scarier doing it alone.

Many employers are increasingly requiring workers to sign
agreements requiring them to resolve workplace disputes about
anything from harassment to discrimination to wage theft through
individual arbitration. In other words, the language does not
permit them to join forces with colleagues who might have similar
complaints.

Whether such prohibitions on collective arbitration are legal is
at issue in a trio of cases heard by the Supreme Court this week.
With Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch on the bench, many
experts say a ruling against the workers in these cases could
result in massive changes in how nearly all workplace disputes
will be resolved, and how labor laws are enforced.

To understand what this means from the perspective of workers,
consider the case against Sterling Jewelers, which operates the
Jared, Kay and Zales brands.

Nearly a decade ago, 15 women who worked for Sterling started
complaining that they'd been denied pay and promotions given to
male counterparts. At the time, they weren't aware of each other's
complaints, because at the time of their hiring, they'd all signed
paperwork agreeing such complaints could only be heard in private
arbitration.

"Most of them had no way of knowing that the others had similar
disputes, because that was all kept confidential" in the
arbitration process, says Joe Sellers, the women's attorney.

A key turning point in that case, he says, came when the women
were permitted to consolidate their case into a class action. They
were able to do so because their employment agreements did not
explicitly prevent them from joining forces. That meant they could
pool resources, hire experts and retain attorneys they couldn't
have secured on their own.

Their class-action case now covers 69,000 current and former
female Sterling employees, and will be heard next spring. Sellers
says if the Supreme Court allows employers to block workers from
collectively arbitrating, it would hurt clients like his trying to
bring claims in the future.

"They will have no benefit of being able to work together, to
collect evidence together, see that there's evidence of a pattern
of conduct, which was very important to them in being able to
prove their claims, and in leading a number of them to realize
they were not alone," Sellers says. "Without it, I think many of
them would have simply abandoned their claims because it was
either too risky or too expensive or too hard."

Employment arbitration agreements are similar in nature to the
fine-print consumer arbitration agreements found in anything from
credit card to cellphone contracts, which effectively waive
consumers' rights to bring claims to court. After the Supreme
Court upheld those arbitration agreements in 2011 and in a
subsequent case, employers started adding similar language in
employment agreements.

Now, many large employers -- from tech giants to retail and
restaurant chains -- include prohibitions on collective workplace
arbitrations. The left-leaning Economic Policy Institute estimates
that about 60 million American workers are covered by such
agreements, and as many as 25 million of them cannot arbitrate
collectively.

"Most workers in the United States aren't even aware of what
arbitration is, never mind that they've signed this kind of
agreement, maybe on their first day at work in a stack of papers,
or maybe through clicking a box through their orientation
materials," says Ceilidh Gao, an attorney for the National
Employment Law Project, a workers' rights group.

Gao and others say collective action, whether it's union
organizing or class-action lawsuits, are a key tenet of labor law,
with a long history of government protection. They argue employers
should not be able to nullify that by inserting a clause in some
paperwork.

Gao says most workers drop their cases, instead of going it alone,
which means employers aren't forced to correct systemic workplace
violations.

David Seligman, a Denver attorney for Towards Justice, which
represents low-wage workers, says many prospective clients come in
with complaints that they weren't paid overtime, or were forced to
work without pay, but discover they are covered by these
employment clauses.

"For many folks, if you don't have the opportunity to act together
in a lawsuit against your employer, you're never really going to
file a lawsuit at all," he says.

A national arbitrators group also sided with workers' groups in
these cases.

"This really could set us back a century," says Matthew Finkin, a
professor at the University of Illinois who wrote the friend-of-
the-court brief on behalf of the National Academy of Arbitrators
in the cases being heard by the Supreme Court.

He says normally, he would expect employers to argue in favor of
resolving multiple similar disputes, together, instead of going
through many separate, individual arbitrations.

Instead, Finkin says, employers are banking that individuals will
simply not bring their cases, and employers will avoid public
scrutiny of their poor workplace practices.

Employers argue that individual disputes are resolved faster and
cheaper. They say class-action suits can take years in the courts
to resolve, and primarily benefit the lawyers who bring such
cases.

Harry Johnson III, a former Republican member of the National
Labor Relations Board who now represents employers, says class-
action claims are often abused, giving a single worker the power
to claim they're bringing the dispute on behalf of others.

"If that claim gets aggregated, then that person -- regardless of
the merits of the case -- instantly has a much more valuable
case," he says. That leaves employers open to what he calls
"blackmail settlements," where a single worker can force a larger
settlement simply by threatening collective action.

Johnson argues an employer that is systematically misbehaving
would face multiple arbitration cases, which would become
expensive, providing sufficient financial incentive to stop the
problem behavior.

Employer groups also argue these agreements are contracts that the
National Labor Relations Board cannot invalidate.

"There's a bigger issue at stake here, and that is the reach of
the NLRB and whether or not it has the authority to reach down
into employment contracts to this degree," says Linda Kelly,
general counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers.

If the employment agreement is signed by the worker, she says, a
contract is still a contract. [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  * * *